HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 11 00 - Water and Wastewater Rate StudyDraft as of
November 3, 1993 HAI #92-023.06
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Sebastian
1225 Main Street
Sebastian, FL 32958-8697
Subject: 1993 Water and Sewer Rate Study
Gentlemen:
We have completed our review of the water and sewer rates for the City of Sebastian (the
"City") and have summarized the results of our analysis, assumptions, and conclusions in this
report which is submitted for your consideration. The City recently received from Indian
., River County (the "County") a limited sized water and sewer utility which provides service to
just over 200 connections. As part of the initiation of service to this utility under City
ownership, the City adopted the same rate structure and level as that used by the County for
water and sewer service. The City is now in the process of acquiring the water and sewer
system referred to as the Sebastian Highlands system which is presently owned and operated
by General Development Utilities, Inc. (GDU). The acquisition of the Sebastian Highlands
system by the City is anticipated to be completed prior to the end of the calendar year ending
December 31, 1993 pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Water and Sewer System
Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and GDU (the "Purchase and Sale
Agreement"). As a result of the anticipated acquisition of the GDU system, the operations of
the existing City and GDU system (collectively the "System") must be combined and rates
must be established in order to meet the operational and regulatory aspects of the System. As
a result of these factors, the City authorized this study of the rates for water and sewer service.
.. In preparing the analyses of the operation of the utility systems and the development of the
rates proposed herein, we have relied upon, among other things, the Annual Budget for the
City for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1994; detailed customer statistical data compiled
by the City and GDU; actual operating data as either provided by GDU for this study or as
presented in the Application for an Increase in Rates and Charges as filed by GDU to the City
for the Sebastian Highlands System (the "GDU Rate Filing"); information provided by the
City's Managing Underwriter's relative to the financing of the acquisition and system
improvements of the System; and other historical and projected data made available by the
_ City. The forecast of operations as reflected in the study encompass the fiscal years ending
September 30, 1994 through 1998. The projections of the utility operations were based on
recent trends regarding system revenue and expenses, expansion of the system, system growth
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 1
in the customer base of the system, and recent or anticipated changes in operations due to the
acquisition.
HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED SYSTEM SALES
AND CUSTOMER USAGE STATISTICS
General
This section of the Report summarizes the recent and projected trends in water and sewer
customers, water production and wastewater treatment, and associated sales and usage
characteristics for the System. The historical period reflected in this Report for the GDU
facilities is the calendar year 1990 through 1992 and the Fiscal Year 1993. For the purposes
of comparison and since the City has only operated its utility system for approximately five
months, the historical results are only for the Fiscal Year 1993, and were annualized to reflect
an assumed full year of operation. The projected period covers the fiscal years 1994 through
1998.
Water System
The water system of the GDU system has experienced an increase in customers and sales since
1990 due to continued growth and development located within the service area. As of
September 1993, the GDU water system provided service to 1,238 accounts of which 1,186 or
95.8% were considered as single-family residential dwellings. The City's water system as of
September 1993 consisted of 203 accounts located in two manufactured housing developments
(known as the Park Place and Palm Lakes Club developments) and are all essentially
considered as residential units. Table 1 at the end of this Report delineate the historical and
projected sales for the Water System for both the City and GDU systems as summarized
below:
Calendar Year
Average Annual Number of Accounts
Water Sales
(000's)
Ended December 31
(Historical)
City
GDU
Combined
City
GDU
Combined
1990
N/A
1,094
1,094
N/A
94,246
94,246
1991
N/A
1,138
1,138
N/A
86,393
86,393
1992
N/A
1,185
1,185
N/A
96,146
96,146
— 1993 0)
190
1,215
1,405
8,595
99,818
108,413
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 2
^ Fiscal Year
Average Annual Number of Accounts
Water Sales (000's)
Ended September 30 (2)
(Projected)
City GDU
Combined
City
GDU
Combined
1994
215 1,254
1,469
9,257
102,554
111,810
1995
240 1,293
1,533
10,243
105,460
115,702
1996
279 1,332
1,611
11,792
108,344
120,136
1997
316 1,371
1,687
13,244
111,206
124,451
1998
353 1,410
1,763
14,682
114,047
128,729
Average Annual
^ Growth Rate
1313®2% 3.02%
4.64%
11_3%
2.70%
3.49%
(1) Reflects Fiscal Year
ended September 30,
1993 results.
City figures
annualized
for comparative
^ purposes.
(2) Although shown separately, assumes combined system for operational purposes.
As can be seen above, it is estimated that the average annual increase in water customers is
projected to be approximately 4.6% annually. It is estimated that the growth in water utility
customers would be derived primarily from infill development of the existing serviceable area
and expansion of the planned unit development (PUD) at the Park Place residential
community. No customer growth associated with any anticipated expansion of the water
system by the City has been recognized. As can be seen below, the City has existing
serviceable area and planned residential development within the water system service area
which should provide increased customer growth for the projection period.
^ Identified Residential Customer Growth
No. of Accounts Total Accounts
^ Development Served (t) at Buildout Service
Park Place 178 684 Water and Wastewater
Palm Lake Club 25 136 Water and Wastewater
Sebastian Highlands 1,238 2,823 (2) Water
Sebastian Highlands 582 980 (2) Wastewater
(1) Estimated number of accounts served as of September 1993.
(2) Reflects total number of units (lots) where service is currently available, not total lots of the utility
service area of the GDU System.
With respect to water sales gallons for the forecast period, it was assumed that the average use
per account would decrease during the projected period. This decrease was assumed
recognizing i) that the primary increase in the growth of the System would occur in the
residential class which generally has lower water usage needs than general service or
_ commercial customers and ii) general conservation measures which may take place by the
utility's customer base. As a result, the projected increase in water sales for the forecast
period is less than the projected customer growth. The net effect of this assumption in water
RJO/cl/R-S -1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 3
use is to recognize a decreasing trend in the average revenue per account during the forecast
period.
With respect to water production and treatment, it is anticipated that the City will interconnect
the two individual systems by October, 1994. Once interconnected, the existing water
production and treatment facilities at the Sebastian Highlands plant is anticipated to be utilized
to meet the System capacity requirements. Operating under the combined utility System basis,
it is anticipated that through the forecast period the System will utilize approximately 53% to
61 % of the total available design water treatment capacity. This is summarized below:
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
1994 M 1995 1996 1997 1998
Design Capacity of Water
Treatment Plant (MGD-ADF) 0.670 0.670 0.670 0.670 0.670
Anticipated Treatment
Requirements (MGD-ADF) 0.352 0.365 0.379 0.392 0.406
Percent of Total 52.5% 54.5% 56.6% 58.5% 60.6%
(*) Presented on combined basis even though interconnection not anticipated to be complete.
For the projection period, miscellaneous losses and unaccounted for water averaging
approximately 13.04% of the total water requirements was recognized. The allowance for
losses or unaccounted for water, sometimes referred to as unbilled water, is due to a variety of
factors, including water used in hydrant line flushing, water used for fire fighting, slow
registering meters which understate water use, and losses due to leaks. The loss factor was
based on an analysis of water production and sales requirements and is typical of the
percentage of water unaccountability experienced by other Florida utilities.
For the purposes of this Report, we have assumed that the forecast in water customers is
_ expected to increase at growth rates consistent with recent historical trends of both utility
Systems. Based on discussions with City staff, the growth is expected to be based primarily in
the residential class consistent with the land use requirements of the City of Sebastian.
Wastewater System
The wastewater system of the GDU system provides service to a smaller service area when
compared to the water system. As was the case with the water system, the GDU wastewater
system has experienced an increase in customers and sales since 1990. This growth is due to
continued development within the service area of the wastewater system. As of September,
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI //92-023.06 4
1993, the GDU wastewater system provided service to 582 accounts of which 578 or 99%
were categorized as single family residential.
The City's wastewater system as of September 1993 consisted of 317 accounts which was
equivalent to approximately 1,055 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU). An ERU represents
the equivalent usage requirements of a single family residential customer. Since commercial
., or multi -family customers are generally served by larger sized meters than the standard
residential customer, it is useful to equate such customers on an equivalent basis to the
residential class to present a more consistent amount of the total customer base served. In
-� addition to the wastewater customers located within the Park Place and Palm Lake Club
residential developments, the City's wastewater customer base also includes customers which
were part of the County's system which are located in the City's service area. These
customers were transferred to the City pursuant to the provisions of an Interlocal Utilities
Agreement between the City and the County dated April 21, 1991 (the "Interlocal
Agreement"). Prior to the Interlocal Agreement, the City pursuant to Resolution R-87-6 gave
the County a 30 -year exclusive franchise for the provision of water and sewer services within
the City. Effective on May 1, 1992 (referred to as the "Cancellation Date" in the Interlocal
Agreement), the franchise and all of the rights granted to the County were canceled. As a
result, the rights to purchase the GDU facilities, to provide service to the Park Place and Palm
Lake Club units, as well as certain other wastewater customers which have reserved capacity
in the County's wastewater treatment facilities were assigned back to the City. As part of the
terms of the Interlocal Agreement, certain classes of customers were defined as follows:
Class I Units - Units in the CITY which are connected to or which have reserved capacity in the
COUNTY wastewater system before the Cancellation Date and which have a collection system
available to them, even if the physical connection to the unit has not been made.
Class II Units - Units within the CITY which have reserved capacity in the COUNTY
wastewater system before the Cancellation Date but which do not have a collection system
available.
Class III Units - Units within the CITY other than Class I and II Units.
.. The County presently provides all of the wastewater treatment and effluent disposal capacity
for the City's customers. As of September 1993, the breakdown of customers by class
designation as reflected in the Interlocal Agreement was as follows:
As of September, 1993
Accounts ERC
Class I Connected
Park Place/Palm Lakes 203 203
Other Customers 22 183
Class I - Reserved/Unconnected 92 669
Class II and III
Totals 317 1,055
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate.Sty
HAI #92-023.06 5
Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Interlocal Agreement, once the interconnection of
the City and GDU wastewater systems are completed, it is anticipated that the County will
transfer to the City for treatment purposes all of the Class I designated units associated with
the Park Place and Palm Ickes Club customers.
_ The historical and projected customer and usage statistics for the sewer system are shown on
Table 1 at the end of this Report and is summarized
as follows:
— Calendar Year
Average Annual Number of Accounts
Billed Sales (Water Gallons)
Ended December 31
(Historical)
City (r)
GDU
Combined
City
GDU
Combined
1990
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
—
1991
N/A
558
558
N/A
34,900
34,900
1992
N/A
558
558
N/A
39,527
39,527
1993 (2)
304
565
869
15,375
36,392
51,767
Fiscal
Ended September 30 (3)
(Projected)
City
GDU
Combined
City
GDU
Combined
1994
329
568
897
15,862
36,501
52,364
1995
354
571
925
16,462
36,511
52,974
— 1996
393
574
967
17,406
36,520
53,926
1997
430
577
1,007
18,290
36,529
54,818
1998
467
580
1,047
19,165
36,536
55,700
Average Annual
Growth Rate
9.0%
0.5%
3.8%
4.5%
0.1%
1.5%
(1) For City System, includes customers treated by City and County facilities.
(2) Reflects Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1993 results. City figures annualized for comparative
purposes.
(3) Although shown separately, assumes combined system for operational purposes.
As can be seen above, it is estimated that the average annual increase in sewer customers is
projected to be approximately 3.8% annually. It is estimated that the growth in sewer utility
customers would be derived primarily from infill development of the existing serviceable area
and expansion of the PUD at the Park Place residential community. No customer growth
associated with providing service (either treatment or collection as appropriate) to the
remaining Class I customers or associated with any anticipated expansion of the sewer system
by the City has been recognized. As was previously summarized in the discussion regarding
water system growth, the City has existing serviceable areas and planned residential
development within the wastewater system service area which should provide increased
customer growth for the projection period.
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI //92-023.06 6
_ With respect to the utilization of wastewater treatment capacity and once the two utility
systems are interconnected by October 1994, it is estimated that the City will be utilizing
between 61% and 72% of the permitted capacity of the City treatment facilities during the
forecast period. This capacity utilization does not take into account any wastewater flow or
capacity reservation for Class I customers utilizing County -owned wastewater treatment
facilities. All Class I customers of the City have paid an impact fee for treatment capacity
utilization and therefore should have capacity allocable to such customers. The summary of
the City -owned capacity utilization is summarized below:
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
19941'1 1995 1996 1997 1998
Design Capacity of Wastewater
Treatment Plant (MGD-ADF) 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142
Anticipated Treatment
Requirements (MGD-ADF) 0.086 0.089 0.093 0.097 0.102
Percent of Total 60.6% 62.7% 65.6% 68.3% 71.7%
(*) Presented on combined basis even though interconnection not anticipated to be complete.
PROJECTED OPERATING RESULTS
The various components of costs associated with the operation, maintenance, financing of
major capital improvements, renewal and replacement of facilities, and assurance of the
adequacy and continuity of reliable service to customers are generally referred to as the
— revenue requirements of a municipal operated utility. The determination of the annual revenue
requirements as they relate to the City's water and sewer systems includes operation and
maintenance expenses, debt service, renewals and replacements (capital improvements), a
transfer to the City for administrative costs and other costs paid from operating revenues. The
totaling of the cost components mentioned above, after adjusting for other income and other
operating revenues, results in the total annual net revenue requirements (generally a "cash
flow" statement) and represents the amount of revenues required to be collected through user
fees or rates.
Tables 7 and 8 at the end of this report summarizes the estimated revenue requirements for the
forecast period for the water and sewer systems, respectively. The analysis was developed
utilizing the City's Fiscal Year 1994 budget and recent historical financial data for GDU as a
baseline for the analysis. The budget figures were subsequently reviewed and adjusted to
reflect changes in the cost of operations (primarily as it relates to the acquisition of the GDU
facilities), to recognize ratemaking standards for the design of user fees, and to assist in the
allocation of costs among the rate structure components. As shown on Tables 7 and 8 and
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 7
summarized on the following page, the existing water and sewer rates are anticipated to be
sufficient during the Fiscal Year 1994 to meet the expected revenue requirements of the
combined system:
For the Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
19940) 1995 1996 1997
1998
^ Water System at
Net Revenue Requirements
from Rates $383,906 $469,206 $527,958 $560,872
$592,547
Revenues From Rates
Existing Rates (3) 383,907 $477,590 $497,651 $517,351
$542,327
_ Price Index Adjustment (4) 0 14.328 30,307 47,972
68.067
Total Applicable Rate Revenue 383,907 491,918 527,958 565,323
610,394
Revenue Surplus/(Deficiency)
^ Amount 0 22,712 0 4,452
17,846
Percent Adjustment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
^ Wastewater System (s
Net Revenue Requirements
from Rates $387,410 $471,874 $511,573 $534,619
$559,289
^ Revenues From Rates
Existing Rates (3) 387,410 $472,144 $483,148 $493,580
$503,974
Price Index Adjustment (4) 0 14.164 29,424 45.768
63.253
^ Total Applicable Rate Revenue 387,410 486,308 512,572 539,348
567,227
Revenue Surplus/(Deficiency)
Amount 0 14,435 999 4,729
7,938
Percent Adjustment 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
^ (1) Reflects ten months of operations, consistent with the financing assumptions for the acquisition of the
GDU facilities.
(2) Derived from Table 7.
(3) Based on Existing City Rates; included estimated revenues from GDU acquisition at the City's Rates
(rate consistency).
(4) Assumed price index adjustment factor of 3.0 % annually.
^ (5) Derived from Table 8.
As can be seen above, the projected revenues of the System based on the existing
rates of the
City and recognizing an annual price index adjustment factor of 3.0%, are anticipated to be
adequate to meet the projected expenditure needs for the forecast period.
RJO/cl/R-S -1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 8
M Principal Considerations and Assumptions Regarding Projected Operating Results
In the preparation of this Report and the conclusions that follow, we have made certain
assumptions with respect to conditions which may occur in the future. While we believe these
assumptions are reasonable for the purpose of this Report, they are dependent upon future
., events and actual conditions may differ from those assumed. In addition, for our projections,
estimates and studies, we have used and relied upon certain information and assumptions
provided to us or prepared by others, including: i) information and assumptions provided to
us by the City such as data regarding recent historical financial information and historical
customer and sales statistics; ii) information contained in the GDU Rate Filing; iii) information
provided by the City's Managing Underwriters with respect to assumptions regarding the
issuance of the Utilities System Revenue Bonds, Series 1993; and iv) information provided by
the City and GDU with respect to System growth. While we believe use thereof to be
_ reasonable for the purpose of this Report, we offer no further assurances with respect thereto,
other than the purpose of this Report. To the extent that actual conditions differ from those
assumed by us herein or from information or assumptions provided to us, or prepared by
others, the actual results will vary from those estimated and projected herein.
In malting the projections and estimates summarized in this Report, the principal
.. considerations and assumptions made by us and the principal information and assumptions
provided to us, or prepared by others, include the following:
1. For the City of Sebastian's utility system, the Fiscal Year 1994 Budget as
provided by the City served as the baseline for the expenditure projections and
the underlying assumptions therein are reasonable and reflect anticipated
operations. Such amounts were incorporated into the Fiscal Year 1994
components of the study period, except for adjustments as discussed hereinafter.
Utility costs for the GDU-Sebastian Highland utility system were based on
various data prepared by the management of GDU, including but not limited to
information regarding 1991 operating results contained within the GDU Rate
Filing. In addition, other data received from the management of GDU in
association with the City's acquisition of the GDU facilities have also been
relied upon. As shown on Table 2, the revenue requirements of both utility
systems were consolidated based on the estimated Fiscal year 1994 operational
requirements and categorized according anticipated budgetary departments by
utility function. The estimated Fiscal Year 1994 expenditures were
subsequently escalated for the projected period reflected in the Report.
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 9
It was further assumed that the acquisition would occur on or about December
1, 1993. Therefore for the Fiscal Year 1994, the revenues and expenditures of
the combined City and GDU systems reflect ten (10) months of operation.
2. The expenditure projections reflected for the Fiscal Year 1994 was subsequently
allocated between the water and wastewater utilities in order to design utility
rates for each system which are on a self sufficient basis (cost of service). The
allocation of utility expenditures for the Fiscal Year 1994 between the two
utility systems were based on the nature of the cost incurrence of such
expenditures and is shown in detail on Table 3 at the end of this report. The
following is a summary of the cost allocation of the expenditures between the
water and wastewater systems.
As shown on Table 3 and summarized below, the Fiscal Year 1994 adjusted
operating expenses allocable to the wastewater and water systems is as follows:
Operating Expenses
Water System
Wastewater System
Total System
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI /192-023.06 10
Fiscal Year 1994
$292,215
407.066
$699,281
Fiscal Year 1994
— Budget Department Description
Allocation Method
Water
Sewer
Utilities Administration
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
31.70%
— Water Treatment
Direct Assignment
100.00%
—
Wastewater Treatment
Direct Assignment
—
100.00%
Collection/Distribution
Utility Plant Assets exclusive
66.18%
33.82%
—
of Treatment
Lift Stations
Direct Assignment
—
100.00%
— Customer Service
Uncollectible Accounts
Revenues
49.46%
50.54%
— All Other Costs
Utility Bills
62.09%
37.91%
Non -Departmental
Contingency Allowance
—
Operating Expenses
41.92%
58.08%
Administrative Allocation
Revenues/Customers
49.46%
50.54%
All Other
Uniform
50.00%
50.00%
As shown on Table 3 and summarized below, the Fiscal Year 1994 adjusted
operating expenses allocable to the wastewater and water systems is as follows:
Operating Expenses
Water System
Wastewater System
Total System
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI /192-023.06 10
Fiscal Year 1994
$292,215
407.066
$699,281
3. In order to properly project operating expenses for the System, certain analyses
and adjustments were made to the GDU Calendar Year 1992 expenditure
summary for the water and wastewater systems. These adjustments are as
follows:
a. A comparison of calendar year 1991 and 1992 operating expenses was
conducted to see if any material variations in expense were identified.
Based on our comparison, it appeared that the two years of operating
expenses were generally comparable. Such amounts were then escalated
to reflect estimated Fiscal Year 1994 results such that the budgetary
estimates of the City's system could be consolidated with the projected
GDU operating expenses.
b. Salaries and wages and associated benefits were adjusted to recognize the
hiring of the GDU employees, which includes the reclassification of one
employee to the City's General Fund (reference assumption 11).
C. Administrative and General Expenses and Utility Management Fees were
not recognized as an operating expense for the City when compared to
the GDU operations to recognize the management and administration of
the System being overseen by the City staff.
d. Sales taxes, property taxes and Franchise Taxes are not an expenditure
which will be incurred by the City from the operation of the utility due
to the non-profit, exempt status from such taxes. As a result, such
expenses have not been recognized in the development of the System
operating results assuming public ownership.
e. Contractual Services - Engineering was increased by $11,000 to
recognize increased costs in providing general assistance for utility
consolidation as a result of the expansion of the System operations due to
the Acquisition.
f. Rent expenses for utility personnel were assumed to not be required
since the City will own such facilities.
g. Based on discussions with the City, the City will not pay interest on
customer deposits but will utilize such earnings to meet the expenditure
requirements of the utility.
4. Materials and supplies expenses, other contractual services expenses, repair and
maintenance expenses, and certain other operating expenses have been projected
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI //92-023.06 11
M
M
to increase in general from historical and current budgetary levels at a rate equal
to inflation ranging from 2.4 to 3.6 percent based on the nature of the
expenditure. These escalation factors were based on a seven year analysis of
historical price indices used by many utilities for financial forecasting and the
rate setting process. These indices included: i) the Gross National Product
Implicit Price Deflator Index which is used by the Florida Public Service
Commission in the establishment of price indexes for operating costs as required
pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(a), Florida Statutes in the regulation of private
or investor-owned utilities; ii) the Consumer Price Index; iii) indices derived
from the Engineering News Record, a publication which tracks trends in
construction and material costs; and iv) indices reflected the Handy -Whitman
Index of Public Utility Construction Costs for the South Atlantic Region.
A summary of the above mentioned inflation rate and price indices is
summarized on Table 6 at the end of this Report. Tables 4 and 5 provide a
summary of the projection of the water and wastewater operating expenses
respectively for the forecast period by expense category and budgetary
departments.
5. As a result of the acquisition of the GDU-Sebastian Highlands utilities system,
the City will need to hire a sufficient number of employees to meet operational
and regulatory requirements associated with the System. Pursuant to the Bond
Resolution, the City will need to hire sufficient staff to meet such System needs
and which will be utilized to assure the proper functioning, maintenance and
management of the System. In order to meet the operating needs of the System,
the City expects to i) utilize existing personnel from its utility system and ii)
hire additional utility employees to operate and maintain the acquired facilities
from GDU. These additional personnel are anticipated to be transferred from
the GDU staff but may be hired from outside sources. The estimated cost of the
total personnel services, including employee benefits, to meet System needs are
estimated to amount to approximately $206,000 for the combined utility system
^
on an annualized basis in Fiscal Year 1994.
Based on discussions with the City, it was assumed that the required licensed
water and wastewater operators, the field service personnel, and customer
service workers of the GDU-Sebastian Highlands System (total of 4 additional
employees) would become employees of the City effective upon the Acquisition.
It was further assumed for the purposes of this Report that such employees
would maintain essentially their current salaries and begin to receive the
employee pensions and benefits of the City. Any potential liabilities resulting
from previous employment with GDU (e.g., accrued vacation or sick leave)
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 12
would not be included as part of the employment and compensation
requirements of the City and have not been recognized in this analysis.
6. Based on discussions with the City, the escalation of wages and salaries above
Fiscal Year 1994 budgeted amounts was increased by 4.0% annually to reflect
increases due to inflation and allowances for salary adjustments such as merit
increases and cost of living adjustments. Personal benefits (i.e. contributions
toward retirement, health insurance, FICA, etc.) where projected to remain at
the same percentage relationship to total salaries as was reflected in the Fiscal
Year 1994 budget for the City's system based on discussions with the City.
