Loading...
O-2014-01 CITY OF CLERMONT ORDINANCE NO.2014-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 2, "ADMINISTRATION" ARTICLE VI, "FINANCIAL MATTERS" DIVISION 2 "IMPACT FEES"; AMENDING SECTION 2-264 "IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE" PROVIDING FOR A NEW IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE; PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida,hereby ordains that: SECTION 1. The City of Clermont Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, "Administration", Article VI, "Financial Matters". Division 2, "Impact Fees", Section 2-264 "Impact Fees Schedule" is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-264.- Impact fee schedule (a) The Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study, dated December 20, 2013, and the fee schedule incorporated therein, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as appendix A and is available from the City Clerk. (b) If a development approval is requested for a development with mixed unit type, then the fee shall be computed by calculating the number of units of each type and multiplying the results by the appropriate fees on the schedule. When a question arises about which types on the schedule shall apply to the development, the City Manager shall determine which comparable land use type shall apply, or if there is not a comparable land use, then a special study shall be required. (c) The schedule shall be reviewed periodically and revised as necessary to reflect new data and technical information that substantially affect the calculation of the proportionate fair share of capital costs represented by the schedule. (d) All impact fees set forth in the Ordinance from which this section derives shall be increased annually due to inflation or other such factors, in order to ensure adequate capital recovery of facility costs. Unless the City Council approves otherwise, the adjustment shall be effective as of October 1 of each year and shall be equal to the then current index pursuant to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index. 1 CITY OF CLERMONT ORDINANCE NO.2014-01 SECTION 2 The provisions of this Ordinance shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purposes in the interest of the public health, safety, welfare and convenience. SECTION 3 All ordinances or parts of ordinances of the City of Clermont in conflict with the provisions of this are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4 The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any section, sentence, clause or phrase hereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, it being expressly declared to be the City Council's intent that it would have passed the valid portions of this Ordinance without the inclusion therein of any invalid portion or portions. SECTION 5 In accordance with the Notice provisions of Section 163.31801, Florida Statutes, this Ordinance shall take effect as set forth below: (a) For Water and Fire and Rescue Services Impact Fees, the newly adopted Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study shall be effective and applicable May 1, 2014. (b) For Wastewater, Police, and Recreational Services Impact Fees, the newly adopted Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study shall be effective and applicable February 17, 2014. SECTION 6 This Ordinance has been published as provided by law and it shall become law and take effect as set forth above. 2 CITY OF CLERMONT ORDINANCE NO.2014-01 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, this 28th day of January 2014. CITY OF CLERMONT _ C qua icy " ' Turville, Jr. Attest: "racy Ackro a, ity Clerk Appn ied as to fo •1 and le l alit : Dan�17r antzaris, City Attorney CITY OF CLERMONT,. FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNLCIP _A r IMPACT FEE STUDY December 20, 2013 ',R Public Resources Management Group,Inc. ,,,': Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants ','I Public Resources Management Group,Inc. `t i; Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants December 20, 2013 PRMG#1179-02 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Clermont 685 W. Montrose Street Clermont, FL 34711 Subject: Utility and Municipal Services Impact Fee Study Ladies and Gentlemen: We have completed our study of the utility and municipal impact fees for water and wastewater services, police services, fire and rescue services, and recreational services for the City of Clermont (the "City") and have summarized the results of our analysis, assumptions, and conclusions in this report, which is submitted for your consideration. This report summarizes the basis for the proposed impact fees in order to provide funds to meet the City's capital expenditure requirements for such services allocable to growth. During the course of the study, it was determined that the proposed impact fees should meet a number of goals and objectives. These goals and objectives primarily deal with fee sufficiency and level. Specifically, the major objectives considered in this study include: • The Impact Fees should be sufficient to fund the projected capital requirements associated with providing service to new growth and development; • The Impact Fees should not be used to fund deficiencies in capital needs of the City, if any; and • The Impact Fees should be based upon reasonable level of service standards which meet the needs of the City and are similar to industry standards. The proposed municipal and utility services impact fees presented in this report should meet the above objectives, as identified by the City during this study. As such, based on information provided by the City and the assumptions and considerations reflected in this report, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. considers the proposed fees to be cost-based, reasonable, and representative of the funding requirements of the City. K\DC\1179-02\Rpts\FinalReporlUtepon doc 341 NORTH MAITLAND AVENUE- SUITE 300- MAITLAND. FL 32751 TELEPHONE (407)628-2600 • FAX (407)628-2610 • EMAIL PRMG @PRMGinc com Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Clermont December 20, 2013 Page 2 We appreciate the cooperation and assistance given to us by the City and its staff in the completion of the study. Very truly yours, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ' 7 pT. Henry L. Thomas Vice President Murray M. Hamilton, Jr. Rate Consultant HLT/dlc K\DC\I 179-02\RptsWinalRepon\Repon doc CITY OF CLERMONT,FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents List of Tables iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ES-1 Executive Summary ES-1 SECTION 1 —INTRODUCTION 1-1 Introduction 1-1 Authorization 1-1 Criteria for Impact Fees 1-2 Impact Fee Methods 1-4 Summary of Report 1-5 SECTION 2—SERVICE AREA 2-1 General 2-1 Population and Development Forecast 2-1 Persons per Household 2-2 Functional Population Allocation 2-2 SECTION 3 —WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES 3-1 General 3-1 Design of Impact Fees 3-1 Existing Impact Fees 3-1 Level of Service Requirements 3-2 K\DC\1179-02apts\RnalRepon\Repon doc —�— CITY OF CLERMONT,FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Title Page SECTION 3 — WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES (cont'd.) Investment in Existing Capital Facilities 3-3 Projected Capital Needs 3-3 Design of Water Irripact-Fee 3-4 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee 3-5 Fee Application 3-6 Comparison with Other Utilities 3-9 SECTION 4—POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE 4-1 General 4-1 Level of Service Requirements 4-1 Resource Needs Analysis 4-2 Design of Police Services Impact Fee 4-4 Police Services Impact Fee Assumptions 4-4 Impact Fee Calculation 4-6 Impact Fee Comparisons 4-7 SECTION 5 —FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE 5-1 General 5-1 Level of Service Requirements 5-1 Resource Needs Analysis 5-4 Design of Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee 5-4 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Assumptions 5-5 Impact Fee Calculation 5-7 Impact Fee Comparisons 5-7 K\DC\1179-02\RptainalRepon\Repon doc -H- CITY OF CLERMONT,FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd.) Title Page SECTION 6—PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE 6-1 General 6-1 Definition of Recreational Facilities 6-1 Level of Service Standards 6-2 Other Capital Projects 6-3 Design of Recreational Facility Impact Fee 6-3 Recreational Facility Impact Fee Assumptions 6-4 Impact Fee Calculation 6-5 Impact Fee Comparisons 6-5 K\DC\1179-02\Rpts\FinalReporl'Repon doc —Hi- CITY OF CLERMONT,FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 2-1 Population Detail and Housing Elements 2-2 Average Persons per Household 2-3 Functional Population and Employment Data Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis 3-1 Summary of Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets 3-2 Distribution/Transmission Main Allocator—Water System 3-3 Collection/Transmission Main Allocator- Wastewater System 3-4 Summary of Capital Improvement Program 3-5 Allocation of Planned Water Capital Improvements 3-6 Allocation of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements 3-7 Development of Water System Impact Fee 3-8 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 3-9 Proposed Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service 3-10 Comparison of Impact Fees for the Water and Wastewater Systems Police Services Impact Fee Analysis 4-1 Summary of Existing Personnel 4-2 Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment, Vehicles and Facilities 4-3 Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment, Vehicles and Facilities 4-4 Summary of Capital Costs to Provide Police Protection Services 4-5 Impact Fee Allocation—Base Capacity/Variable 4-6 Police Services Impact Fee Comparison Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis 5-1 Summary of Existing Personnel K\DC\1179-02\RptsWmalReport\Report doc -iv- CITY OF CLERMONT,FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF-TABLES (cont'd.) Table No. Title 5-2 Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment, Vehicles and Facilities 5-3 Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment, Vehicles and Facilities 5-4 Summary of Capital Costs to Provide Fire Rescue Services 5-5 Impact Fee Allocation—Base Capacity/ Variable 5-6 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comparison Recreation Impact Fee Analysis 6-1 Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities 6-2 Summary of Existing City Investments in Parks and Recreation 6-3 Existing Open-Space Needs 6-4 Existing Activity Needs 6-5 Summary of Activity Cost Adjustments to Cure Net Deficiencies to Serve Existing Population 6-6 Summary of Capital Projects to Improve and Expand Recreation Services 6-7 Design of Recreation Impact Fee 6-8 Impact Fee Allocation 6-9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalRepor\Repon doc —v- Pit M1■ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF CLERMONT,FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth-related capital costs to those new customers responsible for such costs. To the extent new population growth and associated development imposes identifiable capital costs to municipal services, equity and modern capital funding practices suggest the assignment of such cost to those residents or system users responsible for such costs. The City of Clermont (the "City") has recognized this capital funding strategy as being an appropriate method of funding the certain future capital requirements of the City. The City has, in the past, adopted impact fees for the following municipal and utility services: • Water and Wastewater Services • Police Services • Fire Rescue Services • Recreation Services This report addresses the impact fees associated with water and wastewater service, police services, fire and rescue services, and recreational services (collectively, the "Utility and Municipal Services Impact Fees"). The City currently has impact fees for all of these services as noted above. Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) was retained to review and develop proposed fees, as appropriate. Based on the subsequent discussions in this section, the following table summarizes the City's existing to proposed impact fees for the single-family residential classification as follows: Proposed Residential Impact Fees Existing Proposed Water and Wastewater $5,874 $5,564 Police Protection 574 381 Fire and Rescue Protection 404 462 Recreation 2,643 1,988 Total $9,495 $8,395 The existing and proposed fees shown above for recreation are only charged to residential properties, while fees for water, wastewater, police and fire rescue services are also charged to non-residential properties. The non-residential fees are unique to the service requirements of each property. A detailed discussion on impact fees for both residential and non-residential properties is provided for in subsequent sections of this study report. The following discussion is a summary of the findings and conclusions developed during our investigation, analyses, and preparation of the proposed fees: K\DC\I 179-02\RptsTmalReport\Repon doc ES-1 1. The permanent residential population of the City based on estimates developed using Census data and growth estimates provided by City staff is estimated at 30,201 in 2013 and is projected to be approximately 42,100 by the end of 2020, for an average annual growth rate of 4.90%. The estimated total number of households is expected to increase from 11,890 (based on 2.54 persons per household today) to 17,516 for a net gain of 5,626 households during the forecast period from 2013 through 2020. 2. Based on discussions with the City's planning department, it is estimated that an additional 2,974,750 square feet of non-residential development is projected to be constructed during the forecast period reflected in this study. Future non-residential development is assumed to be approximately 250 square feet per resident based on historical relationships. 3. The method of impact fee application recommended to the City for the water and wastewater systems is different than the current method utilized for such systems. The City's current method of fee application attempts to differentiate the capacity characteristics of a customer based on certain demographics or business attributes of the customer (the "attribute method"). This approach relies upon specific customer characteristics to estimate each individual customer's capacity needs. For example, the capacity of a restaurant may be based on the number of square feet of the restaurant. Another example of using this method is to estimate the capacity needs for a hotel based on the number of rooms. This method is often used in conjunction with other methods that rely upon specific business attributes for calculating the capacity needs of certain types of customers. Following discussions with City staff, several weakness within the current method were identified including: • Customer's ability to estimate his/her expenses to connect to the system; • Availability and accuracy of business attribute information before, during and subsequent to development; and • Accounting for changes in property use over time. Based on these weakness and other considerations discussed in Section 3 of this report, we recommend the City revise its fee application method to a per meter / per unit based approach. With the exception of residential use, which is recommended to be applied on a per unit basis, the meter approach for commercial and other non-residential uses is based on the meter size issued for the development. Essentially, the size of the meter is assumed to be linked to the capacity requirements of a user whereby the higher the usage needs of a customer, the larger the meter size that needs to be installed. This method generally incorporates information published by the American Water Works Association (the M22 manual entitled Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters) and is based on the instantaneous demand capability of each meter. A more thorough discussion related to this fee application is presented in Section 3. K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Repon doc ES-2 4. The level of service (LOS) standard used for the development of the water and wastewater services impact fee is based on the gallons per day (GPD) required for each equivalent residential unit (ERU). The City's currently adopted LOS for water services is 520.8 GPD (217 gallons per person x 2.4 persons per average ERU) while the LOS for the wastewater system is 350 GPD. However, PRMG recommends reducing the LOS per ERU based on current usage patterns within the City's existing water and wastewater service territory. The proposed LOS per ERU is based on residential water use, excluding irrigation uses, which is proposed to equal 220 GPD per ERU. The LOS is intended to approximate the indoor water use for a typical residential connection and all commercial / non-residential connections expressed on a per meter size basis (the "meter approach" previously defined). For single family properties (except All-Adult Communities), an allowance of 260 GPD is added to the water fee (only) based upon customer irrigation patterns within this class of service. In summary, customers of the system are using less water and the proposed reduction in LOS is intended to account for the reduced service level. Because service levels by meter size and property class vary, please refer to Section 3 for a full listing of service levels by class and meter size. The proposed standards are consistent with current residential customer usage patterns and were used as the basis for the proposed water and wastewater impact fees. Based on capital costs attributable to growth as outlined in Section 3, the following summarizes the existing and proposed water and wastewater impact fees: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee 1*1 Per Single Family Dwelling Unit Existing Proposed Water $2,036 $2,125 Wastewater 3,838 3,439 Total $5,874 $5,564 - [*]Derlved from Table 3-10 5. The police and fire impact fees are charged to both residential and non-residential properties. The current application method applies the fees per dwelling unit for the residential class and per 1,000 square feet for most of the non-residential classes (referred to in this report as the Equivalent Impact Fee Units). There are a few, unique non- residential properties where police and fire impact fees are applied on a different basis (i.e., per room, per student, per acre). The recreation impact fee is charged to residential properties only, because the benefit is, generally, ascribed only to the resident. The current application of the recreation impact fee is based on the number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. The utilization of these units for the application of police, fire and recreation fees is common and is used to some degree by all local governments surveyed. No changes to this application method are proposed for the police, fire and recreation fees. K\DC\1179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc ES-3 6. The level of service standard used for the development of the police services impact fee is the number of full-time patrol officers per 1,000 population. This standard is commonly used in the establishment of police services impact fees and, for the City, the target level is 2.0 full-time officers per 1,000 residents. This standard is generally consistent with the standards referenced in published state and national guidelines (e.g., Florida Department of Law Enforcement), and is comparable to staffing level ratios for other Florida communities. Based on costs attributable to growth as outlined in Section 4, the following summarizes the proposed police services impact fees: Police Services Impact Fee 1*1 Residential Measurement Single Family Multi-family Mobile Home Existing Fee Dwelling $574.00 $491 00 $574 00 Proposed Fee Dwelling 381.00 381.00 381 00 Non-residential Measurement Existing Proposed General Office 1,000 Sq Ft $419 00 $245 00 Convenience Market 1,000 Sq.Ft. 2,706 00 1,679 00 Restaurant(W/Drive Through) 1,000 Sq.Ft 6,841 00 2,471 00 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 201.00 140 00 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 196 00 118 00 [*] Derived from Table 4-5 in this report 7. The level of service standard used for the development of the fire rescue services impact fee is the maintenance of first response time of four (4) minutes or less per fire and rescue alarm. The resources required to achieve this standard are the City's personnel and firefighting equipment. The City currently has a staffing plan that results in an LOS standard of 1.28 firefighter/rescue personnel per 1,000 population. This standard is generally comparable to staffing level ratios for other Florida communities. Based on costs attributable to growth as outlined in Section 5, the following summarizes the proposed fire and rescue services impact fees: Fire Services Impact Fee 1*1 Residential Measurement Single Family Multi-family Mobile Home Existing Fee Dwelling $404 00 $342 00 $404.00 Proposed Fee Dwelling 462 00 462 00 462 00 Non-residential Measurement Existing Proposed General Office 1,000 Sq Ft $275 00 $371 00 Convenience Market 1,000 Sq Ft 1,789 00 2,537.00 Restaurant(W/Drive Through) 1,000 Sq Ft 4,522 00 3,733.00 Industrial Park 1,000 Sq Ft 131 00 212 00 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq.Ft 127 00 178.00 [*1 Derived from Table 5-5 in this report K\DC\I I79-02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Repon doc ES-4 8. Municipalities typically adopt recreation facilities standards for recreation planning purposes as part of the comprehensive planning process. These standards deal with the types of facilities the City desires for its residents. The City's adopted level of service is currently 10.0 acres per 1,000 population, and the City has various population standards for recreation activities and facilities. The recreation services impact fee proposed herein was predicated on the estimated cost of parkland, facilities, and activities (ball fields, basketball courts, picnic facilities, etc.) required to meet the recreational standards as adopted by the City. These standards and their costs are outlined in Section 6 of this report. Based on the expected costs of these facilities and activities, and the population of the City for which they are constructed to serve, the following summarizes the proposed recreational impact fees: Recreation Services Impact Fee 1*1 Existing Impact Fee $2,643 Proposed Impact Fee $1,988 [*] Derived from Table 6-7 and reflects the fee for a three bedroom single family dwelling unit 9. The proposed recreation impact fee includes the City's planned purchase of the Celebration of Praise property totaling $6.3 million, which is assumed to be financed over fifteen (15) years at a 3.05% annual interest cost. A portion of the projected annual debt service costs on this loan may be paid with recreation impact fees to the extent the facilities will serve future growth. As of the date of this report, approximately 44% of the proposed facility is estimated to be allocable to existing residents and should be funded with sources other than impact fees, while 56%of the proposed facility is estimated to be available to serve growth and should be funded with impact fees. The subsequent sections of this report provide detailed discussions of the existing and proposed impact fees for water, wastewater, police, fire, and recreation services. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179-02\RptainalReporMeport doc ES-5 1'IC AUP SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The City of Clermont (the "City") is located in Lake County (the "County") 25 miles west of the City of Orlando, a major metropolitan area. The City, incorporated in 1916, now comprises 14.44 square miles and provides an array of services to year-round and seasonal residents. The municipal services in demand include water and wastewater management, police and fire protection services, and parks and recreational services. Based on the published Census in 2010, the City's permanent population was 28,742. Based on historical growth trends and discussions with the City's Planning Department, the current estimated population is 30,201 as of 2013. It is anticipated that the City will have significant growth over the next 7-8 years with the City's population reaching 42,100 with approximately 17,516 housing units by 2020 (the "Forecast Period"). In addition to housing, the City anticipates commercial development to continue to support new residents. In order to meet this anticipated growth and development and to maintain current levels of service, the City will need to fund capital improvements to serve such development. The City's Municipal Services Impact Fees were last updated in 2005. Although the City has indexed such rates annually thereafter, rates need to be reviewed periodically to ensure that such fees reflect current actual investments made to serve growth, and to adequately reflect additional needs required to service new developments. Therefore, the City authorized Public Resources Management Group, Inc. (PRMG) to evaluate the water, wastewater, police, fire, and recreational impact fees. AUTHORIZATION PRMG was authorized by the City to evaluate and develop water and wastewater services, police services, fire services, and recreational services impact fees pursuant to a letter agreement between the City and PRMG. The scope of work for this project, as defined in the letter agreement,was to: 1. For each service, review and analyze the capital requirements of the City that are needed to meet the level of service standards for the municipal function. This analysis includes a review of: i)the existing and future facility and equipment inventory of each specific municipal function; ii) service area population and development demographics and future needs; and iii) services provided by class of customers. 