WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

CITY OF NORTH PORT SARASOTA COUNTY REGULAR BOARD MEETING
& Attorney-Client Session April 13, 2023
11:00 A.M.

Special District Services, Inc.
The Oaks Center 2501A Burns Road
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

www.westvillagesid.org 561.630.4922 Telephone 877.SDS.4922 Toll Free 561.630.4923 Facsimile

AGENDA
WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Public Safety Building Training Room 19955 Preto Blvd.
Venice, Florida 34293 https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87509654850?pwd=a1ZiQU5yYUI3MFlEZG1IUWxVT2xDdz09 Meeting ID: 875 0965 4850 Passcode: 11036
Call in Number 929 436 2866
REGULAR BOARD MEETING & ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
April 13, 2023
11:00 a.m.

Call to Order
Proof of Publication…	Page 1
Establish Quorum
Additions or Deletions
Comments from the Public on All Agenda Items
Approval of Minutes
March 9, 2023 Regular Board Meeting & Attorney-Client Session Minutes…	Page 2
Attorney-Client Session Relative to Gran Paradiso HOA Irrigation Litigation	Page 10
General District Matters
Receive and File Commission on Ethics Opinion 23-2 for Supervisor Meisel…	Page 11
Consider Resolution No. 2023-07 – Awarding Contract for Resurfacing Project…	Page 19
Unit of Development 1
Update on US 41 Improvements State/Federal Funding
Consider Approval of Work Authorization No. 2023-3 with Dewberry for Additional
FEMA Hurricane Ian Site Assessment…	Page 21
Consider Approval of Proposal for Playmore Road Resurfacing…	Page 25
Unit of Development 3
Update on Status of Unit 3 Bonds Requisition Audit
Discussion on Matters Related to Gran Paradiso Litigation
Public Hearing – Irrigation Rates
Proof of Publication…	Page 26
Receive Public Comments on Adopting 2018 Irrigation Rates
Consider Resolution No. 2023-08 – Adopting 2018 Irrigation Rates…	Page 27
Consider Approval of Proposals for 2023 Professional Ratemaking Services…	Page 63
Discussion Regarding Repurposing Road Reserve Funds for Hurricane Storm Related Expenses
Consider Approval of Proposal for Grand Paradiso Resurfacing…	Page 124
Unit of Development 9
Consider Approval of Final Supplemental Assessment Report…	Page 125
Consider Resolution No. 2023-09 – Supplemental Assessment Resolution…	Page 140

Administrative Matters
District Engineer
District Attorney
District Operations Manager
District Manager
Board Member Comments
Adjourn

Miscellaneous Notices

Published in Sarasota Herald-Tribune on April 4, 2023

Location
Sarasota County, Florida
Notice Text	
	NOTICE OF REGULAR BOARD MEETING WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors ( Board ) of the West Villages Improvement District ( District ) will hold a Regular Board Meeting ( Meeting ) of the Board on April 13, 2023, at 11:00 A.M. in person in the Training Room of the Public Safety Building located at 19955 Preto Boulevard, Venice, Florida 34293.
The Meeting is open to the public and will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Florida law for improvement districts. A copy of the agenda for this Meeting may be obtained by contacting the District Manager by email at wcrosley@sdsinc.org, by telephone at 941-244-2805, or by visiting the District s website, westvillagesid.org. This Meeting may be continued to a date, time, and place to be specified on the record at the meeting. Any member of the public interested in listening to and participating in the meeting remotely may do so by
logging into Zoom via their computer at:	
	https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87509654850?pwd=a1ZiQU5yYUI3MFlEZG1IUWxVT2x	
	Ddz09		
	Meeting ID: 875 0965 4850
Passcode: 11036
Dial in by phone: 1 929 436 2866
Meeting ID: 875 0965 4850
Passcode: 11036
Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this Meeting is asked to advise the District Office at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting by contacting the District Manager at 941-244-2805. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the Florida Relay Service by dialing 7-1-1, or 1-800-955- 8771 (TTY)/1-800-955-8770 (Voice), for aid in contacting the District Manager.
Each person who decides to appeal any action taken at this Meeting is advised that person will need a record of the proceedings and that accordingly, the person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which such appeal is to be based. William Crosley, District Manager
West Villages Improvement District
WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT	
	www.westvillagesid.org		

WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD MEETING & ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION MARCH 9, 2023

CALL TO ORDER

The March 9, 2023, Board Meeting of the West Villages Improvement District (“WVID” or the “District”) was called to order at 11:01 a.m. in the Public Safety Building Training Room located at 19955 Preto Boulevard, Venice, Florida 34293.

PROOF OF PUBLICATION

Proof of publication was presented which showed the notice of the Board Meeting had been published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on March 1, 2023, as legally required.

ESTABLISH A QUORUM

It was determined that the attendance of the following Supervisors constituted a quorum, and it was in order to proceed with the meeting:

Chairman	John Luczynski	Present in person	
Vice Chairman	Steve Lewis	Absent	
Supervisor	Tom Buckley	Present in person	
Supervisor	Christine Masney	Present in person	
Supervisor	John Meisel	Present in person	

Staff members in attendance were:

District Manager	William Crosley	Special District Services, Inc.	
District Counsel	Lindsay Whelan	Kutak Rock LLP	
District Counsel	Joseph Brown	Kutak Rock LLP	
District Engineer	Giacomo Licari	Dewberry	

Also present were: Cynthia Wilhelm of Nabors, Giblin, & Nickerson, P.A.; Erica Klevers of Goodwyn, Mills and Cawood (via phone); and Andrew Karmeris of Special District Services, Inc. (via phone).

ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA

There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

Pam Kantola requested an update on hurricane damage to street lighting and stump removal and leaning trees in Gran Paradiso. The District owned street lighting in Gran Paradiso that requires repairs or replacement is being claimed through the POA’s insurance policy. The maintenance agreement between the District and the POA provides that the District owned street lighting inside Gran Paradiso is to be included on the POA’s property insurance policy. In order to receive a successful FEMA claim for stumps or leaning trees, the District is required to follow specific

procurement policies for that type of work such as locating and then documenting with GPS coordinates and photographs. Dewberry will provide a proposal to complete the review. The FEMA claim could take up to one year to complete. It was discussed that because of the expected lengthy time period for a FEMA claim, the Gran Paradiso POA board may want to move forward with addressing the leaning trees or stump removals on their own. One option offered was to run the expense through the District with the understanding that this unbudgeted expense would be recovered on the FY 23/24 District tax bill. Another option is to have the POA specially assess its residents for the costs.

Paul Maloney read from a prepared statement of his concerns regarding $38,000,000 for road impact fees that is owed to the District and his concern that if de-annexation is successful, the District could potentially suffer significant financial harm. A copy of the statement was provided for the official record.

Jim Cranston asked if FEMA would reimburse interest that is accrued on a loan to complete hurricane cleanup. Ms. Klevers indicated that she did not believe FEMA reimburses for interest on loans made for cleanup.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 10, 2023, Special Board Meeting

The minutes of February 10, 2023, Special Board Meeting were presented for consideration.

Mr. Meisel made a MOTION, amending the minutes to reflect that he requested the rational for the District being the procuring agent of the artwork and it was explained by the Chair that one of the reasons was because the District did not have to pay sales tax. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Buckley and passed unanimously approving the minutes of the February 10, 2023, Special Board Meeting, as amended.

Mr. Luczynski noted that there was a chance that the District could receive as much as $2 Million from the State and an additional $2 Million from federal funding for the US 41 roundabout project.

ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION RELATIVE TO GRAN PARADISO HOA IRRIGATION LITIGATION

The court reporter had not yet arrived to the meeting for this agenda item. The Board deferred the Shade Session until later in the meeting and the Board Meeting continued to Item H.

GENERAL DISTRICT MATTERS

Consider Change Order No. 2 Under Work Authorization No. 51 between the District and Stantec

This change order is an increase to the original change order not to exceed $15,000 for additional miscellaneous services. The District has retained Stantec for support such as updating master plans, preparation of legal descriptions, and other matters that are cost effective to complete due to legacy information and institutional knowledge.

A MOTION was made by Ms. Masney, seconded by Mr. Meisel and passed unanimously approving Change Order No. 2 under Work Authorization No. 51 between the District and Stantec not to exceed $15,000 for additional miscellaneous services, as presented.

Consider Resolution No. 2023-01 – Authorizing Electronic Approvals and Check Signers

Resolution No. 2023-01 was presented, entitled:

RESOLUTION 2023-01

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE DISTRICT MANAGER TO ESTABLISH A CHECKING ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT AND TO DESIGNATE THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES FOR THE DISTRICT’S OPERATING BANK ACCOUNT(S); AND TO DESIGNATE AUTHORIZED DISTRICT OFFICIALS TO REVIEW, APPROVE AND ISSUE PAYMENT OF EXPENDITURES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

This resolution updates and authorizes signatories Todd Wodraska, Patricia LasCasas, Jason Pierman, John Luczynski, and William Crosley to approve electronic or non-electronic payments made by the District. All District checks require two signatures and approval by the District Chairman or Vice Chairman before payment is made.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Buckley, seconded by Mr. Masney and passed unanimously adopting Resolution No. 2023-01, as presented.

Consider Resolution No. 2023-02 – Adopting a Records Retention Policy

Resolution No. 2023-02 was presented, entitled:

RESOLUTION 2023-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECORDS MANAGEMENT LIAISON OFFICER; PROVIDING THE DUTIES OF THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT LIAISON OFFICER; ADOPTING A RECORDS RETENTION POLICY; DETERMINING THE ELECTRONIC RECORD TO BE THE OFFICIAL RECORD; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

Ms. Whelan presented this resolution that is intended to allow electronic records, in lieu of hard copies, to be the official records of the District. Any document that does not exist electronically must be retained by hard copy until an electronic copy is available.

This resolution has two options regarding record retention policy that the Board may consider. The first Option #1 provides that pursuant the State records retention policy, the District will continue to retain documents pursuant to the state authorized schedule which allows for destruction of

records after a certain amount of time. Option #2 provides that the District will retain all documents in perpetuity. Ms. Whelan recommended that the Board consider adoption of Option 2 and indicated that even though a formal policy was not previously adopted by the Board that staff had been retaining documents in perpetuity.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Luczynski, seconded by Mr. Buckley and passed unanimously adopting Resolution No. 2023-02, Option #2, as presented.

UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT NO. 3

Status of Unit 3 Bonds Requisition Audit

The audit report from Giffels Webster should be ready for Board review at the April meeting.

Discussion on Matters Related to Gran Paradiso Litigation

The Board deferred this item until after its Shade Session and the Board Meeting continued to Item J.

UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT NO. 9

Consider Bond Financing Team Funding Agreement

Ms. Whelan explained that when bonds are issued, the cost of issuance is paid for items such as legal, engineering, methodology or professional services. This agreement provides that in the event that the bonds for Unit 9 do not get issued, the developer would cover the cost of issuance incurred for those services.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Buckley, seconded by Mr. Meisel and passed unanimously approving the Bond Financing Team Funding Agreement, as presented.

Consider Resolution No. 2023-06 – Delegation Award Resolution

Resolution No. 2023-06 was presented, entitled:

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-06
A RESOLUTION DELEGATING TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (THE "DISTRICT") THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THE SALE, ISSUANCE AND TERMS OF SALE OF WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS (UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT NO. 9), SERIES 2023, AS A SINGLE SERIES OF BONDS UNDER THE MASTER TRUST INDENTURE (THE "SERIES 2023 BONDS") IN ORDER TO FINANCE THE SERIES 2023 PROJECT; ESTABLISHING THE PARAMETERS FOR THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS, INTEREST RATES, MATURITY DATES, REDEMPTION PROVISIONS AND OTHER DETAILS THEREOF; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO ACCEPT THE BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; APPROVING A NEGOTIATED SALE OF THE SERIES 2023 BONDS TO THE UNDERWRITER; APPROVING THE FORMS OF THE MASTER TRUST

INDENTURE AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY THEREOF BY CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE DISTRICT; APPOINTING A TRUSTEE, PAYING AGENT AND BOND REGISTRAR FOR THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE PRELIMINARY LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDUM AND LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDUM RELATING TO THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF THE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE DISTRICT TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS REQUIRED AND TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER ALL DOCUMENTS, INSTRUMENTS AND CERTIFICATES NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND DELIVERY OF THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE VICE CHAIRMAN AND ASSISTANT SECRETARIES TO ACT IN THE STEAD OF THE CHAIRMAN OR THE SECRETARY, AS THE CASE MAY BE; SPECIFYING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCEEDS OF THE SERIES 2023 BONDS; AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE DISTRICT TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS AND ENTER INTO ALL AGREEMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SERIES 2023 PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

This resolution was presented by Ms. Wilhelm, Bond Counsel for the District. The delegated award resolution provides that the District Chairman has the authority to enter into a bond purchase contract and to approve the forms of the Bond Purchase contract itself, the Master Trust Indenture and First Supplemental Trust Indenture, the Preliminary Offering Memorandum and the Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The maximum principal amount, or par amount of the bond is not to exceed $19,000,000. The maximum interest rate is the maximum statutory rate. The maximum underwriter discount is 1.5% and the maximum maturity date is 30 years of principal payments. There is coordination between the District and the landowner to ensure the level of debt being placed on the property is amenable to the landowner by not overburdening the properties that could make selling lots a challenge.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Meisel, seconded by Mr. Luczynski and passed unanimously adopting Resolution No. 2023-06, as presented.

Consider Form of Ancillary Agreements

Acquisition Agreement
Completion Agreement
Collateral Assignment Agreement
True-Up Agreement

Ms. Whelan presented the forms of the ancillary agreements. The Acquisition Agreement sets forth the terms upon which the District will acquire completed infrastructure or the manner in which the District will agree to reimburse the developer from bond proceeds for the previously constructed and accepted infrastructure. The Completion Agreement provides in the event the bond funds are not sufficient to complete the project, the developer is agreeing to fund the remaining costs of the improvements. The Collateral Assignment Agreement provides that in the unlikely event that the bonds go into default due to the nonpayment of assessments by the

landowner that the development rights to the property would be assigned to the District. The True- Up Agreement provides that the developer of the property will cover any debt that is realized in the event that the specific number of units per the original development plan are not constructed. This “true up” payment removes the debt associated with those units that were not constructed. Ms. Whelan indicated that these forms presented are in substantial form and will be finalized with final bond terms.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Buckley, seconded by Ms. Masney and passed unanimously approving the form of ancillary agreements, in substantial form.

Consider Preliminary Supplemental Assessment Report

Mr. Karmeris presented the Preliminary Supplemental Assessment Report and explained that the engineer projected public infrastructure construction costs at $51,000,000 with an estimated bond sizing par amount of $16,540,000. Mr. Karmeris also reviewed the schedules provided in the report regarding debt service allocated by product type (lot size) spread across the proposed 733 units and the expected annual debt assessment per unit. The standard Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) in the methodology refers to a 50-foot lot (50-foot lot = 1 ERU).

A MOTION was made by Mr. Meisel, seconded by Mr. Buckley and passed unanimously approving the Preliminary Supplemental Assessment Report, as presented.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

District Engineer

Mr. Licari reported that he was working on three projects and hoping for Board direction. The first project is the road resurfacing planned for the District owned roads in Unit 3 that includes portions of Renaissance Boulevard and Prestigio Drive. The second project is the Playmore resurfacing from Preto Boulevard west to the entrance of Islandwalk. Both the Gran Paradiso resurfacing and the Playmore resurfacing projects will be bid together. The third project was at the direction of the Board. Dewberry was asked to evaluate the intersection of West Villages Parkway (WVP) at the entrance to the Publix shopping center. There have been several close calls of vehicular traffic accidents at this intersection because it is confusing to vehicles heading north on WVP to turn left into the shopping center at the same time as vehicles leaving the shopping center turning left onto WVP to head towards US41. Two options were presented which could help create a safer intersection. After discussion of the two options, the consensus of the Board was to move forward with eliminating U-turns for vehicles approaching the intersection from US
41 travelling south towards Playmore; adding additional thermoplastic road markings, and utilizing traffic delineator posts. Sarasota Memorial Hospital owns the property on the SE corner of WVP and US41, which may require this portion of the roadway to be modified in order to allow access to that property.

In addition, Mr. Licari reported that Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) was repairing the US 41 sidewalks after the District provided a punch list needed to be completed before the District accepted the maintenance, including these from the western most entrance monuments to the wastewater treatment plant access road just west of River Road. The District approved the form of the maintenance agreement with FDOT in August 2022, however these sidewalk issues need to be addressed before that agreement can be executed.

District Attorney

There were no updates from the District’s attorney.

District Operations’ Manager

There was no update from the District’s Operations’ Manager at this time.

District Manager

There was no update from the District Manager at this time.

BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

Mr. Meisel suggested that the monthly meetings and back-up information on the District website be looked at to determine if it can be easily accessed by District residents.

G.	ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION RELATIVE TO GRAN PARADISO HOA IRRIGATION LITIGATION (THIS ITEM WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER)

Court reporter Jennifer Cope of Huseby Inc. arrived after the Board completed agenda Item L. Mr. Brown asked that the court reporter begin transcribing.

He addressed that the District was currently involved in pending litigation between the Gran Paradiso POA versus West Villages Improvement District and Lennar Homes, Case No. 2022- CA-005368-SC, pending in the 12th Judicial Circuit. An Attorney-Client Session was requested and a Notice of Attorney-Client Session was published, announcing that the non-conflicted Board of Supervisors, District Counsel, the District Manager, and a court reporter would be present. The Attorney-Client Session was transcribed by a court reporter and maintained under Florida law and that transcript will not be available until after the conclusion of the litigation and will become part of the District’s public record.

Mr. Luczynski then announced the commencement of the private Attorney-Client Session at 12:13
p.m. The estimated length of this session was 30 minutes. The names of those persons attending were WVID Supervisors John Luczynski, Steve Lewis, Tom Buckley, Christine Masney, District Counsel Joe Brown and Lindsay Whelan and District Manager William Crosley.

Mr. Brown advised that the Board Meeting will resume immediately after this closed session, with anyone then welcome to return for the remainder of the meeting where the Board will take up additional business.

The Special Board Meeting was then recessed for the Attorney-Client Session at which time the Zoom call was muted and all residents, non-essential staff, and Mr. Meisel left the room.

The Attorney-Client Session ended at 12:45 p.m., at which time staff allowed any interested individuals back into the Board Meeting. Mr. Meisel did not rejoin the Board Meeting in progress.

The Board then moved to agenda Item I2.

I.	UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT NO. 3 (THIS ITEM TAKEN OUT OF ORDER)

2. Discussion on Matters Related to Gran Paradiso Litigation

Mr. Brown shared that the court transcripts from the February Gran Paradiso irrigation litigation hearing were made available to the District. A written order has not yet been entered by Judge Carroll.

It was requested that the Board provide authority to District staff to proceed with a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a new 2023 irrigation rate study which will be helpful to the District in proving the reasonableness of its rates in the pending litigation as well as serving to facilitate any settlement discussions that may occur.

Mr. Brown discussed that the District believes it properly noticed its 2018 irrigation rate hearing but in an abundance of caution to ensure compliance with the law it was also requested that the District notice an additional public hearing to be held at its April 13, 2023 meeting to solicit additional public and Board input on the 2018 ratemaking study, to consider re-adoption of that study, to ratify and confirm the findings made and the rates adopted in prior ratemaking resolutions and the prior use of those rates by the District, and to re-approve the current rates on an interim basis.

Additionally, it was also requested that District staff be authorized to provide a formal written letter to Thomas Ranchlands Intangibles (TRI) to notify them of the current status of the litigation any Board action today since the well availability charge is paid to that entity.

A MOTION was made by Mr. Buckley, seconded by Ms. Masney authorizing District staff to proceed with a new irrigation rate study RFQ, notice an additional Public Hearing on the 2018 irrigation rates and related matters, and to send written notice to TRI. This MOTION passed unanimously.

ADJOURNMENT

The Supervisors did not have any additional business they would like to discuss.

There being no further business to come before the Board, the Board Meeting was adjourned at 1:24 p.m. on a MOTION made by Mr. Buckley, seconded by Ms. Masney and passed unanimously.

