HEAR AUDIENCE ( Anything requiring a vote will be heard at a … and Meetings... · 2018-03-14 ·...

Toho Water Authority101 North Church Street, 2" d Floor

Kissimmee, FL 34741

www. tohowater. com

Board of Supervisors

Bruce R. Van Meter, Chairman

Mary Jane Arrington, Vice ChairmanJohn E. Moody, SupervisorJohn C. Reich, Supervisor

James W. Wells, Supervisor

F41, 111 tt

Brian L. Wheeler, Executive Director

Mike Davis, AttorneySteve Johnson, Attorney

AGENDA

MARCH 28, 2007

5: 00 PM

8 IWO 9 ILI [ eyeywl 1111111110 9-2 tells] V 910

III , I,, Ell

PTA

A. RECOGRITIOR OF TME EITIPLOTEE ARD TriE TEAITI OF TME QIARTER

FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF 2006/2007

5. PUBLIC HEARING

6. HEAR AUDIENCE ( Anything requiring a vote will be heard at a later date)

7 CONSENT AGENDA:

A. AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF ST.

CLOUD, ORANGE COUNTY, POLK COUNTY AND REEDY CREEK

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RELATING TO COOPERATION IN OBTAINING

WATER USE PERMITS.

B. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE AT SANDHILL RD.

WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY

The Consent Agenda is a technique designed to expedite handling of routine and miscellaneous business of the Board of Supervisors. TheBoard of Supervisors in one motion may adopt the entire Agenda. The motion for adoption is non -debatable and must receive unanimousapproval. By request of any individual member, any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed upon the Regular Agendafor debate.

9. OLD BUSINESS:

10. NEW BUSINESS

A. DISCUSSION OF AUTHORITY STRATEGY AND POLICIES FOR NON-

POTABLE OWPOTABLEWATER DEMAND

11. STAFF REPORTS:

A. Financial Report — February 2007

12. BOARD OFFICIALS

13. ADJOURNMENT

CATEGORY: Awards and Presentations

Attachments: None

RECOGNITION OF THE EMPLOYEE AND THE TEAM OF THE QUARTER FOR THE

FIRST QUARTER OF 2006/ 2007

Explanation: On a quarterly basis, the Employee Recognition committee meets toreview nominations submitted by fellow employees and supervisors for the Employee ofthe Quarter and the Team of the Quarter. For the first quarter of FY 2007, October—

December 2006, nominations for the Employee and the Team of the Quarter were

received. Ray Alvarez was selected as the Employee of the Quarter. The team of Zone2 and Zone 4, which consist of Chris Jones, Donnie Huston, Carlos Negron, Mark

Schnee, Glen Jeffers, Gary Carr, Patrick Ortiz, Randy Smith, Bob Deem, Alex Ortiz, Carlos Santiago, Everett Reedy, Charles O' Shields, Angel Marcano, Ricardo Marrero, Iran Mendez, Carlos Agostini, Jerry Williams, and Mike Lowrey, were selected as theTeam of the Quarter.

EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER:

Ray Alvarez is being recognized for stepping - in when his fellow co- worker was ill andabsent for an extended period of time to satisfy the electrical maintenance needs of theMaintenance Division. He was also instrumental in creating the location database of thelift stations in the TWA service area for mapping purposes. Ray' s efforts have helped toimprove the staff' s ability to retrieve commonly used data, and lift station data.

TEAM OF THE QUARTER:

The Field Operations Employees from Zones 2 and 4 are being recognized forcompleting directional bores to new roundabouts in the Mill Run and Oak Runsubdivisions, and for continuing to make progress on the main line flushing to improvewater quality in the BVL subdivision, respectively.

Zone 2 excelled in customer service when performing their tasks in the Mill Run andOak Run subdivisions. A big key to their success was the manner in which Zone 2crews communicated and assisted one another throughout the project.

Zone 4 has been tasked with performing flushing throughout the BVL subdivision andhas carried out their responsibility in a manner that has been deemed respectful of ourcustomers. This Zone is also one of the first crews to use the new handheld GPS units

for valve locations in the BVL subdivision, which will result in improved mapping systemdata. Other noted accomplishments by Zone 4 include improved response time to repairwater leaks, caught up sidewalks that needed to be poured, and decreased the amountof meters backlogged to be installed from 450 to 170 in a month' s time.

