Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
Table 3-4
City of Clermont Page t of 3
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis
Summary of Capital Improvement Program
Line Allocation Funding Projected Fiscal Year Ending September 30
No Description Water Wastewater Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER
I East and West Water Interconnect
100%
0%
WFOB
S500 000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$500 000
2 Water System Improvements
100%
0%
WFOB
100 000
100 000
100 000
100 000
100 000
500 000
3 West Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation
100%
0%
WFOB
525 000
0
0
0
0
525 000
4 West Water Main Replacement
100%
0%
WFOB
1 360 000
500 000
500 000
500 000
500 000
3 360 000
5 Additional Vehicles
100%
0%
WFOB
17 000
0
0
0
0
17 000
6 Replacement Vehicles
100%
0%
WFOB
82 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
242 000
7 Water Extension to the Sector Plan
100%
0%
WFOB
1 475 000
0
0
0
0
1 475 000
8 East Water Main Looping
100%
0%
WIF
0
600 000
0
0
0
600 000
9 East Water Main Looping
100%
0%
WFOB
0
0
550 000
500 000
500 000
1 550 000
10 West WTP Construction
100%
0%
WFOB
0
0
0
0
11 000 000
11 000 000
I l Sunburst WTP Expansion
100%
0%
WFOB
0
0
0
0
1 500 000
1 500 000
12 TOTAL WATER _
$4 059 000
$1 240 000
$1 190 000
$1 140 000
$13 640 000
$21 269 000
WASTEWATER
13 Force Main Replacement and Renewal
0%
100%
SFOB
0
300 000
300 000
300 000
300 000
$1 200 000
14 Replacement Vehicles
0%
100%
SFOB
26 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
186 000
15 Sewer Extension to the Sector Plan
0%
100%
SFOB
1 500 000
0
0
0
0
1 500 000
16 Sewer System Construction Improvements
0%
100%
SFOB
50 600
50 000
50 000
500 000
50 000
700 000
17 Pump Replacements
0%
100%
SFOB
50 000
50 000
50 000
500 000
50 000
700 000
18 Manhole Repair and Rehabilitation
0%
100%
SFOB
50 000
50 000
50 000
500 000
50 000
700 000
19 Lining of Mains and Laterels
0%
100%
SFOB
120 000
120 000
120 000
120 000
120 000
600 000
20 Reclaimed Main Installation
0%
100%
SFOB
0
500 000
1 500 000
500 000
500 000
3 000 000
21 Reclaimed Main Installation
0%
100%
SIF
200000
0
0
0
0
200000
22 Lift Station Upgrades
0%
100%
SFOB
400 000
100 000
500 000
0
0
1 000 000
23 Lift Station Upgrades
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
700 000
500 000
1 200 000
24 W WTF Expansion
0%
100%
SIF
0
100 000
100 000
0
0
200 000
25 W WTF Expansion - 2 0 MGD AADF Expansion
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
14 000 000
0
14 000 000
26 Regional Lift Station and Force Main
0%
100%
SFOB
0
2 500 000
0
0
0
2 500 000
27 Regional Lift Station and Force Main
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
2 000 000
0
2 000 000
28 Reuse Storage Pond/Pumps
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
0
11 000 000
11 000 000
29 TOTAL WASTEWATER
$2 396 000
$3 810 000
$2 710 000
S19 160 000
$12 610 000
$40 686 000
30 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
$6 455 000
$5 050 000
$3 900 000
$20,300 000
$26 250 000
$61 955 000
FUNDING SOURCES
31 Water Impact Fees
WIF
$0
$600 000
$0
$0
$0
$600 000
32 Sewer Impact Fees
SIF
200 000
100 000
100 000
0
0
400 000
33 Utility Fees
OF
0
0
0
0
0
0
34 Utility Fees and Water Impact Fees
OF-WIF
0
0
0
0
0
0
35 Utility Fees and Sewer Impact Fees
OF-SIF
0
0
0
0
0
0
36 Water Fund Operating Budget
WFOB
4 059 000
640 000
1 190 000
1 140 000
13 640 000
20 669 000
37 TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES
$4 259 000
$1 340 000
$1 290 000
$1 140 000
$13 640 000
$21 669 000
Table 3-4
City of Clermont
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis
Summary of Capital Improvement Proeram
Page 2 or 3
Line Allocation Funding Projected Fiscal Year Ending September 30
No Description Water Wastewater Source 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
ALLOCATION BY UTILITY SYSTEM
WATER SYSTEM ALLOCATED COSTS
Capital Improvement Protects
38 East and West Water Interconnect
100%
0%
WFOB
$500 000
$0
$0
$o
$0
$500 000
39 Water System Improvements
100%
0%
WFOB
100 000
100 000
100 000
100 000
100 000
500 000
40 West Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation
100%
0%