2. Where appropriate, develop a fee to be charged to new development in order to recover the capital costs associated with providing municipal services. This analysis includes the apportionment of costs among customer/development classifications, and the development of the fee per equivalent billing unit. 3. Develop a comparison of the impact fees and associated billing attributes for similar charges imposed by other neighboring jurisdictions. K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 1-1 4. Prepare a report that documents our analyses, assumptions, and conclusions for consideration by the City Manager and City Council. CRITERIA FOR IMPACT FEES The purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth-related capital costs to those new customers that benefit from the facilities funded by such expenditures. To the extent new population growth and associated development imposes identifiable capital costs to municipal services, equity and modern capital funding practices suggest the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for such costs rather than the existing population base. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way." Within the State of Florida, a recently adopted statute authorizes the use of impact fees. The statute was generally 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, as amended, 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 1985111. [I] 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 right, incentive and inclusionary zoning, planned unit development,capital charges,and performance zoning"—Florida Statutes,Sec 163.3202(3) K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 1-2 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 and the capital cost thereof. Until property is put to use and developed, there is no burden upon servicing facilities and the land use may be entirely unrelated to the value or assessment basis of the underlying land. Impact fees are distinguishable from taxes primarily in the direct relationship between amount charged and the measurable quantity of public facilities or service capacity 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 population. Second, impact fees are valid when a reasonable association, or rational nexus, exists between the expenditure of the impact fee proceeds and the benefits accruing to the growth from those proceeds. 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 capacity 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 and future users). Likewise, increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that facility should be borne by all 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, impact fees which will be developed in subsequent sections herein: i) will include only the cost of the capital facilities necessary to serve new customer growth; K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Repon doc 1-3 ii) will not reflect renewal and replacement costs associated with existing capital assets of the City; and iii) will not include any costs of operation and maintenance of the facilities. IMPACT FEE METHODS There are several different methods for the calculation of an impact fee. The calculation is dependent on the type of fee being calculated (e.g., water, police services, recreational 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. The proposed Municipal Services Impact Fees reflected in this report are predominately based on two separate methods. These two methods are: i)the improvements-driven method; and ii)the standards-driven approach plus some recoupment for existing assets. These 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 planned capital improvements over a period of time. For example, the fee may correspond to the level of capital improvements that have been identified in the capital improvements element of the Comprehensive Plan or capital improvement budget of the local government. The standards-driven method does not utilize the cost of improvements based on specific capital budget needs but rather on the theoretical cost of the improvements to the City's capital facilities for incremental development. For example, the standards-driven method for a transportation impact fee would consider the theoretical cost of a mile of a new road by the trip capacity of a mile of road to establish the cost per trip. The primary difference between the two methodologies is how the capital costs, which must be recovered from the application of the fee, are calculated. Both methodologies have their advantages and disadvantages. The advantages associated with the improvements-driven method include the following: i. Based solely on budgeted capital improvements, thus providing a definite relationship between the level of fee and need. ii. The use of fees can be shown to be attributable to growth based on the capital improvement plan utilized in the analysis as opposed to capital deficiencies in the system. There are several disadvantages associated with the improvements-driven method. Some of the disadvantages include the following: i. Fee may be based on an intermediate range forecast of capital improvements (e.g., five years) which may not reflect the true level of needs since major capital improvements may be beyond the time frame of the capital forecast. ii. The fee does not take into account unused capacity at existing facilities which should be allocated to the users of the facilities. iii. The forecast of capital improvements required for new development is still an estimate of cost and is subject to revisions and updates. K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Repon doc I-4 iv. It may be difficult to apportion to cost of specific improvements among present deficiencies, growth, and excess capacity. With respect to the standards-driven method of determining impact fees, there also exist certain advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include the following: i. Fee is based on a defined level of service and type of facility and it may be easier to determine the standard cost of the capital facilities associated with such level. ii. Provides governments with more flexibility in the use of the collected fees in that they can identify future capital needs in advance of establishing the specific capital budget. iii. The development of the fee does not require a detailed projection of future capital improvements and associated costs and is more applicable to the needs of a small municipality due to constraints of staff and resources. As one would expect, there are also disadvantages associated with the standards-driven method. The disadvantages include: i. The capital costs for the impact fee are not associated with anticipated or current capital needs as identified by the City's capital budget, thus increasing the potential of not providing a clear relationship between the fee and its use. ii. The development of the standard cost for capital facilities is based primarily on engineering, planning, and financial judgment, although this may be somewhat mitigated by the level of service standards included in the Comprehensive Planning Process. The proposed impact fees herein for the municipal services include the application of both the standards-driven and improvement-driven methods based on the capital facilities required to provide services and meet the City's service level standards. Where appropriate, the blending of both methods occurred and a more complete discussion of the methods used for the determination of the impact fees are presented in Sections 3 through 6. SUMMARY OF REPORT In addition to Section 1, this report has been subdivided into five (5) other sections. The following is a brief discussion of the remaining sections included in this report. Section 2— Service Area. This section of the report provides a general discussion of the residential and non-residential land use characteristics. Also presented in this section is the forecast of the residential dwelling units and non-residential development that is necessary in the design of the impact fees for the municipal services. Section 3 — Water and Wastewater Services Impact Fee. This section discusses the development of the proposed connection/impact fee for water and wastewater services, including the capital cost requirements associated with providing these services, the K\DC\1179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 1-5 methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination. Section 4— Police Services Impact Fee. This section discusses the development of the proposed impact fee for police services, including the capital requirements associated with providing police services, the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination. Section 5— Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee. This section discusses the development of the proposed impact fee for fire protection services, including the capital requirements associated with providing fire protection services, the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination. Section 6— Recreation Impact Fee. This section discusses the development of the recreation impact fee, including the capital requirements associated with providing parks and recreation facilities to the City's residents, the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\1179-02\Rpts\FinalRepor,\Repon doc 1-6 PR SECTION 2 SERVICE AREA SECTION 2 SERVICE AREA GENERAL This section provides a general discussion of the current service area, including population and housing statistics and other demographic information related to land use. Additionally, a discussion of the anticipated growth in population and associated growth in residential dwelling units and non-residential development is also contained in this section. POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT FORECAST Regardless of the approach taken to formulate impact fees, it is necessary to develop a forecast of the population of the City in order to: i)have an appropriate planning horizon to ensure that capital improvement needs and costs are apportioned over a suitable growth segment; ii) link LOS requirements to the capital facility plan; and iii) identify any deficiencies in existing capital facilities related to the LOS standards and current population served. As shown in Table 2-1 at the end of this section, the City's estimated total population as of 2013 was 30,201. Based on information provided by the City, it is estimated that the total population will approach approximately 42,100 residents by the year 2020. Thus, the population growth anticipated by the City is expected to be significant, approximately 4.90% on an average annual basis through the year 2020. Historical and Projected Population and Dwelling Units Average Persons Total Total Per Occupied Year Population Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit 2000[1] 9,333 4,675 2.29 2010 28,742 11,316 2 54 2013 30,201 11,890 2 54 2020[2] 42,100 17,516 2 40 [1] Amounts derived from the 2000 and 2010 Census [2] Amounts estimated based on information provided by the City's Planning Department Based on the assumption of continued commercial development and discussions with the City's Planning Department, the following estimates of future non-residential development were assumed for the purposes of this report: Estimated Growth in Non-Residential Development(Sq.Ft.) Projected 2020[1] Sq Ft of Building Space Commercial 2,974,750 [1] Based on discussion with the City's Planning Department,commercial development has historically averaged 250 square feet per person,and the City expects this trend to continue through 2020 K\DC\1179-02\Rpts\FinaiRepori\Report doc 2-1 The anticipated non-residential development reflected above, is based upon the existing non- residential square feet of approximately 7,550,250 or 250 square feet per existing resident. By 2020 it is estimated that the City's population will grow to 42,100 and require commercial and industrial services of approximately 10,525,000 square feet or an increase of 2,974,750 square feet over the forecast period. To the extent the projections of future development materially changes, it would then be appropriate for the City to re-evaluate the impact fees developed in this report. PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD In order to develop recreational impact fees based on the size of residential properties to estimate the impact on recreational facilities, PRMG evaluated the existing residential units within the City. Table 2-2 at the end of this section provides the detail analyses to estimate the persons per household based on the number of bedrooms for each residential dwelling unit. The following table summarizes the results: Average Person per Residential Householdl*1 Residential Unit Persons per Unit 0-1 Bedrooms 1.27 2 Bedrooms 1 90 3 Bedrooms 2.54 4 Bedrooms 3 17 5+Bedrooms 3.80 [*] Derived from Table 2-2 FUNCTIONAL POPULATION ALLOCATION In order to update police and fire impact fees by land use, the capital costs needs to be apportioned between residential and non-residential properties. The apportionment is accomplished through a functional population allocation method. The use of functional population[21 to develop more equitable impact fees has widely been used in Florida since the 1980s and remains a vital tool in estimating service demands between customer classes. Specifically, this methodology is applied to apportion capital costs associated with public facilities, police protection, fire rescue and other municipal services allocable to the non-residential classes. The concept of functional population is incorporated in order to spread capital costs more equitably between residential and non-residential land-uses. Businesses place demands upon public services in exactly the same manner as residents do, and it is equitable to spread these costs based on the average number of people expected to be present. For residential use, the allocation is calculated per resident based on the average amount of time spent at the residence. The resident's remaining time is then allocated as either an employee and/or visitor to the [2] Nicholas, Nelson, and Juergensmeyer A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees American Planning Association, 1991 K\DC\1179-02\FtptamalReponaeport doc 2-2 remaining non-residential classes as determined using traffic generations, estimated employment data, and anticipated operations The net result is the total number of person hours per location Table 2-3 provides the details used to estimate the functional population coefficients Generally, the following results were observed • Residential costs are based on the average amount of time spent at home or approximately 65%for each citizen on average • Non-residential costs are based on the remaining time (35%) that each citizen serves as a visitor,or employee within the community The functional population results were used to update the police and fire services impact fees provided for in Sections 4 and 5 of this report (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 2-3 Page lof1 Section 2 City of Clermont Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study List of Tables Table Description 2-1 Population Detail and Housing Elements 2-2 Average Persons Per Household 2-3 Functional Population and Employment Data Page 1 of 1 Table 2-1 City of Clermont Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study Population Detail and Housing Elements Annual Line Average Total Total Avg Pop No Fiscal Year Rate Population [1] [2] Units per Unit 1 2000 9,333 4,675 2 29 2 2010 11 9% 28,742 11,316 2 54 3 2013 1 7% 30,201 11,890 2 54 4 2015 9 85% 36,441 14,743 2 47 5 2020 2 93% 42,100 17,516 2 40 6 2025 5 12% 54,037 23,140 2 34 7 2030 4 73% 68,099 30,039 2 27 8 Overall 2013 - 2030 4 90% Footnotes [1] As provided by the City within its adopted Comprehensive Plan [2] Based on the 2010 U S Census and estimates for 2013 as obtained from the U S Census Bureau Page 1 of 1 Table 2-2 City of Clermont Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study Avera2e Persons Per Household Est Line Existing Persons Weighted Weighted Population Persons No Housing Type Units[1] Per Unit Units Units-% Per Unit Per Unit 1 Residential Units 2 0- 1 Bedroom 733 2 00 1,466 3 1% 930 1 27 3 2 Bedrooms 3,724 3 00 11,172 23 5% 7,084 1 90 4 3 Bedrooms 3,425 4 00 13,700 28 8% 8,687 2 54 5 4 Bedrooms 2,760 5 00 13,800 29 0% 8,751 3 17 6 5+Bedrooms 1,248 6 00 7,489 15 7% 4,749 3 80 7 Total 11,890 N/A 47,627 100 0% 30,201 [1] 2 54 [1] Footnotes [1] Based on the 2010 U S Census and estimates for 2013 as obtained from the U S Census Bureau m 0 o n-;--m ry o° e O O n o o:h m; m o m owm 0- 6 tg e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e � e e e e e e °x= G &e . ry - e Me __ No�p o he e e e e e e___a °op°a n$N e -N 0'� m -b O ro O m n O m - L'm Z r N m 2 -N s- =,O= -P P m P p p O N m m N O i ; ry m m m N N N M ---- 6 `°an a e mao.rvno orvory _4o 8 n 0m..°, A.00p0mv°ne,'0nN =' 2O7 Z _,c°-'a aNmn M m-N =n':-_ m mp°-'N-n msc--_ -hHh='(--N a y _ < �- rv�N p pm n m° o o h 0°-^a 0ry 0 a op`"$ h 0-$tPs N,n w N r om n P 9r -N M - oA,P',o oO °p oo -N p er Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° nnrn�n ran�.,r�nnn nr r nrn nr n nnnn rrrr�n r�nnnn�n�n non y .. 9 a 000 0 00 0 N 0 O O 00 00 0 O 00 00 00 O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 O O 00 00 00 0? - o_ Q _H ro OOrvm mMh a op o-'o$0m o3 n-°°ev 99,°0,7°°ao o"� 6.> m Z ,—, _ —0" — -N--r .n rvh N NN.7--O� ry m o 0.-z,- 9v 1 Z °� 6 00 my _ m^o or 9-noo.v'ro hro='orvr o--v$M E- Z o P M m m m p m - °5.1- 6= = 00.00.0.<,.........00.0.00.00.8.,..,08.2g.., m G m m m m= Z m p N m m m m m m B m m - m m m m S °x V 0 O E e " E qrn - 6 p -a N n o$h p o0-0 p N Op o-a-77w e 7p n o A 0 N o o_'c N N ry V o ry oM-pM m 6 M � E E m N m c 1 a - x°"1= z :',' mmmmf,oNNrvoo,t00mm000mmm0000 0000000x°0°ovoovoo: 0 U x ry ry 9 e a ° Z moo.°2 rv1°11. '-°rvoo1voe7,7,.no7°Q_N-po.r _ n -NO N O p L _ h N N N M N 1" i" Q p p p M ry pp ry O p M N >p p p p p p p V pp T p«O p n O M rv-N p- z pi 3� Q e�\°�e e e e e e e\°e e e e\°e w e o e e e e e\°�\°o e e e e\°�\°\°e Z „°o„S°om o o g„$$o o„$„$N o o„$$$.n o g$$$$o 8�� r r rr rr.n r r r.nn Nr.n r .n P n n P 0 v0j 09�„ry P n M 9mn M O O P O m m N m-ry - F z -$-::O- M M N m p N M�-P m n m m m p N -N P^ -M S. c m - c _ mi T.° p U m e m y E € pp C 6 § > >_ =,-- (5 m 9 g m m' ° a ' 5 0 ° u V E m O O o M u F- - o E E c o t g = 1. — � "s = � EEa \LLUO 3° x �S v C a i b t t r, .'=s 3— 2 9 'VO� c S a cg � " i o ° o U m 5 t � °d �i 7 4 0 2 "v' e5 5 0`-�' o a e c o o � o .� `u = E t 3 �° o� 5 ° �-oo i z z ,A4,§6912M4.- 3Q,73MF ssaza` H-2. c� 3zc,§6,gE j zl — ry m 0 0 0 n m P 0-ry m"V n m P N 9ry N N ry N N rry ry m n M m M m m m m r0'i e rvmp�n�onmPO rvmp�n�cnm n 9 — r .o,d and — — '^ °o$°oa°o o c" E a°`oi:- EF,,:°n$MOrv:°om m a drv- i∎”, iQa.gs,m e-e°o nan ti ° 0 0 0 r-N-m - o r =P o--- i C 2G8 N_°_v'n e'n v e d v e e d d e e g e aoM a e e e v Q�e v O v,e m v g e v N e e M e v e e e e eve e _ N n 0° M O b v _M vP P d N N _ry S O„r r M N M m m - O Q P O°d d h ry C N 1 O C '1 ° O N-N■ r,o n N E -N`D § N N—M N M M M m m m,° d N N N A N d —— N - a C 01 _ O v�dO,°,M',°I�rv,$o m°Qa o e N r O N•°O_g O m A g S• -°m°'NV'P N ry P ° 3 « ° o o d n dPan EP r P o p-A n N '" 0 - 2v ,G S vm r N Liv O— r M vN« °G G —_m,p N a 03x.°= 88008888888888888888888888888888888888888 - �+h hrrrrrrrrr,crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�n�nrrrrrrrnr . 9 °o°o n°o°o°o°o�' "iOO°1�°nv°,° o f- ---0 0 0 0 00000----0000000000000000-0.0.0000 j:5— ''- NMNMM,°= ^- n,m°•cNN—NO4n.. ,«n __N ,Nn Mc'- w z C N ON- *M*T M N P P P M N m N 3 b N N T T TM*m • n d b r r r N o C C C O r°v- 88888098°e°888888888888 °888888888885888 S Q Q S.9 E ma NNE vaarn wo°o°m 00 av a °v°,°-m°M ornPPPPa en n P �n,nn o° V E E ,5 i9. 8.- m' ° g o °°o °o°o °° °o o° °°o°o°o°o o°o°o O o 0°o°o°o mo N N N m« °N N N««N N N N N N ry w°as«0«m m° m °a of — v ti o' C N°e m p N ry e m .0°N M0 O«'n r N ry h N O 0 ry P P M P« N aPa m 2 L y n d M M__m rod-m_H4«dh °- d°tM.„oo$a vd g,-, _ t {i 3 N E 1 o- N-r«i$v a 4 v deed d d<ve n�ndem,+eecMVdd vv and a dd evee�.°,�.°,�°n,.°, t, . , F— "v" g g g g g v e O v 00 e g g 00 g"$ g g g g g g g v e g g e e — r vr.n r . 0„ 000 O r r r 0 00 00„r r O, 0„ON r r . ., 6° 0 __ d N ,°n P 0001 n P m m N T,°°00 M m m 0 0 0 0,O o O 8 00 0,`Di,«ada O F c _ _y,mn O. O,P d M G ry r°i n ado P'd N<N V vii°°,m -- n r e°:° O 3ga 'pa 0 gag t0y 'qqa ''Qa 'Q 'QQa tyy 'ppa 00 'm ''aQa to 'QQa '^�^�3 '3 a 'QaQ '0Q t bQQ 'gqa 'ppa ''Qo 'QQ� QwQ :,Q 'u 'paa ''qa 'a ''oqo & 0 1 8 N G S § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § 8 § § E § § § § § § S § § § § § a I E E E i E S d d d 3 2 3 0 .5° EE E E 2 r II 0 U `u a ° FF ..❑ ° 6,3 ti E 0 3 a ❑r� -o8 z 00 E 3y to _ 5b'. s � 33= o o $ g o 5 m g m a 3 1 t 4= 9 r E f o C C N E g' L [ [3 7€ 2 o E ° ° E° = i °C U c s o ' c c gE n F -y c ° 3 OKm �tJ Z n, , = 0 aiE 3,saSm UOU to t ,1 n r n r r r r «« ; )�I 11 82 -2 . Jfs } a= ()E l i' z}_ [� f ,Jƒ� - I / \//I ' U j N =OE ! | � $/ f )0 ) ` . ` t- }+ } ! td a §\E, '71.1E {_ $ t- §2 E E ) q!; { ]a ] \ /J1s 1, i \ / , �, , _ �, , § f ! ; ! _ , a;2 !! , | ( - -- Cl - - --, Cl ,\ k ) Y. _ i j ( / | Cl® ` ! S jt \ ° $ - § - B / ) ! _ § ! t {` ) - ) I, - Ea _ . ; ; ) { _ / ) § § j - - ) ! {§ k_((.. 2 . : = !! ! _ \ § - « f!!\! !! |\} t ! \) �! ! § " ! ; _ § ,}| %/ � )!!! ! {`\ \ a� r` a \}� (\ }\ ) 745R644..— ) r\|)} 8 )\\&)\ \ a o5 E y . § .\ ' ; § & 2(§ |) ! , z}) k § ; : E \ 2 ; ; !]:�! , 2t ' , g /`} §)2dEgii ) § } )g� \ ) 3 / #k\\ \� 012 q )\ § \ ! ,/#3aan“2,13z = ,24!!2.1 : ! z!4!2 =w =); }a ,, . , !) E _.0E-=,—I E E E 1'1t MG SECTION 3 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES SECTION 3 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES GENERAL This section of the report summarizes the basis for the development of the City's proposed water and wastewater impact fees Included in this section is a discussion of the design and calculation of the proposed water and wastewater impact fees for consideration by the City DESIGN OF IMPACT FEES The review of the water and wastewater impact fees is based on the improvements-driven approach In calculating the proposed fees there are two significant components that are addressed These two components include 0)the level of service to be assigned to the applicants that request system capacity, and ii)the level or amount of capital cost to be recovered from a new applicant requesting service Both of these components influence the level of the impact fee charged expressed on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis, excluding irrigation services As will be discussed later in this section, a separate allowance for outdoor irrigation is recommended for single family residential water use Generally, there are two different methods of developing water and wastewater impact fees The "average" method is based on total system assets and capabilities available to serve new growth (including existing and future expansion), while the "incremental" method is based upon the cost of the next increment of capacity including only additional assets or expansion capacity needed to serve new growth The incremental method takes into consideration future capital investment and capacity additions as identified in the City's water and wastewater capital improvements plan Since the water and wastewater systems contain existing assets and capabilities that also have capacity available to serve future growth and the City has also prepared a Master Plan to further improve and expand such systems to serve new customers, it was determined that the average method is the appropriate method to calculate the cost of water and wastewater treatment capacity required to serve new growth EXISTING IMPACT FEES The City currently charges a water impact fee equal to $1,991 per single family ERU based on the capital costs of the utility system's capacity for treatment and transmission/distribution of potable water The City also charges a wastewater impact fee equal to $3,752 per single family ERU based on the capital costs of the utility system's capacity for wastewater treatment and collection of wastewater The reasons for using impact fees as a source of utility capital funding include the following 1 To defray the capital cost of constructing new utility facilities necessitated by growth, 2 To shift the financial burden of constructing new utility facilities to the new residents for whose benefit the facilities will be built, and K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FtnalRepon\Repon doc 3-1 3 To maintain, to the extent possible, existing utility rates while funding a portion of capital costs associated with growth The existing water and wastewater impact fees were adopted in 2005 pursuant to City Ordinance which sets forth the purpose of the fees, the level of fees charged to new applicants requesting water and wastewater service, and other parameters related to the administration of impact fees The water and wastewater impact fees are currently applied on an ERU basis, which reflects a unit of measure that approximates the average demand or capacity requirements of a single- family residential customer The ERU concept defines all other types of customers as a percentage or a multiple of a single-family residence on the basis of the estimated water consumption (and/or wastewater flow) of such customers relative to residential service levels The City has indexed such fees annually since adoption in 2005 based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is important that a level of service (LOS) standard be developed Pursuant to Section 163 3164, 