Recommendation: Staff requests that the Board of Supervisors present Ray Alvarezwith the Employee of the Quarter Award, and employees Chris Jones, Donnie Huston,

Carlos Negron, Mark Schnee, Glenn Jeffers, Gary Carr, Patrick Ortiz, Randy Smith, BobDeem, Alex Ortiz, Carlos Santiago, Everett Reedy, Charles O' Shields, Angel Marcano, Ricardo Marrero, Iran Mendez, Carlos Agostini, Jerry Williams, and Mike Lowrey, ofZones 2 and 4 with the Team of the Quarter Award.

Employee & Team Recognition - 1St qtr 2006/2007.03.28.07.dg

CATEGORY: Consent

Attachment( s): Interlocal Agreement Amendment

AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF ST. CLOUD,

ORANGE COUNTY, POLK COUNTY AND REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT

DISTRICT RELATING TO COOPERATION IN OBTAINING WATER USE PERMITS.

Explanation: In September of 2006, the South Florida Water Management District

SFWMD), St. Johns River Water Management District ( SJRWMD), and the Southwest

Water Management District ( SWFWMD) established the Central Florida Coordination

Area ( CFCA) for water supply planning, development, and permitting within an agreedupon geographic area of Central Florida. The Coordination Area includes Osceola

County, Orange County, Polk County, Seminole County, and southern Lake County. The three water management districts ( WMD) have agreed that the area' s groundwater

supply is reaching its limits and should not be permitted for water supply for demandsbeyond 2013. After 2013, future water demands for the area will have to be provided byAlternative Water Supplies ( AWS). As a result, the WMDs have agreed that water use

permits for groundwater withdrawals for the area will be issued only to cover projecteddemands up to 2013. At the time the WMDs entered into agreement to establish theCFCA there were five water use permits pending before the SFWMD, TWA, City of St. Cloud, Reedy Creek Improvement District ( RCID), Orange County, and Polk County. Toimplement the agreed upon principles of the CFCA, SFWMD has decided that the five

pending WUPs will be evaluated and issued concurrently as competing uses. SFWMDhas proposed to issue the five utilities 20 year permits for the 2013 agreed upon water

demands, twice the term of present permits issued by the District within Central Florida. As an enticement to receive the 20 year permits the District has requested that the five

utilities work cooperatively to provide data, information, and groundwater modeling insupport of their applications.

At the December 13, 2006 meeting the Board approved an interlocal agreementbetween TWA and the four other utilities listed above ( see attached back-up) to workcooperatively and jointly fund hydrogeological work and other investigative workassociated with our respective water use permit applications. The agreement was

developed and funding established based upon the anticipated level of effort required tomeet the Water Management District requirements for obtaining a permit in January. The permit process is still on- going at this time and is anticipated to continue into May. The scope of work required of the jointly funded consultant( s) has grown significantlyand the term of the work has been extended obviously too. The modeling covered in theinitial agreement along with some field investigations has raised additional issues whichhave required additional investigation and evaluation, extending the permitting process.

7A

Based on the work performed to date and the anticipated effort to complete the

permitting process by May, the consultant( s) have requested a fee increase of $ 150, 000

to a total fee of $250,000. Since mid- December 2006 the parties and the consultant(s)

have been involved in almost weekly meetings, frequent communication with WMDstaff, and submissions of additional information or evaluation of additional areas. The

proposed amendment increases the upset fee limit and adjusts each utility participantshare in accordance with the formula established in the base/original interlocal

agreement. TWA' s share of the cost increases from $ 26, 700 to $ 66, 750.

Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Amendment to the Interlocal

Agreement relating to regional cooperation in obtaining water use permits.

Interlocal Water Use Permits - Amend ment. 03. 28. 07. blw

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN

CITY OF ST. CLOUD,

TOHOPEKALIGA WATER AUTHORITY,

ORANGE COUNTY,

POLK COUNTY

AND

REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL COOPERATION TO

PURSUE WATER USE PERMITS IN THE

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT ( hereinafter

the " First Amendment") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF ST. CLOUD, a municipal corporation, whose address is 1300 Ninth Street, St. Cloud,

Florida 34769 (" CITY'), the TOHOPEKALIGA WATER AUTHORITY, an independent

special district created pursuant to chapter 2003- 368, Laws of Florida, whose address is

101 North Church Street, 2nd

Floor, Kissimmee, Florida 34741 (" TWA"), ORANGE

COUNTY, a charter county and political subdivision of the State of Florida, whoseaddress is P. O. Box 1393, Orlando, Florida 32802- 1393 (" ORANGE COUNTY'), POLK

COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is P. O. Box

9005 Bartow, Florida 33831- 9005 (" POLK COUNTY') and REEDY CREEK

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, an independent special district created pursuant to

Chapter 67-764, Laws of Florida, whose address is P. O. Box 10170, Lake Buena Vista,

Florida 32830 (" RCID") all collectively referred to herein as the " Parties" or individuallyas a " Party."