Finally, no additional personnel were assumed to be required or added during
the forecast period of the study.
7. The cost of power and chemicals for the utility system was escalated for the
., forecast period based on i) an analysis of the electrical and chemical
requirements of the facilities based on a review of historical bills and usage
rates,- and other factors; ii) recognition of an allowance for inflation applied to
the per unit cost of the expense consistent with recent historical trends; and iii)
the projection of flow requirements estimated for the System as shown on Table
1.
8. An allowance for bad debt expenses or uncollectable accounts has been
_ recognized as a revenue requirement to recognize a certain amount of revenues
which will be considered as uncollectable and written off throughout the year.
This expenditure item reflects an adjustment to the Fiscal Year 1994 budget and
was projected based on trends incurred by utilities statewide and discussions
with City personnel. A bad debt ratio estimated at 0.5 % of sales revenues was
subsequently applied to the level of sales revenue projected for the forecast
-. period in the study to estimate the amount of expense to recognize. The
increase in the Fiscal Year 1994 revenue requirements recognizing this expense
item is $4,210.
9. Pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County, the
County provides wholesale or bulk wastewater treatment and effluent disposal
service to the City. Based on the capital improvement plans of the City, it is
anticipated that once the existing sewer facilities of the City and GDU are
interconnected, the need for bulk wastewater service to the Park Place and Palm
Ickes Club utility customers will not be required since the City will have the
ability to provide wastewater treatment services. For the remaining wastewater
customers, it was assumed that i) the customers will continue to be serviced or
require capacity at the County's facilities; ii) will not require any additional
service requirements (flow) above existing requirements; and iii) for customers
r.,
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. S ty
HAI #92-023.06 13
„ which reserved capacity but which have not yet connected, such customers will
not connect to wastewater facilities, thus not contributing any flow to the
County's facilities. Additionally, it was further assumed that the rates for
wastewater treatment capacity from the County would escalate annually at 3.6%
to recognize increases for inflationary allowances. Based on these assumptions
and as summarized in Table 10, the purchases from the County for bulk
wastewater service is as follows:
Bulk Wastewater Expense (*)
Fiscal Year
Billing Charges
Base Facility Charges
Flow Charges
Total
1994
$6,080
$125,206
$48,086
$179,372
1995
2,834
126,787
39,349
168,970
1996
2,937
131,352
40,765
175,054
1997
3,042
136,080
42,233
181,355
1998.
3,152
140,979
43,753
187,884
(*) Derived from Table 10; Fiscal Year 1994 reflects 10 months of annual estimated expense of
$215,247.
10. Based on uncertainties regarding changes in operation as a result of the
Acquisition and consolidation of the two utility systems, the potential for
operating changes as a result of future regulatory action, changes in water use
due to increased conservation measures, and discussions with the utility staff, it
was determined that the contingency allowance equal to approximately 3.0% of
operating expenses should be reflected as a revenue requirement from rates.
For the fiscal years 1994 through 1998, the contingency allowance was
escalated in proportion to the increase in utility operating expenses projected for
the System and averaged approximately $20,500 annually.
11. The City has allocated operating expenses to the utility which are accounted for
in the City's General Fund or included as part of the management function of
the City. These costs include such operating expenses as legal fees, the utility
pro -rata share of the annual audit, and customer service and accounting
expenses. These expenses have been recognized as an Administrative
Allocation and is included as an operating expense of the utility. In addition,
the City is anticipating to hire an additional employee (expected to be an
existing employee of GDI) which will perform utility enterprise fund
accounting needs for the City. This function will also be accounted for in the
City's General Fund and included in the administrative allocation to the utility.
Based on the City's 1994 budget, the cost of the additional employee to be
added for utility accounting, and the recognition of employee related benefits,
RJO/c V R -S-1 /Rate. S ty
HAI //92-023.06 14
.. the assumed cost recognized allocated to the utility on an annualized basis for
the Fiscal Year 1994 was $65,122 of which $31,122 was attributable to the
additional salary burden for proper accounting of the utility enterprise fund.
This expense was escalated during the forecast period to recognize general
inflationary allowances.
12. On July 11, 1989, the County and the initial owner of the
(the "seller") water and sewer system which is now owned by the City, entered
into an agreement for the County take-over of the utility system (the "Take-over
Agreement"). Pursuant to the Take-over Agreement, the County agreed, among
other things, to: i) purchase the utility from the seller and ii) would pay the
seller $777,000 which was equivalent to the initial capital investment to
construct the utility. The payment of the initial capital investment was to be
collected based on a surcharge applied to the existing customers at a rate of
$10.00 per ERU per month until payment is made in full or within ten years
from the date of the Take-over Agreement, whichever comes first. As a result
of the•Interlocal Agreement, this utility system was transferred to the City as of
•• the Cancellation Date. Based on discussions with the City, the City acts solely
as an agent for the County in the collection and remittance of the surcharge
money from the effected customers. As such, no revenue or expenditures
associated with the application of the surcharge was recognized in this analysis.
M
13. In order to fund the cost of the Acquisition as well as certain capital
improvements to the System, the City will be issuing in the principal amount
not to exceed $5,000,000 Utilities System Revenue Bonds, Series 1993 (the
"Series 1993 Bonds"). Based on debt service assumptions provided by the
City's Managing Underwriter, the Series 1993 Bonds reflect: i) a principal
amount of bonds of $5,000,000 and that such bonds will be dated December 1,
1993; ii) an annual average annual interest rate of 5.33%; iii) a term of 30 years
with essentially level debt service payment for the last 26 years of the issue; iv)
interest expense associated with financing certain capital improvements to the
System being funded from bond proceeds (capitalized interest); v) the deferral
of bond principal payments for two years after the issuance of the 1993 Bonds;
vi) the funding of the Reserve Subaccount in order to fully satisfy the Reserve
Subaccount Requirement as defined in the Bond Resolution; and vii) the funding
of the cost of issuance of the Series 1993 Bonds.
Based on the projects funded from and the uses of the proceeds of the Series
1993 Bonds, the annual debt service requirements were allocated between the
water and wastewater system for ratemaking considerations as follows:
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. S ty
HAI //92-023.06 15
M
^ Water Wastewater
Series 1993 Bonds 66.38% 33.62'%
., 14. In order to continually fund the cost of major extensions, improvements or
additions to, or the replacement or renewal of capital assets of the System, an
allowance for the transfer of monies to a Renewal and Replacement Account on
an annual basis has been recognized. The annual deposit to the Renewal and
Replacement Account was based on the funding of the Renewal and
Replacement Fund Account requirement as defined in the Bond Resolution
authorizing the issuance of the Series 1993 Bonds which is equal to 5% of the
previous year's Gross Revenues. It was assumed that monies in the Account
would be continually utilized and that the balance in the Account would not
equal the Renewal and Replacement Fund Account Requirement, thus
_ necessitating annual deposits to the Account.
Based on this assumption, the annual transfer to the Renewal and Replacement
Account for the forecast period is estimated as follows:
Fiscal Year System Funding Requirement
., 1994 $38,566 (*)
1995 46,279
1996 48,911
1997 52,027
1998 55,233
(*) Reflects ten months of funding requirements.
15. Interest income has been recognized as an available revenue source to fund the
expenditure needs of the utility. For the forecast period, interest income was
based on estimated balances in certain funds as defined in the Bond Resolution
(i.e., Reserve Subaccount and Payment Subaccount) and other available fund
balanced (e.g., Customer Deposit Account). Thus, for the determination of the
revenue requirements from rates, no earnings have been reflected on balances in
the Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Account or the Project Account, which
are defined in the Bond Resolution. Additionally, for the Fiscal Year 1994, the
amount shown does not include interest earnings on funds held in the
Capitalized Interest Account. Based on assumptions provided by the City's
Managing Underwriter, the capitalized interest requirements (Reference
Assumption 18) are assumed to be partially met by earnings accruing in the
Capitalized Interest Account and are not available for utility operations.
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI //92-023.06 16
In the development of estimated interest earnings, an average interest rate of
3.5% during the forecast period was assumed based on a review of available
rates of interest in the current market, average fund balances in available funds
�+ and discussions with other utilities regarding recent earning performance results.
16. With respect to the Fiscal Year 1994, a transfer from the General Fund in the
amount of $33,619 has been recognized in order to have sufficient funds to meet
utility expenditure needs. This transfer is being made as an interfund loan and
is required since i) the acquisition of the utility will not be in effect for a full
fiscal year, thus lowering the ability of the System to fully recover cost and ii)
the utility has planned and budgeted the need of the transfer based on the
expenditure requirements of the utility relative to the existing customer base. It
should be noted that i) no other transfer or loan from the General Fund to the
System is recognized during the projected period in the Report other than the
Fiscal Year 1994 and ii) such moneys were not considered as a revenue of the
System in the analysis of the debt coverage compliance as defined in the Bond
Resolution for the ten months ending September 30, 1994.
17. Pursuant to the Bond Resolution, the City will be creating a Rate Stabilization
Account to provide flexibility in utility operations. For the forecast period, no
deposits or use of the Rate Stabilization Account has been recognized in order to
i) meet the expenditure needs and debt service covenant requirements or ii) to
assist in the phasing in of utility rate adjustments associated with the anticipated
adoption of a price index adjustment clause. It should be noted that in certain
instances surplus revenues from one utility were used to meet a revenue
., deficiency in another utility simply for administrative simplicity.
18. Revenues from retail rates for the water and sewer utility system were based on
., the rates currently in effect for the City pursuant to the Rate Resolution No. R-
93-23 adopted by the City Council on May 12, 1993 (the "Rate Resolution")
and the customer and sales forecast presented on Table 1, which was predicated
on recent historical trends and relationships derived from detailed customer
billing information provided by the City and GDU. For the purposes of this
analysis, it was assumed that the rates applied to the GDU-Sebastian Highlands
system would be equivalent to the existing City rates in order to evaluate the
rates on a consistent basis. The development of the revenue from monthly rates
is summarized on Table 9 for the System.
19. Based on discussions with the City, it was determined that the City should adopt
and implement a price index escalation or adjustment factor in order to have
annual rate adjustments commensurate with the escalation of utility operating
expenditures and inflation. This adjustment is generally adopted by utilities in
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. S ty
"' HAI //92-023.06 17
order to maintain rates sufficient to always meet the operating expenses of a
utility and to comply with bond resolution covenants relative to the flow of
funds and rate covenant requirements. Based on the discussions with the City, a
price index adjustment factor assumed to be equivalent to the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) was recognized in the development of rate revenues. As shown on
Table 6, the CPI has averaged approximately 3.8% over the past seven years.
In order to recognize the application of the index adjustment factor yet not
overstate rate revenues, an annual price index rate adjustment equivalent to
3.0% per year was recognized effective October 1st of each year. The assumed
rate adjustment of 3.0% is less than the average inflation factor of 3.6% used in
the escalation of operating expenses for the forecast period. With respect to the
projection of rate revenues, the compound effects of the application of the price
index adjustment was estimated to increase System revenues as follows:
_ Fiscal Year Water Wastewater Total
1994 $ - $ - $ -
1995 14,328 14,164 28,492
1996 30,307 29,424 59,731
1997 47,972 45,768 93,740
1998 68,067 63,253 131,320
20. Water meter installation fee revenue was estimated based on the total anticipated
additional water system connections to be installed which are attributable to
customer growth of the System, an analysis of historical revenue derived from
such services and the fees currently in service. Such fees are associated with
the physical connection to the water system and are considered as a revenue of
the System and not a component of the Impact Fees as defined in the Bond
.� Resolution.
21. Other miscellaneous revenues which accrue to the System (e.g., turn -on and
tum -offs, delinquent penalties, etc.) were based on recent historical and
budgeted amounts and were assumed to remain constant during the forecast
period.
22. For the purposes of this analysis, no funds from available Impact Fees have
been included in the determination of the revenue requirement analysis as shown
on Tables 7 and 8 since such amounts are available only for capital projects for
new customer growth and expansion and do not serve to effectively reduce rate
revenue requirements. It should be noted that the use of such funds have been
recognized to fund growth related capital projects, thus reducing projects funded
from utility revenues or future debt service costs, etc. which are paid from rates
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI //92-023.06 18
., for the water and wastewater systems. The use of these funds for the capital
projects has the effect of dampening monthly service charges since such projects
do not need to be funded from rate revenues.
Based on the i) purpose for the issuance of the Series 1993 Bonds (principally
the acquisition of the System by the City); ii) the capacity utilization
�+ relationship at the time of the System acquisition; iii) the functional plant
account balances (e.g.-treatment-related) for the assets purchased; and iv) the
estimated cost of the capital improvements to be funded from the Series 1993
Bonds and the purpose of such costs, it is estimated that the expansion
percentage to determine the impact fees debt service component is 50.34% of
the total projected Bond Service Requirement. For the projected period shown,
the amount of net Impact Fees recognized as a Pledged Revenue of the System,
for the determination of the rate covenant analysis (reference Table 18) is the
result of the product of the expansion percentage applied to the estimated
amount of the debt service requirement in each respective Fiscal Year. As a
result; the Impact Fees recognized as a Pledged Revenues for the purposes of
.. this Report were assumed as follows:
(*) Reflects ten months of operation.
With respect to the collection of Impact Fees due to normal growth, it was
assumed that all customers would be charged a fee (i.e. - no prepaid fees
reflected). It should be noted that there generally is a lag in the recognition of
when a customer becomes an active account after the payment of the Impact Fee
due to the time differential that may exist from the time of issuance of the
.. building permit and the receipt by the City of the Impact Fee revenue and when
a customer physically connects to the System.
23. All contracts, agreements, statutes, rules and regulations which have been relied
upon by us in preparing this financial analysis and the projected operating
results contained herein will be fully enforceable and remain in effect in
accordance with their terms and conditions, and such terms and conditions will
be complied with by the parties involved throughout the projection period. We
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
..
HAI #92-023.06 19
Total System
Debt Service with
Estimated
Impact Fees
Fiscal
Estimated
Expansion
Impact Fees
Recognized as
.. Year
Debt Service
Percentage Applied
Collected
Pledged Revenue
1994(*)
$196,317
$98,826
$78,936
$78,936
1995
235,581
118,591
94,724
94,724
1996
303,313
152,688
124,572
124,572
1997
326,513
164,367
120,308
120,308
1998
348,663
175,517
120,308
120,308
(*) Reflects ten months of operation.
With respect to the collection of Impact Fees due to normal growth, it was
assumed that all customers would be charged a fee (i.e. - no prepaid fees
reflected). It should be noted that there generally is a lag in the recognition of
when a customer becomes an active account after the payment of the Impact Fee
due to the time differential that may exist from the time of issuance of the
.. building permit and the receipt by the City of the Impact Fee revenue and when
a customer physically connects to the System.
23. All contracts, agreements, statutes, rules and regulations which have been relied
upon by us in preparing this financial analysis and the projected operating
results contained herein will be fully enforceable and remain in effect in
accordance with their terms and conditions, and such terms and conditions will
be complied with by the parties involved throughout the projection period. We
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
..
HAI #92-023.06 19
make no representations or warranties and provide no opinion concerning the
enforceability or legal interpretation of such contractual and legal requirements.
M RATE DESIGN
The City's existing rate structure for the water and wastewater system includes: i) a monthly
billing charge applicable to each account; ii) a monthly base facility charge applied on a "per
ERU" basis for the recovery of certain fixed or readiness -to -serve costs; and iii) a consumption
or volume charge based on the amount of metered water delivered to each account which, for
the water system has a unit price which increases based on water usage. In addition for the
wastewater system, the volume charge is based on 85% of the metered water use with the
.. residential class having a maximum monthly billing threshold of 10,000 gallons of water use
(8,500 gallons for billing purposes). It is recommended that the existing rate structure be
maintained for the proposed rates.
Based on the analysis of the revenue requirements of the system and recognizing the
application of the City's existing rates to the combined utility system, it is estimated that the
City's existing rates will be adequate to meet the projected revenue requirements of the
System. This adequacy does include the application of the price index adjustment annually for
the projection period. As such, the City's existing rates would be adequate and could be
continued.
As shown on Tables 13 and 14 for the water and wastewater system, when one compares the
existing City rates to the existing GDU rates, their exists some major differences in structure.
Specifically, the monthly base charge under the existing rates for the GDU customer is higher
_ than the comparable rates for the City customers. Therefore, if the City were to apply the
rates currently in effect to the GDU customers, low use customers will experience a rate
decrease. Essentially, all of the increase associated with revising the GDU rates to be
equivalent to the City's rates would be recovered from the flow charge which may impair the
revenue stability of the System. Therefore, we have prepared an alternative rate structure (in
terms of level among the rate structure attributes) for the City's consideration.
M
In order to design the alternative rates which recover costs on an equitable basis, it is
necessary to allocate costs (revenue requirements) among the rate structure attributes or
classifications (i.e., the volume charge). Under this approach, rates can then be considered to
be cost based and reflect the cost of providing service to the customer. As summarized below
and shown on Tables 10 and 11 at the end of this report for the water and wastewater system,
respectively, the allocation of costs to the rate classifications for rate design purposes was
determined as follows:
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 20
Classified Costs
Rate Classification Water 1 Wastewater (1)
Billing Charges $32,571 $33,466
Base Facility Charge $185,946 214,651
Volume or Usage Charge 165.389 139,293
Total Net Revenue Requirements $383,905 $387,410
(1) Derived from table 11; reflects ten months of operation.
(2) Derived from Table 12; reflects ten months of Operation.
Based on the allocation of costs to the rate classifications as developed on Tables 11 and 12
and the forecast of customers and unit (flow) sales as shown on Table 1, the rates for water
' and wastewater service for the fiscal year 1994 were designed as follows:
Water System Wastewater System
Billing Base Facility Volume Billing Base Facility
Volume
Charge Charge Charge Charge Charge
Charge
Net Revenue Requirements (1) $32,571 $185,946 $165,389 $33,466 $214,651 $139,293
Number of Billing Units (2) 93,175
1,000 Gallons
.-. Bills (Annual) 14,690 14,690 8,970 8,970
43,636
Equivalent Number of Billing Units (3) 14,690 16,560 109,679 8,970 16,540
51,336 (4)
' Unit Charge Per Equivalent Unit$2.2172111.2286 1.5079 ILM$12.9777$2,7132
(1) Based on information derived from Tables 11 and 12; reflects ten months of operations.
_ (2) Based on information derived from Table 1.
(3) Billing units adjusted to reflect rate differentials and cost allocations.
(4) Assumes 100% of water billed sewer volume charge; maintain maximum at 10,000 gallons.
Based on the rate parameters and the equivalent unit charges shown above, the proposed rates
for water and wastewater services under this alternative are summarized as follows:
RJ0/cl/R-S-1/Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 21
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 22
Water System
Wastewater System
Residential Service:
_
Billing Charge
$2.25 per Bill
$3.75 per Bill
Base Facility Charge
11.25 per ERU
13.00 per ERU
Volumetric Charge
0 - 3,000 gallons
$1.51 per 1,000 gallons
-
3,001 - 7,000 gallons
$1.85 per 1,000 gallons
-
7,001 - 13,000 gallons
$2.20 per 1,000 gallons
-
Above 13,000 gallons
$4.20 per 1,000 gallons
-
0 - 10,000 gallons
-
$2.75 per 1,000 gallons (maximum
of 10,000 gallons of service)
Commercial Service:
Billing Charge
$2.25 per Bill
$3.75 per Bill
Base Facility Charge
5/8 inch
11.25 per Meter
13.00 per Meter
1 inch.
28.15 per Meter
32.50 per Meter
1'k inch
56.25 per Meter
65.00 per Meter
2 inch
90.00 per Meter
104.00 per Meter
3 inch
180.00 per Meter
208.00 per Meter
4 inch
281.25 per Meter
325.00 per Meter
6 inch
562.50 per Meter
650.00 per Meter
Volumetric Charge:
Block 1 (1)
$1.51 per 1,000 gallons
-
Block 2 (1)
1.85 per 1,000 gallons
-
Block 3 (1)
2.20 per 1,000 gallons
-
Block 4 (1)
4.20 per 1,000 gallons
-
All Metered Use
-
2.75 per 1,000 gallons
(1) The following tabulation summarizes the usage block levels by meter size for the commercial class based
on equivalent residential factors
by meter size:
_ Commercial
Commercial
Commercial Commercial
First Block
Second Block
Third Block Fourth Block
Meter Size Usage Threshold
Usage Threshold
Usage Threshold Usage Threshold
3/4 inch 3,000
7,000
13,000 Above 13,000
Bach 7,500
17,500
32,500 Above 32,500
1'12 inch 15,000
35,000
65,000 Above 65,000
_ 2 inch 24,000
56,000
104,000 Above 104,000
3inch 48,000
112,000
208,000 Above 208,000
4inch 75,000
175,000
325,000 Above 325,000
6inch 150,000
350,000
650,000 Above 650,000
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 22
Included on Tables 13 and 14 for the water and wastewater systems respectively at the end of
this report is a comparison of the i) City's existing rates; ii) the currently effective rates of the
GDU-Sebastian Highlands system (not reflecting approved rate adjustment); and iii) the
proposed rates for each alternative for the standard residential customer. As previously
discussed, the residential class comprises approximately 96% of the total customers served.
As can be seen on Tables 13 and 14, the proposed rates under Alternate 2 are more reflective
of the rate levels of the existing GDU customers and will provide a high degree of revenue
stability since the base service charges, which are not dependent on flow, have been increased.
Price Index Adjustment Factor
Based on discussions with the City and in an effort to avoid the effects of large increases in the
future (rate shock) as a result of having periodic rate increases and in order to meet the
projected revenue requirements for the remainder of the forecast period, the City has requested
.. for which we concur that the Utility adopt a price index adjustment factor or methodology.
Under this methodology, the utility would have automatic rate adjustments effective October
1st of each fiscal year. As a result of applying this increase, the City's rates would not have to
"catch up" to meet system requirements and the need to expend accumulated reserves would
not be required to the degree and need as has historically been the case.
Based on the analysis of utility system revenue requirements and financing needs, it is
recommended that an automatic increase in rates should be enacted each year for the fiscal
years 1995 through 1998 at a rate equivalent to the consumer price index (CPI), but not less
than 3.0% annually. As mentioned, this will allow the City to meet its revenue requirements,
yet will not require a drastic shock in the monthly bills to its customers. The estimated effect
of a typical residential customer using 5,000 gallons for combined water and sewer service
with the first index effective in the Fiscal Year 1995 is to increase bills by $1.56 monthly.
.. It should be noted that several utilities have implemented a price index or predetermined rate
adjustment, whether by a specific index or by a study of revenue requirements. A limited
sample of these utilities include:
City of West Palm Beach
Clay County
City of Daytona Beach
City of St. Cloud
City of Tallahassee
_ • Orange County
• City of Jacksonville
• Florida Public Service Commission for Private Utilities
^
RJO/cVR-S-1/Rate.Sty
^ HAI #92-023.06 23
M
Rate Comparison - Neighboring Utilities
In order to provide the City with additional information regarding the proposed rates, a
comparison of the City's existing and proposed rates under each alternative for the typical
residential customers. Based on billing information provided by both the City and GDU, the
typical residential customer uses between 4,000 and 6,000 gallons monthly. As can be seen on
Tables 13 through 15, the rates for the City at 5,000 gallons of service are generally higher
than neighboring utilities. However, it must be recognized that several utilities have a rate
study pending which will improve the comparability of the City's rates to neighboring utilities.
As can be seen on the comparison, the proposed rates under each alternative produce bills
which are significantly less than those anticipated to be charged by GDU with respect to the
.. GDU Rate Filing.
DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
A major consideration in utility bond financing is the determination of whether the rate
covenants as contained in the proposed Bond Resolution are being met. The Series 1993
Bonds are anticipated to be issued pursuant to the conditions of a Bond Resolution anticipated
to be adopted at the time of the issuance of the Series 1993 Bonds. The City's anticipated
.. Bond Resolution has covenanted that it will fix, establish and maintain such rates and collect
such fees, rates, or other charges for the product, services and facilities of its System, and
revise the same from time to time, whenever necessary, as will always provide in each Fiscal
Year either:
(A) Net Revenues which at least equal (1) one hundred five percent (105%) of the Annual Debt
Service on all Outstanding Bonds becoming due in such Fiscal Year plus (2) one hundred percent deposited or
credited to the Reserve Subaccount, and Replacement Account, and any amounts required to be repaid to the
Water Impact Fees Account and Sewer Impact Fees Account in such Fiscal Year, respectively, or
(B) (1) Net Revenues, Water Impact Fees and Sewer Impact Fees in each Fiscal Year adequate to
pay at least one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Annual Debt Service becoming due in such Fiscal Year on
all Outstanding Bonds plus (2) one hundred percent (100%) all amounts required to be deposited or credited to the
Reserve Subaccount, Renewal and Replacement Account and all amounts required to be repaid to the Water
Impact Fees Account and Sewer Impact Fees Account, respectively, in such Fiscal Year; provided, however, Net
Revenues shall, at all times, equal at least one hundred percent (100%) of the Annual Debt Service on all
Outstanding Bonds becoming due in such Fiscal Year.
As summarized on Table 18, the anticipated revenue for the water and wastewater system,
assuming that the City adopts the proposed rates for the Fiscal Year 1994 including the
recommended price index rate adjustment should be adequate for the forecast period presented
in this report to meet the rate covenant requirements defined in the City's Bond Resolution.
The projected debt service coverage requirements for the revenue bond indebtedness, with and
without the recognition Impact Fees is summarized below:
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate.Sty
HAI #92-023.06 24
Estimated Debt Service Coverage Ratios
Based on the anticipated customer growth shown on Table 1 and the assumptions and
considerations utilized in projecting the net revenue requirements previously discussed, it is
anticipated that the City will meet the 1.05 debt service coverage requirement without the use
of impact fees as well as the coverage requirement of 1.20 with impact fees during the forecast
period for the Series 1993 Bonds.
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPACT FEES
A system connection charge or Impact Fee is a fee imposed on new users of real property to
help defray the capital cost of constructing new public facilities necessitated by the impact of
new residents. Thus, the purpose of an Impact Fee is to assign, to the extent practical,
growth -related capital costs to those residents or users responsible for such additional costs. In
summary, the system connection charge can be considered to be a new user's contribution to
those facilities or capital costs that are required in order to provide a comparable level of
service that is being provided to the existing residences or a level stated as the goal of a local
government in the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of impact fees includes the following:
1) to defray the capital cost of constructing new facilities necessitated by growth;
_ 2) to shift the financial burden of constructing new facilities to the new residents
for whose benefit the facilities will be built;
3) to maintain or reduce property tax rates while meeting the capital costs
associated with growth; and
4) to exact connections for public facilities from developments which were platted
prior to the establishment of mandatory dedication provisions to ensure payment
comparable to that required from new developments.
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 25
Without Impact Fees
With Impact Fees
Fiscal Year
Estimated Coverage
Required Coverage
Estimated Coverage
Required Coverage
1994
1.15
1.05
1.55
1.20
1995
1.49
1.05
1.89
1.20
— 1996
1.27
1.05
1.68
1.20
1997
1.28
1.05
1.65
1.20
1998
1.32
1.05
1.66
1.20
Based on the anticipated customer growth shown on Table 1 and the assumptions and
considerations utilized in projecting the net revenue requirements previously discussed, it is
anticipated that the City will meet the 1.05 debt service coverage requirement without the use
of impact fees as well as the coverage requirement of 1.20 with impact fees during the forecast
period for the Series 1993 Bonds.
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPACT FEES
A system connection charge or Impact Fee is a fee imposed on new users of real property to
help defray the capital cost of constructing new public facilities necessitated by the impact of
new residents. Thus, the purpose of an Impact Fee is to assign, to the extent practical,
growth -related capital costs to those residents or users responsible for such additional costs. In
summary, the system connection charge can be considered to be a new user's contribution to
those facilities or capital costs that are required in order to provide a comparable level of
service that is being provided to the existing residences or a level stated as the goal of a local
government in the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of impact fees includes the following:
1) to defray the capital cost of constructing new facilities necessitated by growth;
_ 2) to shift the financial burden of constructing new facilities to the new residents
for whose benefit the facilities will be built;
3) to maintain or reduce property tax rates while meeting the capital costs
associated with growth; and
4) to exact connections for public facilities from developments which were platted
prior to the establishment of mandatory dedication provisions to ensure payment
comparable to that required from new developments.
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 25
In order to accurately determine the impact fees for water and wastewater systems two issues
must be identified; i) the equitable portion of the costs associated with financing the expansion
of the City's utility system, and ii) the available number of equivalent residential connections
(ERU's) each system can support until capacity is reached.
An ERU is a unit of measure which approximates the average demand of a single-family
residential customer or customer receiving service based on certain attributes of the residential
unit (e.g., single versus multi -family square footage). The ERU concept defines all types of
development and facility uses as either a percentage or a multiple of a single-family residence
on the basis of anticipated water use. For the purpose of calculating the City's current
connection charges, a water service ERU is based on the average daily flow equal to 250
gallons per day (gpd) per unit. The wastewater ERU factor is equivalent to 200 gpd per unit.
In the determination of the connection charge associated with the servicing of future
customers, any excess capacity of the existing system available to serve such growth should be
considered since this capacity is available to serve the incremental growth of the utility system
in the short term. As shown on Table 19 at the end of this report and based on: i) the rated
capacities of the water production and wastewater treatment facilities expressed on an average
daily flow (ADF) basis; ii) projected and committed usage requirements of such facilities; and
iii) the calculated net costs of the facilities allocable to the charges, the amount of existing
.. facility costs to be reflected in the charge determination was estimated to be as follows:
Water Wastewater
—System(l) System(1)
Net Production/Treatment Facility Costs $1,255,151 $1,266,984
Estimated Capacity Remaining
to Serve Incremental Growth 21.19% 26.06%
Net Treatment Facility Costs Allocable
to Fee Determination $266,017 $330,130
(1) Derived from Table 19.
As can be seen above, it has been determined that the water system after the acquisition of the
GDU facilities has approximately 21.2% of capacity available to serve new customer growth.
.. With respect to the wastewater system, it is estimated that the utility has approximately 26.1 %
of available capacity after acquisition will be available to the City to serve new customer
growth.
In the development of the capacity requirements of the water and wastewater facilities, the
rated design capacities of the facilities were adjusted to reflect such capacities on an average
daily flow basis. Specifically for the water system, the production/treatment facilities are
designed on a peak day basis. Thus, to recognize the capacity on an average daily flow design
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate. Sty
.. HAI #92-023.06 26
and to be consistent with the level of service and ERU requirements for a typical water
customer, the peak day capacity was adjusted by a peak day to average day factor of 1.50
which is representative of historical relationships of the water facilities. For the wastewater
.. system, no adjustment to the design capacity was performed since the rated capacity is
expressed on an average daily flow basis.
In order to develop a charge which is consistent with the capital related needs of the utility, the
cost of the City's capital improvements as developed by HAI was recognized which will allow
_ the City to provide utility services for a number of years.
Total Estimated
Capital Ezgenditures
�* Water System $417,379
Wastewater System $267,411
Total $684,790
As can be seen above, the City has identified an extensive amount of capital needs which will
benefit both the existing and future growth of the City. The costs for on-site transmission,
^� collection, or distribution facilities or main extensions required for service by the City have
not been included in the determination of the Impact Fees. These capital costs (e.g., meters,
hydrants, services, etc.) are generally recovered from other charges or contributed from
developers during construction, and therefore, should not be included as a component of the
connection charge determination.
As shown on Table 20, the proposed Impact Fee for the water system is $1,100 per ERU.
This represents an increase in the charge of $121 or 13.1 % above the City's current charge for
an ERU. With respect to the wastewater system and as shown on Table 21, the proposed
Impact Fee is $1,650 per ERU. This represents an increase in the charge of $491 or 42.4%
when compared to the City's existing charges. As discussed hereafter, the proposed charges
., are comparable with other utilities.
In the development of the charge, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the
analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed charge are:
1. The existing water production and treatment facilities (after acquisition GDU
System) have an estimated available capacity margin to serve new growth of
approximately 21.0% of the average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i)
the firm design capacity of the existing facilities; ii) actual peak day to average
daily flow relationships experienced by the City; and iii) estimated flow
requirements for the fiscal year 1994. The analysis is summarized on Table 19
herein.
RJ O/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 27
_ 2. The City's allocable prorata share of the existing wastewater treatment and
effluent disposal facilities (after acquisition of GDU System) have an estimated
available capacity margin to serve new growth of approximately 26% of the
— average daily capacity of the facilities based on: i) the firm design capacity of
the existing facilities and ii) estimated flow requirements for the fiscal year
1994. The analysis is summarized on Table 19 herein.
3. All the capital facilities associated with the upgrades and expansion of the
system reflect the most recent project costs as identified by HAI for the capital
improvement program.
_ 4. No capital facility expansion costs associated with major distribution facilities
have been included in the calculation since the City should require the developer
to contribute such facilities (contribution in aid of construction) as a part of the
City's main extension policies based on discussions with the City.
5. Specific projects have been identified in the Capital Improvement Program
which are attributable to the growth, and expansion of the System. These
projects, since being fully allocable to growth can be reflected in the Impact Fee
analysis as a capital cost to be fully recovered through the charges. Those
projects summarized below for purposes of this analysis have been reflected in
the development of the proposed impact fees.
Capital Costs
Allocable to Growth
Water System:
TTHM Control $ 20,000
Transmission Extension 300,000
Water Main Interconnects 58,000
Total Water System $378,000
Sewer System:
Sludge Stabilization $220,000
Sewer System Interconnect $108,000
Total Sewer System $328,000
5. An ERU for the water system was assumed to require a capacity of 250 gallons
per day and for the sewer system, an ERU was assumed to require a capacity of
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 28
200 gallons per day consistent with the capacity planning and FDEP permitting
requirements for the City.
Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the charge, the functional
breakdown of the components of the rate for the water and wastewater systems are as follows:
Impact Fee
Water Productionrrreatment $449.14
Water Transmission/Distribution 650.86
Total Fee $1,100.00
Wastewater Treatment/Effluent Disposal $1,045.12
Wastewater Collection/Transmission 604.88
Total Fee $1,650.00
COMPARISON OF MPACT FEES - NEIGHBORING
Table 22 provides a comparison of the existing and proposed for single family residential
_ connections for the City relative to currently imposed by other municipal/governmental water
and wastewater systems neighboring to the City. It is important to note that the reader must
view the comparison with caution as no in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the
methods used in the development of the impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis
been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from Impact
Fees, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through the user charges.
.. Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the of capital facilities currently in service or
planned for the utility. For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep
injection well system generally has a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than percolation
�+ ponds.
As shown on Table 22, the average water and sewer system impact fee for the 16
governmental entities selected for this comparison is $1,220 and $1,631, respectively for a
single-family residence. Of the surveyed utilities, Brevard County had the largest water
impact fee of $1,903.00 and St. Lucie County had the largest wastewater impact fee of
$2,700. City of New Smyrna Beach had the lowest combined impact fees in the group with
water being $996.00 and wastewater being $1,074.00. The proposed impact fee of $1,100 for
water for the City is lower when compared to the group and the proposed wastewater system
connection charge for the City of $1,650 is slightly higher than the average charge for the
group. Overall, the charges proposed in this study appear reasonable and competitive with the
sample of neighboring utilities shown in Table 22.
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate.Sty
HAI //92-023.06 29
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our studies, assumptions, considerations as summarized herein, we are of the opinion
that:
1. The City should consider the adoption of the proposed rates which reflect a cost
recovery shift to the base service charges (Alternative 2) as presented in this
Report.
2. The City should consider the adoption of the price index rate adjustment for a
minimum of four fiscal years (through the fiscal year 1998) at a factor equal to
the Consumer Price Index or 3.0%, whichever is greater. The application of
the price index adjustment should be made effective with bills rendered on and
after October 1st of each fiscal year.
3. After. the acquisition of the GDU-Sebastian Highlands system and once the
City's existing facilities are interconnected with such facilities, the revenues
produced from the City's proposed rates should be adequate to meet the
projected operating expenses, debt service, and capital funding requirements for
the forecast period.
4. The proposed rates should be sufficient to meet the rate covenant requirements
of the Bond Resolution.
5. The City should consider the adoption of the water and sewer impact fees for
new customers as recommended in the Report. The recommended fees are
$1,100 per ERU for the water system and $1,650 per ERU for the wastewater
system.
6. The City should expedite and made as a top priority the interconnection of the
existing City and GDU-Sebastian Highlands system such that revenue
requirements of the System can be reduced and the System operated more
efficiently.
Acknowlede*rnents
This report was prepared with the fine cooperation of the staff of the City of Sebastian. In
particular, we appreciated the assistance from Ms. Marilyn Swichkow, CPA, Finance
_ Director, Mr. Richard B. Votapka, P.E., Utilities Director, and Ms. Kathryn M. O'Halloran,
City Clerk, and the rest of the staff of the City.
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /Rate. Sty
HAI #92-023.06 30
_ The proposed user fees and Impact Fees presented in this report are based on the total recovery
of costs to be incurred by the City's utility system. The rates are considered by Hartman and
Associates, Inc. to be equitable and reflect the cost of providing service to the customers of the
Utility System. We want to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the fine
cooperation and valuable assistance given to us by the members of the City and its staff.
Respectfully Submitted,
Hartman & Associates, Inc.
Robert J. Ori
Manager of Rates & Finance
Richard C. Copeland
Senior Financial Analyst
Harold E. Schmidt, Jr., P.E.
Vice President
F�
�,
RJO/cl/R-S-1/Rate. Sty
.. HAI //92-023.06 31
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
1993 WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Description
1
Summary of Historical and Projected Customer Statistics
— 2
Allocation of Utility Operating Expenses to Budget Functional
Component
_ 3
Allocation of Combined Utility Operating Expenses to Individual
Systems
4
Development of Projected Operating Expenses for the Water System
5
Development of Projected Operating Expenses for the Sewer System
6
Summary of Historical Escalation Indices
— 7
Development of Net Revenue Requirements from Rates -
Water System
— 8
Development of Net Revenue Requirements from Rates -
Sewer System
9
Development of Existing Rate Revenues
10
Determination of Estimated Indian River County Bulk Wastewater
—
Costs to the City of Sebastian
11
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined Systems -
Water System
12
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined Systems -
Sewer System
— 13
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Rate Structures for a
5/8" Residential Customer
_ 14
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Rate Structures for
a 5/8" Residential Customer
— 15
Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Water Service
16
Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Wastewater
Service
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /lot. rpt
HAI /192-023.06
Table No
17
18
19
20
21
22
RJO/cl/R-S-1 /lot. rpt
HAI #92-023.06
CITY OF SEBASTIAN
1993 WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDY
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Descrintion
Comparison of Typical Monthly Residential Bills for Water and
Wastewater Service
Development of Debt Service Coverage
Development of Existing Production/Treatment Facility Capacity
Allocable to Serve Customer Growth
Development of Water System Capital Connection Charge
Development of Wastewater System Capital Connection Charge
Comparison of Impact Fees for Residential Water and Wastewater
Service
I
s
3
2C
r e„r eC� aC �tld:o ewe acs c =ee.r w... r..- i
£xOY�iOOi ii.� a>>> Y»� R<>e°R OR IEi £-lS is Y>SO A>£=
2'a_ - a;"s Qo o .hex E> -yz mx�•
x>? _.». •. ea uw•.s �w:g E a: Eco xc=x �c�!
07 P2 .�.
nB 'Co�ia9 "sge '>�
Iy: a .m. i.
EoaZ
a g T 7 m
N N
e!:
Y
222Y ZZZ
ZY
ZY222
Y2Z
2Y2
g
,uGeeu4
Eu
nLs
js
x%
•i
p4rZ
22
ZY2ZY
�6
§
c
r± Tw u
IP
§ '>z §;%:
zz
'>'>
zzzzz
SSS'>s
}r.
cB,J,Sa
a
I$Z:
8
s
6
pu r r
S�R� x9§
§S
IS
o§Mstl
saw
'Yn
�
S
tl�c8
:S:
nSr
C
I?
aIE
§'S
5§LLC
g.•3w
$T..
w
L B��
A
?�Ci SSG'
s
Ot
§S
GSw
L'E3
M
ue
HERE
S
C"SS YuwJ
a§uL�
a
NP
Nf
Y
A
TAGS
Cr's
IN SIJ tl�Y
;g.�i s�
eN
a}T§w
rs§Esq
wu�
IM
8
PAA�Y
R8��0
.Ctl
IACY
Sir
tl•7§
§PC'?
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
Table 1
Ciy.f Sebnfmm Plead.
Cityof Sebastian UNlitySynce,
watered Wastewtcr System
Sum my not H'stodcal .vd Prolected Cnato mer S to defies
Historical IRsden �d 1
E d d De 6 3 Se umber 30
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Pap 2013
P d 121
Fbal Year evdin S< tambcr30
U.,
Calder Y n o . «mer I.
T-
1993
i d
1
1996
1998
No.
Dcacri tion
1 1
A C
1
Residential Customer
Awmec Annual Water Cwtemm
N/A
N/A
N/A
188
213
238
2"
3,416
314
3,399
351
3,382
2
Av Monthly Use, per Account (tallow)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.616
4150
3,450
8,811
3,433
9.]9'1
11,347
1;]99
14,276
3
Tom[ Billed Sale. (We)
N/A
N/A
OcwralS rviceCustomen
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
An. Annwl Water Cwnmen
N/A
N/A
N/A
14560
14560
145W
14560
14560
14560
5
Av7.M thly Uuper Acmu.l(plbw)
N/A
NIA
N/A
445
445
445
445
445
445
6
Total Billed Sales (M,)
7
Total Ave.,, Anm.I Water Cusmmms
N/A
N/A
N/A
190
215
9,257
240
10,243
279
11,792
316
13.2"
353
14,682
8
Toni Water Silld Sale, (Me)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4595
3,713
3,591
3,559
3,524
3,495
3,468
9
Ag Movably Vu per Account (galbvs)
d
N/A
N/A
N/A
9,885
Mess
11,719
13,561
13,211
14884
10
Tosel Fiedabd Water Pu (Ms)
N/A
N/A
0.027
0.029
0.032
0.037
0.042
0.046
11
Avenge Dally Flow (MG D)
N/A
12
Wncr Gallo. Vobilkd (Me) (3)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,289
1,389
1,536
1,769
1,987
;202
W.mrOalbw Vnbllkd s•Peac.t
11.06%
13.14%
11.04%
13.14%
13.04%
13
of Oalbva Pumped - (%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
11.04%
WA9l8WATBRSeRVICB
Water Wntewater Customers
N
Residential Cwtomen:
Avenge Anmul Wattewmr Cwt. mm
N/A
N/A
N/A
lee
213
Be
277
;079
314
;069
351
2,058
15
Avy MomblyySales per Acmunt(tallow)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4163
4,876
2,100
5,363
;090
5,963
6,907
7.]91
4666
16
Tout Billd Sales(We)
N/A
N/A
O.Nni Servic.c.Wmm:
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
2
2
2
2
2
V
n
Aortate Annual Wast<wr Cwt. men
N/A
N/A
N/A
15,776
15,776
15,776
15,]76
15,716
15,776
18
AW MenthlySalo per Acmuot ft -lions)
N/A
N/A
N/A
379
379
379
379
3"
379
19
Tom[ Billed Sale,("0
Wastewater OelyCusmmm
General Service Customca - Coraened Class 1(4)
22
22
22
22
22
22
20
Avcnge Amusl Wntawatcr Customs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
in
183
183
183
183
21
Avenge Annual Wastewter IMU.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
183
39,335
38.335
38,335
34,335
34335
38.335
22
Avg. MonthlySsles per Ammon (gallow)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4,609
4,609
4.609
4609
4,609
4,609
23
Aog. Mo.tbly$alo per Mr. (gallons)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1%120
10.80
10.120
10.120
14120
10.120
24
Total Bilid Set.. (M.)
General Seri« Cwtomen - Unco.wctd Dau 1 (4)
92
93
92
93
25
Avers, Mosel Wnmwtn Cwtomese
N/A
N/A
N/A
92
92
669
669
669
26
Avenge Annwl Wauewter BRVs
N/A
N/A
N/A
669
669
669
27
T.nl Avcngc Annual Woteenr Cwtomaa
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3N
15,375
329
15,863
354
14462
393
17,406
430
14290
46]
19,165
28
T.nl Billed Sates -(Revenue Odbw-OOOQ
N/A
N/A
AVD M.mbly5alas per Convected
29 Acmuot(Sallow) N/A N/A N/A 6,N8 5,581 5,239 4,822 4,512 4,261
30 Total Wasuwatcr Tmted(OW`e)(5) N/A N/A N/A 14,885 15,872 14859 14399 19,860 21,321
31 Awnge Daily Flow (MG D) N/A N/A N/A O.NI O.N3 O.N6 0.050 0.054 0.058
ootvotee.
(1) Amoense shorn deriwdfrom information previd d by the City for the months o f J.., MY, An,usund September of 1993 and rtn.,u suvwlier, valuefor the r..lyc., 1"3 based o. three four .... 6.fdau.
(2) R.Oeoe the custom.,ides forecast br rate reemsa and tae deden......
(3) Amomm show 1.1ldc wter used br line Owhi.&bydram mad.,. Ort Ogbd.g and ester In..(aystem Inde c), all of which sat uvbilkd.
(4) Aneeding to Iter lnarbralA,.c mem betwen We City of Sebastian and Indian Rion Comty. the Coucr, will teawkr w the City for treatment peurrpp asfhascustoms. who bass purehssed p<rmmmt capacity from the
Comet, and what art located within the Ciryry se m as o Ithe cawelktiov data specified I. the Agrtemme Them connotes. art daui0d as lith, Ine1, Class it or Class HI cuuomen. A Dass l customer is ox which
has a wuewtn collection system availabka(agardica of abcthcr or not customer is phyviralycoeoemd or tot) ncnrtn ♦ Dan 11 customer does not hags any wastcwtcr collection system swilabla. ACbm 111 cuammer
mfenmallotbereustomms The CiycuucvtlyonlylusOmlcusmmm.
(5) Amouvm chew rt0em the amount of wastewater treated at Indian Coony,Utilities(whkh la%beat billed totheCkyofsrbutis.) pursuant to loteMeal Agreement
bdwe0 the Clyof Scbnd.. and India. RivrrCouny. R should be noted that the yam 1990, 1"1 and 1992 do tot loci. a anylbw tuned at the Indian River Comty WastewarTaa[mcnt Plane
02 -Nov -05
CCT/S-0VCuat5w.WIW
I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1
Table 1
City or Sebaaiao, Florida
CDU - Beba[iao Highland. Utility 9yrtem
Water .nd Wauewrt¢ Stem
Summary of Hiatork.1 and ProlenEmd Cuslooner S '[' (1)
Page 3 of 3
W -Nov -W
CCTS-02CuuSla2. W Int
Hia¢icel
EuFT-imucd
rco
Line
Calender Year Ended Dere be, 31
Se m_
Fisal
av Endin Se emb¢30
No.
Dermalon
1993
WATERSERVICE
1
Residential Cwomen
AsdageArmwl Water Cuaomm
1,053
1,094
1,139
1,163
1,200
5.425
1,277
5398
1771
5371
1311
5344
1348
5317
2
Ate. Mo¢agpptyty Uupp¢Aeceua("al..)
SAM
73,649
5,190
68,152
5,158
74367
5,466
76,265
78,104
80,110
82,094
94,056
85,997
3
Taal Billed Sale (�W'.)