Secretary/Assistant Secretary	Chair/Vice Chair

Miscellaneous Notices

Published in Sarasota Herald-Tribune on April 4, 2023

Location
Sarasota County, Florida
Notice Text	
	NOTICE OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the West Villages Improvement District (the District ) will hold an attorney-client session of its Board of Supervisors (the Board
) at the Board meeting on April 13, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. at 19955 Preto Boulevard, Venice, Florida 34293. The attorney-client session may be continued to a date, time and place approved by the Board on the record without additional publication of notice.
The attorney-client session, which is closed to the public, will be held to discuss settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures. This meeting is being held pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes. The following persons are anticipated to be in attendance at the attorney-client session: each of the District s Board Supervisors who are not otherwise conflicted from such attendance, District Manager William Crosley, District Counsel Lindsay Whelan and Joseph Brown, and a court reporter. The attorney-client session is expected to begin after the commencement of the regularly-scheduled Board meeting and to last approximately thirty (30) minutes. During the attorney-client session the individuals identified above will meet in private. Upon conclusion of the attorney-client session, the public will be invited into the Board meeting, and the Board meeting will continue to consider any business of the District.
District Manager WEST VILLAGES
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT	
	www.westvillagesid.org		
	Pub: 4/4/23; #8630681	

CEO 23-2 — March 15, 2023
CONFLICT OF INTEREST; VOTING CONFLICT MEMBER OF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION SERVING ON
THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

To:	Lindsey Whelan, Counsel to the District (West Villages Improvement District)

SUMMARY:

A member of the West Villages Improvement District Board of Supervisors will have a prohibited conflict of interest under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, where he is a member and an officer of a homeowners' association suing his agency and where he is the designated corporate representative of the homeowners' association in the lawsuit. The Board Member would not have a voting conflict if he voted on matters pertaining to the litigation, due to the size of the class of people affected by such a vote, but the Board Member is encouraged to abstain from such a vote pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. CEO 77-14, CEO 77-32, CEO 82-14, CEO 84-80, CEO
86-24, CEO 86-41, CEO 90-20, CEO 98-11, CEO 08-22, CEO 10-2, CEO 14-12,
CEO 17-4, CEO 19-1, CEO 21-7, and CEO 22-5 are referenced.

QUESTION 1:

Will a member of the West Villages Improvement District Board of Supervisors have a prohibited conflict of interest if he maintains a membership in the nonprofit corporation functioning as the homeowners' association for a community within the District, serves as an officer on that nonprofit corporation, and serves as the designated corporate representative of the nonprofit corporation in a lawsuit against the District?

This question is answered as follows.

You write your inquiry on behalf of a member ("the Board Member") of the West Villages Improvement District Board of Supervisors. According to your inquiry, the Board Member was elected to a four-year term in November 2022. The Board Member was sworn in and seated on December 15, 2022, at which meeting he requested that you, as District counsel, seek this opinion. The Board of Supervisors has five members. At present,1 four of the seats on the Board of Supervisors are elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis, but the seat occupied by the Board Member

1 Originally, all five of the Board seats were elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis. See Chapter 2004-456, Section 5(1), Laws of Florida. In compliance with Section 189.041(3), Florida Statutes, the composition of the Board has begun to transition such that one of the Board seats is elected by the qualified electors of the District.

is filled through a district-wide election by qualified electors of the West Villages Improvement District ("the District") rather than on a one-acre, one-vote basis.
The District spans nearly 12,000 acres. Within the bounds of the District lies the Gran Paradiso community, which spans approximately 1,000 acres and has approximately 1,935 residential units. The Gran Paradiso community is operated by the Gran Paradiso Property Owners Association ("the Property Owners Association"). The Board Member owns one residential property within the bounds of the Gran Paradiso community and, for that reason, is required to be a member of the Property Owners Association, which is a nonprofit corporation serving as a homeowners' association pursuant to Chapter 720, Florida Statutes.2 In addition to being a member of the Property Owners Association, and prior to his election to the Board of Supervisors, the Board Member became a member of the Board of Directors of the Property Owners Association ("Board of Directors") in March 2022.
The District and the Property Owners Association transact business together through the District's provision of irrigation water to the Property Owners Association.3 In December 2020, the Property Owners Association began contracting with the District for the provision of irrigation water at specified rates. Recently, the Property Owners Association initiated a lawsuit against the District, disputing the service and seeking lower rates for the Property Owners Association.4 The Board Member has been heavily involved in the lawsuit. According to your inquiry, he has recently served as the designated corporate representative of the Property Owners Association in the lawsuit, though other corporate officers were available to do so instead, and began testifying

2 Section 720.301(9), Florida Statutes, defines a "homeowners' association" as:
a Florida corporation responsible for the operation of a community or a mobile home subdivision in which the voting membership is made up of parcel owners or their agents, or a combination thereof, and in which membership is a mandatory condition of parcel ownership, and which is authorized to impose assessments that, if unpaid, may become a lien on the parcel. The term “homeowners’ association” does not include a community development district or other similar special taxing district created pursuant to statute.
Relevant to this inquiry, a homeowners' association has the power to commence litigation. Section 720.303(1), Florida Statutes, states in part:
Before commencing litigation against any party in the name of the association involving amounts in controversy in excess of $100,000, the association must obtain the affirmative approval of a majority of the voting interests at a meeting of the membership at which a quorum has been attained.
3 Your inquiry does not detail any other ongoing business transactions between the District and the Property Owners Association.
4 We note that the Board Member has contacted Commission staff to dispute the Requestor's (District counsel's) description in the ethics inquiry of certain details pertaining to the lawsuit. The particulars of the lawsuit are not relevant to this opinion, except than that there is a lawsuit and the Board Member is involved in it, and there seems to be no material dispute over those two facts. To the extent that the Board counsel who requested the opinion and the Board Member seem to disagree over the facts, we reassure both that the differences are immaterial for purposes of this analysis.

as a witness against the District at a preliminary evidentiary hearing in December 2022 regarding a motion for preliminary injunction.5
With this background, you ask whether the Board Member's relationship with the Property Owners Association creates a prohibited conflict of interest for him.
To answer this question, analysis under Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, is needed.
Section 112.313(7)(a) states:

No public officer or employee of an agency shall have or hold any employment or contractual relationship with any business entity or any agency which is subject to the regulation of, or is doing business with, an agency of which he or she is an officer or employee . . . ; nor shall an officer or employee of an agency have or hold any employment or contractual relationship that will create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his or her private interests and the performance of his or her public duties or that would impede the full and faithful discharge of his or her public duties.

There are two prohibitions in Section 112.313(7)(a). The first prohibition of this statute proscribes a public officer from having any contractual relationship with a business entity or an agency that is regulated by or is doing business with his or her agency. The second prohibition of this statute proscribes a public officer from having a contractual relationship that would create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict of interest or would create an impediment to the full and faithful discharge of his or her public duties. This requires an examination of the public officer's duties and a review of his or her private employment or contractual relationship "to determine whether the two are compatible, separate and distinct or whether they coincide to create a situation which tempts dishonor." Zerweck v. State Commission on Ethics, 409 So. 2d 57, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (internal quotations omitted).
Regarding the first part of Section 112.313(7)(a), we have opined in the past that a public officer's rank-and-file membership in a nonprofit corporation creates a contractual relationship between the public officer and the nonprofit corporation. See CEO 19-1, CEO 14-12, and CEO 10-2. We have also opined that "a business entity is doing business with an agency where the parties have entered into a lease, contract, or other type of legal arrangement under which one party would have a cause of action against the other in the event of a default or breach." CEO 86-
24. Initiating, maintaining, and settling a lawsuit between a business entity and an agency, however, does not constitute "doing business" under the first part of Section 112.313(7)(a). See CEO 22-5, CEO 17-4, and CEO 77-14.
We now analyze the Board Member's situation under the first part of Section 112.313(7)(a). The Board Member has a contractual relationship with the Property Owners Association because he is a member of the nonprofit corporation. While the lawsuit does not constitute "doing business" under the first part of Section 112.313(7)(a), we nonetheless find that the Property Owners Association is doing business with the District because it has contracted with the District for the purchase of irrigation water. The arrangement constitutes "doing business" because the Property Owners Association could initiate, and in fact, has initiated, a cause of action against the

5 Apparently, direct testimony had occurred, but cross-examination and redirect had not. Further hearings are scheduled for February 2023 and it is expected the Board Member's witness testimony would conclude then.

District to resolve rights and obligations under that contract. Where the Board Member has a contractual relationship with the Property Owners Association (through his nonprofit membership) and that entity is doing business with the District (through the irrigation water contract), the elements of the first prohibition of Section 112.313(7)(a) are met. In the absence of an exception, a prohibited conflict of interest would be created.
An exception, however, is applicable to negate the conflict. Section 112.313(12)(c), Florida Statutes, says that no person shall be held in violation of Section 112.313(7)(a) where "[t]he purchase or sale is . . . for any utilities service[.]" In CEO 86-41, we found that a city's sale of water to a private business entity that retained a city council member as an engineer was a purchase or sale for a utility service that qualified for this exception. Here, in the Board Member's case, where we also have the sale of water by an agency to a private entity, the exception also applies to negate the conflict.6
We turn now to our analysis under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a). We have in the past reviewed similar situations to make a determination as to whether a public officer's private contractual relationships coincide with his or her public duties to create a situation that tempts dishonor as Zerweck requires.
For example, in CEO 82-14, we determined that membership in a voluntary, unincorporated association constituted a contractual relationship with a business entity, but that mere membership in that association, without additional facts indicating the public officer could be tempted to dishonor their public responsibilities, was not enough to find a continuing and frequently recurring conflict under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a).
In CEO 90-20, a member of an unincorporated association challenging the city's special tax assessments in court was elected to the city council. Upon his election, he resigned his post as chairman of the unincorporated association and had his name removed as one of the named plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. Under those facts, specifically relying upon the councilmember's efforts to divorce himself in his private capacity from the ongoing lawsuit and remove himself as a representative of the group in the lawsuit, we found no prohibited conflict of interest under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a), even though he remained a member of the association.
In CEO 08-22, we considered a city councilmember who was a member and the chairman of a registered political action committee that was suing his city. The city councilmember terminated his service as an officer or director of the political action committee, though he continued to be a dues-paying member of it. We found that where the councilmember merely had membership in the organization that was suing his agency, but was not an officer or director, a prohibited conflict of interest was not created under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a).
It is clear from these three opinions that while membership in an unincorporated association or political action committee creates a contractual relationship with that entity, that membership is not enough to create a continuing or frequently recurring conflict under the second part of Section

6 A second, though less permanent, exception is also available. We have found in the past that Section 112.316, Florida Statutes, operates to effectuate a "grandfathering" of a contractual relationship where a public officer's contractual relationship with a business entity and that business entity's "doing business" relationship with the public officer's agency both precede the public officer's assumption of office, at least until the contract terms are changed or amended. See CEO 22-5 for a lengthy discussion of grandfathering under Section 112.316 as applied to conflicts under the first part of Section 112.313(7)(a).

112.313(7)(a). However, when the membership is coupled with an additional incentive to compromise one's public duties, such as serving as an officer or director of the organization, or serving as its designated corporate representative in litigation, the prohibition in the second part of the statute will apply.
We believe the analytical framework set forth in CEO 82-14, CEO 90-20, and CEO 08-22 is applicable to members of nonprofit corporations, as well. In the Board Member's case, a conflict of interest under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a) will be present if he continues to be a representative of the Property Owners Association (nonprofit corporation) in the lawsuit and continues to be an officer in the Property Owners Association (nonprofit corporation) while he maintains a membership in the nonprofit organization and holds office on the Board.7 While he serves as an officer and as a designated corporate representative of the Property Owners Association, he is in a situation where he owes obligations to those on both sides of the lawsuit and he could be tempted to compromise his public responsibilities.
To avoid a conflict of interest going forward, he should either (1) end his membership in the Property Owners Association (eliminating the contractual relationship that is a predicate to finding a violation),8 (2) resign as an officer of the Property Owners Association and remove himself from all representative capacities in the lawsuit (eliminating the facts and circumstances that might tempt him to dishonor his public responsibilities),9 or (3) leave his public position.10

7 We are not aware of any exceptions that would be applicable to the scenario presented to negate the conflict. We find that the exception in Section 112.313(7)(a)1., Florida Statutes, does not apply here given that the conflict derives from the representation of a business entity before and/or against the Board Member's agency. As we opined in CEO 77-32, the exception does not apply to negate a conflict of this nature. The exception found in Section 112.313(15), Florida Statutes, which creates an exception for those who are employed by a tax-exempt organization under s. 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and meet certain other criteria, is also not applicable. As we discussed in CEO 98-11, Note 2, this exception "speaks to the holding of employment and not the holding of a contractual relationship," and the Board Member is not employed by the nonprofit corporation; he holds a contractual relationship with it through his membership.
8 We recognize the difficulties with this option given that "membership [in the homeowner's association] is a mandatory condition of parcel ownership." § 720.301(9), Fla. Stat.
9 Assuming the Board Member is offering uncompensated testimony (e.g., that he is not an expert witness that has been retained to testify against his agency), we believe the Board Member can continue to be a fact witness in the case. See CEO 91-66 and CEO 94-32. The Code of Ethics does not operate to prevent public officers from offering uncompensated, truthful testimony in a court of law, even if that uncompensated testimony might serve interests counter to the agency's position in the litigation.
10 In correspondence and telephonic communications with Commission staff, the Board Member has asked whether abstaining from votes concerning the lawsuit would cure his conflicting contractual relationship. As we opined in CEO 94-5:
Compliance with the voting conflicts law (Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes), which would include abstention from voting or participation in matters involving [those with whom the public officer has a contractual relationship], does not obviate the conflict under Section 112.313(7)(a). Nothing in Section 112.313(7)(a) indicates that compliance with Section 112.3143 creates an exemption from [its] application   Moreover, we do not believe that abstention should have the effect

QUESTION 2:

Would the Board Member have a voting conflict if the Board were posed with a vote concerning the litigation between the District and the Property Owners Association?

This question is answered as follows.

You ask whether a voting conflict will exist if the Board Member votes on a matter pertaining to the litigation between the District and the Property Owners Association.
Section 112.3143(3)(a) provides:

No county, municipal, or other local public officer shall vote in an official capacity upon any measure which would inure to his or her special private gain or loss; which he or she knows would inure to the special private gain or loss of any principal by whom he or she is retained or to the parent organization or subsidiary of a corporation parent by which he or she is retained, other than an agency as defined in s. 112.312(2); or which he or she knows would insure to the special private gain or loss of a relative or business associate of the public officer.

The statute prohibits the Board Member from voting on any measure that will inure to his special private gain or loss, or to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom he is retained, a relative, or a business associate. There is nothing in the facts presented to indicate that a principal by whom the Board Member is retained, a relative, or a business associate would be affected by a vote pertaining to the litigation. The Property Owners Association is not a principal by whom the Board Member is retained because it does not compensate him. See CEO 84-80. Therefore, we are only concerned with whether the vote would create a special private gain or loss for the Board Member himself.
We have opined before that where the size of the class of people affected by a vote is sufficiently large, and a public officer's proportional interest in the class of those affected by the vote is sufficiently small, a public officer's gain or loss from the vote cannot be said to be "special" as would be required to find a voting conflict under Section 112.3143(3).
Here, although a vote relating to the litigation could create a gain or loss for the Board Member himself, depending on the specific nature of the vote, he is just one member of the Property Owners Association, which has 1,935 residential units11 that would be affected in substantially the same manner by the litigation. For this reason, a voting conflict would not be

of creating an exemption, because [a public officer's] duties are not confined to voting on or participating in matters which come before [his or her board] for formal consideration[.]"
See also CEO 12-9; accord In re Milton West, Complaint No. 16-032, Final Order No. 17-057, aff'd by sub nom. Milton West v. Comm. On Ethics, 5D17-2075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
11 The Board Member has informed Commission staff he believes there are over 1,800 individual property owners of the 1,935 residential units in the Gran Paradiso community.

created if the Board Member voted on a matter pertaining to the litigation.12 That being said, we believe voting on such a matter would create the appearance of impropriety and raise questions about the Board Member's objectivity, given his private interests and level of involvement in the lawsuit. We do not think it would instill public confidence in government for the Board Member to participate in such a vote and we would strongly encourage him, as we suggested to a similarly- situated public officer in CEO 21-7, to invoke Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, and abstain from such a vote, instead.13
If the Board Member does choose to vote on such a matter, he must take great care not to violate Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and Article II, Section 8(h)(2), Florida Constitution, which prohibit public officers and employees from abusing or misusing their positions with a wrongful intent to achieve a benefit for themselves or certain others.

QUESTION 3:

Would the Board Member have a prohibited conflict of interest if a nonprofit corporation and political committee of which he is an officer, or the Board Member personally, litigate against the City of North Port?

This question is answered in the negative.

In your inquiry, you explain the Board Member also is the chairman of West Villagers for Responsible Government, Inc. ("WVRG"), a nonprofit corporation and a political action committee. In October 2020, WVRG began petitioning the City of North Port ("the City") to de- annex a significant portion of lands from the City's geographical boundaries. These lands, however, also fall within the District's boundaries. In October 2022, the City rejected the petition to de-annex. In December 2022, WVGR and the Board Member in his personal capacity filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court to quash the City's order regarding de-annexation. While the District is not a party to the litigation, you estimate it could incur substantial costs as a consequence of the proposed de-annexation, including costs to renegotiate agreements with the County, costs to obtain permits with the County, and legal and engineering costs to amend its enabling legislation and effectuate the separation from the City.
With this background, you ask whether the Board Member will have a prohibited conflict of interest as a result of the litigation with the City.
Even assuming the Board Member holds a membership in WVRG, there is no indication that WVRG is doing business with or is regulated by the District, which is the Board Member's agency. Thus, there is not a conflict under the first part of Section 112.313(7)(a). Regarding the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a), once again assuming that the Board Member holds a membership in WVRG, there is no indication that the Board Member's public responsibilities to

12 We note that the exception to the voting conflict law found in Section 112.3143(3)(b), Florida Statutes, does not apply to the Board Member because the Board Member was not elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis, even though his colleagues on the Board were.
13 Section 286.012 allows a public officer to abstain from a vote if there is or appears to be a possible conflict under Section 112.3143 or Section 112.313. If a public officer does abstain for that reason, Section 286.012 requires them to comply with the disclosure requirements of Section 112.3143.

the District bear any relation to the lawsuit against the City. The District is not a party to the case and there is no official decision-making to be taken by the Board of Supervisors that would affect the course of the litigation. Although the District could have substantial costs as a consequence of the lawsuit, those costs are not damages or fees derived from engagement in the litigation, but business expenses that will be necessary to adapt to a ruling that orders de-annexation. Because the public position of the Board Member and his private interests concerning the City lawsuit do not coincide to tempt him to dishonor his public responsibilities, there is no conflict under the second part of Section 112.313(7)(a).14
You ask whether District votes regarding development matters in the proposed de- annexation areas would create a voting conflict for the Board Member. Because it does not appear that votes on development in the de-annexation areas would create a special private gain or loss for the Board Member or any relative, business associate, or principal by whom he is retained, there is no voting conflict under Section 112.3143(3).
Your questions are answered accordingly.

ORDERED by the State of Florida Commission on Ethics meeting in public session on March 10, 2023, and RENDERED this 15th day of March, 2023.

Glenton "Glen" Gilzean, Jr., Chair

14 If, however, the District joins the lawsuit at some point, then the facts will resemble the scenario presented in Question 1.

RESOLUTION 2023-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT REGARDING THE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the West Villages Improvement District (the “District”), is a local unit of special-purpose government created and existing pursuant to Chapter 2004-456, Laws of Florida, as amended, to plan, construct, install, acquire, finance, manage and operate public improvements and community facilities for lands within the District; and

WHEREAS, the District has solicited bids from prequalified contractors interested in providing construction services related to its roadway resurfacing project (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the District has received and evaluated bids from 	 ( ) prequalified contractors interested in providing those services; and

WHEREAS, The 	
reasonable amount (the “Contractor”); and

submitted  a  responsive  bid  in  a

WHEREAS, in the best interest of the District, the Board desires to award a contract to the Contractor.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:

SECTION 1. All of the representations, findings and determinations contained within the recitals stated above are recognized as true and accurate and are expressly incorporated into this Resolution.

SECTION 2. The bid submitted by the Contractor is the bid which best serves the interests of the District.

SECTION 3. The Contractor shall be awarded a contract for construction services for the Project.

SECTION 4. The Chairman and District Staff are hereby authorized to give notice of this award to all bidders to the extent required by law and to proceed with the execution of a contract with the selected proposer.

SECTION 5. If any provision of this Resolution is held to be illegal or invalid, the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

1

SECTION 6. This Resolution shall become effective upon its passage and shall remain in effect unless rescinded or repealed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April 2023.

ATTEST:	WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

Secretary / Assistant Secretary	Chairman, Board of Supervisors

2

Sent Via Email: wcrosley@sdsinc.org

March 16, 2023

Mr. William Crosley
West Villages Improvement District 2501 Burns Road
Suite A
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410

Subject:	Work Authorization Number 2023-3 West Villages Improvement District
Additional Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance (FEMA) Hurricane Ian Site Assessment
City of North Port, Florida

Dear Mr. Crosley:

Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Engineer) is pleased to submit this additional Work Authorization to provide continued professional consulting engineering services for the West Villages Improvement District (District). We will provide these services pursuant to our agreement for professional engineering services (Engineering Agreement). This Work Authorization is based on your request for the Hurricane Ian damage assessments. The Engineer will provide weekly status reports to the District relative to its progress with the below tasks. This work order is for the additional time and effort to complete the field work and final reports to the District.

