Loading...
W & WWDRAFT #1: 07/07/92 92009.AA - ()L 'J 4 S2; }f✓ GOVERNANCE ALTERNATIVES TO PROVIDE REGIONAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO THE URBANIZED AREAS OF SOUTHERN OKEECHOBEE COUNTY PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS July 8, 1992 Prepared for: Okeechobee County, Board of County Commissioners By: Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Barnett Bank Building, Suite 800 315 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 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 20 OVERVIEW OF PRESENT SERVICE TO STUDY AREA 22 Existing Infrastructure 25 Existing Customer Base 34 City Utility Revenue and Expenditures 36 Future Infrastructure 39 Water Service Options Evaluation 42 Wastewater Service Options Evaluations 51 Debt Capacity Considerations 57 Summary of Overview 59 LOCAL REVENUE SOURCES 65 Ad Valorem Taxes 65 Special Assessments 69 Impact Fees 76 User Rates or Service Delivery Fees 78 GENERAL LAW REVENUE SOURCES 81 General Legislative Authorization Issues 81 Assistance of the South Florida Water Management District as a Funding Conduit 83 PHASE II REQUIREMENTS 86 Scope of Work 86 Anticipated Schedule 87 Estimated Cost 87 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 - CHAPTER 92 -132, LAWS OF FLORIDA APPENDIX G - CITY UTILITY RATE RESOLUTIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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. Although our endeavor was to initially concentrate on the legal and limited financial aspects required to review, analyze, implement provision a governing structure and ultimately finance the 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 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. i Identification of Study Area Most of the population in Okeechobee County resides relatively close to the northern shore of Lake Okeechobee. The County has a population of approximately 31,000 and the City of Okeechobee has a population of approximately 5,100 people. The southern Okeechobee County community as a whole, including the incorporated area, can be characterized as a relatively rural community experiencing significant increases in seasonal traffic and population during the dry and more temperate winter season. The rural character of the area lends itself to relatively modest housing and commercial development. To assist in defining the boundaries of a potential water and sewer utility service areas, 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 the "Urban Residential Mixed Use" on the Okeechobee County Generalized Conceptual Future Landuse Map (the "Study Area "). This area is effectively the urbanized area of southern Okeechobee County and includes the City of Okeechobee. The Study Area will need to be better defined and described as future policy decisions are made in cooperation between current jurisdictions and service providers evolve. Governance Structure This Phase I Report considers governance alternatives available to the community to refurbish, expand and deliver central ii water and wastewater utility services. The ideal governance alternative will need (1) to provide a conduit for funds to retire existing and future debt, (2) pay for the operation and maintenance and deficiencies remaining after utilization of fair and equitable rate revenues, and (3) generate revenues from new users on a fair share basis. The creation of any governance entity, of course, is dependent upon 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 millage authority of the County? 4. Does the entity possess the taxing or revenue generating capacity to provide needed capital and annual operation and maintenance costs? There are several alternative governing entities that could be created to provide services and infrastructure to the Study Area: • a municipal service benefit or taxing unit, • a special district created by special act, • a special district created by general law, • implementation by County ordinance, iii • joint delivery of service by interlocal agreement, and • a special district created under home rule. Each of the foregoing alternative governing entities is described and evaluated in the body of this report. 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. Alternatively, we believe a special act specifically authorizing a governing body for a specific Section 125.05(1) regional utility district also iv • joint delivery of service by interlocal agreement, and • a special district created under home rule. Each of the foregoing alternative governing entities is described and evaluated in the body of this report. 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. Alternatively, we believe a special act specifically authorizing a governing body for a specific Section 125.05(1) regional utility district also iv composed of appointees from the Okeechobee Beach Water Association or the South Florida Water Management District may be 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 considered to be a major impediment. Although there is no need to seek legislative approval under Section 125.01(5), Florida Statutes, for the creation of a home rule special district, we believe a special act allowing appointees in addition to elected officials has a reasonable possibility of success early in the 1993 Regular Legislative. Session. 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 to 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. One way to allow and encourage constructive participation would be for the various community leaders and elected officials to agree to meet and address financial and policy details for consolidation under the assumption that a home rule district was ultimately to be created. However, this activity would take place v with full knowledge that the consensus developed was not binding and only to be developed for consideration by each of the respective governing bodies of the County, City and Okeechobee Beach Water Association. Development of District Boundary Description In addition to the development of a local consensus, implementation of any of the foregoing governance alternatives requires the development of• specific boundary descriptions of the area to be encompassed by the district. The delineation of actual district boundaries requires the initial exercise and policy judgement by the City, County and Okeechobee Beach Water Association and subsequently created home rule special district. This report outlines the general criteria to be applied and identified relevant factors to be considered in creating district boundaries. Upon receipt of further direction, specific district boundaries can be delineated by using information compiled from the Okeechobee County Property Appraiser's master appraisal file. Parcels located in sections partially within the district boundaries can be individually coded to conform the Study Area to the actual district boundaries selected. The general criteria 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 central water and sewer system. Relevant factors for consideration include: • the reasonably anticipated service area, • natural boundaries, vi • 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 used in initially identifying the Study Area. The identification of an anticipated service area will also be driven by the probable demands of any available State or federal funding. It should come as no surprise that State or federal subsidization of 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 to a regional approach that leads to sewering the Study Area in order to reduce pollution of Lake Okeechobee and its tributaries. Overview of Present Service to Study Area At the request of County management and after conducting a series of in person interviews -with representatives from the City, the County and the Okeechobee Beach Water Association and various citizens an overview of the present service to the Study Area was undertaken. This overview identifies existing infrastructure, the existing customer base, briefly reviews city utility revenue and expenditures and identifies obvious future infrastructure needs to create a series of water and wastewater service option evaluations. vii These evaluations are not at all intended to be absolute, but are intended to supply tools to community leaders to make decisions. Subsequent analysis, scrutiny and validation of this information by other professionals is welcome. No doubt other parties could create any number of options with varying numbers and scenarios. However, the overview does provide a glimpse into the future and makes it rather obvious that a regional approach, as opposed to a series of competing or discriminatory providers, presents a community -wide solution to the provision of water and sewer utility services and infrastructure which is cost effective and stable over both the short and long term. Also included in the overview is a brief analysis of debt capacity considerations. The market for tax exempt interest rates is at a 14 year low and the assumption of the City's water and sewer debt in the worst case would only have a neutral effect upon the consideration of a regional approach. 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 term results and lower cost 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 in 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 and the credit market that the community (1) has put in place the framework to viii obtain the best credit and lowest cost of funds in the event of any borrowing, and (2) is poised to participate to best of the community's ability. A regional approach will significantly increase the possibility of sewering the urbanized areas in the City and the unincorporated nearby areas and 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 and the whole community will suffer. Service expansions will be sporadic and inefficient and rates for everyone will be disparate and much higher. From the standpoint of "what is best for the whole community ? ", it appears desirable to have one regional agency that provides utility service to the limited number of customers that exist within the Study Area. This alternative (1) takes advantage of the economy scale that can be derived, (2) will transcend artificial boundaries within the community, and (3) will put the community as a whole in the best position to seek subsidy from State or federal sources. The most difficult task immediately at hand is to find a way to sit down and discuss the policy and financial details of providing regional utilities, without inhibition, in a way that benefits the entire community. ix Alternative Revenue Sources A number of alternative revenue sources are identified and discussed in the Report. These alternative revenue sources are briefly summarized below. 