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 or service Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163 3202(2)(g) of the Florida Statutes As further stated in the Statutes, each local government shall establish a 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 and not necessarily on a system-wide basis For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity allocable to an equivalent residential unit(ERU) expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis This allocation of capacity represents the amount of capacity allocable to an ERU, whether or not 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 serve a typical individually-metered residential account In considering the City's water service, a separate distinction is made between an ERU excluding outdoor irrigation and a single-family ERU, which is proposed to include an allowance for irrigation use The single family residential class represents the largest group of customers served by the City, and it represents the single largest group of irrigation accounts within the service territory The City's existing LOS for water and wastewater service per single family ERU is 520 8 and 350 0 GPD, respectively Based upon a review of actual customer billing requirements and discussions with staff, it is currently recommended that the LOS per single family ERU be reduced to 480 and 220 GPD for water and wastewater service, respectively Specifically, the 480 GPD of water allowance is estimated to provide up to 220 GPD for indoor residential water use and an additional 260 GPD for irrigation purposes This allowance for irrigation is K\DC\l 179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Repon doc 3-2 important, because when developing the water impact fees for other property types (non-single family developments) no such allowance or charge for irrigation is appropriate Based on discussions with the City staff, non-single family properties are generally required to develop a local well for irrigation purposes, therefore, only the 220 GPD LOS for indoor use is ascribed to those properties since such irrigation use is not probable To the extent the City requires a second (2nd) water meter for irrigation for non-single family accounts, a separate water only impact fee should then be collected The application of this approach is described in detail later in this section INVESTMENT IN EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES The City maintains a significant investment in the existing water and wastewater systems Such assets are used to produce, treat, and distribute potable water to customers and to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater As discussed previously, the existing investment in facilities currently has some capacity available to serve future customers, therefore, an allocated portion of the cost of these assets is included in the impact fees The City constructed and currently maintains a number of water and wastewater treatment plants and has a significant investment in transmission and distribution lines As shown in Table 3-1, the following reflects the City's existing investment in the water and wastewater systems Water System Wastewater System Treatment Plants $21,071,474 $37,823,202 Disposal Facilities 0 2,850,223 Lift Stations 0 6,822,309 Transmission/Collection 4,075,118 2,950,324 Investment in Existing Facilities[*] $25,146,592 $50,446,058 [s] Reflects gross assets allocable for impact fee determination derived from Table 3-1 The amounts shown above total $75 6 million and comprise approximately 86% of the total utility system assets currently in service Such assets which were excluded from fee determination include contributed assets such as on-site facilities, certain vehicles and equipment funded from rates, and meter services paid by customer fees The assets assumed to be contributed total approximately $9 9 million and were estimated based on a review of utility lines by line size shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3 at the end of this section It was assumed that all distribution and collection lines less than 10 inches in diameter should be excluded from the transmission system costs, and thus, reflect credit for any contributed assets that may occur PROJECTED CAPITAL NEEDS The City maintains a long-range capital improvement program (CIP) for its water and wastewater systems as shown in Table 3-4, which totals $61 9 million In addition, the City completed a master plan that looks at project needs beyond the initial five (5) year horizon contained in Table 3-4 These additional projects must be considered when evaluating the average existing and future costs to serve new growth The five (5) year capital plan and the long range master plan projects are shown in Tables 3-5 and 3-6 for the water and wastewater systems, respectively The following improvements were considered K\DC\1179 02\Rots\FinalReport\Report doc 3-3 • Water System Capital Improvement — Water Main Extensions — West Side Water Treatment Plant Construction — Expansion of Water Reclamation Mains • Wastewater System Capital Improvement — Expansion of Water Reclamation Facility (Wastewater Treatment) — Construction Reclaimed Water Reservoir — Construction of Lift Stations and Force Mains The City will also incur significant expenditures for renewals and replacements, however, no such costs are included in the proposed impact fees, which is consistent with impact fee criteria as established by Florida case law As shown in Table 3-5, the City is projected to invest approximately $20 9 million in the water system Table 3-6 reflects the City's projected investment in the wastewater system of approximately $53 1 million, which will expand wastewater treatment capacity by 4 0 MGD DESIGN OF WATER IMPACT FEE The development of the proposed water impact fee per gallon of water capacity is presented in Table 3-7 As shown in Table 3-9, the proposed water impact fee for each single family ERU, including irrigation, is $2,125 This represents an increase in the fee of$89 or 4 4% above the current fee per single family ERU The reason for this modest increase in light of the City's capital investment is due to the decrease in level of service assumed from 520 8 GPD to 480 GPD, which includes 260 GPD for single family irrigation uses The proposed fees reflect system costs to serve growth based on actual service requirements, including irrigation needs for single family service In the development of the proposed water impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed water impact fees are 1 The level of service for a single family ERU was estimated based on actual customer billings and discussions with City staff The LOS per single family ERU (excluding All- Adult Communities) is proposed to be 480 GPD, which includes 220 GPD for indoor use and 260 GPD for single family irrigation uses As shown in Table 3-9, only the indoor use allowance of 220 GPD was considered when evaluating other property types since such developments are not generally allowed a separate irrigation meter Instead, such developments are required to put in a well for irrigation use 2 The existing water production and treatment facilities have capacity available to serve new customer growth and are essential in providing such service Table 3-7 presents the historical cost of existing production and treatment facilities plus planned improvements needed to serve growth Based upon the recommended LOS for the water system of 480 GPD per single family ERU with irrigation and 220 GPD per ERU without irrigation ERU, K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReporl\Repon doc 3-4 the existing facilities have approximately 44 4% of total capacity available to serve new growth 3 The water transmission system capacity is difficult to ascertain except at "build out" conditions, therefore, the total assets including planned expansions were evaluated against the current capacity levels or 10 983 MGD, expressed on an average daily flow (ADF) basis 4 For calculation of the impact fee, no existing or planned capital facility costs associated with onsite facilities were included in the fee As shown on Table 3-7, the proposed water impact fee was calculated on a blend of historical and future capital costs for the water production and treatment facilities and historical and future costs of the transmission system facilities By designing the water system impact fee to recover certain costs on a prospective basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will provide funds to help meet the future capital needs of the water system It should be noted that in the event the construction costs, capacity requirements, or utility service area materially change, the water impact fee may need to be adjusted accordingly As shown on Tables 3-7 and 3-9, the proposed water impact fee is $974 per ERU, excluding irrigation and $2,125 for all single family ERUs with irrigation DESIGN OF WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE As shown in Table 3-8, the proposed impact fee for the wastewater system is $3,439 per ERU For wastewater service, all use is deemed to be returned to the wastewater plants, therefore, no distinction between irrigation needs is necessary The proposed fee of $3,439 per ERU represents a$399 decrease in the existing fee or 10 4% The reason for the decrease is due to the reduction in level of service assumed from 350 GPD to 220 GPD, which reflects current water use for indoor purposes based on a review of actual customer billings In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fee, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are 1 The level of service for a wastewater ERU was assumed to be 220 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis based on a review of actual customer bills and discussions with staff 2 The existing wastewater treatment facilities have capacity available to serve new customer growth and are essential in providing such service Table 3-8 presents the historical cost of existing treatment facilities plus planned improvements Based upon the proposed LOS for the wastewater system of 220 GPD per ERU,the existing facilities which are expandable to 8 0 MGD, have approximately 72 57%of total capacity available to serve new growth 3 The capital improvements identified previously and reflected in Table 3-6 will provide an expansion capacity of approximately 4 0 MGD, which will expand the current plant from K\DC\I179 0Ntpts\FinalReponaepon doc 3-5 4 0 MGD to 8 0 MGD The costs associated with this expansion are estimated at $30 5 million as shown in Table 3-6 and included in the fee determination on Table 3-8 4 The wastewater collection system capacity is difficult to ascertain except under "build-out" conditions Based on the current infrastructure in place and improvements within the next five (5) years, such investment was compared against the existing wastewater service capacity or 4 0 MGD 5 For calculation of the impact fee, no existing or planned capital facility costs associated with onsite facilities were included in the fee As shown on Table 3-8, the proposed impact fee was calculated on a blend of historical and future costs for wastewater treatment facilities and historical and future costs of the disposal and collection system available to serve future growth By designing the system impact fee to recover costs on this basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will provide funds on a reasonable basis in order to meet the future capacity needs of the wastewater system It should be noted that in the event the capacity requirements or costs materially change from what was reflected,the wastewater impact fee may need to be adjusted accordingly As shown on Tables 3-8 and 3-9, the proposed wastewater impact fee is recommended to be $3,439 per ERU FEE APPLICATION With respect to the application of impact fees a variety of methods are used by Florida utilities, meter-based, attribute-based, and fixture-based Based on our experience in working with utilities in Florida and throughout the State, the following is a summary of impact fee application procedures 1 For impact fees charged to individually-metered residential accounts (single-family), such accounts are generally considered as one (1) equivalent residential unit (ERU) An equivalent residential unit represents the average water or wastewater demand expressed on an average gallons per day basis utilized by a typical single-family residence Generally due to administrative concerns, all individually-metered residential customers are considered to be one (1) ERU However, some utilities further differentiate the single family residential class by square footage, number of bedrooms within the residence or meter size serving the account recognizing the trade-off between a higher degree of equity in fee application versus the administrative cost It should be noted that this class of customers represents the majority of connections made to most utility systems 2 The impact fees charged for master metered residential customers (connections which serve a multiple of residential dwelling units with the usage measured through a single meter), institutional, and commercial or general service customers generally are structured to vary in order to recognize differences in the usage/capacity characteristics of such customers Essentially, those customers that require a higher level of plant capacity (i e , have greater usage requirements) will pay a higher impact fee The specific method for calculating the fee to be charged to such non-single family residential connections K\DC\I 179 02\RpIs\FinalRepon\Repon doc 3-6 varies based on the practices and policies of each utility The various practices with respect to determining non-single family residential ERUs include a For the master metered residential connections, many utilities consider these customers as residential use and base impact fees on the number of dwelling units served behind the meter Generally, the ERU factor applied to each multi-family dwelling unit is expressed as a multiple of single-family ERU (e g , 0 7 ERCs per dwelling unit) with such factor not being greater than 1 0 ERU per dwelling unit In some instances, however, no differentiation is made between master metered residential accounts or commercial accounts with the size of the service (e g , meter size) dictating the implied capacity requirements and impact fee level b For commercial and institutional customers, many utilities, including the City, attempt to differentiate the capacity characteristics of a customer based on certain demographics or business attributes of the customer This approach relies upon specific customer characteristics to estimate each individual customer's capacity needs For example, the capacity of a restaurant may be based on the number of square feet of the restaurant Another example of using this method is to estimate the capacity needs for a hotel based on the number of rooms Also, a number of utilities base the estimate of individual customer capacity needs on a fixture count of the physical number of taps and drains located in the customer's premises and estimated flow per fixture based on amounts published in the Standard Plumbing Code This method is often used in conjunction with other methods that rely upon specific business attributes for calculating the capacity needs of certain types of customers c Another approach for the determination of the impact fees for the various service connections is the use of meter or service size equivalents in the determination of customer capacity needs Essentially the size of the meter is assumed to be linked to the capacity requirements of a user whereby the higher the usage needs of a customer, the larger the size of the meter that needs to be installed for service This method generally incorporates information published by the American Water Works Association (the M22 manual entitled Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters) and is usually based on the instantaneous demands capable of such meter This methodology, while easy to administer, does not account for the potential usage diversity among customers being served by larger meters (e g ,two different customers with the same meter size often have significant differences in capacity needs) The method of impact fee application recommended to the City for the water and wastewater systems is different than the current method utilized for such systems The City's current method of fee application attempts to differentiate the capacity characteristics of a customer based on certain demographics or business attributes of the customer, the Attribute Method as was describe above This approach relies upon specific customer characteristics to estimate each individual customer's capacity needs This method is often used in conjunction with other methods that rely upon specific business attributes for calculating the capacity needs of certain types of customers Following discussions with City staff, several weaknesses within the current method were identified including K\DC\I 179-02\Rpts\FinalReponUteport doc 3-7 • Customer's ability to estimate his/her expenses to connect to the system, • Availability and accuracy of business attribute information before, during and subsequent to development, and • Accounting for changes in property use over time Based on these weakness and other considerations, PRMG recommends the City revise its fee application method to a per meter / per unit based approach With the exception of residential use, which is recommended to be applied on a per unit basis, the Meter Approach for commercial and other non-residential uses is based on the meter size issued for the development Essentially, the size of the meter is assumed to be linked to the capacity requirements of a user whereby the higher the usage needs of a customer, the larger the meter size that needs to be installed This method generally incorporates information published by the American Water Works Association (the M22 manual entitled Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters) and is based on the instantaneous demands of each meter The following table summarizes the proposed fees as shown in Table 3-9 Proposed Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service Water Impact Fees Wastewater Impact Fees Service Amount Service Amount Total Impact Description Level(gpd) Charged Level(gpd) Charged Fees Charged Existing Impact Fee per Gallon $3 829 $10 720 $14 549 Proposed impact Fee per Gallon $4 427 $15 632 $20 059 increase(Decrease)-$ $0 598 $4 912 $5 510 Increase(Decrease)-% 15 6% 45 8% 37 9% Single Family(Except All-Adult Communities) All Meters[I] 480 $2,125 220 $3,439 $5,564 Qualified All-Adult Community Up to 3 Bedrooms-All Meters[1] 322 $1,424 147 $2,304 $3,728 4 or More Bedrooms-All Meters[1] 480 $2,125 220 $3,439 $5,564 Multi-family Per Unit[2] 154 $682 154 $2,407 $3,089 Commercial [21 3/4"Meter 220 $974 220 $3,439 $4,413 1"Meter 550 $2,435 550 $8,598 $11,033 1 5"Meter 1,100 $4,870 1,100 $17,195 $22,065 2"Meter 1,760 $7,792 1,760 $27,512 $35,304 3"Meter 3,300 $14,610 3,300 $51,585 $66,195 4"Meter 5,500 $24,350 5,500 $85,975 $110,325 6"Meter 1 1,000 $48,700 11,000 $171,950 $220,650 8"Meter 17,600 $77,920 17,600 $275,120 $353,040 10"Meter 25,300 $112,010 25,300 $395,485 $507,495 [1] The proposed water fee includes an allowance for irrigation use,therefore no fee is required when a separate irrigation meter is issued [2] Amounts for the water fee do not include an allowance for irrigation use Based on discussions with City staff,the City generally requires that a well be constructed for common area irrigation To the extent a separate meter is issued,a second water impact fee should be collected based on the meter size No additional wastewater impact fee is collected for the 2nd meter used for irrigation purposes K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Report doc 3-8 COMPARISON WITH OTHER UTILITIES In order to provide additional information regarding the competitiveness of the proposed impact fees, a comparison of the recommended fees with similar fees charged by neighboring jurisdictions was prepared This comparison is summarized on Tables 3-10 for the water and wastewater systems The comparison reflects a standard equivalent residential unit(ERU)which is typical for the fees charged to an individually-metered single-family residential connection, and comprises the majority of connections, served by both the City and the surveyed public utilities included in the comparison It is important to note that no in-depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from capital facility charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance being recovered through user charges Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the type of utility plant facilities (treatment process, level of service, etc) currently in service or planned for the surveyed utility For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep injection well system or reclaimed water distribution system generally have a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than surface water discharge Additionally, utilities that have a poor quality water supply (which is contrary to the City) generally will have increased capital costs associated with higher levels or degrees of water treatment(e g , reverse osmosis) As shown on Tables 3-10, the proposed water and wastewater impact fees for the City are comparable with similar fees charged by other neighboring utilities (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 3-9 Page 1 of 1 Section 3 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis List of Tables Table Description 3-1 Summary of Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets 3-2 Distribution/Transmission Main Allocator- Water System 3-3 Collection/Transmission Main Allocator- Wastewater System 3-4 Summary of Capital Improvement Program 3-5 Allocation of Planned Water Capital Improvements 3-6 Allocation of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements 3-7 Development of Water System Impact Fee 3-8 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 3-9 Proposed Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service 3-10 Comparison of Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service Page I of i Table 3-1 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets 111 Line Fixed Assets at Onginal Cost No Function Water Wastewater Assets included in the Impact Fee I Treatment Plant $21,071,474 $37,823,202 2 Transmission Lines[2][3] 4,075,118 2,950,324 3 Disposal Facilities 0 2,850,223 4 Lift Stations 0 6,822,309 Total Embedded Costs included 5 in the Impact Fee Analysis $25,146,592 $50,446,058 Assets Excluded from the Impact Fee 6 Meter Services $2,095,402 $0 7 Distnbution/Collection Lines[2][3] 4,520,354 5,397,578 8 Vehicles&Equipment 402,949 295,534 Total Embedded Costs Excluded 9 from the Impact Fee Analysis $7,018,705 $5,693,112 10 Total Fixed Assets $32,165,297 $56,139,170 I I Total System Assets $88,304,467 Footnotes [1] Estimated Assets as reported by the City as of September 30,2013 [2] For the purposes of allocating reclaimed water resource costs,all costs associated with reclaimed water transmission&distribution are reflected in the water assets All reclaimed water assets associated with treatment and storage remain in the wastewater treatment costs [3] Based on the existing asset records of the City,information on specific distnbution and collection lines that should be excluded from Impact fee determination was not available Therefore the following adjustments were made to segregate the total transmission costs from the distribution and collection related costs Fixed Assets at Onginal Cost Water Wastewater Transmission&Distribution/Collection System $8,595,472 $8,347,902 Percent Allocable to Back-bone Transmission[*] 47% 35% Amount Allocable to Back-bone Transmission $4,075,118 $2,950,324 Amount Allocable to Distribution/Collection $4,520,354 $5,397,578 [*]The water and wastewater transmission system was estimated based on mains greater than 8 inches in diameter as derived from Tables 3-2 and 3-3 Page 1 of 1 Table 3-2 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Distribution/Transmission Main Allocator-Water System Weighted Allocation [1] Line Total Percent No Size of Pipe (diameter) Length (ft) of Total Distribution Mains [2] 1 I " 9,335 2 1 1/2 " 6,335 3 2 " 195,964 4 4 " 84,518 5 6 " 2,820,591 6 8 " 2,310,857 7 Total Distribution 5,427,599 52 6% Transmission Mains 8 10 " 1,061,115 9 12 " 2,015,177 10 16 " 1,511,777 11 20 " 239,448 12 24 " 65,488 13 Total Transmission 4,893,005 47 4% 14 Total T/D Mains 10,320,604 100 0% Footnotes [1] Amounts shown reflect the product of the linear miles of line and each line size or diameter [2] Distribution System assumed to include all service lines less than 10 inches in diameter Page I of I Table 3-3 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Collection/Transmission Main Allocator-Wastewater System Gravity Mains Force Mains Total Mains[1] Line Weighted Percent Weighted Percent Weighted Percent No Size of Pipe(diameter) Length(ft in) of Total Length(ft in) of Total Length(ft in) of Total Collection Mains[2] 1 6 " 45,230 0 45,230 2 8 " 6,035,767 0 6,035,767 3 Total Collection Mains 6,080,996 89 54% 0 0 00% 6,080,996 64 7% Transmission Mains 4 2 " 0 743 743 5 3 " 0 52,916 52,916 6 4 " 0 103,243 103,243 7 6 " 0 305,721 305,721 8 8 " 0 375,504 375,504 9 10 " 140,931 194,167 335,098 10 12 " 178,042 642,492 820,533 11 15 " 170,967 0 170,967 12 16 " 0 327,303 327,303 13 18 " 78,823 0 78,823 14 24 " 0 219,143 219,143 15 30 " 141,968 0 141,968 16 36 " 0 122,286 122,286 17 42 " 0 269,634 269,634 18 Total Transmission 710,730 10 46% 2,613,152 100 00% 3,323,882 35 3% 19 Total Mains 6,791,726 100 00% 2,613,152 100 00% 9,404,878 100 0% Footnotes [1] Amounts shown reflect the product of the linear miles of line and each line size or diameter [2] Collection System assumed to include all service lines less than 10 inches in diameter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 O CT G 0 0 h 0 r N vt 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m , 00 0, OT �p 001,1 ,0 ^ V , 0 , 00 N O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 b O, 00 '0 sa vt vt vl M N V ,0 h 0 Vt _ N vl t� t� [� SD O N O N N O vt O O _ ‘.0 .1 ,O sD 69 L F M .