WITNESSETH

WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an Interlocal Agreement ( hereinafter the

Agreement") on December 19, 2006 relating to participation in regional cooperation topursue water use permits in the South Florida Water Management District; and

WHEREAS, in order to proceed with said pursuit of water use permits, it will be

necessary for the Parties to replenish and increase the funding for the transientgroundwater model and professional services performed under the Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement for the precise purpose of

setting forth the terms and conditions under which said funding for the transientgroundwater model and professional services will occur; and

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement to reflect their

accord on the foregoing issue.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises which are madepart of this First Amendment, and the mutual covenants, terms and conditions contained

herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is herebyacknowledged, the Parties hereto, each intending to be legally bound, agree as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and form a

material part of this First Amendment.

SECTION 2. Changes. Section 9 of the Agreement is amended as follows: ( 1)

The term "$ 100, 000" is changed to "$ 250, 000"; ( 2) The T& M ( NTE) cost share for CITY is

changed from "$ 10, 800" to "$ 27, 000," for TWA is changed from "$ 26, 700" to "$ 66, 750,"

for ORANGE COUNTY is changed from "$ 34, 100" to "$ 85, 250," for POLK COUNTY is

changed from "$ 10, 200" to "$ 25, 500," and for RCID is changed from 118, 200" to

45, 500."

SECTION 3. Agreement in Full Force; Conflict. Except as expresslymodified herein, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and effect. In the

event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of this First Amendment and the

Agreement, the terms and conditions of this First Amendment shall control and be given

effect.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This First Amendment shall become effective on

the last date of formal execution by the Parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have made and executed this First

Amendment on the respective dates set forth under each signature.

ATTEST:

By: _

Print:

Date:

CITY OF ST. CLOUD, FLORIDA

M -

Print:

Page 3 of 7

ATTEST:

By: Secretary

Print:

Date:

M14L*jU: 4& - L

M - Chairperson

Print:

1

ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

By: Board of County Commissioners

MRichard T. Crotty, Mayor

ATTEST: MARTHA O. HAYNIE, County ComptrollerAs Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners

MDeputy Clerk

Date:

ATTEST:

27Deputy Clerk

Date:

POLK COUNTY, FLORIDA

By: Board of County Commissioners

M -

1

ATTEST:

M- Clerk, Board of Supervisors

Date:

REEDY CREEK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

M- C. Ray Maxwell, District Administrator

S:\ AErickson\Agrcnt\STOPR Interlocal Agreement Amendment -3 8 07. rtf

CATEGORY: Consent

Attachment( s): None

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE AT SANDHILL RD. WATER

RECLAMATION FACILITY

Explanation: The Sandhill Rd. Water Reclamation Facility ( WRF) was designed to provideultra -violet ( UV) disinfection as part of the facilities upgrade. The UV system was installed

mid 2005 by Cardinal Construction Company, contractor for the Sandhill Rd. WRF Phase 3Expansion project. The UV system was damaged from being submerged in water and hasnot been placed in operation. While the issues with the UV system were being resolved, sodium hypochlorite ( liquid chlorine) was being utilized to disinfect the plant effluent beforedistributing it to the customers as reclaimed water. This was scheduled to be a temporarysolution until the UV system was in operation.

The original disinfection process was designed for UV as the main source for disinfection.

The sodium hypochlorite system was designed for polishing or as a supplemental sourceof disinfection at a low dosage. Therefore, while the sodium hypochlorite is used as the

primary disinfection a higher dosage of sodium hypochlorite is required in order to achievean acceptable level of disinfection to meet permit requirements. The current chemical

operating budget for the Sandhill Rd. WRF did not anticipate using a high quantity ofsodium hypochlorite as a main source of disinfection. Currently, the average sodiumhypochlorite consumption is approximately 5, 000 gallons ( one tanker load) every threedays at a cost of $ 3, 500. Since the UV system is not planned to be in operation until June

2007, additional funding is needed to supply sodium hypochlorite to continue with thecurrent disinfection process at the Sandhill Rd. WRF. The anticipated additional

expenditure for the sodium hypochlorite is $ 100, 000.

Once the Authority' s legal counsel determines each party' s ( i. e. Chastain - Skillman —

Engineer; Cardinal Construction — Contractor; Infilco Degremont — Supplier) responsibilityfor the UV system damage, Toho will be seeking compensation for not only the damagedUV system costs but other costs such as chemical supply costs, relating to the UV systemissue.

