Title: Memo of the Executive Office of the Governor re: December 6, 1996 Water Supply Funding Committee Meeting
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00004620/00001
 Material Information
Title: Memo of the Executive Office of the Governor re: December 6, 1996 Water Supply Funding Committee Meeting
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
Abstract: Jake Varn Collection - Memo of the Executive Office of the Governor re: December 6, 1996 Water Supply Funding Committee Meeting (JDV Box 70)
General Note: Box 24, Folder 3 ( Water Supply Development and Funding - 1996-1997 ), Item 22
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00004620
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text

12-17-96 89:53AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398

The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001




Water Supply landing Core Commirtee members

Paula 1.. Allen

December 6. 1996. Water Supply 1-unding Committee meeting

I december 9, 1996

Attached lor your information are the notes irom the December 6 meeting of" the
Water Supply Funding Committee. These include the assignments made I r the
December 18 meeting which are due December 12. You will be receiving an
agenda. for the next meeting this Friday, December 13. hankss and have a good


=22 P.3/10

FHBA 2247933



12-17-96 09:53AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398

December 6, 1996: Water Supply Funding Committee notes

T Funding Supply Core Committee Charge and Work Plan Tasks

The Connmittee discussed the charge tor the committee and reached
consensus on the following statement:

"lhe Committee will develop recommendations to ensure sufficient fading
to construct, operate and maintain the water supply infra.sLructure and
water resources needed to meet the growinging demand for water in a safe
affordable and environmentally acceptable mannur."

A. Process, Product & Audience

1. The F'unding Committee develops initial recommendations for
consideration by fill Work Group

2. ihe Work Group reviews and seeks consensus and asks committee to
refine before final consensus

3. Work Group will forward consensus recommenda lions and a report on the
deliberations to the Governor.

B. Work Plan Tasks

1. Identify overall range of future funding needs

Identity existing sources
Discuss both water supply and water resource needs separately

2 Options and combinations of funding sources
both revenue and loan sources

3. Factors in determining equitable cost distribution

4. Roles and responsibilities in water supply and water resource

5 Options for administration and distribution of new sources of

FROM FHBA 2247933

222 P.4/10

FROM. FHBA 2247933 12-17-96 09:53AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398 u22 P.5/10

6. Conistraints and impediments to water supply funding.

TI. Investor Owned I tilities & Public Service Commission- Pre.entations
and Discussions

A. Investor Owned Jtih ties

Steve Walker and members of the investor owned utilities industry made
presentations. Of primary concern was the "used and useful provision" employed
by the Public Service Commission in determining rates, which appears to fly in the
lace of long range planning efforts.

Following the presentations a discussion highlighted the follow ing points:

The possible solutions to the problems identified by the 10 Us are presented short
hand and could be the subject. of recommend tions later fleshed out.

Hlow far do you take water resource policies into the IOU funding/ regulatory
context? Would PSC take into account permit conditions? Yes. Is that enough?

Why provide access to public loan flids? Conunuities take revenue from Water
Utilities and apply to other public services Benefits of the low cost loans would
be passed through to rate payers

10% by central sewer regulated by PSC. 3/4 of Counties are PSC regulated.

Is it a problem when local government regulates TOT 1s? Taw states that county
must regulate as if it is the PSC. Possible conflict. Committee could address both
PSC and county regulated lOT Is

Water conservation issue. Problem is rate is linked to the amount of water sold
Should make 101 Js whole if they are successful in water conservation

Environmental requirements regarding quantity and reuse What about those
surrounding quality? Cost recovery tor environmental quality measures But big
problem is 1 month horizon. Make it consistent with regulatory/ DFEP

Access to public sources- OU)s seek "reasonable" return. L.g. talking about

FROM FHBA 2247933 12-17-96 09:5SAM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398 =22 P.6/10

access to state revolving loan tund.

What about partnenng between public utilities and lTOU s?

Committee should only consider changes to constraints that are related to water
supply funding-- keep this narrow focus and apply equally to public and private

13. PSC Presentation and Discussion

John Williams offered a overview presentation on the PSC role in regulating water
supply of lOUs. Following the presentation the discussion highlighted the
following points.

18 month projection $$ apply back to existing users. Beyond 18 months- find
bonds, impact fees etc. to pay. PSC re-evaluating policy at December rule

PSC may be putting regulated in a fight with environmental regulators and
interests by Ireatmcnt of environment under "used and useful" siandard.Changing
the 18 month time standard may lix some of the problem

PSC & DCA- little interaction except on setting utility franchise areas. However
both are dealing with growth driven concerns.

1 month rule only applies to TO10 s not counties

UIsed/useful. Ts is gauged 100% today? Allow recovery of costs on average peak
days plus the 18 months. What about facilities that rotate demand on wells due to
environmental requirements?