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, included both residential and commercial properties, had a combined ad valorem taxable value of $400,150,700. Based upon this valuation, 1 mill 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 further in the body of this report, in all instances but that of a municipal service taxing unit, an election is required to impose ad valorem taxes in a special taxing district. As well, parcels held in public ownership were otherwise exempt from ad valorem taxes would not be reached through an ad valorem tax levy. Special Assessments 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 x assessed must derive a special benefit from the service provided, and (ii) the assessment must be fairly and reasonably apportioned between properties that receive the special benefit. An assessment may provide funding for capital expenditures or operational cost of services, provided that the property which is subject to the assessment derives a special benefit from the improvement or service. Impact Fees Impact fees are charges imposed by local governments against new development or new users as a total or partial reimbursement for the cost of additional facilities or services made necessary by the new development or new use. If special assessments are imposed on the properties within the Study Area to fund the capital cost of infrastructure, impact fees may not also be imposed to fund the same capital costs. User Rates or Service Delivery Fees A utility may charge for the services and products it provides to its customers. The basis for the charge must be reasonably related to the cost of the service or product, and may also include a profit which may be used for purposes other than the provision for utility services or products. Florida case law requires that user fees and utility charges be "just and equitable." User fees and utility charges may include the cost for operating the utility as well as for reasonably anticipated future capital outlay. Water and sewer utilities operated by governmental entities are exempt from rate regulation xi by the Florida Public Service Commission. In light of this governmental exemption, the Legislature has placed limitations on rates charged to ratepayers in unincorporated areas when water or sewer services are supplied by a municipally owned water or sewer utility. In a typical rate structure for a governmentally owned water or sewer utility, service availability costs are made up of debt service, meter reading and billing and collection cost. These are fixed cost which occur whether any water or sewage treatment services are 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 ratepayers pay the same availability charge for portions of fixed cost. Ratepayers who use more water or sewer treatment services than others typically pay a proportionately larger share of the cost of operations. The rates charged in the Study Area presently vary from user to user depending upon whether the user is located within the incorporated area or in the unincorporated area, or whether the user is subject to a long term agreement for the provision of water service such as is the case with the Okeechobee Beach Water Association. This disparity in rates and the disparity in the ability to provide wastewater service to areas that are also served by central water is causing difficulties and inequities for residential and commercial consumers in terms of a uniform rate structure. If the community embarks upon the provision for xii regional water and wastewater services, special attention needs to be focused upon achieving a rate structure which equitably and uniformly distributes the cost of supplying and maintaining water and sewer services in proportion to benefits received and in a manner generally beneficial to the entire community. General Law Revenue Sources Funding of a regional utility system by a tax source other than an ad valorem tax requires general law authority from the Florida Legislature. For instance, a home rule special district created by the County with the concurrence of the City under Section 125.01(5), Florida Statutes, could be authorized to levy a tax by general law. Or, the Legislature may impose a tax directly instead of allowing a local entity to impose the tax. 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. Accordingly, the Legislature could limit tax only to the study area or impose a tax well beyond the study area provided the basis for imposing the tax had a reasonable relationship to providing water and sewer infrastructure to the areas on the North shore of Lake Okeechobee. An 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 on this authority to make reasonable classifications, the potential for levying a tax within the South Florida Water Management District, particularly the Okeechobee Basin, to assist in cleaning up Lake Okeechobee, should be fully explored. Funding Support and Assistance from the South Florida Water Management District The South Florida Water Management District is one of five special taxing districts created in 1972 to manage water resources throughout the State of Florida. 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. The Legislature has recently recognized this dilemma and authorized preferential assistance by state agencies to areas like Okeechobee County and the Study Area. As well, the South Florida Water Management District has also recognized the need to assist the region on the northshore of Lake Okeechobee by recently entering into a cooperative funding agreement between the District and the County. The South Florida Water Management District continues to be a likely candidate to serve as a funding resource or conduit for other State or federal funding. As the consideration of a regional xiv water and sewer provider evolves, so should the analysis of alternatives for seeking assistance and cooperation from the South Florida Water Management District. For example, the South Florida Water Management District is authorized by the Legislature to levy one - eighth of a mill in ad valorem taxes. For the last several years the district has only seen fit to levy well under six - tenths of a mill. With a taxable base throughout the district of roughly $215 billion, a levy of one - fiftieth of a mill would yield $4.3 million. 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 a 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. Phase I1 Scope of Work As required in our engagement, we have provided a Scope of Work for Phase II and a Scope of Work for Phase III. Phase II consists of tasks necessary to assist the community in developing a consensus to create a regional governance structure to provide water and wastewater services to the Study Area. For purposes of this report, it is assumed that the community and its leaders are desirous of exploring the creation of the recommended home rule special district governance structure composed of elected officials from both the City and the County and possibly appointed officials xv from the Okeechobee Beach Water Association and the South Florida Water Management District. It is contemplated that the Phase II task outlined in this report would be completed within 120 calendar days of receiving authorization to proceed. Phase II would revolve around preparing a non - binding interlocal agreement and assisting the community in providing an immediate schedule and vehicle, through a series of local workshops between the City, the County and the Okeechobee Beach Water Association, to develop a community consensus which identifies and generally_ outlines the financial and policy details necessary to create a regional utility within the Study Area. The approach taken would be to work with participants as if the objective were to in fact to create a regional provider without an obligation on the part of any participants to ultimately agree or participate. This approach would allow for a free flow of information on a "what's best for the community ?" basis. Once a consensus has been developed, each of the governing bodies involved can independently consider and adopt or reject the consensus developed. Our Phase II services would also assist in determining more specific boundaries of the Study Area and, if needed, prepare a Study Area database from the Property Appraiser's records. We would also review the viability and refine the recommended governance alternative. Any Phase III services, based upon the consensus developed in Phase II and further direction by the County, would involve preparation of a special district charter and necessary xvi documentation set forth in more detail later in this report. xvii 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., the South Florida Water Management District and the Florida 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 2 Water Association. Although there are at least 50 smaller package 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 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 a 4 population of approximately 31,000 people, and the City of Okeechobee has a population of 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 a relatively rural community experiencing significant increases in seasonal traffic and population during the dry and more temperate winter season. The rural character of the area lends itself to 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 08UA 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 n/a n/a 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 'Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida Statistical Abstract, page 47 (1991). 5 areas contained within the bounds of the area identified as "Urban Residential Mixed Use" on the Okeechobee County Generalized Conceptual Future Land Use Map2 (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. 2See 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 (1) provide a conduit for funds to retire existing and future debt, (2) pay for the operation and maintenance deficiencies remaining after utilization of fair and equitable rate revenues and (3) generate revenues from new users on 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 millage authority of the County? 4. Does the entity possess the taxing or revenue generating 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.3 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 3Section 200.001(8)(d) and Section 200.071, Florida Statutes. 8 unincorporated area.4 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. 4Article 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, • a special district created by special act, • 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." 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. 10 A municipal service taxing unit is not constitutionally or functionally a special district.5 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. SGallant v. Stephens, 358 So.2d 536 (Fla. 1978). 11 METHOD OF CREATION: By ordinance of the County, with consent by ordinance of an affected municipality if incorporated 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.6 An "independent" special district is defined in Section 189.403(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 6Section 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.7 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. 7Article 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.8 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 $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 district. A special district charter adopted by rule special an ordinance agreed to by both the City and the County will have broad acceptability and will permit a locally flexibility for effective implementation. provisions can be modified or amended designed charter with In and addition, charter special boundaries realigned locally by ordinance when needed. special district would also have the power to serve district A home rule 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. Alternatively, we believe a special act specifically authorizing a governing body for a specific Section 125.05(1) regional utility district also 18 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 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 20 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. OVERVIEW OF PRESENT SERVICE TO STUDY AREA In Okeechobee County, the provision of central water and wastewater are critical issues requiring immediate and long term attention.10 The majority of the population in Okeechobee County 10See Okeechobee County Comprehensive Plan, Okeechobee County Ordinance No. 92 -5: Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Objective S3: 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. (9J- 5.011(2) (b)2,3] 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 sanitary 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 22 is located along the north shore of Lake Okeechobee. The City of Okeechobee is the single largest provider of potable water to the 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, representatives from the City of Okeechobee, Okeechobee County, and the Okeechobee Beach Water Association have held a series of discussions. These discussions have broached several scenarios such as: (1) the County initiating a water system, (2) the City continuing to provide service and expanding its existing capacity, (3) the Okeechobee Beach Water Association developing its own water treatment system, and (4) a multi -party 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- 5.011(2) (c)1,2] 23 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) 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. 24 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 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. 