Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
O-293-C
·, ~ . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C AN ORDINANCE UNDER THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE VI, DIVISION 2; 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 I. The City of Clermont Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 2, Section 2-263 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-263. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: AIl-adu/t community means a community meeting all local, state and federal requirements for all- adult status, and having been approved the city council as an all-adult development. Specific use studies may be required after the time of qualification, and, if such studies indicate a use greater than two-thirds of the use of non qualified users within the city, the all-adult status may be revoked. Capital costs means planning, engineering, acquisition and construction costs of capital improvements, including debt service costs on bonded facilities, but not including routine maintenance costs or operational costs. Capita/Improvements means land acquisition, site development, equipment or other facilities used to provide parks and recreation facilities, police protection, fire protection, and water and wastewater treatment facilities. City manager means the city manager or his designee. Feepayer means a person required under this division to pay the impact fee. . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 2 New development means any construction that creates one or more units, as provided in the schedule in section 2-264 of land use. For purposes of this division, the tenn excludes a replacement of or addition to any existing unit if no net new units are created. Water system east means all areas serviced by systems utilizing Hancock Well and East Wells no. I and no. 2. Water system west means all users served by systems utilizing 4 ~ Street Well, Seminole Well, and Grand Highway Well. SECTION 2. The City of Clennont Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 2, Section 2-264 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2-264. Impact Fee Schedule. (a) The amount of the impact fee due will be detennined by the following fee schedule. The fees shown on the schedule are based on the factors explained in the "Technical Report on Impact Fee Calculation for Parks and Recreation, Police Protection, Fire Protection, and Water and Wastewater Treatment," available from the city clerk. SCHEDULE Table I. Recrearionallmpact Fees Land Use Unit of Measurement Impact Fees Singlefamily o - I Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms D.U. D.U. D.U. D.U. D.U. $ 346.00 $ 402.00 $ 572.00 $ 732.00 $ 874.00 Multifamily o -I Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4+ Bedrooms D.U. D.U. D.U. D.U. $ 336.00 $ 534.00 $ 797.00 $ 1021.00 . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 3 Mobile Homes o - I Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4+ Bedrooms D.V. D.V. D.V. D.V. $ 206.00 $ 320.00 $ 556.00 $ 809.00 Table 2. Police Protection Impact Fee Land Use Unit of Measurement Impact Fee Residential Single-family D.V. $ 158.00 Multifamily D.V. $ 63.00 Non-residential General retail 1,000 SF $ 419.00 Service stations 1,000 SF $ 1117.00 Eating and drinking 1,000 SF $ 1555.00 Office 1,000 SF $ 226.00 FinanciaVinsurance 1,000 SF $ 497.00 Hotel/motel 1,000 SF $ 248.00 Motor vehicle sales 1,000 SF $ 426.00 Industrial 1,000 SF $ 74.00 Warehousing 1,000 SF $ 10.00 lnstitutional 1,000 SF $ 60.00 Table 3. Fire Protection Impact Fee Residential Single-family D.V. $ 167.00 Multifamily D.V. $ 178.00 Nonresidential General Retail 1,000 SF $ 224.00 Service stations 1,000 SF $ 1261.00 Eating and drinking 1,000 SF $ 1393.00 Office/financial/insurance 1,000 SF $ 183.00 Hotel/Motel 1,000 SF $ 278.00 . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 4 Motor vehicle sales 1,000 SF $ 242.00 IndustriaVmfg/vvarehouse 1,000 SF $ 259.00 Institutional 1,000 SF $ 35.00 Table 4. Water Impact Fee Service area Unit of Measurement Impact Fee Water system East I ERU $ 921.00 West system West I ERU $ 417,00 The water impact fee is detennined by multiplying the above impact fee amount times the equivalent residential units (ERU) indicated in table 6 for the respective project. Table 5. Wastewater Impact Fee Unit of Measure Impact Fee IERU $ 2625.00 The wastewater impact fee is determined by multiplying the above noted impact fee amount times the equivalent residential units (ERU) indicated in table 6 for the respective project. Table 6. Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) RESIDENTIAL Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) Single or multiple family per dvveIting unit except qualified all-adult communities, (a) 1 bedroom and 600 sq.ft. or less heated or cooled area 0.33 (b) 2 bedroom and 600 - 1,000 sq.ft. heated or cooled area 0.67 (c) 3 bedroom and 1,001 - 2,000 sq.ft. heated or cooled area 1.00 (d) 4 or more bedrooms and 2,000 sq.ft. or more heated or cooled area 1.33 Qualified all-adult community (a) Up to 3 bedrooms (b) 4 or more bedrooms 0.67 1.00 Airports, bus tenninals, train stations, port and docking facilities Auditorium, per 100 sq. ft. Barber and Beauty shops per 100 sq. ft. Bowling alleys toilet wastes only per lane Convenience store w/self service gas pumps per restroom Country Clubs excluding food per 100 sq. ft. Dentists' Offices per 100 sq. ft. Doctors' Offices per 100 sq. ft. Food Service Operations (a) Restaurants operating less than 16 hours per day per 100 sq.ft. (b) Restaurants operating 16 hours or more per day 100 sq.ft. (c) Bar and cocktail lounge per 100 sq.ft. (d) Carry-out only per 100 sq.ft. of floor space Food Outlets excluding deli's, bakery or meat department per 100 sq. ft. of floor space (I) Add for deli per 100 sq. ft. of floor space (2) Add for bakery per 100 sq. ft. of floor space (3) Add for meat department per 100 sq. ft. of floor space (I) Restaurant using single service food items only per 100 sq. ft. . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 5 COMMERC1AL . Use Fixture Units 0.30 0.10 0.22 1.50 0.03 0.18 0.06 0.34 0.53 0.26 0.15 0.02 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.13 Hotels and Motels (a) Regular per room 0.33 (b) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per unit 0.43 (c) Add for establishments with self service laundry facilities per machines 0.89 Industrial/Manufacturing (excluding food service and industrial waste) (a) no showers per 1000 sq. ft. 0.40 (b) with showers per 1000 sq. ft. 1.25 Laundry/self service per machine 1.33 Office building per 250 sq. ft. of floor space (not including food) 0.04 Service stations or detail facility (a) per day 1.00 (b) add per wash bay (not recycled) 3.20 (c) add per water closet or urinal 2.56 Shopping centers and stores without food or laundry per 1000 sq. ft. of floor space 0.43 Stadiums, race tracks, ball parks per 100 sq. ft. 0.03 Stores per 1000 sq. ft. of floor space 0.43 . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 6 Swimming and bathing facilities Theaters, dinner per 100 sq. ft. Mobile Home Park per mobile home space Recreational Vehicle Park Recreational vehicle for overnight stay, w/o water and sewer hookup per vehicle space Recreational vehicle for overnight stay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicle space INSTITUTIONAL Churches per 100 sq. ft. Hospitals per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows) (a) add for food service per 100 sq. ft. of food service area Nursing, rest homes per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows (a) add for food service per 100 sq. ft. of food service area Parks, public (a) per water closet (b) add per shower or urinal Public institutions other than schools and hospitals Schools per 100 sq. ft. (a) Middle and High (b) Elementary, Day Care and Nursery (c) Boarding type Work/construction camps, semi-pennanent Use fIxture Units 0.41 0.44 0.17 0.22 0.30 0.44 0.53 0.22 0.53 0.30 0.13 Use Fixture Units 0.25 0.09 0.53 Use Fixture Units Note: Where the number of bedrooms indicated on the floor plan and corresponding heated or cooled area of a dweIling unit in the table do not coincide, the criteria which will reflect in the greatest estimated ERU shall apply. (b) If a development approval is requested for a development with mixed unit type, then the fee shall be computed by calculating number of units of each type and multiplying the results by the appropriate fees on the schedule, (c) 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 comparable land use, that a special study is required. (d) The schedule shall be reviewed periodically and revised as necessary to '. '. . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 7 reflect new data and technical information that substantially affect the calculation of the proportionate fair share of capital costs represented by the schedule. (e) All impact fees set forth in this Ordinance shall be increased annually due to inflation or other such factors, in order to ensure adequate capital recovery offacility costs. Unless the City Council approves otherwise, the adjustment shall be effective as of October I of each year and shall be equal to the then current index pursuant to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost index. . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 8 SF,CTION 3. 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 4. 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 5. 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 effect 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 6. This Ordinance shall be published as provided by law and it shall become law and take effect December 1,1999. First Reading this 11th day of May, 1999. Second Reading this 25th day of May, 1999. ". , '. . . CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE NO. 293-C Page 9 PASSED AND ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THIS 25th DAY OF MAY 1999. Attest: ,.. ~~Clerk CITY OF CLERMONT r r—, CITY OF CLERMONT Impact Fee Review For Parks /Recreation, Fire, Police Water and Wastewater Services r r-, + ' sx - : , +' ter 2 i September, 1998 HAI Project No. 96- 465.00 HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC. engineers hy fro geologists surveyors & management consultants ORLANDO FT. MYERS PLANTATION JACKSONVILLE S CITY OF CLERMONT POLICE, FIRE, PARKS/RECREATION WATER AND SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY Prepared for: City of Clermont 1 Westgate Plaza P.O. Box 120219 ., Clermont, Florida 34712 .. Prepared by: Hartman & Associates, Inc. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 1000 J. Orlando, Florida 32801 .. September 1, 1997 HAI #96- 465.00 C3 HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, LNC PRI \(II'11� ((1(III• engineers, hydrogeologists, surveyors & management consultants Umc, 1 ( hrntophcr 1'1 \I ltuu (hmlr.0 I)rakc P1, I li,ll and \ I'I osmi .1 Hamlin PI 11...0, 1' DuIri.lh I'1 Mirk 1 Jul, Ps '1 Itnlcr L ti ( i.hs PI \I irk \ PL 1s m U Ian l'1 11 mold k ,U midi Jr l'F I mfr. 1 'Id, n , 1% ilium I) \lu +.cr PI Ir.1 1 IA n ■■■i 1'1 111(11 1 011(1 U • NI - \lOR {••(H Iil1 1 U'r d,,,c6 I'I ( /*than l ullcr Pk September 1, 1998 HAI #96- 465.00 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Clermont 1 Westgate Plaza P.O. Box 120219 Clermont, Florida 34712 Subject: Police, Fire, Parks/Recreation, Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study Ladies and Gentlemen: We have completed our study of the impact fees charged to new development for police protection, fire protection, parks /recreation, water and sewer services for the City of Clermont (the "City ") and have summarized the results of our analyses, assumptions and conclusions in this report which is respectfully submitted for your consideration The last impact fee study conducted for the City was completed in 1991. Since that time, the City has incurred significant capital costs associated with the expansion of these facilities required to provide adequate service for the future This additional capital investment as well as future anticipated expansion and the impacts of inflation led the City to engage Hartman & Associates, Inc (HAI) to update the City's previous impact fee study and recommend any changes which may be necessary in order to IM, provide adequate cost recovery from such fees by the City while maintaining equity in its schedule of impact fees. The following presents a summary of the City's existing impact fees as well as the recommended impact fees. 1r, Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERU Recommended Service Unit of Existing Impact Fees Component Measurement Impact Fees (Rounded) Difference Percent Water System East ERU $864.00 $921 00 $57 00 7% West ERU $315 00 $417 00 $102 00 32% Wastewater System East ERU $2,374 00 $2,625 00 $251 00 11 % West ERU $1,304 00 $2,625 00 $1,321 00 101% 201 LA\I Pi\1 ti1RC11 • \1111 1000 • ( RL\ \DO 11 i)ti)I 1 LI 1 PHO \L (10') 2i i9 i955 • f \\ ( i0 ) A9 i • \\\\ \\ (1"I,ulth it ORL\ \DO I Olt I \111_16 PI_ \\ 1 \11O\ 1 \( h \O \\ 1111 P va Honorable Mayor and City Council PIN September 1, 1998 Page 2 Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Unit of Existing Recommended Pm , Housing Type Measurement Impact Fees Impact Fee Difference Percent SINGLE FAMILY 0 - 1 Bedrooms D.U. $240.00 $346.00 $106.00 44% P' 2 Bedrooms D.0 278.00 402.00 124.00 44% 3 Bedrooms D.U. 397.00 572.00 175 00 44% 4 Bedrooms D.U. 508.00 732.00 224.00 44% 5+ Bedrooms D.U. 607.00 874.00 267.00 44% MULTI- FAMILY 0 - 1 Bedrooms D.U. $233.00 $336.00 $103.00 44% 2 Bedrooms D.U. 371.00 534.00 163.00 44% 3 Bedrooms D.U. 554.00 797.00 243.00 44% 4+ Bedrooms D U. 708.00 1,021.00 313 00 44% P" MOBILE HOMES 0 - 1 Bedrooms D.U. $142.00 $206.00 $64.00 44% 2 Bedrooms D.U. 222.00 320.00 98 00 44% Pia 3 Bedrooms D.U. 386.00 556.00 170 00 44% 4 Bedrooms D.U. 562.00 809.00 247.00 44% Pm Police Protection Impact Fees ra Land Use Unit of Existing Impact Fee Pm Category Measurement Impact Fees Recommended Difference Percent Residential: Single Family D U $37.00 $158.00 $121.00 327% Pm' Multi - Family D.U. $27.00 $63 00 $36 00 133% Non - Residential: General Retail 1,000 S.F. $119 00 $419.00 $300 00 252% r Service Stations 1,000 S F $297.00 $1,117.00 $820 00 276% Eating and Drinking 1,000 S.F. $406 00 $1,555 00 $1,149 00 283% Office 1,000 S F $114.00 $226 00 $112.00 98% r Financial/Insurance 1,000 S.F. $168 00 $497.00 $329.00 196% Hotel /Motel 1,000 S.F. $33.00 $248 00 $215 00 652% Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F $68 00 $426.00 $358 00 526% r Industrial 1,000 S.F $10.30 $74 00 $64 00 640% Warehousing 1,000 S F $25.00 $10 00 ($15 00) (60 %) Institutional 1,000 S.F N/A $60 00 N/A N/A P r J. Honorable Mayor and City Council MI September 1, 1998 Page 3 Fire Protection Impact Fees Recommended Land Use Unit of Existing Impact Fee Category Measurement Impact Fees (Rounded) Difference Percent Residential: Single Family D U. $45.00 $167.00 $122.00 271% .• Multi - Family D.U. $61.00 $178.00 $117.00 192% Non- Residential: General Retail 1,000 S.F. $105.00 $224.00 $119.00 113% ps Service Stations 1,000 S.F. $307.00 $1,261.00 $954.00 311% Eating and Drinking 1,000 S.F. $287.00 $1,393.00 $1,106.00 385% Office, Financial, ''" and Insurance 1,000 S.F $85.00 $183.00 $98.00 115% Hotel/Motel 1,000 S.F. $87 00 _ $278.00 $191.00 220% Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S.F $100.00 $242.00 $142.00 142% "" Industrial, Manufact. and Warehousing 1,000 S.F. $37.00 $259.00 $222.00 600% Institutional 1,000 S.F. N/A $35.00 N/A N/A Impact Fees Comparisons In order to provide the City with additional insight into both the existing and recommended impact fees, the following table presents a comparison of the City's existing and recommended impact fees for parks and recreation, fire protection, police protection and water and wastewater .. service for single family residential development with those currently charged by other governmental entities in the surrounding area. It is important to keep in mind that no in -depth analysis has been performed on the impact fees charged by the other entities and that there are numerous underlying factors which could affect the level of charge imposed. For example, no analysis was conducted to determine the methods used by the other entities to develop their .. existing fees, the methods of financing capital needs used or the levels of service and facilities provided by the other entities. Thus, this comparison should be viewed as merely providing information regarding the levels of impact fees charged by other area governmental entities only .