Marginal rates structure is not addressed specifically in statute PSC has never
used this in water supply and it is questionable it could

PSC should clantY' if there are any legislative changes or statutory constraints that
need to be addressed in addition to their own rule changes to address tihe issue

Are block rates tMr conservation allowed? Yes. if demonstrated there is an
excessive per capital consumption

Understanding rates etc. may become important if it is decided ialt general

=22 P.7/10

12-17-96 09:53AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398

revenue funds are not a funding source for water supply

ITH. Work Plan Tasks

A. Discussion of Range of Future Funding Needs

The Water Management Districts presented some figures tbr water resource costs
looking backward at items they have been involved in. 'he figures didn't
incorporate water supply utilities, regulatory costs etc. As an example, SJRWMD
estimated over the next 20 years about $1 billion in needs in terms of traditional
sources and three times that if alternative sources were considered.

Members discussed whether it was possible or appropriate for the Committcce o
come to agreement, on some number or rangc. All agreed the number would be
considerable (in the billions) once all costs were considered. HIowever it would
require a thorough debate of assumptions. Some members suggested that the
Commitcc's focus should include both new and existing alternative sources of
water costs.

lhe members agreed not to spend more time at the point engaging in this debate.
'Ihe Water Management Districts agreed to recalculate figures to more accurately
reflect water supply funding costs.

B. Discussion of the Water Supply Funding Options and Combinations.

The members agreed to initially identitN existing water supply finding sources and
related water resource funding sources. Included in this would be revenue and loan
sources and traditional and alternative

Member assignments were made to set forth the nature of the source (revenue or
loan), the statutory source, the constraints and limitations on its use for water
supply funding. At a minimum, submittals should address the components
included in the DEP matrix spreadsheet that was handed out Those components
are- (1) Option and type of funding: (2) Administered by whotn'7 (3) Intended
recipients of funding; (3) Amounts available/projected; (4) T ses; (5) Guiding
principles for find (intended purpose): (6) Impediments/constraints on funding; (7)
Requirements; (8) Actions needed to implement/access; (9) Advantages/
disadvantages (subjective comments and policy implications)

Assignments were made for all members to identify any future ne sources with a

FR114 FHBA 2247933

22 P.8/10

12-17-96 09:54AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398

rationale for how and why it should be used.

1. Federal sources (DEP with assist tiom ILocal Govt)

a. Sate Dnnking Water Act Funds
1. Federal $$ 44.2 to be matched by State $9
2. Complicated limitations and qualifications (e.g. not used for grow th
but to enhance walker quality.
3. Any new funds added to the mix will help

b. U SDA Rural Utilities Services
1. Annual appropriation- funneled through state
clearinghouse includes both grants and loans.

2. CD1CGs- very competitive

d. l'ederal Desal bill funds

c. iFarm Bill l:unds 200 million + to fund Everglades
restoration projects.

f. FPA- Watershed program money" Alternative source #$$ (e.g
SWFWMD got line items fiom Federal Clean Water Act)

2. State Sources (WMDs will work with Sierra etc )

a Save our Rivers $

b. P 2000 Nwnd funds

c State Resource lands. Chap 16 School Board Lands- may
represent a savings for lands available at reduced costs

d Pollution recovery tinds

e. 373 495 authorizes but never used

(other potential nc\w sources mentioned include: removing exemption from

FROM FHBA 2247933

:22 P.9/10

12-17-96 09:54AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 222039B

FROM FHBA 2247333

gross receipts sales tax)

3. Regional Sources

a. WMT)s sources- Ad valorem; permit fees
(WMDs will identity: Bill Segal)

b. Wuter Supply Authorities sources : Advalorem, Bondss user fees/sales
(Somly will ask WCRWSA to set forth)

c. 298 Districts Legis, authorized to raise $ for
(Steve Walker set forth')

d. RPCs/Federal economic development funds (Casey Gluckman
w ill look into)

4. Local Sources

a. Special assessments
b. Impact fees
c, Ad valorem
d. Local P2000 match bonded
c. Local option sales tax
f. sales tax on water exemption (not auth now)
g. Sales tax on water exemptionss-
h. "franchise fees"
i. Chap 153(?????) County special districts
(Local govt. Whitson)

5. Private sources (Steve Walker to provide information)

a. private investments
b. rates
c. CIAC (developer contributions)

6. Joint ventures (public/ private) (Steve Walker/wMDs)
a partnerships
b privatizations
c. combinations of previously identified public/private sources

-ROM FHBA 2247933

Keith Hetrick



December 6 Water Supply Funding Conunittee Meeting
12/09/96 03:43 PM
9 including cover page

Judv C Dove


Message: Se~~ Allachd


__ __

12-17-96 09:52AM TO CARLTON FIELD WARD 2220398
Lotus Fax Ser% er Cover Page

=22 P.2/10


See Attached

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs