HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 8B3_4/11/1991 i3
. " .
, „.., A
\\
F
00111
;,:, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
� . Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive £ APR 05 � 91
9
�� ; �t Tequesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (407)575-6200 9�
��N - .,- FAX:(407)575-6203 ',. ieft 47
%.r. ../- 160
I N
MEMORANDUM
TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager '
,-4ii?
FROM: Bill C. Kascavel'is, Finance Director/Vil age Clerk
DATE: April 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Water System Rate Study: 25% Surcharge
Attached is the Water System Rate Study prepared by Mike
Rocca, Gee and Jenson Engineers, dated July 18, 1990, proposing
water rate revisions for FY 91; and a copy of the minutes of the
July 26, 1990 Council Meeting, listing the actions taken by
Council with regards to Mr. Rocca' s proposal. As you can see the
Village Council voted unanimously to table the 25% Surcharge
issue until Martin County attorney and Village attorney could
negotiate.
Ultimately Martin County sent its Utility Director, Robert
Pontek to negotiate. This consisted of only one meeting and a
letter, which is attached. dated January 18. 1991 on behalf of
the Board of County Commissioners for Martin County, the letter
urges the Village to defer action on imposition of a surcharge in
Martin County as permission is not granted and suggests the
Village perform a rate study along with Jupiter. Following the
completion of the two rate studies Mr. Pontek suggests the
Village approach the Martin County Board with the finding and
recommendations which may include a surcharge so that final
decisions may be made.
TGB/at
Attachments ( 3) , .
•
Recycled Paper
. . w Post•!t • -aid fax transmittal memo 7671 COMMII
,-
611111MITSNERLIMMINA
flit aningrielliblinallriaMINI
all 5'75-b 103 killIPMESTIM
GELSJENSON
July 18, 1990
VILLAGE OF tb
11NUBSTA c
Village of Tequesta APR O4 1n "
Post Office Box 3273
Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 VILLAGE ,i.
MANAGER'S
Attn : Mr . Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager 1;, OFFICE le
Re : Water System, Rate Adequacy and Step Gallonage Rates
i
Dear Mr. Bradford:
Pursuant to our agreement, dated May 3 , 1990, we are pleased to
present herein our findings and recommendation as to the adequacy
of the Water System' s (the System) revenues and the gallonage
rates for various levels of usage .
We have obtained and analyzed certain data reflecting the metered
flow of the various users in the System. Our analysis indicated
that a typical single family residential connection uses
tog a as ether with average flows of other user' classes . in Table 1
TABLE I
METERED WATER ANALYSIS
Residential •
Type Meters Units Flow * Flow/Unit
Single Family 3 ,888 , 3,900 • 45,927 11 ,800
Multi -Family 73 1 ,846 17, 474 9,500
3 ,961 5, 746 63, 401 11 ,000
Commercial , Government, and Irrigation (Non-Residential ) .
Meter ERC 0 of -
Slze Factor Meters Flow * Flow/Unit
5/8" 1.0 243 2,033 8,400
1 .0" 2.5 59 2, 389 40,500
1 .5" 5.0 21 1 , 198, 57,000
2.0"
" 8.0 27 3,067 113,600
3.0
3.0" 15.0 0 0 NA
25.0 6.0" 50.0 3 4800 162,0
NA
* in thousands of gallons
•
One Harvard Circle•West Palm Beech,Florida 33409.1923.407/693-3301 .FAX 407/886.7446
.
Village of Tequesta
Attn : Thomas Bradford
July 18 , 1990 - Page 2
Our analysis further indicated that 89 percent of the total flows
occurred within the current first step rate increment of 30,000
gallons or less per month , 7 percent of the total flow was
between 30,000 and 50,000 gallons per month and 4 percent of the
total flow was above 50,000 gallons per month , as shown on Table
2 .
TABLE 2
METERED WATER BY STEP
THREE MONTH SUMMARY
( in thousands of gallons)
% OF
AREA STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 TOTAL TOTAL
Jupiter Inlet 12 , 497 1 , 798 935 15,230 7%
% of total 82% 12% 6%
Palm Beach County 32,369 1 ,249 368. 33,986 16%
% of total 95% 4% 1%'
Martin County 49, 997 7,359 6,695. 64,051 29%
% of total 80% 11% 9%
Jupiter 19,469 206 611 20,286 9%
% of total 96% 1% 3%
Tequesta 80,310 3,663 1,043 85,016 39%
% of total 95% 4% 1% •
TOTAL CONSUMPTIONS 197,646 14, 275 9, 652 218, 569
% of total 89% 7% 4%
The monthly billable flows for the current fiscal year has ranged
between 75 , 407,000 and 60,833,000 gallons , an average of
69,936 , 000 gallons. Billable flows for fiscal year 1991 are
anticipated to average ' approximately 70,350,000 gallons
month. This amount includes an allowance for an anticipated
increase of 60 Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC) during
the year and that as a minimum voluntary conservation measures
will continue. The flow from areas which are currently subjected
to surcharges averaged 31,400,000 gallons per month during the
four month review period and are anticipated to remain
approximately the same.