Specific Purpose Tree Survey

We will provide a Specific Purpose Tree Survey (tree stumps), within the limits shown in the attached Exhibit “A,” in accordance with the Standards of Practice set forth in Chapter 5J17-052 of the Florida Administrative Code. We will establish on-site control and locate all tree (stumps) trunks, leaning trees, fallen trees, or root balls. Horizontal Datum will be based on the Florida State Plane Coordinate System (FL West NAD 83). Vertical Datum will be based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988. We will prepare a survey drawing that reflects the above field survey, provide pictures of each tree located with measured diameter, and pictures of the surrounding areas. We will also provide a tree table to reflect the tree number, latitude, and longitude to six (6) decimal places. Deliverables to include five (5) certified copies and electronic files in PDF and AutoCAD formats.
The above work was and will be performed in full compliance with applicable FEMA laws, regulations, and guidelines.
Our fee for this task will be based on time and materials, in accordance with the enclosed Schedule of Charges. We estimate a budget not-to-exceed $15,000, plus other direct costs.

Mr. William Crosley
West Villages Improvement District Work Authorization #2023-1
March 16, 2023

Other Direct Costs

Other direct costs include items such as printing, drawings, travel, deliveries, et cetera. This does not include any of the application fees for the various agencies, which are the owner’s responsibility and have not been accounted for in this Work Authorization. We estimate a budget of $1,000.

Additional Services

Any Additional Services requested that are not a part of this work authorization will be invoiced either on a time and materials basis, in accordance with the enclosed Schedule of Charges, or on a mutually agreed upon fee. Authorization under this task must be in writing.

This Work Authorization, together with the Engineering Agreement and FEMA’s terms as shown in Exhibit A, represents the entire understanding between the District and the Engineer with regard to the referenced services. If you wish to accept this revised Work Authorization, please sign where indicated and return one complete copy to Aimee Powell, Administrative Assistant in our Orlando office at 800 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1000, Orlando, Florida 32803 (or via email at apowell@dewberry.com). Upon receipt, we will promptly schedule our services.

APPROVED AND ACCEPTED

Giacomo Licari, P.E.

Thank you for considering Dewberry. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely,

Reinardo Malavé, P.E.

Giacomo Licari, P.E.

Senior Project Manager	Associate Vice President APPROVED AND ACCEPTED

By: 		 Authorized Representative of
West Villages Improvement

Date: 	

GL:RM: ap
M:\Proposals - Public\Municipal\West Villages Improvement District\Work Authorizations\Work Authorization Number 2023-3 Specific Purpose Tree Survey – 03-16-2023

Attachment A

STANDARD HOURLY BILLING RATE SCHEDULE

Professional/Technical/Construction/Surveying Services

LABOR CLASSIFICATION	HOURLY RATES	
Professional		
Engineer I, II, III	$115.00, $130.00, $150.00	
Engineer IV, V, VI	$165.00, $185.00, $215.00	
Engineer VII, VIII, IX	$240.00, $255.00, $280.00	
Environmental Specialist I, II, III	$100.00, $120.00, $140.00	
Senior Environmental Scientist IV, V, VI	$165.00, $180.00, $195.00	
Planner I, II, III	$100.00, $120.00, $140.00	
Senior Planner IV, V, VI	$165.00, $180.00, $195.00	
Landscape Designer I, II, III	$100.00, $120.00, $140.00	
Senior Landscape Architect IV, V, VI	$165.00, $180.00, $195.00	
Principal	$330.00	
Technical		
CADD Technician I, II, III, IV, V	$80.00, $100.00, $120.00, $135.00, $165.00	
Designer I, II, III	$110.00, $130.00, $150.00	
Designer IV, V, VI	$170.00, $190.00, $210.00	
Construction		
Construction Professional II, III	$150.00, $180.00	
Construction Professional IV, V, VI	$200.00, $230.00, $265.00	
Survey		
Surveyor I, II, III	$68.00, $83.00, $98.00	
Surveyor IV, V, VI	$112.00, $125.00, $140.00	
Surveyor VII, VIII, IX	$160.00, $185.00, $220.00	
Senior Surveyor IX	$265.00	
Fully Equipped 2, 3, 4 Person Field Crew	$175.00, $220.00, $265.00	
Administration		
Administrative Professional I, II, III, IV	$70.00, $90.00, $115.00, $145.00	
Other Direct Costs (Printing, Postage, Etc.)	Cost + 15%	

Company Confidential and Proprietary: Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to restriction on the title page of this report.
Revised 05-01-22\Subject to Revision\Standard Hourly Billing Rate Schedule

BIDDER:	WOODRUFF & SONS, INC.	04-05-23

PROJECT: PLAYMORE ROAD RESURFACING	
DEWBERRY PROJECT NO. 50129048

Bid Sheet

Date:	3/8/2023

Rev'd Date:	3/22/2023	

Item No.	
Item Description	
Qty.	
Unit	Unit Cost ($)	Extended Cost ($)	
MISCELLANEOUS	
1	Construction Layout	1	LS	$8,394.58	$	8,394.-58	
2	Material Testing	1	LS	$9,199.54	$	9,199.-54	
3	Certified As-builts	1	LS	$4,139.79	$	4,139.-79	
4	Mobilization	1	LS	$39,931.88	$	39,931.-88	
5	MOT	1	LS	$34,966.05	$	34,966.-05	
						
TOTAL	$  96,631.-84	
	
COMPREHENSIVE ITEMS	
						
	Mill and Resurface					
1	Milling of Area (1.0")	3,800	SY	$5.12	$  19,456.-00	
2	1" FDOT Friction Course FC 9.5 Asphaltic Wearing	3,800	SY	$15.01	$  57,038.-00	
						
	Demo					
1	Remove Pavement	445	SF	$7.77	$	3,457.6- 5	
2	Demo Curb	65	LF	$53.45	$	3,474.-25	
						
	Curb					
1	Modified Type F-Curb	1,425	LF	$72.20	$ 102,885.-00	
2	Curb Transition	6	EA	$159.27	$	955.-62	
						
	Paving					
1	1" FDOT Friction Course FC 9.5 Asphaltic Wearing	100	SY	$15.01	$	1,501.0- 0	
2	2" FDOT Type SP 12.5 Asphaltic Concrete Course (1 Lift)	100	SY	$172.84	$  17,284.-00	
3	10" Crushed Concrete or Limerock Base	100	SY	$144.21	$  14,421.-00	
4	12" Subbase Type B Stabilized	120	SY	$218.26	$	26,191.-20	
						
	Paving Markings					
1	Temporary Striping	1	LS	$1,724.91	$	1,724-.91	
2	6" White Thermoplastic Line Per FDOT INDEX NO. 711.001	1,900	LF	$1.44	$	2,736.-00	
3	6" Yellow Thermoplastic Line PER FDOT INDEX NO. 711.001	1,350	LF	$1.44	$	1,944.-00	
4	Thermoplastic Arrows PER FDOT INDEX NO. 711.001	2	EA	$229.99	$	459.-98	
5	Thermoplastic Bike Path	2	EA	$287.49	$	574.-98	
		
Erosion Protection			
1	Sod Back of Curb 2.5' Wide	470	SY	$14.59	$	6,857.-30	
2	Sod Other Areas	50	SY	$21.77	$	1,088.-50	
3	Silt Fence	2,000	LF	$3.21	$	6,420.-00	
		
TOTAL	$ 268,469-.39	
		
TOTAL BID PRICE	$ 365,101-.23	

 6                                                        -        0   6                   +   G         1                                                                                                  A      A    F  B      B                   <                   +                              +                          4 	                     C                         3                              4       A         ; 0    +                          1              <   ;     ;             3              6        4                 >                                ?                                

>>    ? F   p p r u 6  ?  6   ?  ?  ?   i ; K  K ; ;  B   k l [ m ? d ] 6 n f b > ] X Y o [ 6   w +   

 S 6S >_ ` g ] 6< X H \ Hh 6 <; < K ;L - B ; V IA B A AK B H ; H; K L B;K; A K B  K B ; N  O-  G P Q Bi R Q  S C  G U  Q 3 F 4 > F 6 I ; A 

 WX XYZ0?[\ Y] ^ 1_ [ \` a ^ [ bc d Y de fY ^ [ b

                                                    P  age 26

6	    ; K ?   ; K K  0?   1    k 

 Ž [ Xp Y [ � b ` � g `|X [ \ Y ^‹ Z ‘ ’ d [ Z ` _ [ \ ` “  | }  ~ ” ; � L r } p   { ‡  ”  r	 

   6              K      ;       ;            A S   B    B             K     L    L        ;                        A                                                             K       ;    B                      6                                    +6    z                             6                                            z                                                                                K  k                                                                                                 C                               ? 	                                       

    ->                                                       y                                                                                 ?         S       C                                                                                   A                             6                                      K      w   ;        B +                           6 F                                        w           +                     6                                        w                                 ?                                       6  6                                               S                         C                           >         +                                              
                                - 
 B f ; B Y • ; S> ?` ; o ; — – [ ` g b bY \ a [H ˜ b [ _ Y ;b[ [ \ � ` Y b Y \ c H _ [ \ `  6 Q  - ” Q i AL  3 -  F i - 3 ” ; ; šAL B ; - S    S I	 F        < 

 -?Si  ~ C | C › ~ p ? ? ‹   Q Q	 ; L B | 

RESOLUTION 2023-08

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS; RATIFYING, CONFIRMING, AND APPROVING AN IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER RATEMAKING STUDY; RATIFYING, CONFIRMING, AND APPROVING RESOLUTION 2018-18, RESOLUTION 2020-08, AND RESOLUTION 2021-15; ADOPTING INTERIM IRRIGATION QUALITY WATER RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the West Villages Improvement District (the “District”) is a local unit of special purpose government created and existing pursuant to Chapter 2004-456, Laws of Florida, as amended (the “Act”) for the purpose of planning, financing, constructing, operating, and/or maintaining certain infrastructure and providing certain public services; and

WHEREAS, the District provides irrigation quality water to customers within the District’s Unit of Development No. 6 (“Unit No. 6”); and

WHEREAS, Section (3)(2)(q) of the Act authorizes the District to prescribe, fix, establish, and collect rates, fees, rentals, fares, or other charges for the property, facilities and services made available, furnished, or to be furnished by the District, and to recover the cost of making or authorizing the connection to any District facility or system or installing works or improvements on or within District property interests after public hearing thereon; and

2018 Ratemaking Resolution

WHEREAS, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (“Stantec”) has prepared that certain Irrigation Rate Analysis- Final Report dated September 10, 2018 (the “2018 Rate Study”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, which provides a methodology for the calculation of, and recommendation for, adoption of certain rates relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to customers by the District; and

WHEREAS, Stantec presented its proposed methodology and rate structure with members of the public and the Board of Supervisors of the District (the “Board”) at the District’s duly noticed August 9, 2018 regular meeting, during which time staff indicated that the proposed irrigation rates (hereinafter, the “Rates”) would be considered for approval at the District’s September 13, 2018 regular meeting; and

WHEREAS, upon the finalization of the 2018 Rate Study a draft was included in the District’s agenda package for its September 13, 2018 regular meeting along with a resolution adopting such Rates, which agenda package was distributed to members of the public, District staff, and the Board and posted on the District website seven (7) days in advance of such meeting; and

WHEREAS, the District thereafter published a notice of ratemaking public hearing on September 8, 2018 in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune five (5) days in advance of the Board’s September 13, 2018 regular meeting during which such public hearing would be held, which notice included information regarding the public hearing and proposed Rates; and

WHEREAS, at the District’s September 13, 2018 regular meeting, the final version of the 2018 Rate Study, which included minor non-substantive changes from the draft version, along with the methodology and the Rates therein were presented by Stantec, after which a public hearing was held where the Board solicited comments from and answered questions of members of the public and thereafter subsequently adopted Resolution 2018-18 approving the 2018 Rate Study and adopting the Rates set forth therein; and

WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2018-18, the Board found that the imposition of the Rates relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to customers of the District was necessary to provide the revenues necessary for funding the operations, capital, and groundwater well availability expenses of the District relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to such customers, and was in the best interests of the District; and

WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2018-18, the Board further found that the Rates set forth therein and adopted in accordance with the 2018 Rate Study were just and equitable having been based upon i) the amount of service furnished and ii) other factors affecting the use of the facilities furnished; and

2020 Ratemaking Resolution

WHEREAS, thereafter, the Board desired to consider adoption of certain revisions to the Rates and the District accordingly published a notice of ratemaking public hearing on September 19, 2020 in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune nineteen (19) days in advance of the District’s October 8, 2020 regular meeting during which such public hearing would be held; and

WHEREAS, a resolution adopting revised Rates was included in the agenda package for such meeting, which was distributed to members of the public, District staff, and the Board and posted on the District website seven (7) days in advance of such meeting; and

WHEREAS, at the District’s October 8, 2020 regular meeting, the methodology set forth in the 2018 Rate Study and the Rates therein were again presented by District staff, after which a public hearing was held where the Board solicited comments from and answered questions of members of the public and thereafter subsequently adopted Resolution 2020-08 adopting the Rates with certain revisions as set forth therein and in conformance with the 2018 Rate Study; and

WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2020-08, the Board found that the imposition of the revised Rates relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to customers within the District was necessary to provide the revenues necessary for funding the operations, capital, and groundwater well availability expenses of the District relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to such customers, and was in the best interests of the District; and

WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2020-08, the Board found that the revised Rates set forth therein and adopted in accordance with the 2018 Rate Study were just and equitable having been based upon i) the amount of service furnished and ii) other factors affecting the use of the facilities furnished; and

2021 Ratemaking Resolution

WHEREAS, thereafter, the Board further desired to approve a consumer price index- based adjustment to the Rates as provided for as part of the existing approved Rates and, although not required by law, announced that the District was setting a ratemaking public hearing for its September 16, 2021 meeting for the consideration of same; and

WHEREAS, the District accordingly published a notice of ratemaking public hearing on September 7, 2021 in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune nine (9) days in advance of the District’s September 16, 2021 meeting; and

WHEREAS, a resolution adopting such adjusted Rates was included in the agenda package for such meeting, which was distributed to members of the public, District staff, and the Board and posted on the District website seven (7) days in advance of such meeting; and

WHEREAS, at the District’s September 16, 2021 meeting, the methodology and the Rates therein were again presented by District staff, after which a public hearing was held where the Board solicited comments from and answered questions of members of the public and thereafter subsequently adopted Resolution 2021-15 adopting the adjusted Rates set forth therein in conformance with the 2018 Rate Study; and

WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2021-15, the Board found that the imposition of the adjusted Rates relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to customers within the District was necessary to provide the revenues necessary for funding the operations, capital, and groundwater well availability expenses of the District relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to such customers, and was in the best interests of the District; and

WHEREAS, by the adoption of Resolution 2021-15, the Board found that the adjusted Rates set forth therein and adopted in accordance with the 2018 Rate Study were just and equitable having been based upon i) the amount of service furnished and ii) other factors affecting the use of the facilities furnished; and

2023 Ratemaking Resolution

WHEREAS, the Gran Paradiso Property Owners Association, Inc. (the “GPHOA”) filed suit against the District in the Twelfth Judicial Circuit (the “Court”) in November 2022 asserting, in part, that the District violated Sections 189.015 and/or 286.011, Florida Statutes, by not providing adequate notice in advance of holding its ratemaking public hearing prior to the adoption of Resolution 2018-18 (hereinafter, the “Lawsuit”); and

WHEREAS, in a preliminary injunction hearing related to the Lawsuit held in February 2022, the Court in a verbal ruling indicated that based on the preliminary testimony and evidence

presented at such hearing, there was a “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” relative to the GPHOA’s allegations that the District violated Sections 189.015 and/or 286.011, Florida Statutes; and

WHEREAS, a full trial on the merits relative to this matter has not yet been set and a final judgment, including resolution of any appeal, could take many months, if not years, to reach; and

WHEREAS, pending a final judgment and resolution of any appeal the District continues to believe its adoption of the Rates per Resolution 2018-18 complied with the requirements of the Act and Sections 189.015 and 286.011, Florida Statutes, and that the later adoption of Resolution 2020-08 and Resolution 2021-15 by the Board after conducting public hearings relative to the Rates further complied with and satisfied any public hearing and notice requirements necessary for the validity of the District’s Rates; and

WHEREAS, given the Court’s preliminary findings, the District’s Board nevertheless desires to conduct an additional ratemaking public hearing to solicit additional public comments and to consider: i) re-adoption of the 2018 Ratemaking Study, ii) ratification and confirmation of the findings made and the Rates adopted in Resolution 2018-18, Resolution 2020-08, and Resolution 2021-15 as well as the prior imposition and collection of such Rates by the District,
iii) approval of the now-current Rates, attached hereto as Exhibit B, on an interim basis and in conformance with the 2018 Rate Study, and iv) any changes to the forgoing or other related appropriate direction as to the Rates and the 2018 Ratemaking Study; and

WHEREAS, at its March 9, 2023 meeting the Board declared its intent to set a public hearing to consider such actions at its April 13, 2023 regular meeting; and

WHEREAS, the District accordingly published a notice of ratemaking public hearing on March 10, 2023 in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune thirty-five (35) days in advance of the District’s April 13, 2023 meeting; and

WHEREAS, the Board accordingly desires to: i) re-adopt the 2018 Ratemaking Study,
approve, ratify, and confirm the findings made and the Rates adopted in Resolution 2018-18, Resolution 2020-08, and Resolution 2021-15 as well as the prior imposition and collection of such Rates by the District, iii) approve the now-current Rates set forth in Exhibit B on an interim basis and in conformance with the 2018 Rate Study, and iv) make such changes to the forgoing and provide such other related appropriate direction as to the Rates and the 2018 Ratemaking Study as approved by the District’s Board following its public hearing; and

WHEREAS, after public hearing on the matter which has been publicly noticed in accordance with the Act, the Board finds that the Rates are just and equitable having been based upon i) the amount of service furnished, and ii) other factors affecting the use of the facilities furnished.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE WEST VILLAGES IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT:

SECTION 1. The Board hereby finds and determines as follows:

The District is a local unit of special-purpose government organized and existing under and pursuant to the Act for the purpose of planning, financing, constructing, operating and/or maintaining certain infrastructure and providing certain public services.

The District provides irrigation quality water to customers within the District’s Unit No. 6 through its central irrigation distribution system.

Section (3)(2)(q) of the Act authorizes the District to prescribe, fix, establish, and collect rates, fees, rentals, fares, or other charges for the property, facilities and services made available, furnished, or to be furnished by the District, and to recover the cost of making or authorizing the connection to any District facility or system or installing works or improvements on or within District property interests after public hearing thereon.

The Board previously adopted Resolution 2018-18, Resolution 2020-08, and Resolution 2021-15 after public hearing thereon in conformance with the Act.

After public hearing, the Board finds that: i) re-adoption of the 2018 Ratemaking Study, ii) ratification and confirmation of the findings made and the Rates adopted in Resolution 2018-18, Resolution 2020-08, and Resolution 2021-15 as well as the prior imposition and collection of such Rates by the District, and iii) approval of the now-current Rates set forth in Exhibit B on an interim basis and in conformance with the 2018 Rate Study, all related to the provision of irrigation quality water to customers within the District, is necessary in order to provide the revenues necessary for funding the operations, capital, and groundwater well availability expenses of the District relative to the provision of irrigation quality water to such customers, and is in the best interests of the District, its landowners, and residents.

SECTION 2. The Rate Study attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved, confirmed, and ratified by the Board. The Board hereby approves ratifies, and confirms the findings made and the Rates adopted in Resolution 2018-18, Resolution 2020-08, and Resolution 2021-15 and the prior imposition and collection of such Rates by the District in good faith in accordance therewith. The Board hereby approves the now-current Rates set forth in Exhibit B on an interim basis. Such interim Rates shall be in effect until adoption of a subsequent public hearing and adoption of a resolution establishing any revised rate structure and/or revised rates.

SECTION 3. If any provision of this resolution is held to be illegal or invalid, the other provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4. This resolution shall become effective upon its passage and shall remain in effect unless rescinded or repealed.

[Continued on Next Page]

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of April, 2023.

ATTEST:	WEST VILLAGES
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

Secretary / Assistant Secretary	Chairperson, Board of Supervisors

Exhibit A:	2018 Rate Study
Exhibit B:	Current Schedule of the Rates

Exhibit A

2018 Rate Study

West Villages Improvement District

Irrigation Rate Analysis – Final Report

September 10, 2018

September 10, 2018

Mr. Todd Wodraska District Manager 2501A Burns Road
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Re: Irrigation Rate Analysis – Final Report

Dear Mr. Wodraska,

Stantec Consulting Services Inc. is pleased to present this Final Report of the Irrigation Rate Analysis (Study) that we performed for the West Villages Improvement District (District). We appreciate the fine assistance provided by you and all of the members of the District staff who participated in this Study.

If you or others at the District have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (813) 204-3331 or email me at andrew.burnham@stantec.com. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the District and look forward to working with you again in the near future.

Sincerely,

Andrew J. Burnham Vice President

777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33602
Office: (813) 204-3331
andrew.burnham@stantec.com Enclosure

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction	2

Background	2

Objectives	2
  Framework & Methodology	2 

Expenditure Requirements	4

Description	4

Source Data	4
  Assumptions	5

Results	8

Rate Structure and Rate Calculations	9
  Operating Rate	9
  Capital Charge	9
  Well Availability Charge	9
  Cost Calculation	10
  Rate Adjustments	10
  Rate Survey	11

Conclusions & Recommendations	12

Conclusions & Recommendations	12
Appendix A: Supporting Schedules	14

INTRODUCTION
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) has conducted an irrigation rate analysis (Study) for the West Villages Improvement District (District). This report presents the objectives, approach, methodologies, source data, assumptions, as well as the findings and recommendations of the Study.

BACKGROUND
The District is a special purpose local government located in Sarasota County, Florida. The District was created in 2004 and is responsible for providing multiple services, including irrigation water, to an area of over 11,000 acres. As it relates to irrigation service, the District is expected to supply non-potable irrigation water to the single-family and multifamily residential communities within the District so that the communities themselves can then distribute and use the water for their irrigation needs. In addition, the District will also likely serve some commercial and recreational customers (including the new Atlanta Braves training facility) with non-potable irrigation water. The District anticipates securing its full water supply needs from a variety of sources, including groundwater, storm water, and reclaimed water purchases from Sarasota County and the City of North Port.
While the District presently provides irrigation water to a very limited portion of its service area, the rate of development within the District is increasing. As such, it is now appropriate for the District to consider its future cost requirements and recovery strategies for irrigation service over its entire service area. As such, Stantec was retained to develop an initial system-wide irrigation service cost recovery strategy and rate structure based on the projected costs and demands at build-out for a defined portion of the District’s service area (consisting of Unit 6, excluding Islandwalk). A map identifying the portion of the service area of the District used as the basis of this Study is included on Schedule 1 of Appendix A of this report.

OBJECTIVES

The principal objectives of the Study are as follows:

Expenditure Requirements – Estimate the projected costs to operate and maintain the District’s irrigation system and supply irrigation water at build-out for the defined portion of its service area.

Develop Rates – Determine an appropriate rate structure and subsequently calculate recommended rates to recover the projected revenue requirements based upon the billing units of the defined area.

FRAMEWORK & METHODOLOGY

The general approach that Stantec utilized for this analysis is summarized in Figure 1. Stantec projected total expenditure requirements for the identified portion of the service area of the District at build-out, allocated the requirements to charge types based upon their function, identified the respective units of service for each customer class, and then calculated specific rates for each charge type.

Lines Pump Stations
Wells

Avoided Cost of Purchased Water

Figure 1-1 – Rate Study Framework

Expenditure Requirements

Allocate Expenses to Charge Type

Operating Charge

Capital Charge

Well Availability Charge

Purchased Water

Pumping

Transmission

Contractual Services
Admin & Management

Single-Family Home = 1 ERU Each Multi-Family Unit = 1/3 ERU
Commercial .075 irrigable acres = 1 ERU

Volume (kgal)

Measured Units of Service
Equivalent Residential Units

Equivalent
Residential Units

Customer Classes

Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Commercial

ERU by Customer Class

EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS

DESCRIPTION

Stantec used information provided by the District and knowledge of local reclaimed water systems to estimate the annual cost to the District (in current day dollars) of delivering irrigation water to its customers and operating a financially sustainable utility for the defined portion of its service area at build out conditions. The source data, assumptions, and results of this analysis are presented below.

SOURCE DATA

Non-Potable Irrigation Supply and Demands
Stantec largely relied upon the District’s Supporting Documentation for their Water Use Permit (WUP) Renewal Application prepared in February 2018 for estimated irrigable area, water demands, and source of supply by village and customer class. Additional information was provided by the District for estimates of residential and multi-family dwelling units at build-out for the area included in the Study.

Operating Expenses
Expenses for purchased water were determined using the estimate of reclaimed water volumes to be purchased from Sarasota County and the City of North Port needed to meet total projected irrigation water demands, as well as the projected unit cost to purchase the water from each agency. Estimated annual costs for pumping and system maintenance were based upon current observed unit cost data from recent irrigation rate analyses for Southwest Florida public utilities (such as the cities of Cape Coral, Fort Myers, Naples, and Venice). Similarly, other expense allowances for professional and contract services as well as administration and management are based upon our industry experience with public agencies as part of recent rate studies performed for their water, sewer, and irrigation systems.

Capital Assets
The District provided a detailed inventory of current and planned capital assets necessary to provide irrigation water to the defined portion of its service area reflected in this Study, including original costs, year in service, and expected useful life. This information was used to calculate the estimated annual depreciation expense for the District’s assets that represents the amount of funds that the District should set aside annually for future asset replacement. A complete list of assets is included on Schedule 4 of Appendix A, and it is important to note that this Study does not include costs for funding of the original irrigation system infrastructure based upon our understanding that those costs have been and will continue to be funded outside of the District’s irrigation system.

ASSUMPTIONS

Service Area Analyzed
This Study is based upon projected unit costs and volumes at full build-out for the District’s Unit 6, excluding Islandwalk, distinguished into three areas; Primary Irrigation Lakes (PIL) 1, 2, and 3. Table 2-1 below summarizes the villages included in this analysis by PIL.
Table 2-1 – Summary of Service Area Analyzed1

Service Area	Village	
PIL 1	US 41, WV Pkwy, Village D, E, F, G and Braves Facility, River Rd Office Park, Sarasota School Board, SMH, and Village B	
PIL 2	Village H, I, J, K and L	
PIL 3	Village A (Gran Paradiso and NW Commercial Quadrant)	

Non-Potable Irrigation Demands
Total residential demand is based on an estimate of the number of single-family (defined as a residential property with 2 units or less) and multi-family equivalent residential units (ERU), and an estimated 10,000 gallons (or 10 kgal) of irrigation use per month. This level of demand per ERU is consistent with actual experienced residential demands of the Gran Paradiso development within the District. Commercial, recreational, and roadway demands are based on estimates presented in the WUP Application Supporting Documentation. The estimated non-potable water irrigation demands by customer class are presented in Schedule 2 of Appendix A, and total approximately 5.5 million gallons per day (mgd).

Sources of Supply
The estimated supply of non-potable irrigation water by source were provided to the District in the WUP Application Supporting Documentation and are used to determine the annual cost to purchase water from each source. Additional supporting detail is provided in Schedule 2 of Appendix A.

Irrigable Area
Estimated irrigable area by PIL, as well as by village and customer class within each PIL, was provided in the WUP Application Supporting Documentation. A combination of irrigable area (for commercial and recreational customers) and dwelling units (for single-family and multi-family residential customers) is utilized to calculate total ERUs by customer class. Schedule 2 in Appendix A summarizes the total irrigable area for the defined area reflected in this Study.

1 Table 3.1 from the Draft Supporting Documentation for the WUP Application prepared in February 2018.

Equivalent Residential Units
Stantec used the estimated irrigable area and projected residential units to determine an average irrigable area per single-family residential unit of 0.075 acres. This assumption was validated through discussions with the District regarding the size of typical residential lots and irrigable area per single-family lot. ERUs were then calculated for the commercial and recreational customer classes based upon irrigable acreage2 divided by the single-family average of 0.075 acres. Based upon the expected demands and irrigable area identified for potential multi-family properties, it was determined that multi-family units will likely use one third as much reclaimed water per unit as a single-family home. Therefore, each multi-family dwelling unit represents 1/3 of an ERU for purposes of this Study. There are about 16,800 ERUs projected at build-out as shown in Schedule 2 of Appendix A which provides the projected ERUs by customer class.

Operating Expenses
Operating expenses for a utility district such as WVID include costs for maintenance of assets, pumping water, purchasing water, contractual and professional services, as well as administrative and management costs. While some costs are known (such as current rates for purchased water), others were estimated based upon observed unit costs from studies Stantec performed for other utility systems.

While not specifically included, to the extent that expenses may be less than present projections, it would allow the District to begin building an operating reserve balance. Reserve balances for utility systems are funds set aside for a specific cash flow requirement, financial need, project, task, or legal covenant.
These balances are maintained in order to meet short-term cash flow requirements and, at the same time, minimize the risk associated with meeting the financial obligations and continued operational and capital needs under adverse conditions. The level of reserves maintained by a utility is an important component and consideration of developing a utility system multi-year financial management plan. The rationale related to the maintenance of adequate reserves is twofold. First, it helps to assure a utility that it will have adequate funds available to meet its financial obligations during unusual periods (i.e. when revenues are unusually low and/or expenditures are unusually high). Second, it provides funds that can be used for emergency repairs or replacements to the system that can occur as a result of natural disasters or unanticipated system failures. The municipal ratings agencies and industry groups like the American Water Works Association have published guidance as to considerations and reserve levels for water resource utilities like that of the District. Based upon that guidance and our industry experience

2 Irrigable acreage for commercial properties will be calculated based upon 16% of the net developable area (gross land area less major roadway right-of-way and wetland areas) for each parcel, while recreational parcels (including golf courses, parks, athletic facilities, etc.) will be based upon specific estimates of irrigable area performed by a Professional Engineer. The District at its discretion reserves the right to evaluate irrigable area for specific parcels.

with similar systems, we would suggest the District target at minimum operating reserve balance equal to 6 months of annual operating expenses. It is important to note that such an operating should be established separately from cash balances collected specifically for future capital replacement.

A summary of projected operating expenses for the defined area at build out conditions is summarized in Table 2-2. Additional detail and assumptions are provided in Schedule 3 of Appendix A.
Table 2-2 – Projected Annual Operating Expenses at Build Out

Description	Amount (Current $)	
Purchased Water Expense	$	593,125	
Other Operating Expense		
Pumping	248,700	
Transmission	155,381	
Contractual/Professional Services	99,721	
Administration & Management	149,581	
Total	$	1,246,507	

Capital Costs
This portion of the revenue requirement funds the annual renewal & replacement costs of capital assets projected to be incurred by the District. Although the initial supply and distribution infrastructure has and will be funded by other resources, the District maintains the responsibility to maintain and replace this infrastructure. As such, an amount equal to the annual depreciation on existing and projected assets in service is included for purposes of determining the future capital cost requirements of the District. A listing of existing and planned assets was provided in current day dollars, resulting in an annual depreciation expense of approximately $250,000 per year for the defined area reflected in this Study.

Well Availability Costs
The District will secure long-term rights to existing and future wells and associated groundwater supply in the service area from developers by written agreement. If the District doesn’t have access to this groundwater supply, it would otherwise have to find an alternative source to supply a portion of the irrigation water demands of its customers. For the District, that would likely be in the form of additional purchased reclaimed water from the City of North Port. As such, it is anticipated that the agreement for the use of the groundwater supply rights and wells of developers will include a cost, and that cost has been estimated to be equal to the estimated City of North Port bulk reclaimed water rate for purposes of this Study. The reclaimed water rate from the City of North Port was estimated based on the known reclaimed water rate from Sarasota County, adjusted to account for the rate differential between Sarasota County and the City of North Port retail rates. Based on 10,000 gallons of water use per month per ERU, the well availability cost is estimated at about $750,000 per year as shown in Schedule 5 of Appendix A.

RESULTS

The resulting annual revenue requirement is shown in Table 2-3. This represents the amount of revenue that is needed to provide quality service to the District’s customers and manage, operate, and maintain the system prudently. It is important to note that this revenue requirement is based on the projected needs of the system at build-out, and that annual expenses and revenues will vary depending on how much of the system has been developed.

Table 2-3 – Projected Annual Expenditure Requirements at Build Out

Description	Amount (Current $)	
Operating Expenses	$  1,246,507	
Capital Costs	251,627	
Well Availability Costs	756,195	
Total Requirements	$  2,254,329	

RATE STRUCTURE AND RATE CALCULATIONS

As part of this analysis, Stantec developed a recommended rate structure for the District based upon industry best practices and the allocation of expenditure requirements to various charges as outlined in Figure 1-1 herein. Common practice is a two-part rate structure comprised of both fixed and variable charges, which recognizes that utilities have substantial investments in capital related costs and other fixed costs that are incurred year-round to maintain a state of readiness to meet the demands of their customers whenever they may occur. As such, the recommended rate structure outlined herein consists of fixed components assessed per ERU (a Capital Charge and a Well Availability Charge) as well as a variable component (Operating Rate) that would be billed per 1,000 gallons of metered water delivered by the District. The calculation of these components is summarized in the following subsections.

OPERATING RATE

The types of costs to be recovered through the operating rate consist of purchased water costs, pumping expenses, system maintenance requirements, contractual and professional service costs, as well as administrative and management expenses of the District (which would include the establishment of appropriate reserves). The Operating Rate is equal to the total operating and maintenance expenditure requirements previously summarized in Section 2 divided by the projected billed volume, which excludes irrigation demands for the roadways of the District. Roadways demands are not included because the volume used for the irrigation of landscape and other irrigable areas along roadways are considered common areas maintained for the benefit of everyone throughout the District. The Operating Rate is charged per 1,000 gallons of water delivered by the District. Schedule 3 of Appendix A summarizes the operating rate calculation. As can be seen, there is a second-tier rate which will be applied to District customer’s usage that exceeds 1.5 times their estimated irrigation demands as an incentive to conserve water resources.

CAPITAL CHARGE

The capital charge is based on the cost to replace the system’s capital assets represented by the District’s projected annual depreciation expense for its current and planned water supply and distribution infrastructure. The charge will be recovered as a fixed monthly rate per ERU that the customer represents. Schedule 5 of Appendix A summarizes the capital charge rate calculation, while Schedule 4 includes a detailed listing of all the assets providing the basis of the annual depreciation expense.

WELL AVAILABILITY CHARGE

The well availability charge is based on the projected groundwater/well availability expenditure requirements identified herein. The charge will be recovered as a fixed monthly rate per ERU. Schedule 6 of Appendix A summarizes the well availability charge calculation.

COST CALCULATION

The total monthly cost for a typical single-family residence is shown in the table below. To determine the monthly cost for a non-single family residential customer, an estimate of ERUs needs to be made based on the irrigable area of the customer, or the net developable area, to which an average ratio of irrigable to net area can be applied. Sample cost calculations for commercial and recreational customers are shown in Schedule 7 of Appendix A of this report.

Table 3-1 – Monthly Cost Calculation for Typical Single Family Residential Customer3

Description	
Equivalent Residential Units	1	
Operating Rate		
Assumed Monthly Volume (gallons)	10,000	
Operating Rate (per 1,000 gallons)	$0.66	
Total Monthly Operating Charge	$6.60	
Capital Charge		
ERUs	1	
Capital Charge (per ERU)	$1.25	
Total Monthly Capital Charge	$1.25	
Well Availability Charge		
ERUs	1	
Availability Charge (per ERU)	$3.75	
Total Monthly Availability Charge	$3.75	
Total Monthly Cost	$11.60	

RATE ADJUSTMENTS
To account for inflationary and regulatory pressures on operating and capital costs, Stantec recommends that the District adopt an annual indexing policy that adjusts the rates identified in Table 3-1 at the beginning of each fiscal year by the greater of 5.5% (the 10-year average of the United States Consumer Price Index (CPI) – Water and Sewerage Maintenance Series4), or the year-over-year change in the U.S. CPI – Water & Sewerage Maintenance Series, unless the District takes action otherwise. This series of

3 Projected average residential customer will use 10,000 gallons of non-potable irrigation per month.
4 CPI: Water and Sewerage Maintenance index, Series ID: CUUR0000SEHG01

the CPI measures the change in water and sewer costs to a typical household and has increased by an average of approximately 5.5% per year over the past ten years as shown in Figure 3-1. This level of adjustment is in line with our recent experience in industry where many of our clients across the country are presently experiencing rate increase requirements in the range of 3% to 8% per year.

Figure 3-1 – Summary of Annual Water and Sewer Increases

RATE SURVEY
As part of the Study, we have performed a comparative survey of the current residential reclaimed water rates of other utilities in the District’s general area. The survey reflects the monthly bill, inclusive of fixed and variable charges, for a customer with 10,000 gallons (10 kgal) of monthly irrigation water use.

Figure 3-2 – Monthly Residential Reclaimed Water Bill Comparison

10 kgal

$28.62

$21.00

$15.23

Sarasota Marco Island

$12.73

$11.60

$11.30

$10.20

Naples Palmetto West Villages Bradenton

$9.61

$9.50

$9.40

Venice Lehigh Acres Cape Coral Sarasota County

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

This section presents a summary of the findings and recommendations of the Study for the District.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the assumptions and base data as outlined in Appendix A and summarized herein for the selected portion of the service area analyzed, the rates calculated herein should be sufficient to meet the District’s projected annual requirements of providing irrigation service.
The District should adopt the rate structure and rates outlined herein for implementation in FY 2019 and establish an annual indexing policy that would adjust the rates at the beginning of each fiscal year by the greater of 5.5% or the year-over-year change in the U.S. CPI – Water & Sewerage Maintenance Series, unless the District takes action otherwise.
The District should perform updates to the rate analysis periodically to evaluate the adequacy of its revenues and plan of annual rate increases to meet its actual costs. Doing so will allow for the incorporation of available and updated revenue and expense information (including capital replacement, maintenance, and purchased water requirements) as well as changes in economic conditions, water consumption, regulatory requirements, and other factors so that any necessary adjustments can be made to the rates recommended herein. This will allow the District to meet its financial requirements and minimize rate impacts to customers due to future events occurring differently than currently projected.

Disclaimer

This document was produced by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (“Stantec”) for the West Villages Improvement District (“District”) and is based on a specific scope agreed upon by both parties. Stantec’s scope of work and services do not include serving as a “municipal advisor” for purposes of the registration requirements of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) or the municipal advisor registration rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stantec is not advising District, or any municipal entity or other person or entity, regarding municipal financial products or the issuance of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, terms, or other similar matters concerning such products or issuances.

In preparing this report, Stantec utilized information and data obtained from the District or public and/or industry sources. Stantec has relied on the information and data without independent verification, except only to the extent such verification is expressly described in this document. Any projections of future conditions presented in the document are not intended as predictions, as there may be differences between forecasted and actual results, and those differences may be material.

Additionally, the purpose of this document is to summarize Stantec’s analysis and findings related to this project, and it is not intended to address all aspects that may surround the subject area. Therefore, this document may have limitations, assumptions, or reliances on data that are not readily apparent on the face of it. Moreover, the reader should understand that Stantec was called on to provide judgments on a variety of critical factors which are incapable of precise measurement. As such, the use of this document and its findings by the District should only occur after consultation with Stantec, and any use of this document and findings by any other person is done so entirely at their own risk.

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 13

APPENDIX A: SUPPORTING SCHEDULES

Information for these areas was not included in the analysis, however rates calculated herein are intended to apply

While not color-coded for the original purposes of the map, information for Village B was included in this analysis

Schedule 2: Demand and Supply Forecast for Selected Portion of Service Area

Demand and Supply Forecast (gpd)

Projected Annual Demand at Build-Out (gpd)

Projected Source of Supply at Build Out (gpd)

Source: Draft WVID Supporting Information, Table 3.3, Table 3.8, Table 3.14. Note: Residential demand based on estimate of 10 kgal/month per ERU.