Genal Service Cuaomen
43
46
52
54
56
38
60
62
4
Avcage Am.el Water Cu:omera
42
41359
35,146
38,811
37,505
37300
37,500
37,500
37300
37300
5
6
Avg. Moabl Uupv Account (gallotu)
Taal Billod Sale `000.)
20397
18,241
23,579
23,553
24,4.
25350
26AM
27,150
28,050
7
Taal Awa%g Annual Water Cu[om¢,
1,094
1,138
1,185
1,215
991818
1734
102,554
1,293
105,460
1332
108,54/
1371
111706
1,410
114,047
8
9
Taal Water illed Sal. (OW.)
Avg Monthly Uu per Amount (pilo.)
94.246
7,179
86,393
6329
%,146
6,762
6,846
6,813
6.7%
121,2
6,778
124.596
6,759
127,887
6,740
131,154
10
Taal Finished Wer¢ Pumpp ed( .)
107,836
104,071
114305
116,938
117,937
0323
0332
OJ41
OJ50
OJ59
11
Awage Daily Flow(MGD)
0295
0285
0.313
0320
12
Water Gallo. UnNlled(0001)(3)
13,590
17,678
18,159
17,120
15,383
15,819
16,232
16AM
17,107
13
Water Gallo. Unbilled u a Pac<nt
of Gallo. Pumped-(%)
12.60%
16.99°6
15.89°6
11.64%
13.04%
13.04%
13.0496
17.04%
13.01%
WASTEWATER SERVICE
14
Residential Cwomea
Av¢ae Atmual Weaeatt¢ Cwtamer.
NIA
554
334
561
564
$67
370
S.093
573
5,067
576
15
Avg. Moapty Sala per (gall..)
NIA
NIA
33,943
34367
5,154
31,716
309
4,835
3144 4,845
34354
34,863
3118
4,8702
16
Taal BiIIW SeIe(OW.)
General Service C"....
4
q
q
d
4
17
Av Annual Weleatt¢ Cuaomen
Monpty
N/A
N/A
d
19,938
97358
34707
34,000
34.000
34,000
]4,000
34,000
18
Avg. Sale D¢ Account (galla.)
957
5,160
1,676
1,666
1,666
1,666
1,666
1,666
19
TwIBillcd 5ala(600'a)
N/A
20
Taal Average Annual Waaewuer Cu[omas
N/A
558
558
39,527
56S
36392
568
36.501
571
36.511
574
36.520
577
36,529
560
36,536
21
Taal Billed Sal (Revenue Gallo. -000'x)
N/A
N/A
34,900
5215
5,900
5364
5351
5325
5798
5272
5746
22
23
Avg Monthly Sala per Account (pit.)
Taal WutcruerTrexed ((OOOQ (d)
N/A
41343
31,118
22.466
22,584
0.062
22,702
0.062
22.821
0.063
22,940
0.063
23.058
0.063
24
A trag<Dally Flow(MGD)
N/A
0,113
0.085
0.062
ontmte:
(1)
UNes.ahc-iunaed,amourta.bo dai�dfro duaprepvedby
GDU relative to the arbivaion ectNitie v.o:iated withthe acquidion ofthe utility
by the Cry. It.holdbe MMthutheamouaashor Ona
wimderye¢ basin.
(2)
Rendu the couomer Wee f¢eurt fa rue ravnw and
rue deign purposa.
(3)
Amounta.hoan include weer used for line flushing hydrant teeing firefighting and atter loue("em leakage), all
of which ere
unbilled.
(4)
Amours sbonn renes the amount of a'ateautr treated
u the GDU- Sebastian Highland'. facilities.
W -Nov -W
CCTS-02CuuSla2. W Int
Table 2
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Allocation of Utility Operating Expenses to Budget Functional Components
Footnotes on Page 5 of 6.
CCT/S-02/BudrkDn.Wk3 02 -Nov -93
Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1994
Departmental Allocations (2)
-
As Budgeted/
Allocation
Utilities
Water
Wastewater
Collection/
Lift
Customer
Non -
Line
No.
Description
Estimated
Adjustments
As Adjusted
Factor
Administration
Treatment
Treatment
Distribution
Station
Service
Departmental
CITY OF SEBASTIAN (1)
Utilities Personnel
$46,000
0
546,000
Input
$46,000
SO
50
$0
50
SO
SO
1
Executive Salaries
39,499
0
39,499
Input
18,512
0
0
20,987
0
0
0
2
Salaries Other
1,872
0
1,872
Input
877
0
0
995
0
0
0
3
Overtime
7,018
0
7,018
1
5,252
0
0
1,766
0
0
0
4
FICA Tax - Matching
0
0
1,099
0
0
0
5
ICMA Retirement
4,369
0
4,369
1
3,270
0
2,717
0
0
0
6
H& A Insurance
10,800
0
10,800
1
8,083
0
0
609
0
0
0
7
Workers Comp. Insurance
2,419
0
2,419
1
1,810
0
25
0
0
0
8
Medical Fees
0
100
(3)
100
1
75
0
0
9
Total Personnel Expenses
111,977
112,077
83,880
0
0
28,197
0
0
0
100
Utilities Professional Services0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Other Legal Expenses
3,000
(3,000)
(4)
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Medical Fees
100
(100)
(3)
0
1
0
0
0
1,032
0
7,184
784
0
0
12
Engineering Fees
9,000
0
9,000
2
0
0
0
0
0
13
Other Prof. Service
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Special Legal Counsel
1,000
(1,000)
(4)
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Accounting Fees
25,000
(25,000)
(4)
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
Audit Fees
5,000
(5,000)
(4)
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
1,400
0
0
17
Other Contractual Service
4,400
0
4,400
Input
0
3,000
18
Total Professional Services
47,500
13,400
0
4,032
0
7,184
2,184
0
0
(34,100)
Footnotes on Page 5 of 6.
CCT/S-02/BudrkDn.Wk3 02 -Nov -93
I
°
o
0
h
Y
a
A
:3
a
�
O
c
I
8
�
w
F-
Z
UelfH
00
�f
RI
N
5
c
b
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BI
l0
to
u
u
3 F
0
V
rj 6
of
A
3
o
•U
F
u
Ii
C
OW
a
fel
1
O
G
000(j0 �00000��
0000000
y 8
IQ
IQ
v
e gF
:Ei s
C)
�iNpQ
>3oa
y a
v
m m
m y
u
Yi rJ'
V
V C
V1
tY d rN .rte• N R N N
u.
�O y� q
dH C4 C4 dps 80p7
t. >pp i5 tpp7
j e oyy
F
aF�
I�
p
ti N N N N N N N N fel f�1
pF
M
voA
til I�1 C1 t^�1 N1 M O
V
J zl
I
°
o
0
h
Y
a
A
:3
a
�
O
c
I
8
�
w
F-
I
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
!
1
1 1
Allocation
Utilities
Water
Wastewater
Collection/
Table 2
Customer
Non—
No.
Description
Estimated
Adjustments
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Allocation of Utility Operating E-xmnses to Budget Functional Componeats
Footnotes on Page 5 of 6.
CCT/S-02/BudrkDn.Wk3 02—Nov-93
1
Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1994
Departmental Allocations (2)
Line
As Budgeted/
Allocation
Utilities
Water
Wastewater
Collection/
Lift
Customer
Non—
No.
Description
Estimated
Adjustments
As Adjusted
Factor
Administration
Treatment
Treatment
Distribution
Station
Service
Departmental
Utilities Educational
0
0
42
Books & Publications
1,000
0
1,000
1
748
0
0
252
0
43
Dues & Memberships
600
0
600
1
449
0
0
151
0
0
0
44
Educational Costs
1,500
0
1,500
1
1,123
0
0
377
0
0
0
45
Total Educational Expenses
3,100
0
3,100
2,320
0
0
780
0
0
0
46
Capital Outlay
Equipment
7,800
(7,800)
(10)
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
Other Departmental Capital
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
Total Customer Service Expenses
7,800
(7,800)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non—Operating Disbutsements
0
0
0
0
49
Park Place Surcharge — Hyatt
21,840
(21,840)
(11)
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
I.R.C. Sewer Impact Fees
61,250
(61,250)
(11)
0
6
0
0
0
0
Bulk Wastewater Purchases — IRC
0
0
0
0
51
Park Place &Palm lake Club
48,450
3,698
(12)
52,148
6
0
0
52,148
0
0
52
Lift Stations
52,700
12,096
(12)
64,796
6
0
0
6417%
0
0
0
53
ERU Capacity Charges
112,700
(14,397)
(12)
98,303
6
0
0
98,303
0
0
0
0
0
65,122
54
Administration Allocation
24,305
40,817
(4)
65,122
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
Transfer to General Fund
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
Other Cash Disbutsements
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
Other Operating Expenses
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
58
Total Non—Operating Expenses
321,245
(40,876)
280,369
0
0
215,247
0
0
0
65,122
59
Total City of Sebastian
$527.872
(568.1061
5459.766
591.350
510.232
$215.7A7
$52.800
$4,927
$5.697
578.513
Footnotes on Page 5 of 6.
CCT/S-02/BudrkDn.Wk3 02—Nov-93
1
2
M
eV0
my
4
= Zi
p p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N �
V N P
y •O (`� gyp'
000�o�0000000�0000000�0000000
d "
(�1000�VOOOOOOObO000v�N000000000
PhoM000.+ 0000�000n00000000000
N
N'•'ONNb�PP0��00O�hh N0000N0000
ON pp�Mn"�OO�ON�Vj �(��`1^000000 I�I
^N.Pi t7 tiPISN�b N !S '+ b P
w
G�'oog52000Go�000 r"Oio 000000SQ�`sq2� .'?�^en �� I�
�� .."•�^ is �C�rC e' m
Ov01 t�,�pp+O h�v�it^�1_�b�I��NO�b�nC��MPnV�O
��.Pi til PffN HIb.�+tih ff �+ tS Cf�hf�.+13
I M a
_QQ g6 a �9C a
C SsL ya y C yI a
L N�4 N M p a
51tldUy�y� =Foo i o'a
Uco
0o. o. 6! 6••ocL �C �C y� aF.F ^�u
Y3 °oy �• ."ryJryJ G 9�Q ���9�Ryyyy q8 R8 B 0
C Y Y �Q� g y` C� �^ G Y C
wn tali(lCiFFFaV6�aa F� f �[4..�o.wu.8
% &
CO
CD
O
z
N
O
ANN
Table 2
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Allocation r usium opectitint Evemos, to Budget Fuctional Comaownu
awa
Foomotes
(1) Amounts shown dciwd from the City" 1994Budget for the edstingudlity system.
aass, (2) Amounts allocated mfunctional componmufor i)losses: budget walyis;it)tauallontion amongudlity systems; and iii) rate design purpose.
(3) ReOecuredasification for employees benduand wt allomdoa
(4) Renectaemts durged direly m utility from General Fund; redaairied asan Adminiaadw Allocation. Alsoincludea ncrammanalogousmbensfiu
asr
(5) Adjustment shown is to recopire estimated postage msodated with miliry billing.
(6) Adjustments m rencct inaematul expenses associated with lift steuau.
was (7) Adjuunmts mrenectdeaeas, inwhide expense due to the elimination of the puchasofa sod due to We acquisition of GDU— Sebasian Highlands.
(8) Renectscontingencyallowanceeadmated at3% ofopemtingexperses to acoountforaddidonal expenditrmor the System.
saw
(9) Adjmtmmt mremgnix bad debt <qud m05%of ulcer revenue.
(10) Adjusunmt mredasiryaddidotW capital expendituresinaddidonm Renewal and Replacement Fund namfessma requitememofthe system odor dvnoperatingexpemea.
A
(11) The Ciryaw as an ag<ntf the County in the collection Ola surcharge from d<wlopa r<payments; surth amounts are ootr<mptixd ass revenue aaneryense in the study.
(12) Adjustments shown are made in order to called estimated payments from the City to Indian River County for bulhweatesater purchased.
W
(13) Amounts shown derived from actual calendar year 1992 reported accounts as provided by GDU; and were aubsequendyesdated to retied 8sral yew 1991 amounts.
(14) Adjutmaat m reflect the tranass, a personnel to the Ciry system, cssluding the recognition of an enterprie fund accounting dark which will be accounted for In dw G amoral Food
(padof Adminbtrative Alloca4ua).
(15) Adjustments to exclude expenses wbich will not be incurred under public ownership by the City.
CCT/S-02/BudrkDn.Wk3 02—Nov-93
I
1 1 1 I
I 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
i
1
i i 1
Table 2
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastcva Systcm
Allmation
of Utility 02=t' Fiamea to Buds2 Fonntional Comooncm
Depanmenal Allocation Fades -
Line
No
Allocation Factaa
Fsalation
Reference
Utiliiea Waza
Administration Treatment
Wastewater
Treatment
Colk tioN
Distribuion
Lift
Ration
Cusoma
ServMce
Non -
Depanmcraal
1
SalariesAllorxa-City System
1
0.7484 0.0000
0.0000
0.2516
0.0000
0.0000
0. 0 o
2
Plan Allaaza-Cry Sasem
2
0.0000 0.1147
0.0000
0.7982
0.0871
0.0000
0.0000
3
Ullliles Allaaza-Cry S}aem
3
0.0000 0.7857
0.0000
0.0000
0.2143
0.0000
0.0000
4
Utilises Administration Allocator
4
1.0000 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
5
Water Treatment Plan Allocates
5
0.0000 1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
O.OWO
6
Wasewata Treatment Plan Meeata
6
0.0000 0.0000
LOW
0.0000
0.0000
010000
0.0000
7
ColleetioNDeeibmion Sys em Allaxes
7
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
L0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
8
Lift Sation Alluceene
8
0,0000 0.0000
110000
0.0000
LOOM
0.W00
010000
9
Cosomer, Senice Al lana
9
0.0000 0.0000
0.."0
0.0000
0.0000
L0000
0.0000
10
Non- Depaztmental Allneata
10
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1."0
11
ColiettionMisri bmloM./S Allaata -Ciy 5ya em
11
Q0000 0.0000
0.0000
0.9016
0.0984
0.0000
0.0000
12
Treatment Fipeme Al lazta-GDU
12
0.0000 0.6104
0.3896
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
13
Additional Allocaza
13
00000 0.0000
00000
0.0000
0.01100
0.0000
0.0000
14
SelaricsAllorxc<- GDU 5ynem
14
00000 0.3500
0.1167
0.2000
0.0000
U333
0.0000
15
Plan Al locates-GDU System
15
00000 0.2157
0.1376
116,111
0.0056
0.0000
0.0000
16
Additional Allneatcr
16
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
17
Additioml Allo=cr
17
O.Woo 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
18
Addltlonal Allaxes
18
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
Q0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
19
Additional Allaxes
19
0.0000 0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
QOWO
CCT/S-02/BudrkDn.
W k3
02 -Nov -93
..
m
Nal
ss�
sass
C1
s�
A
Nall
s�
arta
m
Line
No.
Description
Water Sy,tem
WATER SYSTEM
Wastewater
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Estimated
Utilities Administration:
1
Salarles/Wagea
2
PemiamBenefity
3
Tavel&Per Diem
4
Telephone
5
Repak/Maintdunre-Vehicles
6
Repdrimaint. - Office Equipment
7
Office Supplies
8
Tires (Only)
9
Gasoline & Oil
10
Books & Publications
Il
Dues&Memlemshipe
12
Educational Costs
13
Total Utilities Administration
Water Treatment/
14 SalaricsfWages
15 Pension✓Benefits
16 Contractual Services - Engineering
17 Other Contractual Services
18 Electricity,
19 Testing Services
20 Chemicals
21 Other Treatment Expenses
22 Repair/Maint. - Water Treatment
23 Pmpertyln,uance
24 Total Water Trestracm
Wastewater Treatment:
25 Salaries/Wages
26 Pensions/Benefits
27 Electricity
28 Contactual Services - Engineering
29 Chemicals
30 Other Treatment Expenses
31 Repait/Maine- Wastewater Treatment
32 Property lmuance
33 Disbursements - Lift Station
34 Disbursements- Park PWedPalm Lake Club
35 Disbursements- ERU Capacity Charges
36 Other Operating Expenses
37 Total Wastewater Treatment
Table 3
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Alluenation of Combined UCI'tyOperating Expenses to Individual Systeme
51 Taal ColleaionfDistribution
Footnntes on Page 2 of 2
CCT/S-02/BudW&S.Wk3
8,549
2,417
26,373
1,514
2,931
8,388
8,674
798
64,796
52,148
98,303
0
274,891
Direct Assignment
Collection/Distribution:
Water Sy,tem
Salarieslwagm
Wastewater
System
Estimated
Allocation
Percent Allocated
Amount Allocated
Percent Allocated
Amount Allaated
FY 1994 (1)
Basis
To Water
To Water
To Wo,t.ter
To Wastewater
46
Uniforms &Shore
47
Books&Publication
$65,389
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
$44,658
31.70%
$20,731
18,490
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
12,628
31.70%
5,862
4,061
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
2,773
31.70%
1,288
720
Depanmental Salaries
68.30%
492
31.70%
228
Boo
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
546
31.70%
254
1,000
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
683
31.70%
317
600
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
410
31.70%
190
200
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
137
31.70%
63
830
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
567
31.70%
263
748
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
511
31.70%
237
449
Depanmemal Salaries
68.30%
307
31.70%
142
1,123
Departmental Salaries
68.30%
767
31.70%
356
94,410
64,478
29,932
25,640
Direct Assignment
100.00%
25,640
0.00%
00
7,250
Direst Assignment
100.00%
7,250
0.00%
3,405
Direct Assignment
100.00%
3,405
0.00%
0
3,000
Direct Assignment
100.00%
3,000
0.00%
0
21,888
Direct Assignment
100.00%
21,888
0.00%
0
1,700
DirectAssignment
100.00%
1,700
0.00%
0
11,720
Direa Amignment
100.00%
11,720
0.00%
0
13,143
Direct Assignment
100.00%
13,143
0.00%
0
14,083
Direct Assignment
100.00%
14,083
0.00%
0
1,250
Diren Assignment
100.00%
1,250
0.00%
0
103,079
103,079
0
51 Taal ColleaionfDistribution
Footnntes on Page 2 of 2
CCT/S-02/BudW&S.Wk3
8,549
2,417
26,373
1,514
2,931
8,388
8,674
798
64,796
52,148
98,303
0
274,891
Direct Assignment
Collection/Distribution:
38
Salarieslwagm
39
Pen,iorWBenefiu
40
Commensal Services - Engineering
41
Repair/Maint. - Water System
42
Repah/Main. - Other
43
Inventory of Supplies
44
Opeatingsupplies
45
Small Tools
46
Uniforms &Shore
47
Books&Publication
48
Due, &Membeahips
49
Educational Costs
50
Property Insurance
51 Taal ColleaionfDistribution
Footnntes on Page 2 of 2
CCT/S-02/BudW&S.Wk3
8,549
2,417
26,373
1,514
2,931
8,388
8,674
798
64,796
52,148
98,303
0
274,891
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
8,549
Diren Assignment
0.00%
0
100.0%
2,417
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
26,373
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
1,514
Direa Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
2,931
DirectAsrignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
8,388
Diced Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
8,674
Direa Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
798
Diren Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
64.796
DirectAssignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
52,148
Diren Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
98,303
Diced Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
0
151
Utility Plant Assets
0
100
274,891
36,634
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
24,244
33.82%
12,390
10,359
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
6,856
33.82%
3,503
14,236
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
9,421
33.82%
4,815
2,167
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
1,434
33.82%
833
7,000
Utility PlantAssme
66.18%
4,633
33.82%
2,367
4,300
utility P lane Assets
66.18%
2,846
33.82%
1,454
3,156
Utility P tart Aeaeb
66.18%
2,089
33.82%
1,067
1,984
Utility plant Assets
66.18%
1,313
33.82%
671
200
Utility Pant Assets
66.18%
132
33.82%
68
252
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
167
33.82%
85
151
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
100
33.82%
51
377
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
249
33.82%
128
3,716
Utility Plant Assets
66.18%
2,459
33.82%
1,257
84,532
55,943
28,589
Page2
02 -Nov -93
M
Table 3
City of Sebastian, Florida
cep
Watts and Wastewater System
Allocation fCombined UtilityOxraine Eannua to individual Systems
an
Watersntem
Wastewater
System
Line
Estimated
Allocation
Pereent Allocated
Amount Allocated
Peteare ABxated
Amount Allocated
No.
Dcsaiotioo
FY 1994 (1)
Basis
To War"
To Water
To Wastewater
To Wastewater
52
LiftSmtian
Commctusl Services - Engineering
846
DirectAssignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
846
Pp
53
Other Contractual Services
1,400
DirectAssignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
1,400
54
Electricity
4,774
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
4,774
55
Repair/Maint. - Lift Stations
3,271
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
3,271
56
Operating Supplies
344
DirectAssignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
344
57
Small Tools
216
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
216
cars
58
Property insurance
32
Direct Assignment
0.00%
0
100.00%
32
59
Tote] Lift Station
10,883
0
10,883
sas
60
Customer Service:
S.Imimvages
24,417
Utility Customer Bills
62.09%
15,161
37.91%
9,256
61
Pemions/Benefim
6,904
Utility Customer Bills
62.09%
4,7&7
37.91%
2,617
62
Postage
1,400
Utility Customer Bills
62.09%
869
37.91%
531
63
Repair/Maint.- Computers
200
Utility Customer Bilis
62.09%
124
37.91%
76
64
Printing & Binding
2,300
Utility Customer Bilis
62.09%
1,428
37.91%
872
65
LegalAds
100
Utility Customer 0116
62.09%
62
37.91%
38
asst
66
Other Customer Accounting Expemes
6,191
Utility Ctntomer Bills
62.09%
3,844
37.91%
2,347
67
Uncollectable Accounts
4,210
Utility Customer Bills
49.46%
2,082
50.54%
2,128
68
Taml Qstomer Service
45,722
27,857
17,865
slat
Non -Departmental'
27S
Uniform
50.00%
138
50.00%
138
69
70
Other General Expemes
Contingency Allowance
20,367
Operating Expense
41.79%
8,511
58.21%
11,856
71
Administrative Allocation
65,122
Revenues/Customs.
49.46%
32,209
50.54%
32,913
a�
72
Total Non-DepaRmental
85,764
40,858
44,906
73
Total Operating Expense'
5699.281
99L215
5107.066
A
f-1
Asa
M
MaN
(1) Amounts derived from Table 2.
CCT/S-02/BudW&S.Wk3 Page2 02 -Nov -93
I
1 I I 1
1 1
I I
1
1 I
1
I
1 1
1
I
OUTPUTSECCION
Table 4
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Development of Proiected Operating Expenses
for the Water Svslem
Fiscal Year Ending September 30
Line
Adjusted
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
No.
Description
1994
Reference
1995
Reference
1996
Reference
1997
Reference
1998
OPERATING EXPENSES:
1
Utility Administration
Personal Services - Existing
$57,286
3
$59,577
3
$62,556
3
$65,684
3
$68,966
2
Personal Services - Additional
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
3
Travel & Per Diem
2,773
1
2,773
1
2,773
1
2,773
1
2,773
4
Telephone
492
1
492
1
492
1
492
1
492
5
Repair/Maintenance - Vehicles
546
7
559
7
573
7
586
7
600
6
Repair/Maint. - Office Equipment
683
7
699
7
716
7
733
7
751
7
Office Supplies
410
7
420
7
430
7
440
7
451
8
Tires (Only)
137
3
142
3
150
3
157
3
165
9
Gasoline & Oil
567
2
587
2
609
2
630
2
653
10
Books & Publications
511
1
511
1
511
1
511
1
511
11
Dues & Memberships
307
1
307
1
307
1
307
1
307
12
Educational Costs
767
1
767
1
767
1
767
1
767
13
Total Utility Administration Expenses
64,479
66,836
69,883
73,082
76,439
14
Water Treatment
Personal Services - Existing
32,890
3
34,206
3
35,916
3
37,712
3
39,597
15
Personal Services - Additional
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
16
Contractual Services - Engineering
3,405
2
3,528
2
3,655
2
3,786
2
3,922
17
Other Contractual Services
3,000
INPUT
5,000
2
5,180
2
5,366
2
5,560
18
Electricity
21,888
INPUT
22,661
4
24,345
4
26,096
4
27,932
19
Testing Services
1,700
2
1,761
2
1,825
2
1,890
2
1,958
20
Chemicals
11,720
INPUT
11,365
4
12,210
4
13,088
4
14,009
21
Other Treatment Expenses
13,143
2
13,616
2
14,106
2
14,614
2
15,140
22
Repair/Maint. - Water Treatment
14,083
7
14,421
7
14,767
7
15,122
7
15,484
23
Property Insurance
1,250
1
1,250
1
1,250
1
1,250
1
1,250
24
Total Water Treatment Expenses
103,079
107,808
113,253
118,974
124,853
CCT/S-02/W0pEx.Wk3 Pagel 01 -Nov -93
I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1
OUTPUTSECTION
Table 4
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Development of Projected Operating Expenses for the Water System
Fiscal Year Ending September 30
Line
Adjusted
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
1998
No.
Description
1994
Reference
1995
Reference
1996
Reference
1997
Reference
Collection/Distribution
3
32,344
3
33,961
3
35,659
3
37,442
25
Personal Services - Existing
31,100
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
26
Personal Services - Additional
0
INPUT
2
10,112
2
10,476
2
10,853
27
Contractual Services - Engineering
9,421
2
9,760
7
1,504
7
1,540
7
1,577
28
Repair/Maint. - Water System
1,434
7
1,468
7
4,858
7
4,975
7
5,094
29
Repair/Maint. - Other
4,633
7
4,744
7
2,984
7
3,056
7
3,129
30
Inventory of Supplies
2,846
7
7
2,914
2,139
7
2,190
7
2,243
7
2,297
31
Operating Supplies
2,089
2
1,360
2
1,409
2
1,460
2
1,513
32
Small Tools
1,313
137
2
142
2
147
2
152
33
Uniforms & Shoes
132
2
167
1
167
1
167
1
167
34
Books & Publications
167
1
1
100
1
100
1
100
35
Ones &Memberships
100
1
100
1
249
1
249
1
249
36
Educational Costs
249
1
1
249
2,459
1
2,459
1
2,459
1
2,459
37
Property Insurance
2,459
38
Total Collection/Distribution Expenses
55,943
57,842
60,135
62,530
65,031
Customer Service
19,448
3
20,226
3
21,237
3
22,299
3
23,414
39
Personal Services - Existing
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
40
Personal Services - Additional
938
5
1,020
5
1,104
5
1,194
41
Postage
869
5
7
127
7
130
7
133
7
13
42
Repair/Maint. -Computers
124
5
1,542
5
1,676
5
1,815
5
1,962
43
Printing & Binding
1,428
2
67
2
69
2
71
44
legal Ads
62
3,844
2
2
64
3,982
2
4,126
2
4,274
2
4,428
45
Other Customer Accounting Expenses
6
2,385
6
2,553
6
2,754
46
Uncollectable Accounts
2,082
6
2,223
47
Total Customer Service Expenses
27,857
29,102
30,640
32,248
33,960
Non-Departmental138
1
138
1
138
1
138
1
48
Other General Expenses
138
8,511
INPUT
8,853
INPUT
9,259
INPUT
9,682
INPUT
10,126
49
Contingency Allowance
2
33,369
2
34,570
2
35,814
2
37,104
50
Administrative Allocation
32,209
51
Total Non -Departmental Expenses
40,858
42,359
43,966
45,634
47,367
52
Total Operating Expenses
$292216
$303.947
$317.877
$332417
$347.650
CCT/S-02/WOpEx.Wk3 Page2 01 -Nov -93
I
CCT/S-02/WOpEx.Wk3 Pagel 02—Nov-93
Table 4
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Development of
Projected Operating Expenses
for the Water System
Fiscal Year Ending
September 30,
Line
Escalation
No.
Escalation Factors
Reference
1995
1996
1997
1998
1
Constant Factor
1
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2
General Inflation
2
1.0360
1.0360
1.0360
1.0360
3
Labor Escalator
3
1.0400
1.0500
1.0500
1.0500
4
ChemicaWtility Escalator
4
1.0708
1.0743
1.0719
1.0704
5
Customer Growtttilnflation Factor
5
1.0796
1.0869
1.0832
1.0811
6
Rate Revenue Factor
6
1.0677
1.0728
1.0704
1.0787
7
Materials and Supplies/Repairs and Maintenance
7
1.0240
1.0240
1.0240
1.0240
CCT/S-02/WOpEx.Wk3 Pagel 02—Nov-93
1
1 I 1 1
1 1
!
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
Table 5
City
of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Development of Proiected Operating Expenses
for the Wastewater System
Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
Line
Adjusted
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
No.
Description
1994
Reference
1995
Reference
1996
Reference
1997
Reference
1998
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Utility Administration
1
Personal Services - Existing
$26,593
3
$27,657
3
$29,040
3
$30,492
3
$32,016
2
Personal Services - Additional
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
3
Travel& Per Diem
1,288
1
1,288
1
1,288
1
1,288
1
1,288
4
Telephone
228
1
228
1
228
1
228
1
228
5
Repair/Maintenance - Vehicles
254
7
260
7
266
7
273
7
279
6
Repair/Maint. - Office Equipment
317
7
325
7
332
7
340
7
349
7
Office Supplies
190
7
195
7
199
7
204
7
209
8
Tires (Only)
63
3
66
3
69
3
72
3
76
9
Gasoline& Oil
263
2
272
2
282
2
292
2
303
10
Books & Publications
237
1
237
1
237
1
237
1
237
11
Dues & Memberships
142
1
142
1
142
1
142
1
142
12
Educational Costs
356
1
356
1
356
1
356
1
356
13
Total Utility Administration Expenses
29,931
31,025
32,440
33,924
35,483
Wastewater Treatment
14
Personal Services - Existing
10,966
3
11,405
3
11,975
3
12,574
3
13,202
15
Personal Services - Additional
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
16
Electricity
26,373
4
27,772
4
29,470
4
31,219
4
33,055
17
Contractual Services - Engineering
1,514
2
1,569
2
1,625
2
1,683
2
1,744
18
Chemicals
2,931
4
3,086
4
3,275
4
3,470
4
3,674
19
Other Treatment Expenses
8,388
2
8,690
2
9,003
2
9,327
2
9,663
20
Repair/Maint. - Wastewater Treatment
8,674
7
8,882
7
9,095
7
9,314
7
9,537
21
Property Insurance
798
1
798
1
798
1
798
1
798
22
Disbursements - lift Stations
64,796
2
67,129
2
69,545
2
72,049
2
74,643
23
Disbursements - Park Place/Palm lake Club
52,148
INPUT
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
24
Disbursements - ERU Capacity Charges
98,303
2
101,842
2
105,508
2
109,307
2
113,242
25
Other Operating Expenses
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
26
Total Wastewater Treatment Expenses
274,891
231,172
240294
249,739
259,557
CCT/S-02/SOpEx.Wf3 02 -Nov -93
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I i I
Table 5
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Development of Proiected Operating Expenses for the Wastewater Svstem
CCT/S-02/SOpEx.WC3 02 -Nov -93
Fiscal Year Ending September 30
Line
Adjusted
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
No.
Description
1994
Reference
1995
Reference
1996
Reference
1997
Reference
1998
Collection/Distribution
27
Personal Services - Existing
15,893
3
16,529
3
17,355
3
18,223
3
19,134
28
Personal Services - Additional
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
29
Contractual Services - Engineering
4,815
2
4,988
2
5,168
2
5,354
2
5,547
30
Repair/Maint. - Water System
733
7
751
7
769
7
787
7
806
31
Repair/Maint. - Other
2,367
7
2,424
7
2,482
7
2,542
7
2,603
32
Inventory of Supplies
1,454
7
1,489
7
1,525
7
1,561
7
1,599
33
Operating Supplies
1,067
7
1,093
7
1,119
7
1,146
7
1,173
34
Small Tools
671
2
695
2
720
2
746
2
773
35
Uniforms & Shoes
68
2
70
2
73
2
76
2
78
36
Books & Publications
85
1
85
1
85
1
85
1
85
37
Dues & Memberships
51
1
51
1
51
1
51
1
51
38
Educational Costs
128
1
128
1
128
1
128
1
128
39
Property Insurance
1,257
1
1,257
1
1,257
1
1,257
1
1,257
40
Total Colle tioNDistribution Expenses
28,589
29,560
30,731
31,955
33,233
Lift Station
41
Contractual Services - Engineering
846
2
876
2
908
2
941
2
975
42
Other Contractual Services
1,400
2
1,450
2
1,503
2
1,557
2
1,613
43
Electricity
4,774
INPUT
7,917
7
8,107
7
8,302
7
8,501
44
Repair/Maint. - Lift Stations
3,271
7
3,350
7
3,430
7
3,512
7
3,597
45
Operating Supplies
344
INPUT
1,558
2
1,614
2
1,672
2
1,732
46
Small Tools
216
1
216
1
216
1
216
1
216
47
Property Insurance
32
1
32
1
32
1
32
1
32
48
Total Lift Station Expenses
10,883
15,399
15,810
16,231
16,665
CCT/S-02/SOpEx.WC3 02 -Nov -93
Line
) )
No.
Description
Adjusted
Escalation
Escalation
Customer Service
49
Personal Services - Existing
50
Personal Services - Additional
51
Postage
52
Repair/Maint. - Computers
53
Printing&Binding
54
Legal Ads
55
Other Customer Accounting Expenses
56
Uncollectable Accounts
57
Total Customer Service Expenses
3
Non -Departmental
58
Other General Expenses
59
Contingency Allowance
60
Administrative Allocation
61
Total Non -Departmental Expenses
62
Total Operating Expenses
CCT/S-02/SOpEx.Wk3
1 I ) 1 1 1 1 ) 1
Table 5
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Development of Proiccted Operating Expenses for the Wastewater System
Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
) )
)
1 I
Adjusted
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
Escalation
1994
Reference
1995 Reference
1996
Reference
1997
Reference
1998
11,873
3
12,348 3
12,965
3
13,614
3
14,294
0
INPUT
0 INPUT
0
INPUT
0
INPUT
0
531
5
567 5
613
5
660
5
710
76
7
78 7
80
7
82
7
84
872
5
931 5
1,006
5
1,084
5
1,166
38
2
39 2
41
2
42
2
44
2,347
2
2,431 2
2,519
2
2,610
2
2,704
2,128
6
2,249 6
2,393
6
2,541
6
2,709
17,865
18,643
19,617
20,633
21,711
138
1
138 1
138
1
138
1
138
11,856
INPUT
10,801 INPUT
11,231
INPUT
11,677
INPUT
12,141
32,913
2
34,098 2
35,325
2
36,597
2
37,915
44,907
45,037
46,694
48,412
50,194
5407.066
5370.836
__L385 .586
$400.894
5416.843
02 -Nov -93
1 ! 1
1 1 1 1 1 I 1
1 I
1
1 I 1 I I I
Table 5
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Development of Projected Operating Expenses for the Wastewater System
Fiscal Year Ending September 30
Line
Escalation
No.
Escalation Factors. Reference ERR
1996
1997
1998
1
Constant Factor 1 1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
2
General Inflation 2 1.0360
1.0360
1.0360
1.0360
3
Labor Escalator 3 1.0400
1.0500
1.0500
1.0500
4
Chemical/Utility Escalator 4 1.0530
1.0611
1.0594
1.0588
5
Customer GrowthWInflation Factor 5 1.0672
1.0814
1.0774
1.0757
6
Rate Revenue Factor 6 1.0570
1.0639
1.0618
1.0663
7
Materials and Supplies/Repairs and Maintenance 7 1.0240
1.0240
1.0240
1.0240
CCT/S-02/SOpEx.Wk3 02 -Nov -93
1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 6
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Summary of Historical Escalation Indicies
CCT/S-02/Infitnln.Wk3 Pagel
Construction
ENR
HW
Operations
Year
FPSC
CPI
Yearly Average
1981
8.99%
8.90%
8.95%
1982
9.02%
3.80%
6.41%
1983
5.99%
3.80%
4.90%
1984
4.25%
3.90%
4.08%
1985
3.76%
3.80%
3.78%
1986
3.33%
1.10%
2.22%
1987
2.69%
4.40%
3.55%
1988
2.89%
4.40%
3.65%
1989
4.35%
4.60%
4.48%
1990
4.12%
6.10%
5.11%
1991
3.63%
3.10%
3.37%
1992
3.33%
3.00%
3.17%
12 Year Period
Average
4.70%
4.24%
4.47%
7 Year Period
Average
3.48%
----3.81%
3.65%
CCT/S-02/Infitnln.Wk3 Pagel
Construction
ENR
HW
Yearly Average
9.21%
9.98%
9.60%
8.20%
5.54%
6.87%
6.30%
2.20%
4.25%
1.97%
0.58%
1.28%
1.18%
4.00%
2.59%
2.38%
-1.03%
0.68%
2.58%
1.29%
1.94%
2.56%
7.26%
4.91%
1.93%
6.23%
4.08%
2.63%
2.07%
2.35%
2.28%
-0.34%
0.97%
3.10%
0.10%
1.60%
3.69%
---3.16%
3.43%
2.49%
----2.23%
2.36%
02 -Nov -93
CCT/S-021WRVRQ2.Wkl Pagel 02 -Nov -93
Table 7
.�
City of Sebastian, Florida
11/02/93
Water System
18:0651
Development Of Net Revenue Requirements From Rates
s.s
Fiscal Year Ending
September 30,
Line
No.
Description
1994 [1]
1995
1996
1997
1998
I
Operating Expenses:
$243,513
$303,947
$317,877
$332,417
$347,650
Other Revenue Requirements:
2
Debt Service - Series 1993 Bonds
130,315
156,378
201,339
216,739
231,442
..s
3
Transfer to Renewal and Replacement Fund
19,195
23,034
24,596
26,398
28,266
Total Capital Outlay Funded from
4
Operating Revenues
5,500
6,600
6,600
6,600
6,600
5
Transfer to General Fund
0
0
0
0
0
6
Transfer to Rate Stabilization [2]
2,487
0
0
0
0
7
Total Other Revenue Requirements
157,498
186,013
232,535
249,737
266,308
8
Total Gross Revenue Requirements
401,011
489,960
550,412
582,154
613,958
Less Income and Funds From Other Sources
^"
9
Other Operating Income
9,383
11,260
11,260
11,260
11,260
10
Interest Income
7,722
9,493
9,888
10,022
10,151
11
Transfer From Rate Stabilization
0
0
1,306
0
0
12
Transfer From General Fund
0
0
0
0
0
13
Total Net Revenue Requirements From Rates
383,906
469,206
527,958
560,872
592,547
Revenues From Rates:
14
Existing
383,907
477,590
497,651
517,351
542,327
15
Prior Year Rate Adjustments
0
0
0
0
0
16
Price Index (as a % of Rate Revenue) :
3.00% 0
14,328
90,307
47,972
68,067
16
Total Applicable Rate Revenue
383,907
491,918
527,958
565,323
610,394
Revenue Surplus/(Deficiency):
a.
17
Amount
SO
522,712
$0
$4,452
$17,846
18
Percent [3]
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%-
[I]
Amounts shown reflect 10 months of operation by the City of Sebastian consistent with the anticipated Debt Service
Repayment schedule.
�.
[2]
Amount shown reflects the estimated Transfer to the Rate Stabilization Fund required to be funded from water rate
revenue and
which will
subsequently be utilized by the wastewatersystem in order to minimize any rale adjustment needed, if any.
[3]
For years in which the price index rate adjustment is recognized, adjustment
is assumed to be effective on October 1.
CCT/S-021WRVRQ2.Wkl Pagel 02 -Nov -93
NO
Table 8
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Development Of Net Revenue Requirements From Rates
s.
s� Line
No.
MM
M
11/02/93
18:08:28
Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
1994[1] 1995 1996 1997 1998
$339,222
I
Operating Expenses:
$400,894
$416,843
Other Revenue Requirements:
79,202
2
Debt Service - Series 1993 Bonds
117,220
3
Transfer to Renewal and Replacement Fund
24,315
25,629
Total Capital Outlay Funded from
2,833
4
Operating Revenues
3,400
5
Transfer to General Fund
..
6
Transfer to Rate Stabilization [2]
0
7
Total Other Revenue Requirements
1,306
0
0
88,206
8
Total Gross Revenue Requirements
138,802
147,588
Less Income and Funds From Other Sources
s.
9
Other Operating Income
564,431
10
Interest Income
0
11
Transfer From Rate Stabilization
3,912
12
Transfer From General Fund
5,077
5,142
2,487
0
12
Total Net Revenue Requirements From Rates
0
33,619
Revenues From Rates:
0
13
Existing
387,410
14
Prior Year Rate Adjustments
534,619
15
Price Index (as a % of Rate Revenue):
472,144
15
Total Applicable Rate Revenue
503,974
0
Revenue Surplus/(Deficiency):
�..
16
Amount
3.00% 0
17
Percent [3]
MM
M
11/02/93
18:08:28
Fiscal Year Ending September 30,
1994[1] 1995 1996 1997 1998
$339,222
$370,836
$385,586
$400,894
$416,843
66,002
79,202
101,974
109,774
117,220
19,371
23,245
24,315
25,629
26,967
2,833
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,306
0
0
88,206
105,847
130,995
138,802
147,588
427,427
476,683
516,581
539,696
564,431
0
0
0
0
0
3,912
4,809
5,008
5,077
5,142
2,487
0
0
0
0
33,619
0
0
0
0
387,410
471,874
511,573
534,619
559,289
387,410
472,144
483,148
493,580
503,974
0
0
0
0
0
3.00% 0
14,164
29,424
45,768
63,253
387,410
486,308
512,572
539,348
567,227
$0
$14,435
$999
$4,729
$7,938
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
[1] Amounts shown reflect 10 months of operation by the City of Sebastian consistent with the anticipated Debt Service Repayment schedule.
[2] Amount shown reflects the estimated Transfer to the Rate Stabilization Fund required to be funded from wastewater rate revenue and which
will subsequently be utilized by the water system in order to minimize any rale adjustment needed, if any.
[3] For years in which the price index rate adjustment is recognized, adjustment is assumed to be effective on October 1.
01% CCT/S-02/SRVRQ2.Wkl Pagel
02 -Nov -93]
Table 9
COYof S.b., WN Plnida
W.tc S}atcm
O Wmala.t r Mao., Rt.R
a�
54451
MOWMYPLOW CNAROBS— CITY OF SBBA9(IAN
59,397
1991
514884
1995
$12276
1996
$13.95
1997
Fist lti«k(0-3,000)
1938
SL75
Line
17
Allot.
B.dsent
134H.t
$6,174
Billing
TL d 131 k ( 7,000— 11000)
Billion
5255
BIDS t
19
13illing
SMR
Na
Dmmipfl 0
%
Rstea(1)
Dctamimams
Rasewa
Da.I.w
Resew.
Oclaemiaa.
R..
Dctvmimw
Resewc
OaW.imma
11�.
1611%
S1.75
IL347
22
S aral Bl9 (3,001 — 7,000)
1679%
5215
saaa
2T
Tldrd &ort ( 7.000 — 13,1100)
1215%
3255
^aa'
CITYOFSRBA lm
FOv41 Black (emev. SIM)
49.65%
St85
s125
23
Tommcoaaal s c
75
$161
75
76
TOTAL MONF7R.Y FLOW CNAROM —
$161
75
MOMMLY ft C CSIAROFS
78
WATBR — CITY OFSBBASTIAN
78
31%
78
$198
78
5198
78
$198
721
SIM
121
Rcsidaotial Sank.
=I
54811
221
Sim
221
SIM
MS
54556
445
54556
335
$4556
as
1 BOliot Clnage
10400%
5200
213
$5,112
238
54712
217
34618
314
sis36
351
114421
2 Base Pxilidv Chart.
10400%
9.20
213
M515
218
$24275
217
534581
314
$30.666
351
334730
3 Total Single Family
384133
213
324621
238
531967
M
537,229
311
$42.34
351
$47174
0..1 S
4 Billing Harte
113400%
Sim
2
$48
2
748
2
us
2
$a
2
$IB
Banc Fxilidn1 ,.
5 NC
lfi. %
$9.31
1
silo
1
$110
1
$110
1
$110
1
$110
6 1-
omS
931
0
s0
0
SO
0
s0
0
SO
0
$0
a""
7 1 VC
8133%
%M
5
3552
5
$552
5
$Sn
5
S552
5
5552
8 2
400%
9.20
0
SO
0
SO
0
s0
0
SO
0
s0
9 r
0.W%
%23
0
s0
0
SO
0
SO
0
$0
0
s0
10 Y
am
9.31
0
w
0
10
0
s0
0
0
0
s0
II 6
400%
931
D
Sl,
0
w
0
s0
0
30
0
s0
aa►
12 Total Denial Svticc
6
5]10
6
5)10
6
5]10
6
5710
fi
$710
TOSAL lwla M Y GASB C OBS —
WATER — CITY OFMl3WiTIAN
13 B110psch tm
215
75,160
210
35,]60
279
24696
316
$7,584
353
54472
N live Facilities cht.
219
24,178
ZN
24938
283
31,743
331
35,329
353
39.413
TOTAL MONRR.Y BASB C 013.9 —
aars
IS WATER— CITY OF SERA4ITAN
529.318
$32698
$37939
512912
[47.845
V TOTAL WATER RATE RBYBNI30 —CITY OF SBBAS Il
4.829
54451
MOWMYPLOW CNAROBS— CITY OF SBBA9(IAN
59,397
4219
514884
Rcsldcmiel
$12276
7,803
$13.95
16
Fist lti«k(0-3,000)
5181%
SL75
2789
17
S ..d 131.k (IMI — 7.000)
32.17%
5215
$6,174
18
TL d 131 k ( 7,000— 11000)
1958%
5255
7,271
19
Fourth lli k(.. my 13,0(1D)
SMR
3485
$7,188
20
Total Rvidc.d.1
533
s2su
617
32994
GeoaalS c
$1371
714
31756
21
Fav Blak So -3,000)
1611%
S1.75
IL347
22
S aral Bl9 (3,001 — 7,000)
1679%
5215
saaa
2T
Tldrd &ort ( 7.000 — 13,1100)
1215%
3255
72
u
FOv41 Black (emev. SIM)
49.65%
St85
s125
23
Tommcoaaal s c
75
$161
75
76
TOTAL MONF7R.Y FLOW CNAROM —
$161
75
$161
78
WATBR — CITY OFSBBASTIAN
78
31%
V TOTAL WATER RATE RBYBNI30 —CITY OF SBBAS Il
4.829
54451
5,370
59,397
4219
514884
7,015
$12276
7,803
$13.95
4718
53,821
1976
$4.249
2789
34,921
7,582
15,550
7.871
$6,174
L7t5
34,399
1,918
50.892
7,271
$5.665
2506
MM
2.M
$7,188
419
S1325
533
s2su
617
32994
696
$1371
714
31756
9,
514996
9,293
$24122
IL347
$24,466
12799
52/,599
14216
$54692
n
3125
72
$125
72
3125
TL
3125
TL
s125
75
$161
75
$161
75
$161
75
$161
75
$161
78
$1%
78
31%
78
$198
78
5198
78
$198
721
SIM
121
Stolt
=I
54811
221
Sim
221
SIM
MS
54556
445
54556
335
$4556
as
54556
445
54556
9256
120.532
14742
5/26/8
11792
SWD19
13.229
$29.150
11681
332248
$49.189
355375
$63.959
$72.062
384133
RCC/S-03/RevMod4.Wk3 02—Nov-93
Tablc 9
Cly of Sebaataiq Florida
W.la 5yuca
O I f Exisd,g Ra R
an
1991
1995
19%
1991
1998
Lira
Allot
Edi dnt
WE,
Billiot
Wliot
Billiot
Mi.,
Nn
DCrn5Pdoa %
Rata (1)
Dcicmimom
Aucwc
Dammimw
R..