GEE&JENSON
Village of Tequesta
Attn : Thomas Bradford
July 18, 1990 - Page 3
Water Conservation has been and is expected to remain a major
issue with South Florida communities ; therefor consumption
incentives/deterrents as currently provided in the Villages rate
structure are appropriate to encourage and promote conservation.
We have reviewed the current step rate increase gallonage
allowances and recommend the following step gallonage allowances
and rates .
A. STEP GALLONAGE ALLOWANCES
Residential
All single and master, metered connections
STEP 1 0 through 15 , 000 gallons
STEP 2 15,001 through 30 , 000 gallons
STEP 3 30, 001 gallons and above
The step allowances for Multi -Family Residential master metered
connections will be an amount equal to the above residential step
allowances times the number of dwelling units .
All Non-Residential •
13
Meter BELOWPAND BELOWEAND ABOVEP 2PAND
Size INCLUDING INCLUDING INCLUDING
5/8" 1&,000 30,000 : 30,001
1 .0" 37, 500 75,000 : 75,001
1 . 5" 75,000 130 ,000 150,001
2 . 0" 120,000 240 ,000 240,001
3 . 0" 225,000 450, 000 450,001
4. 0" 375,000 730, 000 750,001
6 . 0" 750, 000 1 , 500,000 1 , 500,001
B. GALLONAGE RATES:
All' user classes
STEP 1 $1 . 05 PER 1 , 000 GALLONS
STEP 2 $1 .85 PER 1 , 000 GALLONS
STEP 3 $3. 20 PER 1 ,000 GALLONS •
GEE&JENSON
.kR�
Village of Tequesta
Attn : Thomas Bradford
July 18, 1990 - Page 4
Our review of the Operating and Maintenance Expenses (0&M)
budgeted proposed by the Village for fiscal year 1991 of
$1 , 428, 500 was in relative concurrence with current operations
and historical trends . Debt service and associated costs for
fiscal year 1991 is projected at $312 , 240. Total expenditures ,
not including capital outlay for major items is projected to be
51 , 740, 740 .
Revenues are projected from several sources including user fees
and charges , interest earnings and miscellaneous income . The
proposed budget prepared by the Village indicates that revenue
associated with connection charges , fire hydrant rent and
interest/miscellaneous will amount to 5125 ,000 . In addition to
these amounts user fees and charges from both, the minimum monthly
charges and gallonage charges are anticipated at $2, 127, 000,
which includes a surcharge of 25 percent of the total water bill ,
as shown below in Table 3 .
TABLE 3
PROJECTED REVENUE & EXPENDITURES
•
REVENUES •
WATER SERVICE CHARGES $777 ,0000
GALLONAGE CHARGES 1 ,350,000
CONNECTION CHARGES 15,000
FIRE HYDRANT CHARGES 11 ,400
INTEREST 100,000
TOTAL REVENUES $2, 253 ,400
O&M EXPENSES 1 ,428,500
• • NET REVENUE $824,900 .
DEBT SERVICE 312,240
BALANCE $512 ,660
COVERAGE 2.67
GEE do JENSON
- ` I
Village of Tequesta
Attn : Thomas Bradford
July 18, 1990 - Page 5
The total revenues indicated above are based on the existing base
monthly charges, the recommended gallonage step rates discussed
in this letter, a 25 percent surcharge for those connections in
Palm Beach and Martin Counties and other revenues as projected by
the Village . The projected net revenues for fiscal
exceed the minimum coverage requirement of 1 . 25 . Year 1991
It is our recommendation that the Village proceed to:
1 . Implement the step gallonage allowance and
corresponding gallonage rates as discussed herein .
2 . Increase the existing surcharge to 25 percent on
total water bill and other applicable charges for
connection in Palm Beach and Martin Counties.
3 . Have all rates and surcharges effective as of the
first billing period in October, 1990.
We wish to thank 'the Village for the o
in this matter, and express our appreciation
to be of service
received from the Village staff, ppreciation for the' assistance
Very truly yours ,
Marco H. Rocca, CMC
MHR/mr
#90-315
cc : Thomas Hall
I
GEE&JENSON
Village Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 1990
Page 3
VI. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS
Those citizens who signed in wanted to address Item VIII. A) .
Therefore, their comments appear in that section.
VII. DEVELOPMENT MATTERS
A) Consideration of Request to Release Lands Dedicated to
the Village by Warranty Deed. Mark Pantlin, PLM
Management, Inc.