--. N — M ^ N N ^ O b 6A O — a ^ b9 69 ^ a N 6N9 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O p 0 to 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O_ 0e, O O 0 0 V 000 0 b O V , , , NO h v) N O O 8 b N er 1 N - ^ .N- '0 en en N3 00 00 ■ 69 O M .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 690 O O 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O 69 p p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O :: - r o o O V 0 0 00000 O O 0 s 0 O 0 O O V O O V 0 0 0 N 0 O 0 0 V V n O 0 0 O, p — ..- -,N 67 N — E 00 0 FA 'O G N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to o ° 0 O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 p 69 O 0 0 q 0 0 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O U '0 0 O O O OOi 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O o 0o O O O 4- O O O V v O V v1 vt ut N_ O C O N P O_ O. N 'O N 00 ^ EA 00 0 00 U N O ct 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 00000 O 690 O 0 O 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 00 O O 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 00 O 0 O 0 O O V 00 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 , O O h 0 V b O V vvuN O O O O W 0 O O -O 6p N q N V) 69 ^- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O _ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 000000 0 0 0 0 6A o 0 O q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00-0000 O O O O O T L V O O vi O r N , v�j '0 O O O O O O O *, vj O O, 0, O O N '° ^ W , O N O v1 vi vi N O O en V p vi C G , - , m V V vi N V N N 0 N Qy d N ^ ^ ■ 69 fA V a 00 Y u E e a € E E = 8 mmmmmmm mmm mmmmmmmm mm mmmm _ = gym A c t E c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " u 3 N 0 F ; a . cT. 0 33333333333 V) WU0cn0000000 �' 0000 �' cn _ 3 i.2 03 w 0 3 v0000000000 0000 . 0000000eee :? O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W E - m 3 v', 3 t a000eeeevoa m . . . . . . . . . . . O G O C O C C O O O C G O O C C 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C O o a C To E Z 0 = - c c O A g o O E A m 11 °13 C CL o a 8 E a E ¢ w 00 `c E u c 2 —`:,' ?.. o C7 n°. u°. O 0. 0.-0 U EH°d a "' c c c o 8i E A = 5 o o f ¢ y E EE = 7 w w 5 d o € > A a o u c g g 15 n [mil .1 ` . 0 v v c ,e a o o — W W 3 5 O OC 3 E v2 A ° d c c c g W ae a s U t 5 5 °L °1 o o = y a ¢ a V g 3 Ld C� a v E > o m m ° 0.. U] g'> ° E A E �a s Eno n c N d �.. !i ' °' .- 2 u f > 2 2 u F 3 2 m E u a A g 2 0 0 o A x 3 O ., U A '- O 3 d > « A 0 d b t a. 3 , c 0 K :: 2 d v c c W J _j Q VJ Rf m u c1 a� v Z o < a c ›- 3 0 5 1. m m f¢- w aEi u1 vTi a . ° E E A ° u- ,2 JA F Q V E E u- t=r F �° .. a y 33 , g OF v~i m u d n ° �o _-a (n o o ti 0 '� z t d 2.`t• E a ¢ — m a> a� '° Vo 0 c ¢ P 3 3� r2 v v 0 0a c F Q C _ - Q m v aQi' "� "� c 0 aRi' 0 ca c a., 00 d v F Z 10 - l� o < 3 tu333 ¢ z3ratu3vn 3 u. a: v) � � ww .� ..533 � z � O � 3 , f5a3 O • z N M V Vt b r W O, O N M V Vl b r W O\ O N N M N vt N n W N 0 N M V en en N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 1 0 G 0 0 v1 0 N Cl v, 0 0 0 0 0 ON. O ,0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,O ,0 �y 0 0 N 0 Q N 0 vt 0 0 0 0' O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 00 'v1 N F vi v1 v1 Nl Cl Q ,0 v1 0 v1 Cl Cl N - = N N N ,O 0 Cl 0 ^ Cl 0 h 0 O 'o ON d N1 ^ N1 Cl Cl 0 yOy CA 71,1 EA a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 . 0 . . 0 O O 0 vi O O 0 . 00 O O . 0 00 . . . O O O O 0 O O 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0000 . O O O 0 O O O O 00 . 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O_ O O 0 O Q 0 0 0 0 Q vi vi vt Cl 0 O 0 - v1 v1 0 v1 0 iC Nt - vt v1 0 0 0 Cl N M N Cl Cl 0 ^ - Cl Vi vi EA vi 69 0 N1 I N • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 6A 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O, 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O .- -. 0 Cl 01 0 0 di v 7;9 Vi to 'O w I N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O• 0 j b 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0- v1 Q v1 O-1 T- 0 Q '/1 Cl 0 0 0 h 1� 001 LI. O 691 N Cl Vi 69 - 6N9 6N9 99 In 6 2 - 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Q O Q vl v1 vt Cl 0 0 0 h v1 Cl 00 00 0 8 v N 66 6 00 69 69 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i, qL Q 0 0 Vt o N N ut 0, 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 ,0 vt O O Cl ,D 00 N vt ut Cl 0 v1 v1 vt Cl 0 0 0, 0, v1 W Nl Q 0 0 v) - Cl Q N1 Nl Q C E Cl Q - N N ,p . Q a vi vi Vi vi vi V u E oq y > ,A ., E = g an m m m m m an m m an an m an CO CO m CO m an on m m on m 4i V ,. E v g 0000000u- 000 OOOOOOOOw- 0Ou- 0000 a c o 3 Co. Co. Co. Co. Co. Co z Co. Co. ,A Co. Co. v) w Co. w Co. F ; 3 W � - 3333333 333 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � t' 0 C 9 0 eveeeeeeeeeveeee vveveveevee W W N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `° E L3 x vevevevevee 3 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v e v 0 0 0 v e v e v e 0 0 v e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I CA F O U v, h p 00 (f) 5 F u Cl) o p p 4 n 0 vvi F m w w 0 w a. 2 u V F F n E w c c , m o r g O v c g ° g " 22 u, F �2 0.' aci �' a ."�] 0 .o o f = v. 0 E E e F Q Yi Y v c Q Q c a u o o C7 i,o. a Y con U t' y u g en eo c qw ? m 2 n rn O o E y `J° eh' a a o G L X 7 Q ,, y v v m =° = 0 2 1 E u C 3 F j 6. F, ru y a, g 0 0 0 c F F a E a, z' w .� m m Cl W Q C. m a `o o = s 0 3 3 g a › ") } `e 8 s ° 4 A `" c = -8 gg ❑ c c e Q Z a.m E E v > ? 1O E o 0. �' C h E y j o U E E E a n E E y y d y 3 Z . > a, E > c c 2' 2' U F O 4] F- > ce a c d 8 : 2 5 a D a n = m E vFi F 2 o v >, v m c g x i A Fa- 3 E < a m E x >, an, d "- 0 tea, o ? [7 [] _ _ 2 — a a U E ` w 3 A 3 3 3 E E v o s E n " ,` c c '4 E. 3 W u 7 = v d U E O▪ F - A d d 4 y 1v .1 m d r a O `p d, c y y = a a= ' 333 ¢ a3 w w3 v, 3 F H a=. G- a cA V, a 2 .7zrz .i _133a o: z a. F F • 3 U F 0 3 U f 0 0 C 00 01 0 - Cl 01 Q V1 ,0 N CO O, 0 Cl N1 Q V1 ,D N 00 O, 0 - Cl 01 Q VI t` CO ON .� z M M Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Vt v1 v1 vt v1 v1 Vi v1 v1 v1 0 0 0 ,O 10 ,O 10 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 00 0 0 0 0 00 0o 00 0o t- o as 0 o Co so 0 o v, v, F 609 b N 0 co '0 `00 0V ON D\ co,/ _p essi a O 6N9 0 0 0 --0 0 0 0 0O O 0 0 0 O O O O O 6A 0 6 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 .0 0 O OO _ _ O O e C C N N C N N N N 0 0 A N N V3 69 0 N . t 0 C co 0 0 o 0 O C 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E o 0 0 o O o V 0v ,00 C 00 00 cn o — — — N N .,N — — T O' O N to G 6A to 0 G c1 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 U t0 0 0 0_ O O^ 0 0 0 D N 00 T N �--� N N M H, 69 69 Vi V0) 6. co O O co 0 co O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X00 N 0 N co X00 — M 0 0 col col EA N M M C V, 69 69 69 409 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 609 o O O co o o r. E O 0 0 o 0 O o 0 r, v°i, ,on °o 0' rn °o C to W - G O O N — r+, N N et C L N Q Tr so N N b so Q S (A Vi to a, d E o y > M € E 0 H = CO 4. m = a `° u — >- E v u. 30 u"- u. in0 1.'- c_, i,,. 3 v, E V a 0 30u. 'J' DiDa. a 3rnOwc., � ° ; � V, 03 � ' X03 F — U, � 3 to Ili C at at N 147. E to E � 3 To E r, E 0 T OEJ L V�1 VJ V N U N 7 t U E La1 (% 0. 0 cc W aO C a s V d Em Em' a E E °1 v, 3 m E 3 E U A 3 g O C.) g 36 ' g v6 ' v � C c7 p, 3 .0 z N A V of v to to 0 O ° a N L c O a N N p O t'a A y N o n n 8 u v v, E u 0 EriaE cn EcimooE 0 E E n. u".. u°'.. yv Lz yZ m = = A F°, a 3 t = 3 Fo- = _ _ `a F A ra C3553 Cv, 00v, C3v15503 O G 0 O N N • N C0 N N O, 0 — N to V Cn �0 .] z N N N N N N N N N N 00 00 00 00 00 00 C G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI O 0 O 0 O O O O O O E. oa 'E no0 n N °o N Q O O N 6, a f _ 69 1:3 0 5 ■ � 0 co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o O o o 6v w 69 w 4.'O C 2 c• 0:v G. O F, w O1 C O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cam 0 O O c y 3 o 0 o O O o 0 o a E $ 0 ° o 0 vl- — j L v w sv Z▪ o F o vi 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°o °o °o 0 0 0 °o :5, 0 o O o I. 0 0 c E 00 ° 0 0 N d - r r cF 6v 69 ▪h e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 — ^ — — c h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 O O E v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O o �, d ooO o 0000 O 00 O O I o o o �+ 0 0 0 0 o O O o N C Qt 0..Q N O N h 0 O N O N O Q W c . vi Q•O h 0 0 O N 00 cr. _ z'-. 00 1 W o h E E U __FT A Act N Y v u 4 .N. 69 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 69 O W F° a c 0 0 0 0 0 ° o r 0 0' al .O+ NI`--N `O '0 "3 y 0 9 ¢ E c 10 O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 `a v o 000.0000000 0 0 0 0 0 V o 0 o r 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 o CI e 0 © 0000NM - NN o 0100 �c ON o .o c .7 F - 6q m b h 0 N 0 N Q ,Q 69 VW N L V — 61 H % 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O ; U 65 69 0 o O O 0 C O O O O t -2 0o C 0 0 3 E O 69 69 69 v V, C O o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o O O E 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o w 69 0 - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °' U 0 0 0 N N h 0 0 0 0 ON O` u 3 �oNVo■ QNO.100 ,o NS m N Cr b h O N N N t co U `o 0 2 m `• o 2 T `o `o <.t o c c a o W 0 o c E E d 4 L c n O s o o o =°• m :: F 2 F c ° E 0. ` S5 4a E c 3 T. 3 '_2 2 E - o • v o Evv2ul30 ° 43_a_5 ; ` E EEE a - `' _ y-2 3 E q U 'w C U 4 c y a 3 04 333°¢ �34�u`�3<2 o t .A'A' o o E E E F C U F F .NV. a Q C E O N N Q WI VD N oo O\O — �n`O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C w O O O w O ° O O O O O o O O O ° n O N O O E _ _ w w a to - `� a U F 0 a ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ow Ow W� 5-9 2 E o " F C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O o w o 0 0 o w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S S S S S o �n o E - N N h N C en W U W F 0 S ow O O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S°o ° ° °o °o °o °o °o 0 0 �+. O 0 0 0 0 .n .n .n 0 en en en C N O 0 U P P W E. E o e - ao m v vo w I lil F °0 °o°0°O$$$ $$ E O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IS a O O 80000080800000 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0000000000000000 0 U K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W — 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o o h E 0 5 0 0 0000000 pp p O % o h O N N O 0 0 so P O i. E W C CE ` - - - — N N - en — — M a z'�ITJ w w CA T., e; u N N N N n 0 Cp 0 E o S o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o S 0 O o I ` " S S °0 °o °o °O S °o " S '6 ° 000 OOOOO .o uo m V •V.. N- ,°D O N vii h o Fi_ 3 3 E il 9 F. r. S S S S S S S S S S ° S S O S S S O �°O ,°o^ a d c o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 0 0 o 3 «U o o 0 0 0 0 o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � : tJfi e ' p Ts C F y3 N- t� o 0 O NN o NO 0 3 0 to a - ■ ■ ^ N N - 0 0 CO N 'J U w _ a w w E o t e o v 8 ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ow o 0 o X c5 _0 W 2 e e v 3 v N w Q . w u °' r a : -9 4. € '' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 'o O O O E g ° V _ O O S O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O S 8 0 4 - LF a 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 2 n E E 9 N- n b O N O N N O N O O b 0 v - 2 g H O.Ln 69 - - - Q N N - R b r S m W V o w w os — ° 3 E m en o H v ° `a 2 ` E K a Ts E U. C c F. = a o w 3 ° ° y t e c Fa E8 o a ° 2 ER v u E 3 y O i `i' _ H - 0 a 0 0 2 u°.❑°. a 0 n o `m E S ti 9 s «——' ° S 3 E E E E c 3 U a u a P K c = E 1 v° ;v g U G GC o m m a o E E 0 C X -.d d 2 9 g 0 . {x -1: G Q ❑ • : C 8 C U 0 W E i' E W N a`' o° E E 'y 5 14 c °l, t0 =C7 m E a H -ii $ go a ° 3 °-- 3 U y H g 0 s 3 3 `° u°. xv`iv`e z,re`'t2=I.i33z`z` 22 c e� e e 0 0 '0 0 "E a 3 U F U F F w 4 Q m a C E.z - N N■ V v. .o h co O. O - N M Q v. .0 1� 00 0. N N O O „ - N Q Table 3-7 Page 1 of 2 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Water System Impact Fee Line No Description Amount Total Estimated Cost of Existing& Future Water Production and Treatment Facilities: 1 Cost of Existing Facilities [1] $21,071,474 2 Additional Borrowing Costs- Existing [2] 2,945,965 3 Additional Costs Capitalized-CIP [3] 13,025,000 4 Less Receipt of Grant Funds [4] 0 5 Subtotal Water Production and Treatment Facilities $37,042,439 6 Existing Capacity of Plant Facilities(MGD)(ADF) [5] 10 983 7 Existing Average Daily Flow (MGD)(ADF) [6] 6 105 8 ERC Factor-(GPD)(ADF) [7] 220 0 9 Estimated ERUs Permitted to be Served by Future Facilities 49,923 10 Percent of Capacity Available for Growth 44 41% 11 Allocation of Existing& Future Facilities to Incremental Growth $16,451,302 12 Rate per ERU of Treatment Facilities $742 00 Primary Transmission System: 13 Existing Facilities [8] $4,075,118 14 Additional Costs Capitalized-CIP [9] 7,825,000 15 Less Receipt of Grant Funds [4] (340,000) 16 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $11,560,118 17 Total Estimated ERUs served by Transmission Facilities [10] 49,923 18 Net Rate per ERU of Primary Transmission Facilities $231 56 19 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $973 55 20 Rounded Rate per ERU $974 00 21 Cost Per Gallon $4 427 ADF=Average Daily Flow MDF=Maximum Daily Flow ERU =Equivalent Residential Unit GPD=Gallons per Day Footnotes continued on the following page Table 3-7 Page 2 of 2 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Water System Impact Fee Footnotes [1] Amount based on Table 3-1 and reflects water production and treatment assets currently in service [2] Amount reflects interest costs associated with the issuance of existing debt as derived as follows Total Financing Costs-Series 2009 Water and Sewer Bonds $8,183,236 Percent Allocable to Water System 36% Amount Allocable to Water System $2,945,965 [3] Amount derived from Table 3-5 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing water production and treatment facilities [4] Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any,as provided by the City [5] Amount reflects the design capacity of the existing and planned facilities expressed on an average daily flow basis(ADF)estimated as follows Plant Capacity East Side Greater Hills Facility-MGD(MDF) 8 842 Sunburst'Well Facility-MGD(MDF) 9 500 Sub-total East Side-MGD(MDF) 18 342 West Side West Side WTP(Consolidated)-MGD(MDF) 4 756 Sub-total West Side-MGD(MDF) 4 756 Total Existing Water Treatment Capacity-MDG(MDF) 23 098 Historical Peak to Average Ratio 2 10 Water Treatment Capacity-MDG(ADF) 10 983 [6] Amount estimated based on discussions from staff and actual water production data for Fiscal Year 2011 [7] Amount reflects the City's current level of service for each ERU, Equivalent Residential Connection,on an average daily flow basis [8] Amount based on Table 3-I and reflects existing water transmission assets currently in service [9] Amount derived from Table 3-5 and reflects the recognized upgrades to the water transmission system [10] Amount assumes transmission capacity is consistent with the existing and estimated future water treatment capacity Table 3-8 Page 1 of 2 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Line No Description Amount Total Estimated Cost of Existing& Future Wastewater Treatment&Disposal Facilities 1 Cost of Existing&Future Facilities[1] $40,673,425 2 Additional Borrowing Costs[2] 5,237,271 3 Additional Costs Capitalized-CIP[3] 44,863,500 4 Less Receipt of Grant Funds[4] (1,664,926) 5 Subtotal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Facilities $89,109,270 6 Future Plant Capacity(MGD)(AADF)[5] 8 000 7 Projected Average Daily Flow(MGD)(AADF)[6] 2 195 8 ERC Factor-(GPD)(ADF)[7] 220 0 9 Estimated ERUs to be Served by Facilities 36,364 10 Percent Remaining Capacity of Facilities 72 57% 11 Allocation of Facilities to incremental Growth $64,665,148 12 Rate per ERC Associated with Existing&Future Facilities $2,450 50 Primary Transmission System and Pump Stations 13 Existing Facilities[9] $9,772,633 14 Additional Costs Capitalized-CIP[10] 8,200,000 15 Less Receipt of Grant Funds[4] 0 16 Total Primary Transmission Facility Costs $17,972,633 17 Estimated ERUs Served by Existing Facilities[11] 18,182 18 Estimated Future ERUs served by Collection Facilities[11] 0 19 Total Estimated ERUs served by Collection Facilities[11] 18,182 20 Net Rate per ERU of Primary Transmission Facilities $988 49 21 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $3,438 99 22 Rounded Rate per ERU $3,439 00 23 Cost Per Gallon $15 632 MDF=Maximum Daily Flow ADF=Average Daily Flow ERU=Equivalent Residential Unit GPD=Gallons per Day Footnotes continued on the following page Table 3-8 Page 2 of 2 City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Footnotes [I] Amount based on Table 3-1 and reflects wastewater treatment assets currently in service [2] Amount reflects interest costs associated with the issuance of existing debt as denved as follows Total Financing Costs-Senes 2009 Water and Sewer Bonds $8,183,236 Percent Allocable to Wastewater System 64% Amount Allocable to Wastewater System $5,237,271 [3] Amount derived from Table 3-6 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment facilities [4] Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, it any,as provided by the City [5] Amount reflects the design capacity of the expanded facilities(up to 8 0 MGD)on an annual average daily flow basis(AADF) [6] Amount estimated based on discussions from staff and actual treatment flow data for Fiscal Year 2011 [7] Amount reflects the City's current level of service for each ERU, Equivalent Residential Connection,on an average daily flow basis [8] Amount derived from Table 3-6 and reflects expansion related additions to the wastewater treatment facilities [9] Amount based on Table 3-1 and reflects existing wastewater transmission and pump station assets currently in service [10] Amount derived from Table 3-6 and reflects the recognized upgrades to the wastewater transmission system and pump stations [11] Amount assumes transmission capacity is consistent with the existing wastewater treatment capacity or 4 0 MGD(AADF) 0 at 0 a CN CT O O 00 Cr M M en V'1 .41 O O h — Cr, Ni 00 .-- M .O O Cl N V'1 ON U 3 eel O Vl t` vn t-- Vl O 7 0 0 M M ,.O O 7 Cn-. co O n M to M .n M 4 — N V1 se O O M t� N 69 69 EA 69 69 E9 -- N M �0 N V1 O E .0 E9 5.9 69 E9 EA U o U F- ti -o N T—U .-CF: O Ni N_ 0 0\ 7 C, t` ON 00 V1 N .4) .n O O V1 1- ~ U Ni M 00 en O en O M ON 01 — 00 t` ten N 00 C 4. t� ■.0 ON „n 7 M 7 7 7 en — V1 WI ON O, — rh U 0q E CD _ co_ Ul 4 M N M N M 00 N r---" — Vl — V1 h E s.„ E9 EA E9 E9 E9 EA EA — N Vl 00 .N. t-- Cr, 4.. U C U E9 69 69 E9 69 E9 Ni en C �' N O u- CO 00 E9 69 E9 C U -0 QE s 00 a) 3 h o V t V C V N CO O U a) h 0 ele� °� 'n o two 4 o00000000 en▪ V .1 L U N 7 N .— N Vl O ..0 O O O O O CO .0 7 a? N — N N Vl .--. N M V'l O M 0 ^ .5.+ C 4r ? ^ M WI ^ ^ N 3 c - 'wD Q :r NY U a) 2 E 4U ) LTo O' N 00 o v1 Cr) N 7 Cr) O N O_ O O O O_ Cr y U C N N 01 �O N N N 00 N en N Cr, Cr) O N U �+ 00 7 V1 00 CN 00 N 00 en N. ON O i" 'fl CO U ten 4.C N _ M 7 O N — N EA ER N l� 00 l� N = C C0 C b 69 69 69 E9 EA E9 ER E9 E9 N 7 N .-- U 0 aaj U ON E E L � r�' 69 69 69 69 y -o rn 4N `7' o U 0 t 6, 6) O U °' U a d ea c01 °? E o cu F o ar ell s. U o s `v y W a) .) p '-' id 0 3 U Cy0 j C O N O . O O O O O O O O O N 01 to U .'� U 00 N 00 v-, N Cr) O �O O O O O O N wCD °3 a M � — Nvl — nriv) O �Cri > E g C V 0 ; — M vj .� N C 4.. ,8 O E -0 3 a) w ono co) 0 E © E O 2 ^� O -0 v Qy 0 u cn C 4.. .~U+ U . e. E C 0 n E p O p U 2 O 2 a)p U C U Y_ C _ Q 3 O 0 0 V EA O ¢cd I-. a`i Q C Q C U C .p°°' U N E U '' 8 , cu u a) a) W " 'v o '`tj a) n y 7.as nQ D ¢ N 3 04 3 N 0' 9 U U ^ ? .0 a) >.` �- �e Y CO - . " .o 04 U U U W o U � . a Y n.O y a) ) a o o E c 0 ^ '= a o w i E 2 U a) a) a) a) a) N c, ,v W 0. V] V M - - N M 4 '.O 00 - C F C O — N M R Cr) '0 N 00 C. O — N M . Cr) � N O ^ L-3zl wo , Table 3-10 Page 1 of I City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Comparison of Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service 111 Line Residential 5/8"x 3/4"Meter No Description Water Wastewater Combined City of Clermont 1 Existing Impact Fees $2,036 $3,838 $5,874 2 Proposed Impact Fees 2,125 3,439 5,564 Other Florida Utilities: 3 City of Apopka $2,694 $4,235 $6,929 4 City of Edgewater 1,612 2,227 3,839 5 City of Eustis 854 2,668 3,522 6 Toho Water Authority(Kissimmee System) 2,847 3,406 6,253 7 City of Lakeland 1,050 1,916 2,966 8 City of Lake Mary 1,010 2,664 3,674 9 City of Lake Wales 1,901 3,117 5,018 10 City of Leesburg 1,006 2,379 3,385 11 City of Minneola 2,429 4,600 7,029 12 City of Mount Dora 2,403 3,617 6,020 13 City of Ocoee 1,804 5,350 7,154 14 City of St Cloud 2,559 2,885 5,444 15 City of Tavares[3] 1,670 3,130 4,800 16 City of Winter Garden 1,086 1,767 2,853 17 City of Winter Haven 946 3,068 4,014 18 Other Utilities'Average $1,725 $3,135 $4,860 Footnotes [1] Unless otherwise noted,amounts shown reflect residential rates in effect October 2013 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees,if any,and reflect rates charged for inside the city service All rates are as reported by the respective utility This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility [2] Utility currently has a rate study in progress [3] Impact fees were waived until June 30,2013 Beginning July 1,2013,they are set to increase in six month increments until July 1,2014,when the full impact fees will become effective again 1'1t All; SECTION 4 POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE SECTION 4 POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the development and design of the impact fee for police protection services Included in this section is a discussion of the level of service requirements, capital costs included in the fee determination, and the design of the impact fee for police services to be applied to new growth within the City LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing municipal services such as police protection, a level of service (LOS) standard should be developed Pursuant to Section 163 3164, Florida Statutes, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degrees 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 or service 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 Section 163 3202(2)(g) of the Florida Statutes As further stated in the Administrative Code, each local government shall establish a 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 and not on a system-wide basis Based on information provided by the City's Police Department, there currently are 13 administrative officers and 44 patrols officers to serve a total population of 30,201 permanent residents as shown in Table 4-1 Based upon current staffing plans, there are three (3) additional staffing needs at this time The current level of service is 2 0 full-time sworn officers per 1,000 population served Based on discussions with the Police Department, the targeted level of service is 2 0, which is considered an appropriate LOS for police services The City's targeted level of service is comparable with police staffing guidelines as published by state and national law enforcement agencies as follows • The Federal Bureau of Investigation, U S Department of Justice, Uniform Crime Report that indicated an average achieved standard of 2 4 police officers and 1 support personnel per 1,000 inhabitants for population areas in the Southern United States • The Florida Department of Law Enforcement recognizes a state average of 2 35 officers and 0 8 support personnel per 1,000 population (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 4-1 Each full time patrol officer requires a complement of personnel equipment, vehicles and other equipment, and base facilities, as follows Personnel Equipment • Each sworn officer must be equipped with uniforms, weapons, and other relevant personal equipment to perform his/her duties A few of the basic issue items include 1 Service weapon, 2 Ballistic (protective)vest, 3 Handcuffs and baton, and 4 Portable radio Vehicles and Other Equipment • The department maintains a fleet of patrol and administrative vehicles to provide police protection services to the City The City anticipates having to add twenty-four (24) police officers by 2020 to keep pace with projected population growth while maintaining service levels Generally, each vehicle must be equipped with relevant communications, detection/surveillance, and defense equipment Other mission essential equipment used in operations include communication, detection/surveillance and defense equipment and also include radar units, crime prevention trailer, generators, and special weapons These vehicles and equipment needs have been included in the impact fee calculation which will allow the City to accrue a portion of costs over time from new growth Base Facilities • The City's existing police headquarters currently accommodates 60 officers The existing facility is considered built-out and will need to be expanded to accommodate new patrol officers The expansion which is already underway will accommodate up to 150 officers to meet needs and serve new growth As discussed above, the City has made existing investments in police protection services, and plans to make future improvements that will serve new growth Tables 4-2 and 4-3 at the end of this section provide a detailed listing of the existing and planned equipment, vehicles, and facilities, respectively Before consideration of grant revenues, the combined investment totals approximately $13 3 million as shown in Table 4-4 RESOURCE NEEDS ANALYSIS Currently, the Police Department's level of service standard