WFOB
525 000
0
0
0
0
525 000
41 West Water Main Replacement
100%
0%
WFOB
1 360 000
500 000
500 000
500 000
500 000
3 360 000
42 Additional Vehicles
100%
0%
WFOB
17000
0
0
0
0
17000
43 Replacement Vehicles
100%
0%
WFOB
82 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
242 000
44 Water Extension to the Sector Plan
100%
0%
WFOB
1 475 000
0
0
0
0
1 475 000
45 East Water Main Looping
100%
0%
WIF
0
600 000
0
0
0
600 000
46 East Water Main Looping
100%
0%
WFOB
0
0
550 000
500 000
500 000
1 550 000
47 West WTP Construction
100%
0%
WFOB
0
0
0
0
11 000 000
11 000 000
48 Sunburst WTP Expansion
100%
0%
WFOB
0
0
0
0
1 500 000
1 500 000
49 Total Community Investment Projects
$4 059 000
$ 1240 000
$1 190 000
$1 140 000
$13 640 000
$21 269 000
50 TOTAL WATER SYSTEM ALLOCATED COSTS
$4 059 000
$1 240 000
$1 190 000
$1 140 000
$13 640 000
$21 269 000
WASTEWATER SYSTEM ALLOCATED COSTS
Capital Improvement Proiects
51 Force Main Replacement and Renewal
0%
100%
SFOB
$0
$300 000
$300 000
$300 000
$300 000
$1 200 000
52 Replacement Vehicles
0%
100%
SFOB
26 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
40 000
186 000
53 Sewer Extension to the Sector Plan
0%
100%
SFOB
1 500 000
0
0
0
0
1 500 000
54 Sewer System Construction Improvements
0%
100%
SFOB
50 000
50 000
50 000
500 000
50 000
700 000
55 Pump Replacements
0%
100%
SFOB
50 000
50 000
50 000
500 000
50 000
700 000
56 Manhole Repair and Rehabilitation
0%
100%
SFOB
50 000
50 000
50 000
500 000
50 000
700 000
57 Lining of Mains and Laterels
0%
100%
SFOB
120 000
120 000
120 000
120 000
120 000
600 000
58 Reclaimed Main Installation
0%
100%
SFOB
0
500 000
1 500 000
500 000
500 000
3 000 000
59 Reclaimed Main Installation
0%
100%
SIF
200 000
0
0
0
0
200 000
60 Lift Station Upgrades
0%
100%
SFOB
400 000
100 000
500 000
0
0
1 000 000
61 Lift Station Upgrades
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
700 000
500 000
1 200 000
62 W WTF Expansion
0%
100%
SIF
0
100 000
100 000
0
0
200 000
63 W WTF Expansion - 2 0 MGD AADF Expansion
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
14 000 000
0
14 000 000
64 Regional Lift Station and Force Main
0%
100%
SFOB
0
2 500 000
0
0
0
2 500 000
65 Regional Lift Station and Force Main
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
2 000 000
0
2 000 000
66 Reuse Storage Pond/Pumps
0%
100%
SFOB
0
0
0
0
11 000 000
11 000 000
67 Total Capital Improvement Projects
$2 396 000
$3 810 000
$2 710 000
$19 I60 000
$12 610 000
S40 686 000
68 TOTAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM ALLOCATED COSTS
$2 396 000
$3 810 000
$2 710 000
$19 160 000
$12 610 000
S40 686 000
69 TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
$6 455 000
$5 050 000
$3 900 000
$20 300 000
$26 250 000
S61 955 000
Table 3-4
City of Clermont
Page 3 of 3
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis
Summary of Caudal Improvement Proeram
Line
Allocation Funding
Protected Fiscal Year Ending September 30
No
Descnption
Water Wastewater Source
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
FUNDING SOURCES
Funding Sources - Water System
70
Water Impact Fees
WIF
$0
$600 000
$0
$0
$0
$600 000
71
Utility Fees
OF
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
Utility Fees and Water Impact Fees
OF-WIF
0
0
0
0
0
0
73
Water Fund Operating Budget
WFOB
4 059 000
640 000
1 190 000
1 140 000
13 640 000
20 669 000
74
Total
$4 059 000
$1 240 000
$1 190 000
$1 140 000
$13 640 000
$21 269 000
Funding Sources - Wastewater System
75
Sewer Impact Fees
SIF
$200 000
$100 000
$100 000
$0
$0
$400 000
76
Utility Fees
OF
0
0
0
0
0
0
77
Utility Fees and Sewer Impact Fees
OF-SIF
0
0
0
0
0
0
78
Sewer Fund Operating Budget
SFOB
2 196 000
3 710 000
2 610 000
19 160 000
12 610 000
40 286 000
79
Total
$2 396 000
$3 810 000
$2 710 000
$19 160 000
$12 610 000
S40 686 000
Funding Sources - Combined Systems
80
Water Impact Fees
WIF
$0
$600 000
$0
$0
$0
$600 000
81
Sewer Impact Fees
SIF
200 000
100 000
100 000
0
0
400 000
82
Utility Fees
OF
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
Utility Fees and Water Impact Fees
OF-WIF
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
Utility Fees and Sewer Impact Fees
OF-SIF