25 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, substantial 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 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. The substances are all a part of the trihalomethane category under 26 the Secondary Drinking Water Requirements,11 and should not be detectable in finished water samples. They are obviously the result of the surface water source for the water system (see Appendix C for lab results). However, total trihalomethanes in the system vary from .04 to .071 mg per liter, which is in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act12 requirements at this time, but does not 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. The City of Okeechobee Water Treatment Plant is under consent order with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation13 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. 11Drinking Water Standards, Monitoring and Reporting, Fla. Admin. Code 17 -550 (1992). 1240 C.F.R. §141.12 (1990). 13See Appendix D - Consent Order. A consent order is a final agency action wherein all parties and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, by negotiation, have arrived at a mutual resolution of alleged violations of the law. A consent order has the same force and effect as a final order entered after a formal administrative hearing. Fla. Admin. Code 17- 103.110(3)(1992). 27 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 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. 28 Table 2. Existing Water Main Tabulation Linear Feet of Water Main With Respect to Pipe Diameter Material 2" 3" 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 Abbreviations: 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 substandard 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. 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.14 14Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300g -6 (1988). 29 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 main. 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 are 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. Part of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation consent order, entered 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 30 require service providers to maintain a chlorine residual in all parts of the system at all times to prevent the growth of bacteria.15 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, due to a functional inability to properly dispose of wastewater effluent, 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 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 15F1a. Admin. Code 17- 550.510(6)(d). 31 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 City's wastewater 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 increase to the number of connections that the City serves was contemplated in 1988 as part of its Phase I sewer expansion. However, these connections have yet to occur. On this Phase I 32 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 $11,889,125.16 However, debt on the system 16Financial Statements and Accompanying Information, provided by City of Okeechobee, p. 18 (1990). 33 is $9,552,283,17 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 17Financial Statements and Accompanying Information, provided by City of Okeechobee, p. 20 (1990). 34 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 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 Maximum 30 day Average Flow - 1991 - 2.14 MGD - 1994 - 2.30 MGD Total Plant Average Daily Flow - 1991 - 1.93 (from MOR) MGD 1994 - 2.08 MGD Total Average Daily Water Sales - 1991 - 1.59 MGD Total Estimated Daily Water Sales 1994 - 1.71 MGD Based on ratio of sales to pumpage, the city water system appears to have an unaccounted for water loss of 17.6 %. 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. 35 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 OKEECHOBEE REVENUES(in 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. Table 5 also shows estimated future expenditure budgets. TABLE 5. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE 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 36 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 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 are on the high end of the spectrum. The 25% surcharge to County customers make unincorporated area residents pay some of the highest water rates in the areas compared. Future infrastructure requirements will undoubtedly cause the monthly bills to be significantly higher if the City incurs debt to make the additional improvements. As well, increased principal payments on the City's debt will also demand increased rate revenues. 37 TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF CITY WATER BILLS TO AREA SYSTEMS System Availability Per Gallon 5000 gal Okeechobee City 11.60* 1.70 _ 20.10 Okeechobee (County) 14.51* 2.13 25.16 OBWA 8.00 2.00 /over 3000 12.00 Moore Haven 14.90 2.90 29.40 Sebring 7.10 1.77 15.95 Clewiston 3.00 2.50 15.50 Belle Glade 8.61 1.87 /over 2000 14.22 South Bay 6.00 2.00 16.00 Pahokee 9.45 3.15 /over 3000 15.75 NOTE: Rate information from August 1991 Okeechobee Area Water & Sewer Task Force Final Report on Comparison Analysis - Water and Sewer Options, which was reverified and updated for this report by telephone survey during June 1992. * S3.10 base availability charge plus capital recovery (debt service) charge. The other service providers were contracted and it was determined their availability charges included debt service. 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 in the past a portion of the revenue necessary to cover city debt service was being derived from charges to rate payers for operating and maintaining the system.18 Also, it appears that some 18In a typical rate structure for a governmentally owned water or sewer utility, 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. 38 general fund monies may have been used to offset debt service. The net result of this latter point would have resulted 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 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 engineer's report Sewer Improvement ultimate disposal future disposal of wastewater effluent. The attached to the City of Okeechobee, Water and Revenue Bonds, Series 1989, noted that the 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 39 OPERATIONS COSTS - COUNTY /AUTHORITY 2 PLANTS (Water Only) Personnel 630,000 Contract Services 40,000 Maint & Suppl 270,000 Utilities 150,000 Insurance 25,000 Repair & Maint 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 contribute systems to authority. H. County or authority operates existing City water plant, expands it, and assumes City debt. City and OBWA contribute systems to authority. I. County or authority builds new 5.0 expandable water treatment plant, and assumes City and OBWA contribute 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. 44 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 and stabilize this 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 expanded 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 City Net Value 2,400,000 Assume City Debt 2,650,000 New Plant Construction 4,250,000 Credit SFWMD Grant (1,000,000) Reserve 10% 1,065,000 Issuance 4% 425,000 TOTAL 10,640,000 47 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 SFWMD Grant (1,000,000) Reserve 10% 1,065,000 Issuance 4% 425,000 TOTAL 10,640,000 Option G. Assume City Debt 2,650,000 New Plant Construction 4,250,000 Credit SFWMD Grant (1,000,000) Reserve 10% 686,000 Issuance 4% 274,000 TOTAL 6,860,000 Option H. Assume City Debt 2,650,000 Ex. Plant Construction 3,500,000 Credit SFWMD Grant (1,000,000) Reserve 10% 600,000 Issuance 4% 240,000 TOTAL 5,990,000 Option I. Build 5.0 MGD Plant 7,500,000 10 Wells 1,250,000 Tank 2,500,000 Assume City Debt 2,650,000 Credit SFWMD Grant (1,000,000) Reserve (1,500,000) Issuance 600,000 TOTAL 15,000,000 NOTE: Debt service assumed a 7% over 30 years (.0814) 48 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's) Option City A. B. D. D. E. F. G. H. I. 2650 6150 2650 2650 0 0 0 0 0 County OBWA 0 0 2750 0 10940 10070 6280 5410 15000 0 0 0 2375 0 0 0 0 0 To further refine the cost to the consumer under each of the options, a simplified rate study must be performed. Rate analyses are best performed sizes to equivalent is relatively easy utilizing a conversion of the current meter residential customers (ERC). This calculation 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 5/8 x 3/4 1 1 -1/2 2 3 4 6 TOTAL ERCs County Number /ERCs 1970/1970 1954/1954 58/ 116 31/ 62 19/ 95 17/ 85 22/ 176 15/ 120 2/ 32 5/ 80 1/ 32 1/ 32 0/ 0 0/ 0 2421 2333 OBWA 2112/2112 16/ 32 3/ 15 8/ 64 1/ 16 4/ 128 1/ 64 2431 ERCs all systems 7185 Based upon a determination of equivalent residential customers or ERCs, a pro rata share of the debt on the system can 49 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 WATER SYSTEM 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. 10.87 10.87 10.89 F. 10.05 10.05 10.05 G. 6.48 6.48 6.48 H. 5.66 5.66 5.66 I. 14.16 14.16 14.16 * Under Resolution 91 -3 passed by the Okeechobee City Council at least $8.50 is also added to each water customers monthly bill to recover the cost of debt service for existing sewer infrastructure. ** Okeechobee Beach Water Association residents get 3000 gallons for the minimum rate. 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. 50 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 I. 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. 23.77 23.77 23.77 F. 18.25 18.25 18.25 G. 19.38 19.38 19.38 H. 13.86 13.86 13.86 I. 22.36 22.36 22.36 NOTE: *Current City rates does not include debt service surcharge under City of Okeechobee Resolution 91 -3 which is added to each water customer's monthly bill to recover the cost of debt service for existing sewer infrastructure. Resolutions 89 -5, 90 -4, 90 -15, 91 -3 and 92 -5 of the Okeechobee City Council, which establish the schedule of rates, fees and charges for water and wastewater services, are attached as Appendix G. Wastewater Service Options Evaluations 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 51 provider. A significant number of small package wastewater treatment plants exist in the area surrounding the City of Okeechobee.22 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 sewer service aspects of a regional county provider to provide service to the outlying areas and to take these package plants off line.23 As such, this Phase I Report will endeavor to avoid duplicating the efforts of the Craig A. Smith report relative to wastewater service. Table 16 illustrates initial operations assumptions for a wastewater treatment plant to be used in helping to develop the potential options for the provision of wastewater service. TABLE 16. DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS OPTION: A. Existing system is City operated 0.6 MGD plant with service provided to County residents at 1.25 times that of City residents. B. County /Authority purchases City assets, assumes City debt, operates existing 0.6 MGD wastewater treatment plant to provide service to all customers, expands plant in future, repairs existing deficiencies. Bond issue to refinance City debt. 22Draft- Okeechobee Smith & Associates, p. 23Draft- Okeechobee County Utility System, 4 -70, September 1991. County Utility System A. Smith & Associates, September 1991. 52 prepared by Craig S. , prepared by Craig Table 17 briefly outlines each of the options. TABLE 17. OPTIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE OPTION A. City Debt TOTAL OPTION B. City Sewer System Value City Sewer System Debt Reserve 10X Issuance 4X 6,900,000 6,900,000 0 6,900,000 800,000 240,000 TOTAL 8,020,000 Option A is the existing situation where the City is operating a 0.6 MGD wastewater treatment plant. This option is shown for later comparative purposes. Option B assumes that the County or a regional authority assumes the treatment of wastewater and assumes the debt of the City, as in water scenarios E through I on Table 9. These are the two options that are available at present. Option B assumes that the County or a regional authority provides wastewater service to all of the customers on a retail basis, at equivalent rates. This scenario is developed because a disparity exists in the current rate structure among rate payers (County residents pay 1.25 times City residents for the same service). For the purposes of this report, and due to the extensive debt on the sewer system, the sewer system of the City is valued at a zero net value. 