requires sixty (60) full-time patrol officers as adjusted for any minor staff deficiencies Based on the assumed level of service standards (2 0 officers per 1,000 population) and population projections for the City, it is anticipated that the City will need a police force of 84 sworn full-time patrol officers to provide police protection services by 2020 This represents an increase of twenty-four (24) patrol officers over the existing staffing level needs as shown below K\DC\I I 79 02\Rpts\FinalReporI\Repon doc 4-2 Number of Employees Personnel Description Current LOS Anticipated[*] Full-Time Patrol Officers 60 84 [*] Derived from Table 4-4 Personnel assumed at a population of 42,100 based on a level of service of 2 0 full-time patrol officers per 1,000 population The standards-driven method with recoupment, described in Section 1, was used to develop the police services impact fees The standards-driven method was used to determine the direct capital cost to equip and provide a portion of vehicle, headquarter, and other equipment costs for a full-time patrol officer In the development of the capital cost required to serve new development, several capital cost parameters were recognized as shown in Table 4-4 The parameters include the costs of directly equipping the next increment of police protection services (i e , a full-time patrol officer) These capital costs would include personnel equipment, vehicles, communication equipment, and other support related equipment and machinery A final parameter deals with the cost recovery of the headquarters required to house the new patrol officers and support staff and includes investment in the land, buildings, and furnishings allocable to the police service function Tables 4-2 and 4-3 provide a breakdown of the individual cost items Table 4-4 summarizes the estimated capital costs to equip a full-time patrol officer for the City recognizing the parameters described above In addition to the $13 3 million in existing and planned equipment, vehicles, and facilities, this study further considered cost free capital, or grants received by the police department in consideration of the net costs As shown in Table 4-4, the City has received approximately $232,166 in grant revenues for capital (operating grant revenues do not apply in this case) resulting in a lower projected cost per officer The estimated capital cost including credit for cost free capital of an additional full-time patrol officer is $124,449, including the cost of vehicles, other related equipment, and allocated headquarters costs The following is a summary of the estimated capital cost required to equip and support a full-time patrol officer Summary of Capital Costs 11] Average Cost per Officer Total Projected Cost[2] Machinery and Equipment $10,016 $841,344 Major Vehicles 40,002 3,360,168 Office Equipment,Furniture,and Computers 16,588 1,393,392 Existing Facilities 61,712 5,183,808 Subtotal $128,318 $10,778,712 Grant Adjustments ($3,869) ($324,996) Total Allocated Costs $124,449 $10,453,716 [1] Derived from Table 4-4 [2] Total projected costs assuming 84 officers total K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Report doc 4-3 DESIGN OF POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE The method used to determine the police services impact fee was based upon a four-step process Table 4-5 helps to illustrate the results of the approach The following is a brief description of the method used in this study • Development of Total Capital Need — Based on population projections, level of service standards, and allocated incremental capital costs per patrol officer This amount is the total allocated capital cost to serve the projected population growth • Allocation of Base Capital Costs to Customer Classes—This step allocates the base capital costs, the reserved service capacity allocable to all customer classes irrespective of call demand The base costs are calculated on a per person basis and then allocated between residential and non-residential land-uses based on "functional population" estimates • Allocation of Variable Costs to Customer Classes — This step allocates the remaining capital costs to equip a new patrol officer between the resident and non-residential land- uses based upon call demand Therefore, some classes of land-use, which may incur few or no service calls, will carry a lower cost than other high-demand sectors such as convenience stores, bars, and restaurants • Calculation of Cost per Equivalent Impact Fee Unit—Once the allocated base and variable costs are identified per land-use, they are summarized and presented as a unit of measure basis, per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet, or per acre Table 4-5 provides a detailed listing of the proposed impact fees and their appropriate land-use and measures Police Services Impact Fee Assumptions The development of the police services impact fees required a number of assumptions The major assumptions used in the development of the proposed impact fees are as follows 1 In the development of the capital costs required to equip a full-time patrol officer, the capital costs of providing police protection services were allocated to establish the cost of serving the next incremental full-time patrol officer The costs were allocated to the next increment of service (one full-time patrol officer) based on the following allocation parameters a The direct cost of equipping one full-time patrol officer (e g ,personnel equipment) was allocated based on actual investments made by the City shown in Table 4-2 The new officers are not required to contribute a cost recovery to basic issue equipment, and it is the City's current policy to capitalize those costs greater than $1,000 b Based on discussions with the police department, the current service level of patrol and administrative vehicles to a full-time patrol officer is considered reasonable for the purpose of this study Based on discussions with the City's Police Chief, it is assumed that other mission-essential equipment, including radar units, generators, and special weapons, although not easily assignable per patrol officer, would be acquired in K U301179-02 MptsTinalReport\Report doc 4-4 relation to the number of new patrol officers The existing inventory levels for these items per patrol officer are therefore projected to remain constant As illustrated in Table 4-4, the following represents the estimated costs for existing and future equipment needs as allocated per full-time patrol officer Machinery and Equipment per Officer $10,016 Major Vehicles per Officer 40,002 Officer Equipment per Officer 16,588 Grants (3,869) Total $62,737 c The City's existing police headquarters comprises 9,921 square feet or a current level of service of 165 square feet per existing patrol officer Based on discussions with the Police Chief and City staff, the existing facility is considered built-out and is being replaced to accommodate new patrol officers as shown in Table 4-3 The new facility is estimated to serve up to 150 officers The current facility will remain as part of the department's training and storage facilities The total facility costs per new patrol officer are presented in Table 4-4 and are summarized as follows Police Facilities Cost Existing Facilities Cost per Patrol Officer $16,649 Proposed Facilities Cost per Patrol Officer 45,063 Total Facilities Cost per Patrol Officer $61,712 2 In the development of the capital costs per patrol officer, it was assumed that the targeted level of service be achieved by the City through the entire forecast period This level of service includes only the amount of full-time patrol officers to serve the general population of the City As previously mentioned, the level of service assumed in this study is 2 0 full- time patrol officers per 1,000 of population 3 The estimated capital base costs or reserved service capacity, allocable to all customer classes were allocated between the residential and non-residential customer classes based on "functional population" estimates The concept of functional population is incorporated in order to spread capital costs more equitably between residential and non-residential land- uses Businesses place demands on police services in exactly the same manner as residents do, and it is equitable to spread these costs based on the average number of people expected to be present For the residential uses, the allocation is calculated per resident based on the average amount of time spent at the residence The resident's remaining time is then allocated as either an employee and/or visitor to the remaining non-residential classes as determined using traffic generations, estimated employment data, and operational details The net result is the total number of person hours per location as derived from Table 2-3 in Section 2 The base costs are calculated on a per person basis K\DC\i 179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Repon doc 4-5 and then applied to the residential and non-residential land-uses based upon the respective functional population coefficient 4 The estimated variable capital cost of providing for a full-time patrol officer was allocated between the residential and non-residential customer classifications based on the number of service calls made by the Police Department per land-use for 2012 and is projected through 2020 Based on the average number of service calls provided by staff, the number of calls allocated to each class of customer was assumed for the forecast period as follows Residential 50% Non-Residential 50% Impact Fee Calculation Based on the above-referenced assumptions, the allocated capital facilities, and the population and land use projections of the City, the police services impact fees for the residential and non- residential customer classifications were developed As shown in Table 4-6 at the end of this section, the cost per equivalent impact fee unit by customer classification was determined The following summarizes the proposed changes to the residential police protection impact fees Existing Proposed Single-Family(per Dwelling Unit)[*] $574 $381 Multi-Family(per Dwelling Unit) 491 381 [*] Includes mobile homes Taking into account the methodology used for the determination of the fee and the estimates of the capital requirements, it is concluded that the proposed impact fee based on the City's LOS standard is reasonable It should be noted that in the development of the fee per equivalent impact fee unit that no credits associated with developer land dedication or other similar activities have been recognized Also, it should be noted that the proposed incremental capital improvements do not include any inflationary allowances In the development of the cost per equivalent impact fee unit, it was determined that the rate should be applied on a "per dwelling unit" basis for the residential class and primarily on a "per square footage" of commercial development for the non-residential class As shown in Table 4-5, some non-residential land-uses are measured by units other than square feet These factors are common throughout the state as the equivalent impact fee unit for fee determination The use of these equivalency factors was based on discussions with the City, comparisons of fee applicability provisions of neighboring jurisdictions, and promotion of administrative simplicity K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Report doc 4-6 IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide the City additional information about the proposed impact fees, a comparison of the proposed fees for the City and those charged by other neighboring jurisdictions was prepared Table 4-6 at the end of this section summarizes the impact fees for police protection services charged by other communities with the proposed rates of the City Also, as shown in Table 4-6 for other communities, the fees charged to the residential class are applied using a "per dwelling unit" basis, which is consistent with the recommended fee applicability provisions of the City's proposed fees For the non-residential class and, as previously discussed, the fees are applied on the basis of the amount of square foot of facility development (This was consistent for all of the local governments surveyed) (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 4-7 Page 1 of 1 Section 4 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis List of Tables Table Description 4-1 Summary of Existing Personnel 4-2 Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment, Vehicles and Facilities 4-3 Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment, Vehicles and Facilities 4-4 Summary of Capital Costs to Provide Police Protection Services 4-5 Impact Fee Allocation-Base Capacity/Variable 4-6 Police Services Impact Fee Comparison Page 1 of 1 Table 4-1 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Existing Personnel Allocation to Future Officers Line Current Total Staff Allocation Achieved No Description Staff[1] Planned[2] Basis LOS Personnel 1 Administrative Officers 13 0 13 0 2 Patrol Officers 44 0 47 0 3 Total Sworn Officers 57 0 60 0 Per 1,000 Population 2 0 4 Civilian and Administrative[3] 8 0 8 0 5 Total Personnel 65 0 68 0 Footnotes [1] As provided by the City's Police Chief [2] As provided by the Police Chief requiring three(3)additional staff at this time [3] Civilian and Administrative Personnel at a full-time equivalency as provided by the City Page 1 of 2 Table 4-2 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment,Vehicles and Facilities Line No Description Histoncal Cost[I] 1 Machinery and Equipment $336,697 2 Major Vehicles 3 2000 Chev Truck#3534 $21,262 4 2001 Chevy Impala#8820 20,449 5 2001 Dodge Ram#1418 25,726 6 2002 Chevy Tahoe#7535 27,500 7 2003 Chevy Impala#3972 16,554 8 2003 Chevy Impala#8436 15,035 9 2003 Chevy Trailblazer 23,504 10 2004 Chevy Blazer#1968 18,161 11 2004 Chevy Impala#3439 15,069 12 2004 Ford Crown Vic#9563 22,771 13 2005 Ford Crown Vic#3888 23,839 14 2005 Ford Crown Vic#3897 23,839 15 2005 Gmc Savana Van#1058 16,595 16 2006 Chevy Impala#7905 17,449 17 2006 Chevy Impala#8868 17,449 18 2006 Ford Crown Vic#8307 30,791 19 2006 Ford Crown Vic#8308 28,769 20 2006 Ford Crown Vic#8309 28,769 21 2006 Ford Crown Vic#8310 28,769 22 2006 Ford Crown Vic#8982 31,367 23 2007 Chevy Van#8345 33,153 24 2007 Dodge Charger#8640 32,169 25 2007 Dodge Charger#8641 30,713 26 2007 Dodge Charger#8642 32,169 27 2007 Ford Crown Vic#0992 31,273 28 2007 Ford Crown Vic#4950 29,290 29 2007 Ford Crown Vic#4951 31,333 30 2007 Harley Motorcycle#2170 17,963 31 2007 Harley Motorcycle#2349 17,966 32 2008 Dodge Charger#6111 28,773 33 2008 Dodge Charger#6112 29,048 34 2008 Ford Interceptor#5230 24,502 35 2008 Ford Interceptor#5231 24,371 36 2009 Chevy Malibu#7170 21,134 37 2009 Chevy Malibu#8392 19,164 38 2009 Dodge Charger#7157 33,364 39 2009 Dodge Charger#7158 34,949 40 2009 Dodge Charger#7159 33,766 41 2009 Dodge Charger#7160 33,364 42 2009 Dodge Charger#7161 33,274 43 2010 Dodge Charger#0624 37,913 44 2010 Dodge Charger#0625 37,913 Page 2 of 2 Table 4-2 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment,Vehicles and Facilities Line No Description Histoncal Cost[1] 45 2010 Dodge Charger#0972 23,130 46 2010 Dodge Charger#6741 28,703 47 2010 Dodge Charger#6742 28,649 48 2011 Dodge Charger#0635 32,743 49 2011 Dodge Charger#0636 32,743 50 2011 Dodge Charger#0637 32,743 51 2011 Dodge Charger#0638 32,743 52 2012 Dodge Charger#0162 30,660 53 2012 Dodge Charger#0163 30,660 54 2012 Ford Fusion SE#5028 19,473 55 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid#5029 26,889 56 2013 Police Interceptor-Sedan 38,149 57 2013 Police Interceptor-Sedan 38,149 58 2013 Police Interceptor-SUV K9 42,497 59 2013 Police Interceptor-SUV Investigations 35,691 60 Total Vehicles $1,574,854 61 Other Capital Equipment and Facilities 62 Land,Buildings&Furnishing Histoncal Cost[1] 63 Land $1,384,277 64 Building 1,113,127 65 Office Equipment and Furniture 11,511 66 Computer Systems and Software 983,740 67 Total Other Police Department Equipment and Facilities $3,492,655 68 Total Existing Capital Equipment,Vehicles and Facilities $5,404,206 Footnotes [1] Amounts reflected as provided by the City as of September 30,2013 Page 1 of I Table 4-3 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment,Vehicles and Facilities Line No Description Current Cost[1] 1 Machinery and Equipment $264,223 2 Major Vehicles 3 Replacement Vehicles 4 Replacement Vehicles $771,000 5 Retirement-2 Motorcycles 2170/2349[2] (35,928) 6 Retirement-21 Patrol Cars[3] (486,819) 7 Net Amount Included in Fee $248,253 8 Additional Vehicles to Expand Fleet&Serve Budgeted Positions 352,000 9 Mobile Command Center Vehicle 225,000 10 Total Vehicles $825,253 11 Other Capital Equipment and Facilities 12 Land,Buildings&Furnishing Current Cost[1] 13 Land(Included in Assets) $0 14 Building&Engineenng 6,759,387 15 Total Other Police Department Equipment and Facilities $6,759,387 16 Total Proposed Capital Equipment,Vehicles and Facilities $7,848,863 Footnotes [1] Amounts as provided by City staff [2] Amount reflects an adjustment for motorcycles denved from Table 4-2 which are expected to be replaced [2] Amount reflects an adjustment for vehicles derived from Table 4-2 which are expected to be replaced based on a fisrt-in first-out replacement approach Page 1 of 1 Table 4-4 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Capital Costs to Provide Police Protection Services Line Total Existing& Amount of Average Total Officer Total Projected No Description Planned Costs[1] Officers Served[2] Cost per Officer Requirements[3] Investment Recoupment Costs[4] 1 Machinery&Equipment $336,697 60 $5,612 84 $471,408 2 Major Vehicles 1,574,854 60 26 248 84 2,204,832 3 Office Equipment,Furniture&Computers 995,250 60 16,588 84 1,393,392 4 Existing Facilities[5] 2,497,404 150 16,649 84 1,398,516 5 Total Recoupment Costs $5 404,206 $65,097 $5,468,148 Proposed Capital Additions 16] 6 Machinery&Equipment $264,223 60 $4 404 84 $369,936 7 Major Vehicles 825,253 60 13,754 84 1,155,336 8 Future Facilities[5] 6,759,387 150 45,063 84 3,785,292 9 Total Proposed Costs $7,848,863 $63,221 $5,310,564 Additional Cost or Adiustments 17] 10 Borrowing Costs $0 60 $0 84 $0 11 Less Historical Capital Grants Received for Equipmer (232,166) 60 (3,869) 84 (324,996) 12 Less Proposed Future Capital Grants 0 60 0 84 0 13 Total Additional Costs or Adjustments ($232,166) ($3,869) ($324,996) 14 Total Allocated Costs $13,020,903 $124,449 $10,453,716 Footnotes [I] Total estimated capital costs in Tables 4-2 and 4-3 [2] Existing vehicles and equipment assumed to serve the current required number of officers of 58 as calculated below For the purposes of allocating facility costs,both existing and future facilities estimated to serve 150 officers [3] Future Patrol Officer Requirements based on level of Service Standards adopted by the City Future Patrol Officer needs are calculated as follows Projected Population at 2020 42,100 Targeted LOS per 1,000 population 2 00 Total Patrol Officers Required in 2020 84 Total Patrol Officers Required based on LOS 60 Total Additional Officers Required to Serve Growth 24 [4] Amounts derived from Table 4-2 [5] Amounts reflect existing and future facilities estimated to serve 150 officers Existing facilities anticipated to be used as a substation or training facility [6] Amounts derived from Table 4-3 [7] Amounts reflect credit for historical grants received for equipment needs No future grants currently anticipated by staff er w O 00 ■ a 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 v O 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 N [L v — 0 0 h N 00 h T N en 10 N T O N 00 h — en ,0 en N — R — 0 0 CO N N 0 0 tel V CO b 00 0 0 ,n O N o 'O CO 00 en Q 7 R en T N h — en 0 — 0 N — 10 h — 0, r 00 M M M en N 0 7 T T en M en O N N et er o., S en b Q h b ? N 00 ^ 10 T N = en h Vl h N N - - N N — — en DO — rt E O CO en V 0 00 00 0 00 Cr, T O 0 N el. eci. N en O N V R en en 00 CO b T — V1 Vl b O O O 0 10 en C T 00 CO o ,N^. b VD 0 10 b — en V Vf b O Vl — en ,0 et O M — 00 — b O, 0 '0 V, ,D h C R 00 T 00 er CO CO 00 en CO 0, — O U L.' er T 01 00 N h N V 0, O 00 N 0 of en M en N T er V V h O — Vl — of 0 CO Cr, 00 V1 N O ? b T R Vl 00 y h T O 00 M M O C h — OO b of — h — M — V VD VD CO T T T 00 N N N — — M er h VD er co VD T h 00 er — fA 69 N — — N N — N M V, b b — — N — — h O — — — — — R — N — WC ? d CD N T T en M V N CO V0 h h en T V 0 N - N en 0 OM - CO 0 N T en en 0 0 0 - 0 VD el.7 .- 10 - N M M - 0 en ° C 0 — 7 T N 0 en 0 VD N 0 '0 en T fl T CO M — 0 V h h — O 00 Vii b 0 e{ N 00 0 10 N en T N h 0 T T T CO en N 7 M N 0 v e n — ,O h — N — N N N 0 M M — ,0 M el. M N N N ■ — 00 — N N h N 0 M — N CO M en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en M en en en en M en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N eV N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N V y 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 OD CO 00 00 DO 00 00 CO 00 00 CO 00 CO OD 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 00 00 CO CO 00 00 00 y .0 .0 'a a m E t a c E v Q Q< Q < Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q < Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a � N zzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 00 a C z j g!, N h en 0 en h h 0 CO — en O — 0 ,o 0 0 en 00 N 00 0 0 en 0 .n 0 0 N M — N 0 0 h 0 0 0 ,D N h — h CO o — h CO .M. 0 N 0 M — O — 00 h 00 N 0 h N h N O O T M — en 0 0 N N O o CO O O N s.0 sO W A O en ■ 00 00 O VD —N Q M N O h h 00 M ,o h - - N 00 — CO o 10 ,D 0 h M h — h o CO ,D 0 O 00 0 O h. h C C: i W T h 10 N ,0 T b — — M 10 00 00 00 N O C h M — 10 M b O N h T CO .n O M O ,D 0 h ? — O 0 — 0 er Q W O 0l R N e0 en 0 00 K en 0 N b O — 0 et � — 00 of ■ ,0 O en 0 0 T N N T — en SO T — 0 T 00 a T h T — 0 y„ b ■ M — of 10 M b T — N — T 00 T 0 N h Cl 00 T 0 er — 0 N R M N — of 00 h h 0 - - O — 0 0 N '' C `y V O — N N — N N — O O M er ,D o O b — — N — — 0 T N N N O — — — 0 0 0 0 et 0 - - R — M N O O N € u Cr. a° -2. 1 12 CO S t E F z m 0 0 0 4.U E u v E h y h y y H y ti H N y H y y N y y ti h h y z a `- p y m y H h y `� y y a, o O E o 0 0 o 0 0 0 °+ o a 000000000000000 0 0 o 0000 °+ �j00000 Eoo i to $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G o _0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 a a a 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $o u Q ° o a, 00000ooQo Ooo00o000000000 °, ao,.. 00077F' 0o000c, 0 2 u -� - o E E E 'ot^ - - ed E 3 .0 c: aU nWUCt t,-;t; a' on � t; e4ctixcao: OGC4 aCC cncoo nFE oo4- UUyU0a. � p � $I C 0(7 ,D v O Z Z 0 C7 �O Z C7 0(7 1+- 0 0 1.0 [11 0 0 7,n � v, O Z Z O R R L7 R w C7 Z .Z. s m 3 U d d Y Y 5) 2 2 E N °t ° y C d ° ° > > D y U U v °' m? cn c d d v o E Ors m c o o 3 3 E m J y o 0 o C m a v 9 ` v d E Y y 3 553 > > A b E v o �' n U _ a .7. t m Y u' y L n v ' E my= v m c o € = = v c 5 ° m c_ y o eo .°. C a a—0.r•+`2 Y Q m d d 0 E ' Y 0 A DD to 0.g+ 0g,+ 0g+ ,i — u K m d b > 'e E To 41 X o E ❑ '^ A a u u X U— ° ° e _ °' v c c (n rn ti 0 'm v > o h t fn U V Q a u d d _v U X +n m y a' o: .o.a in > v �, c E o a 0. o a 9 C 0 L 2 01) &02 6 I u L° +g • o o E o Z` 8 8 .§ 5 2 c c c —a O o F�F — ? E i«0. E v ,n ?+ ° v c a+ v E o U pp pp pp d °v; W h 2 0 y 0 �i d v vC w Ol' °' c. o`_ 0 O ^ 6 - O O > > Si c O c 0 0 A y y y C 4+ 4 'i 0+ § '9 i c N W N O O -a E 0 0 .E C 0.' ZQQQQQmmmUUUUUUOOG es e 7) 62 u. r� tt ,f, a013 c,7C7(,, c!.4 C)C) XXXXXX52 2 °I - N M C V, ,o h 00 T o - N en er h 10 N 00 T O — N en V 0 10 h 00 T O — N M R Vl 10 N 00 T O — N en R Z N N N N N N N N N N en en en en M en en of R of R R vr 4. 0 0 N N CD Of 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 [i. 0 N CO 0n 00 00 00 N — N on V on 7 O N N 00 N N en N N 00 00 o N v N ON 10 en 00 10 CO — 01 M 00 N R 10 ON en R en en - - 00 00 — I- O NO NO V 0 00 00 b N CO 0 N 00 N en G o C — N R en .0 a en 01 — N un ■ O — N N N Q en N h N Vl N N — Vl — O0 0. O — — — a. E ce ... N 00 CO 01 0 —00 N D\ h N tn IN-V eenn 10 000 en 1D l0 en O en R R O1 Obi en en voi O Cr e00n a 00 0 N N en .n O N — V 0 N — 0 N .0 CO 0 — 01 — I- 00 — co N N on co ON CO 00 00 N N en en 0 R ■ 00 In 01 O h en o f en 00 mr N 7 b - 0 10 0 I-- I.- N en en emn 10 N 00 b .0 — N NO In CO 00 N 0 en 10 N N R N N C en 01 00 01 el 10 7 Cl O en V en eenn 40 N 10 en N 000 eenn 00 IN 01 0 O^ co co N 10 N Cr o f — Cr N N R — I- 01 In en co 1D N N Co Cl Co y 10 R 10 O R 00 C et R Cr 00 — en V 10 N en N N 01 10 10 O en h N N 10 b N N N N CO 00 .e — R 10 ,- en N N h N N h mr h Cr N — N N Cr en N 1O — N — en en N — V — — en N — en h en — — O en m a M en M en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en ■ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N V ; 1O 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1D 10 10 10 1O 10 10 10 1D 10 1O 10 10 10 10 10 1D 1O 1D 10 1D 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 OO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 a) a m G C O. u y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z ea 0. C i. m v O v I- N N R 0 mr en -- - vl N o en O 0 en 10 O o 00 en e1 O e1 en N 01 v 00 en o M N o N 00 10 10 00 — on N N N 1D ON 00 O O 00 N O on — 10 O en CO 10 — N — en In W e0 O en N 1n O O 10 00 N N en 00 O N M It vl O 0 0 Cr N N en h O 00 N NO 10 N O CO IN C C CI 00 00 N N en b 10 Q on 00 NO h — R co 10 10 Cl O O N N N 10 N O — O In R — N vl Cl yl en Q W 0 [y O CD CV el m r 01 v0i O Q -- O N en 1D N COO 0 O R mr CO 00 00 O N 10 en 00 00 00 O D\ 00 N en Cr N N R Y O O 0 — 0 — en N — en 0 — 0 - - 0 0 en O N — O — — O — eV N 0 0 en O — 0 0 0 CO O6 OL V h G u (I a e d d 0 E m a _ F `�y a° v [yS w cp v y y``w n "n wn"n Co. "n"n ., '"n`"n ©y CO.y tr, y CO. O wn,, . V�j = G E oo co °O g oo V 00 V G 00 00 oO 0 °o .0 00 a' 00 oO 00 s 00 °O °o °o 0 °O °O e1 9 00 CD 0o JO 00 Q o a. o ¢ o o w o Q o ¢ ¢ 0 0 0 0 o E o g V 0 o W o 0 o O V o o ¢ 2 o 0 0 o S R F- E 6I z � 0± r:4 ix a4 �� 3z � 3 � � V 0 0 E r- 4' 00 _ t C C U > g O t y t ri s 00 V c CO $ 4 s E.0 O p v V a, :12o o c y E > 1 u 5 m A 5 E oo o 5 D oD a Y g o Eo v 3 t E V ?