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
Water & Sewer Fund Operating Budget
W/SFOB
6 255 000
4 350 000
3 800 000
20 300 000
26 250 000
60 955 000
86
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES
$6 455 000
$5 050 000
$3 900 000
$20 300 000
$26 250 000
S61 955 000
Table 3-5
City of Clermont
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysts
Allocation of Planned Water Capital Improvements
Page I of I
Total Net Amount Cost Allocation Existing - Functional Category Future Functional Category
Line Estimated Estimated For Future Supply and Storage Pumping Supply and Storage Pumping
No Project Description Capital Cost [I] Additions Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Future Treatment & Transmission Treatment & Transmission
Water System
Capital Improvement Proeram II I
I East and West Water Interconnect
2 Water System Improvements
3 West Elevated Storage Tank Rehabilitation
4 West Water Main Replacement
5 Additional Vehicles
6 Replacement Vehicles
7 Water Extension to the Sector Plan
8 East Water Main Looping
9 East Water Main Looping
10 West WTP Construction
I I Sunburst WTP Expansion
12 Total Water System
13 Reclaimed Water Projects
14 Camtal Improvement Proeram 13
$500 000
$0
$500 000
$0
500 000
0
500 000
0
525 000
0
525 000
0
3 360 000
0
3 360 000
(3 360 000) l21
17 000
0
17 000
(17 000) [21
242 000
0
242 000
(242 000) [21
1 475 000
0
1 475 000
0
600 000
0
600 000
0
1 550 000
0
1 550 000
0
11 000 000
0
11 000 000
0
1 500 000
0
1 500 000
0
$21 269 000
$0
$21 269 000
($3 619 000)
$500 000
100 00%
0 00%
$0
$500 000
$0
$0
500 000
100 00 %
0 00 %
0
500 000
0
0
525 000
100 00%
0 00%
525 000
0
0
0
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
1 475 000
0 00%
100 00%
0
0
0
1 475 000
600 000
0 00%
100 00%
0
0
0
600 000
1 550 000
100 00%
0 00%
0
1 550 000
0
0
11 000 000
100 00%
0 00%
11 000 000
0
0
0
1 500 000
100 00%
0 00%
1 500 000
0
0
0
$17 650 000
$13 025 000
$2 550 000
$0
$2 075 000
15
Reclaimed Main Installation
$0 $3 000 000
$3 000 000 $0
$3 000 000 100 00% 0 00%
16
Reclaimed Main Installation
0 200 000
200 000 0
200 000 0 00% 100 00%
17
Total Reclaimed Water System
$0 $3 200 000
$3 200 000 $0
$3 200 000
18
Total Capital Projects
$21,269,000 $3 200 000
$24 469 000 ($3 619 000)
S20 850 000
Footnotes
[ 1 ]
Amounts derived from Table 3-4
[2]
Amounts reflect relacements of existing infrastructure or small equipment needs which were excluded from the impact fee calculation
[3)
Amounts derived from Table 3-6 as previously allocated
to the wastewater system by the City
$0
0
$3 000 000
0
$0
0
$0
200 000
$0
$3 000 000
$0
S200 000
$13 025 000
$5 550 000
$0
$2,275 000
Table 3-6
City of Clermont
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis
Allocation of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements
Page 1 of 1
Estimated Total Net Amount Cost Allocation Existing Functional Category Future Functional Category
Line Capital Cost Estimated For Future Treatment/ Treatment/
No Project Description toBuildout Additions Capital Cost Adjustments Expenditures Existing Future Disposal Transmission Disposal Transmission
Wastewater Projects
_Capital Improvement Program III
I Force Main Replacement and Renewal
2 Replacement Vehicles
3 Sewer Extension to the Sector Plan
4 Sewer System Construction Improvements
5 Pump Replacements
6 Manhole Repair and Rehabilitation
7 Lining of Mains and Laterels
8 Reclaimed Main Installation
9 Reclaimed Main Installation
10 Lift Station Upgrades
I 1 Lift Station Upgrades
12 W WTF Expansion
13 W WTF Expansion 2 0 MGD AADF Expansion
14 Regional Lift Station and Force Main
15 Regional Lift Station and Force Main
16 Reuse Storage Pond/Pumps
17 Total Wastewater System
18 Concentnal Proiects 141
19 2 0 MGD AADF Expansion
22 Total Wastewater System
23 Total Capital Projects
$1200000
$0
$1200000
($1200000)[21
$0
100 00%
000%
$0
$0
$0
$o
186 000
0
186 000
(186 000) [21
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
1 500 000
0
1 500 000
0
1 500 000
0 00%
100 00%
0
0
0
1 500 000
700 000
0
700 000
0
700 000
100 00%
0 00%
700 000
0
0
0
700 000
0
700 000
(700 000) [21
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
