agenda - ordinancewatch™section 2. the city of cape coral code of ordinances, chapter 2,...

ItemNumber: A.(2)

MeetingDate: 11/7/2016

ItemType:

ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS -Public Hearings

AGENDAREQUEST FORM

CITY OF CAPECORAL

TITLE:Ordinance 35-16 Public Hearing

REQUESTED ACTION:

STRATEGIC PLAN INFO:

1. Will this action result in a Budget Amendment? No 2. Is this a Strategic Decision?

If Yes, Priority Goals Supported are listedbelow.

If No, will it harm the intent or success ofthe Strategic Plan?

Planning & Zoning/Staff Recommendations:

SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:An ordinance amending the City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Administration,Division 2, Utility Capital Expansion Fee, by updating Utility Capital Expansion Fees; by providingfor a credit when connecting to dual service subsequent to single service connection; by amendingthe process for updating Utility Capital Expansion Fees.

LEGAL REVIEW:Brian R. Bartos, Assistant City Attorney

EXHIBITS:Department MemoOrdinance 35-16Impact Fee Term SheetWater, Wastewater, and Irrigation Impact Fee StudyPowerPoint PresentationImpact Fee Affidavit

PREPARED BY:

Division- Department-

SOURCE OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:Jeff Pearson, Utilities Director

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeDepartment Memo Backup MaterialOrdinance 35-16 OrdinanceImpact Fee Term Sheet Backup MaterialWater, Wastewater, and Irrigation Impact FeeStudy Backup Material

PowerPoint Presentation Backup MaterialImpact Fee Affidavit Backup Material

ORDINANCE 35-16

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF CAPE CORAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER2, ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION 2, UTILITY CAPITAL EXPANSION FEE, SECTION 2-24.3, FEEIMPOSED AND TIME OF PAYMENT, BY UPDATING UTILITY CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES; BYPROVIDING A CREDIT WHEN CONNECTING TO DUAL SERVICE SUBSEQUENT TO SINGLESERVICE CONNECTION; AND AMENDING SECTION 2.24.6, REVIEW OF FEE STRUCTURE, BYAMENDING THE PROCESS FOR UPDATING UTILITY CAPITAL EXPANSION FEES; PROVIDINGSEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA, HEREBY ORDAINS THISORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Administration, Division 2, UtilityCapital Expansion Fee, Section 2-24.3, Fee Imposed and Time of Payment, is hereby amended as follows:

§ 2-24.3 Fee imposed and time of payment.

(a) There are hereby imposed water system utility capital expansion fees as follows.

Type ofUseMeter

Size

Fee With Irrigation FeeIncluded For Single Service*

Fee Without Irrigation FeeFor Dual Service**

Single-family detached 5/8-inch $2,658 $2:274 $1.320 $±&6

All multi-family structures(per dwelling unit)

5/8-inch $1,834 §±&& $911 $±^46

Residential (ifapplicable); non-residential

5/8-inch $2.658 $3£74 ti ^°n ^1 ^164P 1 .DZXJ 9 ltJTO

1.0-inch $6,645 $5^85 $3,301 $3:794:

1.5-inch $13,290 $11,370 $6,601 msu

2.0-inch $21,264 $18,192 $10.562 $12,130

3.0-inch $42,528 $36,381 $21,123 $21,260

4.0-inch $66,450 $56,850 $33,005 $37,906

6.0-inch $132.900 $113,700 $66,010 $75,811

8.0-inch $212.640 $181,920 $105,616 $121,298

10.0-

inch$305.670 $261,510 $151.823 $171,366

12.0-

inch$411,990 $352,170 $204,630 $235,015

* "Residential" fee required if customer does not hook up to irrigation system

** Fee paid in conjunction with irrigation impact fee. as indicated in section 2-24.3 (c). if customer hooksup to irrigation system

(1) Meters larger than 12 inches shall havewater system utility capital expansion fees baseduponrelative capacity.

(2) Protcctu3 HI meters: The Protcctus HI meter assembly contains two meters, one associatedwith potable water U3agc and one associated with fireprotection usage. When determining thewater system utility capital expansion fee, the fee will be based upon the size of the meterassociated with the potable water usage and no utility capitalexpansion feewillbe charged onthe meter associated with fire protection usage. Customers that connect to potablewateronly(single service) and subsequently connect to the dual irrigation water system shall receive acredit in the amount of the single service connection fee paid. The amount of the single

service connection fee paid shall be credited towards the current amount of the dual serviceconnection fee at the time of connection to the irrigation water system.

(b) There are hereby imposed wastewater system utility capital expansion fees as follows.

(1) District 1 Wastewater System Service Area.

a. In areas where city wastewater facilities are currently available, local facilities (pumpstations and forcemains of less than ten inches in diameter) were installed by the cityand paid for from the proceeds of utilityassessments imposed on all property ownersin the assessment area.

b. As so, there is imposed the following schedule of wastewater system utility capitalexpansion fees.

District 1

Type ofUse Meter Size Fee

Single-family detached 5/8-inch $2,529 $2^62

All multi-family structures (per dwelling unit) 5/8-inch $1,745 $2:030


5/8-inch $2.529 $2£62

1.0-inch $6,323 $74S§

1.5-inch $12.643 $11,308

2.0-inch $20.229 $22,893

3.0-inch $40,459 $15,786

4.0-inch $63,217 $71,511

6.0-inch $126.433 $113,081

8.0-inch $202.293 $228,930

10.0-inch $290,797 $329,087

12.0-inch $391,944 $113,552

(2) District 2 Wastewater System ServiceArea. In those areas where utilitiesare either planned, but notyet available or are currendy in design or under construction, including those utility extensionareas known as Southwest 4, Southwest 5, including future utility expansion areas, localfacilities (pump stations and forcemains of less than ten inches in diameter) shall be paid forwith wastewater system utility capital expansion fees. The schedule for the wastewater systemutility capital expansion fees for those areas shall therefore be as follows.

District 2

Type ofUseMeter

Size

ImprovementsTotal Fee

Major Local

Single-familydetached

5/8-inch $2,529 $2£62 $583 $4^44 $3,112 $4^76

All multi-familystructures (perdwelling unit)

5/8-inch $1,745 $3£3Q $402 $1,111 $2,147 $3^44

Residential (ifapplicable); non-residential:

5/8-inch $2,529 $3:862 $583 $4^44 $3,112 $4476

1.0-inch $6.323 $7^55 $1,458 $4^35 $7,781 $11,190

1.5-inch $12,643 $11,308 $2,915 $8£70 $15,558 $22,378

2.0-inch $20.229 $22,893 $4,664 $12,912 $24,893 $35,805

3.0-inch $40,459 $15,786 $9.328 $25,821 $49,787 $71,610

4.0-inch $63,217 $71,511 $14,575 $10,350 $77,792 $111,891

6.0-inch <ft1'",6 4^ ^i^n OR1 $29.150 $80,700 $155.583 $223,7814? 1 /CO.'tDJ wi*TZK\rOT

8.0-inch $202,293 $228,930 $46.640 $129,120 $248,933 $358£§0

10.0-inch $290,797 $329,087 $67.045 $185,610 $357,842 $511,697

12.0-inch $391,944 $113,552 $90,365 $250,170 $482,309 $693,722

{3) Prvtcctus IIImeters. The Protcctu3 HI meter assemblycontains two meters, one associatedwithpotable water U3agc and one associated with fireprotection U3agc. When determiningthe watersystem utility capital expansion fee, the fee willbe based upon the size of the meter associatedwith the potable water usage and no utilitycapital expansion fee will be charged on the meterassociated with fire protection usage.

(3 4) Computation offee. For cases in which not all water discharged to the sanitary sewer system ismeasured by the water meter or in which the preponderance of metered water is not returnedto the sanitary sewer system, the city shall compute the fee using the following value per each200 gallons per day of wastewater flow or fraction thereof. The determination shall be madeby the Utilities Director or designee.

(45) Fees based on meter capacity. Meters larger than 12 inches shall have wastewater system utilitycapital expansion fees based upon relative meter capacities.

(c) There are hereby imposed irrigation system utility capital expansion fees as follows.

Type ofUse Meter Size Amount

Single-family detached 5/8-inch $2,318 $758

All multi-family structures (perdwelling unit)

5/8-inch $1,599 $523


5/8-inch $2,318 $758

1.0-inch $5,792 $4:894

1.5-inch $11,587 $3^?89

2.0-inch $18,538 $&063

3.0-inch $37,076 $12,121

4.0-inch $57,932 $18,911

6.0-inch $115,866 $37,889

8.0-inch $185.385 $60,622

10.0-inch $266,490 $87T111

12.0-inch $359,183 $117,155

Forpipe size of one inchor less, the irrigation capital expansion fee will be based upon meterequivalent size. Example: 1" pipe = 1.0" meter size.

(d) Thewater, wastewater and irrigation system utility capital expansion fees shall be paid as provided in§ 2-22 above.

SECTION 2. The City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Administration, Division 2, UtilityCapital Expansion Fee,Section 2-24.6, Review of Fee Structure, is hereby amendedas follows:

§ 2-24.6 Review of fee structure.

(a) The utility capital expansion fee structure shall be reviewed by the City Council every three years.Beginning on January 1,2007, the city shall commence a three year utility capital expansion fee updatecycle. In accordance with this cycle, the City Manager or designee shall prepare a comprehensive re-analysis of the utility capital expansion fees and present the study and revised ordinance to the CityCouncil prior to October 1, 2007, for implementation January 1 of each successive year.

(b) Impact fees shall be based on the most recent and localized data and the accounting and reporting ofimpact fee revenues and expenditures in a separate fund. The impact fees shall limit administrativecharges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs and the City shall provide 90 days' noticebefore imposing an increased impact fee. The Citv shall file an affidavit with the Auditor Generaleach year along with the City's audit stating the City has complied with Florida Statutes Section163.31801.

In each of the two mid-cycle years (between die formal dircc-ycar updates), the City Manager ordesignee will prepare and present to the City Council for approval, modification or denial,automatically adjusted utility capital expansion fees to account for cost inflation. If approved by CityCouncil, the first automatic update of the fees shall become effective on January 1, 2009. The CityManager or his or her designee shall calculate adjustments to the utility capital expansion fee ratesbased upon:

The percentage change in the engineering news/record construction cost index for thepreceding 12 month period; and

f2) The percentage change in the city-wide total just land value established by die Lee Countyproperty appraiser's office. The construction cost index factor shall be weighted 90% and theland cost factor shall be weighed ten percent in determining the percentage adjustment to beapplied to die utility capital expansion fees.

SECTION 3. Severability. In the event that any portion or Section of this ordinance is determined to beinvalid, illegal or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall in no manner affectthe remaining portions or Sections of this ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 90 days after its adoption by the CapeCoral City Council.

ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CUT OF CAPE CORAL AT ITS REGULAR SESSION THIS

DAY OF ,2016.

MARNI L. SAWICKI, MAYOR

VOTE OF MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS:

SAWICKI

BURCH

CARIOSCIA

STOUT

LEON

ERBRICK

WILLIAMS

COSDEN

ATTESTED TO AND FILED IN MY OFFICE THIS DAY OF

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

BRIAN R. BARTOS

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYord\Utility Capital Expansion Fees Revised 9-30-16

REBECCA VAN DEUTEKOM

CITY CLERK

.,2016.

TTHHEE CCIITTYY OOFF CCAAPPEE CCOORRAALL

WWAATTEERR,, WWAASSTTEEWWAATTEERR,, AANNDD IIRRRRIIGGAATTIIOONN IIMMPPAACCTT FFEEEE SSTTUUDDYY

AApprriill 2211,, 22001166

Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants

Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants

K:\CV\1062-08\Rpts\Report\Final Impact Fee Report

341 NORTH MAITLAND AVENUE - SUITE 300 - MAITLAND, FL 32751 TELEPHONE: (407) 628-2600 FAX: (407) 628-2610 EMAIL: [email protected]

April 21, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Cape Coral P.O. Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915-0027 Subject: Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Impact Fee Study Ladies and Gentlemen: We have completed our study of the capital expansion fees also known as impact fees for the City of Cape Coral's (the "City") water, wastewater and irrigation system (the "System") and have summarized the results of our analysis, assumptions, and recommendations in this report, which is submitted for your consideration. This report provides a basis for the updated impact fees recommended for the System that are based on the cost of capital expenditures for both existing and new facilities that provide capacity to serve new development. The proposed charges have been designed to meet a number of goals and objectives. Specifically, the major objectives used to develop the impact fees proposed in this study include:

The impact fees are designed to recover the capital costs associated with providing water, wastewater and irrigation capacity to new development;

The impact fees are not used to fund deficiencies in the capital needs of the System (i.e., no costs for renewal and replacement of facilities serving existing customers are included);

The impact fees are based upon the City’s adopted level of service standards that are designed to meet the needs of the City’s customers and , are indicative of the criteria used for long term infrastructure planning, and are similar to industry standards; and

The proposed impact fees are comparable to the level of such fees charged by neighboring utility systems.

Based on information provided by the City and the assumptions and considerations outlined in this report, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. considers the proposed impact fees to be cost-based, reasonable, and representative of the identified capital funding and level of service requirements of the system.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Cape Coral, Florida April 21, 2016 Page 2

K:\CV\1062-08\Rpts\tReport\Final Impact Fee Report

Following this letter, we have provided an Executive Summary of the report that outlines our observations and conclusions. The accompanying report provides additional details regarding the analyses conducted on behalf of the City. We appreciate the cooperation and assistance given to us by the City and its staff in the completion of the study. Respectfully submitted,

Public Resources Management Group, Inc. Henry L. Thomas Senior Vice President Murray M. Hamilton, Jr. Supervising Consultant HLT/mmh Attachments

K:\CV\1062-08\Rpts\DraftReport\Final Impact Fee Report -i-

CITY OF CAPE CORAL, FLORIDA

WATER, WASTEWATER, AND IRRIGATION IMPACT FEE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Description Page No. Letter of Transmittal

Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... i

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................... ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................ES-1

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1-1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

Criteria for Impact Fees .................................................................................................. 1-1

SECTION 2 – DEVELOPMENT OF WATER, WASTEWATER, AND IRRIGATION IMPACT FEES ................................................................................................................. 2-1

General ............................................................................................................................ 2-1

Existing Impact Fees ....................................................................................................... 2-1

Impact Fee Methods ....................................................................................................... 2-2

Design of Impact Fees .................................................................................................... 2-4

Level of Service Requirements ............................................................................... 2-4

Existing Plant-in-Service ......................................................................................... 2-5

Additional Capital Investment ................................................................................. 2-8

Design of Water Impact Fee .................................................................................... 2-9

Design of Irrigation Impact .................................................................................... 2-11

Water & Irrigation Impact Fee Application Methodology and Proposed Fees ...... 2-13

Design of Wastewater Impact Fee .......................................................................... 2-13

Wastewater Impact Fee Application Methodology and Proposed Fees ................. 2-17

Comparison with Other Utilities ............................................................................ 2-18

K:\CV\1062-08\Rpts\Report\Final Impact Fee Report -ii-



LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description

1 Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility System

2 Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility Function

3 Summary of Existing Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets

4 Summary of Existing Fixed Assets Included in Impact Fees

5 Development of Impact Fee Credits

6 Allocation of Planned Water Capital Improvements

7 Allocation of Planned Irrigation Capital Improvements

8 Allocation of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements

9 Development of Water System Impact Fee

10 Development of Irrigation System Impact Fee

11 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees

12 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee

13 Summary of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees

14

Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Single Family Service

15 Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Single Service

16 Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Dual Service

17 Comparison of Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service

K:\CV\1062-08\Rpts\Report\Final Impact Fee Report ES-1



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of water, wastewater and irrigation capital expansion or impact fees is to assign, to the extent practical, growth-related capital costs to those new customers responsible for such costs. To the extent new development imposes identifiable capital investments necessary to provide water, wastewater and irrigation system capacity, modern capital funding practices support the assignment of charges to those responsible for such costs. Municipalities and other utilities, including the City, have recognized this strategy as being an appropriate method of funding the capital requirements that are a result of development and growth within the service area of the system. The existing water, wastewater, and irrigation impact fees for the City of Cape Coral (the "City") were made effective by the City during Fiscal Year 2012 following a comprehensive impact fee study. The City has retained Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) to review the impact fee levels and recommend appropriate adjustments. The following is a summary of the observations and recommendations developed by PRMG during our investigation, analyses, and preparation of this study: 1. The imposition of impact fees must satisfy the rational nexus requirements as determined

by case law whereby the benefits received by the applicant (new development) must be reasonably related to the capital cost of providing utility services. The proposed impact fees are designed to meet this criteria based on the information made available by the City.