• and does not imply that any of the existing or recommended fees are either appropriate or inappropriate. am _± Honorable Mayor and City Council _ September 1, 1998 ' — Page 4 r Impact Fee Comparison . Single Family Residential Development (with 3 Bedrooms) City of Clermont Other Area Entities Service Provided Existing Proposed High Low Average a Parks/Recreation $ 397 $ 572 $ 357 $ 87 $ 243 Police Protection 37 158 172 35 73 Fire Protection 45 167 349 60 138 . Water Service - East 864 921 2,019 226 1,105 — Water Service - West 315 417 2,019 226 1,105 Sewer Service - East 2,374 2,625 3,717 1,222 2,106 — Sewer Service - West 1,304 2,625 3,717 1,222 2,106 PM As shown above, in virtually every case, the individual recommended impact fees are well within — the range of high and low fees charged by the other entities. It should be noted that the averages ' ^ shown for the other entities represent the average for only those entities with that particular impact fee. .., Overall, the impact of the proposed fees for a typical single family residential unit is a total adjustment of approximately 20 percent for the East side and 88 percent for the West side. This is shown for the East and West side in following table: Existing Versus Proposed Impact Fees Single Family Residential Development (With 3 Bedrooms) East Side West Side a Existing Proposed Difference Percent Existing Proposed Difference Percent Parks/Recreation $397 $572 $175 44% $397 $572 $175 44% a Police Protection 37 158 121 327% 37 158 121 327% Fire Protection - 45 167 122 271% 45 167 122 271% Q Water Service 864 921 57 7% 315 417 102 32% Sewer Service 2,374 2,625 251 11% 1,304 2,625 1,321 101% "" Total $3,717 $4,443 $726 20% $2,098 $3,939 $1,841 88% a n Honorable Mayor and City Council r September 1, 1998 Page 5 Future Impact Fee Adjustment In an effort to recognize that inflationary pressures will increase capital costs in the future, it is also recommended that the City consider adopting an annual indexing adjustment to be applied — to the various impact fees. This would help the City avoid potential rate shock at some point in the future as a result of a single large rate adjustment by at least keeping up with inflation in the intervening years. Although there are a number of mechanisms and indices which could be used for such an indexing adjustment, it is recommended that the City adopt an annual indexing factor based on the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index. Published monthly, the ENR Index factor enables adjustment for increases in construction cost by dividing the current month's index factor by the past reference month's index factor and multiplying this ratio by the previously effective impact fee. The resulting impact fee would then become effective each October 1 and be valid for the new fiscal year. By adjusting the impact fees each year in this fashion, the City is attempting to recognize annual increases in the cost of constructing capital facilities and to avoid a large increase at some point in the future which could result if the impact fees are not adjusted for a number of years. As'of June 1998, the ENR Construction Cost Index was 5,895. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the City 'staff for their hard work and invaluable assistance during this project. It has been a pleasure serving the City during this engagement and we look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with the City in the future. Should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to call us. Very truly yours, Hartman & Associates, Inc. L / Marco H. Rocca, C.M.0 Finance Manager Andrew T. Woodcock, P E. Project Manager MHR/tm /96 -465 00 /corresp /clermont Itr ^ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7 7 CITY OF CLERMONT F"• IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. Description No. Transmittal Letter/Executive Summary Table of Contents - i - List of Tables - iv - ^ List of Schedules - vi - L. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1 -1 1.2 Scope of Services 1 -1 1.3 Authorization 1 -2 1.4 Summary of Report 1 -2 Pm, 1.5 Acknowledgments 1 -4 2.0 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF IMPACT FEES 2.1 General 2 -1 2.2 Criteria for Impact Fees 2 -1 2.3 Other Legal Ramifications 2 -3 3.0 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES 3.1 General 3 -1 3.2 Facilities and Level -of- Service Standards 3 -1 3.3 Capital Costs 3 -4 3.4 Impact Fee Credits 3 -5 3.5 Determination of Parks and Recreation Impact Fees 3 -7 3.6 Comparison with Existing Impact Fees 3 -8 4.0 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES 4.1 General 4 -1 4 2 Capital Costs and Impact Fee Credits 4 -1 .• 4 3 Demand for Services and Level -of- Service Standards 4 -3 ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /toc rpt HAI #96- 465.00 -1- 090198 CITY OF CLERMONT IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ,. Section Page No. Description No. 4.4 , Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees 4 -5 4.4.1 The Calls for Service Per Officer Method 4 -6 .• 4.4.2 The Capacity Cost Method 4 -7 4.5 Implementation of Institutional Class Impact Fees 4 -9 4.5.1 The Calls for Service Per Officer Method 4 -10 4.5.2 The Capacity Cost Method 4 -11 4.6 Comparison with Existing Impact Fees 4 -11 5.0 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES P"' 5.1 General 5 -1 5.2 Capital Costs 5 -1 5.3 Demand for Services and Level -of- Service Standards 5 -3 5.4 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees 5 -5 5.4.1 The Capacity Cost Method 5 -6 5.4.2 The Calls for Service Per Vehicle Method 5 -7 5.5 Implementation of Institutional Class Impact Fees 5 -8 5.5.1 The Calls for Service Per Vehicle Method 5 -9 5.5.2 The Capacity Cost Method 5 -10 r' 5 -6 Comparison with Existing Impact Fees 5 -11 6.0 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES 6.1 General 6 -1 6.2 Existing Facilities and Capital Costs 6 -1 6.2.1 Water System 6 -1 6.2.2 Wastewater System 6 -2 6.3 Future Facilities and Capital Costs 6 -3 6.3.1 Water System 6 -3 6.3.2 wastewater System 6 -4 6.4 Credits for Other Funding Sources 6 -4 6.4 1 Water System Credit 6 -4 AT W /tm/reports /r -1 /toc.rpt HAI #96- 465.00 - ii - 090198 CITY OF CLERMONT IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Page No. Description No. "" 6.5 Adjustment for Interest Carry On Debt 6 -5 6.6 Net Recoverable Costs 6 -6 .. 6 -7 System Capacity and Demand for Services 6 -7 6.7.1 Water System 6 -7 6.7.2 Wastewater System 6 -7 6.8 Determination of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 6 -8 6.9 Comparison with Existing Impact Fees 6 -9 6.10 Calculations of Equivalent Residential Units 6 -10 "' 7.0 COMPARISON WITH OTHER UTILITIES 7.1 General 7 -1 7.2 Comparison of Impact Fees with Other Entities 7 -1 Appendix A PM PM OM PM MM PM PM PM ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /toc.rpt HAI #96- 465.00 - 111 - 090198 n ' CITY OF CLERMONT IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF TABLES Table Page No. Description No. 3 -1 Comparison of Parks and Recreation Facilities - 1991 vs. 1997 3 -2 3 -2 Existing vs. Adopted LOS Comparison 3 -3 3 -3 Comparison of Unit Capital Costs for Parks and Recreation - 1991 vs. 1997 3 -4 ,._ 3 -4 Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Credit 3 -6 - 3 -5 Comparison of Average People Per Household - 1991 vs. 1997 3 -7 3 -6 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Parks and Recreation Impact Fees 3 -9 4 -1 Comparison of Capital Asset Costs for Police Protection - 1991 vs. 1997 4 -2 4 -2 Breakdown by Land Use of Police Calls for Service in 1996 4 -4 7 4 -3 Estimated Annual Police Protection CFS Per Land Use Unit 4 -5 4 -4 Determination of Incremental Additional Police Officers Required I 4 -6 4 -5 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category Utilizing the Calls For Service (CFS) Per Officer Method 4 -7 4 -6 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method 4 -8 4 -7 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class Utilizing the CFS Per Officer Method 4 -10 4 -8 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class r" Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method I 4 -11 4 -9 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Police Protection Impact Fees 4 -12 5 -1 Comparison of Capital Asset Costs for Protection - 1991 vs. 1997 5 -2 5 -2 Breakdown of Fire Protection Calls for Service - 1991 through 1996 5 -4 5 -3 Estimated Annual Fire Protection CFS Per Land Use Unit 5 -5 5 -4 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method 5 -6 5 -5 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category Utilizing the Calls For Service (CFS) Per Vehicle Method 5 -8 ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /lot rpt HAI #96- 465.00 - iv - 090198 r..,, CITY OF CLERMONT '" IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF TABLES Pm Table Page p. No. Description No. 5 -6 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class Utilizing the CFS Per Vehicle Method 5 -10 5 -7 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class Po Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method 5 -10 5 -8 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Fire Protection Impact Fees 5 -11 p. 6 -1 Summary of Existing Water System Capital Asset Costs 6 -2 6 -2 Summary of Existing Wastewater System Capital Asset Costs 6 -3 6 -3 Allocation of Present Value of Interest Payments 6 -5 6 -4 Breakdown of Net Asset Costs Recoverable from Impact Fees 6 -6 P" 6 -5 Determination of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 6 -8 6 -6 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended •- Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERU 6 -9 6 -7 Recommended Revisions to the ERU Equivalency Factors 6 -10 7 -1 Impact Fee Comparison - Single Family Residential Development 7 -2 7 -2 Existing Versus Proposed Impact Fees - Single Family Residential p. Development 7 -2 r r r ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /lot rpt r HAI #96- 465.00 - v - 090198 PM CITY OF CLERMONT -- IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF SCHEDULES Schedule Page No. Description No. 3 -1 Level -of- Service Analysis for Parks and Recreational Facilities 3 -10 3 -2 Analysis of Current Unit Cost for Parks and Recreational Facilities 3 -11 3 -3 - Cost Per Capita Analysis for Parks and Recreational Facilities 3 -12 r ., 3 -4 Calculation of Parks and Recreational Impact Fee Credit 3 -13 3 -5 Determination of Parks and Recreational Impact Fees 3 -14 4 -1 Existing Police Department Capital Assets 4 -13 4 -2 Determination of Current Demand for Police Protection Services (Calls For Service Per Unit) 4 -14 4 -3 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees Utilizing the CFS Per Officer Method 4 -15 4 -4 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method -4 -16 4 -5 Determination of Estimated Number of Institutional Units 4 -17 4 -6 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees for the Institutional Class 4 -18 5 -1 Existing Fire Department Capital Assets 5 -12 .., 5 -2 Determination of Current Demand for Fire Protection Services _ (Calls For Service Per Unit) 5 -13 5 -3 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method 5 -14 5 -4 Determination of Fire Protection Vehicle Cost Per Unit Utilizing the CFS Per Vehicle Method 5 -15 5 -5 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees Per Unit Utilizing the CFS Per Vehicle Method 5 -16 5 -6 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees for the Institutional Class 5 -17 ATW /tm/reports /r- l /los.rpt Pm HAI #96- 465.00 - vi - 090198 CITY OF CLERMONT '' IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF SCHEDULES Schedule Page No. Description No. .- 6 -1 Determination of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 6 -13 6 -2 Allocation of Present Value of Water and Wastewater Debt Service Interest Cost to Appropriate System 6 -14 6 -3 Determination of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 6 -15 6 -4 ERU Factors 6 -16 7 -1 Comparison of City Impact Fees With Neighboring Entities Single Family Residential Development 7 -3 ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /los.rpt r- HAI #96 -465 00 - vii - 090198 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 SECTION 1 7 7 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION • The City of Clermont (the "City ") has retained the firm of Hartman & Associates, Inc. (HAI) to provide assistance with a review of the City's current impact fees for water, wastewater, parks and recreation, police protection and fire protection services. These impact fees were established approximately 6 years ago and as such, the City has decided that a review of the level of fees is appropriate at this time. 1.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES The current impact fees charged to new development were a result of a previous study completed for the City in April 1991 by Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. The City adopted the impact fees ,.� for parks and recreation, police protection, fire protection and water and wastewater services pursuant to Code Ordinance No. 271 -C signed on May 28, 1991. During the time that the current fees have been in effect, the City, as well as many other local governments, has experienced an increasing dilemma with regard to the funding of infrastructure requirements. In many cases throughout the state, this problem was the result of increased development which occurred and the resultant inability to rapidly generate a sufficient level of funds to meet the new demands for service. One method being used by the City and others to provide funds for capital needs in the State of Florida is the application of impact or capital recovery fees to fund a portion of the infrastructure requirements. An impact fee is a charge imposed on new users of real property to help defray the capital cost of constructing new public facilities necessitated by the impact of growth. Thus, the purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth- related capital costs to those users responsible for such additional costs In summary, impact fees can be considered to be a new user's contribution to those facilities or capital costs that are required in order to provide a -' comparable level of service to that being provided to the existing customers or a level stated as 7 the goal of a local government in the Comprehensive Plan J ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec 1 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 1 -1 081298 Thus, the purpose of an impact fee includes the following: Pm 1. to defray the capital cost of constructing new facilities necessitated by growth; Pm 2. to shift the financial burden of constructing new facilities to the new customers r. for whose benefit the facilities will be built; and Om 3. where applicable, to exact connections for public facilities from developments which were platted prior to the establishment of mandatory dedication — provisions to ensure payment comparable to that required from new 7 developments. NM In conducting the review of the City's impact fees, it was agreed by both the City and HAI that — this study would not include significant changes in the methodologies used in the previous study 7 to determine the impact fees. Rather, this study would, in general, be more concerned with updating the information used to develop the fees in order to examine the appropriateness of the fees in today's environment. As such, the City provided certain information such as current C population data, demand for services information, existing capital facilities and related costs as well as funding sources for use in this study of the impact fees for parks and recreation, police IIIM protection, fire protection and water and wastewater services. In addition, HAI also conducted a thorough comparison of the impact fees currently charged by other area governmental entities for similar services. -, 1.3 AUTHORIZATION HAI has been authorized by the City to perform the above analysis as a result of the need to review and update, if necessary, the City's impact fees for appropriateness and to provide a reliable revenue source for the funding of various capital improvements. This authorization was granted to HAI by the City pursuant to a contract which was approved by the City Council on January 14, 1997 OM — 1.4 SUMMARY OF REPORT This Report has been subdivided into 6 other sections. The following is a brief discussion of the ,.., other sections included within this Report. ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec 1 rpt HAI #96- 465.00 1 -2 081298 7 7 P. Section 2: Basis for Determinations of Impact Fees This section provides discussion of the criteria of developing impact fees, the various legal J requirements and background for impact fees and other similar information. "� Section 3: Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Develops the recommended parks and recreation impact fees. This section includes discussions C7 on the existing parks and recreational facilities (including land), the estimated unit costs for each type of capital facilities, existing and adopted levels of service, applicable credits and the recommended impact fees. J Section 4: Police Protection Impact Fees W- This section determines the recommended impact fees for police protection. This section — includes discussions of the current demand for such services, the existing police department capital facilities and related costs, available credits to the fees and the calculation of the J recommended impact fees. It should be noted that this section includes the calculation of impact fees using two different methodologies, which is consistent with the City's last impact fee study. Section 5: Fire Protection Impact Fees IWO This section provides the determination of the fire protection impact fees recommended for the 7 City. This section deals with current service demands, existing fire department facilities and related costs and then develops the recommended impact fees using two separate methodologies, which is consistent with the City's previous impact fee study. Section 6: Water and Wastewater Impact Fees OM This section presents the analysis of the City's water and wastewater impact fees. This includes "^ an examination of the City's existing water and wastewater capital facilities, funding sources used to obtain those assets, the anticipated future capital improvements to the water and wastewater systems and each system's resultant capacity for service This information is used to -- develop the recommended water and wastewater impact fees as well as the delineation for the ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec 1 rpt ri HAI #96 -465 00 1 -3 081298 OM water impact fees for the East service area versus the West service area and the basis for this delineation. This section also addresses the method of calculating impact fees. Section 7: Comparison With Other Utilities — This section presents comparisons of the City's existing and recommended impact fees to those of other area governments. 1.5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Report was prepared with the fine cooperation and assistance of the staff of the City of Clermont. HAI would like to thank the following individuals in particular for their help and hard i. work during this project: Mr. Wayne Saunders, City Manager; Mr. Joseph Van Zile, Finance Director; Mr. Preston Davis, Water and Wastewater Utilities Director; the Police Department ,- staff; the Fire Department staff; and the Parks and Recreation Department staff. r. PS r ATW /tm/reports /r- l /sec l . rpt HAI #96 -465 00 1 -4 081298 r 7 r r 7 r 7 7 7 7 7 7 C 7 r E 7 SECTION 2 7 7 F" SECTION 2 BASIS FOR DETERMINATION OF IMPACT FEES P- 2.1 GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the basis for determination of an impact fee. Included in this section is a discussion of the fee criteria, certain legal requirements of the fee, and other similar data and information. 2.2 CRITERIA FOR IMPACT FEES The purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth- related capital costs to those customers responsible for such additional costs. To the extent new population growth imposes identifiable additional capital costs to municipal services, equity and good financial practices necessitate the assignment of such costs to those customers or system users responsible for the additional costs rather than the existing user base. Generally, this ptactice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way" without existing user cost burdens. r . The precedent for impact fees in Florida was set in the City of Dunedin litigation and judgment which provides that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact fees, can be levied for a specific purpose by a Florida municipality as a capital charge for services. An impact fee r should not be considered as a special assessment or an additional tax. A special assessment is predicated upon an estimated increment in value to the property assessed by virtue of the r improvement being constructed in the vicinity of the property. Further, the assessment must be directly and reasonably related to the benefit of which the property receives. Impact fees are not directly related to the value of the improvement to the property but rather to the usage of the facility required by the property. Until property is put to use (i.e., developed), there is no burden upon servicing facilities and the land use Tray be entirely unrelated to the value of the assessment basis of the underlying land With respect to a comparison to taxes, impact fees are distinguishable primarily in the direct relationship between the amount charged and the measurable quantity of public facilities required. In the case of taxation, there is no requirement that the payment be in proportion to the quantity of public services consumed, and funds received r by a municipality from taxes can be expended for any legitimate public purpose. ATW/tm/reports/r- 1 /sec2 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 2 -1 081298 Po_ PEI In the Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County r. vs. City of Dunedin, Florida, regarding the validity of impact fees or capital charges, certain conditions were identified as necessarily present in order to have a valid fee. Generally, it is our understanding that the court decision addressed the following: 1) The impact fee should be reasonably equitable to all parties; that is, the amount of the fee must bear a relationship to the amount of services requested; P"' 2) The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users; MI 3) The impact fee should, to the extent practicable, only cover the capital cost of r construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for increases in or expansions of capacity or capital requirements that are required solely due to growth. Therefore, expenses due to normal renewal and replacement of a facility e. p ty ( g., replacement of a capital asset) should be borne by all users of the facility or municipality. Likewise, r' increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that facility should be borne by all users of the facility; P" 4) The City must adopt a revenue producing ordinance which explicitly sets forth restrictions on revenues (uses thereof) that the imposition of the impact fee r• generates. Therefore, the funds collected from the impact fee 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 Y y purposes described. r' Based on the criteria above, impact fees developed herein: 1) include only the estimated incremental cost of all unused or new facilities necessary to serve future growth; 2) will not r reflect costs associated with improvements associated with the renewal and replacement of any existing capital assets of the City which are allocable to exiting users of the System, and 3) will not include any costs of operation and maintenance of the facilities associated with the impact fee. r It is also important to note the relationship of the City's Comprehensive Plan to the use of impact fees for funding incremental capital improvements The Local Government Comprehensive r ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec2 rpt FE' HAI #96- 465.00 2 -2 081298 PEN Planning and Land Development Regulation Act requires capital expenditures and local development regulations to be consistent with the provisions of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Impact fees are included as a funding source used by the City to implement the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and is a legitimate exercise of the police powers delegated by the Act mentioned above to Florida municipalities. 2.3 OTHER LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS In addition to the Dunedin decision, there have been several other landmark cases dealing with the levying of impact fees in Florida. In the Hollywood, Inc. vs. Broward County case, a challenge was made regarding the applicability of levying an impact fee for parks and recreation. Essentially, the Broward County ordinance provides for a park contribution agreement between the developer and the County and that a fee per each residential unit be collected. The court upheld the imposition of the fee and also addressed the more difficult question of whether the ordinance was constitutional. The major criteria associated with this case dealt with whether the fee was correlated to the benefit received (the "Rational Nexus Test "). As stated in the decision, the government must show a reasonable connection or correlation between the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits which accrue to the payee. In order to satisfy this requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark funds collected from the imposition of an impact fee in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents. In Palm Beach County, the County adopted a "Fair Share Contribution for Road Improvements" ordinance which requires that an impact fee for transportation improvements be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The ordinance was adopted as a result of the need for the continued maintenance of a consistent level of service which was being degraded as a result of increased growth. The impact fee was based on estimated trip generation rates for particular customer classes. This charge, which was challenged by the Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County, was determined not to be a tax since it did meet the Rational Nexus Test, was designed for only new development, and the expenditures were reasonably for the benefit of the development .. As determined and affirmed by the courts in Florida, the application of an impact fee for the increased capital cost associated with the funding of incremental facilities appears to be valid. Specifically, the charge must be based on the incremental cost of the capital facilities required for the increased growth of the jurisdiction and there must exist some reasonable basis between the amount of the charge and the benefits accrued to the new or incremental customer ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec2.rpt ,,,, HAI #96 -465 00 2 -3 081298 7 r E 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 L 7 7 r 7 SECTION 3 7 7 SECTION 3 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES 3.1 GENERAL The purpose of this section is to present the data and resulting analysis used to review and update the City's existing impact fees for parks and recreational facilities. The City utilizes the revenue from the impact fees to finance a portion of the facilities in order to provide its residents the recreational level of service adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the impact INO fees provide a mechanism by which the City is able to recover the capital costs from future growth based on its proportionate share of the demand for these facilities. This is often referred to as "growth paying its own way." •- As agreed to by both the City and HAI, the review of the City's existing impact fees for parks and recreational facilities presented herein utilizes the same general methodology employed in the City's previous impact fee study conducted in 1991. As such, this analysis of the parks and recreation impact fees presented herein does not represent a significant change in methodology from the City's existing impact fees. Rather, this review is based on facility data, unit costs and level of service standards as provided by the City and updated by HAI. 3.2 FACILITIES AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE STANDARDS In order to determine the proportionate share of capital costs to be recovered from future growth, the City's existing parks and recreational facilities and level -of- service (LOS) standards were reviewed based on information provided by the City. Table 3 -1 below provides a comparison of the existing major parks and recreational facilities to those reflected in the City's 1991 impact fee study: ION ATW /tin/reports /r- I /sec3 rpt HAI #96- 465.00 3 -1 081298 r r Table 3 -1 r Comparison of Parks and Recreation Facilities 1991 vs. 1997 r Facilities r Park/Facility Category Unit of Measure 1991 1997 Park Land Acres 73.7 73.7 r . Baseball /Softball Fields 8 8 Fishing Pier Linear Feet 400 400 Picnic Tables Tables 36 90 ✓ Basketball Courts 6 5 Pavilion/Gazebo Units 2 3 r Fitness Trail Units 3 3 Shuffleboard Courts 18 18 ✓ Tennis Courts 9 9 Volleyball Courts 2 4 r . Racquetball Courts 2 2 Football/Soccer Fields 2 2 Tot Lot Equipped Area 4 10 r As can be seen above, the City has added a number of parks and recreational facilities since ✓ 1991. For example, with the completion of the Lake Minneola Waterfront Park alone, the City added 41 picnic tables, 2 pavilions /gazebos, 3 volleyball courts and a number of tot lot pieces of r playground equipment. Thus, the City has been quite active in providing ample parks and recreational facilities for its year -round as well as seasonal residents. r Once the inventory of existing facilities was completed, the existing levels -of- service provided by the City were then compared to the standard levels -of- service adopted by the City in its r Comprehensive Plan. This analysis is shown on Schedule 3 -1 and summarized below on Table 3 -2 (on a facility per 1,000 population basis only): r r r ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec3.rpt r HAI #96- 465.00 3 -2 081298 i ... �s Table 3 -2 0. Existing vs. Adopted LOS Comparison Level -of- Services (Per 1,000 Population) .. Park/Facility Category Unit of Measure Existing Adopted Park Land Acres 8.9677 10.0000 Baseball /Softball Fields 0.9734 0.5000 p. Fishing Pier Linear Feet 48.6712 51.3500 Picnic Tables Tables 10.9510 5.0000 Basketball Courts 0.4259 0.2778 Pavilion/Gazebo Units 0.2434 0.2570 '"' Fitness Trail Units 0.3650 0.3850 Shuffleboard Courts 2.1902 1.0000 .