+ as t _ O OS as y d `d' 7, E CI O " 8 `, a0i V'O `1 6 2 C o f V Y 00 n' � v v 3 o F c o v d g am g � e i n Oa o o E Og $ >m u F G aa ° a y n i ` , R S g 3222 222 zllaaaae6c2 r n nv9-,EE2117 Ff333 E 0 en 10 N 00 0 O — h e el In 00 N 00 0 O — en R h 00 N 00 01 O — N V NO N 00 ON O fl Z V V < R an 00 1D 00 1D 00 1D 1D 1D NO 1D N N N N N N N N N N 00 0 ° g a d [i d n.� o a o' a Err d n 0 O`N- 0 V C .5 nt a j er 0 er 9 ƒ$ \\ \ \ } k of 2� � _ ) ± > \ 00 u .E / [ u0 _ _ , ) \ $� z [ 2 § () 2 )k ± u ' B= {CO CI co . 22 -er f § /) -•er 00 SO t9 en ; C ( ) k = - - - - ) ee _ 3 _ / ' o — { § k & ,_ ' 0 uE , a0 2 ƒ f/ ( 3 CO } ) « ) { 0. ! / e z 2 17. 5 I )j a »f s=2 ) I— - - k \ \ $ Es � \ \ E \ L) / 2 k 7 2 {; ) ) ±ea / "0 Pi\L) . \ s u "0'5 k eu 3 0 z \] \j \ k \ ) > \ ) 2 ƒ 7 2 ) / \ »| R Page I of I Table 4-6 City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Police Services Impact Fee Comparison III Residential Line Single Multi- Mobile Non Residential ' No Descnption Family Family Home ($per square foot) City of Clermont 1 Existing $574 00 $491 00 $574 00 [2] $0 986 per sq ft 2 Proposed 381 00 381 00 381 00 [2] Other Honda Government Agencies 3 City of Apopka N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 City of Edgewater 150 66 100 10 82 55 $0 1197 $0 3354 per sq ft [3] 5 City of Eustis 137 98 98 64 90 03 $0 01523-$1 53667 per sq fl [3] 6 City of Kissimmee N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 City of Lakeland 591 00 445 00 ty 275 00 $0 024 $0 832 per sq ft [3] 8 City of Lake Mary 165 00 N/A N/A $0 082 per gross sq ft 9 City of Lake Wales 463 00 406 00 N/A $0 020-$0 190 per sq ft [3] 10 City of Leesburg 186 00 186 00 186 00 $0 155 per sq ft 11 City of Mineola N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 City of Mount Dora 289 89 753 71 N/A $0 06957-$1 00303 per sq ft [3] 13 City of Ocoee [4] 501 04 N/A N/A $0 330 per sq ft 14 City of St Cloud 715 00 565 00 N/A $1 384 per sq ft 15 City of Tavares [5] 215 37 163 87 108 86 $0 00819-$1 02419 per sq if [3] 16 City of Winter Garden 260 00 260 00 260 00 $0 50 per sq if 17 City of Winter Haven 300 97 N/A N/A $0 3887 per sq ft 18 Other Florida Governmental Agencies'Average $331 33 $330 92 $167 07 Footnotes [I] Unless otherwise noted amounts shown reflect impact fees in effect October 2013 This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for companson purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed municipality [2] Based upon the City's existing ordinance and procedures one new mobile home is charged as one single family dwelling unit [3] Reflects the lowest and highest rate per square feet [4] Impact fees temporarily reduced to 50%of the amounts shown from January 3 2013 until January 1 2014 [5] Impact fees were waived until June 30 2013 Beginning July 1 2013 they are set to increase in six month increments until July 1 2014 when the full impact fees will become effective again PR All; SECTION 5 FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE SECTION 5 FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the development and design of the impact fee for fire rescue services Included in this section is a discussion of the level of service requirements and capital costs included as the basis for the determination of the fee level and the design of the fee to be applied to new growth within the City LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS There is currently no formally adopted level of service for the City's fire rescue services, however, it is the City's intent to maintain staffing levels that provide services to all developed areas in order to be able to respond to service calls within a specified time period to maintain Insurance Service Organization (ISO) property insurance ratings in the community As a practical matter, this response time standard (4 minutes or less) is based upon recognized industry standards not only having to do with property protection, but also in providing Emergency Medical Support services (EMS) The department will continue to set appropriate goals related to service standards Another important criterion related to the response capability of a municipal Fire Department such as the City's is related to the type of service area in terms of occupancy and structures to be protected The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has developed certain guidelines for the evaluation of a Fire Department's response capability, which are summarized as follows (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Repon doc 5-1 Evaluation of Response Capability High Hazard Occupancies (Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, explosive plants, refineries, high-nse buildings,and other high-life hazard or large fire potential occupancies) At least 4 pumpers, 2 ladder trucks, 2 chief officers, and other specialized apparatus, as may be needed to cope with the combustible involved,not less than 24 firefighters and 2 chief officers Medium Hazard Occupancies (Apartments, offices, mercantile and industrial occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue or firefighting forces) At least 3 pumpers, 1 ladder truck, 1 chief officer, and other specialized apparatus, as may be needed or available,not less than 16 firefighters and 1 chief officer Low Hazard Occupancies (One, two, or three family dwellings and scattered small businesses and industrial occupancies At least 2 pumpers, 1 ladder truck, 1 chief officer, and other specialized apparatus, as may be needed or available,not less than 12 firefighters and 1 chief officer Rural Operations(Scattered dwellings,small businesses and farm buildings) At least 1 pumper with a large water tank (500 or more gallons),s), one mobile water supply apparatus(1,000 gallons or larger)and such other specialized apparatus, as may be necessary to perform effective, initial firefighting operations,at least 6 firefighters and 1 chief officer Additional Alarms At least the equivalent of that required for Rural Operations for second alarms, equipment, as may be needed according to the type of emergency and capabilities of the Fire Department This may involve the immediate use of mutual aid companies until local forces can be supplemented with additional off-duty personnel Based on the occupancies described above, recognizing that the City has a number of multi-story buildings (e g, condominiums) hospitals, or large fire potential occupancies such as schools located within the City, it appears that the City should plan its firefighting capabilities towards a medium to high hazard occupancy level In order to meet the service standards required of the community for responding to fire and rescue alarms, the City has entered into several mutual aid agreements with other parties; including Lake County (the "County"), to provide mutual assistance in emergencies, as deemed feasible (the "Mutual Agreement") The purpose of the Mutual Agreements are to initiate action' leading to a first-response program for fire and rescue services and provide additional service support at the request of either party The benefit of these agreements is a cost savings by all parties due to reduced staffing and equipment requirements needed in emergency situations Also, the City further enhances its services and reduces its operational costs through the use of volunteers, citizen firefighters K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalRepon\Repon doc 5-2 Generally, the level of service standard for fire rescue services and emergency medical services is based on response times in a first alarm situation The City is committed to maintaining an average response time of four (4) minutes or less The most vital resource to meeting this standard is the City's personnel The existing number of personnel and projected staffing needs have been identified by the City Presently,the City has 50 full-time personnel of whom 30 0 are full-time firefighter/rescue personnel, as shown in Table 5-1 and below Summary of Existing Personnel Fire Chief 1 0 Assistant Fire Chiefs—Admm&Operations 2 0 Captain—Fire Prevention&EMS 2 0 Fire Fighter/Inspector 1 0 Administrative Assistant 2 0 Battalion Chief 3 0 Fire Lieutenant 9 0 Firefighter/Paramedic or EMT 30 0 Total Current Full-Time Personnel 50 0 The City also pools volunteer, citizen firefighters, which allows the City to keep operating costs low Based on the needs of the City and as discussed with the Fire Chief, current staffin g needs have been identified through 2020 and includes the staffing of a new fire station, Number 4 These include the following Firefighter/Rescue Personnel — The Fire Chief has identified the need for twelve (12) additional firefighter/rescue personnel to serve Station 4 plus an additional fire inspector for a total of thirteen (13)new positions Thus,the staffing requirements for the existing LOS through 2020 are as follows Summary of Personnel Required Level of Service Fire Chief 1 0 Assistant Fire Chiefs—Admin&Operations 2 0 Captain—Fire Prevention&EMS 2 0 Fire Fighter/Inspector 2 0 Administrative Assistant 2 0 Battalion Chief 3 0 Fire Lieutenant 12 0 Firefighter/Paramedic or EMT 39 0 Total Required Personnel for Existing Level of Service 63 0 Based on planned staffing levels above, the level of service relative to the future population of 42,100 residents is 54 firefighter/rescue personnel or 1 28 personnel per 1,000 population The personnel include battalion chiefs, lieutenants, and all firefighter/paramedics Based on the K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReponaeport doc 5-3 current staffing levels for the existing population and with respect to anticipated development, this would seem to be a reasonable LOS (in terms of firefighter/rescue personnel per 1,000 population) RESOURCE NEEDS ANALYSIS The method used to determine the fire rescue services Impact fees is the standards-driven method with recoupment The standards-driven method was utilized in the allocation of costs associated with major capital facilities that service the City's first alarm service area The capital cost parameters include allocations for personnel equipment, vehicles, other direct firefighting and emergency medical equipment; and fire station and headquarter facilities Personnel protection equipment such as helmets and bunker coats and trousers are mission-essential, a portion of these costs is included in fee determination since the City does capitalize equipment charges greater than $1,000 Table 5-2 reflects the existing facilities and equipment required to maintain the City's level of service and Table 5-3 provides the proposed facilities and equipment to maintain such standards through 2020 In addition to the $14 4 million in existing and planned equipment, vehicles, and facilities, this study further considered i) borrowing costs for capital, and ii)cost free capital, or grants received by the fire department in consideration of the net costs Based on a review of the Series 2002 Bonds, which a portion was allocated to the fire'department, the interest costs of $54,674 were included in the City's overall investment in current equipment, vehicles and facilities As further shown in Table 4-4, the City has received approximately $349,204 in grant revenues and expects to receive approximately $95,000 in further grants for capital (operating grant revenues do not apply in this case) resulting in a lower projected cost per firefighter/rescue personnel Table 5-4 summarizes the net costs on a per rescue personnel basis As shown on Table 5-4, and summarized below, approximately $13,996,158 in total capital investments will have been made in order to provide fire services within the City's emergency management response area through 2020 Estimated Capital Costs Amount[*] Capital Recoupment Costs—Existing Facilities $8,801,199 Capital Costs—Proposed Facilities 5,584,489 Additional Costs or Adjustments (389,530) Total Capital Costs Recognized $13,996,158 [*] Derived from Table 5-4 DESIGN OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE The method used to determine the fire rescue services impact fee was based upon the same four step process as was described for the determination of the police impact fee Table 5-5 helps to illustrate the results of the approach The following is a brief description of the method used in this study K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FmelRepon\Repon doc 5-4 • Development of Total Capital Need — Based on discussions with the City and the Fire Department and the level of service requirements related to the maintenance of first response time, the incremental facilities and related costs to serve the population through the forecast period reflected in the analysis was developed • Allocation of Base Capital Costs to Customer Classes—This step allocates the base capital costs, the reserved service capacity allocable to all customer classes irrespective of call demand The base costs are calculated on a per person basis and then allocated between residential and non-residential land-uses based on "functional population" estimates • Allocation of Variable Costs to Customer Classes — This step allocates the remaining capital costs to provide fire rescue services between the residential and non-residential land-uses based upon call demand Therefore, some classes of land-use, which may incur few or no service calls, will carry a lower cost than other high-demand sectors such as bars and restaurants • Calculation of Cost per Equivalent Impact Fee Unit— Once the allocated base and variable costs are identified per land-use, they are summarized and presented as a unit of measure basis, per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet, or per acre Table 5-5 provides a detailed listing of the proposed impact fees and their appropriate land-use and measures Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Assumptions The development of the fire rescue services impact fees required several assumptions The major assumptions used in the development of the proposed impact fees are as follows 1 In the development of the capital costs allocable to serve the projected fire rescue needs of the City, the City addressed its facility needs and staffing requirements through 2020 As previously mentioned, the level of service assumed in this report was to maintain a four- minute response time within the response zone of the City This level of service is generally related to the location and proximity of available fire stations and the number of firefighters/rescue personnel and vehicles such that the response times can be achieved Based on prospective demands and a need for another fire station, the City will require 54 firefighters/rescue personnel by 2020 Based on staffing needs for firefighting/rescue personnel, the relationship appears to be adequate to maintain the first response LOS for medium to high hazard occupancies The staffing level of service as previously discussed was calculated at 1 28 firefighter/rescue personnel per 1,000 population 2 In the development of the total capital costs of providing fire rescue services through the forecast period, an estimate of the total capital costs required for such service was developed The total capital costs were based on information provided by and discussions with the City's Fire-Department and the following summarizes the significant assumptions used in the fee determination a The direct cost of equipping one full-time firefighter/rescue personnel (e g , personnel equipment) was allocated based on actual investments made by the City shown in K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 5-5 Table 5-2 The new personnel are not required to contribute to basic equipment issued, and it is the City's current policy to capitalize those costs greater than $1,000 b The City maintains a fleet of emergency vehicles, equipment, and facilities to support existing and future fire rescue services Table 5-2 provides the existing inventory of such resources in current dollars to derive the "buy-in" or "recoupment" cost per rescue personnel, since such capital assets along with future assets required will support the total population and staffing base in 2020 The capital costs associated with existing assets are allocated against the total planned rescue personnel of 54 c The City addressed its needs based on future demand for vehicles, equipment, and facilities Table 5-3 itemizes the planned improvements and purchases to maintain the service standards discussed earlier Specifically, the City plans to construct, staff, and equip a new fire station, Number 4 Table 5-3 lists the equipment and vehicle needs over the Forecast Period and estimated construction costs for Station No 4 The construction costs for Station No 4 are currently estimated at $3,500,000 A total of $5,584,489 in planned purchases, expansions, and improvements is anticipated through 2020 3 The estimated capital base costs or reserved service capacity, allocable to all customer classes were allocated between the residential and non-residential customer classes based on "functional population" estimates The concept of functional population is incorporated in order to spread capital costs more equitably between residential and non-residential land- uses Businesses place demands on fire rescue services in exactly the same manner as residents do, and It is equitable to spread these costs based on the average number of people expected to be present For the residential uses, the allocation is calculated per resident based on the average amount of time spent at the residence The resident's remaining time is then allocated as either an employee and/or visitor to the remaining non- residential classes is determined using traffic generations, estimated employment data, and operational details The net result is the total number of person hours per location as derived from Table 2-3 in Section 2 The base costs are calculated on a per person basis and then applied to the residential and non-residential land-uses based upon the respective functional population coefficient 4 The estimated variable cost of providing fire rescue services was allocated between the residential and non-residential customer classifications based on the estimated number of service calls made by the Fire Department per land-use for 2012 and is projected through 2020 (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\1 179-02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 5-6 Impact Fee Calculation Based on the above-referenced assumptions, the allocated capital facilities considered necessary to maintain the level of service requirements, and the population and land use projections of the City, the fire rescue services impact fees for the residential and non-residential customer classifications were estimated As shown in Table 5-6 at the end of this section, the cost per equivalent impact fee unit by customer classification was calculated The following summarizes the proposed changes to the residential fire rescue impact fees Existing Proposed Single-Family per Dwelling Unit[*] $404 $462 Multi-Family per Dwelling Unit 342 462 [*] Includes mobile homes Taking into account the methodology used for the determination of the fee and the estimates associated with determining the fire rescue capital needs of the City, it is concluded that the proposed impact fee utilizing the City's LOS standard are reasonable In the development of the cost per equivalent impact fee unit, it was determined that the rate should be applied on a "per dwelling unit" basis for the residential class and primarily on a "per square footage" of commercial development for the non-residential class As shown in Table 5-5, some non-residential land-uses are measured by units other than square feet These factors are common throughout the state as the equivalent impact fee unit for fee determination The use of these equivalency factors was based on discussions with the City, comparisons of fee applicability provisions of neighboring jurisdictions, and promotion of administrative simplicity IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide the City additional information about the proposed impact fees, a comparison of the proposed fees for the City and those charged by other neighboring ,jurisdictions was prepared Table 5-6 at the end of this section summarizes the impact fees for fire protection services charged by other communities with the proposed rates of the City Also, as shown in Table 5-6 for other communities, the fees charged to the residential class are applied using a "per dwelling unit" basis, which is consistent with the recommended fee applicability provisions of the City's proposed fees For the non-residential class and, as previously discussed, the fees are applied on the basis of the amount of square foot of facility development (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 5-7 Page 1 of 1 Section 5 City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis List of Tables Table Description 5-1 Summary of Existing Personnel 5-2 Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment, Vehicles& Facilities 5-3 Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment, Vehicles& Facilities 5-4 Summary of Capital Costs to Provide Fire Rescue Services 5-5 Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity /Variable 5-6 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comparison Page I of 1 Table 5-1 City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Existing Personnel Line Appropriated Actual Current Needs Planned No Quantity[1] Quantity[2] Needs[3] Station 4[4] Staffing Personnel 1 Fire Chief 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Assistant Fire Chiefs-Admin&Operations 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 Captain-Fire Prevention&EMS 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 Firefighter/inspector 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 5 Administrative Assistant&Staff Assistant 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 Battalion Chief 30 30 00 00 30 7 Fire Lieutenant 9 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 12 0 8 Firefighter/Paramedic or EMT 30 0 30 0 0 0 9 0 39 0 9 Total Personnel 50 0 50 0 1 0 12 0 63 0 Support 10 Dispatchers(Police Department Employees) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Volunteers 6 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 12 Total Support 56 0 52 0 5 0 12 0 69 0 Level of Service 13 Firefighter/Rescue Division 42 0 42 0 0 0 12 0 54 0 Footnotes [I] As obtained form the City's preliminary FY 2013 Budget [2] As provided by the City's Fire Chief [3] In addition to exiting personnel,these members have been identified as current deficiencies in terms of level of service based on information provided by the Fire Chief [4] Thirteen(13)Firefighters required for Station 4 as provided by the City Page 1 of 1 Table 5-2 City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment,Vehicles& Facilities Line No Descnption Asset Number Historical Cost[1] 1 Machinery and Equipment N/A $876,482 2 Major Vehicles ado and Firefighting Equipment 3 Chevrolet Suburban- 1998 3103 $23,243 4 Dodge 3500 Truck-2001 3104 20,975 5 Ford F-350 Red and White-2003 3105 37,374 6 Ford Explorer-2005 3107 22,532 7 E-One Quint-2005 3108 466,023 8 Chevrolet Suburban-2007 3109 31,639 9 Chevy Malibu SD Red-2007 C-103 15,973 10 Spartan Heavy Rescue- 1995 3214 157,609 11 Freightliner/Ferrera-2002 3226 153,515 12 First Out/Int Pumper- 1997 3256 69,617 13 Grumman Tower Truck- 1989 3258 261,816 14 E-One Fire Engine-2008 3259 262,450 15 Chevy Impala-2001 3261 20,449 16 Ford Crown Victoria-2006 3262 30,791 17 Ford Explorer-2001 3102 23,803 18 F-450 Ford Attack-2012 3263 83,138 19 E-One Ladder Truck-2012 3264 604,800 20 Total Vehicles and Firefighting Equipment $2,285,746 21 Other Capital Equipment and Required Facilities 22 Land,Buildings&Furnishing Historical Cost[1] 23 Land N/A $700,555 24 Building-Station#1 N/A 1,937,516 25 Building-Station#2 N/A 1,017,436 26 Building-Station#3 N/A 1,802,409 27 Office Equipment and Furniture N/A 61,854 28 Computer Systems and Software N/A 119,200 29 Total Other Fire Department Equipment and Required Facilities $5,638,972 30 Total Existing Capital Equipment,Vehicles&Facilities $8,801,199 Footnotes [1] Amounts reflected as provided by the City as of September 30,2013 Page 1 of 2 Table 5-3 City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment,Vehicles&Facilities Line No Descnption Current Cost[1] Machinery and Equipment 1 Diesel Exhaust Capture System $18,000 2 Repl Physio-Control Life-Pac 15 Defibulator/Cardiac Pacers(2) 204,000 3 Repl Delf Contained Breathing Apparatus&Compressor 93,500 4 Repl Delf Contained Breathing Apparatus&Compressor 75,000 5 Thermal Imaging Camera 27,000 6 20'Technical Rescue Trailer 20,000 7 Less Assets Replacements[2] (260,750) 8 Total Machinery and Equipment $176,750 9 Major Vehicles and Firefighting Equipment 10 Fire/Rescue Boat $150,000 11 Replacement Vehicles 12 Replacement Vehicles $167,000 13 Retirement-3104[3] (20,975) 14 Retirement-3102[3] (23,803) 15 Retirement-3107[3] (22,532) 16 Retirement-3105 [3] (37,374) 17 Retirement-3109[3] (31,639) 18 Net Amount Included in Fee $30,678 19 Replacement Pumpers 20 Replacement Class A Pumper $1,600,000 21 Retirement-3214[3] (157,609) 22 Retirement-3226[3] (153,515) 23 Net Amount Included in Fee $1,288,876 24 Replacement Tower 25 Replacement Aerial Quint $700,000 26 Retirement-3258[3] (261,816) 27 Net Amount Included in Fee $438,184 28 Total Vehicles and Firefighting Equipment $1,907,738 29 Other Capital Equipment and Required Facilities P q 30 Land,Buildings&Furnishing Current Cost[1] 31 Fire Station#4 $3,500,000 32 Total Other Fire Department Equipment and Required Facilities $3,500,000 33 Total Proposed Capital Equipment,Vehicles& Facilities $5,584,488 Page 2 of 2 Table 5-3 City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment,Vehicles&Facilities Footnotes [1] Amounts reflected as provided by the City unless otherwise indicated [2] Original equipment costs assumed to be approximately 70%of the replacement costs based on an average ten(10)year life [3] Amount reflects an adjustment for vehicles derived from Table 5-2 which are expected to be replaced Page 1 of 1 Table 5-4 City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Capital Costs to Provide Fire Rescue Services Line Total Personnel Average Cost No Description Total Cost[1] Requirements[2] per Personnel Recoupment Costs[3] 1 Machinery&Equipment $876,482 54 $16,231 2 Major Vehicles&Fire Fighting Equipment 2,285,746 54 42,329 3 Other Capital Equipment&Facilities 5,638,972 54 104,425 4 Total Recoupment Costs $8,801,199 $162,985 Proposed Capital Additions L41 5 Machinery&Equipment $176,750 54 $3,273 6 Major Vehicles&Fire Fighting Equipment 1,907,738 54 35,328 7 Other Capital Equipment&Facilities 3,500,000 54 64,815 8 Total Proposed Costs $5,584,488 $103,416 Additional Cost or Adjustments 9 Borrowing Costs-Series 2002 Bonds[5] $54,674 54 $1,012 10 Less Historical Capital Grants Received (349,204) 54 (6,467) 11 Less Proposed Future Capital Grants (95,000) 54 (1,759) 12 Total Additional Costs or Adjustments ($389,530) ($7,214) 13 Total Capital Costs $13,996,158 $259,187 Footnotes [1] Total estimated capital costs in Tables 5-2 and 5-3 [2] Future Requirements based on Level of Service Standards adopted by the City Future needs are calculated as follows Projected Population at 2020 42,100 Existing LOS per 1,000 population 1 28 Total Rescue Personnel Required in 2020 54 [3] Amounts derived from Table 5-2 [4] Amounts derived from Table 5-3 [5] Amount represents the borrowing costs associated with the 2002 Bonds calculated as follows Total Interest Cost on 2002 Bonds $2,485,191 Percent Allocable to Fire Department 2 2% Total Amount Allocable to Fire Department $54,674 Q 4_ 0 ai o. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 .o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD U, y N 00 N 10 en Q Q T Q 0 en en r '0 — N r — 00 Q Q ut en 00 en M — O — T T — Q — en en N N T en v1 T N VI M In 0 b 00 00 N — 1` r r N 0 en 00 V1 00 N en en T r T M Vi T vl N ON to en Q 00 en 1� T 10 T — vt — b — 00 o�A C Q Q o1 00 VD — O+ 0o M M 1n v1 CO M 00 SO V1 — to t� M 1n — 00 00 — v1 v1 v1 — N M 01 N 0O Q t� Q M 00 N Cl.a fA b9 — — — N N N — en v1 — — — ES 00 — 01 v1 — en t` b — 00 % Q 00 O 0 en O Q N v1 O Q 1n N Q 01 VI O. Q 1n VD N 0% — VU v1 1� 1n O 00 en 1U 00 v1 0 t� 10 Q 00 T 00 1U VI 00 N r Q 01 — en 10 50 00 V- N — v1 00 0 — O en l- s0 v1 v1 10 00 en vl O 1U N 01 10 0 — 00 — U E. Q -- - — r en 10 N N — N O 01 r 00 Q 0 0 00 Q N 1D Q — 10 — v1 r v1 v1 0 N h O 10 N N 10 O — 00 — N N N O 01 — V1 00 T O N en en Q 10 r 01 — T T en O T 00 Q N -- h M 1` 10 vl M M — Q M — on — O r 00 — Q en VI U 0 NNi NN 10 Vt M 10 10 Q N 00 0 01 r N ^ en en 1` Q Q N en N Vl VI en en en -- - N N — Q M 0 N CO v1 — F — N M — — a 10 s 4 M O ten 1 0011 0 T 0i Q - O^ N - b 02 Q r N N N r 0100 000 Q Vii 01 1�'1 V1 - N 020 0000 5; 10 en M 000 01 r O 0 2 0 0 to 10 0 Q v1 O r v1 — 00 O N to 00 N V. 10 0 01 01 N 01 00 v1 10 — vl N V1 M 00 00 00 01 1D O °1 V1 00 0 Vt r O N — UO Vl 1n r M M N 10 V1 Q - - Q V1 00 M 00 M O N T 01 Q o Q en N Q N — O — b 00 M M Q 00 } r °1 N 00 M 0 NN -- en en N Q en N — Vl 1p 01 0 — O N N Q N N — ^ T en M N N N — t` — N — 10 ■ Q en■ CZ V1 Vl V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 VI V, V'1 0 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V) VI VI V'1 V1 V1 V1 V1 VI VI 01 V1 V1 V1 01 V1 V1 V1 01 Vl 01 V1 V1 01 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ` 0 VVl 10 1D 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 •0 •0 10 10 •0 ■0 ■0 10 10 10 10 47 10 VD 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 b 1D V7 V7 10 v0 UC WI V1 Vl V1 V1 VI V1 VI Vl VI h Vl 01 V1 Vl Vl V1 h Vl V1 Vl V1 Vt V1 V1 Vl Vl V1 Vl Vl Vl V1 V1 Vl Vl V1 Vl In Vl an Vl V'■ fA 4, d m A. 01 0. a, • C Tr a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a ¢ a c z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 N ki 1 a. 0 0.. c a V1 r M V1 en 1n to 0 00 —en 0 — 0 10 0 0 M CO Q 00 01 0 01 V1 V1 V1 Q 0 N M Q 1-- 0 0 V1 V1 0 en en 0 0 50 N M V 1` 10 — t` oo 10 10 WI 00 M M Vl N V1 M — O — 00 t` 00 N Vt 1■ N r N O O T M — M V1 O 1` N O 10 1- O O Vl 10 M M — 00 00 0 10 — N Q — M N O to VI 00 V1 M \0 r — — N 00 — 00 V7 10 Vt 1` M r 1` O oo 10 Vl O 00 O O r r M 1.1 C V 00 01 1` V7 N 10 T 10 — en 10 00 00 V'1 00 N O Q Vl r M — \0 en 10 0 N 1` 01 00 V1 QQ M O 10 ut r Q — o Vl — Q 00 C o 10 Q N 10 M O 00 Q M 0 N 10 O — Vt Q Q — o0 Q — 10 Vl o M V1 V1 T N r T — M 10 T — O h 00 Q T r T — O O 0 . 0 G1 �" 10 — M — h 1° M 1D T — N -- — T 00 T vl N r T 00 01 O Q — O N Q M N — Q v1 oo 1n r - - O — O V1 N O h O — N N — N N -- O O M Q 10 1D O 10 - - N - - O T N N Cl O — — — O O O O Q o — — Q — M N 0 0 0 a y 0 a 4, 0 E 4 .. l a'U i m E s V d o `� `° 0 0 0 0 0 - y y w y y h y y n w y y 4.4. 4. 4.4.4.4_4-, 4-, V.. C. 4. .: - L n 1...4.4.. 4.cr c.. 4. v. 4-. ... '�' Q " 00000000 l0-. 0 4000000000000000 0 0 0 ID 0005 a� 00000 E0 0a 4 y 0 O O o 0 0 0 O U o 0.O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O O O 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0 0 0 as 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 E L>: 0 E o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o E pg 0.Fg pgaF ,.0 0 o x F 0 0 0 0 o a o E u . xa ��,� „ ± , � ,. xn � „„ r„ , „ nnxxx „,„, vF �� „ onm 4 � �± o c., u, 00 2; 5 cAc) 000- C7Cwial000Pv v v, 046 c) 0 W 02 2; 2; r gl 3 0 U v Y L 0. C y y U 0 E � �s d d re o d F > y > > E d ° ° 0• > E U U d ° v o 0 5 a E .0 -6 F cc CC . A A EE.E ° c - u 0 o In 0 O y L `. H r0 C N .. h y ”' V, er■ r0 O N N 00 A 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,� ,v O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O DD vi N O en Vl rn V vl T C O 1D O r r en N 00 tD N O et 'D r — 10 4J 00 T V1 M. v1 T v1 y V- -VO r 00 00 — 00 vt — N h 00 O r- O O r r — 00 r- — — O vl 10 b T et T en 00 1O T 01 — O O ca 7 — en lO v1 — 01 v1 V N vl r1 00 00 — — 10 N O R en to to 1n — 00 en en en ■ to — N 0 N N — — — — N at E a4 "' 0 en en 1D n 7 r- en en en T N — 1D T 10 00 vl 0. 1D O T r et 00 rn et r v1 T h et N .-. o 10 v1 et T N O vl N — 00 T — — N — O et 10 et r- et 00 0 T 00 v1 00 00 rn T 10 r- — 00 V1 U C O T N vl en N 1D 1D 1D T en O N 00 O O et Vi — 00 V vl VI rn r� — 1D 10 0 r N et T rn e- - en .- 1O et — N O in -- en O T — — O r r vt T rn et N r et CCV 7 — CO O T vt r- N — N et rn rn 00 en T — en N Vt et — — O — 1D N .- et en N et e- N N et — V — > O — CO O 10 0 0 10 01 001 N et - 000 r 10 n en r en 000 O O - V N - vo'r 7 N n 000 n N p `g r- vl T en O rn O r 00 00 O T et — 10 1D 00 b b 1D r T 00 T T T T r N T un r- C 1; of et N — O T C O T rn O O 10 10 O O O vl — ,, O rn co V — et N 0 10 T rn ., r- 0 — N N 00 y h — — rn rn 10 — 7 — — N N — N et M — — T N an Vl 01 0 Vl Vl Vl Vl Vl V1 V1 Vi Vl Vl Vl 0 V1 V1 VI V. 0 01 Vl V1 Vl vl Vl V1 VI VI Vl V1 Vl Vl V1 Vl et V et et et et et et et R V C et 7 et et et et V et et et et et et et et V V V et 7 7 et et ... u 10 10 10 10 10 00 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1O 10 10 00 10 1D 10 10 10 1D 00 00 b 10 10 1O 10 10 1D 00 10 UO Vi V1 Vi V1 Vi Vl Vt Vl Vl Vl Vi V1 Vl Vl Vl Vl h Vl Vi Vl VI V1 V1 V1 V1 Vl N 41 Vi Vi Vl Vl Vl V1 N 4d'. r 6 0- y .� z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z P. a C et V O of V, en r- [n R O 7 en — — VI 1"- O en O O en 10 O O 00 rn en O en en 1n T er 00 rn O 01 V r 0 N 10 10 10 10 — vl vl rn 1n 1n r- b T CO 0 O 00 to O VI rn — 10 O en 00 10 — to — en un (p O N v1 O O 10 10 — N r- en 00 O N en 10 — vl O O O T vl N r en VI O 00 VI 10 v0 r O 00 r` {i 0 U 00 n r en 1D vD et en 00 1D Vl — et T 1D 1D T O O N N r- b N O — O Vl V — r- v1 T h on N N T N O T en 10 O T — T et N Cg N 00 00 O O vl 00 rn 00 ul r` et vl 10 T N 00 T 0 c. V c L4 et T vl O et — O N 01 1D N 00 T T et et 00 10 1D O r- 1D en 00 00 00 O T 00 r en T N N et O O — O — vl C., — M O — O — — O O en O N — O — — O — N N O O vl O — 0 0 0 d 7 d J u E m w la 00 `o 0 F 0 4, t o C3 41 0 0 Y y G — U Y = A y CO(0 N N N�Vl 4Vl N H h N N u N N h h N 0? N y N E W Q O CD U O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 C1 CC 0 0 0 0 0D O 0" o 0 O L 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Cl V O O 00 O p; c O < 0O0., o ¢ o ¢ ¢ oo000 � O 8Uoo3000OUo0QNOO Co [: m ] rn C. E WW — 0 K �c03 rY � 2C07 (0. 2; c)C0c)2; 2; LLI � C) c)v, 00u7Ca7Ur`ni, rvn Kw. U0 0 0 0 4 C >, F' d y C a 8 -. v U c 0 U c -5 an o z 3 v 4, E B eo U 0 0 > f] E v w d 0V0 A 0 o Kb b 0. o c °'' 3 u It U v Y ee 2 22 c ❑ 0_— .o o `� c v c u H t'O o f A p o 8 u g U-0 si3 0 5 U Y a s = ) 6 DY 4i F" iF. gUU g v v 0 z F c d N `.0 r� T T 3 V V L C N G Y 0 ` V € y m 4 V V PL O= CO V = w A A F n Z Z no 0- € as o V Z g F 0 o [= c o v .° Ce C� D " v a U w n . D r3 r2 a `" _e o ` �d M d a,E:E in rn x `3 T aLi ` _v etl ttl-6,,-; C 0 0 0 y 7 7 7 FC L L r80 > 1 Cl N N 0 6 7 N a) a, 2 C i0 r� 0l D 3 222 ' 222zzzzC5ffgE �7�'cgccc010; arnF = F0333g o O 10 r 00 T O -- N rn et v1 vv,vD r-vn 00 T O — N rn et VI 10 n 00 T O — N e et h 10 r 00 T 0 • Z of of et Vl V1 Vl h Vl Vi V1 V1 1O 00 00 10 10 10 00 00 b 10 in r r r r n r` r r r 00 el- 0 ckl a. [\$ 2 ƒƒ [ I , \ \ } ±0 ) � / j ; } c0a \ ( , tI /k � ( / ■ 1.' (7 \ / k E - - . | 2 ] _ _ ° _ - ° J _ A 2 ) . ) - . 2 C / / E % ! 0 . \) k { � k g. \] k } '5� � _ — - ) � - \ k - j \ $ / \ E ) 7.. .g, \ ■ § / ƒ f / > ) ) q \ \\ = \ z 8 ) § a 74 @ k / ƒ 7 7 7 \ ) \k j mk ( ) \ \ / } \ \ \ \ ƒƒ \ 2| . nr tr- 0 O nr a6 00 0) k E r2 U v A 5 a. 00 fl N F E r- t. o O 1g Lop ' V 00 y -■ ,� V N N N V O C pf19 00 m y Y >tl O 4, a U 0 E 7.; U ° e o = v S : jj : n o E N r 00 o N O V r a o v V h N° b N cn, R � ^ ' . `l VI re N O en so 0 U i, m E - `.9. U va 8 o GO > 0 0 a 00 N . o— v N E a O z id O ^ rno -r rn n , O` C F g U e. , 00 , 6r. a e 0 ) . 00 O 00 O 5 d C V R c v n h o h E a d r n n bs vj v c o 0 m d m 0° '0 e F ° u ° °i. - u 77 a- � o U � I .,t- n a Q d Y N w T Fy U ; ` - d > A o d o° w E',o v ` o 5 To m E F d Eil .1 y aw E o (11 u°.0 n U I yy G.' E F F .!- e 0 a a) S U U 0. a) E G0 w U a.' 'i a5 a To E j E o 0 .o jp y� U ` 5 2 U v • U e ▪ ° S A E m C 8 E U a U p ti p y Y2,L) - .v. -0 S V U a as c t° O. o m c S c 'oU -g▪ a U am N U o - 5 > Fe w N V N 0 c",_ ° 0 y d m V iy N A c Em E U " � �y o O N E p C � d c ? m -0 w t.al aU a ri . > En: z •0 N iO `g itl 0 A iE `i0 ` 73 `� o o v o 0 o ttl o o as o o d o F X F O.F FF > F .� F O.F F C! Z 0 v E ,_, z 8E s • k Table 5-6 Page I of I City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comparison III Residential Line Single Multi- Mobile Non-Residential No Descnpnon Family Family Home ($per square foot) City of Clermont 1 Existing $404 00 $342 00 $404 00[2] $0 798 per sq ft 2 Proposed 462 00 462 00 462 00[2] Other Florida Government Agencies 3 City of Apopka N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 City of Edgewater 330 51 143 77 330 51 $0 0116 $0 241 per sq fl [3] 5 City of Eustis 146 72 104 88 95 73 $0 01619 $1 634 per sq ft [3] 6 City of Kissimmee N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 City of Lakeland 349 00 263 00 163 00 $0 014-$0 491 per sq fl [3] 8 City of Lake Mary 175 00 N/A N/A $0 129 per gross sq fl 9 City of Lake Wales 593 00 520 00 N/A $0 010-1 Ol per sq ft [3] 10 City of Leesburg 207 00 207 00 207 00 $0 1174 per sq ft I I City of Mineola 257 57 139 03 105 56 $0 023 $0 025 per sq ft [3] 12 City of Mount Dora 430 99 222 02 N/A $0 026-$2 20717 per sq ft [3] 13 City of Ocoee [4] 636 00 N/A N/A $0 470 per sq fl 14 City of St Cloud 549 00 359 00 N/A $0 719 per sq fl 15 City of Tavares [5] 402 78 306 46 203 58 $0 01532 $1 91538 per sq ft [3] 16 City of Winter Garden 340 00 340 00 340 00 $0 61 per sq ft 17 City of Winter Haven 483 90 N/A N/A $0 1588 per sq ft 18 Other Honda Governmental Agencies Average $377 04 $260 52 $206 48 Footnotes II] Unless otherwise noted,amounts shown reflect impact fees in effect October 2013 This companson 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 municipality [2] Based upon the City's existing ordinance and procedures one new mobile home is charged as one single family dwellmg unit [3] Reflects the lowest and highest rate per square feet [4] Impact fees temporarily reduced to 50%of the amounts shown from January 3 2013 until January 1 2014 [5] Impact fees were waived until June 30 2013 Beginning July 1 2013 they are set to increase in six month increments until July 1 2014 when the full impact fees will become effective again PR SECTION 6 RECREATION FEE SECTION 6 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the development and design of the proposed impact fee for recreational services Included in this section is a discussion of the City's adopted level of service (LOS) standards, facility requirements, and related capital costs included as the basis for the fee determination, and the design of the fee to be applied to new growth within the City DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The Department of Natural Resources ("DNR") has identified seven classifications or categories of parks The seven classifications are i)equipped play area and tot lot, ii)neighborhood park, iii) community park, iv)urban open space, v)urban-district park, vi)regional park, and vii) beach access site There are specific site guidelines for the recreational classifications that are basically directed towards size, accessibility, and population requirements Urban-District parks, regional parks, and beach access sites are not normally applicable to every City As illustrated in the summary of existing City-owned and operated parks, Table 6-1, the City maintains an extensive inventory of recreational facilities and activities The following is a discussion of the site guidelines as identified by the DNR • Equipped Play Area and Tot Lot—These recreational areas generally consist of open areas with play apparatus for school age or preschool children Usually, these areas range in size from 1/4 to one acre and serve neighborhoods of between 500 and 2,500 people Recommended facilities include playground equipment, benches and picnic tables, landscaping and open space • Neighborhood Park — These recreational areas generally consist of a variety of facilities designed for the specific needs of the neighborhood This park is usually considered as a "walk-to" park where access is directed towards the local residents of the neighborhood The park is usually designed to serve a radius of up to 1/2 mile and has a size ranging from five to ten acres (i e , approximately two acres per 1,000 people) Recommended facilities include playground equipment, recreational buildings, multipurpose courts, sports fields, picnic areas, and open space • Community Park — These recreational areas are considered as "ride-to" parks and are typically located on major collector or arterial streets This type of park is designed to serve the needs of four to six neighborhoods or generally a radius of up to three miles It is recommended that this type of park be a minimum of twenty acres based on a minimum standard of two acres per 1,000 population Just as the neighborhood park is designed to serve the needs of the neighborhood, a community park is designed to meet the needs of the surrounding community Recommended facilities may include swimming pools, ball fields, tennis courts, playground equipment, multipurpose courts, recreation buildings, sports fields, and other associated equipment Also, the park should include allowances for K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 6-1 r open space, adequate parking, and landscaping The facilities included in the neighborhood park may also be included in a community park • Urban Open Space — These areas are landscaped or natural open areas usually located within built-up areas and may serve a variety of population sizes based on the size of the open space The principal function of these areas is to provide a buffer to congested environments Facilities for this type of park may include benches, commemorative structures,trails, and paths The foregoing recreational facilities may also be classified into two categories resource-based and activity-based Resource-based sites and facilities are defined as those centered around particular natural resources These sites provide opportunities for activities such as picnics, hiking, water sports, fishing or just exploring nature Activity-based recreational sites and facilities are defined as those developed for the enjoyment of particular commercial or non- commercial activities These sites include facilities for basketball, baseball, football, soccer, golf, amusement parks, arcades, water parks, and community or senior citizen centers As described above, the two types of public recreational areas that appear to best meet the recreational open space needs of the City are the neighborhood park and community park Due to the size of the City, these recreational areas appear to satisfy the major recreational requirements of the City since there is easy access and all of the types of facilities that may be required by the population are either currently provided or planned Additionally, the City provides an array of public recreational activities for its residents These public activities are mainly in the form of picnic areas, exercise trails, and various athletic fields The City's existing public recreational activities provide diverse recreational opportunities for all residents LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS As outlined in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City has adopted level of service standards for recreational facilities and activities With respect to open space, the City has adopted a recreational open-space LOS standard of ten (10) acres per 1,000 residents in total For impact fee development, only the total acreage standard of ten (10) acres per 1,000 residents will be summarized into the fee The City currently owns and maintains an inventory of parks A summary of the City-owned and -operated parks (existing and under development) is summarized on Table 6-1 The City's current inventory includes 374 88 acres Regional Parks (219 0 acres), Community Parks (87 65 acres), Neighborhood Parks (30 82 acres), Mini-Parks (8 24 acres) and General Open Space (29 17 acres) Table 6-2 provides a detailed listing of the City's current investment in the parks, including land, improvements, facilities, and equipment, which total approximately $36 3 million As shown in Table 6-3 and based on the estimated population of 30,201 residents in 2013, the City has an existing level of service for total open space of approximately 12 acres per 1,000 population, which results in the City having an existing surplus as follows (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReponUtepon doc 6-2 Existing Population 30,201 Open Space LOS 10 0 acres per 1,000 population Required Acres 302 01 acres Current City Inventory 374 88 acres Surplus/(Deficiency) 72 87 acres In addition to open space parkland, the City provides its residents with a number of recreational activities, both passive and active activities The City has adopted service standards for each activity as illustrated in Table 6-4 This table summarizes the City's existing and future surpluses and/or deficiencies in service activities based upon the adopted standards Such activities include, but are not limited to, the following • Tennis Courts • Baseball/Softball Fields • Racquetball Courts • Basketball Courts • Multipurpose Fields Based on the service levels by activity as shown in Table 6-4, certain small deficiencies need to be considered when developing the recreation impact fee Table 6-5 summarizes the required adjustments to activity costs estimated at approximately $464,339 in order to cover the existing deficiencies of certain activities This estimate was developed based on comparing actual facilities to the required standard and adjusting by estimated costs to construct such facilities OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS In addition to the standards-based level of service related adjustments discussed above, the City plans to make additional improvements to recreation facilities estimated at $9,796,449 that will serve the City's "build-out" population estimated at 68,099 persons Approximately $1 0 million of these project costs relate to the recently purchased "Celebration of Praise" property to allow for normal upgrades This property was purchased by the City for approximately $6 3 million and was included in Table 6-2 under existing assets, which was allocated to the buildings and land categories for inclusion in the impact fee calculation The City also anticipates receiving $2,531,804 in grant funding for the planned projects shown in Table 6-6 This results in an additional net investment by the City of approximately $7,264,645 This investment was then allocated to the existing population based on a percentage of existing population compared to the estimated "build-out" population This results in an allocated amount of$3,221,774 included in the calculation of the fee DESIGN OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPACT FEE The method used to determine the impact fee is the standards-driven method with recoupment This method which was used to determine the recreational facilities component of the recreation K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 6-3 impact fee was based upon an allocation process to assign costs between existing and future residents Table 6-7 at the end of this section summarizes the results of the approach The following is a brief description of the method used in this study • Development of Total Capital Need — Based on the City's estimated capital costs of developing existing and future park facilities, population projections, and recommended LOS requirements, the total estimated cost to serve existing residents is developed which needs to be recovered from future growth (a "Buy-in Approach") • Development of Equivalent Impact Fee Units—This step develops the estimated number of equivalent impact fee units, which the fee is to be calculated such that a specific rate can be developed This municipal service is applicable only to the residential class and the equivalent unit is considered to be one (1) resident(per resident application) • Calculation of Cost per Development—Once the total capital costs allocable to each future resident are determined, the cost per development unit was calculated, or the impact fee unit per dwelling(residence) Recreational Facility Impact Fee Assumptions In the development of the recreation impact fees, several assumptions were required The major assumptions used in the development of the impact fees are as follows 1 The development of the cost for the recreation facilities impact fees was based on the City's current inventory of parks and recreational activities, the recommended service standards for recreational facilities and activities, and the City's estimated capital costs to develop future facilities and activities 2 As indicated in Table 6-7,the City has identified existing needs totaling $23,632,414 which includes a credit for grants and other sources of cost free capital which reduced the burden by $12,284,805 The total needs were based primarily on actual investments made by the City, which should be recouped from future residential growth (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\1179 02\Rpts\FinalReport\Report doc 6-4 Impact Fee Calculation Based on the above-referenced assumptions, the recreation impact fee as set forth in detail on Table 6-7 was determined as follows Net Investment—Open Space[11 $10,169,947 Existing Open Space 374 88 Existing Cost Per Acre $27,129 Open Space Requirement for Existing Residents(Acres) 302 01 Total Capital Cost to Provide Open Spaces $8,193,229 Total Capital to Provide Recreation Facilities 4,997,980 Total Capital Costs to Provide Recreation Activities and Equipment 10,291,653 Additional Borrowing Costsl�1 729,357 Total Capital Costs Allocable to Exiting Residents $24,212,219 Less Other Funding Sourcesl31 579,805 Total Cost Allocated to Fee $23,632,414 Existing Population 30,201 Proposed Rate per Person $782 50 [I] Amount was reduced by$11 7 million in grant revenues for land [2] Additional borrowing costs as allocated to the impact fee calculation based on the planned purchase and financing of the Celebration of Praise Property [3] Amount reflects additional grants for activities and facilities The proposed rate per person is applied to the residential classes (single-family, multi-family, and mobile homes) based on the number of residents per dwelling unit as shown in Table 6-8 A detailed comparison of proposed and existing impact fees by residential class and unit design is presented in Table 6-9 IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide the City additional information about the proposed impact fees, a comparison of the proposed fees for the City and those charged by other jurisdictions was prepared Table 6-9 at the end of this section summarizes the impact fees for recreational services charged by other communities with the proposed rates of the City Please note that each community may establish a different LOS standard to meet its demographic needs for recreation facilities and activities The City can anticipate variances between other communities (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K\DC\I 179 02\Rpts\FinalRepori\Report doc 6-5 - Page 1 of 1 Section 6 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis List of Tables Table Description 6-1 Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities 6-2 Summary of Existing City Investments in Parks and Recreation 6-3 Existing Open-Space Needs 6-4 Existing Activity Needs 6-5 Summary of Activity Cost Adjustments to Cure Net Deficiencies to Serve Existing Population 