53 Table 18 indicates the cost of each of the above described options, utilizing the assumptions made in Tables 16 and 17. TABLE 18. SEWER DEBT OBLIGATIONS (IN 000'S) Option City County OBWA A. 6900 0 N/A B. 0 8020 N/A Table 19 summarizes the wastewater debt obligations that each of the parties would incur if the above options were pursued. TABLE 19. ASSUMPTIONS FOR SEWER PLANT OPERATIONS COSTS - CITY PLANT (Sewer Only) 1991 1992 Personnel 300,000 310,000 Contractual Service 33,000 42,000 Maintenance and Suppl. 130,000 130,000 Utilities 60,000 60,000 Insurance 25,000 25,000 Repair and Maintenance 30,000 33,000 Admin. Suppl. 13,000 11,000 Transf. to GF 24,000 24,000 Misc. 5,000 5,000 R &R (Deprec.) 190.000 240,000 TOTAL 810,000 880,000 OPERATING COSTS - COUNTY /AUTHORITY PLANT (Sewer Only) Chief Operator 37,000 3 Operators (3 a 27,000 /yr) 81,000 Utility Techs 46,000 Billing 5,000 Utilities 60,000 Repair & Maintenance 50,000 Contract Services (Lab) 42,000 System Maintenance 80,000 Administrative Costs 25,000 Miscellaneous Costs 5,000 Insurance 10,000 R &R 250,000 TOTAL 691,000 In order to further refine the cost to the consumer under each of the options, again a simplified rate study must be performed. As noted previously, rate analyses are best performed utilizing a 54 conversion of the current meter sizes to equivalent residential customers (ERC). This calculation is not as easy for wastewater as it is for water since the ratio of commercial to residential units differs significantly. Utilizing the previous Table 12, the ratio of ERCs to accounts is 1.36 to 1. As such, the number of ERC is assumed to exist in the same ratio for sewer, as shown on Table 20. TABLE 20. •EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CALCULATION (Sewer - 1991) Meter Size City County OBWA Number /ERCs Residential 1207/n/a 336/n/a 0/0 Commercial 180 /n /a 253/n/a 0/0 TOTAL UNITS 1387/n/a 589/n/a 0/0 ERCs all systems 2692* NOTE: *Based on number of ERC's on water system versus customers, provides an ratio of 1.36 to 1. Analysis assumes this ratio remains constant for billing purposes. This allows for equivalent units based on meter size to be calculated and pro -rata shares assigned to sewer bills (i.e., larger meters pay higher availability costs). Based upon the ERCs, a pro rata share of the debt on the system can be assigned to each user. Table 21 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 21. MONTHLY DEBT REQUIREMENT Option City County OBWA Al.* 8.95 11.19 N/A A. 16.05 20.07 N/A B. 20.01 20.01 N/A Notes: *Current City Rates Option Al on Table 21 indicates the current rates on the system. However, due to the City Resolution capital recovery surcharge under the City of Okeechobee's Resolution No. 91 -3 which is 55 applied to all water customers, the sewer rates are being subsidized significantly. This is probably due to the construction difficulties and lawsuit from the 1986 sewer project that met with unfavorable results for the City. Table 22 shows the per- thousand gallon cost for each of the alternatives. TABLE 22. MONTHLY VARIABLE COST (per 1000 gal) Option City County OBWA Al.* 2.24 2.80 N/A A. 4.34 5.43 N/A B. 3.69 3.69 N/A NOTES: *Current City Rates * *Variable rate portion base calculated as follows: Assume that water and sewer usage based on one -to -one ratio of water meter reading (water usage). Average sewer use for residential customers is 5000 gallons per month. For commercial users usage is 17,700 gallons per month. Theoretical residential usage per day is 257,2000 gallons (1542 units x 5000/30), while commercial theoretical usage is 255,500 gallons per day (433 x 17700/30). Total theoretical usage is 512,700 gallons per day, as compared to 300,000 actual usage. Therefore, average per thousand gallons usage is decrease .585 times per thousand rate. These costs are based upon current and projected costs incurred by the City of Okeechobee as detailed on Table 5 and assumed on Table 16. Table 23 illustrates a comparative monthly sewer rate under each of the options. If a more equitable rate structure was used, wastewater rates would increase significantly for all customers. This is due in part to the City's unusually large sewer debt obligations, but also due to the fact that the plant only runs at about half of its rated capacity. If more users were added and the infiltration problems were solved, the per thousand gallon cost might decrease substantially. The connection of some of the 56 existing package plants in the area to regional system would be of beneficial in widening the customer base spending fixed and variable costs. TABLE 23. COMPARABLE MONTHLY SEWER RATES (5000 gallon per month usage) Option City County OBWA Al.* 20.15 25.19 N/A A. 37.75 47.22 N/A B. 38.46 38.46 N/A NOTES: *Current City Rates Table 24 shows a combined water and sewer rate comparison across all of the options, and combinations of options discussed. The disparity between existing rates and those calculated is primarily due to the debt obligation transfer from sewer to water users. The options where the County or a regional authority operate the system have competitive rates, which are charged to all customers. Options that involve a regional approach do not contemplate the 25% surcharge to county residents presently imposed by the City. Also, it should be evident that single plant site scenarios are less costly than multiple plant site scenarios because operating costs for multiple plant site scenarios or not as cost effective. 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 57 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 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 58 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 under a regional governance structure adopted by the community at least at 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. No doubt other parties could create an endless number of options with varying numbers and scenarios. The forgoing water and wastewater analysis provides a glimpse into the future and makes it rather obvious that a regional approach, as opposed to a series of competing or discriminatory providers, presents a community -wide solution to the provision of water and sewer utility service and infrastructure which is cost effective and stable over both the short and long term. The analysis considered existing infrastructure, the present financial picture, and a number of possible options. The "bottom line" indications in the various Tables shown 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 water 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 City sewer system appears to have severe wet weather seepage and infiltration problems requiring an aggressive infiltration repair program. Additionally, there appears to be significant effluent disposal problems which need to be addressed. The Okeechobee Beach Water Association water distribution 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 and sewer service more than half of the City's rate 60 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 customer base will shrink and the rates 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 water 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 competing entities in the water and /or sewer 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, possibly 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 61 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 and the credit markets that the community (1) has put in place the framework to obtain the best credit and lowest 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 or wastewater treatment, 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 62 sporadic and inefficient and rates for everyone will be disparate and much higher. Tables 15 and 24 are illustrative, and show for policy making purposes how the different governance alternatives are significantly different cost -wise from each other. Additional 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 a selected governance alternative. For example, water 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 multi -party 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 24Providing representation and input from Okeechobee Beach Water Association may need to come from legislative revisions to general law, by special law, or by agreement. See "GOVERNANCE 63 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 mi1125 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.26 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 25One mill equals one one - thousandth of a dollar. Section 192.001(10), Florida Statutes. 26Article III, Section 11(a)(2), Florida Constitution. 65 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.27 The millage rates are established annually by the local taxing authorities in accordance with procedures established by general law.28 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.29 The millage rate levied within each unit must be uniform.30 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.31 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 27Chapters 193 and 196, Florida Statutes. 28Chapter 200, Florida Statutes. 29Section 197.3635, Florida Statutes. 30Article VII, Section 2, Florida Constitution. 31Hunter 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). 66 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.32 Voters must also approve a payment of indebtedness.33 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."34 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 pledge of ad valorem revenue for the owner election purpose of the limited powers against an equal protection challenge where the election was to elect a board of directors with of government in Salver Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S.419, 93 S.Ct 1224 (1974). 32Article 33Article 34Article Section Section Section 9(b), Florida Constitution. 12, Florida Constitution. 9(b), Florida Constitution. 67 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 70 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 collection37; erosion control groin systems38; 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.41 However, a 37Charlotte County v. Fiske, 350 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). 38City of Treasure Island v. Strong, 215 So.2d 473 (Fla. 1968). 39City of Hallandale v. Meekins, supra. 40Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. City of Gainesville, supra, and Bodner v. City of Coral Gables, 245 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1971). 41City of Fort Myers v. State, 117 So. 97 (Fla. 1928). 71 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.42 The manner of the apportionment of the assessment is immaterial and may vary 42Parrish v. Hillsborough County, 123 So. 830 (Fla. 1929). 72 provided that the amount of assessment for each property does not exceed the proportional benefits it receives as compared to other properties.43 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. relative The guidelines were "value of the property benefited, floor space of each improved property, its kind, susceptibility to improvement, and the maximum annual benefits to be conferred thereon. m44 Examples of other methods of apportionment which have been upheld are square foot basis,45 street improvements sewer improvements on a on a lineal front foot 43South Trail Fire Control District, Sarasota County v. State, 273 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1973). 44 City of Naples v. Moon, at 358. 45Mever v. City of Oakland Park, supra. 73 basis46 and improvements benefitting downtown business properties on an ad valorem basis in a downtown redevelopment scenario.47 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 46Bodner v. City of Coral Gables, supra. 47City of Boca Raton v. State of Florida, 595 So.2d 25 (Fla. 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. 74 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 exerpise of political will to foreclose upon any residential property and (ii) the foreclosure process is frequently resisted, resulti4g in a protracted litigation prior to payment. More recentl local governments (including special districts) have been author zed to collect special assessments on the ad valorem tax bi11J48 This tax bill collection method is much more highly favored b are collected in the credit market because the special assessments the same manner as ad valorem taxes. No specific enforcement actjon 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 48Section 197.3632, Florida Statutes. 