2. The Level of Service (LOS) standards utilized in the development of the water, wastewater, and irrigation impact fees in this report are predicated upon the City's current planning criteria identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan – Goals, Objectives, and Policies. The amounts reflect the average demand on each utility system per equivalent residential unit (ERU), which are summarized below:

Level of Service per ERU

Water System 200 gpd Irrigation System 658 gpd Wastewater System 200 gpd __________ ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit (gpd) = gallons per day – average daily flow basis


3. The development of the capital costs included in the derivation of the proposed impact fees is based on the improvement driven method to establish impact fees, which includes the cost of existing and future facilities. The fees are, generally, predicated on the actual cost of the utility plant-in-service that has been constructed by the City as of September 30, 2014, which has capacity available to serve future development (growth), and any future expansion-related improvements planned for by the City through Fiscal Year 2025.

a. Specifically, this study includes the City's actual and projected investments to provide

water and wastewater treatment capacity, water transmission, and wastewater collection services, including irrigation services. Additional capital improvements, upgrades and expansions have been completed since the existing impact fees were adopted. The City has approximately 79% of its current water treatment capacity and 55% of its current wastewater treatment capacity available to serve new growth.

4. The existing impact fees collected by the City for new water, wastewater and irrigation connections became effective in Fiscal Year 2012. Based on the assumptions and considerations provided for in Section 2 of this report, the existing fees require adjustment to better reflect the City's actual and projected investments in plant and transmission capacity allocable to new customer growth. The following tables summarize the existing and proposed impact fees:

Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees [1]

Existing Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees Single Dual Metered Service Single Dual Metered Service

Utility Service Metered

Service [2] Water [3] Irrigation Total Metered

Service [2] Water [3] Irrigation Total Single Family Residence

(5/8" Meter) $2,274 $1,516 $758 $2,274 $3,003 $1,320 $2,790 $4,110 Multi-Family (Per

Dwelling Unit) $1,569 $1,046 $523 $1,569 $2,072 $911 $1,925 $2,836 Residential (if applicable),

Non-Residential 5/8" Meter $2,274 $1,516 $758 $2,274 $3,003 $1,320 $2,790 $4,110 1.0" Meter $5,685 $3,791 $1,894 $5,685 $7,508 $3,301 $6,971 $10,272 1.5" Meter $11,370 $7,581 $3,789 $11,370 $15,015 $6,601 $13,946 $20,547 2.0" Meter $18,192 $12,130 $6,062 $18,192 $24,024 $10,562 $22,313 $32,875 3.0" Meter $36,384 $24,260 $12,124 $36,384 $48,048 $21,123 $44,625 $65,748 4.0" Meter $56,850 $37,906 $18,944 $56,850 $75,075 $33,005 $69,728 $102,733 6.0" Meter $113,700 $75,811 $37,889 $113,700 $150,150 $66,010 $139,460 $205,470 8.0" Meter $181,920 $121,298 $60,622 $181,920 $240,240 $105,616 $223,134 $328,750 10.0" Meter $261,510 $174,366 $87,144 $261,510 $345,345 $151,823 $320,754 $472,577 12.0" Meter $352,470 $235,015 $117,455 $352,470 $465,465 $204,630 $432,321 $636,951

__________ [1] Existing and Proposed Fees derived from Table 11. [2] Fee required if customer does not hook up to the irrigation system. [3] Fee paid in conjunction with irrigation impact fee if customer hooks up to irrigation system.

(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)


Summary of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees [1]

Existing Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees Sewer Sewer District 2 Sewer Sewer District 2

Utility Service District 1 Major Local Total District 1 Major Local Total Single Family Residence

(5/8" Meter) $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $2,529 $2,529 $583 $3,112 Multi-Family (Per

Dwelling Unit) $2,030 $2,030 $1,114 $3,144 $1,745 $1,745 $402 $2,147 Residential (if applicable),

Non-Residential 5/8" Meter $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $2,529 $2,529 $583 $3,112 1.0" Meter $7,155 $7,155 $4,035 $11,190 $6,323 $6,323 $1,458 $7,781 1.5" Meter $14,308 $14,308 $8,070 $22,378 $12,643 $12,643 $2,915 $15,558 2.0" Meter $22,893 $22,893 $12,912 $35,805 $20,229 $20,229 $4,664 $24,893 3.0" Meter $45,786 $45,786 $25,824 $71,610 $40,459 $40,459 $9,328 $49,787 4.0" Meter $71,541 $71,541 $40,350 $111,891 $63,217 $63,217 $14,575 $77,792 6.0" Meter $143,081 $143,081 $80,700 $223,781 $126,433 $126,433 $29,150 $155,583 8.0" Meter $228,930 $228,930 $129,120 $358,050 $202,293 $202,293 $46,640 $248,933 10.0" Meter $329,087 $329,087 $185,610 $514,697 $290,797 $290,797 $67,045 $357,842 12.0" Meter $443,552 $443,552 $250,170 $693,722 $391,944 $391,944 $90,365 $482,309

__________ [1] Existing and Proposed Fees derived from Table 13.

5. The City provides two (2) types of service regarding water services: i) Single Metered

Water Service; and ii) Dual Metered Water Service. Single Metered Service provides potable water service for both indoor domestic use and discretionary irrigation use through one meter. Dual Metered Service provides indoor domestic water service through a potable water meter while providing irrigation service through a separate connection (currently un-metered). For Single Metered Residential Service and Dual Metered Residential Service, the existing and combined water impact fees are equal, or $2,274 per ERU for both services. Under the proposed impact fees, the Single Metered Residential Service fee represents an increase of $729, or 32%, and the Dual Metered Residential Service fee (including irrigation service) represents an increase of $1,836 or 81%. The higher proposed increase in the Dual Metered Service fees reflect the greater amount of water used (demand) within the irrigation system.

Within the City’s wastewater system, the City maintains two (2) impact fee districts, or zones, including Sewer District 1 and Sewer District 2. Sewer District 2 is made up of the City’s most recent and current expansion areas, beginning with the Southwest 4 Utility Extension Area and extends through the North 8 Utility Extension Area. Sewer District 1 includes all areas constructed prior to the Southwest 4 Utility Extension Area, which generally accounts for infill development within older areas of the City. The City’s existing wastewater impact fees include two (2) charges: 1) a major fee that is applicable to both Sewer Districts 1 and 2, and recovers the wastewater treatment and major transmission costs shared by the two (2) impact fee zones; and 2) a local fee that is applicable to only Sewer District 2, which recovers certain local investments by the City that were not included within the collection area assessment when the Sewer District 2 Utility Extension Areas were constructed. Generally, the local area costs that were excluded from the collection area assessment included small lift station costs and local force mains that were


less than ten (10) inches in diameter. In comparison to the major fee for Sewer Districts 1 and 2, all local facility costs were excluded from the major impact fee and the appropriate local costs were directly assigned to Sewer District 2. No local facility costs were allocable to Sewer District 1 since such costs were either funded from collection area assessments or constructed by a developer.

The proposed major wastewater impact fee that applies to both Sewer Districts 1 and 2 represents a decrease of $333 per ERU or 12%. The proposed local wastewater impact fee that applies only to Sewer District 2 represents a decrease of $1,031 or 64%. If adopted, the combined major and local fees for Sewer District 2 are proposed to decrease $1,364 per ERU or 30%.

Table 14, at the end of this report, provides a comparison of the existing to proposed fees for Single Family Service, for both Single and Dual Metered Water Service, and for each wastewater impact fee zone, including Sewer Districts 1 and 2. While the City expects to benefit from certain infill development that may comprise of Single Metered Water Service within Sewer District 1, generally, most new development is projected to occur in Sewer District 2 and include Dual Metered Water Service. Dual Metered Water Service provides indoor domestic water service through a potable water meter while providing irrigation service through a separate connection. Based on the recommendations of this study, as shown in Table 14, the proposed fees for Dual Metered Water Service in Sewer District 2 are proposed to increase $472 per ERU or 7% when compared to the existing fees. As shown in Table 14, the combined fees for Sewer District 1 are proposed to increase when compared to the current charges, but will remain approximately 8% less than the Sewer District 2 fees.

The proposed fees are based on the actual and planned investments by the City to serve the needs of future growth within the System. Please refer to Section 2 of this report for a complete discussion on how the proposed fees were developed.

6. As shown in Table 14 of this report, the proposed combined fees for Sewer District 1 are $5,532 and $6,639 for Single Metered and Dual Metered Water Service, respectively, which are approximately 8% less than the Sewer District 2 fees, since they exclude the local charge of $583 per ERU. The following table provides a comparison of the proposed impact fees to charges collected by other jurisdictions. This comparison includes the Sewer District 2 fees associated with new water and wastewater service which is the service area where the City’s planned expansions will occur:



Comparison of Sewer District 2 Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service [1]

Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Description Water Wastewater Combined

City of Cape Coral, Florida Single Service (Water and Wastewater Fees)

Existing Impact Fees $2,274 $4,476 $6,750 Proposed Impact Fees 3,003 3,112 6,115

Dual Service (Water & Irrigation and Wastewater Fees)

Existing Impact Fees $2,274 $4,476 $6,750 Proposed Impact Fees 4,110 3,112 7,222

Other Florida Utilities:

City of Fort Myers $2,023 $1,966 $3,989 City of Naples 1,416 2,324 3,740 City of North Port 1,735 2,388 4,123 City of Punta Gorda 2,824 2,463 5,287 Charlotte County 1,780 2,350 4,130 Collier County 2,600 2,515 5,115 DeSoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050 Englewood Water District 2,074 2,850 4,924 FGUA - Lehigh Acres System (Lee County) 2,696 2,839 5,535 Gasparilla Island Water Association, Inc. 4,018 2,793 6,811 Hillsborough County 1,750 1,800 3,550 Lee County 2,440 2,660 5,100 Manatee County 1,345 1,580 2,925 Sarasota County 2,720 2,627 5,347

Survey Average $2,238 $2,521 $4,759 __________ [1] Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 2015 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise

fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility.

7. The application of impact fees for non-residential customers is typically based on methods

used to relate non-residential service demands on an ERU basis. The primary methods used by utilities to estimate non-residential customer demands or capacity requirements include equivalent meter size, average demand based on a meter and lateral size basis, and average demand based on specific customer attributes such as the number of seats in a restaurant or the number of water fixtures. All three methods are used by utilities throughout the State of Florida and all satisfy the requirements for developing a valid impact fee methodology. The City currently uses the meter based approach to estimate non-residential customer demands on the water, wastewater and irrigation systems, which reflects an implied level of demand based purely on the meter size of the new customer. Based on discussions with City staff, no changes to this method are currently proposed.


K:\CV\1062-08\Rpts\Report\Final Impact Fee Report 1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

The City of Cape Coral's water, wastewater and irrigation utility systems, as well as other publicly-owned utility systems, must make significant capital commitments necessary to expand system facilities to serve new growth. The utility business is capital intensive and requires the commitment of significant resources in advance of the growth in demand. In addition, system improvements and regulatory compliance also require significant capital expenditures in today's utility business environment. Further, the impact of inflation on system operating expenses and on the cost of new and replacement facilities results in upward pressure on monthly utility user rates. The compelling capital needs associated with the utility business and the desire to help control the increase in monthly utility user rates and charges have resulted in the use of funding alternatives such as impact fees to finance, in part at least, the capital cost of system capacity. An impact fee is a charge imposed on new users of real property to help finance the capital cost of constructing public facilities necessary to serve new residents. The purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth-related capital costs to those new residents or users responsible for such additional costs. The impact fee can be considered to be a new user's contribution to those facilities or capital costs that are required in order to provide a comparable level of service to that which is being provided to existing customers. CRITERIA FOR IMPACT FEES

To the extent new population growth and associated development imposes identifiable capital costs to utility services, modern capital funding practices support the assignment of such charges to those residents or system users responsible for those costs rather than the existing customers of the system. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way" to avoid burdening existing users with the cost of expansion required to serve new growth. Within the State of Florida, a recently adopted statute authorizes the use of impact fees, which was developed based on case law before the Florida courts and broad grants of power including the home rule power of Florida counties and municipalities. Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes was created on June 14, 2006, and amended in 2009 and 2011. This section is referred to as the "Florida Impact Fee Act." Within this section, the Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes further provides that an impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality or by resolution of a special district must, at a minimum: 1. Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized

data;

2. Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee revenues and expenditures in a separate accounting fund;


3. Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs;

4. Require that notice be provided no less than ninety (90) days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased impact fee; and

5. Requires an affidavit addressed to the Auditor General that the utility has complied with this statute.

This section is further reinforced through existing Florida case law and the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act that grants Florida municipalities the governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services, as limited by legislation or as prohibited by state constitution or general law. Florida courts have ruled that the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act grants the requisite power and authority to establish valid impact fees. The authority for Florida governments to implement valid system impact fees is further granted in the Florida Growth Management Act of 1985[1]. The initial precedent for impact fees in Florida was set in the Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas Authority v. The City of Dunedin, Florida. In this case, the Court's ruling found that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact fees, could be levied for a specific purpose by a Florida municipality as a capital charge for services. An impact fee should not be considered as a special assessment or an additional tax. A special assessment is predicated upon an estimated increase in property value as a result of an improvement being constructed in the vicinity of the property. Further, the assessment must be directly and reasonably related to the benefit which the property receives. Conversely, impact fees are not related to the value of the improvement to the property, but rather to the property's use of the public facility. Impact fees are distinguishable from taxes primarily in the direct relationship between amount charged and the measurable quantity of public facilities required. In the case of taxation, there is no requirement that the payment be in proportion to the quantity of public services consumed since tax revenue can be expended for any legitimate public purpose. Based on Section 163.31801 of the Florida Statutes and existing Florida case law, certain conditions are required to develop a valid impact fee. Generally, it is our understanding that these conditions involve the following issues: 1. The impact fee must meet the "dual rational nexus" test. First, impact fees are valid when a

reasonable impact or rationale exists between the anticipated need for additional capital facilities and the growth in customers served by the utility. Second, impact fees are valid when a reasonable association, or rational nexus, exists between the expenditure of the capital charge proceeds and the benefits accruing to the growth from those proceeds.

[1] The Act allows for impact fees under land use regulation by stating:

“This section shall be construed to encourage the use of innovative land development regulations which include provisions such as the transfer of development rights, incentive and inclusionary zoning, planned unit development, impact fees, and performance zoning.” [Florida Statutes, Sec. 163.3202(3)].


2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users.

3. The impact fee should only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for capital expansions or other additional capital requirements that are required solely due to growth. Therefore, expenses due to rehabilitation or replacement of a facility serving existing customers (e.g., replacement of a capital asset) or an increase in the level of service should be borne by all users of the facility (i.e., existing uses and future growth). Also, increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that facility should be borne by the users of the facility.