700 000
0
700 000
(700 000) [21
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
600 000
0
600 000
(600 000) [21
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
3 000 000
0
3 000 000
(3 000 000) [31
0
100 00%
0 00%
0
0
0
0
200 000
0
200 000
(200 000) 131
0
0 00%
100 00%
0
0
0
0
1 000 000
0
1 000 000
0
1 000 000
100 00%
0 00%
0
1 000 000
0
0
1 200 000
0
1 200 000
0
1 200 000
0 00%
100 00"/6
0
0
0
1 200 000
200 000
0
200 000
0
200 000
100 00%
0 00%
200 000
0
0
0
14 000 000
0
14 000 000
0
14 000 000
100 00%
0 00%
14 000 000
0
0
0
2 500 000
0
2 500 000
0
2 500 000
100 00%
0 00%
0
2 500 000
0
0
2 000 000
0
2 000 000
0
2 000 000
100 00%
0 00%
0
2 000 000
0
0
11000000
0
11000000
0
11 000 000
100 00%
0 00%
11 000 000
0
0
0
$40 686 000
$0
$40 686 000
($6 586 000)
$34 100 000
$25 900 000
$5 500 000
$0
$2 700 000
16 490 000
2 473 500 [51
18 963 500
0
18963 500
100 00%
0 00%
18963 500
0
0
0
$16 490 000
$2 473 500
$18 963 500
$0
$18 963 500
S18 963 500
$0
$0
$0
S57 176 000
$2 473,500
$59,649,500
($6,586 000)
$53 063,500
S44 863 500
$5 500,000
$0
$2 700 000
Footnotes
[I] Amounts derived from Table 34
[21 Amounts reflect relacements of existing infrastructure or small equipment needs which were excluded from the impact fee calculation
131 Amounts allocated to the water system in Table 3 5
[41 Amounts derived from the City's Master Plan The existing wastewater treatment plant is expandable to 8 0 MGD
[5] Based on the City's Master Plan 15% was assumed for engineenng and administrative costs associated with the plant expansion
i
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
Page] of4
Table 4-5
City of Clermont
Police Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Variable
Proposed
Line Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cost Variable Cost Impact Fee
No Land Use Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person [1] Per Unit Per Unit [2] (Rounded)
1
Residential
RS
Dwelling Unit
0648375
254
$186 23
$306 70
$74 60
S381 00
Non -Residential
2
All Suites Hotel
HIM
Room
1 129167
N/A
$186 23
$210 28
$99 68
$310 00
3
Apparel Store
GR
1 000 sf
2367813
N/A
18623
44096
20903
65000
4
Arts and Crafts Store
GR
1 000 sf
2 136875
N/A
18623
39795
18864
58700
5
Athletic Club
REC
1 000 sf
1 502083
N/A
18623
27973
132 60
41200
6
Automobile Parts Sales
SS
1 000 sf
2686667
N/A
18623
50034
237 18
73800
7
Bowling Alley
REC
1 000 sf
2349167
N/A
18623
43749
20738
64500
8
Building Materials and Lumber Store
GR
1 000 sf
1 636250
N/A
18623
304 72
14445
44900
9
Business Park
OFF
1 000 sf
0901488
N/A
18623
16788
7958
24700
10
Cemetery
INST
Acre
0 121131
N/A
18623
22 56
1069
3300
11
Clinic
INST
1 000 sf
3263333
N/A
19623
60773
28809
89600
12
Commercial Airport
OTH
Flight per Day
4 106250
N/A
18623
76471
362 50
1 12700
13
Convenience Market
GR
1 000 sf
6 118021
N/A
186 23
1 13936
540 10
1 67900
14
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
SS
1 000 sf
6958750
N/A
18623
1 295 93
61432
1 91000
15
Corporate Headquarters Budding
OFF
1 000 sf
0845536
N/A
18623
15746
7464
23200
16
Day Care Center
INST
1,000 sf
6948810
N/A
18623
1 29408
61344
1 90800
17
Discount Club
GR
1 000 sf
1 512500
N/A
18623
281 67
133 52
41500
18
Discount Home Furnishings Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
1280313
N/A
18623
23843
11303
351 00
19
Discount Supermarket
GR
1 000 sf
2744688
N/A
18623
511 14
24230
75300
20
Drive in Bank
F/I
1 000 sf
1 915774
N/A
18623
35677
169 12
52600
21
Electronic Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
1 867188
N/A
18623
347 73
16484
51300
22
Factory Outlet Center
GR
1 000 sf
0953125
N/A
18623
17750
84 14
26200
23
Fast-food Restaurant with Drive Through
ED
1 000 sf
9001250
N/A
18623
1 67630
79463
2 471 00
24
Fast-food Restaurant without Drive Through
ED
1 000 sf
12 436875
N/A
18623
2 316 12
1 09793
3 414 00
25
Free -Standing Discount Store
GR
1 000 sf
2 153125
N/A
18623
40098
19008
59100
26
Free -Standing Discount Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
2056875
N/A
18623
383 05
181 58
565 00
27
Furniture Store
GR
1 000 sf
0290625
N/A
18623
54 12
25 66
8000
28
Gasoline / Service Station
SS
Pump Position
1422604
N/A