• Tennis Courts 1.0951 0.7143 Volleyball Courts 0.4867 0.1667 .• Racquetball Courts 0.2434 0.1667 Football /Soccer Fields 0.2434 0.1429 Tot Lot Equipped Area 0.9734 0.5140 Thus, as shown above, in most cases, the City either meets or exceeds the level -of- service '' standards adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Although it may appear that the City does not have adequate park land when compared to the adopted LOS, the existing LOS is based only on .• the "active" park land of the City. However, in addition to the "active" park land of 73.7 acres, the City also has approximately 14.5 acres of open space areas which are classified as "non- ^ active" yet which offer resource -based recreational opportunities. Thus, it appears that the City's total land available for recreational activities would meet the City's adopted LOS for land. •• Finally, it should be noted that the City's adopted LOS standards will be utilized to determine the parks and recreation impact fees This is consistent with the City's 1991 study and represents '' the City's commitment to providing facilities and services to existing and future residents at an identified and measurable level. ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec3.rpt HAI #96- 465.00 3 -3 081298 r Pm 3.3 CAPITAL COSTS Once the LOS standards to be used were established, the next step in the analysis of the parks r• and recreation impact fees was the review of current unit costs for these facilities. In order to estimate the current capital costs for "typical" parks and recreational facilities, numerous r , manufacturers and vendors were contacted. A comparison of the estimated unit costs for typical facilities reflected in 1991 with those of today is presented in Schedule 3 -2 and summarized below in Table 3 -3. r Table 3 -3 Comparison of Unit Capital Costs for Parks and Recreation 1991 vs. 1997 1991 Unit Cost 1997 Unit Cost Park/Facility Category Unit of Measure Per Facility Per Facility Park Land Acres $19,000 $19,000 Baseball/Softball Fields 80,000 80,000 P' Fishing Pier Linear Feet 90 110 Picnic Tables Tables 200 380 ,. Basketball Courts 7,500 11,000 Pavilion/Gazebo Units 9,000 11,000 Fitness Trail Units 8,000 20,000 Shuffleboard Courts 1,500 2,500 Tennis Courts 15,000 15,000 Volleyball Courts 7,500 2,500 Racquetball Courts 7,500 14,000 r' Football /Soccer Fields 61,000 61,000 Tot Lot Equipped Area 5,000 10,000 P As would be expected, the unit capital costs for facilities in general have increased since the 1991 impact fee study. However, for the purpose of this analysis, the unit cost for land, baseball /softball fields and football /soccer fields have been maintained at the 1991 cost level The "cost contribution" from these facilities to the impact fees have been kept constant in part in r order to recognize that the City either currently far exceeds the adopted levels -of- service standards or is unlikely to require additional facilities of this nature in the near future Thus, r since these three facilities in general are representative of major investments by the City and the ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec3 rpt r. HAI #96- 465.00 3 -4 081298 City is not anticipated to experience future growth in the near -term which would require the City P M to actually make new investments for these facilities, it is recommended that the unit costs from the original 1991 study be maintained for these three parks and recreational facilities. Utilizing the 1997 unit capital costs shown above with the City's adopted LOS standards, a cost .. per capita was determined for the City's parks and recreation facilities. This analysis is provided in Schedule 3 -3. Specifically, based on the cost contributions from the various facilities, the total parks and recreation facilities cost per capita was estimated to be $280.96 per person. This represents the capital cost of providing additional facilities to accommodate future growth on a per capita basis in order to meet the City's currently adopted LOS standards 0. 3.4 IMPACT FEE CREDITS In addition to determining the total capital cost per person of providing adequate parks and ■ recessional facilities as shown above, an analysis of the various funding sources used by the City to acquire those assets was also conducted. This was done in order to examine what, if any, credit should be reflected due to the availability of additional funding sources. The resulting credit, if any, would then serve to reduce the gross impact fee in order to avoid the potential for "double- charging" future developments for these assets. P M In order to develop the credit, the City provided HAI with a breakdown of the various funding sources historically used to fund parks and recreation facilities for the last five years. Based on the data provided and the methodology in the 1991 study, it appears that over the past five years PER the City has funded approximately 35% of the total parks and recreation capital expenditures from either grants or two typically recurring funding sources, the Infrastructure Surtax Fund and ad valorem taxes The amount of funds received from grants should be reflected as a credit since 1. these funds are provided to the City at no cost. Therefore, assuming the city receives similar grant funding in the future, future development should receive a credit towards the parks and recreation impact fee for this revenue source. PM The other two funding sources which should represent credits towards the impact fee are revenues received from ad valorem taxes and the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax. The amount of ad valorem taxes credited in the impact fee is based on the percentage of total General Fund revenues received from ad valorem taxes multiplied by the total funding received by the Parks and Recreation Department from the General Fund Based on the City's analysis, ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec3 rpt WM HAI #96- 465.00 3 -5 081298 n• approximately 17% of total General Fund revenues is a result of ad valorem taxes. The monies PM in the Infrastructure Surtax Fund is to be used solely for financing, planning and constructing infrastructure. However, at this time, the revenues received from the Infrastructure Surtax Fund 0. are only known to be available through fiscal year 2002. At that time, the state legislature may or may not extend the availability of this funding source. Therefore, due to the uncertainty of this .. funding source in the future, this analysis assumes that the amount credited towards the determination of the impact fees should be 50% of the historical amounts received. This also serves to phase in over time a potentially larger increase in parks and recreation impact fees PM which would otherwise be required in four years should the Infrastructure Surtax funding source not be available at all. Since future development will provide these funds through future taxes, OM credit for these two recurring funding sources is reflected in this analysis. PIM Schedule 3 -4 provides the detailed analysis of the parks and recreation impact fee credit and is summarized in Table 3 -4 below: WI Table 3 -4 Calculation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Credit Source of Funds 5 -Year Total Credit General Fund $442,282 $75,188 Infrastructure Fund 369,810 184,905 Recreation Fund 53,700 Water Fund 28,490 Sewer Fund 19,379 Stormwater Fund 73,967 Bond Proceeds 1,011,335 Grants 389,456 389,456 PIM Total $2,388,419 $649,549 Percentage Credit 27 00% Thus, based on the above, it is assumed that approximately 27% of future parks and recreational PM facilities will be funded through non - impact fee revenue sources. PM ATW /tm/reports /r- 1 /sec3 rpt HAI #96- 465.00 3 -6 081298 Pm 3.5 DETERMINATION OF PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES ., In order to determine the net impact fee for parks and recreation, the gross capital cost per person Pm previously developed is then applied to the estimated number of people per household for the various types of residential housing in the City. This gross fee is then adjusted for the 27% credit ., developed above. This amount represents the total parks and recreation impact fee per housing unit recommended to be charged to future residential development. OM Based on current housing information provided by the City, the current average number of people per household is approximately 2.45. In order to develop an impact fee schedule consistent with ., the City's existing methodology, the average number of people per unit for single - family, multi- family and mobile homes utilized in the 1991 study were adjusted proportionately to reflect an 0-, overall average of 2.45 people per unit. A comparison of the people per household in the 1991 study and as adjusted for current conditions is shown in Table 3 -5 below: Table 3 -5 Comparison of Average People Per Household 1991 vs. 1997 Housing Type 1991 (Est.) 1997 (Est.) Single - Family 0 - 1 Bedroom 1.75 1.69 2 Bedrooms 2.03 1.96 3 Bedrooms 2.89 2 79 4 Bedrooms 3.70 3 57 5+ Bedrooms 4.42 4.26 Average Single - Family 2.68 2 59 Multi- Family 0 - 1 Bedroom 1.70 1 64 ,' 2 Bedrooms 2.70 2.60 3 Bedrooms 4 03 3 89 4+ Bedrooms 5 16 4.98 Average Multi - Family 2 77 2 67 PM ATW /tm /reports /r- 1 /sec3 rpt Ims HAI #96- 465.00 3 -7 081298 r Table 3 -5 .. Comparison of Average People Per Household 1991 vs. 1997 ~" (Continued) Housing Type 1991 (Est.) 1997 (Est.) Mobile Homes 0 - 1 Bedroom 1.04 1.00 2 Bedrooms 1.62 1.56 3 Bedrooms 2.81 2.71 4+ Bedrooms 4.09 3.95 Average Mobil Homes 1.87 1.80 Overall Residential Average 2.54 2.45 OM Schedule 3 -5 presents the determination of the recommended impact fees based on the type of housing unit and number of bedrooms. As can be seen, the overall average for all single - family homes is approximately $530 (rounded). The overall averages for multi - family and mobile homes are $548 and $370, respectively. Overall, based on an average of 2.45 people per unit for all housing types, the average parks and recreation impact fee would be approximately $503 (rounded). When reviewing the recommended impact fees and comparing them to the City's existing fees, it is important to note that the 1991 study made one final adjustment to arrive at the recommended fees. That is, based on discussions with the City at that time, an additional credit of 15% was provided for in the recommended impact fees. No such adjustment has been made at this time to the recommended parks and recreational impact fees. 3.6 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING IMPACT FEES 0. Table 3 -6 presents a comparison of the existing versus recommended parks and recreation impact fees for the "average" dwelling unit for the three residential housing types. MP ^, ATW /tm /reports /r- 1 /sec3 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 3 -8 081298 Table 3 -6 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Parks and Recreation Impact Fees Impact Fees for "Average" Unit 1) Residential Housing Type Existing Recommended Difference Percent Single Family $368.00 $530.00 $162.00 44% Multi- Family $380.00 $548.00 $168.00 44% Mobile Homes $257.00 $370.00 $113.00 44% Overall Average $349.00 $503.00 $154.00 44% Note: (1) Amounts shown represent the fee for the overall "average" dwelling unit for each housing type. Thus, as can be seen, the recommended parks and recreation impact fees are higher than the City's existing fees. As discussed previously, this increase is due to the effects of inflation as well as significant additional infrastructure placed into service since the City's 1991 impact fee study. r .- ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec3 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 3 -9 081298 WI I t VI 0 ` 0000 - VDc ^ • O v1 M O N N M O S ,, '-+ v1 •- v1 O O O - O O O O O a ca _ O+ ' O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O .-. 4 „ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- r• a v 07 co 0. .E es 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 M N N Os 0 • .... b O O O srs O S v1 O Tt ‘O VO N Tt cd _ 0 0 0 N 0 N v1 00 0 . 0 'O -- \ ....I 0 '- O O WI ch O N N M O S .--1 .--i h p, ^ cn O 0 0 - v1 O 0 0 . 0 0 O O O 0 S. al 0 0 '' U y e : a M -- kD M N 0 VIN M M M •. a 00 �o l� l� �n N t 0 O, O� 00 �t �t n N z ▪ Q\ O� 4o Og `-t N e � M c-+ O 0 4 N N O\ .. O 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 .--1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y () O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 . ^ e N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ‘0 00 a, ON ' Grl 0 '--' •y .r .4 a s. ... p... A y s 'ct N 0 ON Tt 0 N .-+ S et •zt �t �+ G. ;4 Q O g t; N g rn cs 0 0 0 gi 4 E M E1 W O g O; �D Oz 4 N M O 04 N ;4 N Q\ 0 O r" W Z 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 N. -+ 0 0 0 0 en V a 2 e a N C a rn w Eiz o 44 rA o 0 1 ., .-. v •�. U sn U Q ° oo sin c+� c+� 0 , , ON �t N N ° a b z w� .�0•s •• e wt..) '° c . 5 0 ° a -8 o cl a a) CA N i a' 13.) � E � o W a) y ti O 0 y y N y y y y y U y ^ G CU v w U 0000 0 � + a c ° •b ej , 0 " v P gs • U O 52 y P" O N 4-a O x O VI o .--• o U `� 0 i A1 0 0 0 b V „,1-, .0 w es .� id C n 'b 0 u u O a ed ed H . p ,O id 0 y y 5 W c G s N 0 v 2 0:1 W v� L ^ o d c es ti u cd v o 0 t r..-..1 OEM PM C WI OM a,) .• o o o o o o o o o o o o o E 0 ., i.7-4 oo- 00000000000 8 ? 4- ' oo•- •en000inotn . � soo 4 . N O .--- .-• O N Ir N . -- O S a)" e`� o o ° a) S O J � ' O .--. 00 .--. .--. N .—. .--. ,.0 .—. >, 1. 0 .0 q .x3 .5 CT V y o.� ID .w cn ' VI N � v . G v∎ C b E 4 4 . 4 . .. 5 H y y p ' ,.. V W y R o r�' g 0,' a°+ cd "' d o. P. ' U , w aq q o d co U a N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000\0000000000 0 0 0 .. ° 2 0 5 go. g Q . U a1 .. y ... O O (V 'n O O h O in in O O i a) y 0 y r... O. 0 lam+' OO 0 N O■ 00 .- .n" N - vi 0 ~ O >, ., c w a) `A 0, u t d o., y .— y a+ e ..1 g z a p d y a i pC 'O 'e� W .. 8 w A a a `) b w v .= t (U� v .0 o. VI Fro p °.. cd o 0 0 0 0 a' a y c` ai en o U O ., o W 0E-,L)'-''-'000044 o c° ce b �= a - a� w ��v in F; a a) x a) p w °: b a) .0 5 y y 0 lo ° g o 0 v, ` 4 V o y "' .0 N m i n V C o y U 2 8 w -0 a U ° V 2 4.. > 73 E c c) Q+ v � E- ,°° v .9. ` 0 0 8 -a ' cv n w ° c 0) in. c� 3 r E� t G vi O ° 2° C ° O a C a b p r-a C V O Q " 15 ^ En G; 4 0 1.4 4: En cd U c A y U A> w a o 0 U O 4+ r.. -..-. ac�vwa 4 E-' >a °O E° k I U PM 5 u U 6 C _ 5 Omm s„ ►^ e- a, PP ^ O O v1 O VD M O O N 't}' N'' \O O O \O O% O 00 N v) t-- NI M t` - ON 0 Cri 0 0 v1 r-+ co) t• t- N O O N 00 it 0 CL +-' ON 00 ^ 0 y - N U U .. d 69 69 W O O v1 O co t-- V1 O t-- M tt ^ a 0 O v1 0 N v1 00 0 --1 "D "O •--- At - d y O v1 M O N N tel O n • v1 Z ` � v a , O O v1 O 0 co O O O O O -+ '' O v) O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 g 84 O V O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O PM d 6.5 04 —, i (...) ^ 0 M Z O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e4 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W a >'+ O O. en O O O v) O v1 O O O fa., M E. d Ch O O� O ---- ---� O N vi N --- O E., ^ W z t/1 a, U 5 -- 00 .-+ N ,-4 ND r 04 0 ors, O A ] 69 to pm w a U v O E� "' w v d w g PM O PO CA H In Vl H H y y y w 1 -- ■ 1 4 , O I ' = z O N N Z 0 d o dw = E 4 U��000U F T+ . a O •m z g a w d Q �+ 0 • d A4 0 au �• H U .0 0 v to H 0 i ..... 1 A 21) 0 Is Jii 2 41 g . a y '5 a -" e � 0 0 O a a > a4w E- , E- 0 PM X ." G u U ^ u u > 8 g 5 am ^ oo v1 .O of o 0 O° ON W ° o e vi .4-" O 1 ON C V r` 00 00 er N M �O ^ 69 69 •■• N O 0 O OT r` h ND ON 00 , 0 01 r` 1O M 4f .-4 N 00 l• M al M el- 40t. +�+ NO h N r` r 000 00 eNtl CT: o M O M M ^ n E-4 N -8 69 69 O i t W en o ° O O ° . N 0 0 N N Q M 0 N M ■ Ow O 00 O 6 a.0 r` N N oe - n O C.: N 0 ■-4 .. , s „ �^ N .