4. The City should maintain an impact fee resolution that explicitly restricts the use of impact fees collected. Therefore, impact fee revenue should be set aside in a separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes described above.

Based on the criteria above, the proposed impact fees, which are set forth in Section 2 herein: i) include only the capital cost of facilities constructed to serve customer growth; ii) do not reflect costs associated with renewal and replacement of any existing capital assets (except for any portion allocable to growth); and iii) do not include any costs of operation and maintenance of any facilities. As can be seen above, the courts and recent legislation have addressed three areas associated with the development of the impact fees. These areas include: i) the "fair share" concept dealing with payment of the fee by the affected property owners; ii) the "rational nexus" concept, which focus on the expenditure or purpose of the fee; and iii) the consideration of credits, which recognize appropriate fee offsets. The fair share concept addresses that the fee can only be used for capital expenditures that are attributable to new growth. The fee cannot be used to finance level of service deficiencies or the replacement of existing facilities required to provide services to existing users. Typical industry practices also allow for establishing different fees for different classes of customers and the ability for the payment of a reduced impact fee if applicants can demonstrate that their development will have smaller impact (or capital requirement) than assumed in the fee determination. Additionally, the fair share concept recognizes that the cost of facilities used by both existing customers and new growth must be apportioned between the two user groups with respect to fee utilization or expenditure such that the user groups are treated equally and one group does not subsidize the other. The rational nexus concept requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the need for capital facilities (which deals with level of service) and the capacity benefits to be received by new growth for which the fee will be expended. There are two conditions that limit where and when an impact fee can be collected and used. With respect to the first condition, although there is no specific limit as to distance between an applicant paying the fee and the capital expenditure to be constructed by the fee, there should be a geographical relationship between fee collection and use. With the exception of certain localized facilities associated with Sewer District 2,


where cost is being recouped through a separate capital expansion / impact fee charge (the local wastewater impact fee), the City's capital improvement program and the overall management of the system are considered to be system-wide and not based on specific utility zones or geographical areas (the major wastewater impact fee and all water and irrigation impact fees). As such, the impact fees are developed on a system-wide cost basis. The second nexus condition recognizes that the property must receive a benefit from the public services for which the fee is being applied. With respect to the water, wastewater and irrigation fees, these facilities are used by and are constructed on behalf of all the property within the City's service area and benefit both residential and commercial customers. As such, all new customers requiring capacity from the system (either water, wastewater and/or irrigation) are subject to the application of the impact fees. Credit or fee offsets recognize that if an agency has received property in the form of cost-free capital or there is specific revenue (taxes) that will be used for the capital expenditures necessitated by new growth, a credit should be applied to the impact fee. Examples of cost free capital include grants, contributions by developers, and other sources, which provide funds for the capital expenditures. The credit rule allows for the recovery of costs from new development through impact fees, net of such cost-free capital. Section 2 of this report provides a general discussion of the methodology used in the development of the proportionate charge for new water, wastewater and irrigation services. Included is a discussion of the methods and major assumptions used in the development of the calculated and proposed capital charges for water, wastewater and irrigation service.



SECTION 2

DEVELOPMENT OF WATER, WASTEWATER, AND IRRIGATION IMPACT FEES

GENERAL

This section of the report summarizes the basis for the development of the City's proposed water, wastewater, and irrigation impact fees. Included in this section is a presentation of the existing impact fees, a discussion of the derivation of the proposed impact fees, and a comparison of the existing and proposed charges with other neighboring jurisdictions. EXISTING IMPACT FEES

The existing impact fees for the City's water, wastewater and irrigation systems (the “System”) were made effective in Fiscal Year 2012. The impact fees reflect a one-time charge to new development, which comprise both a plant/supply capacity and transmission component. The impact fees reflect the System level costs and are paid by all new development connecting to the water, wastewater and irrigation systems. The following reflects the existing impact fees for the City:

Summary of Existing Water Impact Fees

Existing Impact Fees Single

Metered Service [1]

Dual Metered Service

Utility Service Water [2] Irrigation Single Family Residence (5/8"

Meter) $2,274 $1,516 $758 Multi-Family (Per Dwelling Unit) $1,569 $1,046 $523 Residential (if applicable), Non-

Residential 5/8" Meter $2,274 $1,516 $758 1.0" Meter $5,685 $3,791 $1,894 1.5" Meter $11,370 $7,581 $3,789 2.0" Meter $18,192 $12,130 $6,062 3.0" Meter $36,384 $24,260 $12,124 4.0" Meter $56,850 $37,906 $18,944 6.0" Meter $113,70 $75,811 $37,889 8.0" Meter $181,920 $121,298 $60,622 10.0" Meter $261,510 $174,366 $87,144 12.0" Meter $352,470 $235,015 $117,455

__________ [1] Fee required if customer does not hook up to irrigation system. [2] Fee paid in conjunction with irrigation impact fee if customer hooks up to irrigation system.



Existing Wastewater Impact Fees

Sewer Sewer District 2 Utility Service District 1 Major Local Total

Single Family Residence (5/8" Meter) $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 Multi-Family (Per Dwelling Unit) $2,030 $2,030 $1,114 $3,144 Residential (if applicable), Non-Residential

5/8" Meter $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 1.0" Meter $7,155 $7,155 $4,035 $11,190 1.5" Meter $14,308 $14,308 $8,070 $22,378 2.0" Meter $22,893 $22,893 $12,912 $35,805 3.0" Meter $45,786 $45,786 $25,824 $71,610 4.0" Meter $71,541 $71,541 $40,350 $111,891 6.0" Meter $143,081 $143,081 $80,700 $223,781 8.0" Meter $228,930 $228,930 $129,120 $358,050 10.0" Meter $329,087 $329,087 $185,610 $514,697 12.0" Meter $443,552 $443,552 $250,170 $693,722

IMPACT FEE METHODS

There are several different methods generally recognized for the calculation of impact fees. The calculation is dependent on the type of charge being calculated (e.g., water, police services, transportation, etc.), cost and engineering data available, and the availability of other local data such as household and population projections, current levels of service, and other related items. There are two general methods for calculating impact fees: i) the improvements-driven method and ii) the standards-driven method. Both methods have been utilized in the development of impact fees for local governments in Florida. The improvements-driven method is an approach that utilizes a specific list of recently completed and/or planned capital improvements over a period of time. This approach is typically used for utility impact fees. The charge corresponds to the level of capital improvements, which have been expended or are identified in the capital improvements element of a local government's Comprehensive Land Use Plan or capital improvement budget of the utility. The standards-driven method does not utilize the cost of improvements based on anticipated needs, but rather on the theoretical cost of the improvements for incremental development. For example, the standards-driven method for an impact fee would consider the theoretical cost of new facilities to establish the cost. The standards-driven method is often used for transportation. The primary difference between the two methodologies is how the capital costs are calculated. Both methods have their advantages and disadvantages as summarized below: Improvements-Driven Method Advantages:

It is based on recently completed and/or anticipated capital improvements, thus providing a direct relationship between the level of the impact fee and the expenditure.


The use of charges can be shown to be attributable to growth based on the nature of the specific expenditures incurred and/or anticipated as part of the utility’s capital improvement plan.

Improvements-Driven Method Disadvantages:

Due to limited planning information, the impact fee may be based on an intermediate range forecast of capital improvements (e.g., five years), which may not fully reflect the level of cost associated with meeting the needs of new growth since major capital improvements needed to serve new growth may be beyond the time frame of the capital forecast.

The forecast of capital improvements required for new development is still an estimate of cost and is subject to revisions and update.

It may be difficult to apportion the cost of specific improvements between existing deficiencies, upgrades benefiting both existing and future customers, and additional capacity to serve new growth.

Standards-Driven Method Advantages:

The charge is based on a certain level of service and type of facility, and it may be easier to estimate the cost of the capital facilities based on level of service.

The development of the charge does not require a detailed projection of future capital improvements and associated costs, and is more applicable to the needs of a small utility due to constraints of staff and resources.

Standards-Driven Method Disadvantages:

The capital costs for the impact fee may not be associated with anticipated or current capital needs as identified by the utility, thus increasing the potential of not providing a clear relationship between the charge and its use.

The development of the standard for the capital facilities is based primarily on theoretical service levels using engineering, planning, and financial judgment, although this may be somewhat mitigated by the level of service standards included in the comprehensive planning process.

The development of impact fees based on the improvements-driven method is more readily applicable when existing and future capital facilities can be allocated between both current and new users based on reasonable and defensible data and estimates of facility utilization. The improvements-driven method is used by utility systems because this method works well in conjunction with the capital planning process of the utility business. The development of the impact fees in this report is based on the improvements-driven method so that the City may recoup capital costs incurred or planned to be incurred to expand existing


water, wastewater, and irrigation facilities to serve new growth. This approach is based on the existing, but unused capacity that is available from the existing utility plants and facilities required to meet future growth requirements, plus expansion-related improvements through Fiscal Year 2025. DESIGN OF IMPACT FEES

With respect to the approach used to design the City’s water, wastewater and irrigation impact fees, there are two significant components that were addressed. These two components include: i) the level of service to be apportioned to the applicants that request system capacity; and ii) the level or amount of capital costs to be recovered from a new applicant requesting service. Both of these issues are related to the level of the impact fee expressed on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis (which is discussed later in this report). Level of Service Requirements

In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water, wastewater and irrigation services, it is critical that a level of service (LOS) standard is established. Pursuant to Section 163.3164 of the Florida Statutes, the level of service means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by, a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility. Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility. Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to F. S. Section 163.3202(2)(g). As further stated in the F.S. Section 163.3180, each local government shall establish an LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits. Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type or class and not on a system-wide basis. For water, wastewater and irrigation service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity (service) allocable to an ERU expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily flow basis (ADF). The level of service generally represents the amount of capacity allocable to an ERU, whether such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve"). As previously mentioned, an ERU is representative of the average capacity required to service a typical individually metered single-family residential account. This class of users represents approximately eighty percent (80%) of the customers served by the City, and, generally, has the most common level of usage requirements for a specifically metered account. The City's Comprehensive Plan – Goals, Objectives and Policies defines the City's established level of service per water and wastewater ERU as 200 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an ADF basis. The wastewater level of service as adopted excludes 50 gpd per ERU, which serves as an allowance for storm water inflow which enters the wastewater transmission and treatment process through older, failing sewer lines. As discussed later in this report, this storm water allowance is accounted for when considering the (net) amount of existing plant capacity that is estimated to be available to serve future growth. In other words, based on our analysis, we have reserved a portion of the plant capacity to deal with infiltration and inflow problems resulting from aging infrastructure over time. When considering irrigation service, the City has adopted a


service level equal to 658 gpd per ERU based on a review of historical irrigation demands per residential customer. The following table summarizes the service levels used in the calculation of the proposed impact fees:

Level of Service per ERU

Water System 200 gpd Irrigation System 658 gpd Wastewater System 200 gpd __________ ERU = Equivalent Residential Unit gpd = gallons per day – average daily flow basis

Within the water system, capital costs are further allocated between two (2) levels of service: i) Single Metered Water Service; and ii) Dual Metered Water Service. Single Metered Service provides an allocation of water use for both indoor domestic use and discretionary irrigation use through one service meter. Dual Metered Service provides an allocation of indoor domestic water use through a potable water meter while providing irrigation service through a separate connection (currently un-metered). Based on the existing ERU levels adopted by the City for these two (2) service classes, it is estimated that a Single Metered Residential Customer will require approximately 276 gpd of potable water on average for both indoor domestic use and irrigation uses. For Dual Metered Residential Service, it is estimated that 184 gpd of potable water will be required to meet only indoor domestic uses. The combined, weighted average potable water system demand of the two (2) service classes is 200 gpd per ERU. Existing Plant-in-Service

In the determination of the impact fees associated with serving future customers, excess capacity, if any, of the existing utility system available to serve such growth should be considered. Since such capacity is available to serve the near-term incremental growth of the utility system, it is appropriate to evaluate the capacity availability of existing facilities. In order to evaluate the availability of the existing utility plant-in-service to meet future capacity needs, it is necessary to functionalize the plant by specific plant requirement. The functionalization of the existing plant is necessary to: i) identify those assets which should be included in the determination of the impact fees; and ii) to match existing plant type to the capital improvements to meet future service needs. The functional cost categories are based on the purpose of the assets and the service that such assets provide. The following is a summary of the functional cost categories for the utility plant-in-service identified in this report.



Functional Plant Categories

Water & Irrigation Service Wastewater Service Supply/Treatment Treatment/Disposal

Transmission Transmission Distribution Collection

Meter Services Equipment/Other Equipment/Other

It is necessary to functionalize the utility plant into these cost categories so that a proper charge can be developed. Generally, only the costs associated with supply, treatment, disposal, and "backbone" transmission facilities are included in the capital expansion / impact fee, while the City's investment in water distribution lines and wastewater collection lines, including contributed assets and investments within the City's assessment areas (the "Utility Expansion Program Area" or "UEP"), are excluded from such charge. The remaining assets of the City which includes meters and services, minor equipment, and other miscellaneous assets are also excluded from the development of the proposed impact fees. As shown in Table 1 at the end of this report, the City has approximately $1.4 billion in gross assets (total net capital assets plus accumulated depreciation). This amount includes approximately $521 million of investments within the UEP service areas, which are expected to be reimbursed through existing & future utility assessments. Therefore, the net amount of capital facilities, excluding UEP costs, that is allocated by utility function is approximately $854 million as shown below. The classification of the plant assets to each utility function was based on the description (use) of the asset as contained in the City's accounting records, discussions with the City, and judgment. As can be seen below, the majority of the assets are considered to be either treatment plant or transmission-related:

Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility Function [1]

Adjusted – Gross Percent Allocated [2] Amount Allocated Description Capital Assets [1] Treatment Transmission Other [3] Treatment Transmission Other [3]

Water System [4] $351,758,591 73% 13% 14% $256,783,771 $45,728,617 $49,246,203 Wastewater System 502,034,628 75% 12% 13% 376,525,971 60,244,155 65,264,502

Combined System $853,793,219 74% 12% 13% $633,309,742 $105,972,772 $114,510,405 __________ [1] Amounts derived from Table 2 based on the audited financial statements as of September 30, 2014. [2] Amounts based on a detailed listing of the City's asset records. [3] Includes investments in other system assets such as meter services, fire hydrants, vehicles and miscellaneous equipment. Amounts also include

contributed capital provided at no cost to the City. [4] Includes irrigation assets shown separately in Table 4 of this report.

As shown above, and in Table 2 at the end of this report, the City has invested approximately $633 million in water and wastewater treatment capacity and an additional $106 million in back-bone transmission facilities. The City's remaining investment or $115 million reflects capital costs associated with meter services, fire hydrants, vehicles, and minor storage facilities & equipment. Table 3 at the end of this report reconciles the allocated system costs to the amounts reported in the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as of September 30, 2014. The following table summarizes the total gross assets of the water, wastewater and irrigation systems:


Summary of Existing Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets

Gross Capital Assets [1]

Utility Function Water & Irrigation

Wastewater

Existing Assets Included in the Impact Fees Treatment / Supply $256,783,771 $376,525,971 Transmission 45,728,617 60,244,155

Total Embedded Costs Included in the Impact Fees $302,512,388 $436,770,126 Existing Assets Excluded from the Impact Fees

Assessment Area Investments $208,453,285 $312,679,927 Other System Investments [2] 49,246,203 65,264,502

Total Embedded Costs Excluded from the Impact Fees $257,699,488 $377,944,429

Total Existing Fixed Assets by System $560,211,876 $814,714,555

Total Existing System Assets $1,374,926,431 __________ [1] Amounts derived from Table 3 based on the audited financial statements as of September 30, 2014. [2] Includes investments in other system assets such as meter services, fire hydrants, vehicles and miscellaneous equipment.