75 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.49 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 49The 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). 76 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 diminished. Criteria to Impose Impact Fees As interpreted by case law, meet the following criteria: (i) the fee is imposed impact fee is substantially a valid impact fee is required to to provide capital facilities required to serve future development or new use and is not imposed for operation and maintenance of such capital facilities; 77 (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 A utility may charge for the services and products it provides to its customers. The basis for the charge must be reasonably related to the cost of the service or product, but may also include a profit which may be used for purposes other than the provision of utility services or products.50 A utility may charge different 50City of New Smyrna Beach v. Fish, 384 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1980). 78 rates to different classes of customers, as long as the classification scheme is not arbitrary or unreasonable.51 Utility charges are typically billed directly by the utility on a monthly or quarterly basis. Failure to pay the charge generally results in termination of service. Moreover, failure to pay one type of utility charge may result in the termination of services of another utility service if they are "so interlocked that neither can be effective without the other. "52 Florida case law requires that user fees and utility charges be "just and equitable. "53 User fees and utility charges may include the cost for operating the utility as well as for reasonably anticipated future capital outlay. By custom, users are . charged differential rates if the rates can be justified. For example, the users of a new sewer treatment facility may be charged more than the user of an old facility if the new facility cost more to construct or operate. Typically, not all users must be charged in the same manner. It may be appropriate to charge residential customers a flat fee reasonably related to the cost of residential service, but to charge commercial users a fee based on consumption. Water and sewer utilities operated by governmental entities are exempt from rate regulation by the Florida Public Service 51State v. City of Miami Springs, 245 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1971). 52Edris v. Sebring Utilities Commission, 237 So.2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). 53Contractors and Builders Association v. City of Dunedin, 329 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1976). 79 Commission.54 In light of this governmental exemption, the Legislature adopted Section 180.191, Florida Statutes, which places limitations on rates charged to rate payers in unincorporated areas when water or sewer services are supplied by a municipally owned water or sewer utility. If a ratepayer in the unincorporated area believes a municipally owned utility is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an act or practice prohibited by Section 180.191, a civil action for preventive_ relief, including an application for permanent or temporary injunction, may be instituted in the circuit court.55 54Section 367.022(2), Florida Statutes. 55Section 180.191(2), Florida Statutes. 80 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.56 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.57 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. "Article VII, Section 1, Florida Constitution. 57Article VII, Section 9, Florida Constitution. 81 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.58 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.59 The courts have upheld such legislative authority.60 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.61 Relying upon this authority to make reasonable classifications, the potential for levying a tax within the South Florida Water Management District, particularly 58 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. 59Chapter 83 -220, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84- 270, Laws of Florida; and Section 212.0305(4)(b), Florida Statutes. 60See, 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). 61Section 125.0104(3)(o), Florida Statutes. 82 in the Okeechobee Basin, 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.62 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 62South Florida Water Management District. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30. 1991, page I -1. 83 discharges from the Study Area are a significant contributor to pollution of the lake and its tributaries. The Legislature has recently recognized this dilemma and authorized preferential assistance to areas like the Study Area.63 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.64 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 Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. The settlement resulted from the change in the Governor's Office which demonstrated an overriding commitment to the Everglades restoration.65 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 6392_132, §18, Laws of Florida - See Appendix F. 64Cooperative Funding Agreement between the South Florida Water Management District and the County dated April 9, 1992; see Note 23 supra. 65South Florida Water Management District, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1991, page I -6. 84 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 well under 6/10 of a mill for the last three years. With a taxable base throughout the district of roughly 215 billion dollars, a levy of 1 /50th of a mill would yield $4,300,000.66 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 a 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. 66One mill equals one -one thousandth of a dollar, therefore, 1 /50th of one mill applied to a typical single family home in the Okeechobee Basin with a taxable value of $100,000 would cost that property owner two dollars per year in increased taxes to be paid to the South Florida Water Management District. 85 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 86 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 very difficult to estimate with precision. The estimate 87 submitted as part of this report encompasses only the services to be provided by Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Other professionals may also need to be engaged. 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 $15,000 to $25,000 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. 88 APPENDIX A CITY WATER TREATMENT PROCESS LIME SLUDGE, ^ BASIN \`a\ BACK WASH WATER BASIN FILTER SLUDGE NEW SAND FILTERS• • 1 /1RANSF -ER PIT 1.5 mg. CLEARW ELL c c 0 OLD SAND. .FILTERS, .CHLORINE ,TREATED WATER (2.6 mgd.) OVERFLOW .gPm /LIME SOFTENING 0.25 mg. 0.5 mg. COAGULATION BASIN' 'j _ ALUM. • �°'` - -PAC • CITY OF OKEECHOBEE GENERAL PROCESS WATER DIAGRAM RAW WATER (2.58 mgd.) APPENDIX B LOCATION OF CITY WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE APPENDIX C LAB RESULTS SOUTHERN ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES, INC. 110 BAVVIEW BOULEVARD. OLOSNtAR. F:LORIOA 34677 813- 655 -1844 City of Okeechobee 55 S. E. Third Avenue Okeechobee. Florida 34974 LABORATORY REPORT July 31. 1991 Project No. 03521 Page 1 of 4 RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1991 DEPT OF Project Description: Quarterly Analysis of Drinking Waters (F) }y 7 kuP iMTLREo Sample Descriptions 01 - Water. City Hall. sampled 7/15/91. 0910 - 02 - Water. High School. sampled 7/15/91. 0945 03 - Water. Bus Barn. sampled 7 /15/91. 0855 Date Received: 7/16/91 Parameter (01) (02) (03) Units City Hall High School Bus Barn Chloroform mg /1 0.023 0:029 0.033 Bromodichloromethane mg /1 0.019 0'.027 0.028 Dibromochloromethane mg /1 0.0066 0.0087 • 0.0090 Bromoform mg /1 < 0.0005 0.0007 0.0006 Total Trihalomethanes mg /1 0.049 0.065 0.071 Nitrite Nitrogen mg /1 as N < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Residual Chlorine mg /1 3.0 1.0 0.7 Note: FAC Chapter 17- 550.310(2) MCL for Total Trihalomethanes is 0.10 mg /1. Residual Chlorine measurements performed by City of Okeechobee personnel in field. Drinking Water Lab No. 434269 )Z= <Or Francis_ I Daniels Labora}o;ry .0i rector. C -1 City of Okeechobee 55 S. E. Third Avenue Okeechobee. Florida 34974 LABORATORY REPORT July 31. --1991 Project No. 03521 Page 2 of 4... RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1991 Project Description: Quarterly Analysis of Drinking Waters (F) TWESTp ALREa. Sample Description: 04 - Water. Okee Warehouse. sampled 7/15/91. 0825 05 - Water. Buckhead Ridge Tank. sampled 7/15/91. 0900 . 06 - Water. 24th St. Buckhead Ridge. sampled 7/15/91. 0915 Date Received: 7/16/91 (06) (04) (05) 24th St. Okee Buckhead Buckhead Parameter Units Warehouse Ridge Tank Ridge Chloroform mg /1 0.028 0.030 0.033 Bromodichloromethane mg /1 0.023 0.025 0.026 Dibromochloromethane mg /1 0.0072 0.0081 0.0097 Bromoform mg /1 0.0005 0.0006 0.0006 Total Trihalomethanes mg /1 0.059 0.064 0.069 Nitrite Nitrogen mg /1 as N < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Residual Chlorine mg /1 2.8 3.0 1.5 Note: FAC Chapter 17- 550.310(2) MCL for Total Trihalomethanes is 0.10 mg /1. Residual Chlorine measurements performed by City of Okeechobee personnel in field. A-,\"L Francis Y.• 1 aniel s Cabo r'a to Fy .:pi. recto r C -2 City of Okeechobee 55 S. E. Third Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 - LABORATORY REPORT July 31. 1991 Project No. 03521 Page •3 of 4 RECEIVED AUG151991 DEPT. OFDMACNIENTALR. BEA Project Description: Quarterly Analysis of Drinking Waters (F) wESTPALACH Sample Description: 07 - Water, Treasure Island Tank, sampled 7/15/91. 0930 08 - Water, SE 18th Court T.I.. sampled 7/15/91. 0945 Date Received: 7/16/91 (O7) Treasure (08) Island SE 18th Laboratory Parameter Units Tank Court T.I. Blank Chloroform mg /1 0.027 0.027 < 0.0005 Bromodichloromethane mg /1 0.020 0.024 < 0.0005 Dibromochloromethane mg /1 0.0072 0.0083 < 0.0005 Bromoform mg /1 0.0005 0.0007 < 0.0005 Total Trihalomethanes mg /1 0.055 0.060 < 0.002 Nitrite Nitrogen mg /1 as N < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 Residual Chlorine mg /1 2.5 1.0 Note: FAC Chapter 17- 550.310(2) MCL for Total Trihalomethanes is 0.10 mg /1. Residual Chlorine measurements performed by City of Okeechobee personnel in field. Frarici_s.:L.. Dani el's L'abo(^atory Director C -3 APPENDIX D CONSENT ORDER BETWEEN CITY AND DER STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT • OP ENVIRONMENTAL. REGULATION, Complainant, vs. OOC Case No. 89 -0545 CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, Respondent. CONSENT AGREEMENT Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 403.121(2) and 12037(3), Florida Statutes (F,S.), and Florida Administrative Coda (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 OKEECHOBEE ("Respondent") to reach settlement of certain matters at issue between the Doparttnent and Respondent. The Department finds and Respondent admits the following: 1. The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 4031 Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.4, 17- 550, 17-555, 17 -560, 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 known 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 (MGD) 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 17-555350. 6. On May 9, 1988, Respondent submitted to the Department au application for a permit to expand the existing facility. On December 27, 1989, the 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 chloramino 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, Iris which addressed the issues D -1 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 Rooso, 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 Iocation -of the walls for the proposed groundwater treatment facility. . 11. The Dopartntent 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 17403.110(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 cashier's 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 $drool. 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 FAC 17- 5501510(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. . 