18623
26493
125 59
39100
29
Gasoline / Service Station w/ Convenience Market
SS
Pump Position
1377500
N/A
18623
25653
12161
37800
30
Gasoline / Service Station w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash
SS
Pump Position
1299792
N/A
18623
24206
114 75
35700
31
General Aviation Airport
OTH
Flight per Day
0 118333
N/A
18623
2204
1045
3200
32
General Heavy Industrial
IND
1 000 sf
0435714
N/A
18623
81 14
3846
12000
33
General Light Industrial
IND
1 000 sf
0564137
N/A
18623
10506
4980
155 00
34
General Office Building
OFF
1 000 sf
0893750
N/A
18623
16644
7890
24500
35
Golf Course
REC
Hole
4710000
N/A
18623
877 14
415 80
1 29300
36
Golf Driving Range
REC
Tee
0706875
N/A
18623
131 64
6240
19400
37
Hardware / Paint Store
GR
1 000 sf
1595625
N/A
18623
297 15
14086
43900
38
Health / Fitness Club
REC
1 000 sf
1 187500
N/A
18623
221 15
104 83
32600
39
High -Turnover Restaurant (Sit down)
ED
1 000 sf
4 144063
N/A
18623
771 75
365 84
1 13800
40
Home Improvement Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
1 091875
N/A
18623
203 34
9639
30000
41
Hospital
INST
1,000 sf
3 170000
N/A
18623
59035
27985
87000
42
Hotel
H/M
Room
2095000
N/A
18623
390 15
184 95
57500
43
Industrial Park
IND
1 000 sf
0511756
N/A
18623
95 30
45 18
14000
44
Junior / Community College
INST
Student
0204762
N/A
18623
38 13
1808
5600
Page 2 of4
Table 4-5
City of Clermont
Police Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Variable
Line
No
Land Use
Code
Unit of Measure
Functional
Pop Factor
Persons per
Unit
Base Cost
per Person [1]
Base Cost
Per Unit
Variable Cost
Per Unit [2]
Proposed
Impact Fee
(Rounded)
45
Lodge / Fraternal Organizahon
INST
Member
0008333
N/A
18623
1 55
0 74
2 00
46
Manufacturing
IND
1 000 sf
0428274
N/A
18623
7976
3781
11800
47
Manna
REC
Acre
0927500
N/A
18623
17273
81 88
255 00
48
Medical / Dental Office Building
OFF
1000 sf
1597024
N/A
18623
29741
14099
43800
49
Mini -warehousing
WH
1 000 sf
0023065
N/A
18623
4 30
2 04
6 00
50
Motel
HIM
Room
1406667
N/A
18623
261 96
124 18
38600
51
Movie Theater
REC
1 000 sf
5 196667
N/A
18623
96778
45876
1 42700
52
Multipurpose Recreational Facility
REC
Acre
7034167
N/A
18623
1 30997
62098
1 93100
53
New Car Sales
MV
1 000 sf
1263214
N/A
18623
23525
1 1 1 52
34700
54
Nursery / Garden Center
GR
Acre
3 508750
N/A
18623
653 43
30975
96300
55
Nursery Wholesale
GR
Acre
0696354
N/A
18623
12968
6147
191 00
56
Nursing Home
INST
1 000 sf
1 215833
N/A
18623
22642
10733
33400
57
Office Park
OFF
1 000 sf
0891071
N/A
18623
16594
7866
245 00
58
Pharmacy / Drugstore (No Drive Through)
GR
1 000 sf
1944271
N/A
18623
36208
171 64
53400
59
Pharmacy / Drugstore (With Drive Through)
GR
1 000 sf
1929375
N/A
18623
35931
17033
53000
60
Place of Worship
INST
1 000 sf
0426667
N/A
18623
7946
37 67
11700
61
Private School (K-12)
INST
Student
0426190
N/A
18623
7937
3762
11700
62
Quality Restaurant
ED
1 000 sf
3 889583
N/A
18623
72436
343 37
1 06800
63
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop
SS
Service Position
0680000
N/A
18623
126 64
6003
18700
64
Racquet / Tennis Club
REC
Court
2600000
N/A
18623
484 20
22953
71400
65
Recreational Community Center
REC
1 000 sf
1002083
N/A
18623
18662
8846
275 00
66
Research and Development Center
OFF
1 000 sf
0752976
N/A
18623
14023
6647
20700
67
Self --serve Car Wash
SS
Wash Stall
1687500
N/A
18623
31426
14897
46300
68
Shopping Center
GR
1 000 sf
1336250
N/A
18623
248 85
11796
36700
69
Single Tenant Office Budding
OFF
1 000 sf
0882738
N/A
18623
16439
7793
24200
70
Specialty Retail Center
GR
1 000 sf
1850313
N/A
18623
344 58
163 35
50800
71
Supermarket
GR
1 000 sf
2871563
N/A
18623
534 77
253 50
78800
72
Tennis Courts
REC
Court
2040000
N/A
18623
37991
18009
56000
73
Tire Store
SS
1 000 sf
0955833
N/A
18623
17800
84 38
26200
74
Tire Superstore
SS
1 000 sf
0814583
N/A
18623
151 70
71 91
22400
75
Truck Terminal
WH
Acre
5 761667
N/A
18623
1 07300
50864
1 58200
76
University / College
INST
Student
0397619
N/A
18623
74 05
35 10
10900
77
Walk in Bank
F/I
1 000 sf
1 915774
N/A
18623
35677
169 12
52600
78
Warehousing
WH
1 000 sf
0229018
N/A
18623
42 65
2022
6300
79
Water Slide Park
REC
Parking Space
0285833
N/A
18623
53 23
25 23