Amounts also include contributed capital provided at no cost to the City.

As shown on the third line above, only $739 million in treatment and back-bone transmission assets or 54% of the City’s total gross utility assets was included in the impact fee calculation provided in this study. The costs associated with the remaining assets of the System are recovered through property assessments, betterment fees, monthly user rates, and/or direct service-related charges, such as a meter installation fee. Following discussions with City staff, this study recognizes the higher demands placed upon the irrigation system by Dual Metered Service customers, which are estimated to use approximately 658 gpd per ERU or more than 20,000 gallons per month on average. In order to accomplish this task, the treatment/supply and transmission assets shown in Table 3 for the water system that total approximately $303 million were further apportioned to irrigation-only service as shown in Table 4 and as follows:

Summary of Allocated Water and Irrigation Assets Included in Impact Fees

Gross Capital Assets [1] Utility Function Water Irrigation [2]

Existing Assets Included in the Impact Fees Treatment / Supply $245,047,874 $11,735,897Transmission 29,833,574 15,895,043

Total Embedded Costs Included in the Impact Fees $274,881,447 $27,630,941 __________ [1] Amounts derived from Table 4 based on the audited financial statements as of September 30, 2014. [2] Amounts reflect irrigation assets included under the water system in Table 3.



Development of Impact Fee Credits

In order to fund the existing capital improvements of the water, wastewater and irrigation systems, the City used a combination of grant revenues and general fund debt proceeds over time, whereby the general fund debt was repaid with property taxes. Table 5, at the end of this report, summarizes the sources of the cost-free capital that has been received by the City through Fiscal Year 2010. Based on discussions with the City, the City has not received any additional grants beyond Fiscal Year 2010 associated with expansion-related capital improvements. This cost-free capital, which totals approximately $37 million, provides a benefit to both existing and future customers of the System. Based on the estimated ERUs of the water, wastewater and irrigation systems, impact fee credits of $95 per water ERU, $63 per irrigation ERU, and $103 per wastewater ERU are recommended, and were included in the total (net) fees proposed.

Additional Capital Investment

The City is in the process of upgrading and expanding the facilities to provide water, wastewater and irrigation services including improvements associated with treatment, water supply and transmission to serve increasing demand or capacity requirements. In order to develop an impact fee that is consistent with the capital costs of the System, the cost of the City's capital improvements that are anticipated to meet such future needs are reflected in the proposed impact fees. City staff developed a Capital Improvement Plan ("CIP") for Fiscal Years 2015 to 2025, which outlines a number of capital improvements for the water, wastewater and irrigation systems totaling $292 million as shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8 at the end of this report. These improvements are for: i) expansions of the treatment and transmission facilities to meet new growth; ii) upgrades to existing assets which benefit both current and future users of the system (e.g., a transmission line looping for better service reliability); and iii) replacement of assets or capital programs which only benefit current users of the system. As shown below in Tables 6, 7 and 8, the total CIP is estimated at $292 million; however, based on discussions with City staff, only approximately $150 million in capital improvements have been considered in the determination of the proposed impact fees. Generally, for the purposes of calculating the impact fees, the capital plan was reduced by $142 million for projects that are the responsibility of existing customers such as water main replacements and sewer line and lift station rehabilitation. The following table is a summary of projected costs included in the proposed fees:

Summary of Capital Projects Included in Impact Fees

Description Water Irrigation Wastewater Treatment / Supply $19,860,058 $27,684,006 $8,095,173Transmission 14,714,676 38,638,490 41,450,822

Total $34,574,734 $66,322,496 $49,545,995__________ [1] Amounts derived from Tables 6, 7 and 8.



Design of Water Impact Fee

The City provides two (2) levels of service regarding water services: i) Single Metered Water Service; and ii) Dual Metered Water Service. Single Metered Service provides an allocation of water use for both indoor domestic use and discretionary irrigation use through one service meter. Dual Metered Service provides an allocation of indoor domestic water use through a potable water meter while providing irrigation service through a separate connection (currently un-metered), which includes a separate irrigation impact fee. The existing water impact fees for Single Metered Residential Service and Dual Metered Residential Service are $2,274 and $1,516, respectively. As shown in Table 9, the proposed water impact fees are $3,003 for Single Metered Residential Service and $1,320 for Dual Metered Residential Service that represent a $729 increase for Single Service or 32% and a decrease of $196 or 13% for Dual Service, respectively, when compared with the existing charges. The Dual Metered Service is then charged an irrigation impact fee as discussed in the next section. In the development of the proposed water impact fees, several assumptions were utilized in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed water impact fees are as follows: 1. The existing water supply and treatment facilities have approximately 79% existing plant

capacity available to serve new growth based on: i) the design capacity of the existing water treatment plant facilities or 54.1 million gallons per day (MGD) expressed on a maximum daily flow basis (MDF); ii) existing peak to average daily flow relationships of the water system; and iii) the actual average daily flows experienced at the plants for Fiscal Year 2014. Therefore, the proposed impact fee reflects the proportionate share of the existing plant anticipated to be available serve new development.

2. The capital costs identified in the City's CIP are incorporated into the impact fee calculation as appropriate on a project specific basis. Those facilities considered to be entirely allocable to growth are included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For capital expenditures that are solely for the replacement of existing assets to cure existing system deficiencies benefitting existing customers or considered as an on-site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the City by a developer or paid for through an on-site assessment), such amounts are not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of impact fees.

3. The capital costs associated with the transmission system, which benefits both existing and future users, were recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build-out" conditions, the total existing assets (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) were assumed to serve approximately 56% of the total design capacity of the water treatment facilities or 30.1 MGD expressed on a maximum daily flow basis (MDF). This amount is based on the permitted capacity of the Southwest RO WTP and the North RO WTP.


4. The City currently provides reclaimed effluent from its water reclamation facilities that is blended with storm water to help meet the growing irrigation demands throughout the City, and which offsets the City’s need to expand potable water capacity. The cost savings is estimated at $167 million, and as a result, this avoided water capacity cost was applied as a credit to the wastewater system investments to account for the additional source of water supply available for irrigation services. This credit is included as a cost within the water impact fee for Single Metered Service and within the irrigation impact fee for Dual Metered Service.

5. The level of service for a water ERU as provided in the City's Comprehensive Plan – Goals, Objectives and Policies is 200 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow (ADF) basis. Within the water system, capital costs are further allocated between two (2) levels of service: i) Single Metered Water Service; and ii) Dual Metered Water Service. Based on the existing ERU levels adopted by the City for these services, it is estimated that a Single Metered Residential Customer will require approximately 276 gpd of potable water on average, for both indoor domestic use and irrigation uses, or 1.38 ERUs. For Dual Metered Residential Service, it is estimated that 184 gpd of potable water will be required to meet indoor domestic uses only or 0.92 ERUs. The combined, weighted average water system demand of the two (2) service classes is 200 gpd per ERU.

6. For the development of the proposed impact fees, no existing or planned capital facility costs associated with distribution facilities, specifically the UEP service areas, have been included in the calculation of the charge.

7. The proposed water impact fees per ERU were reduced by $95 to account for impact fee credits associated with cost-free capital derived from property taxes and grant revenues.

As shown in Table 9, the analysis utilizes the actual capital costs for the water supply/treatment/transmission system, ERU service requirements, and plant capacity data regarding the water system. The proposed water impact fees are recommended to be $3,003 and $1,320 per ERU for Single Meter and Dual Meter Residential Services, respectively. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the charge, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate are as follows:



Proposed Water Impact Fees [1]

Utility Service

Single Metered Service

Dual Metered

Service[2] Water Supply/Treatment $1,916 $1,175 Water Transmission 355 355

Subtotal Fee 2,271 1,530 Less Impact Fee Credits ($95) ($95)

Calculated Rate $2,176 $1,435 Cost Per Gallon 10.88 7.18 Existing Service Levels 1.38 0.92 Proposed Fee per ERU $3,003 $1,320 __________ [1] Amounts derived from Table 9. [2] An additional irrigation impact fee applies as discussed in the next

section for Dual Metered Service.

Design of Irrigation Impact Fee

As previously mentioned, the City provides two (2) levels of service regarding water services: i) Single Metered Water Service; and ii) Dual Metered Water Service. Single Metered Service provides an allocation of water use for both indoor domestic use and discretionary irrigation use through one service meter. Dual Metered Service provides an allocation of indoor domestic water use through a potable water meter while providing irrigation service through a separate connection (currently un-metered). For Dual Metered Residential Service, the existing irrigation impact fee is $758 per ERU. As shown in Table 10, the proposed irrigation impact fee of $2,790 represents an increase of $2,032. When compared to the combined water and irrigation fees for service, the proposed Dual Metered Residential Service fees are proposed to increase from $2,274 per ERU to $4,110 or 81%. This includes the proposed water impact fee of $1,320 and the proposed irrigation impact fee of $2,790 per ERU. In the development of the proposed irrigation impact fee, several assumptions were utilized in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed irrigation impact fee are as follows: 1. The City currently provides reclaimed effluent from its water reclamation facilities that is

blended with storm water to help meet the growing irrigation demands throughout the City, and which offsets the City’s need to expand potable water capacity. The cost savings is estimated at $167 million, and as a result, this avoided water capacity cost was applied as a credit to the wastewater system investments to account for the additional source of water supply available for irrigation services. This credit is included as a cost within the water impact fee for Single Metered Service and within the irrigation impact fee for Dual Metered Service.


2. Based on discussion with City staff, the irrigation system is expected to provide a capacity of up to 41.3 million gallons per day (MGD) by Fiscal Year 2025 and up to 81.0 MGD at build-out; expressed on an average daily flow basis (ADF). As shown in Table 10 of this report, the build-out capacity was used to apportion the avoided water costs as applied to the irrigation impact fee, while the projected capacity as of Fiscal Year 2025 was used to apportion the existing and projected investments in storage, pumping and transmission facilities necessary to provide current and near-term irrigation service demands as discussed below.

3. The capital costs identified in the City's CIP are incorporated into the impact fee calculation as appropriate on a project specific basis. Those facilities considered to be entirely allocable to growth are included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For capital expenditures which are solely for the replacement of existing assets to cure existing System deficiencies benefiting existing customers or considered as an on-site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the City by a developer or paid for through an on-site assessment), such amounts are not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of impact fees.

4. The capital costs associated with the storage, pumping and transmission facilities, which benefits both existing and future users, were recognized in the analysis. Since the capacity of these investments are difficult to ascertain except at "build-out" conditions, the total existing assets (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) plus the planned expansions are recognized, thus estimated an average “buy-in” cost for new users for this component of the system. The projected irrigation capacity of 41.3 million gallons per day (MGD) expressed on an average daily flow basis (ADF) through Fiscal Year 2025 was used to apportion these costs.

5. The service level for irrigation services is based upon a recently adopted standard equal to 658 gallons per day (gpd) per ERU expressed on an average daily flow (ADF) basis.

6. For the development of the proposed impact fees, no existing or planned capital facility costs associated with distribution facilities, specifically the UEP service areas, have been included in the calculation of the charge.

7. The proposed irrigation impact fee per ERU was reduced by $63 to account for impact fee credits associated with cost-free capital derived from property taxes and grant revenues.

As shown in Table 10, the analysis utilizes the actual capital costs for the irrigation storage/pumping/transmission system, ERU service requirements, and capacity data regarding irrigation services. The proposed irrigation impact fee is recommended to be $2,790 per ERU. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the charge, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate are as follows:



Proposed Irrigation Impact Fees [1]

Utility Service

Dual Metered Service

Allocated Water Supply Costs $1,356 Irrigation Storage and Pumping 628 Irrigation Transmission 869

Subtotal Fee 2,853 Less Impact Fee Credits ($63)

Proposed Fee per ERU $2,790 Cost Per Gallon 4.24 __________ [1] Amounts derived from Table 10.

Water and Irrigation Impact Fee Application Methodology and Proposed Fees

The application of water and irrigation impact fees for non-residential customers is typically based on methods used to relate customer service demands on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis. The primary methods used by utilities to estimate non-residential customer demands or capacity requirements include equivalent meter size, average demand based on a meter and lateral size basis, and average demand based on specific customer attributes such as the number of seats in a restaurant or water fixture counts. All three methods are used by utilities throughout the State of Florida and all satisfy the requirements for developing a valid impact fee methodology. The City currently uses the meter based approach to estimate non-residential customer demands on the water, wastewater and irrigation systems, which reflects an implied level of demand based purely on the meter size of the new customer. Based on discussions with City staff, no changes to this methodology are recommended. Table 11 at the end of this report provides a listing of the existing and proposed water and irrigation impact fees, which are summarized on the following page:



Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees [1]

Existing Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees Single Dual Metered Service Single Dual Metered Service

Utility Service Metered

Service [2] Water [3] Irrigation Total Metered

Service [2] Water [3] Irrigation Total Single Family Residence

(5/8" Meter) $2,274 $1,516 $758 $2,274 $3,003 $1,320 $2,790 $4,110 Multi-Family (Per

Dwelling Unit) $1,569 $1,046 $523 $1,569 $2,072 $911 $1,925 $2,836 Residential (if applicable),

Non-Residential 5/8" Meter $2,274 $1,516 $758 $2,274 $3,003 $1,320 $2,790 $4,110 1.0" Meter $5,685 $3,791 $1,894 $5,685 $7,508 $3,301 $6,971 $10,272 1.5" Meter $11,370 $7,581 $3,789 $11,370 $15,015 $6,601 $13,946 $20,547 2.0" Meter $18,192 $12,130 $6,062 $18,192 $24,024 $10,562 $22,313 $32,875 3.0" Meter $36,384 $24,260 $12,124 $36,384 $48,048 $21,123 $44,625 $65,748 4.0" Meter $56,850 $37,906 $18,944 $56,850 $75,075 $33,005 $69,728 $102,733 6.0" Meter $113,700 $75,811 $37,889 $113,700 $150,150 $66,010 $139,460 $205,470 8.0" Meter $181,920 $121,298 $60,622 $181,920 $240,240 $105,616 $223,134 $328,750 10.0" Meter $261,510 $174,366 $87,144 $261,510 $345,345 $151,823 $320,754 $472,577 12.0" Meter $352,470 $235,015 $117,455 $352,470 $465,465 $204,630 $432,321 $636,951

__________ [1] Existing and Proposed Fees derived from Table 11. [2] Fee required if customer does not hook up to the irrigation system. [3] Fee paid in conjunction with irrigation impact fee if customer hooks up to irrigation system.

Design of Wastewater Impact Fee

Within the City’s wastewater system, the City maintains two (2) impact fee districts, or zones, including Sewer District 1 and Sewer District 2. Sewer District 2 is made up of the City’s most recent and current expansion areas, beginning with the Southwest 4 Utility Extension Area and extends through the North 8 Utility Extension Area. Sewer District 1 includes all areas constructed prior to the Southwest 4 Utility Extension Area that general accounts infill development within older areas of the City. The City’s existing wastewater impact fees include two (2) charges: 1) major fee that is applicable to both Sewer District 1 and 2, and recovers the wastewater treatment and major transmission costs shared by the two (2) impact fee zones; and 2) a local fee that is applicable to only Sewer District 2, which recovers certain local investments by the City that were not included within the collection area assessment when the Sewer District 2 Utility Extension Areas were constructed. Generally, the local area costs that were excluded from the collection area assessment included small lift station costs and local force mains that were less than ten (10) inches in diameter. In comparison to the major fee for Sewer Districts 1 and 2, all local facility costs were excluded from the major impact fee and the appropriate local costs were directly assigned to Sewer District 2. No local facility costs were allocable to Sewer District 1 since such costs were either funded from collection area assessments or constructed by a developer.