DclvmirAW
Rcxo9e
pebmlmm
Rev c
Delcmiiuo0
Rc,couc
ODU-SRBASTIANHIGSBN4DSSYSTEM
MONTHLY RASE CHARGES
Raideotul
28
Billmli LSctn 10000%
3200
4200
SAM
4237
SAM
L04
SA576
4311
S3LIU
4318
332,352
29
Rue Fxilid. Chula 100004
%M
42D0
$132,480
4237
$136.565
4211
5144650
4311
t1µ731
4348
$144819
b
Total Raidco0al
1,9]0
5164280
4D7
5166 33
4214
5171,2M
4311
5176,1%
4348
$184171
a� 31
GcwwS e
Elliot Chute 10000%
1200
51
14296
55
54344
u
54392
bD
54440
0
f44M
32
Rut Facilicn Cwtn
144' 78.85%
59.93
43
10.747
M
14,858
46
SIMS
47
$5,189
49
$5,410
33
I" 1IY?%
9.91
10
$1,IN
10
34101
10
Skim
13
sow
13
54380
M
I Vt 18.5%
9.20
10
$LIN
10
S41N
10
$41N
10
$419
10
SUN
35
2 L92%
9.2(1
8
1883
8
5883
B
$BM
8
5883
a
SB63
"
T LW%
9.1?')
16
$4766
16
$47%
16
$1,766
16
54766
16
14766
37
4' 000%
9.91
0
so
0
SO
0
50
0
$0
0
S0
M
C 4T/%
9.20
150
514560
150
slf 5w
150
114%0
1511
S16,W
2IID
Sam
39
Total GeoaalS c
217
IV 461
218
224619
240
$21,888
744
SA372
296
$34111
TOTAL MONRILY RASE CFIAROP.S -
WATER - ODU-SBRASTIAN HIGIRANDS
40
Ellin$[hvtn
4254
34096
4295
34012
4332
34968
4371
32,99
1,410
348"
41
Bou Fac0i6n Chorea
4437
158,&5
4475
162,&0
1,514
167,1"
1,555
171,617
4663
184442
TOTAL MONTSO.Y BASE CHARGES -
n
WATER - ODU -SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS
$184741
$19188
5199.114
5214.$21
$2152HL
^A
MONTSRY PLOW CHARGES- ODU SEBASTIAN
HIOMB S
Rnideatial
43
F94,B (D-1000) 45.56%
SL75
35,581
562,272
34498
S638M
37,MD
364454
A296
$0,018
19,180
Slik63
M
Saod Eak (;001- 7,000) 6321%
$115
26,735
554480
24422
$5495/
23,101
SA417
MM
$641161
29,437
$63,289
45
T dBlock I. 7,000) 14.74%
5255
11,513
529.35/
14808
534111
12,101
114851
12,390
334591
12676
S37,3N
"
FouW Eak (ecce ow 14000) 5"%
34.M
4,263
592683
4,374
$24214
4.492
124719
4589
122259
4,015
12273
47
Taal Ra&.&l
AIN
$164]92
84110
5174153
87,0%
$174466
84056
S1B2T51
63,99/
$186.951
Oscal Smicc
"
F'9R Slat (0-4000) 33.37%
S1.75
4159
$14278
4459
$14814
4760
514329
9,060
S1495
9.360
f143BD
49
S WR9 (409-7,000) 3635%
$115
4888
$19.108
9.215
$19,812
9,542
f24sls
9.869
$24218
IV%
t2L=
50
Th'vd ®abloom 7,OOp) 8128%
5255
7,403
$1487.9
7,676
$19,514
7,987
34269
8,221
Mw
8,494
524659
4eaa 51
Fovth Mc I..o 13,000) 000%
SLM
0
so
0
$0
0
$0
0
3o
0
N
52
Taal Gc9cal Smticc
24,130
$5220
25.350
554,189
24250
$54113
27,150
$AM7
2405D
259,961
TOTAL MONTHLY PLOW CHARGES -
53
WATER- ODU SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS
102551
5222058
IOSd68
5na342
108)&
52)4.59
111.206
1240768
114147
2746912
,�
N
TOTAL WATER RATE REVENUE- ODU SEBAti T1AN HIGHLANDS
34149.E
S42L2H
548873
145189
3161187
TOTAL WATER RATE REVENUE - TOTAL SYSTEM
55
Billiot Chutta
4469
535,256
4533
236.792
1,611
$3469
1,687
244488
470
(42312
%
Bne Failidn (2utn
1,656
182BM
4719
1854718
4797
194389
1,875
206,945
4001
224&5
"
Voloae Chvica
111,810
242609
115,702
254(178
121LIM
260.SW
124,450
269,918
12472E
219,160
a� 58
TGTALWATERRATE REVENUE-TOTALSY5713M
5460688
$471.590
1497.01
$517.351
t52121
RCC/S-03/RevMod4.Wk3 02 -Nov -93
Table 9
City of Sebutaie, Plwida
Waatcrater System
Dear I f "ad,, Rat. R
rasa
Line
Na
Macedon
DesmlPdo. Pic
P.dsfiot
Rale
1994
Bllli.t
Octmmimots
Revenue
1995
Billing
Octcmi.ants
Revenue
1996
MMng
Detcmimm
Recn.e
199'/
911int
Dewinican9
R..o
L998
Mlling
NI-ro.o
Rc
MO WHLY FLOW CHARGES - CITYGP SEBASTIAN
CITY OF sl! A IAN
Reid -tial
MOWHLYHASP CHARGES
20
Feat Block (0-10.000) IM"
$135
5,]63
517%6
5,463
S19M6
490]
$AIM
7,N1
ReideM'ml5
8,6$6
$29,01
21
Socond Block (cess ow 14000) a"
taro
0
SO
0
$0
0
t0
ME, Charke IM"
S200
213
53,112
218
A712
2N
$4648
314
51,06
351
34424
2
Bax Focili6e Charge lam
Slim
213
$3/,506
238
3AS%
2N
$14,8]4
314
550,868
351
554862
2
Total Rc idendal
SAEt
213
SI% 8
218
$62,268
2T1
SS1,STL
311
554404
351
365,786
General Saaic<
23
Fkat Mock(0-10;M) lam
$135
3N
3
911iot Cbarge lam
no)
2
548
2
548
2
SIB
2
W
2
148
0
Bax Fxilide Coates
0
0
0
SO
0
SO
0
SO
25
Total GcnmalSmxe
3
w 5ero%
$1150.
1
3162
1
$162
1
$IQ
1
1162
1
5162
4
1" a"
1130
0
w
0
SO
0
30
0
$0
0
50
mrm s
Ila' 50.0096
1130
5
Salo
5
3a10
5
Seto
5
500
5
sato
6
r am
1150
0
SO
0
SO
0
SO
0
$0
0
SO
7
r am
1150
0
So
0
So
0
$0
0
SO
0
SO
8
Y am
1150
0
0
0
SO
0
SO
0
$0
0
SO
9
6^ am
1150
0
SO
0
30
0
$0
a
50
0
SO
10
Total Ocoval Smicc
6
SI,aN
6
AM
6
$LOttI
6
$1,020
6
$I=
158,
Lift Slade. Costomm
3IS M
19.165
S6L2B
11
Billing Cbarte 100.0096
1200
12
3528
22
5528
r2
S528
II
5338
22
2578
nae 12
Base Farilides Charts (ILud o. ERU,) 1011m
slim
10
$2'646
10
529,616
10
3N,646
10
$2+}696
163
$29,616
13
Total Lift Sudo. Cmtomm
181
3341]4
10
S474
10
$34 74
10
$30, 74
10
$30.174
C3.v I Cletomm -U.coe ted
14
Billing t2arge lam
Sero
92
522011
91
A20t
92
$21238
92
522ro
92
57.208
IS
Sae Facilide Cherge(Bucdon ERUa) 100.0096
slim
6f
SI04378
669
5108,378
669
$1008,3]8
669
$104378
669
$10$378
16
Toml Class l Uoconn W Coate.
669
5114586
6/A
5110.586
669
3114596
669
5114586
669
5114566
TOTAL MONTHLY RASE CH GES
WA WATER -CITY OF SEBASTIAN
17
Mlli.t@ to
329
17,896
351
A4
J93
K432
430
514320
410
$ILMS
IB
Rax Facilide Charge
1,071
713,502
4096
177,552
L135
18),870
41'2
189,BM
42W
595,858
allIla
TOTAL MONTTa.Y BASE C RARGES
19
WASTEWATER-CTITOPMEWTIAN
ISL398
184048
191302
2410.10
2%1.066
A
MO WHLY FLOW CHARGES - CITYGP SEBASTIAN
Reid -tial
20
Feat Block (0-10.000) IM"
$135
5,]63
517%6
5,463
S19M6
490]
$AIM
7,N1
37$5100
8,6$6
$29,01
21
Socond Block (cess ow 14000) a"
taro
0
SO
0
$0
0
t0
0
So
0
to
2L
Total Reideo0al
5,361
517,966
S.W
319.9]6
490
SAEt
7,NI
324100
8,6b6
$29,01
Gcocal Service
23
Fkat Mock(0-10;M) lam
$135
3N
SLM
3W
$4210
3w
$16M
3w
A270
377
$kM
mae
W
Sceexl Block (a... 10,000) am
$7.80
0
30
0
0
0
SO
0
SO
0
SO
25
Total GcnmalSmxe
3N
SIM
3W
14M
3W
SLM
3N
SLM
3W
SLM
LiB Statio. Cuatomm
_
26
FirM Mack (0 - 10.000) lam
$135
10,120
531902
10,120
331902
10.120
531902
10.12(1
SiJ,902
1412]
$33,912
21
Smoed Mak (earesaw 10,000) aro%
$7.80
0
50
0
$0
0
50
0
SO
0
SO
28
Total Lift Station L toners
14120
511,902
10.120
$11902
10.120
533,902
14121
S 3
106 M
$31902
N
TOTAL MOWHLY FLOW CHARGES
WASIEWATIM - CITY OF IWTIAN
15,862
331D8
14162
551143
1].106
158,
18290
3IS M
19.165
S6L2B
M
TOTAL WA WATER RATE REWNUE - CITY OP SEBASTIAN
sm5J6
MOD
$251.612
5261.156
STI1.7lfl
um1
RCC/S-03/RevMod4.Wk3 02 -Nov -93
m.
1991
Table 9
City of Scbasuln, Ma d.
ww.w Sptcm
Doelonmcot of Uxtioe Ram R..cuua
N.1
MONTHLYCLOWC GES
RaidcmW
1991
19%
1946
1997
1996
"
Linc
Xan
NW4ne
E d'
Billlof
34.834
%Ili,
XB"
aui.t
XM
Win
511iot
S.cod Rat (arrow I0.13M) a" saw
Nw
D iption
P
Row
Dcwmim
Rm c
Dctamimom
Rm a
Dvamimm
Rn c
Demcmlmm
Rw we
Ocvmimoo
Reumc
mm
X"S
3114731
X851
$116,X
XS"
2114]91
XM
$HOTS
0.1 Sawa
ODU SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS
SYSTEM
N
R' Wab to - IRM) IMON6 $135
1666
Ant
4666
A%]
MONf)RY& CHARGES
Ant
4666
14"1
4666
34581
M
Sand Blob (apessow 1a(W) 0.00E 27.60
0
M
0
SO
0
Raidewml
0
SO
0
SO
51
Twl Orval Saye
4666
34%1
4606
35,511
4606
M 31
Billiot Cbuta
10000%
5200
SN
f14s56
567
$A&S
M
$13,W
m
113,752
576
$MM
)2
Rau Fvilidm Chute
10000%
11150
561
91.366
567
91.851
SN
97,310
SA
9;876
$76
93,312
33
ToW Re denU
t�
SN
3100.901
567
SI64"2
570
3104081
575
3104578
576
3107,136
Gcmal S c
TOTAL WASIEWAMR MTB REVENUE -
H
Mint CHrta
In"
5200
/
3%
/
3%
/
S%
/
$%
1
2%
Rau F.ilid. (3wtm
TOTAL. WASIEWAMR RATE REVENUE - TOTAL SWLEM
35
Yr
nm
$1150
3
111116
S
5186
3
S"6
3
5186
3
5166
M
r
am
13.511
0
f0
0
M
0
50
0
%
0
so
37
II?
am
1130
0
b
0
M
0
W
0
M
0
W
M
r
am
I131]`
0
M
0
M
0
b
0
So
0
$0
W
r
am
1150
16
SL592
16
$4392
16
54592
16
54592
16
3;592
0.0
r
60098
1150
0
SO
0
f0
0
W
0
SO
0
$0
al
a
60098
1150
0
SO
0
t0
0
10
0
W
0
W
12
Toml 0.4 Saws.
19
33,171
N
A71
19
53.171
N
$3,171
N
$4131
TOTAL MONTHI.Y BA58( GFS-
m.e WASTEWATER-ODU SEBA MHIOHJANDS
13 Billi't M
N B.0 F.ili6 CLvta
TOTAL MONRR.YB C GES -
N.1 IS WASTEWATER-GDUSEBAS MHIOHLANDS
568 14632 M
5O 91.116 366
blare
11701 S7/
KM M
lo86M
A776 A7
93,116 592
109.1"
13,816 SBO 13.910
95,901 995 94390
109752 110.110
M
RCC/S-03/RevMod4.Wk3 02—Nov-93
MONTHLYCLOWC GES
RaidcmW
"
Pict Oat (0 -Lam) IM" $vs
Xan
$114697
XNS
$114751
34.834
$114761
XB"
$116,Wl
XM
SHOO
17
S.cod Rat (arrow I0.13M) a" saw
0
t0
0
$o
0
W
0
SO
0
so
N
ToW Revdcndal
ADS
3114697
X"S
3114731
X851
$116,X
XS"
2114]91
XM
$HOTS
0.1 Sawa
N
R' Wab to - IRM) IMON6 $135
1666
Ant
4666
A%]
5,666
Ant
4666
14"1
4666
34581
M
Sand Blob (apessow 1a(W) 0.00E 27.60
0
M
0
SO
0
so
0
SO
0
SO
51
Twl Orval Saye
4666
34%1
4606
35,511
4606
S4N1
4666
f4"1
4666
"I
TOTALMONIT YROWCHARGES
52
WA41EWA7ER-ODU MB/ MHWHI NDdi M501
fITLZ7B
MSII
1128312
M520
SIgL
MSN
lila t
MSM
51223%
t�
TOTAL WASIEWAMR MTB REVENUE -
53
O DU SEBASTIAN HIG HANDS
5730.356
$230,9N
MOM
SMI21
SD2A5
TOTAL. WASIEWAMR RATE REVENUE - TOTAL SWLEM
N
11111161 Chutn
897
21,526
975
VIM
%]
24208
4007
7A,1"
4017
25,178
55
ll cPv.M6. Cbuta
4651
W7"
4662
2741"
4M
279,3116
1.7N
285,7"
4601
292,2"
M
Volum. mut.
52,163
175,616
52,973
1741"
S3,926
18%632
54819
183,6"
55,]01
166.5%
8911
57
TOTAL WASTEWATER MTE REVENUE - TOTAL SYSTEM
SIN.893
NTLI"
N63.IN
3/91560
150%971
M
RCC/S-03/RevMod4.Wk3 02—Nov-93
Table 10
Page 1 of 2
City of Sebastian, Florida
" Wastewater System
Determination of intimated Indian River County
Bulk Wastewater Costs to the City of Sebastian
srn
rcc\copeland\sebastin\6ccosts.wk3 03—Nov-9
Use
For the Fiscal Years Ending September 30
No.
Description
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Park Place/Pain lake Charges for Service (Connected Class I Customenl
Residential Customer Charges for Service
r•..
1
Number of Accounts Billed per Month
188
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
2
Number ofERUs Billed per Month
188
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
Estimated Wastewater Revenue Gallons
3
Billed (Assumed to be 100% of Water Usage)
5,736,471
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
Bulk Wastewater ERU Rates Charged to City
4
Billing Charge per Account
$2.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
5
Base Facilities Charge per ERU per Mouth
11.97
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
Volume Charges per 1,000 Gallons
.m
6
First Block (0 — 10,000 GaOoos per ERU)
$3.19
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
7
Second Block (Over 10,000 Gallons per ERU)
$7.64
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
Estimated Annual Resideutul Park Place
and Palm La he Charges for Service
8
Billing Charges
S4,512
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
9
Base Facilities Charges
27,004
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
10
Volume Charges (Assuming All Usage in First Block)
18299
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
11
Estimated Annual Residential Charges for Service
$49,816
NIA
N/A
NIA
N/A
Commercial Customer Charges for Service
12
Number of Accounts Billed per Month
2
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
13
Estimated Number of ERUs Billed per Month
6
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
Estimated Wastewater Revenue Gallons
14
Billed (Assumed to be 100% of Water Usage)
445,882
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bulls Wastewater ERU Rates Charged to City
'
15
Billing Charge per Account
$2.00
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
16
Base Facilities Charge per ERU per Month
11.97
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Volume Charges per 1,000 Gallons
17
Pint Block (0 — 10,000 Gallons per ERU)
$3.19
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
18
Second Block (Over 10,000 Gallo= per ERU)
$7.64
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
Estimated Annual Commercial Park Place
and Palm lake Charges for Service
19
Billing Charges
S48
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
Base Facilities Charges
862
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
rm
21
Volume Charges (Assuming All Usage in First Block)
1,422
NIA
NIA
N/A
N/A
22
Estimated Annul Commercial Charges for Service
$2932
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
23
Total Estimated Park Place/Palm lake Charges for Service
252,148
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
24
Estimated Park Place/Palm fake Charges -1994 City Budget
548,450
25
Estimated 1994 City Budget Adjustment Required
53.698
rcc\copeland\sebastin\6ccosts.wk3 03—Nov-9
—
— Line
No. Description
Table 10
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Determination of Estimated Indian River County
Bulk Wastewater Coats to the City of Sebsslia■
Page 2 of 2
On
—
OR rcc\copelandlsebastin)irccosts.wk3 03—Nov-9
ERU Charges for Service (Not Connected Class I Customers)
26
Number of Accounts Billed per Month
92
92
92
92
92
—
27
Number of ERUs Billed per Month
669
669
669
669
669
Bulk Wastewater ERU Rates Charged to City
28
Billing Charge per Account
$2.00
52.07
52.15
$122
$230
29
Base Facilities Charge per ERU per Month
11.97
12.40
12.85
1331
13.79
Ps,
Estimated Annual ERU Charges for Service
30
Billing Charges
$2,208
52287
$1}70
$2,455
$2,$44
31
Base Facilities Charges
96,095
99,555
103,139
106,852
110,698
32
Total Estimated Annual ERU Charges for Service
598203
5101.842
SlO5S08
5109307
5113242
33
Estimated ERU Charges -1994 City Budget
5112,700
34
Estimated 1994 City Budget Adjustment Required
(714397)
Irrt
Lift Station Charges for Service (Connected Clam I Customem)
sir
35
Number of Accounts Billed per Mouth
22
22
22
22
22
36
Number of ERUs Billed per Mouth
183
183
183
183
183
Estimated Wastewater Revenue Gallons
.n
37
Billed(Amumed to be 100% of Water Usage)
11,906,437
11,906,437
11,906,437
11,906,437
11,906,437
Bulk Wastewater ERU Rates Charged to City
38
Billing Charge perAccounl
$2.00
52.07
52.15
5222
$230
39
Base Facilities Charge per ERU per Mouth
11.97
12.40
12.85
1331
13.79
On
Volume Charges per 1,000 Gallons
40
First Block (0 — 10,000 Gallons per ERU)
3.19
330
3.42
355
3.67
41
Second Block (Over 10,000 Gallons per ERU)
7.64
7.92
820
850
880
Estimated Annual Lift Station Charges for Service
—
42
Billing Charges
$528
5547
5567
5587
5608
43
Base Facilities Charges
26286
27,232
28,213
29,228
30281
44
Volume Charges (Assuming All Usage in First Block)
37,982
39 U9
40.765
42233
43,753
45
Estimated Annual Lift Station Charges for Service
564,796
567.128
569545
171.049
574.642
46
Estimated Lift Station Charges — 1994CityBudgct
$52,700
47
Estimated 1994 City Budget Adjustment Required
512.096
am
48
Total Estimated IRC Bulk Waslewater Charges to City
5215247
5168970
5175.053
5181355
5187.884
On
—
OR rcc\copelandlsebastin)irccosts.wk3 03—Nov-9
I
I I I I
I 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 I
1
1 I
I
OUTPUT
Table 11
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
Allocation Factors
Allocation Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements (1)
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Utility Administration
1
Personal Services — Existing
$47,738
2331%
23.47%
53.22%
$11,128
$11,204
$25,406
2
Personal Services — Additional
0
2331%
23.47%
5322%
0
0
0
3
Travel & Per Diem
2,311
23.31%
23.47%
5322%
539
542
1,230
4
Telephone
410
2331%
23.47%
5322%
96
96
218
5
Repair/Maintenance — Vehicles
455
2331%
23.47%
53.22%
106
107
242
6
Repair/Maint. — Office Equipment
569
2331%
23.47%
53.22%
133
134
303
7
Office Supplies
342
23.31%
23.47%
5322%
80
80
182
8
Tires (Only)
114
23.31%
23.47%
5322%
27
27
61
9
Gasoline & Oil
473
2331%
23.47%
53.22%
110
111
251
10
Books & Publications
426
23.31%
23.47%
53.22%
99
100
227
11
Dues & Memberships
256
23.31%
23.47%
5322%
60
60
136
12
Educational Costs
639
2331%
23.47%
5322%
149
150
340
13
Total Utility Administration Expenses
53,733
12,525
12,611
28,596
Watcr Treatment
14
Personal Services — Existing
27,408
0.00%
2928%
70.72%
0
8,025
19,383
15
Personal Services — Additional
0
0.00%
2928%
70.72%
0
0
0
16
Contractual Services — Engineering
2,838
0.00%
29.26%
70.72%
0
831
2,007
17
Other Contractual Services
2,500
0.00%
2928%
70.72%
0
732
1,768
18
Electricity
18,240
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0
0
18,240
19
Testing Services
1,417
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0
0
1,417
20
Chemicals
9,767
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0
0
9,767
21
Other Treatment Expenses
10,953
0.00%
29.28%
70.72%
0
3,207
7,746
22
Repair/Maint. — Water Treatment
11,736
0.00%
29.28%
70.72%
0
3,436
8,300
23
Property Insurance
1,042
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
1,042
0
24
Total Water Treatment Expenses
85,899
0
17,273
68,626
CCT/S—O21WCbss.Wk3 Pagel 03—Nov-93
I
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
OUTPUT
Table 11
City of
Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
Allocation Factors
Allocation Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements (1)
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
Collection/Distribution
25
Personal Services - Existing
25,917
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
8,291
17,626
26
Personal Services - Additional
0
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
0
0
27
Contractual Services - Engineering
7,851
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
2,511
5,339
28
Repair/Maint. - Water System
1,195
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
382
813
29
Repair/Maint. - Other
3,861
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
1,235
2,626
30
Inventory of Supplies
2,372
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
759
1,613
31
Operating Supplies
1,741
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
557
1,184
32
Small Tools
1,094
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
350
744
33
Uniforms & Shoes
110
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
35
75
34
Books & Publications
139
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
45
95
35
Dues & Memberships
83
0.000/0
31.99%
68.01%
0
27
57
36
Educational Cost
208
0.00%
31.99%
68.01%
0
66
141
37
Property Insurance
2,049
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
2,049
0
38
Total Collection/Distribution Expenses
46,619
0
16,307
30,312
Customer Service
39
Personal Services - Existing
16,207
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
16,207
0
0
40
Personal Services - Additional
0
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
0
41
Postage
724
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
724
0
0
42
Repair/Maint. - Computers
103
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
103
0
0
43
Printing & Binding
1,190
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,190
0
0
44
Legal Ads
52
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
52
0
0
45
Other Customer Accounting Expenses
3,203
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3,203
0
0
46
Uncollectable Accounts
1,735
8.48%
48.44%
43.08%
147
840
747
47
Total Customer Service Expenses
23,214
21,626
840
747
CCT/S - 02/WC lass. W k3 Page2 03 -Nov -93
I
1 I 1 I 1 1
1 I
I 1
I
1
1
I 1
I
OUTPUT
Table 11
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
Allocation Factors
Allocation Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements (1)
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
Non—Departmental
48
Other General Expenses
115
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
115
0
0
49
Contingency Allowance
7,093
17.20%
22.37%
60.43%
1,220
1,586
4,286
50
Administrative Allocation
26,841
23.31%
23.47%
53.22%
6,257
6,300
14,285
51
Total Non—Departmental Expenses
7,592
7,886
18,571
34,048
52
Total Operating Expenses
243,513
41,743
54,917
146,853
OTHER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
53
Debt Service — Series 1993 Bonds
130,315
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
130,315
0
54
Transfer to Renewal and Replacement Fund
19,195
0.00%
2928%
70.72%
0
5,620
13,575
55
Total Capital Outlay Funded from Operating Revenues
5,500
0.00%
2928%
70.72%
0
1,610
3,890
56
Transfer to General Fund
0
8.48%
48.44%
43.08%
0
0
0
57
Transfer to Rate Stabilization
2,487
8.48%
48.44%
43.08%
211
1,205
1,071
58
Total Other Revenue Requirements
211
138,750
18,536
157,497
59
Total Gross Revenue Requirements
401,010
41,954
193,667
165,389
I= Income and Funds From Other Sources
60
Other Operating Income
9,383
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9,383
0
0
61
Interest Income
7,722
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
7,722
0
62
Transfer From Rate Stabilization
0
8.48%
48.44%
43.08%
0
0
0
63
Total Net Revenue Requirements From Rates5383.905
532.571
5185.946
5165,369
(1) Amounts shown reflect 10 months of operation by the City of Sebastian consistent with the anticipated Debt Service Repayment schedule.