Funding for this request will be taken from reserves.

Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of $ 100, 000 ( 85 -days supply) be added tothe chemical operating budget for the Sandhill Rd. WRF.

NaOCIFunding- SandhillWRF. 03. 28. 07. gt

CATEGORY: New Business

Attachment( s): Impact Fee Rebate Handout; Map

DISCUSSION OF AUTHORITY STRATEGY AND POLICIES FOR NON -POTABLE

WATER DEMAND

Explanation: Supervisor Wells proposed that the Board discuss the Authority' sstrategies related to providing reclaimed ( non -potable) water service. A discussion of

this subject is timely because non -potable water service accounts for approximately halfof the Authority' s present and future water demand, can utilize lower quality andtherefore less costly water sources, and has the largest potential for reduction in

demand. Therefore a key component of the Authority's long term water supply strategyshould focus on addressing this non -potable water demand and supply.

The Authority has initiated some steps to reduce non -potable water demand and toincrease the available supply of non -potable water. To address demand, the Authorityhas adopted an inverse block ( conservation rate) structure for both its irrigation and

reuse water rates. The Authority is phasing in a cost of service inverse block reuse ratewith the first phase adopted for this fiscal year and the second phase to be implemented

in the next fiscal year. Adjusting these block rates in conjunction with monitoringdemand should produce a reduction in demand on a per customer basis. Additionally, the Authority installed meters for all existing reuse ( non -potable) water customers whopreviously were billed a flat monthly rate. To increase the supply of non -potable waterthe Authority constructed the Shingle Creek Reclaimed Water Augmentation project toprovide up to 4 mgd of additional water. The Authority is investigating additional non - potable water resource and supply projects.

Supervisor Wells has proposed that the Authority adopt a policy of requiring individualdevelopments to design and construct their individual stormwater system to provide for

using stormwater as their source of irrigation water. The Authority would establishdesign specifications and/ or standards for a stormwater irrigation pumping system to beinstalled by the developer and subsequently deeded to the Authority for operation andmaintenance. Supervisor Wells believes that adopting such a policy could reduce theneed to construct as extensive a non -potable ( reclaimed water) system.

The staff believes that Supervisor Wells proposal has some merit. In fact the staff and

particularly the Authority' s Water Conservation Coordinator have been investigatingdeveloping some programs and/or policies to encourage use of stormwater as a non - potable water source. Staff has had some discussions with the engineers for the West

Lake Cove DRI about designing the stormwater management system for the

development to provide a source for irrigation. When the staff discussed designing theAuthority's administrative building as a " Green Building" with the Board one of the

concepts proposed was the use of the stormwater runoff as the primary source ofirrigation. Using stormwater as a non -potable water resource can play a significant rolein reducing the Authority' s future total water demand. However, individual developmentstormwater irrigation systems can probably not provide sufficient water year round tomeet the irrigation needs of most developments. During the typical dry months, March, April, and May, and during droughts there is little or no stormwater available. An

individual development stormwater system will most likely need a supplement/ back- upsource to meet year round and drought demand needs. Additionally, for some types ofdevelopments the cost of constructing a stormwater capture and irrigation system mayfar exceed the benefit or produce such a low quantity of water relative to demand as tomake the construction of such a system impractical. This issue would occur primarilywith relatively small commercial and residential developments.

Adopting policies and programs that either significantly encourage or require

developments where practical to utilize stormwater generated from their project as the

primary source for irrigation and other non -potable demands could significantly reducethe future non -potable water demand needed to be provided from other sources. A

significant reduction in non -potable water demand will reduce the investment the

Authority will have to make in developing alternative non -potable water supplies. The

Authority' s non -potable water system would still provide the supplement and back- upsupply needed for year round service. With the Board' s approval the staff will proceedwith developing a policy requiring certain developments to install stormwater captureand irrigation systems.

In addition to utilizing stormwater as an alternative source for non -potable waterdemands, the Authority can reduce non -potable water demand through some

regulatory/ policy approaches on irrigation. The staff has previously advised the Boardthat the Authority should adopt a policy in the near future restricting lawn and landscapeirrigation to two days per week. The St. Johns River Water Management District

SJRWMD) adopted a rule limiting irrigation to two days per week for the Central FloridaArea a few years ago. The District and Central Florida Utilities within the SJRWMD

cooperatively fund an on- going media campaign around the two days per weekirrigation limitation. The University of Florida Agricultural Extension Service supports thetwo days per week limitation as appropriate for maintenance of lawn and landscapes.

