Manatee County Utility Planning Presentation

43
Manatee County Government Worksession January 20, 2015 Utilities – Planning & Policy 1

description

Robert J. Ori of Public Management Resources Group Inc. presented to the Manatee County Commission regarding utility rates at the 1/20/2015 workshop.

Transcript of Manatee County Utility Planning Presentation

  • ManateeCountyGovernmentWorksessionJanuary20,2015

    Utilities Planning & Policy

    1

    dvollmerText BoxSanitary Sewer Collection System for New Service Areas

  • Whatourprocesshasbeen

    Issuesthatprocesscreates

    Fundamentalprinciplesunderlyingproposedsolutions

    2DS

  • Proposedsolutions(recentexecutedLDAshaveincorporatedthese)ChangetoFIFschedule,presentationofthatstudy

    Processchanges codeofordinancesUpdateourMasterPlans

    3DS

  • CurrentProcess

    4

  • 200,000

    250,000

    300,000

    350,000

    400,000

    450,000

    500,000

    UnincorporatedPopulationEstimateAllCountyPopulationEstimate

    JO

  • EstablishesWater&SewerServiceAreasBasedonengineeringReflectedonFutureLandUseMap

    Large serviceareaVacant/aglands

    6JO

  • JO

  • 8JO

  • Addzoomlikeprevious.addlinestopreviousgraphic

    SM

  • Collection/DistributionSystems Computermodelplanforutilitiesbuildoutofservicearea

    Forcemainroute/location,pipesize,Masterpumpstationlocations,etc.

    FutureMasterliftstations Intendedtooptimizecapitalinvestmentforlongterm

    10SM

  • 11

  • CurrentDevelopmentProcess Developer:

    Responsibleforextendingutilityservicetotheir projects Designsnewlines&stationssizedtotheir needs

    County: Participatesinupsizingnewlines&stationssizeforconsistencyw/masterplan(buildout) Builditrightthefirsttimephilosophy Minimizesduplicativeconstructionprojects Multiplelineswithintherightofway notdesirable

    12SM

  • CurrentDevelopmentProcess Initialdevelopmentin areaswherefutureforcemaindoesnotexistbearssignificantinitialcostinstallingtheline.

    Countybearstheremainderoftheabovecostwiththeinitialdevelopment

    Subsequentdevelopmentbearsverylittlecostornocostandbenefitsfromaboveinstallation.

    13SM

  • 14

  • 15

    Issues Current Process

    SM

  • Multipleapprovedprojectsrequestingutilityservicenow

    Developmentprojectsoriginallyapprovedin2000s Requireupsizing requiresCountyinvestment ROWmayormaynotnotexistforlineextensions MasterPumpStationsnotbuilt

    16SM

  • Newdevelopmentprojectsrequestingserviceinareasrequiringsignificantlineextensions

    Constructionofnewlinestoofarinadvanceofneeds(customers)createsoperationalissues

    17SM

  • ExistingFacilityInvestmentFee(FIF)Newplant,newcollectionsystems,newliftstations

    ExistingFacilityInvestmentFeescheduleneedstobeupdatedtoreflecttheneedforlineextensions

    18SM

  • Initialdevelopmentinareaswherefutureforcemaindoesnotexistbearssignificantinitialcostinstallingtheline.

    19SM

  • Countybearstheremainderoftheabovecostwiththeinitialdevelopment BuilditrightthefirsttimeMultipleparallellines=operationalissues

    Goingforward,theCountyneedstoaddressfundingforthisparticipation

    20SM

  • AlternativeConnections SomedevelopmentsrequestingusingexistinglinesratherthanconstructingfuturelinescalledoutinMasterPlans(AlternativeConnections)

    Lowerupfrontcosttodeveloper Takesawaycapacityofline increasescostslater

    Evaluatedonacasebycasebasis21SM

  • AlternativeConnections Currentprocesshasnomeansofcapturingcountyscostofincorporatingalternativeconnectionstomeetthemasterplan