-1 — NO Lr, W 0 D 0 69 61 O PM t II U • b es 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 o Q O as 1-1 pm cz Q\ 00 V1 M EO o. O. N M C O o G 0 A ^ ` * w E4 69 69 w Z o te a' -2 ^ ! O y+ 7 N 0 O O O O O N C W W O N N co. v� 0 in R L4 ON — 00 N ► ,.. 0 0 w 011 O .§ 1.4 4t a z A . , G b ° c 0 0 0 0 0 ' c O In a y z m° - - a o ., g a4 ti 69 69 H 'a O P. 111"1 M er O 0 0 0 Y1 00 0 ••••• a O v 1 M et N 14 O N E • ON .-• --+ O N nn - v■I •■•1 o U C4 o 69 69 a "' a 0 PM MI ^ w 'b d en 0 V U y O Li. v O S S .'' I 4 J cC V 2 3 6n en m ( o 1- PO 4 1M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n . � y o o o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 O C G 0 N \O N N N Tt 0 kO et v 00 10 0 1O 01 0 M ., ID Tr 0 n M t- M M M OA N O N V) O r- O U "CI e r I n 00 kel M V) t- O in N M Ul 0o M on V . 04 .-. 69 69 69 69 69 69 619 69 69 00 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ..... ..... et ON M 0 N 1/40 00 M 0 V) as N tn V1 0 y N VD r- ON N M --• N 00 0 is et ON r• ON v1 O v) r• '-. , 0 V, ei t` 0 00 v1 O v1 Oh Oh N �, U O r-- M t- m M M ON N o N V1 0 1O 0 C0 - M V. V1 t- 00 v1 M h N O i N M In 00 M V1 r 1^ [ W 619 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ct O co . PM Ei V') Tr t` tt N O Oh VD 00 t•-• ON 0 d .-4 t` M ,,O v 0 0 M O V1 et t-- M V) 00 fl vO — V1 ∎O N 00 00 R W > 00 00 --• O M VO . 1 . t� [t r ... N 1/4O 00 V) ON k.0 VI O N .-+ N O� N O� C. n 0 n .- 0 ON M 00 >, g:4 v �-+ ' -� N N M .-+ N M N N N '-+ y PM w a N = C V o A O p 00 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 64 69 69 6A 69 64 69 00 O ., g a o 0 e a 14 00 M v� 0 . N �o 0 v1 M M N 00 %4D 'd to W N ,-- N 00 M t■ t■ ,-4 • VO 00 O v, l■ M .23 M V v, j *, •t 0 M N t` 0 .-• N 00 0 .-+ ON r• 00 ,,,0 00 ul y In 0 O. N VD M O� h 00 M k.0 O O 00 MR W Z O 0 tt V 1 O �-• et t-- O M l� N n -, v1 �O I 1 M A '~ U • o . W W Q 69 69 69 69 619 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 �, - U PM rcc.;) V � U VI AG m 5 to 0 Q v) v) ∎o ko v:, v.) Vo ko ko o c o Vo ' Vo k.0 '. ' VD ON a 0 p „ t y ON ON ON ON ON ON 0\ ON ON 0\ ON ON ON ON ON ON ON Ch p. �" a' e� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 4' O r.) 0 y- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N + ' > V U U c b PR r 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 00 69 69 69 64 69 1B a' fi 4 Q � a � i , � o PM vJ 1 ..''.. W es A. ON NO ON t- NO O� Ct O O\ 00 t� 0 kD r• V1 0 V) �, V A d a NO ON V1 N N ■O ko 00 ON 0 v'1 t- ON 00 [t O y 'd e r.� , C y r• r• N M N N M .1" N 4 --4 --4 N M r+ N Q+ 1 I4 tij Q C4 N O O a ' O N N d JD O O N [- 4 p 0 v, v, to) td •. 0 0 v, v, E 0 0 H v, E 0 y > t ' u _ , O 4 as i , v, b O O O O b O O O O b 0 0 0 > p C ., 5 W v 'v = Q -o ao cz . GG a� o o b c x N o o 'c 0A < O = a1 cd cf ..ti . o N m W Aa b 'b a cP O 'd 0 al C7 , co 00 in + > ,, , co co + > fly t7a W + > O Q U c O N M V', Q O N M < Q O cV M et Q > ^ ^^ 2 Cl) Q r. N M '7 u _ PM r nI E I E EI n E n 1, E E SECTION 4 E E_ SECTION 4 POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES 41 GENERAL The purpose of this section is to present the data and resulting analysis used to review and update the City's existing impact fees for police protection services As with the other impact fees charged by the City, the City utilizes the revenue from the impact fees to finance a portion of the City's police department facilities required in order to provide its residents adequate police protection As agreed to by both the City and HAI, the review of the City's existing impact fees for police protection facilities presented herein utilizes the same general methodology employed in the City's previous impact fee study conducted in 1991 As such, this analysis of the police protection impact fees presented herein does not represent a significant change in methodology from the City's existing impact fees Rather, this review is pnmanly to update the impact fees based on updated capital facility and cost information as provided by the City 4 2 CAPITAL COSTS AND IMPACT FEE CREDITS •- The first step in the analysis of the City's police protection impact fees was the review of current capital costs for the Police Department's facilities Based on information provided by the City, Schedule 4 -1 shows a detailed listing of all capital assets and equipment for the Department Consistent with the previous study in 1991, the costs shown in general represent the estimated replacement costs for the assets listed A summary of the costs for the Department's existing assets and a comparison of the total cost to that utilized in the 1991 study is shown below in Table 4 -1 PIO ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt HAI 496 -465 00 4 -1 081298 P M OM Table 4 -1 Comparison of Capital Asset Costs for Police Protection 1991 vs. 1997 Existing Police Protection Assets Asset Cost PER Building $ 1,000,000 Vehicles 315,000 .• Communications Equipment 95,028 Officer Uniform and Equipment 22,705 Other Equipment 148,795 Total Police Capital Asset Costs - 1997 $ 1,581,528 Total Police Capital Asset Costs - 1991 $ 285,545 Difference $ 1,295,983 W O As shown above, the City has added significant capital facilities to the Police Department since .• the last impact fee study in 1991 Most of this increase is attributable to the construction of a separate building for the Department at a cost of approximately $1,000,000 The remaining increase is due to such factors as the effect of inflation in general, additional police officers and OIM keeping up with modern police detection methods and equipment In addition to determining the total capital costs for the City's police department facilities, an analysis of the funding sources used by the City to acquire those assets was also conducted Based on information provided by the City, it was determined that the City funded $632,719 of the total $1,000,000 building cost from a combination of monies from the Infrastructure Surtax .. Fund and the proceeds from the City's 1989 Sales Tax Bond The remaining $367,281 was funded from the City's water and sewer reserves It should be noted that although the City _ utilized $61,629 from the Infrastructure Surtax Fund to help pay for the building, the credit reflected in this analysis is only 50 percent of that amount As discussed in Section 3, this 50 percent factor was used in order to recognize that the Infrastructure Surtax revenues may not be available after fiscal year 2002 This factor also reflects a desire on the part of the City to avoid a single large increase in the impact fees in fiscal year 2002 should the state legislature not extend this revenue source As a result, this analysis assumed that a "credit" for a total of $601,905 should be given to the cost of the building in the determination of the police protection impact . , fees since future development will pay for this source of money through future taxes No credit ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -2 081298 J` is given for the amounts funded through the water and sewer reserves since this is assumed to be non- recumng in nature and should be funded through the impact fees in the future This negative adjustment to the cost of the building is shown on Schedule 4 -1 Thus, based on a total asset cost in 1997 of $1,581,528 and a credit for other revenue sources of $601,905, the total net capital asset cost to be recovered through the City's police protection fees is estimated to be •- approximately $979,623 4 3 DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE STANDARDS 0 In order to determine the proportionate share of capital costs to be recovered from future growth, the demand for police protection services and LOS standards were reviewed Consistent with the City's previous impact fee study, the demand for service is measured by annual calls for service (CFS) generated by each unit of development or land use By examining the distnbution of CFS by land use category, the proportionate demand for police protection services can be estimated In addition, the LOS must also be examined in order to estimate the real impact of the demand by each land use on the City In this case, the LOS refers to the quality and acceptability of the actual police protection services provided Once again, in order to be consistent with the City's existing methodology, the LOS was based on a demand -based standard, specifically, the number of calls for service per officer To estimate the demand for service in the previous impact fee study, the City performed an Pr` exhaustive survey of the calls for service responded to by the Police Department This included -- an in -depth examination of a random sample of calls during a six month period prior to the study This survey allowed the City and the consultants to breakdown in detail the various land uses generating the calls for service In addition, this analysis also included an analysis of the type of call to which the City responded, 1 e , traffic - related versus other types of calls for services The analysis of this survey and its results provided the basis for estimating the annual police protection calls for service per land use unit In order to update this analysis, the City provided a breakdown of the total calls to which the police responded in 1996 A summary of this data is shown below in Table 4 -2 ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -3 081298 P Table 4 -2 ImA Breakdown by Land Use of Police Calls for Service in 1996 Land Use Number of CFS Residential 3,056 Commercial 2,612 linft Industrial 124 Institutional 773 r- Miscellaneous 200 Subtotal 6,765 Traffic Related 1,616 Total Police CFS 8,381 As can be seen, the majonty of calls are allocable to residential and commercial land uses To determine the current CFS per unit demand criteria for this study, the total number of units for each category was estimated by adjusting the units reflected in the 1991 study by the population "" growth since that time The next step was the disaggregation of the calls for service into the particular land use categories This included the allocation of the traffic - related calls to the other categones, which is consistent with the methodology of the 1991 study Finally, the total number of calls for service are divided by the total estimated units of measure (dwelling units for PM residential, square footage for non - residential) for each land use This analysis is shown in detail in Schedule 4 -2 with the results summanzed below in Table 4 -3 AIM PIM P" ATW /tm/reports /r- 1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -4 081298 Vis Table 4 -3 Estimated Annual Police Protection CFS Per Land Use Unit Ism Land Use Category Unit of Measurement Calls For Service Per Unit '% Residential: Single Family Dwelling Unit 1 3487 Multi - Family Dwelling Umt 0 5355 Non - Residential: General Retail 1,000 Square Feet 3 5809 Service Stations 1,000 Square Feet 9 5578 ,. Eating and Dnnlang 1,000 Square Feet 13 3045 Offices 1,000 Square Feet 1 9305 .• Financial/Insurance 1,000 Square Feet 4 2549 Hotel/Motel 1,000 Square Feet 2 1232 Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 Square Feet 3 6412 Industrial 1,000 Square Feet 0 6307 Warehousing 1,000 Square Feet 0 0869 As mentioned above, the LOS standard to be used in this analysis was based on the estimated annual number of calls for service per police officer This represents the current ability of the Department to provide police protection services to its citizens According to the City, the Police Department responded to approximately 8,380 calls for service in the 12 months prior to the start of this study Based on the fact that the City currently employs 19 police officers, this leads to a LOS standard of 441 05 calls for service per officer 4 4 DETERMINATION OF POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES As discussed with and agreed to by the City, the review of the City's police protection impact fees presented herein is essentially an update to the City's previous impact fee study and as such does not, in general, propose any truly significant changes in the methodology used to develop P" the impact fees Therefore, Just as in the previous study, this Report provides a determination of the City's police protection impact fees based on two different methods Specifically, the impact fees were calculated using the CFS per officer method and the capacity cost method Since both ATW /tm/reports /r- 1 /sec4 rpt r• HAI #96 -465 00 4 -5 081298 r^ methods are based on similar underlying assumptions, the resulting impact fees determined by 0. both should be the same as well "., 4 4 1 The Calls for Service Per Officer Method A-. The first method is based on the premise of examining the demand for service and level of service standards developed previously in order to determine the incremental number of additional officers required by the various types of land use and then determining the capital cost required per officer, thereby resulting in the total proportionate share of incremental capital requirements allocable to each category of land use This analysis is presented in Schedule 4 -3 As shown on Schedule 4 -3, the demand for service for the various land use categories, measured in CFS per umt, is divided by the current LOS, stated in CFS per officer, in order to arrive at the incremental number of additional officers required by each land use category These calculations are summarized below in Table 4 -4 p . Table 4 -4 Determination of Incremental Additional Police Officers Required Land Use Unit of Calls For Current LOS Additional Category Measurement Service Per Unit (CFS /Officer) Officers "" Residential: Single Family D U 1 3487 441 05 0 003058 Multi- Family D U 0 5355 441 05 0 001214 Non - Residential: r~ General Retail 1,000 S F 3 5809 441 05 0 008119 Service Stations 1,000 S F 9 5578 441 05 0 021670 Eating and Drinking 1,000 S F 13 3045 441 05 0 030165 Offices 1,000 S F 1 9305 441 05 0 004377 Financial/Insurance 1,000 S F 4 2549 441 05 0 009647 r. Hotel/Motel 1,000 S F 2 1232 441 05 0 004814 Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F 3 6412 441 05 0 008256 "" Industrial 1,000 S F 0 6307 441 05 0 001430 Warehousing 1 000 S F 0 0869 441 05 0 000197 •-, .. ATW /tm/reports /r- 1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -6 081298 The last step in this method is to multiply the incremental additional officers required by the capital requirements per officer, resulting in the police protection impact fee for the various land use categories As previously developed, the total capital costs to be recovered through the police protection impact fees was determined to be approximately $979,623 Based on the current 19 officers employed by the City, this equates to a total of $51,559 per officer Multiplying this capital cost by the additional officers required results in the recommended impact fees shown on Schedule 4 -3 and summarized below in Table 4 -5 Table 4 -5 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category Utilizing the Calls For Service (CFS) Per Officer Method Additional Capital Cost Impact Fees Land Use Category Officers Required Per Officer (Rounded) Residential: Single Family 0 003058 $51,559 $158 00 Multi - Family 0 001214 $51,559 $63 00 Non - Residential: General Retail 0 008119 $51,559 $419 00 Service Stations 0 021670 $51,559 $1,117 00 Eating and Drinking 0 030165 $51,559 $1,555 00 Offices 0 004377 $51,559 $226 00 Financial/Insurance 0 009647 $51,559 $497 00 0. Hotel/Motel 0 004814 $51,559 $248 00 Motor Vehicle Sales 0 008256 $51,559 $426 00 Industrial 0 001430 $51,559 $74 00 Warehousing 0 000197 $51,559 $10 00 Thus, as shown above, future single family residential development would pay an impact fee of $158 while multi - family would pay $63 and general retail would pay $419 4 4 2 The Capacity Cost Method The second method examined is based on many of the same underlying principals and ., assumptions as the CFS per officer method and as such should result in the same impact fee ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt .." HAI #96 -465 00 4 -7 081298 schedule The capacity cost method views the impact fee from the capital cost of the capacity required to respond to the demand for police protection at the current LOS In other words, the capacity cost method examines the capital cost per call for service responded to by the City .. Based on the total capital cost of $979,623 and the total number of calls responded to by the City .. in a recent 12 month period of 8,380, the capital cost per CFS is $116 90 Multiplying this by the number of calls for service per unit of development previously determined results in the recommended police protection impact fees for the various land use categories This analysis is shown in Schedule 4 -4 and summarized below in Table 4 -6 Table 4 -6 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category .. Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method Land Use Unit of Calls for Service Capital Cost Impact Fees Category Measurement Per Unit Per CFS (Rounded) Residential: Single Family D U 1 3487 $116 90 $158 00 Multi - Family D U 0 5355 $116 90 $63 00 r. Non - Residential: General Retail 1,000 S F 3 5809 $116 90 $419 00 p. Service Stations 1,000 S F 9 5578 $116 90 $1,117 00 Eating and Drinking 1,000 S F 13 3045 $116 90 $1,555 00 0. Offices 1,000 S F 1 9305 $116 90 $226 00 Financial/Insurance 1,000 S F 4 2549 $116 90 $497 00 .. Hotel/Motel 1,000 S F 2 1232 $116 90 $248 00 Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F 3 6412 $116 90 $426 00 ,. Industrial 1,000 S F 0 6307 $116 90 $74 00 Warehousing 1,000 S F 0 0869 $116 90 $10 00 .. As can be seen, the capacity cost method does indeed result in the same recommended police protection impact fee schedule developed under the CFS per officer method ., ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -8 081298 When reviewing the recommended impact fees and comparing them to the City's existing fees, it OM is important to note that the 1991 study made one final adjustment to arrive at the recommended fees That is, based on discussions with the City at that time, an additional credit of 15% was provided for in the recommended impact fees However, based on the Code Ordinance adopted shortly after the impact fee study, it appears the City Council adopted fees which provided for a .. credit of only about 5% versus the 15% recommended in the Study No such adjustment has been made at this time to the recommended police protection impact fees 4 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTITUTIONAL CLASS IMPACT FEES OW Based on discussions with the City, the City has had a number of entities apply for building permits which do not fall into one of the existing land use categories since the last impact fee study in 1991 This has caused the City a number of problems in determimng exactly how much these entities should pay in impact fees Therefore, it is recommended that the City implement a ., new category which would be called institutional and would include, for example, entities such as schools, churches, homes for the aged (nursing homes) and hospitals Based on the City's existing impact fee methodology as well as how other governmental entities assess institutional customers, it is recommended that the City charge police protection impact fees based on the square footage of the new development In order to determine an estimate of the existing square footage for this new classification, the City provided HAI with data regarding the number of square feet per floor for the various existing entities Based on the assumptions that the churches were all only one -story and discussions with the various schools, nursing homes and hospitals regarding the number of floors in their establishments, an estimate of the total square footage for this class was developed One final adjustment was made in order to recognize that for six of the churches, the City was only able to provide HAI with total impervious area, which included not only building space, but parking area as well For this analysis, it was assumed that 50% of the area for these entities were associated with parking and PM should be eliminated from the total "building" space for this class Schedule 4 -5 presents this analysis in detail As can be seen, based on the above assumptions, it is estimated that the OM institutional classification currently has a total building space of approximately 780,000 square feet The determination of the police protection impact fees for the institutional category utilizing both of the previously discussed methods are shown in Schedule 4 -6 and discussed below AT W /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt Pm HAI #96 -465 00 4 -9 081298 4 5 1 The Calls for Service Per Officer Method The determination of the police impact fee for the institutional class using the CFS per officer .." method is shown in Schedule 4 -6 Based on the analysis discussed above and shown in Schedule 4 -5, the estimated units (measured in 1,000 square feet) in 1997 for the institutional class is P. approximately 780 Using the breakdown of police calls in 1996 for this class leads to the demand for service as measured in CFS per unit of approximately 0 5090 This is then ,� multiplied by the standard LOS of 441 05 CFS per officer to determine the estimated number of additional officers required for each institutional unit of development Finally, the capital cost per officer, $51,559, is used to determine the total estimated impact fee per unit of development for the institutional class Based on this analysis, a police protection ONO impact fee of $60 00 per unit (rounded) is recommended for the institutional class Table 4 -7 presents the summary of this analysis Table 4 -7 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class Utilizing the CFS Per Officer Method Estimated CFS Per Unit 0 5090 Current LOS - CFS Per Officer 441 05 Additional Officers Required 0 0012 .. Capital Cost Per Officer $51,559 Impact Fee (Rounded) $60 00 Thus, based on the above, institutional development such as churches, schools, homes for the aged (nursing homes) and hospitals would pay a police impact fee of $60 00 per 1,000 square PM feet p. ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -10 081298 4 5 2 The Capacity Cost Method N M As discussed throughout this section, the second method used to determine the police protection ON" impact fee is the capacity cost method and should result in the same impact fee recommended in the CFS per officer method This analysis is also shown on Schedule 4 -6 for the institutional PIM category and is summarized below in Table 4 -8 .. Table 4 -8 Determination of Police Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method Estimated CFS Per Unit 0 5090 Capacity Cost Per CFS $116 90 - I Impact Fee (Rounded) $60 00 , M As anticipated, the recommended impact fee using this method is the same as the CFS per officer method 4 6 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING IMPACT FEES Table 4 -9 presents a comparison of the existing versus the recommended police protection impact fees for the various land uses O M .. OM N MI ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt PM HAI #96 -465 00 4 -11 081298 .. .. Table 4 -9 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Police Protection Impact Fees .. Recommended Land Use Unit of Existing Impact Fee Category Measurement Impact Fees (Rounded) Difference Percent .. Residential: Single Family D U $37 00 $158 00 $121 00 327% Multi - Family D U $27 00 $63 00 $36 00 133% .. Non - Residential: General Retail 1,000 S F $119 00 $419 00 $300 00 252% Service Stations 1,000 S F $297 00 $1,117 00 $820 00 276% Eating and Drinking 1,000 S F $406 00 $1,555 00 $1,149 00 283% Office 1,000 S F $114 00 $226 00 $112 00 98% Financial/Insurance 1,000 S F $168 00 $497 00 $329 00 196% _ Hotel/Motel 1,000 S F $33 00 $248 00 $215 00 652% Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F $68 00 $426 00 $358 00 526% Industrial 1,000 S F $10 00 $74 00 $64 00 640% Warehousing 1,000 S F $25 00 $10 00 ($15 00) (60 %) Institutional 1,000 S F N/A $60 00 N/A N/A Thus, although most land uses will receive an increase, the amount of increase varies widely In fact, warehousing will actually receive a decrease in the police protection impact fees This is a result of the increased capital investment required since the last rate study and shifts in the .• demand placed upon the Police Department by the various land uses .. .. ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec4 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 4 -12 081298 Pm SCHEDULE 4 -1 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA EXISTING POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS Est 1997 Adjusted Asset Category Asset Cost Credits Asset Cost Building $ 1,000,000 (601,905) $ 398,095 Portable Radios 9,828 9,828 Service Weapons 9,405 9,405 .• Patrol/CID/Admin Vehicles 315,000 315,000 OFC Uniform & Equipment 22,705 22,705 Shotguns & Racks 2,700 2,700 Rifle 500 500 Ammunition 700 700 Copier 10,000 10,000 Fax 300 300 Computer Software 35,000 35,000 Funuture 19,000 19,000 Mobile Radios 7,500 7,500 Video Cameras 17,055 17,055 Telephones 2,700 2,700 Night Vision 6,000 6,000 _ Body Wire 5,000 5,000 Surveillance Video 3,300 3,300 Television 300 300 VCR 200 200 Intoxilizer 8,500 8,500 Still Photo Equipment 2,500 2,500 p. Crime Scene Equipment 1,000 1,000 Communication Console 75,000 75,000 Refndgerators 1,600 1,600 Typewnters 1,100 1,100 Lockers (Guns) 450 450 Radars 12,000 12,000 Fingerpnnt Stands 510 510 Fire Extinguisher 365 365 Pm Metal Detectors 310 310 File Cabinets (Lateral) 10,000 10,000 2 Drawer File Cabinets 1,000 1,000 Total Police Capital Assets $ 1,581,528 $ (601,905) $ 979,623 I iiinance\rcc \Clernnt5 xis 6/11/98 8 I _ � la ^ e. u 4 v-, v r T N -Sr b O CO W = 0. O en O, cn — N cn O O C ^ C 0 4' S C a E ; ^ O rY § O's 00 N les. v1 C1 h d .7 M a F q r. U ^ 0 i Ca C t 4. 1 rA ^ a in en N OA eel M en en O� N h N N -+ xi a r o F CO a .a 5 0 9 0 RR 0 0 0 e a, ^ F � F 73 N v . e+1 O V V O N z a w ral El 0 ° .5 1. �+ r ^ < 8 w S U 1 9 v a u N a G a W I& N O sO e%1 v 4 00 co - ? e�i $ E ^ w w U 6 e CV v Os r 4 oc v v N v I'" • cg W O a. U w a �0 w � $ - 1 >' & o o o e g g g e e g I a [ '_' 0 U v, v, v, v, v, v, v, v, v, v, v, 9 x 8. 7 O� h V1 tel V'1 Vl V1 Vl h V1 N h CL rat G r. a te . V O p+ ^ ZO u H Z e g • - o Z C EL m ^ O v '7 1 • a co H co � co � c. N ONO V e O en 3 H e N Q • N of 00 e R�'e N R 5 O�j. p 0 s:r A O .d L' O z Z 7 g c v V I w ., 00 C > > > > > > C > �s 5 c. C 7 � C C p C p C p C G' p C C' C c C m 2 > cs. A A O O 0 0 0 0 o O $ O O O y a a u S O . .. _ -. _ ._ _. c.)...,,‘02 ^ u q O p e ' C O i 5 I 2 e e ^ C l e b % C a C 1 a a e 2 e = m 4' r c y o E > _ « e y m e 9 r^ 0 V w °° d 1:4 en ,j ° > > > `-3 p o O 0 0 0 _ w m n u E c 8 a ° a g 2 N a a � x Z C�J en . 0 w ] C x .�°. 3 PM s s 0 0 0 0 0 o s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f4 1 v ,O - - W N a a N r 0 .--4 69 •-+ 4/1 N N 69 69 ttS �S 69 69 4 69 69 69 O 69 69 g 0 0 t e n M '0 eenn 0 '0 n en VD pm w W 00 t--- W N 00 Sr m 0 V .• m et ••• W, N et N er 69 69 0 69 69 _ ,--, 69 69 69 69 69 69 8 g CI 0, O` 0, 0, 0' T 0\ T 0, 0, U E Wi In In In In W, cri v, In In O VI V• If v; ca.) h gel Il If W1 WI m a W1 W1 6 W1 61 WI , r) If W1 W1 (el 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 ^. U VI W E — U A O co v o. 0 W, e-- v VD 0 ,ply 0 N .. '0 -o r- 0 en r ) 01 g en Q e z 8 s s 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 .. O a d' 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 U E p O D prW v] A V „, O E. h W1 ut 1r, h h W h h vt in W W 041 y O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w,M U w O O E• U Pon O Z 0 e EN a Pm 1 t 00 V1 0 00 . � W1 Os N N 0 ON un et en L1. en W1 h 00 in WY M 04, Na .N-. � M 00 en cet W co 0 (-I 00 GL, r• 0 M O. , . •-• et N M 0 0 w A U Pm r '8 w w w w w w 2 � m m I a. 1 P t t I t 1 y A 33 000 00 VI 00 Cl) n v 00 00 ■. O A A o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 9 y o es Ts co Wu y U G7 G o cn I. .7 TA z p 12 0 w x o s 3 r• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Co ma v La 1 in VD — --• VI N ON N N 0 a --- 69 NI Vl N Cl Tr 69 64 69 69 ^, .-� 69 69 69 69 - 0 69 69 - O O E oft i.o O '0 M M 'O M N N0 C .--I PM y t N 00 N V1 V7 b 00 V1 M 0 w - 69 d' 1■1 h N '4- N v- 69 64 C.) 69 69 ; r y 69 69 69 69 cd 69 69 a rA W H V d .1... 0 Pm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON d . U NO NO NO NO %0 NO NO NO NO NO NO i Z os 10 a. P, 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 PM O V G U w V wz a �0 av in W 1• a 44 N in ON 00 V1 ON N N N ON Po W a 4 00 in 0 t- C O '4t c9 r-. O 'O V I� O V a) Mf M 00 WI M V7 N V' c 00 (> p., C•1 in in in in czi N ‘0 � O 0 in w w — 0 cfl rn ,..1 v N cn 0 0 0 O F 0 We Z CD o4 '" V d o w w w w w w w w w Pm g o E 0 a) a) a) 0 a) a) a) 0 a cr vr v c• ar c' vr a g:4 3 3 0 ° o ° o ° o ° o 0 0 0 0 0 ° o .• A o O o o O O o 0 0 - - - - - - - - - PM 0 v aa) i X U co) - w C4 sim c w. w cd aD 0 > ' O ; 0 .3 = a) L :Si U 000 V C \ O y o �+ O ,.. PM . C i y + C O 0 -o cd a � , to w 0 w x c r 0 0 O u C R p� wo O OCR Q 62 A w N g •--� O: N 2 0 cb N M 00 b 4 2 'i N r- n n o0 � un N b M O .. ��}} u- n o O of ay M _ N n O R 00 ..• e- -. n m O O e h h O P ') h a .-. vl VD 7 K ) N OA N n N 7 v1 v1 of VD M O C .�.. - M M 00 7 N .. .. .-. C N n ■ z cn ono a. W ,3 w ee ee e e � eee 0 g ee eeeeeeee gi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �° �° 0 0 0 �° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wm a� 000 00 o g g , 0 , ° „ 0 , ° � 88g , °og °o8888 s R W e5 pm v em 000 0 8 ��pp pp -y CO OO N CO 0 00 h O O M O °. °° ••.0 O to- O. O N O O �O O mom o W N O n t= �O "' S en N '� n ° v O H O n n � Y b CC 1 v�1 h a N M h CT . N . <f �O N h � N ,'� N V �O M Ch O\ O M ^ ^ z 01 Ch Q t o K. 2 E 4. a 0 cn `'2 0 $ .- -- -- M N M s /. A z g M4 m z x U Ls. 1 . :g 00 ° Q o O z w $ v vo � 00 ' t- e°n .n °$ o�N."� + o ° oo ^ ° • ° ° $N� ° .o n� o ° o � v ° � � l � o S C wo W Q � E N ,O ... M 1 t 4 D ^ of O M N wl r- �. < 00 ... n ... t. N > R � O O •Ci co oo pm •r. 04 FA .a ( 0 a h h 0 N M N • of "' O ^ N . er VD N y� et VD N 00 et ,'y vl vl vO rn Oh Ch Q M M vl 00 •0 7 Cd 7 ^ O A O y Z 9 Y. t ° F w E rim U o a y C w ae 0 e a 4t ea z a, w a. a. al. a a 17 Film z Q 010100 a 17 Film as aaalgg aaazazt az s Ts c e , co W c W a7 v z w out A aq E o ° 7 0 2 N psi 8 0 p 7 a 7 t L O N 0 « $ O 7 7 N W 0 7 p .0 W .7 . O . on Fi n 0 $ • E § . d s U s c �, s L' a E u v $ _ E S s . S W ° E U 2 E c. s 0 k• 2 u a U 5 44 z H u m ° e 7 e w � � $ 'i U g m 7 7 Q @ W -8 U c ga. s O d W a.� J5 UZ Y ys C m O R 3 F o , 000 .7 ,,,,� V A v, N O .gU L. o N i x DO 0 5 g v 0 A d o m h r o 0 0 .c 7 0 U ° 2 g ° - a UUU cn x1OVn vD W A - . vn FinvnU w aOw 000vo UZ U.-1 V) w3 . � Vn y ' 4 C 0 Wm 0 ed $ S L ° ° .0 Z x d . o • 5 pm r SCHEDULE 4 -6 r CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA r DETERMINATION OF POLICE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS r Institutional Class L UTILIZING THE CFS PER OFFICER METHOD r Unit of Measurement 1,000 Sq Ft Estimated Units in 1997 780 r I Estimated Total Pohce Calls for Service - 1996 397 Police Calls for Service (CFS) Per Unit 0 508974 r , Current LOS - CFS Per Officer 441 05 Additional Officers Required 0 001154 Capital Costs per Officer $51,559 Impact Fee $59 50 r Impact Fee (Rounded) $60 00 r IL UTILIZING THE CAPACITY COST METHOD r+ Unit of Measurement 1,000 Sq Ft '' Pohce Calls for Service (CFS) Per Unit 0 508974 Capacity Cost Per CFS $116 90 r Impact Fee $59 50 Impact Fee (Rounded) $60 00 7 7 E 7 l 1 Uinance\rcc \Clermnt5 xis 11/21/97 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 r 7 r r 7 7 7 E 7 SECTION 5 7 7 rr Pm SECTION 5 FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES 51 GENERAL Pm This section presents the review and update of the City's existing impact fees for fire protection r• services As with the other impact fees in this Report, the review of the City's existing impact fees for fire protection facilities presented herein utilizes the same general methodology employed in the City's previous impact fee study conducted in 1991 As such, this analysis of the fire protection impact fees presented herein does not represent a significant change in methodology from the City's existing impact fees Rather, this review is pnmanly to update the impact fees based on current capital facility and cost information as provided by the City .