The two days per week limitation should be established through policy by the Boardfollowed with ordinances by the City and County and hopefully also a rule by the SouthFlorida Water Management District. This policy change could have a significant impacton irrigation water demand with little expense by the Authority. In conjunction with theirrigation days limitation the staff is proposing to request a policy and subsequent local

ordinances requiring the installation of a soil moisture sensor control with any irrigationsystem. The soil moisture sensor would prevent an irrigation system from operatingwhen the soil moisture level is at or above a set level. Studies on the use of soil

moisture sensors versus not using them have indicated that there are significantsavings in water use for irrigation when a soil moisture sensor is used. The cost of the

sensor is around $ 75 presently. There is a question as to their function on irrigationsystems using reclaimed water that needs to be addressed before there is

recommendation for universal use.

The Authority' s Water Conservation Coordinator has been working on developing a pilotprogram to provide incentives for developers of commercial projects to incorporate

water conservation features into their projects and renovations. A copy of the proposedprogram is attached. Staff is proposing to provide impact fee incentives to incorporatewater conservation features in the project design instead of proposing a regulatoryapproach. The pilot program will test whether financial incentives or what level of

financial incentives will result in the incorporation of water conservation features in a

project. In the late 1980s, the Authority's predecessor initiated a program of providingimpact fee credits for the installation of low flow toilets before the plumbing coderequired them. During that time the majority of developments took advantage of theprogram and installed the low flush toilets. The staff is hoping this program will producesimilar results.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Authority adopt the following waterconservation measures:

1. Develop a policy and criteria for requiring the use of stormwater as a primarysource for irrigation with the Authority' s non -potable water system.

2. Adopt a policy limiting lawn and landscape irrigation to two days a week, request the County and City to adopt similar ordinances, and request theSouth Florida Water Management District adopt a similar rule.

3. Implement the proposed water conservation impact fee incentive pilot

program for commercial projects.

Non - Potable Water Programs & Policies. 03. 28. 07. blw

Z I I Z Mg Z I I kyj•

Impact Fee Rebates for Commercial Developers

Purpose: To encourage and assist commercial developers/ builders to incorporate water

conserving features into new developments and renovations by providing financial incentives.

Program: Developers/ builders will receive a rebate based on the percentage of actual water

use reduced below the flow rate (gallons per day) upon which the impact fees are based.

Process:

Determine impact fees and flow rates under the existing fee structureDeveloper and/ or builder works with Toho staff to assess water conservation options

Jointly produce an outline of water conserving features selected by the developer, calculated water demand reduction, and communication critical to project success

e. g. landscape installers) Incorporate language into the Special Conditions section of the Developer' s Service

Agreement that identify participation in the Impact Fee Rebate Program and definerebate parameters

Developer/ builder implements project

One year following meter(s) installation, water use is determined from billing records, compared to impact fee flows, and a rebate is provided based on the percentage of

water use below the impact fee flows. Partially occupied developments will beprorated.

Illegal or cross -connections affecting rebate calculations shall invalidate the rebateprogram

Waterless urinals Soil moisture sensors

Toilets < 1. 6 gallons per flush Climate - based irrigation controllers

Faucet aerators < 2 gallons per minute Microirrigation

Showerheads < 2 gallons per minute Florida Friendly LandscapingWater treatment system for cooling tower New owner landscape/ irrigation

blowdown education

Restaurant pre -rinse spray valves < 2 In- line water heating or hot watergallons per minute circulation system

Process water reduction or reuse Green roof or other cooling demandRainwater harvesting reduction features

We are eager to hear your innovative ideas!

Contact: Liz Block, Water Conservation Coordinator, 407- 518-2569

Tohopekaliga W AuthorityOsceola C Florida

Monthly Financial Report

Fiscal Year 2007

For $ ending$ a 2007

Un -audited)

Tobopekaliga Water Authority

Osceola County, Florida

Table of Contents

Title Page

ODe[ 8fOg Results .........—.................--.......—......................—.........—..- 3

Operating Results by SVSfenO ...........--.......—......................—..........—...../ i

De[ @tDg Results by Element ...........--.......—......................—..........—...... 5

Sf8ffiOgSuD101@rV .........—.................--.......—.....................—..........—..- 6

Meter Installation SU[ Om@[ V —..—.....—................—.............—..................—... 7

Tohopekaliga Water Authority


Operating Results - Combined Systems ( in Thousands)