As shown in Table 12, the proposed major wastewater impact fee of $2,529 represents a decrease of $333 per ERU or 12% compared with the existing charge of $2,862, which became effective in Fiscal Year 2012. The major fee applies to both Sewer Districts 1 and 2. The proposed local wastewater impact fee that applies only to Sewer District 2 represents a decrease of $1,031 or 64%. If adopted, the combined major and local fees for Sewer District 2 are proposed to decrease


$1,364 per ERU or 30%. The proposed decreases in the Sewer District 2 wastewater impact fees reflect the actual costs incurred by the City to complete recent expansion-related projects and new estimates provided for in the City’s adopted CIP.

In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fees, several assumptions were utilized in the analysis. The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are as follows: 1. The existing wastewater supply and treatment facilities have approximately 55% existing

plant capacity available to serve new growth based on: i) the design capacity of the existing wastewater treatment plant facilities or 28.4 million gallons per day (MGD); ii) the estimated actual average daily flow experienced at the plants for Fiscal Year 2014; and iii) an allowance of existing plant capacity related to storm water infiltration and inflow. Therefore, the proposed impact fee reflects the proportionate share of the existing plant anticipated to serve new development.

2. The City currently provides reclaimed effluent from its water reclamation facilities that is blended with storm water to help meet the growing irrigation demands throughout the City, and which offsets the City’s need to expand potable water capacity. The cost savings is estimated at $167 million, and as a result, this avoided water capacity cost was applied as a credit to the wastewater system investments to account for the additional source of water supply available for irrigation services. This credit is included as a cost within the water impact fee for Single Metered Service and within the irrigation impact fee for Dual Metered Service.

3. The capital costs identified in the City's CIP are incorporated into the impact fee calculation as appropriate on a project specific basis. Those facilities considered to be entirely allocable to growth are included in the fee determination at full cost (i.e., 100% of the total cost). For capital expenditures which are solely for the replacement of existing assets to cure existing System deficiencies benefiting existing customers or considered as an on-site cost (provide service to a local area such as a development which would normally be constructed and subsequently contributed to the City by a developer or paid for through an on-site assessment), such amounts are not reflected as an appropriate cost to be recovered from the application of impact fees.

4. The capital costs associated with the transmission system, which benefits both existing and future users, were recognized in the analysis. Since the transmission function capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build-out" conditions, the total existing assets (expressed at original cost and not on a replacement or current cost basis) plus the planned expansions are recognized, thus estimated an average “buy-in” cost for new users for this component of the system. The total design capacity of all wastewater treatment facilities in service was used to evaluate the transmission system capacity or 28.4 million gallons per day (MGD) expressed on an annual average daily flow basis (AADF). As discussed in note 1, an allowance was made to account for storm water infiltration and inflow so that the net amount available for future growth was considered.


5. Based on discussions with City staff, the existing and planned transmission facilities include certain local infrastructure costs related to local lift stations and small force mains, less than ten (10) inches in diameter, that only benefit properties in Sewer District 2. Therefore, the total investment in local infrastructure for Sewer District 2 of $20.3 million was removed from the major wastewater component of the impact fee, which is charged to both Sewer Districts 1 and 2, and was then added as a separate charge to Sewer District 2 only.

6. The local wastewater impact fee for Sewer District 2 was derived based on the actual and planned local lift station and small force main needs for the Utilities Extension Areas beginning with Southwest 4 through North 1 and 2 as shown in Table 12 and discussed in footnote 7. The total existing and planned investment in Sewer District 2 as provided by the City, is $20.3 million, which is estimated to serve approximately 34,802 ERUs at build-out. As shown in Table 12, the average local infrastructure cost per ERU for Sewer District 2 is $583.

7. The level of service for a wastewater ERU as provided in the City's Comprehensive Plan – Goals, Objectives and Policies is 200 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow (ADF) basis. This amount excludes 50 gpd of an allowance for infiltration and inflow of storm water, which was used to estimate the net capacity available to serve growth.

8. For the development of the proposed impact fees, no existing or planned capital facility costs associated with collection facilities, specifically the UEP service areas, have been included in the calculation of the charge.

9. The proposed wastewater impact fee per ERU was reduced by $103 to account for impact fee credits associated with cost-free capital derived from property taxes and grant revenues.

As shown in Table 12, the analysis utilizes the actual capital costs for the wastewater treatment/disposal/transmission system, ERU service requirements, and plant capacity data regarding the wastewater system. The proposed major wastewater impact fee, applicable to both Sewer Districts 1 and 2, is recommended to be $2,529 per ERU. Properties within Sewer District 2 are proposed to pay an additional local wastewater impact fee of $583 per ERU. Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the charge, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate are as follows:



Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees [1]

Wastewater Treatment $1,916 Wastewater Transmission 716

Subtotal Fee $2,632 Less Impact Fee Credits (103)

Proposed Major Fee per ERU $2,529

Proposed Local Fee per ERU $583 __________ [1] Amounts derived from Table 12. The Major Fee applies to

both Sewer Districts 1 and 2. An additional local wastewater impact fee of $583 per ERU is proposed for Sewer District 2.

Wastewater Impact Fee Application Methodology and Proposed Fees

The application of wastewater impact fees for non-residential customers is typically based on methods used to relate customer service demands on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis. The primary methods used by utilities to estimate non-residential customer demands or capacity requirements include equivalent meter size, average demand based on a meter and lateral size basis, and average demand based on specific customer attributes such as the number of seats in a restaurant and count of water fixtures. All three methods are used by utilities throughout the State of Florida and all satisfy the requirements for developing a valid impact fee methodology. The City currently uses the meter based approach to estimate non-residential customer demands on the water, wastewater and irrigation systems, which reflects an implied level of demand based purely on the meter size of the new customer. Following conversations with City staff, no changes to this methodology is recommended. Table 13, at the end of this report, provides a listing of the existing and proposed wastewater fees, which are summarized below:

Summary of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees [1]

Existing Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees Sewer Sewer District 2 Sewer Sewer District 2

Utility Service District 1 Major Local Total District 1 Major Local Total Single Family Residence

(5/8" Meter) $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $2,529 $2,529 $583 $3,112 Multi-Family (Per

Dwelling Unit) $2,030 $2,030 $1,114 $3,144 $1,745 $1,745 $402 $2,147 Residential (if applicable),

Non-Residential 5/8" Meter $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $2,529 $2,529 $583 $3,112 1.0" Meter $7,155 $7,155 $4,035 $11,190 $6,323 $6,323 $1,458 $7,781 1.5" Meter $14,308 $14,308 $8,070 $22,378 $12,643 $12,643 $2,915 $15,558 2.0" Meter $22,893 $22,893 $12,912 $35,805 $20,229 $20,229 $4,664 $24,893 3.0" Meter $45,786 $45,786 $25,824 $71,610 $40,459 $40,459 $9,328 $49,787 4.0" Meter $71,541 $71,541 $40,350 $111,891 $63,217 $63,217 $14,575 $77,792 6.0" Meter $143,081 $143,081 $80,700 $223,781 $126,433 $126,433 $29,150 $155,583 8.0" Meter $228,930 $228,930 $129,120 $358,050 $202,293 $202,293 $46,640 $248,933 10.0" Meter $329,087 $329,087 $185,610 $514,697 $290,797 $290,797 $67,045 $357,842 12.0" Meter $443,552 $443,552 $250,170 $693,722 $391,944 $391,944 $90,365 $482,309

__________ [1] Existing and Proposed Fees derived from Table 13.


Comparison with Other Utilities

Tables 14 through 16, at the end of this report, provide a summary of the proposed water, wastewater, and irrigation impact fees for Single Metered Service and Dual Metered Service, respectively. In order to provide additional information to the City regarding the proposed impact fees, included in this report is a comparison of the City's existing and proposed charges with other jurisdictions. Table 17 provides a comparison of the existing and proposed impact fees, for a single-family residential unit (i.e., one ERU) for the City, with fees currently imposed by other municipal/governmental water and wastewater systems. This comparison only includes the Sewer District 2 fees associated with new water and wastewater service since the majority of the new customer growth is expected to occur in this expansion area. A number of factors can affect the level of charges collected by other utilities, including, but not limited to, level of treatment required for service, asset age, density of customer base, level of service adopted by local government, amount of grant (contributions) funds received, and other factors. No in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the affect these factors could have on the fees charged by other utilities or to determine the methods used in the development of the water and wastewater charges imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from the other utilities' charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance recovered through the user charges. As shown in Table 17, the average water and wastewater impact fees, for the other governmental entities selected for this comparison is $4,759 compared to the proposed fee for Sewer District 2 of $6,115 per Single Metered Residential Service and $6,750 per Dual Metered Residential Service.


of 1

City of Cape Coral, FloridaWater, Wastewater, and Irrigation Impact Fee Study

List of Tables

TableNo. Description

1 Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility System

2 Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility Function

3 Summary of Existing Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets

4 Summary of Existing Fixed Assets Included in Imact Fees

5 Development of Impact Fee Credits

6 Allocation of Planned Water Capital Improvements

7 Allocation of Planned Irrigation Capital Improvements

8 Allocation of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements

9 Development of Water System Impact Fee

10 Development of Irrigation System Impact Fee

11 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees

12 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee

13 Summary of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees

14 Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Single Family Service

15 Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Single Service

16 Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Dual Service

17 Comparison of Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service

of 1Table 1City of Cape Coral, Florida

Water, Wastewater, and Irrigation Impact Fee Study

Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility System

Audited Asset Balances [1]Line Total Capital Plus Gross Less Investments Adjusted - Gross Percent Allocated [2] Amount AllocatedNo. Description Assets, net Accumulated Depr. Capital Assets in Assessment Areas Capital Assets Water Wastewater Water Wastewater

1 Total Amount $964,970,535 $409,955,896 $1,374,926,431 $521,133,212 $853,793,219 41% 59% $351,758,591 $502,034,628

Footnotes:[1] Amounts based on the audited financial statements as of September 30, 2014.

[2] Allocation derived from a detailed listing of the City's asset records.



Allocation of Existing Fixed Assets by Utility Function

Line Adjusted - Gross Percent Allocated [2] Amount AllocatedNo. Description Capital Assets [1] Treatment Transmission Other [3] Treatment / Supply Transmission Other [3]

1 Water System $351,758,591 73% 13% 14% $256,783,771 $45,728,617 $49,246,2032 Wastewater System 502,034,628 75% 12% 13% 376,525,971 60,244,155 65,264,502

3 Combined System $853,793,219 74% 12% 13% $633,309,742 $105,972,772 $114,510,705

Footnotes:[1] Amounts derived from Table 1 based on the audited financial statements as of September 30, 2014.

[2] Amounts estimated based on a detailed listing of the City's asset records.

[3] Includes investments in other system assets such as meter services, fire hydrants, vehicles and miscellaneous equipment. Also includes contributed capital.



Summary of Existing Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets

Line Gross Capital Assets [1]No. Utility Function Water Wastewater

Existing Assets Included in the Impact Fees1 Treatment / Supply $256,783,771 $376,525,9712 Transmission 45,728,617 60,244,155

3 Total Embedded Costs Included in the Impact Fees $302,512,388 $436,770,126

Existing Assets Excluded from the Impact Fees4 Assessment Area Investments [2] $208,453,285 $312,679,9275 Other System Investments [3] 49,246,203 65,264,502

6 Total Embedded Costs Excluded from the Impact Fees $257,699,488 $377,944,429

7 Total Existing Fixed Assets by System $560,211,876 $814,714,555

8 Total Existing System Assets $1,374,926,431


[2] Amount derived from Table 1 and allocated between water and wastewater based on detailedlisting of investments within the assessment areas.

[3] Includes investments in other system assets such as meter services, fire hydrants, vehicles and miscellaneous equipment. Also includes contributed capital.



Summary of Existing Fixed Assets Included in Imact Fees

Line Gross Capital Assets [1]No. Utility Function Water Irrigation [2] Wastewater

Existing Assets Included in the Impact Fees1 Treatment / Supply $245,047,874 $11,735,897 $376,525,9712 Transmission 29,833,574 15,895,043 60,244,155

3 Total Embedded Costs Included in the Impact Fees $274,881,447 $27,630,941 $436,770,126


[2] Amounts reflect irrigation assets included in Table 3 under the Water System as provided by the City.

of 1

Table 5City of Cape Coral, Florida


Development of Impact Fee Credits from Grant Revenues and Other Revenue Sources

Line Adjusted Cost Allocation [2] Amount AllocatedNo. Description Amount [1] Adjustments Amount Water System Irrigation System Wastewater System Water System Irrigation System Wastewater System

Grants and Other Revenue Sources

1 Purchase of System through GO Bonds $22,163,924 $0 $22,163,924 60.60% 0.00% 39.40% $13,431,338 $0 $8,732,5862 FY 2003 Gator Slough Project 185,063 0 185,063 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 185,063 03 FY 2004 Gator Slough Project 98,242 0 98,242 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 98,242 04 FY 2005 Reclaimed Water ASR Phase I 50,663 0 50,663 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 50,663 05 FY 2005 Gator Slough Project 332,053 0 332,053 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 332,053 06 FY 2006 Reclaimed Water ASR Phase I 635 0 635 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 635 07 FY 2006 Reuse System Improvements Basins 3, 17 & 18 6,693 0 6,693 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 6,693 08 FY 2006 SE 1 Utility Extension 500,000 (500,000) [3] 0 40.00% 0.00% 60.00% 0 0 09 FY 2006 RO Plant Expansion 1,493,590 0 1,493,590 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,493,590 0 0

10 FY 2006 Sewer Catch Basin Retrofit 55,114 0 55,114 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 55,11411 FY 2006 Gator Slough Project 227,146 0 227,146 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 227,146 012 FY 2007 Everest WRF Expansion 180,000 0 180,000 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 180,00013 FY 2007 Reclaimed Water ASR Wells 84,743 0 84,743 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 84,743 014 FY 2007 North RO Plant Expansion 465,550 0 465,550 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 465,550 0 015 FY 2007 SW RO Plant Expansion 285,000 0 285,000 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 285,000 0 016 FY 2007 Reclaimed Water Distribution 616,000 0 616,000 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 616,000 017 FY 2007 Gator Slough Project 205,328 0 205,328 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 205,328 018 FY 2008 Sewer Catch Basin Retrofit 239,022 0 239,022 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 239,02219 FY 2008 Everest WRF Expansion Phase II 1,242,000 0 1,242,000 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 1,242,00020 FY 2008 Reclaimed Water ASR Wells 32,400 0 32,400 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 32,40021 FY 2008 North RO Plant Expansion 1,734,200 0 1,734,200 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,734,200 0 022 FY 2008 SW RO Plant Expansion 1,350,000 0 1,350,000 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1,350,000 0 023 FY 2008 Reclaimed Water Improvements 2,144,900 0 2,144,900 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 2,144,900 024 FY 2008 Sewer Catch Basin Retrofit 172,629 0 172,629 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 172,62925 FY 2009 SW WRF Expansion Phase III 900,000 0 900,000 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 900,00026 FY 2009 North RO Plant Expansion 2,712,500 0 2,712,500 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2,712,500 0 027 FY 2009 Everest WRF Expansion Phase III 138,000 0 138,000 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 138,00028 FY 2010 to FY 2014 None [4] 0 0 0 33.00% 33.00% 34.00% 0 0 0

29 Total $37,615,395 ($500,000) $37,115,395 $21,472,178 $3,951,466 $11,691,751

30 Projected Total ERUs 225,415 62,766 113,600

31 Proposed Credit per ERU for Grant Funded Capital $95 $63 $103

Footnotes:[1] Amounts derived from information provided in the City's Audited Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2001 to 2010. Based on

discussions with City staff, the City has not received any additional grants beyond Fiscal Year 2010.