    22SM

  • 23

    Fundamental Principles

    DS

  • Countyresponsibletooperateutilitiesinanefficientandfinanciallysoundmanner

    UtilitiesisanenterprisefundFromsystemrevenuesNotmixedwithotherfunds

    24DS

  • Ratepayerspayforoperationsandmaintenanceofexisting system

    DevelopmentpaysforexpansionofthesystemviaFacilityInvestmentFees(FIFs)CountyusesFIFsforupsizing

    25DS

  • GrowthshouldpayforgrowthPolicyoftheBoardofCountyCommissioners January2009adopted

    26DS

  • 27

    Recommendations

    DS

  • UpdateFIFschedule

    UpdateCodeofOrdinances

    UpdateourMasterPlans

    28DS

  • AdoptUpdatetoFacilityInvestmentFeeSchedule Covercostsassociatedwithimprovinginfrastructureindevelopingareas

    Ensuresmasterplanapproachtosafeguardefficiencyofsystem

    29DS

  • ReflectMasterPlans&consistencyofdevelopmentwithmasterplans

    Feasibilityofextensions

    Alternativeconnections

    30DS

  • CreditstowardFacilityInvestmentFees

    Continueagreementswithdevelopersasappropriate: Alternativeconnections Developmentprofferingcommitmentofimprovements,rightsofway,etc.

    Extendedcapacityreservations

    31DS

  • 32

    Facility Investment Fees

    Rob Ori, PresidentPublic Management

    Resources Group, Inc.

  • 33

    SupportPolicyof"GrowthPayingforGrowth" ExistingCustomersNotResponsibleforNewCapital

    FavorableRateBenefit KeepsMonthlyUtilityRatesReasonable

  • 34

    RecoverCapitalCostofCapacityAllocabletoNewUsers MustMeet"RationalNexus"ProvisionsDictatedbyCaseLaw,FloridaImpactFeeAct MustRelateCapitalExpenditurestoGrowth FeemustbeBasedonMostRecentandLocalizedData

  • 35

    FIFanalysisonlyencompassedwastewater ExistingFIFIncludesTwoPrimaryCapitalCostRecoveryComponents: IdentifiedasSystemCosts BenefitallUsers TreatmentandDisposalComponent(plants)

    PrimaryTransmissionComponent(largelines&pumpstations)

  • 36

    ExistingFIFIncludesTwoPrimaryCapitalCostRecoveryComponents:(contd) DoesntIncludeonsiteCostsSpecificto

    Development Manholes,LocalLiftStations,CollectionLines,

    Laterals GenerallyDonatedasPartofDevelopment

    Process AnalysisFocusedOnlyonPrimaryTransmission

    ComponentofFee

  • 37

    "SystemBuyIn"Approach

    TheMostEquitableMethod DeterminationofProRataCosttoServeNewEquivalentResidentialConnection(ERC) ERCRepresentsCapacityAllocatedtoaSingleFamilyResidence

  • 38

    "SystemBuyIn"Approach

    ConsideredOriginalCostofUtilityPlantConstructedandAvailabletoServeNewGrowth

    ConsideredTodaysCostEstimatestoServeNewGrowth

    ConsideredBuildoutPopulationEstimatestoDetermineERCsand"UnitCost"

  • 39

    LevelofService(LOS)=AllocatedCapacity(Flow)perERC

    LOSAssumedat210gpd perERCtoDeriveUnitCost

  • 40

    NoChangeinFeeApplicationMethodology,JustAmountoftheFeeCharged FeeBasedonMeterSize LinkstoImpliedCapacityofCustomer BasedonMeterEquivalentsAmericanWaterWorksAssociation

    ComparisonofExistingandProposedWastewaterFeesERC

    FACTOREXISTING

    FEEPROPOSED

    FEEDIFFERENCE

    STANDARD RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER

    1.00 $2,315 $3,027 $712

    MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL (PER UNIT)

    0.67 $1,580 $2,028 $448

    COMMERCIAL VARIES BY METER SIZE

    5/8-INCH METER 1.00 $2,315 $3,027 $712

    1-INCH METER 2.50 $5,788 $7,568 $1,780

  • 41

  • UpdateFIFschedule

    UpdateCodeofOrdinances

    UpdateourMasterPlans

    42DS

  • dvollmerText BoxDisposal of Surplus County Property