Line Description

1 Operating Revenues:

2 Rate Revenues

3 Water Sales

4 Wastewater Sales

5 Reclaimed Water Sales

6 Total Operating Revenues

7 Other Operating Revenues:

8 Tap Fees9 Other Operating Revenues

10 Rental Income

11 Total Other Operating Revenues

12 Non -Operating Revenues:

13 Grants

14 Interest Earnings

15 Gross Revenues

For the month ending February 28, 2007age Expnd

1, 171 6, 027 5, 320 14, 991 8, 964 40.20%

2, 152 10, 460 9, 849 26, 847 16, 387 38. 96%

225 1, 314 780 3, 088 1, 774 42. 55%

3, 548 17, 801 15, 949 44, 926 27, 125 39. 62%

218 897 557 1, 795 898 49. 97%

106 591 332 975 384 60. 62%

32 159 149 378 219 42. 06%

356 1, 647 1, 038 3, 148 1, 501 52. 32%

0 225 350 0 225) NIA

39 649 327 875 226 74. 17%

3, 943 20, 322 17, 664 48, 949 28, 627 41. 52%

16 Operating Expenses:

17 Water Treatment 180 907 785 3, 026 2, 119 29. 97%

18 Transmission & Distribution 240 1, 091 830 2, 796 1, 705 39.02%

19 Capitalized Labor - Water 9 52 38 136 84 38. 24%

20 Wastewater Treatment 642 2, 389 2, 072 7, 718 5, 329 30. 95%

21 Maintenance 119 676 631 2, 210 1, 534 30. 59%

22 Support Services 63 394 288 995 601 39.60%

23 Laboratory 32 228 192 847 619 26. 92%

24 Wastewater Collection 70 451 329 1, 411 960 31. 96%

25 Capitalized Labor - Sewer 2 9 6 23 14 39.13%

26 Administrative Services 123 576 945 1, 834 1, 258 31. 41%

27 Engineering Services 139 843 0 2, 850 2, 007 29.58%

28 Business Services 71 389 0 1, 523 1, 134 25. 54%

29 Applications Support 20 102 0 410 308 24. 88%

30 Administrative and General 455 1, 841 1, 463 4, 799 2, 958 38. 36%

31 Water Impact Fund 4 22 18 90 68 24. 44%

32 Wastewater Impact Fund 16 86 62 274 188 31. 39%

33 PILOT Fee ( payments in lieu of tax) 375 1, 877 1, 530 4, 563 2, 686 41. 14%

34 Total Operating Expenses 2, 560 11, 933 9, 189 35, 505 23, 572 33. 61%

35 Net revenue available for Debt Service 1, 383 8, 4758, 389 13, 444 59055 62. 40%

36 Divided by: Annual Debt Service 686 3, 429 3, 445 8, 271 4, 842 41. 46%

37 Debt Service Coverage ( DSC) 2. 45x 2. 46x 1. 63x

38 Net Revenues after Debt Service 697 5, 0304, 960 5, 173 213 95. 88%

39 Total Revenues from Impact Fees 1, 845 6, 375 10, 164 23, 465 17, 090 27. 17%

40 Net Available for Capital Improvements

and Other System Requirements 2, 542 11, 335 15, 194 28, 638 17, 303 39. 58%

41 DSC excluding PILOT Fees 2. 99x 2.9x 2. 18x

un -audited) 3



Operating Results - By Systems ( in Thousands)