6-6 Summary of Capital Projects to Improve& Expand Recreation Services 6-7 Design of Recreation Impact Fee 6-8 Impact Fee Allocation 6-9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison Page 1 of 3 Table 6-1 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities III. Line No Facility Classification Acres Activity Facilities 1 Regional Parks 219 00 2 Inland Groves Property Park 219 00 Passive Volleyball Court General Play Ground Fishing Pier Canoe/Kayak Launch Wildlife Observation Platform Nature/Hiking Trails Paved Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail 3 Community Parks 87 65 4 Hancock Park 22 80 Active Batting Cages Softball Field Soccer Fields Basketball Courts Tennis Courts General Play Ground Pavilion Concession Stand 5 Palatlakaha Recreation Area 27 39 Active Volleyball Court Little League Fields Senior League Fields Bull Pens Batting Cages Softball Fields Football/Soccer Fields Press Box Concession Stand Tennis Courts Basketball Court Racquetball Court Nature Trail Boardwalk Canoe Launch Fishing Pier Pavilion Picnic Table General Play Ground Exercise and Fitness Trail 6 Lake Felter Park 13 13 Active Basketball Court Softball Field Football/Soccer Field General Playground Tennis Court 7 Waterfront Park/Highlander Hut 23 99 Active Basketball Court General Play Ground Volleyball Court Boardwalk Paved Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Fishing Pier Picnic Pavilions Picnic Tables Beach House Grills Page 2 of 3 Table 6-1 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities 111 Line No Facility Classification Acres Activity Facilities Benches 8 Jenkins Auditorium 0 34 Active Restrooms Kitchen Stage 9 Neighborhood Parks 30 82 10 McKinney Park 5 25 Active Basketball Court Softball Field Volleyball Court General Playground Pavilion Picnic Tables 11 Bishop Field 3 42 Active Smor League Field Batting Cage Concession Stand Grandstand Seating 12 Lakeview Hills Park 3 15 Passive Picknic Tables Benches 13 West Park 2 39 Active Little League Field Softball Field Batting Cages Consession Stand Movable Bleachers 14 Center Lake Park 12 55 Passive Excense/Fitness Trail with Stations 15 Boat Ramp 2 05 Passive Boat Ramps 16 Kiwanis Park 2 01 Passive General Playground Swing Set Benches Picnic Tables 17 Mini-Parks 8 24 18 Azalea Park 1 70 Passive Picnic Tables 19 Park of Indian Hills 1 35 Passive Park Benches 20 West Beach Park 1 05 Passive Swing Set Fishing Pier Paved Bicycle/Pedestrian Trail Picnic Tables Water Fountain 21 Kehlor Park/Clermont Recreation Club 1 03 Active Tesnms Court Shuffle Board Horseshoe Area Club House/Senior Center 22 Veterans Park 0 86 Passive Benches 23 Edgewood Place Park 0 72 Active General Play Ground Swing Set Page 3 of 3 Table 6-1 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities I I[ Line No Facility Classification Acres Activity Facilities 24 8th Street Trailhead 0 70 Passive Trails Picnic Tables Park Benches Clock Tower 25 Montros Tot-Lot 0 34 Active 1/2 Basketball Court General Play Ground Picnic Table Benches 26 Chesnut Park 0 34 Active 1/2 Basketball Court Swing Set Slide Picnic Tables Water Fountain 27 Seminole Park 0 15 Active General Play Ground Swing Set Benches Picnic Tables 28 Open Space 29 17 29 Highland Avenue Corridor Park 1 00 Passive Open Space 30 Lake Minneola Scenic Trail 2 75 Passive Paved Bicycle Trail/Pedestrial Trail 31 Celebration of Praise-Open Space 25 42 Passive Vacant Property/Open Space Summary 32 Regional Parks 219 00 33 Community Parks 87 65 34 Neighborhood Parks 30 82 35 Mini-Parks 8 24 36 Open Space 29 17 37 Total Acres in Service 374 88 Footnotes [1] Inventory as provided by the City and in service as of September 30 2013,plus new open-spaces associated with purchasing the Celebration of Praise Property Page I of 3 Table 6-2 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Enstine City Investments in Parks and Recreation Line Asset Asset Category Allocated Amounts No Descnpton Acquisition Cost Category Land Facility Acttity Equipment Excluded Total Fined Assets Land I Inland Gros es South $6 026 741 Land $6 026 741 $0 SO $0 $0 $6 026 741 2 Pool Property South 2 276 741 Land 2 276 741 0 0 0 0 2 276 741 3 E 33 Lot 14&W20 Lot 12 Blk 80 3 508 Land 3 508 0 0 0 0 3 508 4 Block 89A Center Lake Park 6 700 Land 6 700 0 0 0 0 6 700 5 Sunnyside Unit Blk 9 Parks 3 000 Land 3 000 0 0 0 0 3 000 6 Lots 8 9 10 Blk 73 Women S Club 10 800 Land 10 800 0 0 0 0 10 800 7 Lots 4-6 14 20&E 50 Of Said Lots 9 020 Land 9 020 0 0 0 0 9 020 8 Baseball Park Lots 13 20 Blk 6 18 800 Land 18 800 0 0 0 0 18 800 9 Kehlor Park 16 400 Land 16 400 0 0 0 0 16 400 10 Lots 5 6 Lot 20 Blk 76 18 200 Land 18 200 0 0 0 0 18 200 I I Lake Mineola Park All Blks 10 13 24 600 Land 24 600 0 0 0 0 24 600 12 N 120 Of Lot 8 Hibiscus Pk 600 Land 600 0 0 0 0 600 13 Lots 1 11 S Of Hwy Blk 125 Sunset 2 000 Land 2 000 0 0 0 0 2 000 14 Indian Hills Park 5 000 Land 5 000 0 0 0 0 5 000 15 Crystal Lake Park 2 500 Land 2 500 0 0 0 0 2 500 16 12Th Atenue Park 356 621 Land 356 621 0 0 0 0 356 621 17 Adjacent 5 Acres 12Th At a Pk 93 411 Land 93 411 0 0 0 0 93 411 18 Partial City Hall Parlung Lot 60 177 Land 60 177 0 0 0 0 60 177 19 Railroad Right Of Way Near West Beach 7 813 Land 7 813 0 0 0 0 7 813 20 Rad To Trail Property Near West Beach 15 116 Land 15 116 0 0 0 0 15 116 21 Boat Ramp Doyle Property 265 460 Land 265 460 0 0 0 0 265 460 22 Ell rodt Property Adj To Boat Ramp Rd 35 391 Land 35 391 0 0 0 0 35 391 23 Chodos Property Adj To Boat Ramp Rd 17 868 Land 17 868 0 0 0 0 17 868 24 W Ate&Mineola(Sutton Prop) 16 373 Land 16 373 0 0 0 0 16 373 25 490 West Ate Train Depot 535 180 Land 535 180 0 0 0 0 535 180 26 922 Mineola Ate 596489 Land 596489 0 0 0 0 596489 27 Bell Ceramics Property Waterfront 1 514 841 Land 1 514 841 0 0 0 0 1 514 841 28 North Inland Gros es Property 8 253 500 Land 8 253 500 0 0 0 0 8 253 500 29 630 634 W Montrose St Jenkins 351 480 Land 351 480 0 0 0 0 351 480 30 Johnson s Replat Lot 8 9 10 Bonjom 130 619 Land 130 619 0 0 0 0 130 619 31 Celebration of Praise Purchase of Open Spaces(25 42 Acres) 1 200 000 Land 1 200 000 0 0 0 0 1 200 000 32 Land Total $21,874,947 $21,874,947 SO $0 SO S0 521,874947 Buildings 33 Pasillion 12Th Street Park $22 182 Facility $0 $22 182 SO $0 $0 $22 182 34 Restrooms 12Th St Park 27 319 Facility 0 27 319 0 0 0 27 319 35 Storage 12Th St Park 19 122 Facility 0 19 122 0 0 0 19 122 36 Cemetars Addition 2000 Facihn 0 2000 0 0 0 2000 37 Columbanum Niche ft&7 21 725 Facility 0 21 725 0 0 0 21 725 38 Histonc Library 203 521 Facility 0 203 521 0 0 0 203 521 39 Histonc Village 304 181 Facility 0 304 181 0 0 0 304 181 40 Histonc Village Fire&Security System 5 985 Facility 0 5 985 0 0 0 5 985 41 Highlander Hut And Waterfront Pavilion 1 428 355 Facility 0 1 428 355 0 0 0 1 428 355 42 Community Center 701 772 Facility 0 701 772 0 0 0 701 772 43 Celebration of Praise Purchase of Facilities 5 100 000 Facility 0 5 100 000 0 0 0 5 100 000 44 Building Total 57,836 162 SO $7,836,162 50 SO SO 57,836 162 Infrastructure 45 Boat Ramps $1314 Activity $0 $0 SI 314 $0 SO $1314 46 Jaycee Beach Improsements 4 622 Activity 0 0 4 622 0 0 4 622 47 Resurface Tennis Courts&Lose!Fence 6623 Actn in 0 0 6623 0 0 6623 48 Boat Ramp And Pier 7 588 Activity 0 0 7 588 0 0 7 588 49 Ballfields 26400 Actn in 0 0 26400 0 0 26400 50 Elementary Field Improvements 5 138 Activity 0 0 5 138 0 0 5 138 51 Pate Courts At Elementary School 3 480 Actnity 0 0 3 480 0 0 3 480 52 Jaycee Beach Fencing 5 244 Activity 0 0 5 244 0 0 5 244 53 Bishop Field Lights 1 909 Actnity 0 0 1 909 0 0 1 909 54 Boat Ramp Renotatrons 3313 Achy in; 0 0 3313 0 0 3313 55 Bishop Field Poles 7 479 Actnity 0 0 7 479 0 0 7 479 56 Fitness Trail 827 Actnity 0 0 827 0 0 827 57 Jaycee Beach Public Swarmng 3 980 Actin 0 0 3 980 0 0 3 980 58 Shuffleboard Courts 4 608 Aetna,. 0 0 4 608 0 0 4 608 59 Resurfacing Shuffleboard Courts 3 076 ACM ity 0 0 3 076 0 0 3 076 60 Jaycee Beach Seawall 677 Activity 0 0 677 0 0 677 61 East Ate Ballfield Fencing 2 265 Actn in 0 0 2 265 0 0 2 265 62 Jaycee Beach Emission Control 6 840 Adis in 0 0 6 840 0 0 6 840 63 West Beach Improvements 8 700 Actis in 0 0 8 700 0 0 8 700 64 12Th Street Pork 33 826 Actisin 0 0 33 826 0 0 33 826 65 Resurface Courts At Kehlor Park 5 860 Adis III 0 0 5 860 0 0 5 860 66 12Th St Park Engineering Asphalt 828 440 Actisin 0 0 828 440 0 0 828 440 67 Kehlor Park II 876 Actnity 0 0 II 876 0 0 11 876 68 12Th SI Courts Tennis Basketb Voiles 67,244 Actnity 0 0 67 244 0 0 67 244 69 12Th St lmpros ements 169 781 Acts m 0 0 169 781 0 0 169 781 Page 2 of 3 Table 6-2 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Existing City Investments in Parks and Recreation Line Asset Asset Category Allocated Amounts No Descnption Acgnsmon Cost Category Land Facility Arm ity Egapment Excluded Total 70 Bishop Field Lights 43 868 Actnin 0 0 43 868 0 0 43 868 71 West Field Lights 35 178 Action 0 0 35 178 0 0 35 178 72 12Th St Park Bike Path 19914 Actisin 0 0 19914 0 0 19914 73 12Th St Park Boardwalk 96 002 Ann ts 0 0 96 002 0 0 96 002 74 12Th St Park Fitness Trad 1 402 Aetna) 0 0 1 402 0 0 1 402 75 12Th St Park Fence 4 943 Annoy 0 0 4 943 0 0 4 943 76 1Th St Park Playground 10 183 Annoy 0 0 10 183 0 0 10 183 77 12Th Street Park tmprosements 1 015 Amity 0 0 1 015 0 0 1 015 78 12Th St Park Parking Lots 32 643 Actnin 0 0 32 643 0 0 32 643 79 12Th St Park Bleacher Pad 2 148 Actnity 0 0 2 148 0 0 2 148 80 12Th St Park Parking Lot&Engineenng 12 946 Aniity 0 0 12 946 0 0 12 946 81 12Th St Landscaping 1 008 Amoy 0 0 1 008 0 0 1 008 82 Bishop Field Lights 18 166 Actnity 0 0 18 166 0 0 18 166 83 Jaycee Beach Waterfront 25 630 Actis It) 0 0 25 630 0 0 25 630 84 Steps&Veteran S Park 800 Actnity 0 0 800 0 0 800 85 Kehlor Park Shuffleboard&Tennis 18 223 Admix 0 0 18 223 0 0 18 223 86 12Th St Park Racquetball Court 43 843 Actisun 0 0 43 843 0 0 43 843 87 12Th St Park Fitness Trail 8 864 Actnity 0 0 8 864 0 0 8 864 88 12Th St Park Parking Lot 25 309 Acuson 0 0 25 309 0 0 25 309 89 Rails To Trails 25 624 Actisin 0 0 25 624 0 0 25 624 90 Jaycee Beach Waterfront Project 518 439 Actmts 0 0 518 439 0 0 518 439 91 Jaycee Beach Waterfront 154 294 Anisity 0 0 154 294 0 0 154 294 92 Clermont/Mmneola Bike Path 74 565 Aetna) 0 0 74 565 0 0 74 565 93 Hancock Park Engineering 59 561 AMINO,' 0 0 59 561 0 0 59 561 94 Waterfront Park Engineering 13 695 Aetna) 0 0 13 695 0 0 13 695 95 Boat Ramp Engmeenng 4 469 Aetna) 0 0 4 469 0 0 4 469 96 Hancock Park 501 772 Admix 0 0 501 772 0 0 501 772 97 Waterfront Park Phase Ii 70 326 AMINO", 0 0 70 326 0 0 70 326 98 Mckinney Park Pastlion&Renosauons 84610 Adnin 0 0 84610 0 0 84610 99 Fitness Trail Stations 9 055 Aetna') 0 0 9 055 0 0 9 055 100 Waterfront Park Dock 78134 Actrs ity 0 0 78134 0 0 78134 101 Rails To Trails Lighting 28 352 Aetna) 0 0 28 352 0 0 28 352 102 Bleachers 1810 Activity 0 0 1810 0 0 1 810 103 Chestnut Park Playground 13 354 /wintry 0 0 13 354 0 0 13 354 104 Resurfacing Steuart Tennis Courts 9 800 Actnin 0 0 9 800 0 0 9 800 105 Oak Hill Cemetery Drne 18 736 Annity 0 0 18 736 0 0 18 736 106 Cemetery lmgatwn Well 8 746 Aetna). 0 0 8 746 0 0 8 746 107 Cemetery Road 10 720 Actnity 0 0 10 720 0 0 10 720 108 Oak Hill Cemetery Road 8 636 Admix 0 0 8 636 0 0 8 636 109 Mckrnney Park Lighting,Etc 45 588 Aetna) 0 0 45 588 0 0 45 588 110 Lake Minneola Boat Ramp 301 470 Anisit} 0 0 301 470 0 0 301 470 1 1 I Soccer Field Lighting 54 651 Amity 0 0 54 651 0 0 54 651 112 Mckinney Basketball Court 5,220 Annoy 0 0 5 220 0 0 5 220 113 Boat Ramp 42 662 Amity 0 0 42 662 0 0 42 662 114 Hancock Rd Recreation Site 22415 Actisity 0 0 22415 0 0 22415 115 Lake Mineola Boat Ramp 90000 Amity 0 0 90000 0 0 90000 116 Kehlor Park Tennis Court 3 777 Amin 0 0 3 777 0 0 3 777 117 Boat Dock 20048 Annoy 0 0 20048 0 0 20048 118 Mckrnney Park Pasilion 3190 Annrh 0 0 3 190 0 0 3 190 119 Basketball Goals&Posts 2,240 Ann it) 0 0 2 240 0 0 2 240 120 Park Construction Fields Lighting 150085 Annrty 0 0 150085 0 0 150085 121 Canyon Courtyard 14216 Actusuty 0 0 14216 0 0 14216 122 Gametime Unit 2 800 Annuty 0 0 2 800 0 0 2 800 123 Park Construction Fencing 61 613 Actism 0 0 61 613 0 0 61 613 124 Park Construction Tennis Court Li 19 762 Actnin 0 0 19 762 0 0 19 762 125 Mega Mountain 12974 Actnrh 0 0 12974 0 0 12974 126 Restrooms 49850 Actisity 0 0 49850 0 0 49850 127 Park Construction Electrical 43 124 Actism 0 0 43 124 0 0 43 124 128 Park Construction Draws 5 6 7 Final 102 394 Acln ih 0 0 102 394 0 0 102 394 129 Park Construction Misc Changes 15 751 Admit, 0 0 15 751 0 0 15 751 130 Park Construction Concession 10440 Admix 0 0 10440 0 0 10440 131 Tennis Courts 41541 Actisih 0 0 41 541 0 0 41 541 132 Bleachers 10136 Annm 0 0 10136 0 0 10136 133 Park Construction 8606 ACM It} 0 0 8606 0 0 8606 134 Hancock Park Draws 5 6 7&Final 118 145 Anisin 0 0 118 145 0 0 118 145 135 Hancock Park Fencing 61 613 Actisits 0 0 61 613 0 0 61 613 136 Hancock Park Tennis Court Lighting 19 762 Actnin 0 0 19 762 0 0 19 762 137 Hancock Park Field Lighting 193 209 Annity 0 0 193 209 0 0 193 209 138 Hancock Park Concession Stand Slab 10 440 Armin 0 0 10 440 0 0 10 440 139 Minneola Boat Ramp Restroom 28 500 Ann m 0 0 28 500 0 0 28 500 140 Palailakaha Rec Area Kisas Park 24 951 Actnin 0 0 24 951 0 (1 m 24 951 141 Chan Link Fence Hancock Park 2 573 Acts in 0 0 2 573 0 0 2 573 142 Flag Pole Hancock Park 1 599 Actism 0 0 1 599 0 0 1 599 143 Rails To Trails Lighting Fixtures 16916 Acuson 0 0 16916 0 0 16916 144 Hancock Park Lighting 56 580 Actism 0 0 56 580 0 0 56 580 145 Bishop Field Irrigation Well&Pump 9 495 ACM its 0 0 9 495 0 0 9 495 146 Roads/Posed Paling 35 380 Actnin 0 0 35 380 0 0 35 380 147 Hancock Park Pas ilron 64 900 Actn its 0 0 64 900 0 0 64 900 148 Palmlakaha Park Lighting Upgrade 58 529 Actnin 0 0 58 529 0 0 58 529 149 Bishop Field Lighting Upgrade 58 529 Achy in 0 0 58 529 0 0 58 529 Page 3 of 3 Table 6 2 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Existing City Investments in Parks and Recreation Line Asset Asset Category Allocated Amounts No Descnption Acquisition Cost Category Land Facility Actnit} Equipment Excluded Total 150 Trail Lighting 13 238 Actnit} 0 0 13 238 0 0 13 238 151 Hancock Park Lighting Upgrades 93 875 Actnity 0 0 93 875 0 0 93 875 152 Bleachers At Palatakaha Park 1 950 Actisih 0 0 1 950 0 0 1 950 153 Batting Cages 3 868 Achy it} 0 0 3 868 0 0 3 868 154 Batting Cage Netting West 1208 Actisit} 0 0 1208 0 0 1208 155 L Shaped Pitchers Protector 832 Acing} 0 0 832 0 0 832 156 Palatlakaha Park Improtements 5 691 Acnit} 0 0 5 691 0 0 5 691 157 Baseball Field 6278 ACM ity 0 0 6278 0 0 6278 158 Kehlor Park Shule Board Court 10 237 AWN II) 0 0 10 237 0 0 10 237 159 Landscaping 3 697 AWN II) 0 0 3 697 0 0 3 697 160 Fountain In Center Lake 14 688 Activity 0 0 14 688 0 0 14 688 161 Relocate lmgation Well Pump 12 723 Mtn it) 0 0 12 723 0 0 12 723 162 Columban um Pm ac}Wall 11527 Actnit} 0 0 I1 527 0 0 11527 163 Aluminum Picket Rail At Center Lake 37 847 Actiatt} 0 0 37 847 0 0 37 847 164 Columbanum Bnck Walkway&Landscaping 7 920 Activity 0 0 7 920 0 0 7 920 165 Histonc Village Other Improy merits 16 531 Actis its 0 0 16 531 0 0 16 531 166 West Park Renoy&ions 874 698 Activity 0 0 874 698 0 0 874 698 167 Inland Groves Development 63 805 Actnity 0 0 63 805 0 0 63 805 168 Infrastructure Total $6,394 180 $0 SO $6,394 180 SO SO $6,394 180 Machinery&Equipment 169 2008 Diamond Cargo Enclosed Trail#3764 $4 031 Equipment $0 $0 $0 $4 031 $0 $4 031 170 John Deere 997 Diesel Ztrak Mower 12 029 Equipment 0 0 0 12 029 0 12 029 171 61 Velocity Zero Tum Mower 9 198 Equipment 0 0 0 9 198 0 9 198 172 7 X 16 Utility Trailer 2 252 Equipment 0 0 0 2 252 0 2252 ■ 173 2001 Holland Tractor W/Backhoe 34 885 Equipment 0 0 0 34 885 0 34 885 174 1998 Ford Ranger#3339 12 845 Equipment 0 0 0 12 845 0 12 845 175 2000 Dodge Pickup$5367 13 106 Equipment 0 0 0 13 106 0 13 106 176 2003 Ford Ranger#3418 12 137 Equipment 0 0 0 12 137 0 12 137 177 2003 Ford Fl 50#3333 15 084 Equipment 0 0 0 15 084 0 15 084 178 2005 Ford F150#2831 15 072 Equipment 0 0 0 15 072 0 15 072 179 2007 Ford F150#9712 15 605 Equipment 0 0 0 15 605 0 15 605 180 2007 Ford F150#971 I 15 605 Equipment 0 0 0 15 605 0 15 605 181 61 Kawasaki Wildcat Mower 8 741 Equipment 0 0 0 8 741 0 8 741 182 27 Portable Street Vacuum And Hose Kit 1 404 Equipment 0 0 0 1 404 0 1 404 183 Tiger Cub Riding Mower 6 516 Equipment 0 0 0 6 516 0 6 516 184 Tiger Cub Riding Mower 6516 Equipment 0 0 0 6516 0 6516 185 Ice-O-Manc ICE0606HA Ice Maker 1 823 Equipment 0 0 0 1 823 0 1 823 186 Hustler FX850 Super Z Mower 9 969 Equipment 0 0 0 9 969 0 9 969 187 Hustler FX850 Super Z Mower 9 969 Equipment 0 0 0 9 969 0 9 969 188 6X12 Utility Trailer 2650 Equipment 0 0 0 2650 0 2650 189 6X12 Utility Trailer 1922 Equipment 0 0 0 1 922 0 1 922 190 Machraery&Equipment Total $211,360 SO SO SO $211,360 SO $211,360 191 PARKS AND RECREATION TOTAL 536,316,648 $21,874,947 $7,836,162 $6,394,180 $218,360 SO $36,316,648 Footnotes (I] Inventory as provided by the City and in service as of September 30 2013 plus new open-spaces associated with purchasing the Celebration of Praise Property .. Z o0 0C � in CV C U r. ••..••...,. by "O U cn V — N O� 4 O tual o N OM n VD M a) C4 a) s c F. N N N N N N C N '—'N CU O O O O O O 'C a) M M M M M M N O O Lt. a) C a U at y c y L k.X Q oNO ' 0 oo W N O CA i� O O 00 N N M C A a H E C) e a) tel Q ua E U 4 y X ao C U O [y Z O ca i r C tr) p p C O R V . ° O o Z C 0. o. y ca co 1 a e N v1 ^, v Cb ,� 0. .O F•' y _ C 2 e,, C CV O CO 4T, CO 0 L C 0 4.'' G.I C at a V a C � _ � 'C CA y C G ..-) - L7. C) C N e W n P4 -0 C0 ? 0 0 Q 0 L U aL L _ N ° n O Z . O - O t' cQ U . O CO �0.CD Mr _ C L c g a °- 0 ,` 213 U -° y a1 Y o v E >, - a) >, a) a a)U U 3 .b 'd cd a > E I:4 0 CL .-, 0 CO 0 C 2 O pa„ et N C = cd i L' O o4 CC et cu C r? 4-� cC U y ti "O U at U_ 1 C co 0. L C •v A -o co FA a c 0 Y c `� .0 �' 0. � C) c 4 b U o 3 a. 0 -o 4, 4, o _ C E C G 2 o '" op O ' C i O. N U oh E a) o r)rL Z U oC 0 0 i d E [[- (..) 0 C N M v) '0 O N M C O 1 Page I of 1 Table 6-4 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Existing Activity Needs City Activity Standards[1] Existing City Activities[2] To City Standards Line 2013 Surplus/ No Facility Classification Standard Per Population Standard Per Population Required (Deficiency) 1 Baseball/Softball 1 0 2,000 13 0 30,201 15 1 (2 1) Field 2 Tennis 1 0 2,000 9 0 30,201 15 1 (6 1) Court 3 Basketball 1 0 3,600 9 0 30,201 8 4 0 6 Court 4 Volleyball 1 0 6,000 6 0 30,201 5 0 1 0 Court 5 Racquetball 1 0 15,000 2 0 30,201 2 0 (0 0) Court 6 Recreational Building 1 0 15,000 1 0 30,201 2 0 (1 0) Center 7 Golf Course 1 0 25,000 2 0 30,201 1 2 0 8 Course 8 Equipped Play Area 1 0 3,000 12 0 30,201 10 1 1 9 Area 9 Football/Soccer 1 0 7,000 4 0 30,201 4 3 (0 3) Field 10 Shuffleboard 1 0 5,000 18 0 30,201 6 0 12 0 Court 11 Swimming Pool 1 0 35,000 0 0 30,201 1 0 (1 0) Pool Footnotes [1] As provided in the City's recreation department within the City's Recreation and Open Space Element [2] As provided by the City Page 1 of I Table 6-5 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Activity Cost Adjustments to Cure Net Deficiencies to Serve Existing Population Existing Total Increases Line Deficiency Estimated 2013 Costs (Decreases)to City No Facility Classification (Surplus)[1] per Activity[2] Investment 1 Baseball/Softball 2 1 $121,000 $254,161 2 Tennis 61 23,000 140,312 3 Basketball (0 6) 17,000 (10,384) 4 Volleyball (1 0) 4,000 (3,866) 5 Racquetball 0 0 21,000 281 6 Recreational Building 1 0 130,000 131,742 7 Golf Course[3] (0 8) 0 0 8 Equipped Play Area (1 9) 15,000 (28,995) 9 Football/Soccer 0 3 92,000 28,927 10 Shuffleboard (12 0) 4,000 (47,839) 11 Total Adjustment to Activity Costs to Serve Existing Population $464,339 Footnotes [1] Derived from Table 6-4 [2] Capital Costs reflected at historical value and adjusted to current market values based on adjustments from the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index [3] Costs estimated at zero for such activities that are not anticipated to be developed at the cost of the community,but rather through pnvate enterpnse 1 Page I of I Table 6-6 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation impact Fee Analysis Summary of Capital Protects to Improve&Expand Recreation Services Line Project Cost Total Service 2013 Total Amount Allocated to No Description [I] Population[2] Population _ Existing Residents 1 Lake Hiawatha Preserve Development $3,949,449 68,099 30,201 $1,751,528 2 Lake Hiawatha Preserve Development(Grants) (2,157,804) 68,099 30,201 (956,957) 3 Sub-total $1,791,645 $794,571 4 Boathouse&Required Infrastructure 1,000,000 68,099 30,201 443,487 5 Boathouse&Required Infrastructure(Grant) (374,000) 68,099 30,201 (165,864) 6 Sub-total $626,000 $277,623 7 Park Improvements&Upgrades(Includes Lighting) $1,440,000 68,099 30 201 $638,621 8 Trail Extensions and Trail Lighting 1,032,000 68,099 30 201 457,678 9 Improvements to Celebration of Praise Property 1,000,000 68,099 30,201 443,487 10 Splash Parks(2) 750,000 68,099 30,201 332,615 11 Bishop Field Upgrades 500,000 68 099 30,201 221,743 12 Upgrade Pumphouse Building 75,000 68,099 30,201 33,262 13 Restroom Facilities at Waterfront Park 50,000 68,099 30,201 22,174 14 Sub-total $4 847,000 $2,149,580 15 Total Capital Improvements $7,264,645 $3,221,774 Footnotes [1] Amounts provided by City staff,which represent improvements and upgrades to existing facilities and construction of new facilities which will serve existing an dfuture residents of the City [2] Amount based on the City's estimated build-out population as discussed in Section 2 of this report Table 6-7 Page I of I City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Design of Recreation Impact Fee Line No Description Basis Amount Capital Costs to Provide Open-Space 1 Existing City Investment in Open Space[I] $21,874,947 2 Less Acquisition&Restoration Grants[2] 11 705 000 3 Net City Investment in Open Space $10 169 947 4 Existing Open Space(Acres)[3] 374 88 5 Existing Average Cost per Acre $27 129 6 Open Space Requirement for Existing Residents(Acres)[3] 302 01 7 Total Capital Cost to Provide Open Spaces $8 193 229 Capital Costs to Provide Recreation Facilities 8 Existing City Investment in Recreation Facilities[1] $7 836 162 9 Credit for Celebration of Praise Property[4] (2,838,181) 10 Total Capital Cost to Provide Recreation Facilities $4,997 980 11 Capital Costs to Provide Recreation Activities&Equipment 12 Existing City Investment in Recreation Activities[1] $6,605 540 13 Required Adjustments by City to Cure Deficiencies[5] 464,339 14 Proposed Facilities to Serve Existing Residents[6] 3,221 774 15 Total Capital Cost to Provide Recreation Activities&Equipment $10 291 653 16 Additional Borrowing Costs[7] $729 357 17 Total Capital Costs Allocable to Existing Residents $24 212 219 18 Less Other Funding Sources[8] $579 805 19 Total Cost Allocated to Existing Residents $23 632 414 20 Existing Population[9] 30 201 21 Proposed -Rate per Person $782 50 Footnotes [1] Amount derived from Table 6-2 [2] Amount reflects acquisition and restoration grants received by the City [3] Amount derived from Table 6-3 [4] Amounts based upon the City s investment in Celebration of Praise facilities as allocated to future growth [5] Amount derived from Table 6-5 [6] Planned projects as provided by City staff,which are derived from Table 6-6 [7] Additional borrowing costs based on a qualified bank loan for the Celebration of Praise Property estimated as follows Principal Amount Borrowed $6 300 000 Term(Years) 15 Rate(%) 3 05% Total Financing Costs $1,644 598 Credit for Celebration of Praise Property[4] (915 240) Total Additional Borrowing Costs $729 357 [8] Amount reflects all other funding sources&grants as reported by the City [9] Amount based on the existing population during 2013 Page 1 of 1 Table 6-8 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Impact Fee Allocation Line Fee per Person per Proposed Existing Increase/ No Housing Type Person[2] Dwelling Impact Fee Impact Fee(SF) (Decrease) 1 Residential 2 0- 1 Bedroom $782 50 1 27 $994 00 $1,599 00 ($605 00) 3 2 Bedrooms 782 50 1 90 1487 00 1,854 00 (367 00) 4 3 Bedrooms 782 50 2 54 1988 00 2,643 00 (655 00) 5 4 Bedrooms 782 50 3 17 2481 00 3,383 00 (902 00) 6 5+Bedrooms 782 50 3 80 2974 00 4,037 00 (1063 00) Footnotes [1] Denved from Table 6-7 Table 6-9 Page I of 1 City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Parks and Recreational Services impact Fee Comparison 111 1 Residential Line Single Multi- Mobile Effective No Description Family Family Home Date City of Clermont 121 1 Existing $2,643 00 $2,462 00 $1,476 00 2014 2 Proposed 1,988 00 1,988 00 1,988 00 Other Florida Government Agencies 3 City of Apopka $241 05 $241 05 $241 05 2013 4 City of Edgewater 612 11 434 92 451 03 2009 5 City of Eustis 599 27 428 38 390 93 2004 6 City of Kissimmee 1,200 00 985 29 867 06 2005 7 City of Lakeland 2,707 00 2,123 00 1,317 00 2010 8 City of Lake Mary 335 00 N/A N/A 2008 9 City of Lake Wales 948 00 832 00 N/A 2013 10 City of Leesburg 358 00 358 00 358 00 2008 11 City of Minneola 271 08 N/A N/A N/A 12 City of Mount Dora 2,733 33 1,371 64 N/A 2013 13 City of Ocoee [3] 1,560 00 N/A N/A 2012 14 City of St Cloud 1,362 00 1,093 00 N/A 2008 15 City of Tavares [4] 439 99 335 68 221 89 2007 16 City of Winter Garden 671 00 598 00 451 00 2004 17 City of Winter Haven 980 23 N/A N/A 2014 18 Other Flonda Governmental Agencies'Average $1,001 20 $800 09 $537 25 Footnotes [1] Unless otherwise noted,amounts shown reflect impact fees in effect October 2013 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 municipality [2] Amounts shown assume single family homes with three bedrooms,multi-family dwelling with two bedrooms, and mobile homes with two bedrooms [3] Impact fees temporarily reduced to 50%of the amounts shown from January 3,2013 until January 1,2014 [4] Impact fees were waived until June 30,2013 Beginning July 1,2013,they are set to Increase in six month increments until July 1,2014,when the full impact fees will become effective again