[2] Amounts allocated between water, irrigation and wastewater services as provided by the City.

[3] Amounts excluded since such costs are associated with Assessment Area Expenditures.

[4] Based on discussions with City staff.

of 1Table 6


Allocation of Planned Water Capital Improvements

Total Net Amount Total

Line System Estimated Estimated For Future Supply &No. Project Description Type Capital Cost [1] Additions Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Treatment Transmission

Water System

Capital Improvement Program [1]1 WSCP North RO Facility - MWH Expand $73,472 $0 $73,472 $0 $73,472 $73,472 $02 ADM-36 Palm Tree Bl Phase I Upgrade 1,978,681 0 1,978,681 0 1,978,681 0 1,978,6813 ADM-37 Galvanized Pipe Rpl 1A Rehabilitate 8,372 0 8,372 (8,372) [2] 0 0 04 UCD-1 UCD Admin Building Rehabilitate 4,126,011 0 4,126,011 (4,126,011) [2] 0 0 05 ADM-39 Potable Wtr Infr FY14 Upgrade 475,693 0 475,693 0 475,693 0 475,6936 SRO-4 Plant 1 Bld Structure Upg Rehabilitate 736,527 0 736,527 (736,527) [2] 0 0 07 SRO-5 Retrofit Well Field Com Upgrade 756,446 0 756,446 0 756,446 756,446 08 SRO-6 Control System Upgrade Upgrade 1,546,001 0 1,546,001 0 1,546,001 1,546,001 09 SRO-7 Underground Well Feeds Upgrade 193,491 0 193,491 0 193,491 193,491 0

10 SRO-8 Deep Injection Well# IW2 Adds 5,769,767 0 5,769,767 0 5,769,767 5,769,767 011 SRO-9 Whse & Storage Bldg Rehabilitate 750,000 0 750,000 (750,000) [2] 0 0 012 SRO-10 Lightning & Grounding Upgrade 79,220 0 79,220 0 79,220 79,220 013 NRO-5 Deep Injection Well IW1 Adds 7,000,000 0 7,000,000 0 7,000,000 7,000,000 014 NRO-6 Perimeter Wall Upgrade 850,000 0 850,000 0 850,000 850,000 015 NRO-7 Landscaping Upgrade 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 300,000 016 NRO-8 Aux Power Van Loon PS Rehabilitate 940,024 0 940,024 (940,024) [2] 0 0 017 NRO-9 Distribution Sys Automate Upgrade 610,000 0 610,000 0 610,000 0 610,00018 NRO-10 Rehab/Replace Raw Wtr Well Rehabilitate 6,400,000 0 6,400,000 (6,400,000) [2] 0 0 019 ADM-44 Unspecified Projects Rehabilitate 25,159 0 25,159 (25,159) [2] 0 0 020 ADM-46 Palm Tree Phase III Upgrade 1,370,000 0 1,370,000 0 1,370,000 0 1,370,00021 SRO-3 Odor Control Mod Upgrade 505,441 0 505,441 0 505,441 505,441 022 NRO-1 Bulk Diesel Storage Mod Upgrade 246,220 0 246,220 0 246,220 246,220 023 SRO-1 Pit 2 Feed Wtr/Blend Ugd Upgrade 1,340,000 0 1,340,000 0 1,340,000 1,340,000 024 UCD-7 MARS Test Bench Upgrade 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 025 ADM-3 Galvanized Pipe Rpl 3A Rehabilitate 1,788,020 0 1,788,020 (1,788,020) [2] 0 0 026 ADM-4 Galvanized Pipe Rpl 3B Rehabilitate 1,650,000 0 1,650,000 (1,650,000) [2] 0 0 027 ADM-5 Galvanized Pipe Rpl 2A Rehabilitate 1,700,000 0 1,700,000 (1,700,000) [2] 0 0 028 ADM-6 Galvanized Pipe Rpl 2B Rehabilitate 1,350,000 0 1,350,000 (1,350,000) [2] 0 0 029 ADM-38 Fire Sprinkler ConvFY14 Upgrade 337,757 0 337,757 0 337,757 0 337,75730 ADM-8 Fire Sprinkler Conv FY16 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00031 ADM-9 Fire Sprnkler ConvFY17 Upgrade 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,00032 ADM-10 Fire Sprnkler ConvFY18 Upgrade 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,00033 ADM-11 Fire Sprnkler ConvFY19 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00034 ADM-12 Potable Wtr Infr FY15 Upgrade 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,00035 ADM-13 Potable Wtr Infr FY16 Upgrade 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,00036 ADM-14 Potable Wtr Infr F17 Upgrade 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,00037 ADM-15 Potable Wtr Infr FY18 Upgrade 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,00038 ADM-16 Potable Wtr Infr FY19 Upgrade 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,00039 ADM-17 Potable Wtr Infr FY20 Upgrade 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,000 0 300,00040 SRO-2 Plt 2 Bldg Replacement Replace 11,500,000 0 11,500,000 (11,500,000) [2] 0 0 041 NRO-3 Reconst Van Loon PS Bldg Upgrade 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 750,000 042 ADM-30 Irr to PW (F/H) FY15 Upgrade 20,000 0 20,000 (20,000) [2] 0 0 043 ADM-31 Irr to PW (F/H) FY16 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 044 ADM-32 Irr to PW (F/H) FY17 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 045 ADM-33 Irr to PW (F/H) FY18 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 046 ADM-34 Irr to PW (F/H) FY19 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 047 ADM-35 Irr to PW (F/H) FY20 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 048 ADM-53 Irr to PW (F/H) FY21 Upgrade 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 (1,000,000) [2] 0 0 049 NSRO-3 Replace Membranes Rehabilitate 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 (1,500,000) [2] 0 0 050 ADM-50 Palm Tree Phase II Upgrade 1,400,000 0 1,400,000 0 1,400,000 0 1,400,00051 NRO-2 Containment Pits Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 350,000 052 ADM-54 Burnt St Wide-Casing Expand 587,683 0 587,683 0 587,683 0 587,68353 Unspecified Future Projects - Water Rehabilitate 21,000,000 0 21,000,000 (21,000,000) [2] 0 0 0

54 Total Water System $87,313,984 $0 $87,313,984 ($56,994,113) $30,319,872 $19,860,058 $10,459,814

55 UEP Projects56 North Area 1 Potable Water Transmission Expand 764,302 0 764,302 0 764,302 0 764,30257 North Area 2 Potable Water Transmission Expand 3,490,560 0 3,490,560 0 3,490,560 0 3,490,560

58 Total UEP Projects $4,254,862 $0 $4,254,862 $0 $4,254,862 $0 $4,254,862

59 Total Capital Projects $91,568,846 $0 $91,568,846 ($56,994,113) $34,574,734 $19,860,058 $14,714,676

Footnotes: [1] Amounts provided by the City, which were allocated to the Water System.

[2] Amounts reflect replacements of existing infrastructure, meter services or small equipment needs which were excluded from the impact fee calculation.

of 1Table 7


Allocation of Planned Irrigation Capital Improvements


Line System Estimated Estimated For Future Supply &No. Project Description Type Capital Cost [1] Additions Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Treatment Transmission

Irrigation System

Capital Improvement Program [1]1 IRR-14 SW 6/7 Non Assd Util Adds $142,857 $0 $142,857 $0 $142,857 $0 $142,8572 IRR-15 Weir 4 Construction Rehabilitate 1,443,073 0 1,443,073 (1,443,073) [2] 0 0 03 IRR-16 Weir 16 & 17 Const Rehabilitate 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 (1,500,000) [2] 0 0 04 IRR-17 Reuse River Crossing Adds 11,792,131 (790,135) 11,001,996 0 11,001,996 0 11,001,9965 IRR-18 Reuse Main Ext (FGUA) Adds 3,800,000 0 3,800,000 0 3,800,000 0 3,800,0006 IRR-1 Weir Improvements Rehabilitate 4,600,000 0 4,600,000 (4,600,000) [2] 0 0 07 IRR-2 NE 10MG Stor Tank & Pump Expand 12,000,000 0 12,000,000 0 12,000,000 12,000,000 08 IRR-3 SW 5MG Stor Tank & Pump Expand 7,800,000 0 7,800,000 0 7,800,000 7,800,000 09 ADM-45 ASR/IRR Supply FY14 Expand 52,080 0 52,080 0 52,080 52,080 0

10 ADM-49 ASR/IRR Supply FY15 Expand 1,331,926 0 1,331,926 0 1,331,926 1,331,926 011 ADM-26 ASR/IRR Supply FY16 Expand 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 012 ADM-27 ASR/IRR Supply FY17 Expand 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 013 ADM-28 ASR/IRR Supply FY18 Expand 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 014 ADM-29 ASR/IRR Supply FY19 Expand 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 015 ADM-30 ASR/IRR Supply FY20 Expand 100,000 0 100,000 0 100,000 100,000 016 ADM-52 ASR/IRR Supply FY21 Expand 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 017 ADM-XX ASR/IRR Supply FY22 Expand 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 0 3,000,000 3,000,000 018 IRR-7 Sys Improve FY15 Upgrade 11,808 0 11,808 0 11,808 0 11,80819 IRR-8 Sys Improve FY16 Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,00020 IRR-9 Sys Improve FY17 Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,00021 IRR-10 Sys Improve FY18 Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,00022 IRR-11 Sys Improve FY19 Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,00023 IRR-12 Sys ImproveFY20 Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,00024 IRR-13 Sys ImproveFY21 Upgrade 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,000 0 350,00025 IRR-4 NaCIO Storage Rooms Rehabilitate 75,900 0 75,900 (75,900) [2] 0 0 026 Unspecified Future Projects - Irrigation Rehabilitate 15,125,000 0 15,125,000 (15,125,000) [2] 0 0 0

27 Total Irrigation System $68,274,775 ($790,135) $67,484,640 ($22,743,973) $44,740,667 $27,684,006 $17,056,661

28 UEP Projects29 North Area 1 Irrigation Transmission Expand 10,642,082 0 10,642,082 0 10,642,082 0 10,642,08230 North Area 2 Irrigation Transmission Expand 10,939,747 0 10,939,747 0 10,939,747 0 10,939,747


32 Total Capital Projects $89,856,604 ($790,135) $89,066,469 ($22,743,973) $66,322,496 $27,684,006 $38,638,490

Footnotes: [1] Amounts provided by the City, which were allocated to the Irrigation System.


of 1Table 8


Allocation of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements


Line System Estimated Estimated For Future Treatment and Transmission andNo. Project Description Type Capital Cost [1] Additions Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Disposal Lift Station

Wastewater System

Capital Improvement Program [1]1 WSCP Adm SW WR Facility Exp Expand $229,820 $0 $229,820 $0 $229,820 $229,820 $02 WSCP Biosolids Facility - MWH Expand 150,000 0 150,000 0 150,000 150,000 03 UCD-1 UCD Admin Building Rehabilitate 4,126,011 0 4,126,011 (4,126,011) [2] 0 0 04 WRE-3 Everest Landscaping Upgrade 151,519 0 151,519 0 151,519 151,519 05 WRSW-4 SW Operations Building Rehabilitate 5,675,050 0 5,675,050 (5,675,050) [2] 0 0 06 ADM-47 Forcemain I/C Veterans Upgrade 1,600,000 0 1,600,000 0 1,600,000 0 1,600,0007 WRE-5 Building for Analyzers Rehabilitate 300,000 0 300,000 (300,000) [2] 0 0 08 ADM-43 42" Forcemain Intercon Upgrade 2,518,745 0 2,518,745 0 2,518,745 0 2,518,7459 ADM-44 Unspecified Projects Rehabilitate 25,159 0 25,159 (25,159) [2] 0 0 010 ADM-24 Land Purchases Adds 4,056,334 0 4,056,334 0 4,056,334 4,056,334 011 WRSW-1 Chlorine Chamber Ctng Upgrade 125,000 0 125,000 0 125,000 125,000 012 WRE/WRSE-1 ClarifierLaunderTro Upgrade 375,000 0 375,000 0 375,000 375,000 013 WRE-2 Reseal North CI Chamber Upgrade 120,000 0 120,000 0 120,000 120,000 014 WRC-5 LS Odor Control Rehab Rehabilitate 514,000 0 514,000 (514,000) [2] 0 0 015 ADM-1 Smoke Testing I&I Rehabilitate 350,000 0 350,000 (350,000) [2] 0 0 016 WRC-6 Port Generator Awning Upgrade 157,500 0 157,500 0 157,500 157,500 017 WRC-9 LS Rehabs FY12 Rehabilitate 91,567 0 91,567 (91,567) [2] 0 0 018 WRC-8 Plant LS Rehabs FY13 Rehabilitate 22,879 0 22,879 (22,879) [2] 0 0 019 WRE-4 Plant LS Rehab 13 Rehabilitate 171,003 0 171,003 (171,003) [2] 0 0 020 WRSW Plant LS Rehabs FY13 Rehabilitate 70,542 0 70,542 (70,542) [2] 0 0 021 WRC - 7 Rehab Master LS 200 Rehabilitate 921,285 0 921,285 (921,285) [2] 0 0 022 WRC-11 Lift Station Rehabs FY14 Rehabilitate 1,332,030 0 1,332,030 (1,332,030) [2] 0 0 023 WRC-12 Lift Station Rehabs FY16 Rehabilitate 1,487,600 0 1,487,600 (1,487,600) [2] 0 0 024 WRC-13 LS Rehab FY17 Rehabilitate 1,790,352 0 1,790,352 (1,790,352) [2] 0 0 025 WRC-1 Lift Station Rehab FY18 Rehabilitate 2,114,987 0 2,114,987 (2,114,987) [2] 0 0 026 WRC-3 Lift Station Rehab FY19 Rehabilitate 2,452,442 0 2,452,442 (2,452,442) [2] 0 0 027 WRC-4 Lift Station Rehab FY20 Rehabilitate 2,524,709 0 2,524,709 (2,524,709) [2] 0 0 028 WRC-4 Lift Station Rehab FY21 Rehabilitate 2,594,000 0 2,594,000 (2,594,000) [2] 0 0 029 UCD-8 Manhole Rehab FY14 Rehabilitate 354,477 0 354,477 (354,477) [2] 0 0 030 UCD-2 Manhole Rehab FY16 Rehabilitate 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 031 UCD-3 Manhole Rehab FY17 Rehabilitate 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 032 UCD-4 Manhole Rehab FY18 Rehabilitate 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 033 UCD-5 Manhole Rehab FY19 Rehabilitate 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 034 UCD-6 Manhole Rehab FY20 Rehabilitate 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 035 UCD-9 Manhole Rehab FY21 Rehabilitate 500,000 0 500,000 (500,000) [2] 0 0 036 ADM-48 I & I FY15 Upgrade 584,725 0 584,725 0 584,725 0 584,72537 ADM-48 I & I FY16 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00038 ADM-20 I & I FY17 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00039 ADM-21 I & I FY18 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00040 ADM-22 I & I FY19 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00041 ADM-23 I & I FY20 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00042 ADM-51 I & I FY21 Upgrade 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,000 0 500,00043 WRB-1 Compost Process Facility Expand 2,700,000 0 2,700,000 0 2,700,000 2,700,000 044 WRSW-2 Repave S Entrance SWRF Rehabilitate 15,000 0 15,000 (15,000) [2] 0 0 045 WRSW-6 Rpl Utility Mains MCC-1 Upgrade 150,000 0 150,000 0 150,000 0 150,00046 WRSW-3 Replace Gate & Actr Upgrade 30,000 0 30,000 0 30,000 30,000 047 ADM-54 Burnt St Wide-Casing Expand 587,683 0 587,683 0 587,683 0 587,68348 Unspecified Future Projects - Sewer Rehabilitate 30,955,000 0 30,955,000 (30,955,000) [2] 0 0 0

49 Total Wastewater System $77,424,418 $0 $77,424,418 ($60,888,093) $16,536,326 $8,095,173 $8,441,153

50 UEP Projects51 North Area 1 Wastewater Transmission Expand 13,242,082 0 13,242,082 0 13,242,082 0 13,242,08252 North Area 2 Wastewater Transmission Expand 19,767,587 0 19,767,587 0 19,767,587 0 19,767,587


54 Total Capital Projects $110,434,087 $0 $110,434,087 ($60,888,093) $49,545,995 $8,095,173 $41,450,822

Footnotes: [1] Amounts provided by the City, which were allocated to the Wastewater System.