17 Water Treatment

18 Transmission & Distribution

19 Capitalized Labor - Water

20 Wastewater Treatment

21 Maintenance

22 Support Services

23 Laboratory24 Wastewater Collection

25 Capitalized Labor - Sewer

26 Administrative Services

27 Engineering Services28 Business Services

29 Applications Support

30 Administrative and General

31 Water Impact Fund

32 Wastewater Impact Fund

33 PILOT Fee ( payments in lieu of tax)

34 Total Operating Expenses

35 Net revenue available for Debt Service

36 Divided by: Annual Debt Service37 Debt Service Coverage ( DSC)

38 Net Revenues after Debt Service

39 Total Revenues from Impact Fees


and Other System Requirements

41 DSC excluding PILOT Fees

Total

6, 027

10, 460

1, 314

17, 801

897

591

159

1, 647

225

649

20, 322

768 28 111 907

YTD - For the month ending February 28, 2007Line Description

1, 091

Toho I I Toho II 1 Toho III

52

2, 071 22 296


1 69 676

2 Rate Revenues

1 394

219

3 Water Sales 4, 692 63 1, 272

4 Wastewater Sales 8, 812 58 1, 590

5 Reclaimed Water Sales 1, 259 55 0

6 Total Operating Revenues 14, 763 176 2, 862


389

0 0

8 Tap Fees 882 15 0

9 Other Operating Revenues 591 0 0

10 Rental Income 159 0 0

11 Total Other Operating Revenues 1, 632 15 0


13 Grants 225 0 0

14 Interest Earnings 649 0 0

15 Gross Revenues 17, 269 191 2, 862


17 Water Treatment

18 Transmission & Distribution

19 Capitalized Labor - Water

20 Wastewater Treatment

21 Maintenance

22 Support Services

23 Laboratory24 Wastewater Collection

25 Capitalized Labor - Sewer

26 Administrative Services

27 Engineering Services28 Business Services

29 Applications Support

30 Administrative and General

31 Water Impact Fund

32 Wastewater Impact Fund



35 Net revenue available for Debt Service

36 Divided by: Annual Debt Service37 Debt Service Coverage ( DSC)

38 Net Revenues after Debt Service

39 Total Revenues from Impact Fees


and Other System Requirements

41 DSC excluding PILOT Fees

Total

6, 027

10, 460

1, 314

17, 801

897

591

159

1, 647

225

649

20, 322

768 28 111 907

968 2 121 1, 091

52 0 0 52

2, 071 22 296 2, 389

606 1 69 676

393 0 1 394

219 0 9 228

407 1 43 451

9 0 0 9

0 0 576 576

742 0 101 843

319 0 70 389

0 0 102 102

1, 676 8 157 1, 841

22 0 0 22

86 0 0 86

1, 877 0 0 1, 877

10, 215 62 1, 656

7, 054 129 1, 206

11, 933

8, 389

3, 429

2. 45x

4, 960

6, 375

11, 335

2. 99x

un -audited) 4



Operating Results - Combined Element ( in Thousands)