14. Within 15 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 uprating of the existing facility, and b. pilot testing, permitting, and construction of tho now groundwater treatment facility. . The timetable. shall indicate .that the expansion of the existing facility (2) tha11 be substantially completed within 195 days from issuanoc of the required pormit(s), and that construction of the groundwater facility shall begin no letor than April 1, 1992. _ 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 'hall make written request to Respondent for such modifications. Within IS days of receipt of the Department's request, Respondent shall either revise the timetable(s) accordingly and subunit the final version in writing to the Department, or submit a written objection to tbo'request, including information to justify the Respondent's objection. If Respondent objects to the Department's request to modify =the titnetable(s), the parties shall meet within • 15 days of the Department's receipt of Respondent's written objection to nogotlate 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, If Itespondont objects to tho Department's determination regarding the timetable(s), Respondent may file a Petition for Formal or Informal Administrative. Hearing Proceeding, pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., 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 recived.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 adiniiuistrativo 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 Ping 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. All other aspects of this- Consent Agreement shall remain in 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 shalt 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 (3) D-3 Department shall make written request 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 be notifed in writing of Department approval of the report. 18. In accordance with the timcframos 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 timefrAmes 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 pennit(s) which may be required for construction of the groundwater treatment facility. • •20. The 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(s), 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 bo due within 10•days of completion of tho 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 Comm 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 he Saved front the expansion of the existing facility. Tho second allocation shall (4)' D -4 bo 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 5O% complete. T.tibird_a11c1JraSiRtl..11bgll t?e•rclansed by„the Departxnen,,t,_uyon completion of tho expansion and .upreting of the ej stingy facility. The final allveittfairshalrfi tilenmfd"by the Dcpartmedr- upon receipt of 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 (new or previously approved) shall be approved and /or activated•untf the Department releases sufficient additional capacity to meet the exceedance 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 • boon cleared for service. • 24. Allocation shall be based on maximum daily flows 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 (ERC). 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 Row estimate provided by the design engineer and multiplied by a 1.5 peaking factor. 'Ibis method of determining maximum daily flows is to be used only for purposes of determining, compliance with the toes 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 infill 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 Rises), 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. 5ucccssiva 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 85% of the current. rated plant capacity, Respondent shall implement the �s) D-5 water conservation measures as sat forth in the water conservation plan. For those months that water conservation measures aro in effect, Respondent shall submit a written report to the Department within 7 day 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 appllcablo. 27. Respondent shall maintain all applicable records, submit completed Monthly Operating Reports.(MORs), maintain an Operations SG Maintenance (0 do M) log up-to-date and un site, and report any plant disruption to the Department pursuant to F.A.C. Chapters 17•SS5 and 17.602. 28. The existing facility shall be operated in such a manner that the utaximuiu 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) D -6 29. Upon resolution of the problem of inadequate chlorine residuals in the distribution system, Department clearance of the modifications to tha 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 pvory day Respondent faits to comply with any of the requirements of paragraphs 12,13,14,15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24b, 25, 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 bo 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 cashier's chock or money order and shall include thereon the QOC number assigned to this Consent Agreement and the notation "Pollution Recovery Fund ". Payment shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Regulation, 1900 South Congress Avehne, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33406, The Department may make detnands- 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 Agreement. 31. If any event occurs which causes delay, or the reasonable likelihood of delay, in complying with the requirements of this Consent Agreement, • Respondent shall beve the burden of proving that the delay was, or will be, caused by circumstancas;beyond the reasonable control of Respondent and could not have boen,,.or cannot be, .ovarcomo by due diligence, Upon occurrence of art 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, to present 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 circumstances. 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 ctreutetion in Okeechobee County, Florida. 'The notice shall be published one untie only within 10 days after execution of the Consent Agreement by the Department. (7) D -7 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMBNTOF ENVIRONMENTALRBGULATIQN NOTICE OF CONSENT AGREEMENT The Department-of 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 tho corrective actions that are required to bring the system Into compliance with Department rule; and regulations. The Consent Agreement is available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8 ;00 a.m. to 5;00 pare, 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.petltion 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 32399.2440, within 21 days of receipt of this notice. A copy of the Petition must also ba mailed at the time of filing.to the District Office named above at the address indicated. Pailure to file a petition .within the 21 days constitutes a waiverr of any right such ptsrson has to an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, RS. • 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 is 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 petitioner 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 respeet to the Consent Agreement. If a petition is filed, the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate agency action. Accordingly, the bepartrnent's final action may be different from the position taken by it in this Notice. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected 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 thls 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 rigid such person has to request a hearing under Section 120.57, 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 2&.S.207, F.A.C. (.a ) D -8 • s r w 1 :r * s X* M 33, Entry of this Consent Agreement does not relieve Respondent of the need to aomply with tho appltosblo federal, state or local laws, regulations, or ordinances. 34, Tho terms and conditions set forth in this Consent Agreement may be enforced In court of competent jurisdictlan 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 Hilly aware that a. violation of the terms of this Consent Agreement may result in the Department taking action pursuant to Sections 4034121, 403,859, and 403,860, F.S. In the event it is necessary for the Department to took judicial onferpomont of this Consent Agreement, Respondent shall pay to the Department all investigative costs, court costs and expenses, as well as a reasonable attorney's fee for obtaining judgment from tho Circuit Court. 36. Respondent shall allow all authorized representatives of the Department access to the -property at reasonable times for the purpose of determining oomptianoo 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 submittod to tho Department should be tent to tho Dopctrtment of Environmental Regulation, 1400 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 tornia 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 soak judicial imposition of damages or civil penalties for alleged violations outlined in this Consent Agreement. Respondent waiver its right to an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, on the terms of this Consent Agreement. Roapondcnt 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 offloers, their director, agents, servants, employees, successor, and assigns and all persons, firers, and corporations acting under. through or for them and•upon those persons, firms and corporations iri active concert or participation with them. 41. No modifications of the terms of this Consent Agreement shad 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, R.S., and F.A.C. Rule 17.103.110(3), and it is 1 final and effective on the date Sled with the Clerk of the Department unless a Petition for Adininistradve Heating is filed in accordance with Chapter 120, RS, Upon the timely filing of a petition. this Consent Agreement will not be effective until further order of the Department. FOR THE R DINT: Da "IV • CI' ayor. City of Okeechobee 55 Southeast Third Avenue Okeechobee, Florida 34974 DONE AND ORDERED this 2f4 day of Beach, Florida, ,1991, in West Palm STATE OF FLORYDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RACxl1I.:ATION Copies furnished to: ire .� L TT 13 •_NYON, Deputy Assistant Secretary Southeast Florida District 1900 South Congress Avenue, Suite A West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Telephone: 407/433 -2650 John Cook Sohn Drago Susan Groover James Kirk William Reese William Z'vara Office of General Counsel, DER, Tallahassee Okeechobee County Health Department Potable Water Permitting, DER /WPB Wcat Palm Beach•DER Pies ')O) D -I0 APPENDIX E DEBT ANALYSIS 6/10/1992 Schedule 1 REGIONAL UTILITY SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION OF CITY WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM - ESCROW OF 1987 AND 1989 MHOS - Sources and Uses of funds - Sources: Par Amount of Bonds 10,375,000.00 Less Original Issue Discount Existing Sinking Fund Accruals Existing Debt Service Reserve Account 438,987.50 Total Sources 10,813,987.50 =ex.x =xxxax Uses: Cost of Escrow 10,006,500.00 Underwriter's Discount and Costs of Issuance (2.5X) 259,375.00 Insurance Premium .45% total poi 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 = =oaxaos_xx= - 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 2 102X The 11989 bonds are paid thru an escrow which calls the bonds 1/1/2000 D 102X (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 - .960X E -1 THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, fLORIOA WATER ARO SEWER REFUNOING AND IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONGS, 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 6.000X 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 6.600Z 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 7.000Z 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 0 147,734.38 147,734.38 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 7.750X 142,309.38 292,309.38 434,618,75 7/ 1/104 136,496.88 136,496.88 1/ 1/05 165,000.00 7.750% 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 7.875% 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 E -2 THE CITY OF OKEECHOOEE, FLORIDA WATER ANO SEWER IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONGS, SERIES 1989 Schedule of Outstanding Oebt 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% 7/ 1/93 1/ 1/94 100,000.00 6.100X 7/ 1/94 1/ 1/95 105,000.00 6.150% 7/ 1/95 1/ 1/96 115,000.00 6.200% 7/ 1/96 1/ 1/97 120,000.00 6.300% 7/ 1/97 1/ 1/98 130,000.00 6.350X 7/ 1/98 1/ 1/99 135,000.00 6.400% 7/ 