Source: Draft WVID Supporting Information, Table 3.6, 3.11, 3.17

Service Area	Commercial	Residential	Roadway	Total	
PIL 3	34,500	569,727	-	604,227	
Village A	34,500	569,727	-		
PIL 1	253,200	1,985,027	267,000	2,505,227	
US 41	-	-	92,900		
WV Pkwy	-	-	48,800		
Village D	33,400	472,787	36,700		
Village E	15,700	210,164	17,100		
Village F	12,900	491,257	45,100		
Village G	6,500	473,443	26,400		
Village G (Braves Facility)	111,100		-		
River Rd Office Park	45,900	-	-		
Sarasota School Board	20,000	-	-		
SMH	7,700	-	-		
Village B		337,377			
PIL 2	38,300	2,255,847	81,700	2,375,847	
Village H	13,900	292,131	1,000		
Village I	3,200	714,426	29,800		
Village J	8,300	511,694	31,000		
Village K	12,900	577,596	18,900		
Village L	-	160,000	1,000		
Total (gpd)	326,000	4,810,601	348,700	5,485,301	
Total (kgal)	118,990	1,755,869	127,276	2,002,135	
Percentage Billed		

 
Englewood
Water	Sarasota County	WVID WWTP	Annual Avg
GW Supply	Total	
250,000	250,000	-	593,200	1,093,200	
					
-	-	2,000,000	1,103,900	3,103,900	

					

					

					

-	-	2,000,000	616,600	2,616,600	

					

250,000	250,000	4,000,000	2,313,700	6,813,700	
91,250	91,250	1,460,000	844,501	2,487,001	
100%	100%	100%	100%		

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 16

Schedule 2: Demand and Supply Forecast for Selected Portion of Service Area

Projected Irrigable Area at Build Out (acres)

Projected ERUs at Build Out

Source: Draft WVID Supporting Information, Table 3.3, Table 3.8, Table 3.14.	Source: West Villages Units and Average Closing Years

Equivalency: Equivalency Factor

0.333	0.075	0.075

per MF Unit

Irrigable Area per ERU

Irrigable Area per ERU

Service Area	Commercial	Residential	Roadway	Total	
PIL 3	17.10	277.30	-	294.40	
Village A	17.10	129.90	-	147.00	
Gran Paradiso		147.40			
PIL 1	123.80	370.90	132.50	627.20	
US 41	-	-	46.10	46.10	
WV Pkwy	-	-	24.20	24.20	
Village D	16.60	95.10	18.20	129.90	
Village E	7.80	51.40	8.50	67.70	
Village F	6.40	103.20	22.40	132.00	
Village G	3.20	40.00	13.10	56.30	
Village G (Braves Facility)	53.30	-	-	53.30	
River Rd Office Park	22.80	-	-	22.80	
Sarasota School Board	9.90	-	-	9.90	
SMH	3.80	-	-	3.80	
Village B		81.20			
PIL 2	19.00	543.70	40.60	603.30	
Village H	6.90	86.50	0.50	93.90	
Village I	1.60	168.40	14.80	184.80	
Village J	4.10	115.80	15.40	135.30	
Village K	6.40	134.20	9.40	150.00	
Village L	-	38.80	0.50	39.30	
Total	159.90	1,191.90	173.10	1,524.90	

 
Single Family
Units	Multi-Family ERUs	Commercial ERUs	Recreational
ERUs	Total ERUs	
1,559	179	228	-	1,966	
190	-	228			
1,369	179	-			
5,611	443	940	711	7,705	
	-	-			
	-	-			
1,254	188	221			
641	-	104			
1,243	255	85			
1,444	-	43			
	-		711		
	-	304			
	-	132			
	-	51			
1,029	-				
6,697	183	253		7,134	
891	-	92			
2,179	-	21			
1,469	92	55			
1,670	92	85			
488	-	-			
13,867	805	1,421	711	16,804	

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 17

Schedule 3: Operating Rate Calculation

Operating Rate (per kgal)

Test Year Revenue Requirement

Purchased Water Expense
Source	Unit Cost	Units	Total Annual Cost		
Englewood Water District (per kgal)	$	0.17	91,250	$	15,513		
Sarasota County (per kgal)	$	0.25	91,250	$	22,813		
City of North Port (per kgal) (1)	$	0.38	1,460,000	$	554,800		
(1) Estimated
rates relative	(1)  Reflects estimate of future City of North Port reclaimed water rate to the District based upon current Sarasota County reclaimed water rate to the District adjusted based on the current observed differential between water and sewer rates of North Port as compared to Sarasota County.	

North Port reclaimed water rate based on Sarasota County reclaimed rate and estimate of North Port to Sarasota County rates based on retail water bills.

Other Operating Expense
Source	Unit Cost	Units	Total Annual Cost	
Pumping (per kgal)	$	0.10	2,487,001	$	248,700	
Transmission (per linear ft)	$	1.50	103,587	$	155,381	
Contractual/Professional Svcs	10%		$	99,721	
Admin & Management Cost	15%		$	149,581	

Operating Rate and Revenue Calculation

Operating Rate Calculation
Total Annual Operating Expense	$	1,246,507	
Total Annual Billed Volume (kgal)	1,874,859	
Weighted Unit Operating Cost	$	0.66	

Operating Revenue Calculation
	Billed Volume (kgal)	Rate Multiplier	
Rate	
Revenue	
Tier 1	1,874,859	1.0	$	0.66	$ 1,237,407	
Tier 2		2.0	$	1.32	$	-	

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 18

Roadway	
Description	
Asset	
Date Start	
Date in Service	
Quantity	
Unit Cost	
Total	
Original Cost	
Est. Useful Life	
Annual Depreciation	
S. West Villages Pkwy	US 41 to Portico Ave (2 lanes built 2010)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2010	12/1/2011	975	$40.48	$39,468.00	$32,091.10	50	$642	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Portico Ave to Playmore Rd (2 lanes built 2010)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2010	12/1/2011	4,795	$40.48	$194,101.60	$157,822.36	50	$3,156	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Playmore Rd to Manasota Beach Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	1/1/2018	1/1/2019	1,931	$40.48	$78,146.64	$80,491.04	50	$1,610	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Playmore Rd to Manasota Beach Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	6/1/2019	5/31/2020	2,252	$40.48	$91,171.08	$96,723.40	50	$1,934	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Playmore Rd to Manasota Beach Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	6/1/2022	6/1/2023	2,252	$40.48	91171.08	$105,692.27	50	$2,114	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Manasota Beach Rd to Sarasota County Line	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2024	12/1/2025	5,870	$40.48	$237,617.60	$292,239.68	50	$5,845	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Sarasota County Line to Key Way Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2032	12/1/2033	3,080	$40.48	$124,678.40	$194,244.88	50	$3,885	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Key Way Rd to River Road	12" PVC Irrigation Main	2/1/2018	2/1/2019	656	$40.48	$26,538.46	$27,334.62	50	$547	
S. West Villages Pkwy	Key Way Rd to River Road	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2038	5/1/2039	7,955	$40.48	$322,018.40	$599,049.08	50	$11,981	
Manasota Beach Rd	West Prop. Line to Island Walk Prop. Line	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2028	12/1/2029	5,435	$40.48	$220,008.80	$304,543.63	50	$6,091	
Manasota Beach Rd	Island Walk Prop. Line to Preto Bvd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2024	12/1/2025	2,500	$40.48	$101,200.00	$124,463.24	50	$2,489	
Manasota Beach Rd	Preto Blvd to S. West Villages Pkwy	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2024	12/1/2025	7,145	$40.48	$289,229.60	$355,715.93	50	$7,114	
Manasota Beach Rd	S. West Villages Pkwy to River Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2027	11/30/2028	5,145	$40.48	$208,269.60	$279,896.93	50	$5,598	
Manasota Beach Rd	River Rd to East Prop. Line (no date when 2 lanes built)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2032	5/1/2033	2,730	$40.48	$110,510.40	$172,171.60	50	$3,443	
Preto Blvd	US 41 to Portico Ave	12" PVC Irrigation Main	2/1/2018	2/1/2019	3,100	$40.48	$125,488.00	$129,252.64	50	$2,585	
Preto Blvd	Portico Ave to Playmore Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	1/1/2018	1/1/2019	3,840	$40.48	$155,443.20	$160,106.50	50	$3,202	
Preto Blvd	Playmore Rd to Manasota Beach Rd (1/3)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	4/1/2019	3/31/2020	1,783	$40.48	$72,189.33	$76,585.66	50	$1,532	
Preto Blvd	Playmore Rd to Manasota Beach Rd (1/3)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	4/1/2021	4/1/2022	1,783	$40.48	$72,189.33	$81,249.73	50	$1,625	
Preto Blvd	Playmore Rd to Manasota Beach Rd (1/3)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	4/1/2023	3/31/2024	1,783	$40.48	$72,189.33	$86,197.84	50	$1,724	
Preto Blvd	Manasota Beach Rd to Road Segment 30	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2024	12/1/2025	951	$40.48	$38,496.48	$47,345.81	50	$947	
Preto Blvd	Manasota Beach Rd to Road Segment 30	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2024	12/1/2025	2,219	$40.48	$89,825.12	$110,473.57	50	$2,209	
Preto Blvd	Road Segment 30 to Sarasota County Line	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2028	12/1/2029	3,025	$40.48	$122,452.00	$169,502.21	50	$3,390	
Preto Blvd	Sarasota County Line to Key Way Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2032	12/1/2033	2,195	$40.48	$88,853.60	$138,431.01	50	$2,769	
Preto Blvd	Key Way Rd to Gissinger Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2034	12/1/2035	6,490	$40.48	$262,715.20	$434,228.20	50	$8,685	
Preto Blvd	Gissinger Rd to S. Property Line	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2036	12/1/2037	2,825	$40.48	$114,356.00	$200,523.94	50	$4,010	
Preto Blvd	S. Property Line to Pine Street	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2036	12/1/2037	2,700	$40.48	$109,296.00	$191,651.20	50	$3,833	
Commons Ave	US 41 to Portico Ave	12" PVC Irrigation Main	3/1/2021	3/1/2022	638	$40.48	$25,806.00	$29,044.88	50	$581	
Commons Ave	US 41 to Portico Ave	12" PVC Irrigation Main	3/1/2021	3/1/2022	638	$40.48	$25,806.00	$29,044.88	50	$581	
Portico Ave	Preto Blvd to Commons Ave	12" PVC Irrigation Main	3/1/2024	3/1/2025	1,740	$40.48	$70,435.20	$86,626.41	50	$1,733	
Portico Ave	Commons Ave to S. West Villages Pkwy	12" PVC Irrigation Main	3/1/2020	3/1/2021	2,635	$40.48	$106,664.80	$116,555.51	50	$2,331	
TBD	US 41 to Playmore Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	3/1/2020	3/1/2021	2,390	$40.48	$96,747.20	$105,718.28	50	$2,114	
TBD	US 41 to Playmore Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	3/1/2020	3/1/2021	2,390	$40.48	$96,747.20	$105,718.28	50	$2,114	
Playmore Rd	Island Walk Prop. Line to Preto Bvd (2 lanes built 2010)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2010	12/1/2011	955	$40.48	$38,658.40	$31,432.82	50	$629	
Playmore Rd	Realign for baseball	12" PVC Irrigation Main	1/1/2018	1/1/2019	1,814	$40.48	$73,430.72	$75,633.64	50	$1,513	
Playmore Rd	Preto Rd to S. West Villages Pkwy (2 lanes built 2010)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2010	12/1/2011	2,845	$40.48	$115,165.60	$93,640.17	50	$1,873	
Playmore Rd	S. West Villages Pkwy to Road Segment 25 (50%)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	1/1/2018	1/1/2019	992	$40.48	$40,156.16	$41,360.84	50	$827	
Playmore Rd	S. West Villages Pkwy to Road Segment 25 (25%)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2022	12/1/2023	1,984	$40.48	$80,312.32	$93,103.99	50	$1,862	
Playmore Rd	S. West Villages Pkwy to Road Segment 25 (25%)	12" PVC Irrigation Main	12/1/2024	12/1/2025	1,984	$40.48	$80,312.32	$98,774.02	50	$1,975	
Playmore Rd	Road Segment 25 to River Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2024	5/1/2025	3,370	$40.48	$136,417.60	$167,776.44	50	$3,356	
TBD	West Prop. Line to Preto Blvd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2027	4/30/2028	5,425	$40.48	$219,604.00	$295,129.41	50	$5,903	
Key Way Rd	West Prop. Line to Sarasota County Line	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2032	5/1/2033	2,570	$40.48	$104,033.60	$162,080.96	50	$3,242	
Key Way Rd	Sarasota County Line to Preto Blvd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2032	5/1/2033	6,060	$40.48	$245,308.80	$382,183.12	50	$7,644	
Key Way Rd	Preto Blvd to S. West Villages Pkwy	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2034	5/1/2035	3,365	$40.48	$136,215.20	$225,142.97	50	$4,503	
Gissinger Rd	Preto Blvd to River Rd	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2034	5/1/2035	5,480	$40.48	$221,830.40	$366,651.85	50	$7,333	
River Rd	River Rd from West Villages Pkwy to US41	12" PVC Irrigation Main	5/1/2022	5/1/2023	9,000	$40.48	$364,320.00	$422,346.73	50	$8,447	

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 19

Roadway	
Description	
Asset	
Date Start	
Date in Service	
Quantity	
Unit Cost	
Total	
Original Cost	
Est. Useful Life	
Annual Depreciation	
	Lake 2 - Irrigation Pump Station	Hoover - 3600 GPM Station			1	$350,000.00	$350,000.00	$10,697.33	20	$535	
	Gran Paradiso Pump Station		12/1/2010	12/1/2011				$0.00	20	$0	
	Lake 1 - Irrigation Pump Station	Hoover - 3600 GPM Station	5/1/2018	5/1/2018	1	$322,330.00	$322,330.00	$322,330.00	20	$16,117	
	POC - Braves Irrigation Meter/Shutoff/Valve Assembly	Irrigation Meter/Shutoff/Valve Assembly	5/1/2018	5/1/2018	1	$35,418.96	$35,418.96	$35,418.96	20	$1,771	
	POC - Irrigation Meter/Shutoff/Valve Assembly	Irrigation Meter/Shutoff/Valve Assembly				$35,418.96	$0.00	$0.00			
		Wells									
		Well 74		1/1/2018			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 74 pumps		1/1/2018			$75,000.00	$75,000.00	10	$7,500	
		Well 75		1/1/2016			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 75 pumps		1/1/2016			$75,000.00	$70,694.69	10	$7,069	
		Well 76		1/1/2019			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 76 pumps		1/1/2019			$75,000.00	$77,250.00	10	$7,725	
		Well 77		1/1/2020			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 77 pumps		1/1/2020			$75,000.00	$79,567.50	10	$7,957	
		Well 78		1/1/2021			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 78 pumps		1/1/2021			$75,000.00	$81,954.53	10	$8,195	
		Well 79		1/1/2022			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 79 pumps		1/1/2022			$75,000.00	$84,413.16	10	$8,441	
		Well 80		1/1/2019			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 80 pumps		1/1/2019			$75,000.00	$77,250.00	10	$7,725	
		Well 82		1/1/2018			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 82 pumps		1/1/2018			$75,000.00	$75,000.00	10	$7,500	
		Well 83		1/1/2027			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 83 pumps		1/1/2027			$75,000.00	$97,857.99	10	$9,786	
		Well 91		1/1/2027			$0.00	$0.00	10	$0	
		Well 91 pumps		1/1/2027			$75,000.00	$97,857.99	10	$9,786	

$251,627

Depreciation Sub-Total

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 20

Schedule 5: Capital Charge Calculation

Capital Charge (monthly charge per ERU)

ERUs

	Residential
ERUs	Multi-Family
ERUs	Commercial
ERUs	Recreational
ERUs	Total ERUs	
PIL 3	1,559	179	228	0	1,966	
PIL 1	5,611	443	940	711	7,705	
PIL 2	6,697	183	253	0	7,134	
Total	13,867	805	1,421	711	16,804	

Capital Costs

Annual Depreciation of Capital	$	251,627	
Annual Capital Cost per ERU	$	14.97	
Monthly Capital Cost per ERU	$	1.25	

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 21

(1) Estimated North Port reclaimed water rate based on Sarasota County reclaimed rate and estimate of North Port rates relative to Sarasota County rates based on retail water bills.

Schedule 6: Well Availability Charge Calculation

Well Availability Charge (monthly charge per ERU)

Well Availability Cost Estimate

Average Volume per ERU	10	
Alternative Water Supply Cost (1)	$	0.375	
Monthly Cost per ERU	$	3.75	

16,804

Total ERUs

$  756,195

Revenue Recovered

(1) Reflects estimate of future City of North Port reclaimed water rate to the District based upon current Sarasota County reclaimed water rate to the District adjusted based on the current observed differential between water and sewer rates of North Port as compared to Sarasota County.

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 22

Schedule 7: Sample Irrigation Bill/Cost Calculations

Bill Calculator

Bill Calculation for Single Family Residential

Bill Calculation for Commercial

Bill Calculation for Recreational

Equivalent Residential Unit

Net Developable Area (sq. ft.) Irrigable Area Estimate (acres) ERU Estimate

40,000

0.147
2

Irrigable Area (acres)

53

ERU Estimate	711

1

Operating Rate	Operating Rate	Operating Rate

Monthly Billed Volume (kgal)	10	
Operating Rate (per kgal)	$	0.66	
Total Monthly Operating Charge	$	6.60	

 	
Monthly Billed Volume (kgal)	20	
Operating Rate (per kgal)	$	0.66	
Total Monthly Operating Charge	$	13.20	

	
Monthly Billed Volume (kgal)	3,333	
Operating Rate (per kgal)	$	0.66	
Total Monthly Operating Charge	$	2,199.78	

Capital Rate	Capital Rate	Capital Rate

ERUs	1	
Capital Charge (per ERU)	$	1.25	
Total Monthly Capital Charge	$	1.25	

 	
ERUs	2	
Capital Charge (per ERU)	$	1.25	
Total Monthly Capital Charge	$	2.50	

	
ERUs	711	
Capital Charge (per ERU)	$	1.25	
Total Monthly Capital Charge	$	887.20	

Well Availability Charge	Well Availability Charge	Well Availability Charge

ERUs	1	
Availability Charge (per ERU)	$	3.75	
Total Monthly Availability Charge	$	3.75	

 	
ERUs	2	
Availability Charge (per ERU)	$	3.75	
Total Monthly Availability Charge	$	7.50	

	
ERUs	711	
Availability Charge (per ERU)	$	3.75	
Total Monthly Availability Charge	$	2,666.25	

Total Monthly Charge	$	11.60	Total Monthly Charge	$	23.20	Total Monthly Charge	$	5,753.23	
Total Annual Charge	$	139.17	Total Annual Charge	$	278.35	Total Annual Charge	$  69,038.82	

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 23

Schedule 8. Projected Five-Year Rate Plan

Rate Plan

Five Year Rate Adjustment Plan

	Water and Sewer CPI (1)	5.50%	5.50%	5.50%	5.50%	
	FY 2019	FY 2020	FY 2021	FY 2022	FY 2023	
Operating Rate	$	0.66	$	0.70	$	0.73	$	0.77	$	0.82	
Capital Charge	$	1.25	$	1.32	$	1.39	$	1.47	$	1.55	
Well Availability Charge	$	3.75	$	3.96	$	4.17	$	4.40	$	4.65	

Monthly Charge per ERU	$	11.60  $	12.24  $	12.91  $	13.62  $	14.37

Reflects 10-year average of US CPI Water and Sewer Maintenance Series.

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 24

Schedule 9: Summary of Revenue Requirement & Rate Components

Rate Components

Revenue Requirement

Bill

Operating Rate Charge	$	1,246,507	$	6.60	
Capital Charge	$	251,627	$	1.25	
Well Availability Charge	$	756,195	$	3.75	
Total	$	2,254,329	$  11.60	

 	
*Bill is based on 10,000 gallons of monthly water use and is intended to represent the monthly cost to a typical household

Revenue Requirement		

Well Availability Charge, $3.75

Capital Charge,
$1.25	Residential Bill	

Operating Rate Charge, $6.60	

Well					
Availability					
Charge,					
$756,195					
	
Operating Rate				
	Charge,				
	$1,246,507				

Capital Charge,					
$251,627					

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 25

Schedule 10: Local Residential Irrigation Monthly Bill Comparison – Based on 10,000 gallons (10 kgal)

Reclaimed Rate Survey

Reclaimed Rate Comparison Residential
10 kgal

Utility	
Base Rate	
Usage Rate	Total Reclaimed Rate	
Rate per kgal	
Note	
Sarasota	$	16.72	$	11.90	$	28.62	$	1.19		
Marco Island	$	3.00	$	18.00	$	21.00	$	1.80		
Naples	$	10.23	$	5.00	$	15.23	$	0.50		
Palmetto	$	12.73	$	-	$	12.73	$	-		

West Villages	
$	5.00	
$	6.60	
$	11.60	
$	0.66	Base rate includes $1.25 capital charge and $3.75 well availability
charge.	
Bradenton	$	5.20	$	6.10	$	11.30	$	0.61		
Venice	$	-	$	10.20	$	10.20	$	1.02		
Lehigh Acres	$	3.41	$	6.20	$	9.61	$	0.62		
Cape Coral	$	9.50	$	-	$	9.50	$	-		
Sarasota County	$	5.00	$	4.40	$	9.40	$	0.44		

West Villages Improvement District | Irrigation Rate Analysis Final Report	Stantec | 26

Exhibit B

Current Schedule of the Rates

Water Rates1 Per 1 ERU
Rates	Tier 13	Tier 23	
Variable Operating/ Usage Rate2	$0.73	$1.46	
Fixed Capital Rate	$1.39	$1.39	
Fixed Well Availability Rate	$4.17	$4.17	

1 Rates may be increased by the District at the beginning of each fiscal year by an amount not to exceed the greater of: i) 5.5% (i.e. the 10-year average of the United States CPI- Water and Sewerage Maintenance Series at the time of adoption of these rates), or ii) the year-over-year change in the United States CPI- Water & Sewerage Maintenance Series without the need for a further public hearing.
2 Monthly operating/usage fees will ultimately be calculated per each 1,000 gallons utilized monthly.
3 Tier 2 operating rates will apply for those customers exceeding 1.5 times their monthly irrigation allocation (hereinafter the “Monthly Allocation”) based on AGMOD Demand Calculations, as determined by the District Engineer and the Operations Manager. The Monthly Allocation shall be calculated by multiplying the AGMOD Demand Calculations (expressed in gallons per day) by the number of days in a given month. Monthly Allocations will fluctuate depending on peak /off peak periods, and will accommodate applicable grow-in practices for new construction, as determined to be appropriate by the District Engineer and Operations Manager. Tier 2 rates will only be applied to usage that exceeds the Monthly Allocation.