Line Description

5, 320


2 Rate Revenues

3 Water Sales

4 Wastewater Sales

5 Reclaimed Water Sales

6 Total Operating Revenues


8 Tap Fees9 Other Operating Revenues

10 Rental Income

11 Total Other Operating Revenues


13 Grants

14 Interest Earnings

15 Gross Revenues


17 Total Personnel Costs

18 Professional Services

19 Training20 Utilities

21 Auto Maintenance

22 Other Maintenance

23 Gas & Oil

24 Other Supplies

25 Chemicals

26 Other Operating Costs27 Insurance



30 Net revenue

For the month ending February 28, 2007age Expnd

1, 171 6, 027 5, 320 14, 991 8, 964 40.20%

2, 152 10, 460 9, 849 26, 847 16, 387 38. 96%

225 1, 314 780 3, 088 1, 774 42. 55%

3, 548 17, 801 15, 949 44, 926 27, 125 39. 62%

218 897 557 1, 795 898 49. 97%

106 591 332 975 384 60. 62%

32 159 149 378 219 42. 06%

356 1, 647 1, 038 3, 148 1, 501 52. 32%

0 225 350 0 225) NIA

39 649 327 875 226 74. 17%

3, 943 20, 322 17, 664 48, 949 28, 627 41. 52%

740 4, 099 3, 009 11, 208 7, 109 36. 57%

294 1, 674 1, 136 6, 160 4, 486 27. 18%

5 34 42 223 189 15. 25%

268 1, 194 1, 354 4, 298 3, 104 27.78%

31 158 78 257 99 61. 48%

401 1, 002 594 3, 319 2, 317 30. 19%

37 164 102 428 264 38. 32%

22 173 151 552 379 31. 34%

102 602 484 2, 007 1, 405 30.00%

124 715 709 2, 043 1, 328 35. 00%

161 241 0 447 206 53. 91%

375 1, 877 1, 530 4, 563 2, 686 41. 14%

2, 560 11, 933 9, 189 35, 505 23, 572 33. 61%

1, 383 8, 389 8, 475 13, 444 5, 055 62. 40%

un -audited) 5



Staffing Summary

15 Engineering and Plannin

16 Existing Positions17 Administrative Support 0 1 1 0

18

Fiscal Year Ending September 30

12

Line Description 2006 2007 Filled Vacant Comments

9 1 Inspector

20 New Positions

1 Operations and Maintenance

21 Engineering Secretary 0

2 Existing Positions

0

22 Engineers 0

Foreman, Utility Worker3 Field Operations 47 47 44 3 Operation Mgr - Maintenance

4 Treatment Plant Operations 31 33 32 1 Operator

5 Maintenance 15 13 13 0

26

6 Laboratory 8 7 7 0

Administrative Support

7 Support Services 9 9 9 0

9

8 Application Support 1 3 3 0

3

8 New Positions

30 Safety 1 1 1

10 Operations Manager - Treatment ( FO) 0 1 0 1

11 Utility Worker - Maintenance 0 1 1 0

33

12 Quality Control Coordinator - Lab 0 1 0 1

Accountant 11

13 Scheduler - Field Operations 0 1 1 0

0

14 Total Operation and Maintenance 111 116 110 6

25

15 Engineering and Plannin

16 Existing Positions17 Administrative Support 0 1 1 0

18 Engineering 12 12 12 0

19 Construction Inspection 10 10 9 1 Inspector

20 New Positions

21 Engineering Secretary 0 1 1 0

22 Engineers 0 3 2 1

23 Engineering Assistants 0 2 2 0

24 Total Engineering and Planning 22 29 27 2

25 Administration

26 Office of Director 6 6 6 0

27 Administrative Support 3 2 1 1 Scanner

28 Finance and Accounting 9 9 8 1 Warehouse Clerk

29 Customer Service 3 3 3 0

30 Safety 1 1 1 0

31 New Positions

32 Customer Service Lead 0 1 1 0

33 Human Resource Specialist 0 1 1 0

34 Accountant 11 0 1 0 1

35 Accounting Tech 0 1 1 0

36 Total Administration 22 25 22 3

37 Total 155 170 11159

un -audited) 6



Meter Installation Summary

5 Beginning balance, January 31, 2007 751

6 New meter tickets opened 557

7 Outstanding meter tickets closed ( 453)

8 Ending balance, February 28, 2007 855

9 Backlog


11 Open Meter tickets rec' d within last 15 days ( 252)

12 Estimated Meter installation backlog 593

13 Outstanding Meters in Meter Program 117

14

15

Fiscal Year - To - Date

rior Year Comparison 2007 Prior Year # Change % Change

New meter installations 2, 002 2, 009 (' C) - 0. 3%

16 Current Month Sewer Permits Paid 136

un - audited) 7

For the month ending February 28, 2007

Line Description Total Current 30 Days 60 Days 90 Days 90 Days+

1 Meter Aging

2 Open meter tickets 1, 308 557 333 89 44 285

3 Closed meter tickets during the month 453) 199) ( 124) 37) 10) 83)

4 Outstanding meter tickets 855 358 209 52 34 202

5 Beginning balance, January 31, 2007 751

6 New meter tickets opened 557

7 Outstanding meter tickets closed ( 453)


9 Backlog


11 Open Meter tickets rec' d within last 15 days ( 252)

12 Estimated Meter installation backlog 593

13 Outstanding Meters in Meter Program 117

14

15

Fiscal Year - To - Date

rior Year Comparison 2007 Prior Year # Change % Change

New meter installations 2, 002 2, 009 (' C) - 0. 3%

16 Current Month Sewer Permits Paid 136

un - audited) 7


Osceola County, FloridaCustomer Statistics

For the month ending February 28, 2007Line Description Toho I I Toho II 1 Toho III I Total

1 Water

2 Residential Services

3 Number of Customers 32, 133 274 9, 817 42, 224

4 Billed Consumption ( 000s) 157, 030 875 55, 004 212, 909

6 Average monthly use per customer 4, 887 3, 193 5, 603 5, 042

7 Commerical Services

8 Number of Customers 9, 853 186 358 10, 397



12 Irrigation Services

13 Number of Customers 11, 477 1 1, 915 13, 393


16 Average monthly use per customer 10, 736 0 3, 829 9, 748

17 Wastewater


19 Number of Customers 30, 170 274 8, 089 38,533




24 Number of Customers 9, 022 178 275 9, 475



28 Reclaimed Service


30 Number of Customers 6, 415 253 6, 668

31 Billed Consumption ( 000s) 46, 914 2, 020 48, 934

33 Average monthly use per customer 7, 313 7, 984' 7, 339


35 Number of Customers 3, 001 46 3, 047

36 Billed Consumption ( 000s) 111, 337 2, 888. 114, 225

38 Average monthly use per customer 37, 100 62, 783 37, 488

un -audited) 8

HEAR AUDIENCE ( Anything requiring a vote will be heard at a … and Meetings... · 2018-03-14 ·...

Documents

Transcript of HEAR AUDIENCE ( Anything requiring a vote will be heard at a … and Meetings... · 2018-03-14 ·...