• 5 2 CAPITAL COSTS r. The first step in the analysis of the City's fire protection impact fees was the review of current and proposed capital costs for the Fire Department's facilities Based on information provided by the City, a detailed listing of all capital assets and equipment for the Department was prepared f as presented in Schedule 5 -1 Consistent with the previous study in 1991, the costs shown in general represent the estimated replacement costs for the assets listed The Department's current r and proposed assets are compared to the total cost utilized in the 1991 study in Table 5 -1 r r" r 7 r r• ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /secs rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -1 090198 Table 5 -1 Comparison of Capital Asset Costs for Fire Protection 1991 vs. 1997 Fire Protection Assets Asset Cost Current Assets - 1997 Building $ 420,000 Vehicles 918,000 Equipment 252,656 Total Fire Capital Asset Costs - 1997 $ 1,590,656 Proposed Assets Fire Station — Headquarters $ 600,000 Financing Cost 384,500 Fire Station — King's Ridge 300,000 ., Furnishings 45,000 Mini — Pumper 128,000 Financing Cost 29,000 Ladder 500,000 Financing Cost 120,000 Total Proposed Fire Capital Asset & Costs $ 2,106,500 Total Fire Capital Asset & Costs $ 3,697,156 Assets Reflected in 1991 Study Building $ 140,000 Vehicles 405,000 ,. Equipment 120,700 Total Fire Capital Asset Costs $ 665,700 Difference $ 2,775,200 As shown above, the City has added, and plans to add, significant capital facilities to the Fire Department since the last impact fee study in 1991 Much of this increase is attributable to the proposed capital expenditures The remaining increase is due to such factors as the effect of inflation in general and keeping up with modern fire protection methods and equipment ATW/tm/ska/reports/r- 1 /secs rpt a. HAI #96 -465 00 5 -2 090198 0. Based on discussions with the City, outside funding sources will be used to finance a portion of proposed fire protection assets Those financing costs are provided for in the analysis presented herein 5 3 DEMAND FOR SERVICES AND LEVEL -OF- SERVICE STANDARDS IIM As with the police protection impact fee analysis presented in Section 4, the demand for fire protection services and level -of- service (LOS) standards were reviewed and updated for this PM analysis Consistent with the City's previous impact fee study, the demand for service is measured by annual calls for service (CFS) generated by each unit of development or land use By examimng the distnbution of CFS by land use category, the proportionate demand for fire protection services can be estimated In addition, the level of service (LOS) must also be examined in order to estimate the real impact of the demand by each land use on the City Consistent with the City's existing methodology, the LOS standard for fire protection is ., expressed in terms of average response times to vanous calls for fire protection services An overall average response time of 5 0 minutes was assumed based on the City's previous impact OM fee study and discussions with the City To estimate the demand characteristics for each land use category, the analysis provided in the Om previous impact fee study was reviewed At that time, a detailed survey of the calls for service responded to by the Fire Department for the six year period from 1984 to 1989 was conducted 0. Similar to the survey conducted for the police protection impact fee analysis, this survey allowed the City and the consultants to break down in detail the various land uses generating the calls for service In addition, this analysis also included an analysis of the type of call to which the City responded, 1 e , actual fire incidents, rescue calls, false calls, traffic- related calls, etc The 0 . analysis of this survey and its results provided the basis for estimating the annual fire protection calls for service per land use unit .0 In order to update this analysis, the City provided a breakdown of the total calls to which the Fire Department responded for the years 1991 through 1996 A summary of this data is shown below 0. in Table 5 -2 ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /sec5 rpt PM HAI #96 -465 00 5 -3 090198 IMO Table 5 -2 Breakdown of Fire Protection Calls For Service 1991 through 1996 Total 0=1 Classification Calls for Service Fire Incidents 225 Rescue Calls 38 Hazardous Conditions 164 Service Calls 83 Good Intent 75 False Alarms 217 Subtotal 802 Traffic Related 309 Total Calls for Service 1,111 As can be seen, fire incidents account for approximately 20% of the total fire calls for service while traffic- related calls represent about 28% of the total calls It should also be noted that of the 309 traffic- related calls during the six -year penod, 43 of these were associated with fire •• incidents such as vehicular fires or grass/brush fires Consistent with the City's previous impact fee study, the calls for service resulting from actual fire incidents were examined in detail in order to provide a basis for estimating the relative demand (and therefore capital cost) allocable to the various land uses As shown in Table 5 -2, fire incidents directly attnbutable to these land uses for the six -year period 1991 through 1996 was 225, an average of 37 5 calls per year In addition to those fire incidents directly allocable to a particular land use, about 43 of the traffic calls for service were related to vehicular fires or other fire incidents In order to determine the total average annual fire incidents for each land use, these traffic - related fire incidents were allocated to the vanous land uses based on the same proportionate allocation reflected in the 1991 study However, consistent with the 1991 study, these traffic- related fire calls were reduced by 35% in order to recognize that a portion of these calls were allocable to non - local, or pass - through traffic which is not associated with the City's land uses This breakdown of fire incidents is shown in Schedule 5 -2 and is utilized to determine the estimated fire calls for service per unit To estimate the number of units per land use, the ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /secs rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -4 090198 percentage growth in population was applied to all units existing in 1991 Thus, this analysis assumes that the various land uses have grown proportionally since 1991 Table 5 -3 presents the resulting estimated calls for service per unit for the various existing land uses These factors •., represent the relative demand for fire protection service of these land uses Table 5 -3 Estimated Annual Fire Protection CFS Per Land Use Unit Estimated Fire Calls Land Use Category Umt of Measurement For Service Per Unit Residential: Single Family Dwelling Umt 0 008352 "" Multi- Family Dwelling Unit 0 008898 Non - Residential: ^ " General Retail 1,000 Square Feet 0 011196 Service Stations 1,000 Square Feet 0 063155 O- Eating and Dnnking 1,000 Square Feet 0 069778 Offices/Financial/Banking 1,000 Square Feet 0 009168 Hotel/Motel 1,000 Square Feet 0 013899 Pm Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 Square Feet 0 012106 Industrial, Manufacturing PM and Warehousing 1,000 Square Feet 0 012949 5 4 DETERMINATION OF FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES . , As discussed previously, the review of the City's impact fees presented herein is essentially an update to the City's previous impact fee study and as such does not, in general, propose any truly ,., significant changes in the methodology used to develop the impact fees Therefore, Just as in the previous study, this Report provides a determination of the City's fire protection impact fees based on two different methods Specifically, the impact fees were calculated using the capacity cost method and the CFS per vehicle method Both methods are very similar to those presented in Section 4 for the review of the police protection impact fees O M ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /sec5 rpt PM HAI #96 -465 00 5 -5 090198 5 4 1 The Capacity Cost Method The capacity cost method views the impact fee from the capital cost of the capacity required to respond to the demand for fire protection at the current LOS In other words, the capacity cost method examines the capital cost per call for service responded to by the City Based on the total capital cost of $3,697,156 and the total number of calls responded to annually of approximately 185 17, the capital cost per CFS is estimated to be $19,666 Multiplying this by the number of calls for service per unit of development previously determined results in the recommended fire protection impact fees for the various land use categories This analysis is shown in Schedule 5 -3 and summarized below in Table 5 -4 Table 5 -4 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category 0. Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method Land Use Unit of Estimated Fire Calls Capital Cost Impact Fees Category Measurement For Service Per Unit Per CFS (Rounded) Residential: Single Family D U 0 008352 $19,666 $167 00 Multi - Family D U 0 008898 19,666 $178 00 Non - Residential General Retail 1,000 S F 0 011196 $19,666 $224 00 Service Stations 1,000 S F 0 063155 $19,666 $1,261 00 Eating and Drinking 1,000 S F 0 069778 $19,666 $1,393 00 Office, Financial, and Insurance 1,000 S F 0 009168 $19,666 $183 00 .. Hotel/Motel 1,000 S F 0 013899 $19,666 $278 00 Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F 0 012106 $19,666 $242 00 Industnal, Manufact and Warehousing 1,000 S F 0 012949 $19,666 $259 00 Thus, as shown above, the fire protection impact fee for single family and multi- family residential units using the capacity method would be $167 and $178, respectively The fire impact fee for a general retail establishment would be $224 ,. ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /sec5 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -6 090198 5 4 2 The Calls for Service Per Vehicle Method The second method is based on the premise of examining the demand for service and level of service standards developed previously in order to determine the incremental number of additional vehicles required by the various types of land use This information is then used to develop the capital cost required per vehicle for one unit of development which is in turn added to the other capital costs per unit, thereby resulting in the total proportionate share of incremental ,., capital requirements allocable to each category of land use This analysis is presented in Schedules 5 -4 and 5 -5 As shown on Schedule 5 -4, the demand for service for the various land use categories, measured in CFS per umt, is divided by the current LOS, stated in CFS per vehicle, in order to arrive at the incremental number of additional vehicles required by each land use category The CFS per vehicle is based on a total annual average of 185 17 CFS divided by eight fire protection vehicles (including the Fire Chief's car), or 23 15 CFS per vehicle This results in the incremental additional vehicles required by each new unit of development Based on an estimated capital replacement cost of these eight vehicles of $1,695,000, the average capital cost per vehicle is approximately $211,875 Schedule 5 -4 then multiplies the average cost per vehicle by the additional vehicles required per unit in order to arrive at the estimated vehicle capital costs per unit of development As can be seen, for example, this analysis results in a vehicle capital cost per unit of development of $76 44 per single family residential umt and $81 44 for multi - family units Pl■ The next step in this method is to add the capital cost contribution per unit associated with vehicles to the contributions from the other remaining fire protection facilities, namely buildings •• and equipment costs The sum of these three components will represent the total capital costs for facilities required by the City in order to provide fire protection services to each new unit of development This analysis is shown on Schedule 5 -5 and is summarized below in Table 5 -5 ^ ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /sec5 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -7 090198 Table 5 -5 Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fees by Land Use Category Utilizing the Calls For Service (CFS) Per Vehicle Method Land Use Unit of Vehicle Costs Other Costs Impact Fee Category Measurement Per Unit Per Unit (Rounded) Residential: Single Family D U $76 44 $90 30 $167 00 Multi - Family D U $81 44 $96 21 $178 00 Non - Residential: General Retail 1,000 S F $102 47 $121 05 $224 00 Service Stations 1,000 S F $578 01 $682 83 $1,261 00 Eating and Drinking 1,000 S F $638 63 $754 44 $1,393 00 Office, Financial, and Insurance 1,000 S F $83 90 $99 12 $183 00 Hotel/Motel 1,000 S F $127 20 $150 27 $278 00 Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F $110 80 $130 89 $242 00 Industrial, Manufact and Warehousing 1,000 S F $118 51 $140 01 $259 00 As can be seen, the CFS per vehicle method does indeed result in the same recommended fire protection impact fee schedule as developed under the capacity cost method When reviewing the recommended impact fees and comparing them to the City's existing fees, it is important to note that the 1991 study made one final adjustment to arrive at the recommended fees That is, based on discussions with the City at that time, an additional credit of 15% was provided for in the recommended impact fees However, based on the Code Ordinance adopted shortly after the impact fee study, it appears the City Council adopted fees which provided for a credit of only about 5% versus the 15% recommended in the Study No such adjustment has been made at this time to the recommended police protection impact fees 5 5 IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTITUTIONAL CLASS IMPACT FEES Based on discussions with the City, the City has had a number of entities apply for building permits which do not fall into one of the existing land use categories since the last impact fee ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /sec5 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -8 090198 study in 1991 This has caused the City a number of problems in determining exactly how much these entities should pay in impact fees Section 4 provided a detailed discussion regarding the establishment of a new institutional category which would help alleviate these problems for the O m City Therefore, it is also recommended that the City implement a new institutional category for fire protection as well which would include, for example, entities such as schools, churches, homes for the aged (nursing homes) and hospitals The determination of the fire protection impact fees for the institutional category utilizing both of the previously discussed methods are PER shown in Schedule 5 -6 and discussed below .. 