Development of Water System Impact Fee

Line AmountNo. Description Single Meter Dual Meter

Total Estimated Cost of Existing Water Production and Treatment Facilities:

1 Cost of Existing Facilities [1] $245,047,874 $245,047,8742 Avoided Water Supply Costs / Benefit of Alternative Water [2] 166,992,000 03 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [3] 19,860,058 19,860,0584 Subtotal Water Production and Treatment Facilities $431,899,932 $264,907,932

5 Existing Design Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (ADF) [4] 45.083 45.0836 Existing Average Daily Flow (MGD) (ADF) [5] 9.634 9.6347 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [6] 200.0 200.08 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 225,415 225,4159 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 78.63% 78.63%

10 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $339,605,188 $208,298,50011 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $1,916.02 $1,175.20

Primary Transmission System:12 Existing Facilities [1] $29,833,574 $29,833,57413 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [3] 14,714,676 14,714,67614 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $44,548,249 $44,548,249

15 Estimated Capacity of Transmission Facilities (MGD) (ADF) [7] 25.083 25.08316 Existing Average Daily Flow (MGD) (ADF) [5] 9.634 9.63417 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [6] 200.0 200.018 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 125,415 125,41519 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 61.59% 61.59%

20 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $27,437,942 $27,437,94221 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $355.21 $355.21

22 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $2,271.23 $1,530.4123 Calculated Rate per ERU - With Irrigation Service $2,271.00 $1,530.00

Less Impact Fee Credits24 Grant & Other Revenues - Credit per ERU [8] $95.00 $95.00

25 Total Impact Fee Credits $95.00 $95.00

26 Calculated Rate per ERU $2,176.00 $1,435.0027 Cost Per Gallon $10.880 $7.175

Proposed Water Impact Fees28 Existing Service Levels - ERUs [9] 1.38 0.9229 Proposed Fee $3,003.00 $1,320.00

ADF = Average Daily FlowMDF = Maximum Daily FlowERU = Equivalent Residential UnitGPD = Gallons per Day

Footnotes continued on the following page.



Development of Water System Impact Fee

Footnotes:[1] Amount derived from Table 4 based on the audited fixed asset balances of the City.

[2] The City currently provides reclaimed effluent from its water reclamation facilities for irrigation that helped to reduce the need to expand the potable water system. Forcustomers with Dual Service, the costs of alternative water supply are reflected in the irrigation fee. For customers with Single Service who do not contribute to the irrigation system, we have included the avoided cost or benefit derived from developing alternative water supplies in the water fee as shown below. This avoided cost was treated as a credit against the wastewater treatment costs as shown in Table 12.

Avoided Capital Investment in Water SystemAlternative Water Supply Capacity / Reuse (MGD) (ADF) 28.400Average Embedded Cost of Water Capacity - per Gallon $5.88Total Avoided Capital Cost $166,992,000

[3] Amount derived from Table 6, which reflects upgrades and expansion of existing facilities.

[4] Amount reflects the design capacity of the water treatment facilities as provided by the City's Consulting Engineer expressed on an average daily flow basis as follows:

Existing Permitted Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (MDF) 30.100Expandable Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (MDF) 24.000Existing Design Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (MDF) 54.100System Peaking Factor 1.200Existing Design Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (ADF) 45.083

[5] Amount reflects the average daily water demand for Fiscal Year 2014 as provided by City.

[6] Amount reflects the level of water service per ERU as adopted by the City.

[7] Amount based on the permitted capacity of the North RO WTP and the Southwest RO WTP expressed on an average daily flow basis.The amount was determined as follows:

Existing Permitted Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (MDF) 30.100System Peaking Factor 1.200Existing Permitted Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (ADF) 25.083

[8] Amount derived from Table 5, which reflects a credit per ERU based on grant and other revenues received to improve or expand the existing water system.

[9] Existing ERU levels for Single & Dual Water Service based on historical demands.



Development of Irrigation System Impact Fee

LineNo. Description Amount

Total Allocated Cost of Existing WastewaterTreatment Facilities:

1 Allocated Alternative Water Supply Costs [1] $166,992,0002 Additional Costs Capitalized 03 Subtotal Allocated Treatment Costs $166,992,000

4 Projected Capacity of Facilities (MGD) (ADF) [2] 81.0005 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [3] 658.06 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 123,1007 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $1,356.55

Total Estimated Cost of Existing Storage & Pumping Facilities:8 Cost of Existing Facilities [4] $11,735,8979 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [5] 27,684,006

10 Subtotal Storage & Pumping Facilities $39,419,903

11 Projected Capacity of Facilities (MGD) (ADF) [6] 41.30012 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [3] 658.013 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 62,76614 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $628.05

Primary Transmission System:15 Existing Facilities [4] $15,895,04316 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [5] 38,638,49017 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $54,533,533

18 Estimated Capacity of Transmission Facilities (MGD) (ADF) [6] 41.30019 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [3] 658.020 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 62,76621 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $868.84

22 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $2,853.4423 Calculated Rate per ERU - With Irrigation Service $2,853.00

Less Impact Fee Credits24 Grant & Other Revenues - Credit per ERU [7] $63.00

25 Total Impact Fee Credits $63.00

26 Proposed Irrigation Impact Fee $2,790.0027 Cost Per Gallon $4.240

ADF = Average Daily FlowMDF = Maximum Daily FlowERU = Equivalent Residential UnitGPD = Gallons per Day




Development of Irrigation System Impact Fee

Footnotes:[1] The City currently provides reclaimed effluent from its water reclamation facilities for

irrigation that helped to reduce the need to expand the potable water system. Forcustomers with Single Service who do not contribute to the irrigation system, the costs of alternative water supply are included in the water fee. For customers with Dual Service, we have included the avoided cost or benefit derived from developingalternative water supplies in the irrigation fee derived from Table 9. This avoided cost was treated as a credit against the wastewater treatment costs as shown in Table 12.

[2] Amount provided by the City's Consulting Engineer which represents estimated capacity of the irrigation facilities at build-out conditions.

[3] Amount reflects the level of service for irrigation per ERU as adopted by the City.

[4] Amount derived from Table 4 based on the audited fixed asset balances of the City.


[6] Amount provided by the City's Consulting Engineer which represents estimated capacity of the irrigation facilities by Fiscal Year 2025, which is consistent with the existing & future investments planned for within this study.

[7] Amount derived from Table 5, which reflects a credit per ERU based on grant and other revenues received to improve or expand the existing irrigation system.



Summary of Existing and Proposed Water Impact Fees

Existing Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees [1]Line Single Meter Dual Metered Service Single Meter Dual Metered ServiceNo. Utility Service Service [2] Water [3] Irrigation Total Service [2] Water [3] Irrigation Total

1 Single Family Residence (5/8" Meter) $2,274 $1,516 $758 $2,274 $3,003 $1,320 $2,790 $4,1102 Multi-Family (Per Dwelling Unit) $1,569 $1,046 $523 $1,569 $2,072 $911 $1,925 $2,836

Residential (if applicable), Non-Residential3 5/8" Meter $2,274 $1,516 $758 $2,274 $3,003 $1,320 $2,790 $4,1104 1.0" Meter $5,685 $3,791 $1,894 $5,685 $7,508 $3,301 $6,971 $10,2725 1.5" Meter $11,370 $7,581 $3,789 $11,370 $15,015 $6,601 $13,946 $20,5476 2.0" Meter $18,192 $12,130 $6,062 $18,192 $24,024 $10,562 $22,313 $32,8757 3.0" Meter $36,384 $24,260 $12,124 $36,384 $48,048 $21,123 $44,625 $65,7488 4.0" Meter $56,850 $37,906 $18,944 $56,850 $75,075 $33,005 $69,728 $102,7339 6.0" Meter $113,700 $75,811 $37,889 $113,700 $150,150 $66,010 $139,460 $205,470

10 8.0" Meter $181,920 $121,298 $60,622 $181,920 $240,240 $105,616 $223,134 $328,75011 10.0" Meter $261,510 $174,366 $87,144 $261,510 $345,345 $151,823 $320,754 $472,57712 12.0" Meter $352,470 $235,015 $117,455 $352,470 $465,465 $204,630 $432,321 $636,951

Footnotes:[1] Proposed single family fees derived from Tables 9 and 10. Multi-family and non-residential amounts based on existing ERU values per service level as provided by the City.

[2] Fee required if customer does not hook up to the irrigation system.

[3] Fee paid in conjunction with irrigation impact fee if customer hooks up to irrigation system.



Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee

LineNo. Description Amount

Total Estimated Cost of Existing WastewaterTreatment & Disposal Facilities:

1 Cost of Existing Facilities [1] $376,525,9712 Less Adjustment for Alternative Water Supply Costs [2] (166,992,000)3 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [3] 8,095,1734 Subtotal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities $217,629,144

5 Existing Design Capacity (MGD) (AADF) [4] 28.4006 Projected Average Daily Flow (MGD) (AADF) [5] 12.8007 Existing Service Capacity (MGD) (AADF) [4] 22.7208 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [6] 200.09 Estimated ERUs to be Served by Existing Facilities 113,600

10 Percent Remaining Design Capacity of Existing Facilities 54.93%

11 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $119,542,76912 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $1,915.75

Primary Transmission System:13 Existing Facilities [1] $60,244,15514 Additional Costs Capitalized - CIP [3] 41,450,82215 Less Credit for Local Infrastructure Costs [7] (20,274,005)16 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $81,420,971

17 Estimated Capacity of Transmission Facilities (MGD) (AADF) [8] 22.72018 ERU Factor - (GPD) (ADF) [6] 200.019 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Existing Facilities 113,60020 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 0.00%

21 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $716.73

22 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $2,632.4823 Calculated Rate per ERU $2,632.00

Less Impact Fee Credits24 Grant and Other Revenues - Credit per ERU [9] $103.00

25 Total Impact Fee Credits $103.00

Proposed Major Fee - Sewer Districts 1 and 223 Proposed Rate per ERU $2,529.0026 Cost Per Gallon $12.645

27 Existing Rate per ERU $2,862.0028 Proposed Increase / (Decrease) ($333.00)

Proposed Local Fee - Sewer District 226 Proposed Rate per ERU [10] $583.00

29 Existing Rate per ERU $1,614.0030 Proposed Increase / (Decrease) ($1,031.00)

MDF = Maximum Daily FlowADF = Average Daily FlowERU = Equivalent Residential UnitGPD = Gallons per Day




Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee

Footnotes:[1] Amount derived from Table 4 based on the audited fixed asset balances of the City.

[2] The City currently provides reclaimed effluent from its water reclamation facilities for irrigation that helped to reduce the need to expand the potable water system. Forcustomers with Dual Service, the costs of alternative water supply are reflected in the irrigation fee. For customers with Single Service who do not contribute to the irrigation system, we have included the avoided cost or benefit derived from developing alternative water supplies in the water fee. This avoidedcost was treated as a credit against the wastewater treatment costs as shown below:

Avoided Capital Investment in Water SystemAlternative Water Supply Capacity / Reuse (MGD) (ADF) 28.400Average Embedded Cost of Water Capacity - per Gallon $5.88Total Avoided Capital Cost / Credit to Wastewater $166,992,000


[4] Amount reflects the design capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities as provided by the City's Consulting Engineer, which was then adjusted to account of storm water infiltration into the System as follows:

Existing Design Capacity of Plant Facilities (MGD) (AADF) 28.400Less Allowance for Storm Water Infiltration (25%) [*] 5.680Net Capacity Available for Service (MGD) (AADF) 22.720

[*] Based on the City's Infrastructure Element of the Comp Plan, the City reserves

approximately 50 gallons per day per ERU for Storm Water Infiltration, above the

200 GPD service level. The total amount of reserved capacity for I&I is estimated as follows:

Estimated ERUs to be Served by Existing Facilities 113,600

GPD Reserved per ERU 50

Total Estimated Storm Water Reservation 5.680

[5] Amount reflects the annual average wastewater flows for Fiscal Year 2014 as provided by the City.

[6] Amount reflects the level of wastewater service per ERU, which excludes an allowance of 50 GPD for storm water infiltration.

[7] Based on discussions with City staff, the existing and planned transmission facilities include certain local infrastructure costs related to local lift stations and small force mains less than 10 inches in diameter that only benefit properties is Sewer District 2. Therefore, the total investment in the local infrastructure is removed from the major wastewater component of the fee, and will be added separately as an individual, local charge to District 2 Only as shown in Note 10 below. Local

Lift Station &Utilities Extension Area Force Main CostsSouthwest 4 $2,604,182Southwest 5 2,765,449Southwest 6&7 6,010,657North 2 3,234,260North 1 5,659,458Total Local Costs Allocable to District 2 Only $20,274,005

[8] Amount reflects the estimated transmission capacity based upon the design capacity of both plants provided for in Note 4 above.

[9] Amount derived from Table 5, which reflects a credit per ERU based on grant and other revenues received to improve or expand the existing wastewater system.

[10] Amount based on the Total Local Costs Allocable to District 2 derived from Note 7, above, divided by the total build-out Wastewater ERUs for the expansion areas as provided by the City as follows:

Total Local Costs Allocable to District 2 Only $20,274,005Total Build-out Wastewater ERUs 34,801.80 Average Cost per ERU $583.00



Summary of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees

Existing Impact Fees Proposed Impact Fees [1]Line Sewer Sewer District 2 Sewer Sewer District 2No. Utility Service District 1 Major Local Total District 1 Major Local Total

1 Single Family Residence (5/8" Meter) $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $2,529 $2,529 $583 $3,1122 Multi-Family (Per Dwelling Unit) $2,030 $2,030 $1,114 $3,144 $1,745 $1,745 $402 $2,147

Residential (if applicable), Non-Residential3 5/8" Meter $2,862 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $2,529 $2,529 $583 $3,1124 1.0" Meter $7,155 $7,155 $4,035 $11,190 $6,323 $6,323 $1,458 $7,7815 1.5" Meter $14,308 $14,308 $8,070 $22,378 $12,643 $12,643 $2,915 $15,5586 2.0" Meter $22,893 $22,893 $12,912 $35,805 $20,229 $20,229 $4,664 $24,8937 3.0" Meter $45,786 $45,786 $25,824 $71,610 $40,459 $40,459 $9,328 $49,7878 4.0" Meter $71,541 $71,541 $40,350 $111,891 $63,217 $63,217 $14,575 $77,7929 6.0" Meter $143,081 $143,081 $80,700 $223,781 $126,433 $126,433 $29,150 $155,583

10 8.0" Meter $228,930 $228,930 $129,120 $358,050 $202,293 $202,293 $46,640 $248,93311 10.0" Meter $329,087 $329,087 $185,610 $514,697 $290,797 $290,797 $67,045 $357,84212 12.0" Meter $443,552 $443,552 $250,170 $693,722 $391,944 $391,944 $90,365 $482,309

Footnotes:[1] Proposed single family fees derived from Table 12. Multi-family and non-residential amounts based on existing ERU values per service level as provided by the City.