1/99 1/ 1/00 145,000.00 6.500% 7/ 1/00 1/ 1/01 155,000.00 6.550% 7/ 1/01 1/ 1/02 165,000.00 6.650X 7/ 1/02 1/ 1/03 175,000.00 6.700% 7/ 1/03 1/ 1/04 190,000.00 6.750% 7/;y04 1/ 1/05 200,000.00 7.100% 7/ 1/05 1/ 1/06 215,000.00 7.100X 7/ 1/06 1/ 1/07 230,000.00 7.100% 7/ 1/07 1/ 1/08 250,000.00 7.100% 7/ 1/08 1/ 1/09 265,000.00 7.1005 7/ 1/09 1/ 1 /10 285,000.00 7.125% 7/ 1/10 1/ 1/11 305,000.00 7.1255 7/ 1/11 1/ 1/12 325,000.00 7.125% 7/ 1/12 1/ 1/13 350,000.00 7.125% 7/ 1/13 1/ 1/14 375,000.00 7.125% 7/ 1/14 1/ 1/15 370,000.00 7.125% 7/ 1/15 1/ 1/16 7/ 1/16 1/ 1/17 165,257.50 260,257.50 260,257.50 162,407.50 162,407.50 162,407.50 262,407.50 424,815.00 159,357.50 159,357.50 159,357.50 264,357.50 423,715.00 156,128.75 156,128.75 156,128.75 271,128.75 427,257.50 152,563.75 152,563.75 152,563.75 272,563.75 425,127.50 148,783.75 148,783.75 148,783.75 278,783.75 427,567.50 144,656.25 144,656.25 144,656.25 279,656.25 424,312.50 140,336.25 140,336.25 140,336.25 285,336.25 425,672.50 135,623.75 135,623.75 135,623.75 290,623.75 426,247.50 130,547.50 130,547.50 130,547.50 295,547.50 426,095.00 125,061.25 125,061.25 125,061.25 300,061.25 425,122.50 119,198.75 119,198.75 119,198.75 309,198.75 428,397.50 112,786.25 112,786.25 112,786.25 312,786.25 425,572.50 105,686.25 105,686.25 105,686.25 320,686.25 426,372.50 98,053.75 98,053.75 98,053.75 328,053.75 426,107.50 89,888.75 89,888.75 89,888.75 339,888.75 429,777.50 81,013.75 81,013.75 81,013.75 346,013.75 427,027.50 71,606.25 71,606.25 71,606.25 356,606.25 428,212.50 61,453.13 61,453.13 61,453.13 366,453.13 427,906.25 50,587.50 50,587.50 50,587.50 375,587.50 426,175.00 39,009.38 39,009.38 39,009.38 389,009.38 428,018.75 26,540:63 26,540.63 26,540.63 401,540.63 428,081.25 13,181.25 13,181.25 13,181.25 383,181.25 396,362.50 Total 4,800,000.00 4,814,201.25 9,614,201.25 9,614,201.25 E -3 THE CITY Of OKEECH08EE, FLORIDA Schedule 2-b SCHEDULE Of COMBINED OUTSTANDING DEBT SERVICE Interest Calculation Date: 7/1/92 Outstanding Period 1987 Ending Tax Debt Outstanding Total Annual Total 1989 Outstanding Outstanding Debt Debt Service Oebt 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/ 1/01 152,674.38 130,547.50 283,221.86 1/ 1/02 282,674.38 295,547.50 578,221.86 861,443.75 7/ 1/02 147,734.38 125,061.25 272,795.633 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 j1/ 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/ 1/08 107,887.5,0 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 E -4 EXAMPLE Of REGIONAL UTILITY SYSTEM DEBT PRO-FORMA WATER AHO 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 4.4503 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/ 1/051 405,000.00 6.2503 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 6.5003 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 6.550% 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 E -5 Schedule 4 PRO -FORMA WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT REVENUE 80N0S, SERIES 1992 Comparison of 1992 Pro -Forma Debt Service to 1987 and 1989 Debt Service 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 7/ 1/93 342,036.88 314,483.75 27,553.13 1/ 1/94 517,036.88 539,483.75 ( 22,446.88) 7/ 1/94 336,661.88 309,477.50 27,184.38 1/ 1/95 521,661.88 539,477.50 ( 17,815.63) 7/ 1/95 330,873.13 304,072.50 26,800.63 1/ 1/96 530,873.13 549,072.50 ( 18,199.38) 7/ 1/96 324,503.13 298,008.75 26,494.38 1/ 1/97 539,503.13 558,008.75 ( 18,505.63) 7/ 1/97 317,493.13 291,378.75 26,114.38 1/ 1/98 547,493.13 566,378.75 ( 18,885.63) 7/ 1/98 309,865.63 284,091.25 25,774.38 1/ 1/99 549,865.63 569,091.25 ( 19,225.63) 7/ 1/99 301,765.63 276,253.75 25,511.88 1/ 1/00 561,765.63 581,253.75 ( 19,488.13) 7/ 1 /00 292,798.13 267,561.25 25,236.88 1/ 1/01 567,798.13 587,561.25 ( 19,763.13) 7/ 1/01 283,221.88 258,281.25 24,940.63 1/ 1/02 578,221.88 598,281.25 ( 20,059.38) 7/ 1/02 272,795.63 248,251.25 24,544.38 1/ 1/03 587,795.63 603,251.25 ( 15,455.63) 7/ 1/03 261,508.13 237,601.25 23,906.88 1/.1/04 601,508.13 617,601.25 ( 16,093.13) 7/1((14 249,283.13 225,916.25 23,366.88 1/ 1/05 614,283.13 630,916.25 ( 16,633.13) 7/ 1/05 235,789.38 213,260.00 22,529.38 1/ 1/06 625,789.38 643,260.00 ( 17,470.63) 7/ 1/06 221,375.63 199,715.00 21,660.63 1/ 1/07 641,375.63 654,715.00 ( 13,339.38) 7/ 1/07 205,848.13 185,155.00 20,693.13 1/ 1 /08 660,848.13 675,155.00 ( 14,306.88) 7/ 1/08 188,901.25 169,230.00 19,671.25 1/ 1/09 673,901.25 689,230.00 ( 15,328.75) 7/ 1/09 170,831.25 152,330.00 18,501.25 1/ 1/10 695,831.25 707,330.00 ( 11,498.75) 7/ 1/10 151,228.13 134,292.50 16,935.63 1/ 1/11 711,228.13 719,292.50 ( 8,064.38) 7/ 1/11 130,321.88 115,280.00 15,041.88 1/ 1/12 730,321.88 740,280.00 ( 9,958.13) 7/ 1/12 107,915.63 94,811.25 13,104.38 1/ 1/13 757,915.63 764,811.25 ( 6,895.63) 7/ 1/13 83,634.38 72,868.75 10,765.63 1/ 1/14 778,634.38 782,868.75 ( 4,234.38) 7/ 1/14 57,675.00 49,616.25 8,058.75 1/ 1/15 777,675.00 779,616.25 ( 1,941.25) 7/ 1/15 30,712.50 25,708.75 5,003.75 1/ 1/16 405,712.50 405,708.75 3.75 7/ 1/16 15,946.88 13,263.75 2,683.13 1/ 1/17 420,946.88 418,263.75 2,683.13 Total 20,338,109.38 20,174,567.50 163,541.88 4,386.88 4,249.61 25,855.86 5,106.25 ( 20,405.07) 23,938.43 9,368.75 ( 15,197.47) 22,146.72 8,601.25 4 . 14,568.50) 20,545.01 7,988.75 ( 13,901.14) .19,002.92 7,228.75 ( 13,312.70) 17,600.18 6,548.75 ( 12,717.55) 16,347.80 6,023.75 ( 12,097.10) 15,175.42 5,473.75 ( 11,512.11) 14,073.45 '4,881.25 ( 10,964.90) 12,996.71 9,088.75 ( 7,927.97) 11,879.34 7,813.75 ( 7,746.47) 10,895.78 6,733.75 ( 7,513.21) 9,858.14 5,058.73 ( 7,405.40) 8,894.16 8,321.25 ( 5,305.96) 7,973.49 6,386.25 ( 5.340.24) 7,112.83 4,342.50 ( 5,369.22) 6,277.69 7,002.50 ( 3,779.58) 5,392.47 8,871.25 ( 2,487.43) 4,494.4S 5,083.75 ( 2,882.35) 3,674.34 6,208.75 ( 1,872.97) 2,832.63 6,531.25 ( 1,079.28) 1,989.79 6,117.50 ( 464.32) 1,159.37 5,007.50 .84 583.39 5,366.25 565.13 163,541.88 91,665.01 E -6 APPENDIX F CHAPTER 92 -132, 518, LAWS OF FLORIDA •1992 'REGULAR SESSION Ch. :92-132 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.tti give preferential consideration to municipalities or counties which have been adversely affected by an environmental cleanup initiative conducted by a state or regional agency. F -1 APPENDIX G CITY UTILITY RATE RESOLUTIONS assotuTIOW No. 89 -5 A RZHOLOTXOt ISTADLI011IN2 A SCi16o0LR OP RATER, FESB ANO Ct1ARG68 FOR WATER AND 1ABTEWATER 85RYICESI PROVIDING FOR AN arinscTIVE DA'i'St 1R IT =SOLVED by the City Council of the City of Okeechobee, Florida, as follows: SiCTUON ONBt Pursuant to section of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Okeechobee, the fallowing schedule of rates, fees and charges for water and wastewater services shall bet . A. WATER RA'fss AMD PiEBt qTI COUNTY 1. Monthly Water volume charge•per 1000 $ 1.70 $ 2.13 ael4oae, all gallons, a1.i meter sizes oatihly CoctP!i'.Y A01 4ybrc(tarae - $ 2.13 i 2.67 ee dentlel orally all gallons over 15,000 gallons, a L meter sires. 2. Minimum Service Charget 1L3NTRLY AMOUNT peter Size CITY COUNTY 5/8" X 3/4" i 3.10 $ 3.80 1" 7.75 9.70 1-1 /Z" 15.50 19.40 2" 24.80 31.04 3" 49.60 62.08 4" 77.50 97.00 6" 155.00 194.00 8° 248.00 310.00 3. 1iator'Connectton Fees: Aster Size 5/8" X 3/4" $ 500.00 3 625.00 1" 1,250.00 1,562.50 1 -1/2" 2,500.00 3,125.00 2" 4,000.00 5,000.00 3" 0,000.00 40,000.00 4" 12,500.00 15,625.00 6" 25,000.00 31,250.00 8" 40,000.00 50,000.00 Where a developer has installed the main venter lines and provided the water •..'vice line including the cut off and meter box, all in aaaordance with City Specifications and at no expanee to the City as provided in Sections 18 -32 and 18 -37, herein. She connection fee would be reduced to 25% of the etbove.connectlon teen. 1 G-1 4. peokflov Prevention Foes peter Si reYY COUNTY 5/8 "X3/4" $ 225.00 i 281.25 1" 275.00 343.75 1 -1/2" 350.00 437.50 2" 425.00 531.25 Pees for Beokflow Prevention Devices shall be added to above connection fees. Deckflow prevention devices shall be requited for all premises Likely to have Dross connections. The type of device used wilt be determined by.the director. 'semi for Daokflow Prevention bevices larger then two (21 inch shall be calculated by the Department of Public Utilities and price shall be based upon the cost of materials, labor, equipment plus 251 for all services outside oLty liens and an administrative charge of 151 of total cost. 5. Water System Capacity Pees! CITY COUNTY Meter Size 5/8 "X3/4" 5 500.00 $ 625.00 1" 1,250.00 1,562.50 1 -1/2" 2,500.00 3,125.00 2" 4,000.00 5,000.00 3" 0,000.00 10,000.00 4" 12,500.00 15,625.00 6" 25,000.00 31,250.00 8" 40,000.00 50,000.00 6. Ebakti_t1. 1Vatter Triaabrnentt MIX COUNTY Wholesale water treatment rate is base 5 1.10 $ 1.38 upon the metered water volume charge per, 3000.011qm all canons. all meter stye t tlm Se„yice Ch rg ae: 1y ITN= 1.R01fl R Aster size CITT 000___ 2" $ 400.00 $ 500.00 .3" 800.00 1,000.00 4" 1,200.00 1,500.00 6" 2,400.00 3,000.00 trees for sales for resale for meters larger than 6 inch shall be based upon total water requirements. 2 G-2 7. Emergency Rats aurgher_ga for water Conservation_ Surcharge to be applied to water gallonage rate per 1000 gallons when deemed necessary by the cit.), Council. Peccent'Rnduotion in Percent Surcharge Applied Water U4aae Reauire4 Gallonage Charge 01 01 101 25% 25t 501 50% 100• linhtla homaa, townhouses, apartments and recreational vehicles on individual meters will be•coneidered as residential units. 8. Customers without city water meter service which connect to the City Maetaw&ter System shall pay the following annnection fees. The fee shall be for the installation of a water meter in the water line from the well to the building to measure the volume.o£ water' and shall be used to calculate the sewer charges. These charges in lieu of charges listed in Section A. 13 and 44 Site of Meter CITY ' COUNTY 5/8" X 3/4" $ 100.00 $ 125.00 1" 150.00 187.50 All Others Set by Director of Public UtilitLes B. MABTTEM1iT6R BAT= AND MB CITY Comm 1. Wastewater volume charge per 1000 gallons $ 2.24 $. 2.80 all gallons, all meter sizes 2. Monthly Service Charger lister size CITY t IMT_1 5/8 "X3/4" $ 8.95 $ 11.19 1" 22.38 27.98 1-1/2" 44.75 55.95 2" 71.60 89.52 3" 143.20 179.04 4" 223.75 279.75 6" 441.50 559.50 an 716.00 895.00 10" 2.461.25 3,076.50 G-3 2. Naetewwter cowwwwtton re "M. Aso of Sewer•Service CIYY COUNTY 4" $ 630.00 4.787.50 6" 760.00 950.00 Connection fees foc tlons larger than 6" shall be based upon total water requirements. Where a developer hae installed the main sewer lines and provided the sewer service line to the property line, all in accordance with City Specifications and at na expense to the City as provided in Sections 18- 61 and 18.63 herein. The connection fee would be reduced to 25% of the above connection teen. 4. Wastewater 6Yetem Cepacitv_fees: Wets.: laze 5/6 "X3/4" $ 954.00 6 1,192.00 1" 2,385.00 2,981.25 1-1/2" 4,770.00 5,962.50 2" 7,632.00 9,540.00 3" 15,264.00 19.080.00 4" 23,850.00 29,812.50 6" 47,700.00 59,625.00 8" 76,320.00 95,000.00 5. , Wholesale wastewater Treatment: Wholesale wastewater treatment rate is CITE'. GOUM based upon the metered consumption per 1000 gallone of wastewater flow $ 1.60 $ 2.00 miat.mue 8ervtce Chaaraa: itiff_tLY MOUNT Meter Size cm COUNTY 2" 61,100.00 6 1,375.00 3" .2,200.00 2,750.00 4" 3,300.00 4,125.00 6" 6,600.00 0,250.00 Feel for wholesale treatment for meters larger than 6 inch shall be based upon totaL wastewater regnirwsents. 6. Rec,oLmed W t ;rt Volvmetrla charges toe eeolais,o4 water $ .t6 $ .20 shall be based upon metered consumption per 1000 gallons and billed monthly. 4 G-4 7. Soptaget Septaye charges per 1000 a0.1one S 100.00 ; 125.00 s. IndOtetrlal Naatewatect To be determined on an individual basis according to volume and characteristics of wastewater by special agreement. 9. .rich Strength Induitriel wastewater Suroitaroe: To he determined on an individual basis according to volume and oharacteriatics of wastewater by special agreeesnt. C. CaoitaJ.IeGOVerr Cost :Debt . 6arvicel J,t1TuLT AMOUNT Meter Size OM COUNTY 5/8" X 3/4" S 5.00 8 6.25 1" 50.00 62.50 1 -1/2" 100.00 125.00 .2" 150.00 187.50 3" 300.00 375.00 4e soo.00 625.00 Fees for capital recovery costs for meters larger than 4 inch shall be based upon total water requirements. D. FIRS PROTECTION E(WIRt[6ti= FSBS: 1. Sole Proprietary Fire Protection Systemet (Sprinkler Systeme! Eliza at *Service KouthLy Amount CI COUNTY 4" $ 35.00 $ 43.75 6^ 70.00 87.50 0" 150.00 187.50 10" 300.00 375.00 2. Maintenance fee for lire hydrants in the .County that have been accepted by the County. 