7800
80
Wholesale Market
GR
1 000 sf
0493750
N/A
18623
91 95
43 59
13600
Page 3 of4
Table 4-5
City of Clermont
Police Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Variable
Proposed
Line Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cost Variable Cost Impact Fee
No Land Use Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person [ 1 ] Per Unit Per Unit [2] (Rounded)
81 Should none of the above land uses adequately define a proposed non-residential development as determined by the City Manager at the Managers discretion the following average charge per
non residential development is considered appropriate
Non-residential
Total Cost per Person [ Base ] [1 ]
$186 23
Percent Allocable to Resident
64 84%
Amount Allocable to the Resident
$120 75
Amount Allocable to Non residential
$65 48
Plus Cost per Person [ Variable ] [2]
8828
Amount Allocable to Non-residential
$153 76
Square Feet of Non residential Development per Person
25000
Persons per 1 000 Square Feet
400
Average Cost per 1 000 Square Feet of Non-residential Development
$615 04
Footnotes
[ I ] Base Capacity estimated as follows
Existing Population
30 201
Existing LOS per 1 000 population
200
Total Patrol Officers Required LOS
60
Minimum Service Level per 1 000 population
1 50
Total Minimum Officers
45
Percent Base Capacity - LOS 75%
Total Base capacity estimated as follows
Total Estimated Capital Costs - Investment in Police Services $10 453 716
Percent Base Capacity 75%
Total Estimated Base Capacity Costs $7 840 287
Total in Population 2020 42 100
Total Cost per Person S 186 23
Table 4-5
City of Clermont
Police Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Vanable
Line
Functional Persons per
Base Cost
Base Cost
No Land Use
Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit
per Person [I)
Per Unit
[2] Variable Cost per Unit estimated as follows
Total Estimated Capital Costs - Investment in Police Services
$10 453 716
Less Amount allocated to Base Capacity
7 840 287
Total Variable Cost
$2 613 429
Percent Residential (Historical Calls)
50%
Total Residential Costs
$1 306 715
Total Non-residential Costs
$1 306 714
Residential Variable Allocation
Costs per
Estimated Units
Variable
Assumed Calls Class
2020
Cost per Unit
Residential 100 00% $1 306 715
17 516
$74 60
Non residential Variable Allocation
Total Estimated Capital Costs Investment in Police Services
$1 306 714
Total Functional (Non-residential) Population 2020
14 802
Total Cost per Person [•]
$88 28
[•] Applied on a functional population basis
Proposed
Variable Cost Impact Fee
Per Unit [2] (Rounded)
Page 4 of 4
Page I of I
Table 4-6
City of Clermont
Police Services Impact Fee Analysis
Police Services Impact Fee Comparison III
Residential
Line Single Multi- Mobile Non Residential
' No Descnption Family Family Home ($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
Page I of 4
Table 5-5
City of Clermont
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Variable
Proposed
Line Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cost Variable Cost Impact Fee
No Land Use Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person [I ] per Unit Per Unit (Rounded)
1 Residential
RS
Dwelling Unit
0648375
254
$156 45
$257 65
$204 78
$462 00
Non -Residential
2 All Suites Hotel
H/M
Room
1 129167
N/A
$156 45
$176 66
$291 61
$468 00
3 Apparel Store
GR
1,000 sf
2367813
N/A
15645
37044
61149
98200
4 Arts and Crafts Store
GR
1,000 sf
2 136875
N/A
15645
334 31
551 85
88600
5 Athletic Club
REC
1,000 sf
1502083
N/A
15645
23500
38791
62300
6 Automobile Parts Sales
SS
1,000 sf
2686667
N/A
15645
42033
69383
1 11400
7 Bowling Alley
REC
1 000 sf
2349167
N/A
15645
367 53
60667
97400
8 Building Materials and Lumber Store
GR
1 000 sf
1636250
N/A
15645
25599
42256
67900
9 Business Park
OFF
1 000 sf
0901488
N/A
15645
141 04
23281
37400
10 Cemetery
INST
Acre
0 121131
N/A
15645
1895
31 28
5000
11 Clinic
INST
1 000 sf
3263333
N/A
15645
51055
84276
1 35300
12 Commercial Airport
OTH
Flight per Day
4 106250
N/A
15645
64242
1 060 44
1 70300
13 Convenience Market
GR
1 000 sf
6 118021
N/A
15645
957 16
1 57998
2 537 00
14 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
SS