Summary of Existing and Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Single Family Service

District 1 District 2Line Water Wastewater Combined Water Wastewater CombinedNo. Utility Service Service Service Service Service Service [1] Service

Single Service1 Existing $2,274 $2,862 $5,136 $2,274 $4,476 $6,7502 Proposed $3,003 $2,529 $5,532 $3,003 $3,112 $6,1153 Increase (Decrease) $729 ($333) $396 $729 ($1,364) ($635)

Dual Service4 Existing $2,274 $2,862 $5,136 $2,274 $4,476 $6,7505 Proposed $4,110 $2,529 $6,639 $4,110 $3,112 $7,2226 Increase (Decrease) $1,836 ($333) $1,503 $1,836 ($1,364) $472

Footnotes:[1] Amount includes a decrease in the average local transmission facility costs from $1,614 to $583 per ERU when compared to the District 1 rates.



Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Single Service

District 1 District 2Line Water Wastewater Combined Water Wastewater CombinedNo. Utility Service Service [1] Service Service Service [1] Service [2] Service

1 Single Family Residence (5/8" Meter) $3,003 $2,529 $5,532 $3,003 $3,112 $6,1152 Multi-Family (Per Dwelling Unit) $2,072 $1,745 $3,817 $2,072 $2,147 $4,219

Residential (if applicable), Non-Residential3 5/8" Meter $3,003 $2,529 $5,532 $3,003 $3,112 $6,1154 1.0" Meter $7,508 $6,323 $13,831 $7,508 $7,781 $15,2895 1.5" Meter $15,015 $12,643 $27,658 $15,015 $15,558 $30,5736 2.0" Meter $24,024 $20,229 $44,253 $24,024 $24,893 $48,9177 3.0" Meter $48,048 $40,459 $88,507 $48,048 $49,787 $97,8358 4.0" Meter $75,075 $63,217 $138,292 $75,075 $77,792 $152,8679 6.0" Meter $150,150 $126,433 $276,583 $150,150 $155,583 $305,733

10 8.0" Meter $240,240 $202,293 $442,533 $240,240 $248,933 $489,17311 10.0" Meter $345,345 $290,797 $636,142 $345,345 $357,842 $703,18712 12.0" Meter $465,465 $391,944 $857,409 $465,465 $482,309 $947,774

Footnotes:[1] Amount includes only the Potable Water Fee for Single Service.

[2] Amount includes the proposed local transmission facility costs or $583 per ERU.



Summary of Proposed Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for Dual Service

District 1 District 2Line Water Wastewater Combined Water Wastewater CombinedNo. Utility Service Service [1] Service Service Service [1] Service [2] Service

1 Single Family Residence (5/8" Meter) $4,110 $2,529 $6,639 $4,110 $3,112 $7,2222 Multi-Family (Per Dwelling Unit) $2,836 $1,745 $4,581 $2,836 $2,147 $4,983

Residential (if applicable), Non-Residential3 5/8" Meter $4,110 $2,529 $6,639 $4,110 $3,112 $7,2224 1.0" Meter $10,272 $6,323 $16,595 $10,272 $7,781 $18,0535 1.5" Meter $20,547 $12,643 $33,190 $20,547 $15,558 $36,1056 2.0" Meter $32,875 $20,229 $53,104 $32,875 $24,893 $57,7687 3.0" Meter $65,748 $40,459 $106,207 $65,748 $49,787 $115,5358 4.0" Meter $102,733 $63,217 $165,950 $102,733 $77,792 $180,5259 6.0" Meter $205,470 $126,433 $331,903 $205,470 $155,583 $361,053

10 8.0" Meter $328,750 $202,293 $531,043 $328,750 $248,933 $577,68311 10.0" Meter $472,577 $290,797 $763,374 $472,577 $357,842 $830,41912 12.0" Meter $636,951 $391,944 $1,028,895 $636,951 $482,309 $1,119,260

Footnotes:[1] Amount includes the Potable Water Fee and the Irrigation Fee for Dual Service.

[2] Amount includes the proposed local transmission facility costs or $583 per ERU.



Comparison of Sewer District 2 Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service [1]

Line Residential 5/8" x 3/4" MeterNo. Description Water Wastewater Combined

City of Cape Coral, Florida

Single Service (Water and Wastewater Fees)

1 Existing Impact Fees $2,274 $4,476 $6,750

2 Proposed Impact Fees 3,003 3,112 6,115

Dual Service (Water & Irrigation and Wastewater Fees)

3 Existing Impact Fees $2,274 $4,476 $6,750

4 Proposed Impact Fees 4,110 3,112 7,222

Other Florida Utilities:

5 City of Fort Myers $2,023 $1,966 $3,989

6 City of Naples 1,416 2,324 3,740

7 City of North Port 1,735 2,388 4,123

8 City of Punta Gorda 2,824 2,463 5,287

9 Charlotte County 1,780 2,350 4,130

10 Collier County 2,600 2,515 5,115

11 DeSoto County 1,910 4,140 6,050

12 Englewood Water District 2,074 2,850 4,924

13 FGUA - Lehigh Acres System (Lee County) 2,696 2,839 5,535

14 Gasparilla Island Water Association, Inc. 4,018 2,793 6,811

15 Hillsborough County 1,750 1,800 3,550

16 Lee County 2,440 2,660 5,100

17 Manatee County 1,345 1,580 2,925

18 Sarasota County 2,720 2,627 5,347

19 Other Florida Utilities' Average $2,238 $2,521 $4,759

[1] Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 2015 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service. All rates are as reported by the respective utility. This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility.

Amounts include the local fee collected for District 2.


WATER, WASTEWATERAND IRRIGATION IMPACT FEE STUDY

Executive Summary

By

Public Resources Management Group, Inc.

2

The City is required to periodically update the Utility Capital Expansion Fees (Impact Fees) to conform with Florida Statutes and recognized Impact Fee Case Law

City updated the Combined Water, Wastewater and Irrigation Fees in 2012. Combined fees for single family have not increased for ten (10) years or since April 1, 2007.

Based on the actual and projected costs to serve new growth through Fiscal Year 2025, PRMG recommends updating the existing fees

Wastewater Impact Fees proposed to decrease

Water and Irrigation Impact Fees proposed to increase

Wastewater decreases are offset by increases to the Water and Irrigation Fees

To minimize the amount of increase to the existing Combined Impact Fees, City staff recommends implementing all fee decreases, while discounting the calculated Water and Irrigation Impact Fees

The average discount of the proposed fees relative to the maximum charge allowed is approximately 6-7%

Purpose of Study / Summary of Study Results

3

No change to the total Combined Impact Fees for Water, Irrigation and Wastewater Service is proposed within the Expansion Areas that include Sewer District 2 because: Decreases in the local portion of the Wastewater Impact Fees are offset by

increases to the Combined Water and Irrigation Fees

While Sewer District 1 fees are equal to the Sewer District 2 charges, the total District 1 fees will increase since there is no local Wastewater Impact Fee due from District 1 (the local fee accounts for an additional decrease in District 2)

According to the City’s Rate Consultant, the Proposed Alternative Fees should not have an adverse affect on the utility system’s recent revenue sufficiency analysis results

In the future, the City may elect to increase the Water and Irrigation Impact Fees based on the maximum charges that were calculated

Proposed Alternative Impact Fees

4

I am Planning to Build My Typical Single Family Home in Sewer District 1

Sewer District 1Properties within Sewer District 1 generally reflect infill development

where water, wastewater and irrigation services are available.

Water System Service Wastewater System

Utility Service Potable Irrigation Subtotal Major Fee Local Fee Subtotal Total

Single Service, With No Irrigation Connection

Existing $2,274 N/A $2,274 $2,862 N/A $2,862 $5,136

Proposed $2,658 N/A $2,658 $2,529 N/A $2,529 $5,187

Net Change =$384 Increase =$333 Decrease =$51 Increase

Dual Service With Irrigation Connection

Existing $1,516 $758 $2,274 $2,862 N/A $2,862 $5,136

Proposed $1,320 $2,318 $3,638 $2,529 N/A $2,529 $6,167

Net Change =$1,364 Increase =$333 Decrease =$1,031 Increase

5

I Own or I am Planning to Build My Typical Single Family Home in Sewer District 2

Utility Extension AreasMost new connections will occur in Sewer District 2 with Dual Water & Irrigation Service provided.

While a future Single Service could occur in District 2, this customer class represents a small group within District 2.

Water System Service Wastewater System

Utility Service Potable Irrigation Subtotal Major Fee Local Fee Subtotal Total

Single Service With No Irrigation Connection

Existing $2,274 N/A $2,274 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $6,750

Proposed $2,658 N/A $2,658 $2,529 $583 $3,112 $5,770

Net Change =$384 Increase =$1,364 Decrease =$980 Decrease

Dual Service With Irrigation Connection

Existing $1,516 $758 $2,274 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $6,750

Proposed $1,320 $2,318 $3,638 $2,529 $583 $3,112 $6,750

Net Change =$1,364 Increase =$1,364 Decrease = No Change

7

Comparison of Combined Impact Fees for aTypical Residential Home with Dual Services

- Water Fee includes the irrigation component of the charge.

8

Comparison of Water Impact Fees

- Dual Service Fee includes the irrigation component of the charge.

9

Comparison of Wastewater Impact Fees

10

Conclusions & Recommendations

After conclusion of the COW meeting staff will incorporateany Council recommendations into the City’s Chapter 2 and19 final Ordinances

The proposed fees reflect the established level of servicerequirements for each utility service as adopted by the City

The proposed Combined Impact Fees for Single and DualServices within Sewer Districts 1 and 2 reflect an averagediscount of approximately 6-7% for all new developmentwhen compared to the actual and projected costs to servefuture customers over the next ten (10) years

The City may increase the proposed fees over time basedupon the maximum costs identified in this study

The City should provide at least ninety (90) days noticebefore the new fees become effective

11


A number of housekeeping revisions will be made to update the Impact Fee Ordinance 2-20 through 2-24.6

The Protectus III fireline meter assemblies will no longer be allowed to serve both potable and fire protection.

The various impact fee tables were updated and some of the language regarding impact fee updates was revised.

Housekeeping revisions proposed to Chapter 19 includes:

Added “potable and reclaimed” to § 19-3 and 19-4

Added “including indebtedness perfected by a lien(s) (excluding special assessment liens) to §19-5

Changed “occupant” to “account holder” in §19-5.1

Added “reclaimed water” to §19-6 (a) Customer Deposit

Added “including outstanding balances secured by a lien” to §19-6 (b) Exemptions

Removed “notary” requirement in §19-19 and added “Voluntary uses of water such as lawn watering or failure to turn off an outside hose shall not provide the basis for a sewer billing adjustment”

12


Housekeeping revisions made to Chapter 19 includes: Added “Penalties and Appeal process to §19-22 (d) “Any person,

firm, contractor, corporation, association or partnership who is found by the city to have made or caused to have made any unauthorized connection may appeal a penalty, fee, or cost under this section. The person, firm, contractor, corporation, association or partnership shall notify the Code Compliance Manager within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice of penalty, fee, or cost. Proper notice to the Code Compliance Manager shall stay the imposition of a penalty, fee, or cost, until adjudication by the Code Compliance Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate shall conduct a hearing and consider evidence presented by the person, firm, contractor, corporation, association or partnership, and the city. The Special Magistrate shall make a decision based on the preponderance of the evidence standard. The decision of the Special Magistrate is a final administrative remedy as to the city”

13


14

Supplemental Schedules

15

Sewer District 1 - Existing to Proposed Impact FeeComparison Per Typical Single Family Home

Water System Wastewater SystemWater Irrigation Combined Wastewater Wastewater Combined Total

Utility Service Service Service Service Major Local Service Impact Fees

Single ServiceExisting $2,274 N/A $2,274 $2,862 N/A $2,862 $5,136Maximum Calculated $3,003 N/A $3,003 $2,529 N/A $2,529 $5,532Increase (Decrease) $729 N/A $729 ($333) N/A ($333) $396

Proposed [1] $2,658 N/A $2,658 $2,529 N/A $2,529 $5,187Increase (Decrease) $384 N/A $384 ($333) N/A ($333) $51

Dual ServiceExisting $1,516 $758 $2,274 $2,862 N/A $2,862 $5,136Maximum Calculated $1,320 $2,790 $4,110 $2,529 N/A $2,529 $6,639Increase (Decrease) ($196) $2,032 $1,836 ($333) N/A ($333) $1,503

Proposed [1] $1,320 $2,318 $3,638 $2,529 N/A $2,529 $6,167Increase (Decrease) ($196) $1,560 $1,364 ($333) N/A ($333) $1,031__________[1] Proposed amounts reflect all calculated decreases to the current rates. To minimize the total amount of increase in the total fees charged, the Combined Water and Irrigation Fees were discounted 11% (equal to approximately 89% of the water and irrigation system costs) for all service levels in Sewer District 1 and Sewer District 2.

Sewer District 1Properties within Sewer District 1 generally reflect infill development

where water, wastewater and irrigation services are available.

16

Sewer District 2 - Existing to Proposed Impact FeeComparison Per Typical Single Family Home

Water System Wastewater SystemWater Irrigation Combined Wastewater Wastewater Combined Total

Utility Service Service Service Service Major Local Service Impact Fees

Single ServiceExisting $2,274 N/A $2,274 $2,862 $1,614 $4.476 $6,750Maximum Calculated $3,003 N/A $3,003 $2,529 $583 $3,112 $6,115Increase (Decrease) $729 N/A $729 ($333) ($1,031) ($1,364) ($635)

Proposed [1] $2,658 N/A $2,658 $2,529 $583 $3,112 $5,770Increase (Decrease) $384 N/A $384 ($333) ($1,031) ($1,364) ($980)

Dual ServiceExisting $1,516 $758 $2,274 $2,862 $1,614 $4,476 $6,750Maximum Calculated $1,320 $2,790 $4,110 $2,529 $583 $3,112 $7,222Increase (Decrease) ($196) $2,032 $1,836 ($333) ($1,031) ($1,364) $472

Proposed [1] $1,320 $2,318 $3,638 $2,529 $583 $3,112 $6,750Increase (Decrease) ($196) $1,560 $1,364 ($333) ($1,031) ($1,364) $0__________[1] Proposed amounts reflect all calculated decreases to the current rates. To minimize the total amount of increase in the total fees charged, the Combined Water and Irrigation Fees were discounted 11% (equal to approximately 89% of the water and irrigation system costs) for all service levels in Sewer District 1 and Sewer District 2.

Utility Extension AreasMost new connections will occur in Sewer District 2 with Dual Water & Irrigation Service. While a future

Single Service could occur in District 2, this customer class represents a small group within District 2.

IMPACT FEE AFFIDAVIT

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared _____________________________, who being duly sworn, deposes and says on oath that:

1. I am the Chief Financial Officer of the City of Cape Coral which is a municipality in the State of Florida;

2. The City of Cape Coral adopted (Ordinance No. ___________or

Resolution No. __________) implementing an impact fee; and

3. The City of Cape Coral has complied and, as of the date of this Affidavit, remains in compliance with Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. ____________________________________ Financial Services Director STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this ____ day of ___________, 20 . ______________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Print Name _____________________ Personally known ____ or produced identification _______ Type of identification produced: ___________________________________ My Commission Expires: ____________________

agenda - ordinancewatch™section 2. the city of cape coral code of ordinances, chapter 2,...

Documents