ERUs Per Customer Class
Product Type	Metric	ERU	
Single-Family1 Residential Unit	1 unit	1	
Multi-Family2 Residential Unit	1 unit	.33	
Commercial Irrigable Acres3	.075 irrigable
acres	1	
Recreational Irrigable Acres4	.075 irrigable
acres	1	

1 A single-family unit is defined as a building containing not more than two (2) dwellings.
2 A multi-family unit is defined as a building containing more than two (2) dwellings.
3 Irrigable acreage for commercial property is calculated based on 16% of the net developable area (i.e. gross land area less major roadway right-of-way and wetland areas) for each parcel.
4 Irrigable acreage for recreational property (i.e. golf courses, parks, athletic facilities, etc.) is calculated based on an estimate of the irrigable area for the property as conducted by a Professional Engineer.

All irrigation water rates have been established in accordance with that certain Irrigation Rate Analysis- Final Report, dated September 10, 2018.

e

s

da

For th	West Village Improvement District, Flori

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS

ES

2023 PUBLIC UTILITY IRRIGATION RATE STUDY SERVIC

April 5, 2023

MSRB –REGISTERED
MUNICIPAL ADVISOR

GovRates, In	

c.

Utility, Financial, Rate, and Management Consultants for Governments
www.govrates.com

Contact: Bryan Mantz, President bmantz@govrates.com
Phone and Fax: (833) GOV-PLAN

Page 63

April 5, 2023
Mr. William Crosley District Manager
West Villages Improvement District 2501A Burns Road
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Subject:	Response to Request for Qualifications for
2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services

Dear Mr. Crosley:

GovRates, Inc. ("GovRates") is pleased to offer the services of our exceptionally qualified and experienced team (the "Project Team") to the West Villages Improvement District (the "District") in response to the City's Request for Qualifications (the "RFQ") for 2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services. Our experience, utility industry leadership, and lower prices ensure that we can provide the best value to the District.
GovRates is an exceptionally qualified utility, financial, rate, and management consulting firm that primarily serves governments. Our professionals have provided consulting services in many states as well as in Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Canada. Many utilities have recognized the value and expertise we provide. For example, the City of Seward, Alaska has not updated their utility rates since 1993 and has trusted us with performing an extensive customer classification analysis and rate study. We recently performed utility rate work for the City of Flint, Michigan, which has had substantial water issues. GovRates has established a reputation for providing exceptional value and the highest-quality deliverables to our clients.
We have tremendous experience in performing comprehensive rate studies for utilities of all sizes in Florida. The proposed project manager has provided utility rate and financial consulting services to the City of North Port since 2003.
GovRates has the highest level of utility industry leadership. A nationally recognized utility rate expert, the proposed project manager has been heavily involved in the development of several manuals of practice referenced by the utility industry for guidance on the development of rates, fees, and charges, including the American Water Works Association's (AWWA's) M1 manual and the Water Environment Federation's (WEF's) MOP 27 manual. He has also authored two (2) papers on user rates and impact fees that won national Management and Leadership Division Best Paper Awards from the AWWA. The proposed project manager currently serves as the Co-Chair of the Publications arm of the AWWA's national Rates and Charges Committee, and manages rate and financial publications outside of manual development. He is also the Vice Chair of the AWWA's national Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls Committee. An article co- written by the proposed project manager entitled "Utility Best Management Practices: Strong Adopted Financial Management Policies" was the cover story of the April 2022 Journal AWWA.

The rate study services may involve the evaluation of alternative financing options for capital projects and an analysis of existing bond debt service commitments. GovRates is registered with both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) as a Municipal Advisor. All GovRates project managers have passed the Series 50 Exam and, as such, meet the legal requirements for providing any debt financing support to the District. The proposed project manager is also a Series 54-qualified Municipal Advisor Principal and, therefore, can legally manage, direct, or supervise municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor firm and its associated persons.
The Project Team has always completed projects on time, within budget, and with a successful outcome. We are located in the Orlando area and, as such, can easily attend onsite meetings with the District staff and Board of Supervisors. However, we also have state-of-the-art communication equipment that allows for high-quality virtual meetings.
If selected, we would provide the required services with a goal of exceeding the District's expectations. During these challenging times, it is very important for the City to select a rate consultant with tremendous rate adoption expertise such as what our team provides. Over the past few years, we have successfully managed to completion many rate studies throughout the United States.
The remainder of this response contains our Standard Form No. 330 as well as additional information on how the District could benefit from selecting our Project Team.
Yours in government service,

GovRates
Bryan A. Mantz, CMC, CGFM President and Project Manager 1988 Varick Way
Casselberry, FL 32707-2409 bmantz@govrates.com Cell: (407) 921-9733

Standard Form No. 330

Page 66

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS

PART I - CONTRACT-SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS

CONTRACT INFORMATION

1. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)

2. PUBLIC NOTICE DATE

3. SOLICITATION OR PROJECT NUMBER

2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services, West Villages Improvement District, Sarasota County, Florida
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER POINT OF CONTACT

NAME AND TITLE
Bryan A. Mantz, CMC, CGFM - President
NAME OF FIRM
GovRates, Inc.
6. TELEPHONE NUMBER
(833) GOV-PLAN; (833) 468-7526	7. FAX NUMBER
(833) 468-7526	8. E-MAIL ADDRESS
bmantz@govrates.com	
PROPOSED TEAM
(Complete this section for the prime contractor and all key subcontractors.)
	(Check)	
9. FIRM NAME	
10. ADDRESS	
11. ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT	
	PRIME	J-V PARTNER	SUBCON- TRACTOR				

a.	

✔			GovRates, Inc.

CHECK IF BRANCH OFFICE	1988 Varick Way; Casselberry, FL 32707-2409	Project Management	

b.			

✔	Ryper Water Analytics

CHECK IF BRANCH OFFICE	180 South Knowles Avenue, Suite 9; Winter Park, FL 32789	Co-Project Management; Project Support	

c.				

CHECK IF BRANCH OFFICE			

d.				

CHECK IF BRANCH OFFICE			

e.				

CHECK IF BRANCH OFFICE			

f.				

CHECK IF BRANCH OFFICE			

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF PROPOSED TEAM
AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

(Attached)

✔

STANDARD FORM 330 (REV. 7/2021)

RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL PROPOSED FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Complete one Section E for each key person.)
12. NAME

Bryan A. Mantz, CMC, CGFM	13. ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT

Project Manager	14. YEARS EXPERIENCE	
		a. TOTAL
28	b. WITH CURRENT FIRM
6.25	

FIRM NAME AND LOCATION (City and State)
GovRates, Inc. - Casselberry, FL
EDUCATION (Degree and Specialization)
MBA with Honors, Finance, Rollins College
Bachelor of Science in Economics, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania
Bachelor of Applied Science in Management and Technology, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Pennsylvania

CURRENT PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION (State and Discipline)
CMC - Certified Management Consultant, No. 12237146 CGFM - Certified Government Financial Manager, No. 15636 Series 50-Qualified Municipal Advisor Representative
Series 54-Qualified Municipal Advisor Principal

OTHER PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS (Publications, Organizations, Training, Awards, etc.)
Co-Chair of the publications arm of the AWWA's national Rates and Charges Committee. Vice-Chair of the AWWA's Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls Committee. Co-Author of several utility industry manuals of practice on rates, including the AWWA’s M1 and WEF’s MOP 27. Has written many articles and papers at the forefront of local government rate and financial issues, and two of his papers won the national AWWA Management and Leadership Division Best Paper Award.

RELEVANT PROJECTS

a.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Analysis - City of North Port, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The City of North Port has a population of about 75,000 people. Project involved review of monthly user rates, capacity fees, wholesale water rate, reclaimed water rates, guaranteed revenue charges, fire protection service rates, and miscellaneous service charges. City Commission of North Port adopted all recommendations. Cost = $24,790.	

b.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Various Utility Rate Studies, The Villages Community Development Districts - The Villages, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The Villages has a population of about 79,000 people. Performed water, sewer, and/or irrigation rate studies for Village Center Service Area, North Sumter County Dependent District, Villages Water Conservation Authority, Central Sumter Utility, and Sumter Water Conservation Authority. Board of Supervisors adopted all recommendations. Cost = $20,000 each study.	

c.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - Town of Longboat Key, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2021	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The Town of Longboat Key is located in both Sarasota County and Manatee County, and has a population of about 7,500 people. Performed water and wastewater rates study. Town Commission adopted all recommendations. Cost = $21,960.	

d.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - City of Plantation, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The City of Plantation has a population of about 92,000 people. Project involved performing comprehensive review of City's utility rates, fees, and charges as well as policies and procedures. City Council adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $38,360.	

e.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Sewer Rate Study; Financial Feasibility Analysis for Bond Issue - City of Miami Beach, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The City of Miami Beach has a population of about 83,000 people. Rate Study involved comprehensive review of City's water and sewer rates, including wholesale sewer rates. City Commission adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $24,600. Served as financial feasibility consultant for 2021 bond issue. Currently performing utility financial checkup.	

12. NAME

Jenny Mantz	13. ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT

Quality Assurance / Quality Control	14. YEARS EXPERIENCE	
		a. TOTAL
12	b. WITH CURRENT FIRM
6.25	

FIRM NAME AND LOCATION (City and State)
GovRates, Inc. - Casselberry, FL
EDUCATION (Degree and Specialization)
Doctor of Medicine (M.D.), Central South University, China Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Studies, College of Medicine, University of South Florida

CURRENT PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION (State and Discipline)
Series 50-Qualified Municipal Advisor Representative Series 54-Qualified Municipal Advisor Principal

Member of American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF).

19. RELEVANT PROJECTS

a.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Analysis - City of North Port, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: QA/QC. The City of North Port has a population of about 75,000 people. Project involved review of monthly user rates, capacity fees, wholesale water rate, reclaimed water rates, guaranteed revenue charges, fire protection service rates, and miscellaneous service charges. City Commission of North Port adopted all recommendations. Cost = $24,790.	

b.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Various Utility Rate Studies, The Villages Community Development Districts - The Villages, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: QA/QC. The Villages has a population of about 79,000 people. Performed water, sewer, and/or irrigation rate studies for Village Center Service Area, North Sumter County Dependent District, Villages Water Conservation Authority, Central Sumter Utility, and Sumter Water Conservation Authority. Board of Supervisors adopted all recommendations. Cost = $20,000 each study.	

c.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - Town of Longboat Key, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2021	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: QA/QC. The Town of Longboat Key is located in both Sarasota County and Manatee County, and has a population of about 7,500 people. Performed water and wastewater rates study. Town Commission adopted all recommendations. Cost = $21,960.	

d.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - City of Plantation, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: QA/QC. The City of Plantation has a population of about 92,000 people. Project involved performing comprehensive review of City's utility rates, fees, and charges as well as policies and procedures. City Council adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost
= $38,360.	

e.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Sewer Rate Study; Financial Feasibility Analysis for Bond Issue - City of Miami Beach, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: QA/QC. The City of Miami Beach has a population of about 83,000 people. Rate Study involved comprehensive review of City's water and sewer rates, including wholesale sewer rates. City Commission adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $24,600. Served as financial feasibility consultant for 2021 bond issue. Currently performing utility financial checkup.	

12. NAME

Ryan Smith	13. ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT

Co-Project Manager / Project Support	14. YEARS EXPERIENCE	
		a. TOTAL
12	b. WITH CURRENT FIRM
1	

FIRM NAME AND LOCATION (City and State)
Ryper Water Analytics, LLC - Winter Park, FL
EDUCATION (Degree and Specialization)
Bachelor of Science in Accounting, University of Central Florida

CURRENT PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION (State and Discipline)

Vice Chair of Florida American Water Works Association (AWWA) Finance and Rates Committee.

19. RELEVANT PROJECTS

a.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Analysis - City of Boynton Beach, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Ongoing	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The City of Boynton Beach has a population of about 80,000 people. Project involves performing comprehensive review of i) system revenue sufficiency; ii) water and wastewater monthly user rates; and iii) reclaimed water rates.	

b.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - City of Daytona Beach, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The City of Daytona Beach has a population of about 72,000 people. Project involved performing a comprehensive review of i) water and wastewater monthly retail user rates and capacity fees; iii) wholesale water and wastewater rates; iv) reclaimed water rates; and v) miscellaneous service charges. City Commission adopted all the study recommendations.	

c.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Wastewater Rate Study - City of West Palm Beach, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. The City of West Palm Beach has a population of about 117,000 people. The project involved performing a comprehensive review of i) water and wastewater monthly user rates and capacity fees; iii) wholesale water and wastewater rates; iv) reclaimed water rates; v) miscellaneous service charges; and vi) stormwater rates. City Commission adopted all recommendations.	

d.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Sewer Rate Study - Bay County, Florida	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. Bay County has a population of about 179,000 people. The project involved performing a comprehensive review of i) water and wastewater monthly user rates and impact fees; iii) wholesale water and wastewater rates; and iv) miscellaneous service charges. County Commission adopted all the analysis recommendations.	

e.	(1) TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - Newton County, Georgia	(2) YEAR COMPLETED	
		PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Ongoing	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	
	(3) BRIEF DESCRIPTION (Brief scope, size, cost, etc.) AND SPECIFIC ROLE	✔ Check if project performed with current firm
Role: Project Manager. Newton County has a population of about 115,000 people. The project involves performing a review of the County's wholesale water rates and the development of a capital finance plan.	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Analysis - North Port, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
City of North Port, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Jennifer Desrosiers, Assistant Utility Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(941) 240-8006	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Project secured through Request for Proposal. The City of North Port has a population of about 75,000 people, and the City's utility provides service to approximately 20,000 retail water accounts; 16,000 retail wastewater accounts; six (6) reclaimed water accounts; and one (1) wholesale water account.
Provided comprehensive review of i) water and wastewater monthly user rates; ii) water and wastewater capacity fees; iii) wholesale water rate; iv) reclaimed water rates; v) guaranteed revenue charges; vi) fire protection service; and vii) miscellaneous service charges. The City Commission of North Port adopted all of the analysis recommendations. Cost = $24,790.
Within the past year, GovRates has also performed a building permit fee study for the City. GovRates team members have provided ongoing financial and rate consulting services to the City of North Port since 2003.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Various Utility Rate Studies - The Villages Community Development Districts - The Villages, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
The Villages, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Karen White, Sr. Utility Operations Manager	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(352) 753-4022	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Projects secured through Requests for Quote or piggybacking off existing GovRates contracts. The Villages has a population of about 79,000 people. Performed water, sewer, and/or irrigation rate studies for the Village Center Service Area, the North Sumter County Dependent District, the Villages Water Conservation Authority (irrigation system), the Central Sumter Utility, and the Sumter Water Conservation Authority (irrigation system). The Board of Supervisors for the various districts adopted all of the study recommendations.
Within the past couple of years, GovRates has also assisted The Villages in developing financial management policies for the utilities as well as the general government for various districts. GovRates is about to start another utility rate study for the Little Sumter Service Area.
Relevance to this contract: Similar projects completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Wastewater Rate Study - Longboat Key, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2021	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
Town of Longboat Key, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Susan L. Smith, Finance Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(941) 316-6882	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Project secured sole source based on experience. The Town of Longboat Key is located in both Sarasota County and Manatee County, and has a population of approximately 7,500 people, and the Town's utility provides service to approximately 2,900 retail water accounts and 2,500 retail wastewater accounts. Provided comprehensive review of Town's water and wastewater rates. The Town Commission of Longboat Key adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $21,960.
Within the past five years, GovRates has also worked with the Town staff to develop a beach management financial plan as well as to evaluate vehicle fleet management options. GovRates team members have provided ongoing financial and rate consulting services to the Town of Longboat Key since 2003.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - Plantation, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
City of Plantation, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Anna Otiniano, Financial Services Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(954) 797-2213	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Project secured through a Request for Quote. The City of Plantation has a population of about 92,000 people, and the City's utility provides service to approximately 27,000 retail water accounts and 22,000 retail wastewater accounts. The project involved performing a comprehensive review of City's utility rates, fees, and charges as well as policies and procedures. The City Council of Plantation adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $38,360.
GovRates team members have provided ongoing financial and rate consulting services to the City of Plantation since 2005.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Sewer Rate Study; Financial Feasibility Analysis for Bond Issue
- Miami Beach, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
City of Miami Beach, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Tracy Hejl, Senior Management Analyst	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(305) 673-7000 Ext. 26922	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Projects secured through a Request for Quote. The City of Miami Beach has a population of about 83,000 people, and the City's utility provides service to approximately 13,500 retail water accounts, 9,600 sewer accounts, and three (3) wholesale sewer customers. The rate study involved a comprehensive review of City's water and sewer rates, including wholesale sewer rates. The City Commission of Miami Beach adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $24,600. Served as financial feasibility consultant for 2021 revenue bond issue. GovRates is currently performing a water and sewer financial checkup as well as a stormwater rate study for Miami Beach.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Sewer Rate Study; State Revolving Fund Loan Procurement Assistance - Miramar, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2019 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
City of Miramar, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Kemi Moore, Fiscal Operations Manager	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(954) 883-6803	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Projects secured through a Request for Qualifications. The City of Miramar has a population of approximately 141,000 people, and the City's utility provides service to approximately 34,000 retail water accounts and 34,000 retail wastewater accounts. Project involved performing a comprehensive review of the City's water and wastewater rates. Not-to-exceed budget for current rate study =
$29,900.
GovRates has provided State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan procurement assistance to the City for multiple projects, and has prepared a fiscal sustainability report associated with one of the SRF loans. We have also performed a stormwater rate analysis for the City.
GovRates team members have provided ongoing financial and rate consulting services to the City of Miramar since 2009.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study; State Revolving Fund Loan Procurement Assistance - Fruitland Park, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2019 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
City of Fruitland Park, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Jeannine Racine, Finance Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(352) 360-6727	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Projects secured through a subcontracting agreement with the City's consulting engineers. The City of Fruitland Park has a population of approximately 8,300 people, and the City's utility provides service to approximately 2,000 retail water accounts; 450 retail wastewater accounts; and 2,000 stormwater accounts. The rate study involved performing a comprehensive review of the City's water, wastewater, and stormwater rates. GovRates has also provided State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan procurement assistance to the City for multiple projects. Cost for rate study = $19,800.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Wastewater Rate Study - Margate, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022 to 2023	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
City of Margate, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Marta Reczko, Assistant Utilities Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(954) 884-3632	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Project secured through piggybacking off an existing GovRates contract. The City of Margate has a population of about 59,000 people, and the City's utility provides service to approximately 17,000 water and wastewater accounts, including customers in Coconut Creek and North Lauderdale. The rate study involves a comprehensive review of City's water and wastewater rates. Not-to-exceed budget for the water and wastewater rate study = $28,500.
GovRates has also successfully completed a stormwater rate study for Margate - all recommendations were adopted by the City Commission.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Water and Stormwater Rate Study - Fort Myers Beach, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2020	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Christy Cory, Utilities Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(239) 463-9914	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Project secured through Request for Proposals. The Town of Fort Myers Beach has a population of about 5,600 people, and the Town's utilities provide service to approximately 3,800 retail water accounts and 3,004 stormwater equivalent residential units. The project involved performing a comprehensive review of the Town's utility rates, fees, and charges. The Town Council of Fort Myers Beach adopted all of the study recommendations. Cost = $19,400.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

F. EXAMPLE PROJECTS WHICH BEST ILLUSTRATE PROPOSED TEAM'S QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS CONTRACT
(Present as many projects as requested by the agency, or 10 projects, if not specified.
Complete one Section F for each project.)	20. EXAMPLE PROJECT KEY NUMBER	
21. TITLE AND LOCATION (City and State)
Utility Rate Study - Gasparilla Island Water Association, Boca Grande, Florida	22. YEAR COMPLETED	
	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2022	CONSTRUCTION (If applicable)
N/A	

a. PROJECT OWNER
Gasparilla Island Water Association	b. POINT OF CONTACT NAME
Ronald L. Bolton, Executive Director	c. POINT OF CONTACT TELEPHONE NUMBER
(941) 964-2423	
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND RELEVANCE TO THIS CONTRACT (Include scope, size, and cost)
Project secured sole source based on experience. The Gasparilla Island Water Association (GIWA) provides service to approximately 1,760 retail water accounts and 1,690 retail wastewater accounts. The project involved performing a comprehensive review of GIWA's utility rates, fees, and charges. The GIWA Board and the Lee County Commission adopted all of the study recommendations, and the recommendations were approved by 90% of the voting GIWA membership. Cost = $28,300.
Relevance to this contract: Similar project completed successfully.