CCT/S-02/WCbss.Wk3 Page3 03—Nov-93
I
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
OUTPUTSEMON
Table 12
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
CCT/S-02/SC1ass.Wk3 Pagel 03—Nov-93
Allocation Factors
Allocated Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Utility Administration
1
Personal Services — Existing
$22,161
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
$6,792
$7,018
$8,350
2
Personal Services—Additional
0
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
0
0
0
3
Travel & Per Diem
1,073
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
329
340
404
4
Telephone
190
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
58
60
72
5
Repair/Maintenance — Vehicles
212
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
65
67
80
6
Repair/Maint. — Office Equipment
264
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
81
84
100
7
Office Supplies
158
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
49
50
60
8
Tires (Only)
53
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
16
17
20
9
Gasoline & Oil
219
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
67
69
83
10
Books&Publications
198
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
61
63
74
11
Dues & Memberships
118
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
36
37
45
12
Educational Costs
297
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
91
94
112
13
Total Utility Administration Expenses
24,943
7,645
7,899
9,398
Wastewater Treatment
14
Personal Services — Existing
9,138
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
3,930
5,208
15
Personal Services — Additional
0
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
0
0
16
Electricity
21,978
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0
0
21,978
17
Contractual Services — Engineering
1,262
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
543
719
18
Chemicals
2,443
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0
0
2,443
19
Other Treatment Expenses
6,990
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
3,006
3,984
20
Repair/Maint. — Wastewater Treatment
7,228
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
3,109
4,119
21
Property insurance
665
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
665
0
22
Disbursements — Lift Stations
53,997
0.82%
40.56%
58.62%
443
21,901
31,653
23
Disbursements — Park Place/Palm Lake Club
43,457
8.74%
53.44%
37.82%
3,798
23,223
16,435
24
Disbursements — ERU Capacity Charges
81,919
2.25%
83.67%
14.08%
1,843
68,542
11,534
25
Other Operating Expenses
0
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
0
0
26
Total Wastewater Treatment Expenses
229,076
6,084
124,919
98,072
CCT/S-02/SC1ass.Wk3 Pagel 03—Nov-93
I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
OUTPUT SECTION
Table 12
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for. Combined System
CCT/S-02/SC1ass.Wk3 Page2 03 -Nov -93
Allocation Factors
Allocated Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
Collection/Distribution
27
Personal Services - Existing
13,244
0.00%
4751%
52.49%
0
6,292
6,952
28
Personal Services - Additional
0
0.00%
47.51%
52.49%
0
0
0
29
Contractual Services - Engineering
4,013
0.00%
4751%
52.49%
0
1,906
2,106
30
Repair/Maint. - Water System
611
0.0070
47.51%
52.49%
0
290
321
31
Repair/Maint. - Other
1,973
0.00%
47.51%
52.49%
0
937
1,035
32
Inventory of Supplies
1,212
0.00%
47.51%
52.49%
0
576
636
33
Operating Supplies
889
0.00%
4751%
52.49%
0
422
467
34
Small Tools
559
0.00%
47.51%
52.49%
0
266
294
35
Uniforms & Shoes
57
0.00%
47.51%
52.49%
0
27
30
36
Books & Publications
71
0.00%
47.51%
52.49%
0
34
37
37
Dues & Memberships
43
0.00%
4751%
52.49%
0
20
22
38
Educational Costs
107
0.00%
4751%
52.49%
0
51
56
39
Property Insurance
1,048
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
1,048
0
40
Total Collection/Distribution Expenses
23,824
0
11,869
11,955
Lift Station
41
Contractual Services - Engineering
705
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
303
402
42
Other Contractual Services
1,167
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
502
665
43
Electricity
3,978
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
1,711
2,267
44
Repair/Maint. - lift Stations
2,726
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
1,172
1,553
45
Operating Supplies
287
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
123
163
46
Small Tools
180
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
77
103
47
Property Insurance
27
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
27
0
48
Total Lift Station Expenses
9,069
0
3,916
5,153
CCT/S-02/SC1ass.Wk3 Page2 03 -Nov -93
Table 12
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
Allocation Factors
Allocated Costs
1994
OUTPUT SECTION
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements
Table 12
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
CCT/S-02/SCIass.Wk3 Page3 03—Nov-93
Allocation Factors
Allocated Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
Customer Service
49
Personal Services — Existing
9,894
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9,894
0
0
50
Personal Services — Additional
0
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
0
51
Postage
443
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
443
0
0
52
Repair/Maint. — Computers
63
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
63
0
0
53
Printing & Binding
727
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
727
0
0
54
Legal Ads
32
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
32
0
0
55
Other Customer Accounting Expenses
1,956
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,956
0
0
56
Uncollectable Accounts
1,773
8.64%
55.41%
35.95%
153
983
638
57
Total Customer Service Expenses
14,888
13,267
983
638
Non—Departmental
58
Other General Expenses
115
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
115
0
0
59
Contingency Allowance
9,880
10.80%
48.02%
41.19%
1,067
4,744
4,069
60
Administrative Allocation
27,428
30.65%
31.67%
37.68%
8,407
8,686
10,335
61
Total Non—Departmental Expenses
37,423
9,588
13,430
14,404
62
Total Operating Expenses
339,222
36,584
163,016
139,621
CCT/S-02/SCIass.Wk3 Page3 03—Nov-93
I 1 1
1
1
)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
OUTPUTSECfION
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements
Charge
Table 12
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Classification of Net Revenue Requirements for Combined System
CCT/S-02/SC1ass.Wk3 Page4 03—Nov-93
Allocation Factors
Allocated Costs
1994
Line
Net Revenue
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
Billing
Base Facility
Consumption
No.
Description
Requirements
Charge
Charge
Charges
Charge
Costs
Costs
OTHER REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
63
Debt Service — Series 1993 Bonds
66,002
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
66,002
0
64
Transfer to Renewal and Replacement Fund
19,371
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
8,331
11,039
65
Total Capital Outlay Funded from Operating Revenues
2,833
0.00%
43.01%
56.99%
0
1,219
1,615
66
Transfer to General Fund
0
8.64%
55.41%
35.95%
0
0
0
67
Transfer to Rate Stabilization
0
8.64%
55.41%
35.95%
0
0
0
68
Total Other Revenue Requirements
0
75,552
12,654
88,206
69
Total Gross Revenue Requirements
427,428
36,584
238,566
152,275
Less Income and Funds From Other Sources:
70
Other Operating Income
0
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0
0
0
71
Interest Income
3,912
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0
3,912
0
72
Transfer From Rate Stabilization
2,487
8.64%
55.41%
35.95%
215
1,378
894
73
Transfer From General Fund
33,619
8.64%
55.41%
35.95%
2,904
18,627
12,088
73
Total Net Revenue Requirements From Rates
$33.466
5214.651
5139.293
$387.410
Amounts shown retlect 10 months of operation by the City of
Sebastian consistent with the anticipated Debt Service Repayment
schedule.
(1)
CCT/S-02/SC1ass.Wk3 Page4 03—Nov-93
1 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1
Table 13
City of Sebastian, Florida
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Rate Structures
For a 5/8" Residential Customer
Line
Existing
Existing
Proposed Rate Structures
No.
Description
City Rates
GDU Rates
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
1
Monthly Billing Charges - Per Account
$2.00
N/A
$2.00
$2.25
Monthly Base Facilities Charges
2
Where Lines Are Available
$9.20 per ERU
$13.05
$9.20 per ERU
$11.25 per ERU
3
Where Lines Are Not Available
4.60 per ERU
13.05
4.60 per ERU
5.65 per ERU
Volume Charges - Per 1,000 Gallons
4
0 - 3,000 Gallons
$1.75
$1.24
$1.75
$1.51
5
3,001 - 7,000 Gallons
2.15
1.24
2.15
1.85
6
7,001 - 10,000 Gallons
2.55
1.24
2.55
2.20
7
10,001 - 13,000 Gallons
2.55
1.55
2.55
2.20
8
13,001 Gallons - Above
4.85
1.55
4.85
4.20
rcc\copeland\sebastin\exstvspr.wk3 03 -Nov -93
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1
Table 14
City of Sebastian, Florida
Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Rate Structures
For a 5/8" Residential Customer
Line Existing Existing Proposed Rate Structures
No. Description City Rates GDU Rates Alternative 1 Alternative 2
1 Monthly Billing Charges — Per Account $2.00 N/A $2.00 $3.75
Monthly Base Facilities Charges
2 Where Lines Are Available $13.50 per ERU $15.12 $13.50 per ERU $13.00 per ERU
3 Where Lines Are Not Available 6.75 per ERU 15.12 6.75 per ERU 6.50 per ERU
Volume Charges — Per 1,000 Gallons
4 0 — 10,000 Gallons $3.35 (1) $1.07 $3.35 (1) $2.75 (3)
5 10,001 — 12,000 Gallons 0.00 1.07 (2) 0.00 0.00
6 12,001 Gallons — Above 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(1) It should be noted that the wastewater volume charge per 1,000 gallons for the existing City rates are based on 85% of billed water usage. In addition,
both the existing City rates and the proposed rates have a maximum residential wastewater billing threshold of 10,000 gallons per month.
(2) The existing GDU rates have a maximum residential wastewater billing threshold of 12,000 gallons per month.
(3) It should be noted that the wastewater volume charge per 1,000 gallons for the proposed Alternative 2 City rates are based on 100% of billed water
usage. Should the City decide to maintain a wastewater volume billed ratio of 85% of water billed, a volume charge of $3.20 per 1,000 gallons billed
would be required. In addition, both the existing City rates and the proposed rates have a maximum residential wastewater billing threshold of 10,000
gallons per month.
roc\copeland\sebastin\exstvspr.wk3 03—Nov-93
I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
Table 15
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
11!03!93 01:15 PM
Comparison of Typical Monthly Bills for Water Service with Other Utilities
Proposed Rates
4 City of Sebastian - Alternative 1 (Combined System)
5 City of Sebastian - Altemative 2 (Combined System)
Other Florida Utilities
6 Brevard County (4) .....................................................
7 Charlotte County (3) ...................................................
8 City of cocoa (6) (11)(•) ............................................
9 City of Cocoa Beach (6) If 1) .....................................
10 City of Corel Springs (10) (11) ...................................
11 City of Daytona Beech(8)...........................................
12 City of Edgewater (8) .................................................
13 Fort Pierce Utifties Authority (4) (11) (•) ....................
14 City of Holly Hill (8) ....................................................
15 Indian River County (3) (11) .......................................
16 City of Jupiter (4) .......................................................
17 City of Lake Helen (9) .................................................
18 City of Melbourne (3) (12) ..........................................
19 City of New Smyrna Beach(3)....................................
20 City of Ormond Beach (e) (h .....................................
21 Palm Bay Utility Corporation (3) .................................
22 City of Port Orange (8) (11) ........................................
23 Sl. Lucie County (3) (•)..............................................
24 City of Sunrise (3) ........................................................
25 City of Vero Beach (4) (11) (•)...................................
26 Cityof West Melbourne (3) (•)....................................
27 Other Florida Utilities' Average
1120
14.70
20.75
22.90
Charoes for Monthly
Water Service (1)
50.05
74.30
13.50
1652
21.73
23.58
25.43
5/8' or 3/4• Meter (2)
47.03
68.03
822
822
Une
13.05
0
2,000
5,000 6,000
7,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
No.
31.89
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
11.48
Present Rates
19.10
24.05
6.56
8.80
12.16
1328
14.40
1
City of Sebastian (3) (11) ...........................................
S11.20
$14.70
$20.75 522.90
$25.05
$32.70
$50.05
$74.30
2
GDU - Sebastian Highlands (Existing) (3) (11) ........
13.05
15.53
19.25 20.49
21.73
25.45
3320
40.95
3
GDU - Sebastian Highlands (Proposed) (3) (11) .....
16.52
22.92
32.52 35.72
38.92
49.58
6823
86.88
Proposed Rates
4 City of Sebastian - Alternative 1 (Combined System)
5 City of Sebastian - Altemative 2 (Combined System)
Other Florida Utilities
6 Brevard County (4) .....................................................
7 Charlotte County (3) ...................................................
8 City of cocoa (6) (11)(•) ............................................
9 City of Cocoa Beach (6) If 1) .....................................
10 City of Corel Springs (10) (11) ...................................
11 City of Daytona Beech(8)...........................................
12 City of Edgewater (8) .................................................
13 Fort Pierce Utifties Authority (4) (11) (•) ....................
14 City of Holly Hill (8) ....................................................
15 Indian River County (3) (11) .......................................
16 City of Jupiter (4) .......................................................
17 City of Lake Helen (9) .................................................
18 City of Melbourne (3) (12) ..........................................
19 City of New Smyrna Beach(3)....................................
20 City of Ormond Beach (e) (h .....................................
21 Palm Bay Utility Corporation (3) .................................
22 City of Port Orange (8) (11) ........................................
23 Sl. Lucie County (3) (•)..............................................
24 City of Sunrise (3) ........................................................
25 City of Vero Beach (4) (11) (•)...................................
26 Cityof West Melbourne (3) (•)....................................
27 Other Florida Utilities' Average
1120
14.70
20.75
22.90
25.05
32.70
50.05
74.30
13.50
1652
21.73
23.58
25.43
32.03
47.03
68.03
822
822
11.44
13.05
14.66
19.49
27.54
35.59
11.03
16.99
25.93
2891
31.89
40.83
55.73
70.63
525
7.03
9.70
1059
11.48
14.15
19.10
24.05
6.56
8.80
12.16
1328
14.40
17.76
23.91
30.06
13.59
15.45
1824
19.17
20.10
23.47
29.57
35.67
7.35
11.01
16.50
18.33
20.16
25.65
34.80
43.95
8.55
855
16.74
19.47
2220
30.39
44.04
57.69
9.20
920
12.12
1358
15.04
19.42
26.72
34.02
723
723
17.16
20.47
23.78
33.71
5026
66.81
11.20
14.70
20.75
2290
25.05
32.70
50.05
74.30
9.02
11.54
15.32
16.58
17.84
21.62
2792
3422
6.67
6.67
12.67
14.67
16.67
22.67
32.67
42.67
2.60
5.76
10.50
12.08
13.66
18.40
26.30
3420
14.39
16.60
1993
21.03
22.14
25.46
31.00
36.53
6.82
10.50
16.02
17.86
19.70
2522
34.42
43.62
6.75
1125
18.00
2025
22.50
2925
43.90
58.55
7.25
8.75
15.45
1795
20A5
27.95
40A5
52.95
4.67
9.41
16.52
18.89
2126
28.37
4022
52.07
5.80
8.06
11.45
12.58
13.71
17.10
22.75
28.40
9.30
9.30
12.50
14.10
15.70
20.50
28.50
36.50
8.50
14.14
22.60
25.42
2824
36.70
50.80
64.90
$8.09
$10.44
$15.80
$17.67
$19.55
$2528
$3527
$45.59
Footnotes on page 2 of 2.
(•) Utility currently has a rate study in progress or anticipates a rate Increase in the near future.
CCT/S-01/RTComp.Wk3
Table 15
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
11/03/93 01:15 PM
Comparison of Typical Monthly Bills for Water Service with Other Utilities
Footnotes
(1) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect standard residential and commercial rates in effect during October 1993
and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, If any, and reflect rates charged for Inside the city service. All rates
are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is Intended to show comparable charges for similar
service for comparison purposes only and is not Intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered
by each listed utility.
(2) Reflects smallest water meter or service size available.
(3) These utilities have w minimum water gallon usage reflected in their minimum bill.
(4) This utility has a minimum water gallon usage of up to 3,000 gallons which Is reflected In the minimum bill. Any
water usage metered In excess of the minimum quantity Is billed according to the utility's currently authorized rate.
(5) This utility has a minimum water gallon usage of up to 5,000 gallons which is reflected In the minimum bill. Any
water usage metered in excess of the minimum quantity Is billed according to the utility's currently authorized rate.
(6) The rate for a 5/8 Inch meter size customer Includes an Inverted rate structure with the following
characteristics:
usage of 0 to 10,000 gallons per month — $.89 per 1,000 gallons
usage of over 10,000 gallons per month — $.99 per 1,000 gallons
(7) Water service for the City of Cocoa Beach is provided under a diterent rate schedule by the City of Cocoa.
(8) This utility has a minimum water gallon usage of up to 2,000 gallons which is reflected In the minimum bill. Any
water usage metered in excess of the minimum quantity Is billed according to the utility's currently authorized rate.
(9) This utility has a minimum water gallon usage of up to 6,000 gallons which is reflected In the minimum bill. Any
water usage metered in excess of the minimum quantity Is billed according to the utility's currently authorized rate.
(10) The rate for a 5/8 Inch meter size customer Includes an Inverted rate structure with the following
characteristics:
usage of 0 to 11,000 gallons per month — $.75 per 1,000 gallons
usage of over 11,000 gallons per month — $.98 per 1,000 gallons
(11) These utilities implement an inverted rate structure.
(12) This Utility charges an addition SBWA charge to Its customer In the amount of $.104 per thousand gallons.
CCT/5-01/RTComp.Wk3
I 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Table 16
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
11/03/93 06:19 PM
Comparison of Typical Monthly Bills for Wastewater Service with Other Utilities
Proposed Rates
4 City of Sebastian - Alternative 1 (Combined System)
5 City of Sebastian - Alternative 2 (Combined System)
Other Florida Utilities
6
Brevard County (4) .............................................
7
Charlotte County (5) ...........................................
Chartres for Monthly
Wastewater Service (1)
9
City of Cocoa Beach (8) ........._ .... ... ............ ......... ...
10
City of Coral Springs (9) ......... .................. _...._.......
11
City of Daytona Beach (3) ..._ .....................................
12
5/8" or 3/4" Meter (2)
13
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (5) (•) ...........................
14
City of Holly Hill (6) ........_ .........................................
Line
Indian River County (5) .............................................
0
2,000
5,000 6,000
7,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
No.
20
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
24
Present Rates
39.60
39.60
11.00
11.00
17.00
20.45
23.90
1
City of Sebastian (5) ...........................................
$15.50
$21.20
$29.74 $32.59
535.43
$43.98
$43.98
$43.98
2
GDU - Sebastian Highlands (Existing) (4) ...............
15.12
17.26
20.47 21.54
22.61
25.82
27.96
27.96
3
GDU - Sebastian Highlands (Proposed) (13) ...........
22.00
30.74
43.85 48.22
52.59
56.96
56.96
56.96
Proposed Rates
4 City of Sebastian - Alternative 1 (Combined System)
5 City of Sebastian - Alternative 2 (Combined System)
Other Florida Utilities
6
Brevard County (4) .............................................
7
Charlotte County (5) ...........................................
8
City of Cocoa (4) (7 ..........................................
9
City of Cocoa Beach (8) ........._ .... ... ............ ......... ...
10
City of Coral Springs (9) ......... .................. _...._.......
11
City of Daytona Beach (3) ..._ .....................................
12
City of Edgewater (6) ........ ....... ......................_.......
13
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (5) (•) ...........................
14
City of Holly Hill (6) ........_ .........................................
15
Indian River County (5) .............................................
16
City of Melbourne (3) ....................................... ..........
17
City of New Smyrna Beach(3).................. ..... ..........
18
City of Ormond Beach (6) (')........................ _..... ....
19
Palm Bay Utility Corporation ... .......................... ........
20
City of Port Orange (8) (•)....................................
21
St. Lucie County (12) (')........._ .... .... .................... .
22
City of Sunrise(3) .............................................
23
City of Vero Beach (5) (B) (•)................................
24
City of West Melbourne (11) (") ..._.......... ............... .
25 Other Florida Utilities' Average ........
15.50
21.20
29.74
32.59
35.43
43.98
43.98
43.98
16.75
22.25
30.50
33.25
36.00
44.25
44.25
44.25
13.43
19.13
27.68
30.53
33.38
41.93
47.63
47.63
12.39
16.05
21.54
23.37
25.20
30.69
30.69
30.69
6.00
11.60
20.00
22.80
25.60
34.00
39.60
39.60
11.00
11.00
17.00
20.45
23.90
34.25
51.50
68.75
18.40
21.06
25.05
26.38
27.71
31,70
38.35
45.00
7.73
14.01
23.43
26.57
29.71
39.13
54.83
70.53
9.55
9.55
19.09
22.27
25.45
34.99
50.89
66.79
5.60
10.22
17.15
19.46
21.77
28.70
28.70
28.70
8.31
15.93
27.36
31.17
34.98
46.41
65.46
84.51
15.50
21.20
29.74
32.59
35.43
43.98
71.92
94.17
4.00
9.78
18.45
21.34
24.23
32.90
47.35
61.80
15.40
18.38
22.85
24.34
25.83
30.30
37.75
45.20
9.55
9.55
17.29
19.87
22.45
30.19
43.09
55.99
10.06
16.00
24.91
27.88
30.85
39.76
39.76
39.76
8.50
15.00
24.75
28.00
31.25
41.00
57.25
73.50
10.26
20.24
35.21
40.20
40.20
40.20
40.20
40.20
9.03
11.57
15.38
16.65
17.92
21.73
28.08
34.43
15.80
15.80
20.90
23.45
26.00
33.65
33.65
33.65
11.00
16.00
23.50
26.00
28.50
36.00
48.50
61.00
$10.61
$14.85
$22.70
$25.44
$27.91
$35.34
$45.01
$53.78
Footnotes on page 2 of 2.