This item was deleted since Mark Pantlin cannot attend due to
a death in the family in New York.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
A) Presentation and Consideration of the Findings of the
16 Water System Rate Study for Rate Adequacy; Step Gallonage
Rates and Capital Improvement Charges. Mike Rocca, Gee
6 Jenson.
1) Ordinance - First Reading - Providing for a Twenty-
Five Percent (25%) Surcharge on Water Services to
Residents of Unincorporated Palm Beach County and
All Residents of Martin County.
Walt Thom, Commissioner for Southern Martin County: He stated
this issue was heard before in 1976. The opinion of the
Martin County Legal Department holds the same opinion now as
they did in '76, which is: Florida Law does not allow the
Village to impose a surcharge, per se. He further stated that
Tequesta has five wells operating in Martin County, with an
application pending for another well. Commissioner Thom
suggested to Council that they allow the two County Attorneys
to negotiate an Interlocal Agreement covering this item in a
manner that is satisfactory to everyone concerned, and to
deter a decision on this issue until the attorneys meet and
reach satisfactory arrangements.
` Village Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 1990
Page 4
Councilmember Collings concurred with Commissioner Thom and
moved to table the 25% surcharge issue until Martin County
Attorney and Attorney for Village of Tequesta can negotiate.
Councilmember Howell seconded the motion. The vote was:
Mayor Capretta - for
Edward Howell - for
Earl Collings - for
Ron T. Mackail - for
the motion was therefore passed and this item was removed from
the Agenda.
Mayor Capretta stated that while he had Commissioner Thom at
hand, there were actually other issues between Tequesta and
Martin County: 1) water conservation in Martin County and the
lack of cooperation between Tequesta Police and Martin County
Police regarding enforcement of water restrictions of those
Martin County residents using Tequesta water; 2) Tequesta
Park, located in Martin County. Martin County agreed to
11 provide some funding and support for that park, but nothing
has yet been received; and 3) connector road, plans which have
been pending for some time.
1) Commissioner Thom stated he would personally speak to those
concerned regarding the water conservation problem at Turtle
Creek to see if perhaps there could be better patrol in 'that
area. 2) Regarding Tequesta Park, there is a new Park
Director, Bob Dennis, who was not aware of the agreement
between Tequesta and Martin County. Commissioner Thom assured
the Council that Martin County will be participating in the
funding; and 3) Regarding the connector road: This is
dependent upon the Girl Scout Camp giving a right-of-way for
approximately 1/2 mile of the southern boundary of the camp.
There was a meeting of the Girl Scout's Executive Council, and
an attorney who serves on that Board who also practices in
Martin County and represents some parties interested in
getting a certain section in the South County District paved,
and in order to do that the roads need to be open - and do not
presently comply with the road opening ordinances. When this
issue came to final conference, it ended at an impasse. The
issue is definitely in Martin County's Five-Year Plan, but
Commissioner Thom placed in his Budget for FY90-91. It is his
„ hope this road will be completed by the end of 1991.
).
fly; _ _ 1
t�l' Village Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 1990
Page 5
Fran Gibbons, 17440, S.E. Conch Bar Avenue, Indian Hills:
Mrs. Gibbons gave an extensive dissertation of the operation
of the Tequesta Water Department as' it relates to users in
Martin County. Mrs. Gibbons felt the consumption rates were
inequitable, and if statistics were massaged enough, it would
be possible to extract assumptive data whatever be the
purpose. She felt a 25% surcharge would not be taken lightly
by those unincorporated area residents and gave many reasons
why it should not be imposed. Mrs. Gibbons questioned the
capital expenditures for expansion when water supply was in
such dire shortage. She respectfully requested on behalf of
the consumers in the Tequesta water area that the Council and
Village Management come up with a realistic capital
improvements program and that Council not approve the
Ordinance imposing the surcharge.
2) Ordinance - First Reading - Modifying Section 18-
3 of the Code of Ordinances Relative to Quantity
Rates for Water for All Users.
11110 Mike Rocca, Gee & Jenson, reported on the review of the
water rates for their adequacy, including the step
gallonage tier for their appropriateness, and to review
the level of capital improvement charge. It was
demonstrated that Martin County users of the Tequesta
water system used 20% of the flow above the 30,000 gallon
step as compared to 5% for the Village of Tequesta
residents. Most usage of 50,000 gallons and over,
through conservations efforts, has been eliminated. The
target now is those who use 30,000 gallons and more.