FIRMS FROM SECTION C INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT

a.	(1) FIRM NAME
GovRates, Inc.	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)
Casselberry, Florida	(3) ROLE
Project Management	

b.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

c.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

d.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

e.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

f.	(1) FIRM NAME	(2) FIRM LOCATION (City and State)	(3) ROLE	

G. KEY PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION IN EXAMPLE PROJECTS

26. NAMES OF KEY PERSONNEL
(From Section E, Block 12)	27. ROLE IN THIS CONTRACT
(From Section E, Block 13)	28. EXAMPLE PROJECTS LISTED IN SECTION F
(Fill in "Example Projects Key" section below before completing table.
Place "X" under project key number for participation in same or similar role.)	
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	
Bryan A. Mantz, CMC, CGFM	Project Manager	

	

	

	
	
Jenny Mantz	Quality Assurance / Quality Control	

	

	

	
	
Ryan Smith	Co-Project Manager / Project Support											

												

												

												

												

												

29. EXAMPLE PROJECTS KEY

UMBER	TITLE OF EXAMPLE PROJECT (From Section F)	NUMBER	TITLE OF EXAMPLE PROJECT (From Section F)	
1	Utility Rate Analysis - City of North Port, FL	6	Water and Sewer Rate Study - City of Miramar, FL	
2	Various Utility Rate Studies, The Villages Community Development Districts, FL	7	Utility Rate Study - City of Fruitland Park, FL	
3	Water and Wastewater Rate Study - Town of Longboat Key, FL	8	Water and Wastewater Rate Study - City of Margate, FL	
4	Utility Rate Study - City of Plantation, FL	9	Water and Stormwater Rate Study - Town of Fort Myers Beach, FL	
5	Water and Sewer Rate Study -
City of Miami Beach, FL	10	Utility Rate Study -
Gasparilla Island Water Association, Boca Grande, FL	

N

H. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE AGENCY. ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS AS NEEDED.
Please see the additional information included in the response package.

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

31. SIGNATURE

32. DATE

The foregoing is a statement of facts.
33. NAME AND TITLE

Contents
Letter of Transmittal Standard Form No. 330
 SECTION 1: Ability and Adequacy of Professional Personnel	
Benefits to the District of Selecting the GovRates Project Team	1-1
The GovRates Team Advantage	1-1
Utility Industry Leadership	1-1
Utility Industry Leadership Graphic	1-3
Sample Project Team Publications (Articles and Manuals of Practice)	1-4
Florida and National Experience	1-5
Florida Utility Experience of Project Team	1-5
Registered Municipal Advisor with Series 50-Qualified Representatives and
Series 54-Qualified Principals	1-6
Financial Modeling Expertise	1-7
Clean Record and Expert Witness Experience	1-7
Headquartered in Florida and Close to the District	1-7
Best Value	1-7
Project Team	1-8
Organizational Chart	1-8
Descriptions of Project Team Members	1-8
Additional Documentation	1-10
Certificate of Current MSRB Registration	1-11
Printout from MSRB Website Indicating That Both Dr. Jenny Mantz and Mr. Bryan Mantz Are Both Series 50-Qualified Municipal Advisor Representatives and Series 54-Qualified
Municipal Advisor Principals	1-12
Certified Management Consultant (CMC) and Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM) Certificates of Project Manager	1-13
Documentation of Bryan Mantz's Completion of
AWWA Utility Risk and Resilience Certificate Program	1-14
 SECTION 2: Past Performance	
Projects Completed On Time, Within Budget, and With a Successful Outcome	2-1
Written References	2-2
 SECTION 3: Geographic Location	
Located Close to the District	3-1
 SECTION 4: Willingness to Meet Time and Budget Requirements	
Projects Completed On Time, Within Budget, and With a Successful Outcome	4-1
 SECTION 5: Certified Minority Business Enterprise	
Certified Minority-Owned and Woman-Owned Enterprise (MBE/WBE)	5-1
GovRates Woman and Minority Certification from State of Florida	5-2
 SECTION 6: Recent, Current and Projected Workloads	
Recent, Current and Projected Workloads	6-1
 SECTION 7: Volume of Work Previously Awarded By District	
No Prior Work Awarded By District	7-1
Page 83

1. SOLICITATION NUMBER (If any)

ARCHITECT-ENGINEER QUALIFICATIONS

PART II - GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
(If a firm has branch offices, complete for each specific branch office seeking work.)
2a. FIRM (or Branch Office) NAME
GovRates, Inc.	3. YEAR ESTABLISHED
2017	4. UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER
N/A	
2b. STREET
1988 Varick Way	5. OWNERSHIP	
	a. TYPE
S Corporation	
2c. CITY
Casselberry	2d. STATE
FL	2e. ZIP CODE
32707-2409		
			b. SMALL BUSINESS STATUS
Small Business	
6a. POINT OF CONTACT NAME AND TITLE
Jenny Mantz, CEO		
	7. NAME OF FIRM (If Block 2a is a Branch Office)	
6b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
(833) GOV-PLAN; (833) 468-7526	6c. EMAIL ADDRESS
govrates@govrates.com		
8a. FORMER FIRM NAME(S) (If any)	8b. YEAR ESTABLISHED	8c. UNIQUE ENTITY IDENTIFIER	
			
9. EMPLOYEES BY DISCIPLINE	10. PROFILE OF FIRM'S EXPERIENCE
AND ANNUAL AVERAGE REVENUE FOR LAST 5 YEARS	
a. Function Code	b. Discipline	c. Number of Employees	a. Profile Code	b. Experience	c. Revenue Index Number
(see below)	
		(1) FIRM	(2) BRANCH				
N/A	Financial and Rate Consulting	2		N/A	Financial and Rate Consulting	3	

							

							

							

							

							

							
							
	Other Employees						
Total						
11. ANNUAL AVERAGE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVENUES OF FIRM
FOR LAST 3 YEARS
(Insert revenue index number shown at right)	PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVENUE INDEX NUMBER
Less than $100,000	6.	$2 million to less than $5 million
$100,000 to less than $250,000	7.	$5 million to less than $10 million
$250,000 to less than $500,000	8.	$10 million to less than $25 million
$500,000 to less than $1 million	9.	$25 million to less than $50 million
$1 million to less than $2 million	10.  $50 million or greater	
a. Federal Work	1		
b. Non-Federal Work	3		
c. Total Work	3		
12. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

a. SIGNATURE

The foregoing is a statement of facts.

c. NAME AND TITLE

a. SIGNATURE

b. DATE
March 30, 2023

c. NAME AND TITLE

Jenny Mantz, Chief Executive Officer

STANDARD FORM 330 (REV. 7/2021) PAGE 6
Page 84

SECTION 1:
Ability and Adequacy of Professional Personnel

Page 85

SECTION 1:
ABILITY AND ADEQUACY OF PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL

Benefits to the District of Selecting the GovRates Project Team

There are many benefits to the District of selecting our Project Team, including:

 Utility Industry Leadership	

We have the highest level of utility industry leadership, and our leadership provides assurance that we are well-versed in the latest industry trends, new ideas, and innovations. We are active members of national and State committees of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environmental Federation (WEF). The proposed project manager is the Co-Chair of the Publications arm of the AWWA national Rates and Charges Committee, and manages rate and financial publications outside of manual development. He is also the Vice Chair of the AWWA national Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls Committee. He has been involved in the development of two

manuals of practice that are continually referenced by the utility industry for guidance on the development of rates:
AWWA's M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges.
WEF's MOP 27: Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems.

He will soon be a primary author of the new manual on impact fees that is being developed by the AWWA.

Two papers authored by the proposed project manager won the national AWWA Management and Leadership Division Best Paper Award. These papers are entitled "Utility Rates and the Political Environment" and "Utility Impact Fees: Practices and Challenges." He continues to write articles on issues at the forefront of the utility industry. His article entitled "Automatic Rate, Fee, and Charge Increases for Water Utilities" was featured in the March 2021 Journal AWWA, and his article entitled "Utility Best Management Practices: Strong Adopted Financial Management Policies" was the cover story of the April 2022 Journal AWWA. (The cover referenced this article as "Navigating Utility Decisions With Adopted Financial Management Policies.")
A summary of our utility industry leadership is shown in the table on the following page. Pictures of Project Team member publications are on the page following the utility industry leadership graphic.

1-4

Page 89

Sample Project Team Publications (Articles and Manuals of Practice):

 Florida and National Experience	

Our expertise developed through working successfully with hundreds of utilities throughout the United States (coast to coast) would help to ensure project success and public acceptance of study recommendations. We work all over the United States and continue to have wide exposure to different ideas and practices of utilities.
The following Florida local government entities and utilities have been served by the Project Team professionals:

FLORIDA UTILITY EXPERIENCE OF PROJECT TEAM

A map of local government entities (represented by yellow markers) served by Project Team professionals within the State of Florida is shown in the graphic to the left.

FLORIDA CITIES, TOWNS, AND VILLAGES SERVED BY PROJECT TEAM PROFESSIONALS:

City of Bartow	Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc.	City of Bunnell	
City of Callaway	City of Cape Coral	City of Casselberry	
Town of Cedar Grove	City of Crystal River	Town of Davie	
City of Daytona Beach	City of Deltona	Destin Water Users	
City of Edgewater	Emerald Coast Utilities
Authority (Pensacola)	City of Eustis	
City of Fernandina Beach	Town of Fort Myers Beach	Fort Pierce Utilities Authority	
City of Fort Walton Beach	City of Fruitland Park	City of Haines City	
City of Hallandale Beach	City of Inverness	City of Jacksonville Beah	
JEA (Jacksonville)	City of Lake Mary	City of Lake Worth Beach	
City of Largo	City of Leesburg	Town of Longboat Key	
City of Longwood	City of Maitland	City of Marco Island	
City of Margate	City of Marianna	City of Melbourne	
City of Mexico Beach	City of Miami Beach	City of Miramar	
City of Mount Dora	Town of Montverde	New Smyrna Beach Utilities
Commission	
City of North Port	City of Oakland Park	City of Ocala	
City of Oldsmar	City of Orange City	City of Oviedo	
Town of Palatka	Town of Palm Beach	City of Palm Coast	
Town of Panama City	City of Panama City Beach	City of Parker	
Town of Pembroke Park	City of Plant City	City of Plantation	
City of Plant City	Town of Palatka	Town of Palm Beach	
City of Palm Coast	City of Panama City	City of Panama City Beach	
City of Parker	Town of Pembroke Park	City of Plant City	

			
City of Plantation	City of Port St. Lucie	City of Riviera Beach	
City of St. Cloud	City of St. Pete Beach	City of St. Petersburg	
City of Sanford	City of Sanibel	City of Sarasota	
South Martin Regional
Utilities (Town of Jupiter Island)	City of Springfield	City of Sunrise	
City of Tarpon Springs	City of Titusville	City of Treasure Island	
City of Umatilla	City of Wauchula	Village of Wellington	
City of West Melbourne	City of West Palm Beach	City of Westlake	
City of Winter Garden	City of Winter Springs		

FLORIDA COUNTIES SERVED BY PROJECT TEAM PROFESSIONALS:

Brevard County	Broward County	Charlotte County	
Citrus County	Collier County	Flagler County	
Hernando County	Hillsborough County	Lee County	
Manatee County	Martin County	Okaloosa County	
Okeechobee County
(Okeechobee Utility Authority)	Orange County	Pasco County	
Polk County	Putnam County	Sarasota County	
Seminole County	Volusia County	Walton County (Regional
Utilities)	

OTHER FLORIDA UTILITIES SERVED BY PROJECT TEAM PROFESSIONALS:

East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility
(ECRWRF)	Englewood Water District	Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA)	
Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority (FKAA)	Gasparilla Island Water
Association	Heron's Glen Utilities	
Immokalee Water and Sewer
District	Key Largo	Riverwood Community
Development District	
St. Lucie West Services
District	Seminole Improvement
District	The Villages	

Registered Municipal Advisor with Series 50-Qualified Representatives and Series 54-Qualified Principals

Our Municipal Advisor registration and demonstrated competency (Series 50-Qualified Representatives and Series 54-Qualified Principals) provide assurance that we are fully qualified and meet all legal requirements to provide debt financing support to the District. The Securities and Exchange Commission and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board have ruled that municipal advisor registration is required for a rate consultant to:

Evaluate financing options available to the District and provide advice / recommendations on the structure, timing, and terms of such options.
Provide advice on whether certain rates and revenues would support debt service and meet coverage requirements on a financing option available to the District.
Perform cash flow modeling in support of District financing options.
Provide financing advice / recommendations to the District's independent registered financial advisor if the need arises (i.e., indirect advice).
Complete the financial sections of a State Revolving Fund loan application.
Serve as the financial feasibility consultant for a bond issue of the District.

Financial Modeling Expertise

Our financial modeling expertise ensures that the financial models developed for the irrigation rate study services would be useful tools for the District's internal use following project completion. The Project Team is renowned for offering some of the best financial models in the utility industry, as well as some of the fastest financial modelers.

Clean Record and Expert Witness Experience

Our clean record and expert witness experience provide assurance to the District that we have the technical expertise and credibility to develop defensible rates, charges, and other financial recommendations for the District that are in full compliance with Florida law. During his entire career as a rate consultant, the proposed project manager has never been involved in litigation over projects he has managed or work he has performed.

Headquartered in Florida and Close to the District

Our office in the Orlando area is close to the District, enabling us to easily attend onsite meetings and provide outstanding customer service.

Best Value

Our lower hourly billing rates and not-to-exceed budgets can provide the District with confidence that it is receiving the very best value for rate and financial work. The Project Team has always completed projects on-time, within budget, and with a successful outcome. We have never requested a change order.

Project Team
The organizational chart on the right summarizes the key Project Team professionals. Descriptions of the Project Team members follow:

Bryan A. Mantz, CMC, CGFM – Project Manager

On behalf of the Project Team, Bryan Mantz, CMC, CGFM would serve as the Project Manager for this engagement. He would be the primary contact between the Project Team and the District and would be responsible for ensuring that the project is performed as efficiently as possible, that all project deadlines are met, that all scope of services requirements are fulfilled, and that the District's expectations are exceeded.
Over 25 years of financial and accounting experience; has successfully completed hundreds of rate and financial projects for local government and utilities throughout the United States.
Certified Management Consultant (CMC) and Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM). The prestigious CMC certification is recognized by the insurance industry as reducing risk. A CMC has demonstrated a history of results and excellent performance based on client testimonials, references, and repeat business.
Series 50-qualified Municipal Advisor Representative and, as such, can legally provide debt financing recommendations and debt financing support for the District. Series 54-qualified Municipal Advisor Principal and, therefore, can legally manage, direct, or supervise municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor firm and its associated persons.
A nationally recognized utility rate expert, Mr. Mantz has been involved in the development of several manuals of practice including two (2) that are continually referenced by the utility industry for guidance on the development of rates, fees, and charges:
The American Water Works Association's (AWWA's) Manual of Practice 1 (M1): Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges.

The Water Environment Federation's (WEF's) MOP 27: Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems.

Mr. Mantz will soon be a primary author of the new manual on impact fees that is being developed by the AWWA.

Has authored two (2) papers on utility rates and impact fees that won national Management and Leadership Division Best Paper Awards from the AWWA. These papers were entitled "Utility Rates and the Political Environment" and "Utility Impact Fees: Practices and Challenges."
Co-Chair of the Publications arm of the national AWWA's Rates and Charges Committee and manages rate and financial publications outside of manual development.
Vice Chair of the AWWA's national Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls Committee.
Has completed the AWWA's Utility Risk and Resilience Certificate Program.
MBA with Honors, Concentration in Finance, from Rollins College. (Attended via Merit Scholarship.) Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Bachelor of Applied Science in Management and Technology from the School of Engineering and Applied Science of the University of Pennsylvania. Graduated from the Management and Technology Program of the University of Pennsylvania, the most competitive and selective program offered by this Ivy League school.
Mr. Mantz as the proposed project manager has had a tremendous success rate at securing the adoption and public acceptance of rate and financial recommendations.

 Jenny Mantz – CEO of GovRates – Quality Assurance / Quality Control	

Series 50-qualified Municipal Advisor Representative and, as such, can legally provide debt financing recommendations and debt financing support for the District.
Series 54-qualified Municipal Advisor Principal and, therefore, can legally manage, direct, or supervise municipal advisory activities of a municipal advisor firm and its associated persons.
Over 12 years of financial and accounting experience.
Has provided consulting services for funding assistance, grant management, performance benchmarking, financial audits, user rates, and impact fees / system development charges.
Member of American Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation Project Role: Additional quality assurance and quality control on project deliverables.

Ryan Smith – Co-Project Management / Project Support (Subcontractor: Ryper Water Analytics)

Has experience working with professionals from Special District Services, Inc.
Has worked with GovRates professionals for several years.
12 years of experience working as a utility financial and rate consultant.
Has provided consulting services for water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electric, and natural gas utilities in many states.
Member of American Water Works Association, and Vice Chair of Florida American Water Works Association's Finance and Rates Committee.
Member of Florida Government Finance Officers Association and Florida Stormwater Association.
Bachelor of Science in Accounting from the University of Central Florida.
Project Role: Co-project management and senior-level project support, including preparation of project deliverables.
Additional Documentation

We have also included in this response:

A copy of our Certificate of Current MSRB Registration as a Municipal Advisor.
A printout from the MSRB website indicating that two Project Team members are both Series 50-Qualified Municipal Advisor Representatives and Series 54-Qualified Municipal Advisor Principals.
Copies of the Certified Management Consultant and Certified Government Financial Manager certificates of the proposed project manager.
Documentation of the proposed project manager's completion of the AWWA utility risk and resilience certificate program.

These items are on the following pages.

Certificate of Current MSRB Registration
The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) certifies that the organization listed below is registered with the MSRB as of March 10, 2023 09:36:04 AM ET.

Registrant's Name:	GovRates, Inc.	Type of Registration Maintained with the MSRB:	Municipal Advisor	
MSRB ID:	K1193	Date Registered with the MSRB:	March 27, 2017	

This certificate may be confirmed by contacting the MSRB at 202-838-1330 or by email to MSRBsupport@msrb.org Stephanie Braddell, Product Operations Manager

©2023 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board

1300 I Street NW, Suite 1000 | Washington, DC 20005 | 202-838-1500 | MSRB.org | EMMA.MSRB.org

1-11

Printout from MSRB website (www.msrb.org) indicating that both Dr. Jenny Mantz and Mr. Bryan Mantz are both Series 50-qualified Municipal Advisor Representatives and Series 54-qualified Municipal Advisor Principals.

Documentation of Bryan Mantz's Completion of AWWA Utility Risk and Resilience Certificate Program

SECTION 2:
Past Performance

Page 100

SECTION 2:
PAST PERFORMANCE

Projects Completed On Time, Within Budget, and With a Successful Outcome

The Standard Form No. 330 contained in this response contains information about some of the GovRates projects. Projects recently completed on time, within budget, and with a successful outcome by GovRates include:

Comprehensive Utility Rate Study for City of North Port, Florida (Secured through RFP)

GOVRATES PROJECTS RECENTLY COMPLETED ON TIME, WITHIN BUDGET, AND WITH A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, Village Center Service Area (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, North Sumter County Utility Dependent District and Villages Water Conservation Authority (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, Central
Sumter Utility and Sumter Water Conservation Authority (Piggyback off contract secured through RFP)

Water and Sewer Rate Study for City of Miami Beach, Florida (Request for Quote)

Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Plantation, Florida (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate and Impact Fee Study for City of Deltona, Florida (Sole Source; Piggyback off contract secured through RFP)

Bond / Financial Feasibility Report for Utility Revenue Bonds for City of Deltona, Florida (Sole Source)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study and Wholesale Rate Increase Pass-Through Analysis for Town of Longboat Key, Florida (Sole Source Based on Expertise and Experience)

Comprehensive Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Rate Study for City of Fruitland Park, Florida
(Competitive Bidding)

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Procurement Assistance for City of Fruitland Park, Florida – Multiple Projects / Loans (Sole Source Due to Expertise and Experience)

Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency Study and Impact Fee Review for the City of Maitland, Florida
(Sole Source; Piggyback off contract secured through RFP )

Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study for Seminole County, Florida (RFP)

Water and Stormwater Rate Study for Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida (RFP)

Wastewater Rate Study for City of Treasure Island, Florida (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Secured through RFP)

Water, Sewer, and Surface Water Management (Stormwater) Rate Study and System Development Charge Review for City of Cornelius, Oregon (RFP)

Water and Sewer Rate Study for City of Silverton, Oregon (RFP)

Sewer and Stormwater Impact Fee Study for Town of Pembroke Park, Florida (Subconsultant on Sole Source Contract)

Wholesale Sewer Rate Study for City of Flint, Michigan (ITB)

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Procurement Assistance for City of Miramar, Florida – Multiple Projects / Loans (RFQ)

Preparation of Fiscal Sustainability Plan for State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan for City of Miramar, Florida

Financial Section for Engineering Report for Florida Governmental Utility Authority – Dunnellon System (Associated with the FGUA's outstanding bonds)

Financial Section for Engineering Report for Florida Governmental Utility Authority – Lindrick System
(Associated with the FGUA's outstanding bonds)

Audit / Review of Maintenance Operations and Service Costs for City of Plantation, Florida (Sole Source)

Stormwater Rate Study for City of Margate, Florida (Competitive Bidding)

Stormwater Financial Checkup and State Revolving Fund Loan Procurement Assistance for the City of Miramar, Florida (RFQ)

Beach Financial Management Plan for Town of Longboat Key, Florida (Sole Source Based on Expertise and
Experience)

Building Permit Fee Study for City of Palm Coast, Florida (Competitive Bidding)

Building Permit Fee Study for City of North Port, Florida (RFP and Competitive Bidding)

Rate and Charge Review – All Departments – and Assistance with Major Overhaul of City's Code of Ordinances for City of Miami Beach, Florida (Competitive Bidding)

ITB = Invitation to Bid; RFP = Request for Proposals; RFQ = Request for Qualifications

Written References

The following pages contain seven (7) written references completed by contacts for some of the aforementioned projects. These references indicate:
Excellent performance.
Project completed cost-effectively with no change orders.