4120.00 per hydrant per year. 3. The charges for temporary water service delivered rnrouyh a fire hydrant meter shall be a% follows: a. Set -up charge b. Monthly availability charge c. coneumptlon.per 1000 gallons d. Meter relocation per move 1. Removal Of mete.. by other than City Forces f.. Penalty for unauthorised taking of water from hydrant, in addition to oontsuwption oherga (consumption to be estimated by Director oI Publlu Utilities) 5 CIT1 $ 50.00 30.00 2.00 25.00 100.00 300•.00 • COUNTY* i 62.50 37.50 2.50 31.25 125.00 375.00 G-5 E. Special Service Char4ee. 'er urren Occce 1. Turn on for new customer 2. Turn dff at customer request 3. Final Notices nailed to delinquent aocogi to 4. Reconnecting water service alter eaten service has been turned of at customer request and before meter removed CITY COUNTY $ 10.00 .$ 12.50 10.00 12.50 1.00 1.25 10.00 12.50 5. Turn off for deiinquonc in payment of A 10.00 12.50 bill or failure to.pay 1ncroaeed water deposit as required 6. Reconnecting water service after payment of 10.00 12.50 a delinquent bill or payment of increased water deposit. when service has bane turned off and before meter is removed 7. Performance of any of above services after regular office hours A. Turn water off and remove metes at cuetomor. request for more than 30 days and less than 365 days in order to discontinue monthly service availability charges end garbage fees. • a. 5/8 "X3/4" Meter b. 14 meter c. All others 9. Install meter and turn water on within 365 days after disconnection was done at same cuetrnaere requedL at which time monthly service availability charges and garbage fees will resume. a. 5f8 "X3/4" Meter b. 1' meter c. All others 10. Install meter and turn water on for any customer after 365 days where water was discontinued and meter removed. 11. Meter reread at customers request e. Standard scheduling b. By appointment c. No charge for disorepanoy.of 1n,onn gallons or more 30.00 37.50 40.00 60.00 100.00 40.00 60.00 100.00 50.00 75.00 125.00 50.00 75.00 125.00 Same fees for new wetter and or sewer service 20.00 25.00 30.00 37.50 G-6 12. Testing water meter at customers request a. Test result showing muter reads high (foot) b. Test'resulte showing meter reads correctly or below (slow) 5/8 "X3/4" Meter 1" Meter 1 -1/2" Meter 2" Meter Above 2" Meters 13. Illegal turn -on or tampering with water meter; per occurrence service line to be removed after second uvuurrence at 0a40 location and same occupant. 14. Reinstallation of service LLne after removed due,t6 repeated illegal turn on or tampering with service 15. nevoloper or owner changing rector from one location to. another without permission of utility.dopartment; per occurrence 16. Destruction of meter and/or related equipment Charge b1(sed upon actual repineement coot (labor and plus a 15* administrative charge or 5100.00 whichever per occurrence 17. Rotutned Chock other th erepplLoable 1 amount a in the event service iise plus discontinued. 10. Account record history, requeeted by cuetoner No Charge 25.00 31.26 35.00 43.75 S0.00 62.50 75.00 93.75 Set by Director of Public Utilities 50.00 62.50 Same fees tar new water and /or sewer service 50.00 62.50 materials) is greater( a. 12 (months or less b. over 12 months 19. Recording of easements, annexation agreements, etc. 20. Project plan•reviax $3.00 per record $2.50 per 1/4 hour or fraction thereof $10.00 each page The Public Utilities Department will review all plans and specifications of all proposed extensions and or developments and owner or developer viii pay a anw time fns $10.00 per page of drawing `Project plane will not be approved until is received by department full payment of the tee 21. Project Inspection projectb must be inspected by the utilities department and the miner or developer shall pay lees at the rate of $20.00 per hour during regular office hours and 1 -1/2 times that rate after requiter n07 56z4i'i .:rY 3PY P0( G-7 .22. Miscellaneous chargesfor service not included above Actual coat of materials and labor required plus an administrative charge of 15a or $25.00, whichever is greater 23. Billing and collection of utility fees for others or third party billing A. Initial set -up charges create a File $5.00 per account computer program maintenance $2.50 per 1/4 hour accounting services $2.50 par 1/4 hour b. charge for billing $1.00 per account 24. Delinquent Eno an inartiva and unpaid account,. 1.54'pnir month on delinquent amount due 25. Deposits for Services (minimum) Residential With Garbage Service CITY COMITY water service Only $ ,75.00 $ 95.00 Sower Service Only ' $ 100.00 $ 125.00 Mahar a.nevor service $ 160.00 1 100.00 Commeroial 1.LL commercial accounts) including coin laundry and industrial oonsumers shall be required to makn a service deposit with the City before utility service is extended and provided and the deposit shall amount to no less than the average of two (2) monthsbill computed from pest hietorioal information, or on the basis of negotiations between the City and the particular commercial account involved, but in no event shall the deposit bo lees than ■.vauty (Loa (75) dollars with only one service and ona hundred fifty (1S0) dollara with water and sewer service. 26. Laboratory Test By City The Public Utilittee Department may perform.laboratory testing developer or individual at the following prices: Per Test fora A. m.O_n. $ 15_00 0. Suspended Scalds 12.00 C. Chlorine'Residual 5.00 D. Fecal Califon" 15.00 R. Total Coiifora 15.00 r'. Chloride 12.00 G. Fluoride 10.00 H. pH 3.00 I. Total Dissolved sonde 6.00 J. Dissolved Oxygen 5.00 K. Turbidity 7.00 Thai 'above tasting wtil be done In the City's laboratory. Any other rooting will be sent to a certified lab and the developer or individual will be billed tha coat for the testing plus a 154 administrative charge.. A11.aaepina aunt ha .tollvored to thw nfty lab in approved containers. If the city collects samples or perform testing in the field then actual cost of labor plus a 154 administrative charge will be added to above feel:. G-8 SSC'ZION TWO; This resolution °hall take effect with consolidated bills rendered povember 1, 1989 and thereafter= and to all agreement approved by the City Couneil•on September 19, )909 40d thereafter. CITY OF ORItfCHO, FLORIDA Mayor (seal) Attest: City Clerk C--9 R4SOI,U1'ION NO. 90 -E A Ren9oiilrloi of TUE CLOY OF OSEE0008R9. FLORIDA AREND /RC. RESOLUTION 89 -9, SECTION 6 ow c8ARGg, PROVIDING row AN i rrECTIVB DATE. NURREAS, the City Council placed an emergency rate surcharge for wel.MC courervation and, NNEREAS, the City Council voted to rescind the emergency rate surcharge or water conservation. NON, T1i6R1lFORE, be it tesolvad'by the City Council of the City of Okeechobee, Florida that: $notion Onat Resolution 69 -9. Scation 6 be ascended as follows* B$GTION 6. SURCHARGE: )t�l- 4lber8 Nee- egbject- io -p ymont•-o - -- ther-emergency rate eurcharge 4A- ilesoletien- its , -89-5- effective- Norotber-1-; -1999; foi- ratarasaea- JA-- wlatior +- te-4Ww- perceutage- ..w,feX -- use-- esduct lom- eat - 4111. -the- E)oanciL- et-10i- Reserved. Deletion Two: Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective January 2, 1990. AbOPTED this 16th day of January , 1990. ATZE9tz NIR TNAMAR, CITY CLERIC 11hYOR GARLAND a. G-10 RESOLUTION N0. 90 -15 A RESOLUTION OF TUC =fop MECUMS, FLORIDA', AMENDING THE PUBLIC UTILITY RATE RESOLUTION 89 -5 TO ADD A FEb TO SECTION C; AND TO ADD A DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT FOR GARBAGE ONLY CUSTOONERS IN SECTION C, NUMBER 25; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT RESOLVED THAT RESOLUTION 89 -5 86 AMENDED AS FOLLOWS, 1. Section C is hereby amended to add a fee as follows: C. Capital Recovery Cost (Debt Service) Monthly Lmoun.t Meter Site CITT COUNTY 6 $1.000.00 $1,250.00 Fees for capital recovery costs for eaters larger than 4 4 inch shall be based upon total eater requirements. Z. Whereas it has become auceseery to impose a deposit requirement on garbage only customers, there is therefore added much dopeuit requirement to Section. Number 23 of Resolution 89 -5 the following: E. Special Service Charge., Per Occurrence Residential Oarbego Service Only CITY $33.00 (BALANCE OF RESOLUTION REMAINS UrICNANGED) This resolution shall become effective immediately. upon ito adoption. INTRODUGRD AND ADOPTED this .6th day of November , 1990, by the City Council of the City of Okeechobee, Florida. MAYOR OARWD R. RESOLUTION CO. 91 -3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF OtEECf0DEC, FLORIDA AMENDING SLCTIOK C OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY RATE RESOLUTION 89 -51 PROVIDING FOR AN EFFCOt2YE DAVE. 86 IT RRSOJ.V D THAT RH90LUT10N 89 -5 BE AMOCO AS FOLLOWS; 1. Section C is hereby 'wended as follows: C. Capital Recovery Coat (Debt Service) Monthly Amount Meter Size City County, 5/8 "z3/4" $ 5(89 $ 8.50 ; 61.45 $ 10.63 1" .30780 85.00 60:-69 106.25 1 1/2" 100.00 170.00 445.09 212;5o 2" 4-60.00 255.00 -68739 318.75 00 (00 510.00 975,00 637.50 4" 608(09 850.00 689 1062.50 6" 49,98748 1700,00 4438799 2125.00 3100.00 3875.00 10" 5000.00 6250.00 12" 7300.00 9125.00 Pees for capital recovery costs for meters larger than 6 12 inch shell be based upon tetra water raquiresente. Z. This resolution shall become eff8ctive July 1, 1991. INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of Juee, 1991, by the City Council of the City of Okeechobee. Florida. NA1",:AML'S E. KIR ATTESTI vr' v yy'� BONNIE TUONA6, CMC, CITC'CLERL G-12 RESOLUTION N0. 92 -5 A RNSOLUTION OF TN8 CLTY OP O[NECI10081(. FLORIDA MINDING D1(CTION 1, BUNSECTION 31 SECTION e, SUBSUCI'IONS 3 AND 4; AND SECTION 0, SUBSECTION 25 OP TES PUBLIC UTILITY RATN RESOLUTION 89 -5; PROTIDINC FOR AN EFFEGTITE DATE. EE IT RE80LTE0 that Resolution 69••5 be esendod es followat ,Sgotioe Ones . Pureuent to the soctLon of the Code of Ordinancne of the City of Dkeechoboo, Resolution 89 -5 Secttoa A, Subsoction 3 12 amended es follows for charges for voter aorrices; A. WATER RATI8 AND Fairy 3. VATNR CONNECTION FEES! Nhyrre-•e -d *Ott e- -mee-oit—wed 4n.t._. b.... All to a t-n et tIr eLs,-. cowntici;vr, -fc—r • Sectloe Two: Pursuant to the section. of tks Code of OrdLnances of the City of Okeaehobeo, Resolution 39 -5 Secttoa b, Subsections 3 and 4 is amended ao Eollova for charge■ for vnstavator eervicest • 8. WAST0WAx1R RATES ANU FEES 3. WASTEWATER CONNECTION F00St Slue of Serer Service City Coun 4" 4306.00 $302.50 6" .68288 $765.00 #9i0r08 4930_41 'Connection lees for connections larger than 6" shell be based upon total voter requirements. � be--pr&p e 64-•efrd -18 63 hvreia. wt--f o --- - rieve-saw.raetAea- ieee-r , 4. VAST¢WATER MUM CAPACITY FEES! Meter Sire City 5/8" x 3/4" ; 459.00 In '3 1 1/2 ".9 -80 2 400. 2" 3" ! 4" ¢$37i}50•ra0 6" «+4e9:e9 000.00 8" , i8 S7 800,00 �Q,", 1110Q0.00 i��Z" ;172.600.m not $ 573.75 4--1-90l.t5 $3.000.00 45T96er68 6 r97549i•69 9.600.00 9+951100r 0e a 00.06 4 0 00 oc 495.000.00 0 0 00 }138 0 0.00 2216. 000.00 022,00. 1i4S.t$oa.Thr4lt Pursuant to the section of the Coda or Ordinances of the City of Okeechobee, Resolution 89 -5, Section R, Subsection 25 is sueedoe us follows for charges for deposieet B. SPECIAL SaRYICE CRARCRB._ PER eccURRBNCE 25. DEPOSITS FOR SER71008 G-13 #cstdsnttsk -eri O'ttT Oo++ni7 Uster- QM- .- tea -0..L 4-4-5s0.0 4 75.00 4440r00 /426r06 Water 4•se.�r� -0_. Tao 44 r+14c 0..4 4 -95r00 8oue.rcLe]. .arrant tea.rwbe- 4+.titiiiyrt -tatA 1ae*dr7 i...4- t++dvety.4 -tett AAA - fl. or to eo.eeo the Oity•sad the- pvrriiss}rt vt!-in tre--1 o,.. -Ctrs ar iretr4eer n. 5/8" 1 314" MISTER CITY COUNTY Water Sortice 0n1Y $50.00 • 62.50 Wastewater Service OnLy 150.00 $62.$0 lister and Wastewater Service ;100.06 $125.00 b. MATER OR WASTEWATER SERVICE ONLY Meter 91a• City. Count, 1" ; 3 }2,511 A 590.G2 1 TZ2 " 4 625,00 2 $ 1.00000 57 X1.875.00 $ 3.125,00 btt $ 6.25MQ 8tr $10/000,00 i�� $14,575,00 2 x22,700.00 e. WATER ARV WASTEWATER SERVICE Meter Sile City 1" 1172". 2" jar lw P- 11; ITT $ 625.00 $ 1.250.00 2 00 00 3,750 00 230 no 00 2 00,00 28,750,00 $45,000.00 2 43.7 •25 7 1_81 S0 1 00 417068. S $28,125 =00 { 781.25 $ 1.562.50 2.50Q,00 4 687 50 llg 25 0 0.0. 3 937,30 456. 250.00 d. RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE SERVICE IV THE CM otiLll 135.00 Ruction PaSrt This Resolution will take effect upon its adoption this 4th day of February. 1992. ATTEST& „ . o ,—MitrreffratM G-14