(•) Utility currently has a rate study In progress or anticipates a rate increase In the near future.
CCT/S-Ot/RTComp.Wk3
Table 16
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Comparison of Typical Monthly Bills for Wastewater Service with Other Utilities
Footnotes
(1) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect standard residential and commercial rates in effect during October 1993
and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for Inside the city service. All rates
are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar
service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered
by each listed utility.
(2) Reflects smallest water meter or service size available.
(3) These utilities haus no minimum wastewater gallon usage reflected In their minimum bill.
(4) This utility charges a maximum of 12,000 gallons of metered water consumption for residential wastewater service.
(5) This utility charges a maximum of 10,000 gallons of metered water consumption for residents] wastewater service.
(6) This utility has a minimum wastewater gallon usage of up to 2,000 gallons which Is reflected in the minimum bill. Any
wastewater usage metered in excess of the minimum quantity is billed according to the utility's currently authorized rate.
(7) This utility charges a maximum of 15,000 gallons of metered water consumption for residential wastewater service.
(8) This utility has a minimum wastewater gallon usage of 3,000 gallons of metered water service, which Is reflected
In the minimum bill. Any wastewater usage metered in excess of the minimum quantity Is billed according to
the utility's authorized rate.
(9) The rate for a 5/8 Inch meter size customer Includes an inverted rate structure with the following
characteristics:
usage of 0 to 11,000 gallons per month — $.75 per 1,000 gallons
usage of over 11,000 gallons per month — $.98 per 1,000 gallons
(10) This utility charges a maximum of 15,000 gallons of metered water consumption for residential wastewater service.
(11) This utility currently Implements no base rate, but they do require a minimum payment of $11.00 which is approximately 4,600 gallons.
For every thousand gallons over 4,600, this utility charges $2.32.
(12) This utility charges a maximum of 6,000 gallons of metered water consumption for residential wastewater service.
(13) This utility charges a maximum of 8,000 gallons of metered water consumption for residents! wastewater service.
CCT/S-01/RTComp.Wk3
11/03/93 06:19 PM
1 1 1 i 1 1 I 1 l 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1
Table 17
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater Systems
11/03193 06:23 PM
Comparison of Typical Monthly Bills for
Water and Wastewater Service with Other Utilities
Other Florida Utilities
6
Brevard County.........................................................
21.65
27.35
Charges for Monthly Water and Wastewater Service (1)
43.58
48.04
61.42
75.17
83.22
7
Charlotte County .......................................................
5/8' or 3/4' Meter (2)
33.04
47.47
52.28
Line
71.52
0
2,000
5,000
6,000 7,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
No.
37.08
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
Gallons
29.16
Present City Rates
38.30
52.01
75.41
98.81
10
City of Coral Springs ..................................................
31.99
1
City of Sebastian........................................................
$26.70
$35.90
$50.49
$55.49 $60.48
$76.68
$94.03
$118.28
2
GDU - Sebastian Highlands (EAsting) .....................
28.17
32.79
39.72
42.03 44.34
51.27
61.16
68.91
3
GDU - Sebastian Highlands (Proposed) ..................
38.52
53.66
76.37
83.94 91.51
106.54
125.19
143.84
13
Proposed Rates
14.80
19.42
29.27
33.04
36.81
48.12
55.42
4
City of Sebastian - Aitemative 1 (Combined System)
26.70
35.90
50.49
55.49 60.48
76.68
94.03
118.28
5
City of Sebastian - Aitemative 2 (Combined System)
3025
38.77
52.23
56.83 61.43
76.28
91.28
11228
Other Florida Utilities
6
Brevard County.........................................................
21.65
27.35
39.12
43.58
48.04
61.42
75.17
83.22
7
Charlotte County .......................................................
23.42
33.04
47.47
52.28
57.09
71.52
86.42
101.32
8
City of Cocoa (`)........................................................
11.25
18.63
29.70
33.39
37.08
48.15
58.70
63.65
9
City of Cocoa Beech ...................................................
17.56
19.80
29.16
33.73
38.30
52.01
75.41
98.81
10
City of Coral Springs ..................................................
31.99
36.51
43.29
45.55
47.81
55.17
67.92
80.67
11
City of Daytona Beech ...............................................
15.08
25.02
39.93
44.90
49.87
64.78
89.63
114.48
12
City of Edgewater.......................................................
18.10
18.10
35.83
41.74
47.65
65.38
94.93
124.48
13
Fort Pierce Utilities Authority r) ................................
14.80
19.42
29.27
33.04
36.81
48.12
55.42
62.72
14
City of Holly Hill..........................................................
15.54
23.16
44.52
51.64
58.76
80.12
115.72
151.32
15
Indian River County ....................................................
26.70
35.90
50.49
55.49
60.48
76.66
121.97
168.47
16
City of Meboume.......................................................
6.60
15.54
28.95
33.42
37.89
51.30
73.65
96.00
17
City of Now Smyrna Beach ........................................
29.79
34.98
42.78
45.37
47.97
55.76
68.75
81.73
18
City of Ormond Beach (")..........................................
16.37
20.05
33.31
37.73
42.15
55.41
77.51
99.61
19
Palm Bay Utility Corporation ......................................
16.81
27.25
42.91
48.13
53.35
69.01
83.66
98.31
20
City of Port Orange .....................................................
15.75
23.75
40.20
45.95
51.70
68.95
97.70
126.45
21
St. Lucie County ()....................................................
14.93
29.65
51.73
59.09
61.46
68.57
80.42
92.27
22
City of Sunrise............................................................
14.83
19.63
26.83
29.23
31.63
38.83
50.83
62.83
23
City of Vero Beach ()................................................
25.10
25.10
33.40
37.55
41.70
54.15
62.15
70.15
24
City of West Meboume(")........ ................................
19.50
30.14
46.10
51.42
56.74
72.70
99.30
125.90
25
Other Florida Utilities'Average..................................
$18.72
$25.42
$38.68
$43.33
$47.71
$60.95
$80.80
$100.13
I-) Utility currently has a rate study In progress or anticipates a rate Increase In the near future.
CCT/S-01 /RTComp.Wk3
fable 18
City of Scbastiaa, I'losida
Walcr and Wastcwater Systcn
..a Development of Debt Service Coveraee
M Foolnoleson page2of2.
CCT/S-02/DbtServ.Wk3 Pagel 03 -Nov -93
Fiscal Year Ending September 30 (1)
Line
No.
Description
1994 (2)
1995
1996
1997
1998
Rate Revenues
1
Water Sales (3)
5383,907
$477,590
5497,651
5517,351
5542,327
2
Wastewater Sales (3)
387,410
472,144
483,148
493,580
503,974
3
Add itional Rate Revenue (4)
0
28,492
59,731
93,740
131,320
n.
4
Total Rate Revenues
771,317
978,226
1,040530
1,104,671
1,177,621
Other Revenues
5
Interest Income (5)
11,633
14,303
14,896
15,099
15,293
6
Other Operating Revenue (6)
9,383
11,760
11,260
11,260
11,260
7
Total Other Revenues
21,017
25,563
26,156
26,359
26,553
8
Total Operating Revenues
5792,333
21,003,759
51,066,686
$1,131,030
51,204,174
Operating Expenses (7)
9
Utilities Administration Expenses
78,675
97,861
102,323
107,006
111,922
10
Water Treatment Expenses
85,899
107,808
113,253
118,924
124,853
11
Wastewater Treatment Expenses
229,076
231,172
740,294
249,739
259,557
12
Collection, Distribution, Lift Station Expenses
79,513
102,801
106,676
110,716
114,929
_
13
Customer Services Expenses
38,102
47,745
50,257
52,881
55,671
14
Non -Departmental Expenses(8)
17,203
19,930
20,766
21,635
22,543
awt
15
Total Operating Expense
528,467
607,317
633,569
660,901
689,475
Other Required Transfers (9)
M
16
Transfer to Renewal and Replacement Fund (10)
38,566
46,279
48,911
52,027
55,233
17
Transfer to Reserve Subaccount(11)
0
0
0
0
0
Net Operating Revenue after Other
18
Required Transfers
$225,301
$350,193
5384,206
$418,102
$459,466
19
Impact Fees(12)
78,936
94,774
124,572
120,308
120,308
20
Net Revenue Including Impact Fees
5304,237
5444,917
5508,778
5538,410
$579,774
Debt Service (13)
21
Series 1993 Bonds
196,317
235,581
303,313
326,513
348,663
nest
Debt Service Coverage
22
Without Impact Fees
1.15
1.49
1.27
1.28
1.32
23
With Impact Fees
1.55
1.89
1.68
1.65
1.66
Net Funds Available After Required
Payments per Bond Resolution (14)
24
Without Impact Fees
528,983
5114,612
$80,894
$91590
5110,804
25
With Impact Fees
5107,919
5209,336
5205,466
5211,898
5231,112
M Foolnoleson page2of2.
CCT/S-02/DbtServ.Wk3 Pagel 03 -Nov -93
Table 18
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Development of Debt Service Coverage
FOOTNOTES
(1) Amounts derived from Tables 4, 5, 7 and 8.
(2) amounts shown based on ten (10) months of operation consistent with the acquistion of the GDU—Sebastion Highland System.
(3) Amounts shown reflect revenuesderived from the application of the City's existing rates to the customers (bitting
determinants) of the combined System.
(4) Amounts shown represent additional rale revenues from the application of the price index adjustments assumed to be 3.0%
annually. The proposed rate revenues do not recognize any additional income from any base rate adjustments in the future,
other than the assumed price index adjustments.
(5) Amounts shown do not include earnings on Impact Fee or Project Fund balances. These earnings were not included as an
available revenue in the determination of the proposed rates but were considered to be restricted to the applicable Fund balances.
(6) Amounts shown include other operating revenues such as meter installation fees, inspection fees and other miscellaneous charges.
(7) Amounts shown do not include depreciation or amortization expenses which are non—cash in nature.
(8) Pursusnt to the Bond Resolution, operating expenses classified as an Administrative Allocation which is accounted for in the
City's General Fund is considered subordinate to the payment of debt service and other required transfers. Additionally, amounts
shown include contingency allowances for additional unanticipated expenditures or changes in revenue which maybe incurred
by the System.
(9) Pursuant to the Bond Rcolution, in addition to the debt service requirements, rates must be sufficient to meet all required deposits
as defined in the covenants for the issue. For the purposes of this analysis, such required deposits have been identified as a
requirement prior to the payment of debt service (for coverage calculation purposes only).
(10) Amounts shown reflects minimum deposit to meet the Renewal and Replacement Requirement. any funds for additional betterments,
renewals, replacements, and additions above the funding of the Renewal and Replacement Requirement is to be provide by surplus
monies available from the operation of the System.
(11) The Reserve Subaccount fully funded from the proceeds of the Series 1993 Bonds, no additional transfers assumed.
(12) Amount shown for Impact Fees reflects only that amount relative to the amount of debt service oa the Series 1993 Bonds which has
been estimated to be attributable to growth or expansion of the System (estimated at 50.34% of the total debt service).
(13) Reflects amount of debt service for the Series 1993 Bonds required to be funded from rate revenues during such fiscal year
(recognized on an accural basis).
(14) Includes funds for additional capital outlay, payments of administrative allocation expenses to the City's General Fund, and for
other purposes of the System.
— CCT/S-02/DbtServ.Wk3 Pagel 03—Nov-93
^ Table 19
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Development of Existing Production/Treatment Facility
Capacity Allocable to Serve Customer Growth
^
Line
Water
Wastewater
^ No.
System
System
Capacity of System (MGD)
^ 1
Production/Treatment [1]
0.670
0.142
2
Adjusted to Reflect Average Daily Flow [2]
0.447
0.142
3
Average Daily Flow — Fiscal Year 1994 [3]
0.352
0.105
4
Remaining Capacity (ADF) at Existing Plant
0.095
0.037
^, 5
Percent of Total Capacity
21.19%
26.06%
Capital Costs of Existing Facilities
6
Existing Facility Costs [4]
$1,235,151
$820,135
^
7
Aquisition Adjustment
(447,998)
(297,469)
8
Additional Costs [5]
20,000
220,000
9
Total Capital Costs of Existing Facilities
807,153
742,666
10
Estimated Amount Allocable to Incremental Growth
$171,068
$193,512
[1 ] Reflects current design capacity of facilities after the acquisition of GDU and the
.. connection of the two utility systems.
[2] Water facilities rated on a Peak Day Flow basis and wastewater facilities rated on a
Average Monthly Flow basis and therefore adjusted to reflect daily demand for
consistency with fee calculations/determination as appropriate.
^ [3] Reflects average daily flow estimated for the fiscal year 1994 consistent with the year
of implementation date of the proposed impact fee and the customer and sales
forecast reflected in Table 1.
[4] Reflects net plant in service balances (as of December 31, 1991) as provided by
GDU for the treatment facilities in service.
[5] Based on the capital improvement program as identified by HAI, associated with
upgrade of, betterments to and renewals , replacements and improvements which
represent capital additions to the City's Water and Wastewater System and which a
portion should be allocable to new customers based on the unused portion of the
existing facilities.
CCT/S-02/CapAIIG2.Wk3 Pagel 03—Nov-93
Table 20
Footnotes on Page 2
CCT/S-02/WatlmpF2.wk3 03—Nov-93
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System
Page 1 of 2
—
Development of Water System Capital Connection Charge
Line
No.
Description
Amount
Total Estimated Cost of Existing Water Production
and Treatment Facilities:
1
Cost of Existing Facilities [i]
$807,153
2
Existing Plant Capacity (GPD) (MDF)
670,000
3
Existing Plant Capacity (GPD) (ADF) 121
446,667
e 4
ERU Factor — GPD [3]
250
5
Estimated ERUs to be Served by Existing Facilities
1,787
6
Percent Excess Utilitization of Existing Facilities
21.19%
7
Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth
171,068
8
Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities
$451.76
—
Total Estimated Cost of Additional Water Production
and Treatment Facilities: [4]
9
Cost of Additional Facilities
$0
10
Additional Plant Capacity (GPD) (MDF)
0
11
Additional Plant Capacity (GPD) (ADF) [2]
0
12
ERU Factor — GPD 131
250
13
Estimated ERUs to be Served by Additional Facilities
0
14
Rate per ERU Associated with Additional Facilities
$0.00
15
Rate per ERU of Water Production/Treatment Facilities
$451.76
Primary Transmission/Distribution System: [51
16
Existing Facilities
$1,631,516
17
New Facilities to Aid Growth [41
358,000
18
Subtotal of Costs
1,989,516
19
Estimated Plant Capacity (GPD) (ADF) 171
759,750
20
ERU Factor — GPD [3]
250
21
Estimated ERUs served by Transmission/Distribution Facil.
3,039
^ 22
Rate per ERU of Transmission/Distribution Facilities
$654.66
23
Total Combined Rate per ERU
$1,106.43
24
Rounded Rate
$1,100.00
Footnotes on Page 2
CCT/S-02/WatlmpF2.wk3 03—Nov-93
—
Table 20
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water System Page 2 of 2
Development of Water System Capital Connection Charge
Footnotes:
[1 ] Amounts derived from Table 19.
^� [2] The existing water production and treatment facilities are designed for a maximum
daily flow of .67 MGD. The average daily flow was calculated assuming a maximum
daily flow to average daily flow factor of 1.50 based on historical utility peaking
factors.
M
[3] The ERU factor reflects a daily water demand and was derived from the GDU Rate
Filing .
[4] Amounts derived from the Capital Improvement Program as identified by HAI.
[5] Amounts do not include the cost of on—site capital costs such as meters, hydrants,
and services.
[6] Represents estimated transmission system fixed assets based on (1) plant
asset listing data provided by the City, and (2) available fixed asset listing
data provided by other comparable utilities.
[7] Amounts based on the estimated total design capacity of the water production and
treatment facilities consistent with the capital program.
CCT/S-02/Watl mpF2.wk3
03—Nov-93
Footnotes on Page 2 of 2.
CCT/S-02/WWImpFe2.wk3 03—Nov-93
Table 21
^'
City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System
Page 1 of
Development of Wastewater System Capital Connection Charge
^
Line
No.
Description
Amount
Total Estimated Cost of Existing Wastewater Treatment
^
and Effluent Disposal Facilities:
1
Cost of Existing Facilities [7]
$742,666
.,
2
Existing Plant Capacity (GPD) (MDF)
142,000
3
Existing Plant Capacity (GPD) (ADF) [2]
142,000
4
ERU Factor — GPD [3]
200
5
Estimated ERUs to be Served by Existing Facilities
710
^
6
Percent Excess Utilitization of Existing Facilities
26.06%
7
Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth
193,512
8
Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities
$1,046.01
Total Estimated Cost of Additional Water Production
and Treatment Facilities: (4)
�*
9
Cost of Additional Facilities
$0
10
Additional Plant Capacity (GPD) (MDF)
0
11
Additional Plant Capacity (GPD) (ADF) [2]
0
12
ERU Factor — GPD ]3]
200
13
Estimated ERUs to be Served by Additional Facilities
0
..
14
Rate per ERU Associated with Additional Facilities
$0.00
15
Rate per ERU of Treatment/Effluent Disposal Facilities
$1,046.01
Primary Collection System: [5]
16
Existing Facilities
$915,868
.,
17
New Facilities to Aid Growth (4)
108,000
18
Subtotal of Costs
1,023,868
19
Estimated Plant Capacity (GPD) (ADF) [7]
338,250
20
ERU Factor — GPD [3]
200
21
Estimated ERUs served by Collection Facilities
1,691
22
Rate per ERU of Collection Facilities
$605.39
23
Total Combined Rate per ERU before Rate Adjustment
$1,651.40
so
24
Rounded Rate
$1,650.00
Footnotes on Page 2 of 2.
CCT/S-02/WWImpFe2.wk3 03—Nov-93
Table 21
^ City of Sebastian, Florida
Wastewater System Page 2 of 2
Development of Wastewater System Capital Connection Charge
[1]
Amounts derived from Table 19.
.. [2]
The wastewater treatment facilities we designed for an average dally flow of .142 MGD.
[3]
The ERU factor reflects a daily water demand and was derived from the GDU Rate Filing.
^ [4]
Amounts derived from the Capital Improvement Program as Identified by HAI.
[5]
Amounts do not include the cost of on—she capital costs such as services and frontage lines or
laterals.
^ [6]
Represents estimated transmission system fixed assets based on (1) plant asset listing data
provided by GDU.
[7]
Amounts based on the estimated total design and reserved capacity of the waste— water
treatment and effluent disposal facilities consistent with the capital program.
r•
^
^
^
0
�' CCT/S— 021W1NIm pFe2.wk3 03—Nov-93
PW
Table 22 Page 1 of 3
City of Sebastian, Florida
Water and Wastewater System
Comparison of Impact Fees for
Residential Water and Wastewater Service (1)
M
M Line
M CCT/S-02/ImpctFee.Wk3 03—Nov-93
No.
Description
Water
Wastewater
Total
Existing Rates
1
City of Sebastian.......................................................
$973.00
$1,159.00
$2,132.00
2
GDU — Sebastian Highlands ........................................
752.50
775.00
1,527.50
A
Proposed Rates
3
City of Sebastian (Combined System) ...............................
1,100.00
1,650.00
2,750.00
M
Other Florida Utilities
_
4
Brevard Count 2 ..................................... ....... ... ........... ......
1,903.00
2,257.00
4,160.00
5
City of Cocoa (•)(2)........................................................... _.._.
650.00
N/A
650.00
6
City of Cocoa Beach (4) (').............................................. _.......
N/A
1,300.00
1,300.00
7
City of Edgewater (2) ...... .... .......................... ... ....... ....... ... _.
1,000.00
1,425.00
2,425.00
8
Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority (11) (').....................................
1,481.00
1,027.00
2,508.00
9
Indian River County (2).. ....................... _.........._.._.._......_.._
1,570.00
2,551.00
4,121.00
10
City of Jupiter (6) .......... ............... _......_......_.........._.._.._.._.._
1,134.00
N/A
1,134.00
11
City of Melbourne(7)....................... .... .................... ...... ....
870.00
1,425.00
2,295.00
12
City of New Smyrna Beach (2) ........................................
996.00
1,074.00
2,070.00
City of Ormond Beach:
13
General (5) (•) ..................................... _......_.._......_.._.._...
1,006.00
1,183.00
2,189.00
14
West Ormond (5) (•)...................................................
1,252.00
1,427.00
2,679.00
15
North Mainland (5) (')............................................
1,252.00
1,427.00
2,679.00
16
Palm Bay Utility Corp. (2)................................................
750.00
1,650.00
2,400.00
17
City of Port Orange (10) .................................................
1,050.00
1,068.00
2,118.00
18
St. Lucie County (2) (')............... ......................... .......... ....
1,350.00
2,700.00
4,050.00
19
City of Sunrise(2)............................................................
1,030.00
1,070.00
2,100.00
20
City of Tamarac (2) ......................................................
1,205.00
1,550.00
2,755.00
21
City of Vero Beach (8) (•) ...............................................
1,016.00
1,330.00
2,346.00
22
Other Florida Utilities' Average..........._.........._.._.._.._.._.....
$1,219.69
$1,630.93
$2,921.07
Footnotes on Page 2 of 2.
(') Utility currently has a rate study in progress or anticipates a rate increase in the near future.
M CCT/S-02/ImpctFee.Wk3 03—Nov-93
r
Table 22 P., I efl
City of Sebastian. Florida
r Water and Wastewater System
Comparison of Impact Fees for
Realdentlal Water and Wastewater Service
r
FOOTNOTES
1. The amounts shown reflect the general charges for such services derived from various flied documents and reported Information for each respective utility In effect
during October 1993. The service charges shown ars subject W the various provisions of such documents and the policies of the respective utilities and, therefore, may
vary depending on each specific situation. Additionally. unless otherwise noted or billed. the amcum shown represent the fees for l Equivalent Residential Connection.
2. The Clty/Coumy charges the rates based on Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC's).
3. The Utility chergestrhe conrhectlon fee based on the gallon demand for water and wastewater service. For water the gallonage is 215 gallons per single -is rally residential
equIvalent per day, and for sewer service it Is 200 gallons per residential equivalent per day.
4. The City provides only wastewater services to their area. The water service Is currently provided by the City of Cocoa. Therefore, the City of Cocoa Beach only
Implements a connection charge for wastewater or $1,3001ERU.
5. The City/County charges rates based on Equtvalent Living Units (ELU's).
8. The City lmpliments the following rales:
r
m
PER
CCT/S-f12/ImpctFee.Wk3 03 -Noy -93
Single Family
$609.00
Multi -Family
4391UNIT
m
Commercial
609.00
7. The City lmpllments impact fees according to various meter sizes. Rates are as follows:
Meter Size
Water
Wastewater
r
5/8'or3/4'
$870.00
$1,425.00
1.
2,175.00
3,487.00
1 1/7
4,345.00
6,025.00
2'
8,700.00
11,050.00
> 7
By Agreement
By Agreement
S. The City charges the following impact fees based on customer location:
Water
Wastewater
Inland
$1,016.00
Beach
2,331.00
Inside
N/A
Outside
1.330.00
The Sewer Impact lee shall apply as follows:
Charge
Single Family
$1,330.00
Muitl-Famlly
1,330.00/unh
Commercial
1,300.00 per every e
plumbing fixtures
9. The City implini impact lees according to various meter sizes. Pates areas follows:
Metar Size
Water
Wastewater
3/4'
$OAO
$1,200.00
Man
1'
0.00
2,100.00
11/l
0.00
4,200.00
2'
0.00
8,800.00
3'
0.00
12,800.00
4'
0.00
21,800.00
6'
0.00
43,320.00
r
10. The city charges a fiat fee of$97emfor water and $1,C08mfor wastewater.
r
m
PER
CCT/S-f12/ImpctFee.Wk3 03 -Noy -93