Project completed on time.

Project manager easy to contact.

Would use GovRates again.

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Reference For (Proposer's Name):_G_o_v_R_a_t_es, l_n_c_. 	_

Agency Giving Reference: City of North Port, Florida

Contact Person Name:Jennifer Desrosiers, CGFO, Assistant Director of Utilities Address: 6644 W. Price Blvd.; North Port, FL 34291
Telephone:(941) 240-8006	E-mail: jdesrosiers@cityofnorthport.com

Provide a reference for the above-named firm by indicating below the level of satisfaction with services provided to your agency. If a question should not apply, please indicate that the question is not applicable by writing ("N/A") for that question.

	QUESTION	Satisfactory	Unsatisfactorv	

1	What was your experience with the firm's ability to provide the contracted Services?	·v		

2	How would you rate the experience and professionalism of the firm's staff?	v		

3	How would you rate the accessibility and responsiveness of the firm's staff?	v		

4	How would you rate the firm's success at keeping you updated and informed about the services they are providing, especially when
special needs or issues arose?			

5	How would you rate the firm's ability to complete
the scope of services in a timely manner and within budget?	v		

6	Would your agency use this firm to provide services again? (Circle One)	CvEsD
Satisfactory	NO/ Unsatisfactory	

pleted and signed by the person providing the reference.

 �s(g&ture  H�

Assistant Director of Utilities
Title

FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM MAY
DEEM YOUR PROPOSAL "NON-RESPONSIVE."

C ty of Hollywood, Flor da

B d RFQ-4654-20-RL

City of Hollywood, Florida

Issue Date: September 23, 2020	Solicitation #RFQ-4654-20-RL

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

It is the responsibility of the contractor/vendor to provide a minimum of three (3) similar type references using this form and to provide this information with your submission. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of your submission.

Giving reference for:

Firm giving Reference: Address:
Phone: Fax: Email:

GovRates, Inc.

The Villages Community Development Districts 984 Old Mill Run; The Villages, FL 32162
(352) 751-3939

(352) 753-6430

Kenneth.Blocker@DistrictGov.org

Q: What was the dollar value of the contract?
A:  $19,900 for Utility Rate Study, Village Center Service Area

Q: Have there been any change orders, and if so, how many?
A:	No change orders
Q: Did they perform on a timely basis as required by the agreement?
A:	Yes

Q: Was the project manager easy to get in contact with?
A:  Yes. Bryan was always availible.

Q: Would you use them again?
A:	Yes

Q: Overall, what would you rate their performance? (Scale from 1-5)

A:	x 5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Fair

2 Poor

1 Unacceptable

Q: Is there anything else we should know, that we have not asked?
A:	Bryan's product was very good and very detailed.

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing and subsequent statements are true and correct and are made independently, free from vendor interference/collusion.

Name:

Kenneth C. Blocker

Title: 	Deputy District Manager	

_________________________

________________

_/0__5_/_2_0_2__0

Signature: 	

Date:

	10

9/22/2020 11 41 AM

2-4	Page 104

43
p. 45

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Reference For (Proposer's Name):_G_o_v_R_a_t_e_s , _ln_c_.	 _

Agency Giving Reference: City of Plantation, Florida

Contact Person Name:_---'-A-"-n_nc..;cac....C . _::cO_:::tic:....:n_;_;;ia=n.;_;;o;..1,., :_F_:_:in----=---a=--=--=n----'---c:;..;;.ia=l;_S=--e-=-rv:. : .:_ic=----=e;....;;s;_D=ir-=-e-=-ct=o----'---r	 _ Address: 400 NW 73 Avenue; Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 797-2213	E-mail: aotiniano@plantation.org

Provide a reference for the above-named firm by indicating below the level of satisfaction with services provided to your agency. If a question should not apply, please indicate that the question is not applicable by writing ("N/A") for that question.

	QUESTION	Satisfacto rv	Unsatisfactorv	

1	What was your experience with the firm's ability to provide the contracted Services?	/		

2	How would you rate the experience and professionalism of the firm's staff?	j		

3	How would you rate the accessibility and responsiveness of the firm's staff?	/		

4	How would you rate the firm's success at keeping you updated and informed about the services they are providing, especially when special needs or issues arose?	I		

5	How would you rate the firm's ability to complete the scope of services in a timely manner and
within budQet?	I		

6	Would your agency use this firm to provide services again? (Circle One)	r( YES/	_)	NO/ Unsatisfactory	
		Satisfactory		

4,[2=.

Additional	Comments: The	City	of	Plantation	has	worked	with	GovRates and Bryan Mantz for many years. GovRates delivers superior services and their staff are extremely knowledgeable, courteous and professional. I recommend them highly.
*This form must be completed and signed by the person providing the reference.

Signature

Financial Services Director
Title

FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THIS FORM MAY DEEM YOUR PROPOSAL "NON-RESPONSIVE."

2-5	Page 105

C ty of Hollywood, Flor da

B d RFQ-4654-20-RL

City of Hollywood, Florida

Issue Date: September 23, 2020	Solicitation #RFQ-4654-20-RL

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

It is the responsibility of the contractor/vendor to provide a minimum of three (3) similar type references using this form and to provide this information with your submission. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of your submission.

Giving reference for:   GovRates, Inc. in partnership with Water Rite Consulting, LLC

Firm giving Reference: City of Miramar Utilities Department		 Address: 	13900 Pembroke Road; Building L, 1st Floor; Miramar, FL 33027 Phone: 	 (954) 883-6803	

Fax:

(954) 602-4710

Email: 	knmoore@miramarfl.gov	

Q: What was the dollar value of the contract?
A:	$32,000 for Water and Wastewater Rate Study
Q: Have there been any change orders, and if so, how many?
A:	No change orders
Q: Did they perform on a timely basis as required by the agreement?
A:	Yes

Q: Was the project manager easy to get in contact with?
A:	Yes

Q: Would you use them again?
A:	Yes

Q: Overall, what would you rate their performance? (Scale from 1-5)

A:	X 5 Excellent

4 Good

3 Fair

2 Poor

1 Unacceptable

Q: Is there anything else we should know, that we have not asked?
A: This consultant is very thorough with data collection to make sure that all bases are covered.

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing and subsequent statements are true and correct and are made independently, free from vendor interference/collusion.

Name:

Kemi N. Moore, MBA, CPM

Title: 	Fiscal Operations Manager	

______________________
______________________

 	

Signature: 	

Date:

9/30/2020

9/22/2020 11 41 AM

2-6	Page 106

43
p. 45

Issue Date: September 23. 2020

City of Hollywood, Florida	Bid RFQ-4654-20-RL

City of Hollywood, Florida Solicitation #RFQ-4654-20-RL

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

It is the responsibility of the contractor/vehdor to provide a minimum of three (3) similar type references using this form and to provide this information with your submission. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of your submission.
Giving reference for: _G=o.;.;vR;..;.;:;;at.a..e.s.;.i...;.;ln.;..c:;.:..	-		 _

Firm giving Reference: City of Fruitland Park
Address: 	5_0_6_W._._B_e_r_ck_m.._ _an_· _S_tr_e_et	 _

Phone:	,(_35-'-2..._)_3_60_·-6_5_4_5	 _

Fax-·--	(_35_2) 3_6_0_-6_7_27		_

Email: 	..i.r.._a_c_in_e""'@..f_..ru_it_la_n_d..._pa_r_k_.o_rg'""-"·

------------

Q: What was the dollar value of the contract?
$19,800 for Utility Rate Study
Q: Have there been any change orders, and If so, how many?
A:	No change orders
Q: Did they perform on a timely basis as reqL!ired by the agreement? A:Absolutely, very quick to respond to request for information.

Q: Was the project manager easy to get in contact with? A:Yes, definitely

Q: Would you use them again?
A:Yes, definitely

Q; Overall, what would you rate theit performance? (Scale from 1-5)
A:	IB]5 Exc:e/lent	04 Good 03 Fair O 2 Poor	01 Unacceptable
Q: ls there anything else we should know, that we have not asked?
A: Bryan was easy to reach and easy to work with. He stayed on top of us to get the information he needed to perform his task. Oullined everything he needed from us and kept us informed of the status of each
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing and subsequent statements are true and correct and are made independently, free from vendor interference/collusion.

Name:  

J_e_a_n_n_in_e_R_a_c_.i_n_e.,..M_B_A	_

Title--:....:...F.:.:..in;.;::a nc:c=e-=D""'i.:..;:re:.::ca..:;to:.ar'-- 	 _

43

9/22/2020 11:41 AM	p.45
2-7	Page 107

C ty of Hollywood, Flor da

B d RFQ-4654-20-RL

City of Hollywood, Florida

Issue Date: September 23, 2020	Solicitation #RFQ-4654-20-RL

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

It is the responsibility of the contractor/vendor to provide a minimum of three (3) similar type references using this form and to provide this information with your submission. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of your submission.

Giving reference for:   GovRates, Inc.	

Firm giving Reference: Town of Fort Myers Beach		 Address: 	2525 Estero Blvd.; Ft. Myers Beach, FL 33931		 Phone: 	 (239) 463-9914	

Fax:

(239) 765-0909

Email: 	christy@fmbgov.com	

Q: What was the dollar value of the contract?
A:	$19,500 for Water and Stormwater Rate Study
Q: Have there been any change orders, and if so, how many?
A:	No change orders
Q: Did they perform on a timely basis as required by the agreement? A: Yes

Q: Was the project manager easy to get in contact with? A: Yes

Q: Would you use them again? A: Yes

Excellent

5 Excellent

Q: Overall, what would you rate their performance? (Scale from 1-5)

A:

4 Good

3 Fair

2 Poor

1 Unacceptable

Q: Is there anything else we should know, that we have not asked? A: No

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing and subsequent statements are true and correct and are made independently, free from vendor interference/collusion.

Name:

Christy Cory

Title: 	Utilities Director	

Christy Cory

Digitally signed by Christy Cory Date: 2020.09.30 17:08:12 -04'00'

Signature:
Date: 	

9/22/2020 11 41 AM

2-8	Page 108

43
p. 45

Issue Date: September 23, 2020

City of Hollywood, Florida	Bid RFQ-4654-20-RL

City of Hollywood, Flor.ida Solicitation #RFQ-4654-20-RL

REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

It is the responsibility of the contractor/vendor to provide a minimum of three (3) similar type references using this form and to provide this information with your submission. Failure to do so may result in the rejection of your submission.

Giving reference for.	GovRates, Inc.

Firm giving Reference:	City of Treasure Island

Address:	120 108th Avenue; Treasure Island, FL 33706

Phone:	(727) 547-4575 Ext. 225

Fax:	(727) 547-4582

Email:	adavis@mytreasureisland.org

Q: What was the dollar value of the contract?
A: $14,000 for Wastewater Rate Study
Q: Have there been any change orders, and if so, how many?
A:	No change orders
Q: Did they perform on a timely basis as required by the agreement?
A:	Yes - milestones and reporl were on time
Q: Was the project manager easy to get in contact with?
A:	Yes, very responsive
Q: Would you use them again?

A··

Yes

Q: Overall, what would you rate their performance? (Scale from 1-5}
A:	5	Excellent	04 Good  03 Fair  O 2 Poor	01 Unacceptable
Q: Is there anything else we should know, that we have not asked?
A:

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing and subsequent statements are true and correct and are made independently, free from vendor interference/collusion.

c/b

Name:	Amy L. Davis, MPA, CGFO
Title:	Assistant City Manager/ Finance Director

S(Snatura
Date:

	le·,{;zk,__/zuc

43

9/22/2020 11:41 AM	p.45
2-9	Page 109

SECTION 3:
Geographic Location

Page 110

Response to RFQ for 2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services	

SECTION 3: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

Located Close to the District

GovRates is headquartered in Casselberry, Florida (Orlando area) and can easily attend onsite meetings in the District. As we have several clients close to the District, we regularly visit the area. Our subcontractor, Ryper Water Analytics, is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida (also in the Orlando area).

3-1	Page 111

SECTION 4:
Willingness to Meet Time and Budget Requirements

Page 112

Response to RFQ for 2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services

SECTION 4:
WILLINGNESS TO MEET TIME AND BUDGET REQUIREMENTS

Projects Completed On Time, Within Budget, and With a Successful Outcome

As further communicated by the written references provided in Section 2: Past Performance, GovRates has always completed projects on time, within budget, and with a successful outcome. For our level of experience and expertise, the Project Team offers top value for the services we provide. We would work with the District staff and the Board of Supervisors to develop a schedule for completing the irrigation rate study services. The District may want new irrigation rates to become effective no later than October 1, 2023, the first day of Fiscal Year 2024.

4-1	Page 113

SECTION 5:
Certified Minority Business Enterprise

Page 114

Response to RFQ for 2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services

SECTION 5:
CERTIFIED MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

Certified Minority-Owned and Woman-Owned Enterprise (MBE/WBE)

GovRates is certified as a minority-owned and woman-owned enterprise (MBE/WBE) by the State of Florida, Office of Supplier Diversity, and our certificate is on the following page.

Woman & Minority Business Certification

GovRates, Inc.

12/08/2021	12/08/2023

5-2

SECTION 6:
Recent, Current and Projected Workloads

Page 117

SECTION 6:
RECENT, CURRENT AND PROJECTED WORKLOADS

Recent, Current and Projected Workloads

The Project Team professionals are 100% available to complete the irrigation rate study services in accordance with the District's schedule. Projects recently completed on time, within budget, and with a successful outcome by GovRates include:

Comprehensive Utility Rate Study for City of North Port, Florida (Secured through RFP)

GOVRATES PROJECTS RECENTLY COMPLETED ON TIME, WITHIN BUDGET, AND WITH A SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, Village Center Service Area (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, North Sumter County Utility Dependent District and Villages Water Conservation Authority (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, Central
Sumter Utility and Sumter Water Conservation Authority (Piggyback off contract secured through RFP)

Water and Sewer Rate Study for City of Miami Beach, Florida (Request for Quote)

Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Plantation, Florida (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate and Impact Fee Study for City of Deltona, Florida (Sole Source; Piggyback off contract secured through RFP)

Bond / Financial Feasibility Report for Utility Revenue Bonds for City of Deltona, Florida (Sole Source)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study and Wholesale Rate Increase Pass-Through Analysis for Town of Longboat Key, Florida (Sole Source Based on Expertise and Experience)

Comprehensive Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Rate Study for City of Fruitland Park, Florida
(Competitive Bidding)

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Procurement Assistance for City of Fruitland Park, Florida – Multiple Projects / Loans (Sole Source Due to Expertise and Experience)

Water and Wastewater Revenue Sufficiency Study and Impact Fee Review for the City of Maitland, Florida
(Sole Source; Piggyback off contract secured through RFP )

Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study for Seminole County, Florida (RFP)

Water and Stormwater Rate Study for Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida (RFP)

Wastewater Rate Study for City of Treasure Island, Florida (Request for Quote)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Secured through RFP)

Water, Sewer, and Surface Water Management (Stormwater) Rate Study and System Development Charge Review for City of Cornelius, Oregon (RFP)

Water and Sewer Rate Study for City of Silverton, Oregon (RFP)

Sewer and Stormwater Impact Fee Study for Town of Pembroke Park, Florida (Subconsultant on Sole Source Contract)

Wholesale Sewer Rate Study for City of Flint, Michigan (ITB)

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Procurement Assistance for City of Miramar, Florida – Multiple Projects / Loans (RFQ)

Preparation of Fiscal Sustainability Plan for State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan for City of Miramar, Florida

Financial Section for Engineering Report for Florida Governmental Utility Authority – Dunnellon System (Associated with the FGUA's outstanding bonds; Subcontractor to engineering firm)

Financial Section for Engineering Report for Florida Governmental Utility Authority – Lindrick System (Associated with the FGUA's outstanding bonds; Subcontractor to engineering firm)

Audit / Review of Maintenance Operations and Service Costs for City of Plantation, Florida (Sole Source)

Stormwater Rate Study for City of Margate, Florida (Competitive Bidding)

Stormwater Financial Checkup and State Revolving Fund Loan Procurement Assistance for the City of Miramar, Florida (RFQ)

Beach Financial Management Plan for Town of Longboat Key, Florida (Sole Source Based on Expertise and
Experience)

Building Permit Fee Study for City of Palm Coast, Florida (Competitive Bidding)

Building Permit Fee Study for City of North Port, Florida (RFP and Competitive Bidding)

Rate and Charge Review – All Departments – and Assistance with Major Overhaul of City's Code of Ordinances for City of Miami Beach, Florida (Competitive Bidding)

ITB = Invitation to Bid; RFP = Request for Proposals; RFQ = Request for Qualifications

The following table shows current GovRates projects:

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Miramar, Florida (Secured through RFQ)

CURRENT GOVRATES PROJECTS

Water and Wastewater Rate Study Update for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, Village Center Service Area (Piggyback off contract secured through RFQ)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study Update for The Villages Community Development Districts, Florida, Little Sumter Service Area (Piggyback off contract secured through RFQ)

Comprehensive Water and Sewer Rate Study for City of Margate, Florida (Piggybacking off contract
secured by RFP)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Umatilla, Florida (Subcontractor to engineering firm)

State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Procurement Assistance for City of Umatilla, Florida (Subcontractor to
engineering firm)

Water and Wastewater Rate Study for City of Wauchula, Florida (RFP)

Water and Sewer Financial Checkup for City of Miami Beach, Florida (Sole Source)

Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study for City of Marco Island, Florida (RFP)

Water and Sewer Classification Plan and Rate Study for City of Seward, Alaska (RFP)

Comprehensive Water and Sewer Rate Study for City of Alamogordo, New Mexico (Sole Source)

Stormwater Rate Study for City of Miami Beach, Florida (Request for Quote)

Stormwater Assessment for Town of Davie, Florida (Subcontractor to engineering firm)

Assistance to United States Army's Fort Campbell in Negotiating Water Service Agreement with
Hopkinsville Water Environment Authority, Kentucky (Subcontractor)

Assistance to United States Air Force's Edwards Air Force Base in Negotiating New Water Supply Contract with Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, California (Subcontractor)

ITB = Invitation to Bid; RFP = Request for Proposals; RFQ = Request for Qualifications

The following table shows projected additional GovRates projects over the next few months:

Comprehensive Water and Wastewater Rate Study for Town of Eatonville, Florida (Piggyback off contract secured through RFP)

PROJECTED ADDITIONAL GOVRATES PROJECTS

Wholesale Water and Sewer Pass-Through Analysis for Town of Longboat Key, Florida (Sole Source based on expertise)
 Water and Sewer Rate Restructuring for City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado (Sole Source)	

ITB = Invitation to Bid; RFP = Request for Proposals; RFQ = Request for Qualifications

SECTION 7:
Volume of Work Previously Awarded by District

Page 121

Response to RFQ for 2023 Public Utility Irrigation Rate Study Services	

SECTION 7:
VOLUME OF WORK PREVIOUSLY AWARDED BY DISTRICT

No Prior Work Awarded By District

GovRates has never worked for the District. However, the proposed project manager has provided utility rate and consulting services to the City of North Port, Florida since 2003.

7-1	Page 122