This program„ sparked by South Florida Water Management
District mandates, is designed to help promote water
conservation. The Step Rate increases reflected in the
• Gee & Jenson report will contribute somewhat to the
Operating & Maintenance expenses. These expenses do
include cost factors for over-utilization of the system,
above and beyond normal residential demands. The
revenues in Table 3 of the report reflect the impact of
a 25% surcharge. It was Mr. Rocca's suggestion that no
change in the rate structure be adopted until the
surcharge issue is resolved. It was Gee & Jenson's
recommendation that the Village proceed to:
d•
•
village Council Meeting Minutes
July 26, 1990
Page 6
- Implement the step gallonage allowance and
corresponding gallonage rates as discussed herein;
Increase the existing surcharge to 25% on total
water bill and other applicable charges for
connection in Palm Beach and Martin Counties;
- Have all rates and surcharges effective as of the
first billing period in October, 1990.
3) Ordinance - First Reading - Increasing Tequesta
Water System Capital Improvement Charges for Nev
Connections to $1,960.
It was Gee & Jenson's recommendation, based on the
information concerning the projected expansion capacity
and costs provided in their July 17 report on the Water
System Capital Improvement Charge, that the Village
consider a Capital Connection Charge of $1,960.
It was Mayor Capretta 's conclusion that the decision for
increasing the capital improvement charge for new
connections should be postponed until the surtax can be
resolved, and to allow an opportunity for more homework
to be done.
Village Manager Bradford explained that the Ordinance for
Capital Improvement Charge for New Connections is a
'stand-alone' issue - not related to the rates or
surcharge - therefore it could be addressed tonight.
Mayor Capretta understood that but felt the underlying
assumption was that the new users of the system would pay
all the capital charges through a connection charge,
which may be unrealistic, since there may be only 1500
new connections, as opposed to 3,000 new connections.
Therefore, would or could the necessary capital be
collected?
Councilmember Collings moved to postpone the First
Reading of the Ordinance Relative to Rates for Water for
All Users and the Ordinance to Increase the Capital
Improvement Charges for New Connections. Councilmember
Howell seconded the motion. The vote was:
Mayor Capretta - for
Edward Howell - for
Earl Collings - for
Ron T. Mackail - for
d the motion was therefore passed and adopted.
Bu. OF COUNTYCO.:'\:;;"S:0\'F,= . ze4cFor
2401 Monterey Road • Stua-:, FIorida 3 4* lq
Y oP• ' 9^ ,i�` /,' ,994
COUNTY OF MARTIN m STATE 0 = .:+.= \ DA
a p
D�op" O;n;e Location:
-.. ' ., -.FL
- . UTILITIES DEPARTAIL 1\ :-
V ATER AND WASTED.ATE..
ROBERT S.PONTEh•
ORRF♦ c Hit LMAN.P.E • - ---
January 18, 1991 LT-91-64
Mr. Thomas G. Bradford
Village Manager
Village of Tequesta
P.C. Box 3273
357 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273
Re: Tequesta Twenty-five Percent (25%) Surcharge
Dear Hr. Bradford:
In response to your December 18th letter in which you iterate the desire of
the Village of Tequesta to add a 25% surcharge to those Martin County
residents serviced by Tequesta Water System, we wish to advise you the
Martin County Board of Commissioners discussed this matter at'their January
15th meeting.
It continues to be the position .of the County Commission that such a
barge requires Martin County approval. At the January 15th meeting, the
Board of Commissioners reiterated this fact and continues to suggest the
urge is inappropriate at this time for several reasons.
The existing agreement between Tequesta and Jupiter for 1.5 MGD of water
purdhase is based on rates for a lime softening plant located in Jupiter.
As you are aware, the , Town of Jupiter recently placed a new RO water
treatment into service operation. The RO process is substantially more
costly than conventional lime softening treatment. It is the intention of
the Jupiter staff to request a rate study in the next several months. The
agent for water service with Jupiter will certainly be increased
accordingly.
•
•
Page 2
Mr. Thomas G. Bradford
Additionally, we have reviewed the current rates charged for water service
in the Tequesta service area and we suggest -these rates need revision beyond
what is anticipated under the Jupiter/Tequesta water agreement. This seems
necessary since the prevailing rates for water from Tequesta is lower than
many other utilities .within the Martin County and Palm Beach County areas
Which offer softened water to their customers.
The Board of County Commissioners urge the Village of Tequesta to defer any
possible action in the imposition of a surcharge to residents within Martin
County as permission from the Martin CountyBoard is not
Furthermore, the Board suggests granted.
ed
Furth Jupiter the Village have a rate stud
A plans to conduct. Following the completion yof thertwo
necessary rate studies, we suggest the Village of Tequesta approach the
Martin County Board with the findings and recommendations which may include
a surcharge so that final decisions may be made.
In the interim, should you wish to have a
Primary staff contact you to
discuss this matter in
greater detail, please contact the undersigned.
Sincerely yours,
� .` �ti S .
Robert S. Pontek
Utilities Director
• RSP1®
, cc: , Joseph R. Grassie, County Administrator
Board of County Commissioners
Johnathan Ferguson