1,000 sf
6958750
N/A
15645
1,08870
1 797 10
2 886 00
15 Corporate Headquarters Budding
OFF
1 000 sf
0845536
N/A
15645
13228
21836
35100
16 Day Care Center
INST
1 000 sf
6948810
N/A
15645
1 087 14
1 794 53
2 882 00
17 Discount Club
GR
1 000 sf
1 512500
N/A
15645
23663
39060
62700
18 Discount Home Furnishings Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
1 280313
N/A
15645
20030
33064
53100
19 Discount Supermarket
GR
1 000 sf
2744688
N/A
15645
42941
70882
1 13800
20 Drive-in Bank
FA
1 000 sf
1915774
N/A
15645
29972
49475
79400
21 Electronic Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
1 867188
N/A
15645
292 12
48220
77400
22 Factory Outlet Center
GR
1 000 sf
0953125
N/A
15645
149 12
246 14
39500
23 Fast food Restaurant with Drive Through
ED
1 000 sf
9001250
N/A
15645
1 40825
2 324 57
3 733 00
24 Fast-food Restaurant without Drive Through
ED
1 000 sf
12 436875
N/A
15645
1 94575
3 211 82
5 15800
25 Free -Standing Discount Store
GR
1 000 sf
2 153125
N/A
15645
33686
55604
89300
26 Free -Standing Discount Superstore
GR
1,000 sf
2056875
N/A
15645
321 80
531 19
85300
27 Furniture Store
GR
1 000 sf
0290625
N/A
15645
4547
7505
12100
28 Gasoline / Service Station
SS
Pump Position
1422604
N/A
15645
222 57
36739
59000
29 Gasoline / Service Station w/ Convenience Market
SS
Pump Position
1 377500
N/A
15645
215 51
35574
57100
30 Gasoline / Service Station w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash
SS
Pump Position
1299792
N/A
15645
203 35
33567
53900
31 General Aviation Airport
OTH
Flight per Day
0118333
N/A
15645
1851
3056
4900
32 General Heavy Industrial
IND
1 000 sf
0435714
N/A
15645
68 17
11252
18100
33 General Light Industrial
IND
1 000 sf
0564137
N/A
15645
8826
14569
23400
34 General Office Building
OFF
1 000 sf
0893750
N/A
15645
13983
23081
37100
35 Golf Course
REC
Hole
4710000
N/A
15645
73688
1 21636
1 95300
36 Golf Driving Range
REC
Tee
0706875
N/A
15645
11059
18255
29300
37 Hardware / Paint Store
GR
1 000 sf
1595625
N/A
15645
24964
41207
66200
38 Health / Fitness Club
REC
1 000 sf
1 187500
N/A
15645
185 78
30667
49200
39 High-Tumover Restaurant (Sit-down)
ED
1 000 sf
4 144063
N/A
15645
64834
1 070 20
1 71900
40 Home Improvement Superstore
GR
1 000 sf
1091875
N/A
15645
17082
28198
45300
41 Hospital
INST
1 000 sf
3 170000
N/A
15645
49595
81865
1 31500
42 Hotel
H/M
Room
2095000
N/A
15645
32776
541 03
86900
43 Industrial Park
IND
1 000 sf
0511756
N/A
15645
8006
132 16
21200
44 Junior / Community College
INST
Student
0204762
N/A
15645
32 04
5288
8500
45 Lodge / Fraternal Organization
INST
Member
0008333
N/A
15645
1 30
2 15
300
Page 2 of 4
Table 5-5
City of Clermont
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Variable
Proposed
Line Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cost Variable Cost Impact Fee
No Land Use Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person [I] per Unit Per Unit (Rounded)
46 Manufacturing
IND
1 000 sf
0428274
N/A
15645
6700
11060
17800
47 Manna
REC
Acre
0927500
N/A
15645
145 11
23953
38500
48 Medical / Dental Office Building
OFF
1 000 sf
1 597024
N/A
15645
24985
41243
66200
49 Mrm-warehousing
WH
1 000 sf
0023065
N/A
15645
361
596
1000
50 Motel
H/M
Room
1406667
N/A
15645
22007
36327
58300
51 Movie Theater
REC
1,000 sf
5 196667
N/A
15645
81302
1,34204
2,15500
52 Multipurpose Recreational Facility
REC
Acre
7034167
N/A
15645
1 10050
1 81657
2,91700
53 New Car Sales
MV
1 000 sf
1 263214
N/A
15645
19763
32623
52400
54 Nursery / Garden Center
GR
Acre
3508750
N/A
15645
54894
906 13
1 45500
55 Nursery Wholesale
GR
Acre
0696354
N/A
15645
10894
17983
28900
56 Nursing Home
INST
1 000 sf
1215833
N/A
15645
19022
31399
50400
57 Office Park
OFF
1 000 sf
0891071
N/A
15645
13941
230 12
37000
58 Pharmacy / Drugstore (No Drive Through)
GR
1 000 sf
1 944271
N/A
15645
304 18
502 11
80600
59 Pharmacy / Drugstore (With Drive Through)
GR
1,000 sf
1 929375
N/A
15645
301 85
49826
80000
60 Place of Worship
fNST
1 000 sf
0426667
N/A
15645
6675
110 19
17700
61 Private School (K-12)
INST
Student
0426190
N/A
15645
6668
11006
17700
62 Quality Restaurant
ED
1 000 sf
3889583
N/A
15645
60853
1 00448
1 61300
63 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop
SS
Service Position
0680000
N/A
15645
10639
17561
28200
64 Racquet / Tennis Club
REC
Court
2600000
N/A
15645
40677
67145
1 078 00
65 Recreational Community Center
REC
1 000 sf
1002083
N/A
15645
15678
25879
41600
66 Research and Development Center
OFF
1 000 sf
0752976
N/A
15645
11780
19446
31200
67 Self -serve Car Wash
SS
Wash Stall
1687500
N/A
15645
26401
43580
70000
68 Shopping Center
GR
1 000 sf
1336250
N/A
15645
20906
34509
55400
69 Single Tenant Office Budding
OFF
1 000 sf
0882738
N/A
15645
138 10
22797
36600
70 Specialty Retail Center
GR
1 000 sf
1 850313
N/A
15645
28948
47784
76700
71 Supermarket
GR
1 000 sf
2871563
N/A
15645
44926
741 58
1 19100
72 Tennis Courts
REC
Court
2040000
N/A
15645
31916
52683
84600
73 Tire Store
SS
1 000 sf
0955833
N/A
15645
14954
24684
39600
74 Tire Superstore
SS
1 000 sf
0814583
N/A
15645
12744
21037
33800
75 Truck Terminal
WH
Acre
5761667
N/A
15645
90141
1 487 95
2 389 00
76 University / College
INST
Student
0397619
N/A
15645
62 21
10269
16500
77 Walk-in Bank
F/I
1 000 sf
1915774
N/A
15645
29972
49475
79400
78 Warehousing
WH
1,000 sf
0229018
N/A
15645
35 83
59 14
9500
79 Water Slide Park
REC
Parking Space
0285833
N/A
15645
44 72
73 82
11900
80 Wholesale Market
GR
1 000 sf
0493750
N/A
15645
7725
12751
20500
Page 3 of 4
Table 5-5
City of Clermont
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Canacrtv / Variable
Proposed
Line
Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cost Variable Cost
Impact Fee
No Land Use Code
Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person [1] per Unit Per Unit
(Rounded)
81 Should none of the above land uses adequately define a proposed non-residential development as determined by the City Manager at the Managers discretion the following average charge per
non-residential development is considered appropriate
Non-residential
Total Cost per Person [ Base 1 (1)
$156 45
Percent Allocable to Resident
64 84%
Amount Allocable to the Resident
$101 44
Amount Allocable to Non-residential
$55 01
Plus Cost per Person [ Variable 1(2)
25825
Amount Allocable to Non-residential
313 2
Square Feet of Non-residential Development per Person
25000
Persons per 1 000 Square Feet
TW
Average Cost per 1 000 Square Feet of Non-residential Development
$1,253 04
Table 5-5
City of Clermont
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis
Impact Fee Allocation - Base Capacity / Vanable
Proposed
Line Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cost Variable Cost Impact Fee
No Land Use Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person [l ] per Unit Per Unit (Rounded)
Footnotes
[1] Total Base Capacity estimated as follows
Hazard Levels as provided by NFPA (National Fire Protection Association)
Hazards
LOS
Low
Medium
High
Engines
4
2
3
4
Ladder Trucks
3
1
1
2
Chief Officer
3
1
1
2
Fire Fighters
51
12
16
24
Percent LOS
24%
31%
47%
Equivalency
05
07
1 0
Total Estimated Capital Costs - Investment in Fire Services
Percent Base Capacity for High Hazard Occupancies
Total Estimated Base Capacity Costs
Total Population 2020
Total Cost per Person
[21 Variable Cost per Unit estimated as follows
Total Estimated Capital Costs - Investment in Fire Services
Less Amount allocated to Base Capacity
Total Variable Cost
Percent Residential (Historical)
Total Residential Costs
Total Non-residential Costs
Residential Variable Allocation
Non-residential Variable Allocation
$13 996 158
47%
58 592
42,100
156 45
$13 996 158
6 586 592
$7 409 566
4841%
3 586 971
3 822,595
Costs per
Estimated Units Variable
Historical Calls Class
2020 Cost per Unit
Residential 100 00% $3 586 971
17 516 $204 78
Total Estimated Capital Costs - Investment in Police Services
$3 822 595
Total Functional (Non-residential) Population 2020
14,802
Total Cost per Person [•]
258 25
[•] Applied on a functional population basis
Page 4 of 4
s • k
Table 5-6 Page I of I
City of Clermont
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis
Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comparison III
Residential
Line Single Multi- Mobile Non-Residential
No Descnpnon Family Family Home ($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