5 5 1 The Calls for Service Per Vehicle Method The determination of the fire impact fee for the institutional class using the CFS per vehicle method is shown in Schedule 5 -6 Based on analysis presented in Section 4, the estimated units (measured in 1,000 square feet) in 1997 for the institutional class is approximately 780 Using W O the breakdown of fire calls during the period 1991 through 1996 for this class leads to the demand for service as measured in CFS per unit of approximately 0 001743 This is then .e multiplied by the standard level of service (LOS) of 23 15 CFS per vehicle to determine the estimated number of additional vehicles required for each institutional unit of development Om Finally, the capital cost per vehicle per unit of $15 95 and the other capital costs (buildings and equipment) per unit of $18 84 are added together to determine the total estimated impact fee per unit of development for the institutional class Based on this analysis, a fire protection impact fee of $35 00 per unit (rounded) is recommended for the institutional class Table 5 -6 presents the summary of this analysis OM O M OEM .. ATW /tm /ska/reports /r- 1 /sec5 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -9 090198 /^ Table 5 -6 pm Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class PM Utilizing the CFS Per Vehicle Method •■ Estimated CFS Per Umt 0 001743 Current LOS - CFS Per Vehicle 23 15 Additional Vehicles Required 000075 pm Capital Cost Per Vehicles $211,875 .. Vehicle Cost Per Umt $15 95 Other Capital Costs Per Umt $18 84 r. Impact Fee (Rounded) $35 00 0. Thus, based on the above, institutional development such as churches, schools, homes for the aged (nursing homes) and hospitals would pay a fire impact fee of $35 00 per 1,000 square feet 5 5 2 The Capacity Cost Method As discussed throughout this section, the second method used to determine the fire protection impact fee is the capacity cost method and should result in the same impact fee recommended in 0• the CFS per vehicle method This analysis is also shown on Schedule 5 -6 for the institutional category and is summarized below in Table 5 -7 ilft Table 5 -7 • m. Determination of Fire Protection Impact Fee for the Institutional Class Utilizing the Capacity Cost Method pm Estimated CFS Per Unit 0 001743 Capacity Cost Per CFS $19,966 Impact Fee (Rounded) $35 00 As anticipated, the recommended impact fee using this method is the same as the CFS per .I vehicle method ATW /tm/ska/reports /r -1 /sec5 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -10 090198 5 6 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING IMPACT FEES Table 5 -8 presents a companson of the existing versus the recommended fire protection impact fees for the vanous land uses .. Table 5 -8 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Fire Protection Impact Fees Recommended Land Use Umt of Existing Impact Fee Category Measurement Impact Fees (Rounded) Difference Percent .. Residential: Single Family D U $45 00 $167 00 $122 00 271% Multi - Family D U $61 00 $178 00 $117 00 192% Non - Residential: ■.• General Retail 1,000 S F $105 00 $224 00 $119 00 113% Service Stations 1,000 S F $307 00 $1,261 00 $954 00 311% Eating and Dnnking 1,000 S F $287 00 $1,393 00 $1,106 00 385% Office, Financial, and Insurance 1,000 S F $85 00 $183 00 $98 00 115% Hotel/Motel 1,000 S F $87 00 $277 00 $191 00 220% Motor Vehicle Sales 1,000 S F $100 00 $242 00 $142 00 142% .• Industnal, Manufact and Warehousing 1,000 S F $37 00 $259 00 $222 00 600% p . Institutional 1,000 S F N/A $35 00 N/A N/A All land use categories will receive significant increases, reflecting increased capital investment requirements since the last rate study, the greater number of calls to which the City responds, and shifts in the demand placed upon the Fire Department by the various land uses ATW/tm/ska/reports/r- 1 /secs rpt HAI #96 -465 00 5 -11 090198 SCHEDULE 5 -1 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS r•. Estimated Asset Cost Buildings Offices & Vehicle Storage $400,000 Fire Station - Headquarters 600,000 Financing Cost - 20 yr term 384,500 •• Fire Station - King's Ridge 300,000 Furnishings 65,000 Total Buildings 51,749,500 ... Vehicles Squad 1 (Mini-Pumper) $100,000 Engine 1 150,000 .■ Engme 2 150,000 Engme 3 150,000 Ladder 1 350,000 ,... Mum- Pumper (FY1998 -99) 128,000 Fmancmg Cost - 5 yr term 29,000 Ladder (FY1999 -2000) 500,000 Financing Cost - 5 yr term 120,000 .m Chiefs Car 18,000 Total Vehicles 51,695,000 ... Equipment Office Personal Computers $6,500 r .. Computer Software 3,000 Television 400 VCR 300 Training MatenaIs 3,000 Radio Scanner 200 Telephones 60 Spearker- Phones 200 ., Cordless Phones 300 Miscellaneous 400 Subtotal $14,360 PM Firefighting Hose $36,455 Firefighting Equipment 71,500 '.• Extrication Equipment 18,500 Protective Devices 46,560 Spare Breathing Bottles 9,600 .• Turnout Gear 29,520 Subtotal $212,135 Communications Two -Way Radio $17,723 Radio Pagers 8,438 Subtotal $26,161 mo Total Equipment $252,656 Total Capital Assets $3,697,156 1 \rmance\rcc \Clennnt5 xis 7/30/9h eimi 'C? N 00 Vp v, 00 CO ON NO O. in in ^ a¢ V) c'1 00 - .-. - 00 0 a 5 II. . `J 00 00 _ M o` o\ en C' CV '" U 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m w p" O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �° 1 ^ vi w y w t ai , i0 a ccn 0 0 - 1 h h 2 C/3 o U 000 00 v, .- r, — 0 0 c•, 0 U E- 2 w 0 0 0 Q d en a. p00 o 0 N N N •- N ... O O d ^ W U � — o o O O O O 5 U s Q w oG c F ,, rai -0 Z O U En O .� U `a F., ° � in 0 0 in In in w ^ it •O r, .-■ N •• O O en 4. 1:4 z d Cli E 0' O a W Gg v, .+ A4 W ~ S O. N e4 W a a N o ` M e N 00 ^" a ^ h E. W ( � •--1 N O O. Y, et v, M N '~ H rs O pi, O W Q N ^ ' N v , et N d cn A w — 1 (ra a Un rZe F in 0 Z 0 0 o o e 0 0 o 0 o o cr, in d CU o. ", " in h in v, h v, U U Co w0 ON G w O = ^ z >. O d a .I. `O a 0 o � 0 o. °�` .0 N N Mr .-r M N U C O C w z E F � A o. = �b u w w w w w w w y w o a) _ = vi vi cn t' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ • ` 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 E 4 U 4_, ❑ ^ 00 N tn .g N h O G 0 ^ cC C i 0) 1 O O TI U C T T [ U d V N y y 00 PM " CJ to 0 ° ` U O c v v ) 2 c C7 c W 0 �C - C4 Z v v r. oo o• a P ao y .— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 r 00 dt M M 00 N CA b 10 h N 1/40 C\ 00 N NI- vl 0 C ,--. Pm C. OC 69 69 699 .- M 6 6 ^ 69 69 699 69 E t=4 69 69 vn h ch h - O 6 V' b VO V) ON 6 0 L/1 S Vl a) .0 N en 0 M M N __, 00 Om L.L. — - Cl N M — 00 N N N 69 69 69 7 69 69 69 69 ett 0. 69 69 W E W OM W A UO a F cn "o '0 "0 V:, .0 .0 .0 .0 '0 d W o (A rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn z U U 69 6 9 CA oC rn 0 o� O� CA at ti 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 M w W E—I V V a az p 2 a V W Q 2 _ M 0 00 0 O. - N ° 0 00 0 o rn en el el P. U II a w U U 0 00 = � ■� o U o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn a W O E °" 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 z MI o �z ICI E ,,, �., U Q a) ;J.. w w w w w w Po o _ vi cn CI) (f) cn v� v� D a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 00 00 00 00 o Pm W 0 0 O 00 CC C 6. 1 N cn 0 O bO ' c 00 00 C i-4 c,.., C CU cd _ C .2 i3 N C 5 C C,:$ as v c4 ( A � = °� as n C '� v X 00 ? 3 7. P bn y a, C U -a7) , 7 'c7 y C/] O C7 C/) LL1 0 = , C al = C z = Ow S ON IN ma -- r, 0 0 0 — y '- '� - � . O �O O' N 00 v, a 0 ''' ■O .- -. N 00 00 M C-- O 00 0 C r- oo 0 I-- M 00 N 69 69 N \O 69 •-• .... .-. ea 4 69 69 69 69 69 69 U O a P M O M 00 00 00 00 00 00 00. 00 00 .� r. — — vl N C1 N N N N N N N I. N � 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 z Q a Pia a IA a oN [ CO '0 0 0 00 - 0\ 0 N lrl A O y M M 'Cf N 0 M 'O %r VI O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O V b U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '‹ V � i ~ W OEM 0 0:1 �w � z p� pm W z O W w a 0 o O o 0 0 o 0 in kr) 0 if, PI O V W 0 0 N N N N N N N N N A H a a pq a O w UV aV PTA W O v, oo rn � 0 rn o v en LT* ( E.L 00 o .— en D\ M N N 0 w V �O 0 .� .� .--. O O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P M oa a w w w w w w w O 0 cn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ FW-� Q Q 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 W G a.) ^ 0 0 N O O OA '—' b4 _ � : V) y V „.` ++ N cad C . 0 U ,4 c cci y CC C as 4 N C ; C 1... t Lt. ^ 'O C cu Lt a w U 00 ti-• 3 u c a C L N 0 O b u cl a� zc7 V) w o x S .. _ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 ^ r o0 R — M r N O� ea a 0 � N N N �^ 00 N N N 69 69 69 69 f-- 69 6A 69 69 Eq ^ a) G`„ S . ^ o v `" i 0 00 O 0 Tr ° v e" i en H R. r N `0 t-- 00 N N M N N Ni ^ ��, f19 b9 69 69 • 69 69 69 69 d yL ^ �J . � en o w., O O 00 . e4 - NI N 00 0 M N CA 00 a" N t0 N 0 0 0 • ON 4 ON lft In ` O O 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 6 vv 00 rn tel VI CO r � P O v EN ^ a [L. . 00 00 — M T 0 M N N w a U 8 °o o 8 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w W 1.. ^ wp a ✓ O y a' Q U . U N N Ni N N Ni N N N Q 5 00 00 00 00 00 00 CO 00 00 ^ _ � - 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 O 0 • W7 V t-O co 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 6 9 a �, v7w — w '� ►a 0 O C4 ° U v� a a a. . a a)v 0 o 0 o 3 � 0 WK. W M M M M M M M M M ^ V a w ( V = 0.. 69 6A 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 Li. W Cr O a ^ E N U 0 N 0 cn w 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 zd'U Tr Tr Tr Tr Tf r. o � 3° 69 H m Q 4 rom r4 O' 1— U �` N 0 0 Ni 00 00 o N 0 00 W 0 U I. .2 0. 6A 69 69 64 499 69 69 69 Q a) ^ G o 0) !s. I.L. L.. II.. 0.. I.I. L E c � an cn = v 0 0 O 0 0 o O a) 2 _ — _ O 00 tt C _ 0D O a ^ .. 0) a) U >-, >' ? o C c a? U O c a) ✓� 2 > m ` 3 . a ` � 2 L. LI 0 x 2 s SCHEDULE 5 -6 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA DETERMINATION OF FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS Institutional Class I. UTILIZING THE CFS PER VEHICLE METHOD Unit of Measurement 1,000 Sq Ft Estimated Units in 1997 780 Estimated Average Annual Fire CFS 1 3594 Fire Calls for Service (CFS) Per Unit 0 001743 Current LOS - CFS Per Vehicle 23 150 •m Additional Vehicles Required 0 000075 Average Cost Per Vehicle $211,875 .. Other Capital Costs Per CFS $10,812 Vehicle Costs Per Unit $15 95 Other Capital Costs Per Unit $18 84 Total Cost Per Urut (Impact Fee) $34 79 Total Cost Per Unit (Impact Fee) - Rounded $35 00 .. H. UTILIZING THE CAPACITY COST METHOD Unit of Measurement 1,000 Sq Ft Fire Calls for Service (CFS) Per Unit 0 001743 "^ Capacity Cost Per CFS $19,966 Total Cost Per Unit (Impact Fee) $34 80 Total Cost Per Unit (Impact Fee) - Rounded $35 00 1 Umance'rcc \Clermnt5 xls 8/3/98 7 7 r 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 r 7 r 7 7 7 SECTION 6 7 7 SECTION 6 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES 61 GENERAL This section presents the review and update of the City's existing impact fees for water and wastewater services As with the other impact fees in this Report, the review of the City's existing impact fees for water and wastewater facilities presented herein utilizes the same general methodology employed in the City's previous impact fee study conducted in 1991 As such, this analysis of the water and wastewater impact fees presented herein does not, in general, represent a significant change in methodology from the City's existing impact fees 6 2 EXISTING FACILITIES AND CAPITAL COSTS 6 2 1 Water System The first step in the analysis of the City's water impact fees was the review of the City's existing water facilities and associated capital costs The City currently owns and operates a water treatment and distribution system which provides water service to approximately 3,800 customer accounts The water system can be delineated into two separate service areas, known as the East System and the West System The West System is the older of the two systems and serves pnmarily those customers within the immediate City limits, approximately 80% of the total water customers The East System resulted from an effort by the City to efficiently expand the water service area and accommodate anticipated growth east of the City This was accomplished through the acquisition of Lake Hills Utilities, Inc , a pnvate water supply and distribution system which served the Greater Hills and Greater Pines subdivisions The East System currently provides water service to approximately 20% of the City's total water customers Based on information provided by the City staff and the City's engineers, Springstead Engineering, Inc (SEI), the East System currently is served by two wells and is anticipated to complete an additional well in the very near future The West System currently consists of three wells, two elevated storage tanks and approximately 45 miles of water transmission and distribution facilities The quality of groundwater in the area requires only disinfection for treatment Based on the information provided by the City, the total existing pumping capacity of the West System's three wells is approximately 3 24 million ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -1 090198 r• gallons per day (MGD), on an average daily flow (ADF) basis One additional well is planned to be constructed within the next two years ,., Based on information provided by the City, Table 6 -1 below presents a summary of the capital costs associated with water system assets existing as of September 30, 1996 Table 6 -1 Summary of Existing Water System Capital Asset Costs Capital Asset Category Asset Cost Land and Buildings $228,055 Plant 7,259,474 Equipment 151,888 Vehicles 69,475 Total Existing Water Assets $7,708,892 Breakdown Between East and West East System Assets $3,684,034 West System Assets 4,024,858 Total Existing Water Assets $7,708,892 •■ As can be seen, the City's total existing water system capital assets as of September 30, 1996 are equal to approximately $7,708,892 Furthermore, the City estimates that of this total, approximately $3,684,034 is associated with the East System while the remaining $4,024,858 is for the West System Due to the fact that most utility assets have very long useful lives and the nature of the assets, the analysis of the water assets reflected herein are based on the original cost ,.. of the assets shown rather than a replacement cost .• 6 2 2 Wastewater System The City currently provides wastewater service to approximately 3,000 customers Unlike the .• water system, there is only one wastewater service area which provides service to all customers, both within and outside the corporate limits of the City The existing wastewater treatment facilities include 3 separate treatment facilities with a total combined treatment capacity of 1 799 ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -2 090198 million gallons per day (MGD), average daily flow basis In addition, the wastewater system also includes over 55 miles of transmission and gravity sewer and 27 lift stations Based on information provided by the City, Table 6 -2 below presents a summary of the capital costs associated with wastewater system assets existing as of September 30, 1996 Table 6 -2 Summary of Existing Wastewater System Capital Asset Costs Capital Asset Category Asset Cost Land and Buildings $1,306,307 Plant 9,929,618 Equipment 158,050 Vehicles 45,142 Total Existing Wastewater Assets $11,439,117 As can be seen, the City's total existing wastewater system capital assets as of September 30, 1996 are equal to approximately $11,439,117 As with the water system, the analysis of the wastewater assets reflected herein are based on the original cost of the assets shown rather than a replacement cost due to the fact that most utility assets have very long useful lives and the nature of the assets 6 3 FUTURE FACILITIES AND CAPITAL COSTS 6 3 1 Water System The next component of the water impact fees is the analysis of future water system facilities and associated capital costs Based on discussions with the City, it is anticipated that the City will incur approximately $1,803,038 in future capital improvements to the East System This includes about $125,551 in capital projects which have been funded from the City's Series 1996 Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) yet which have not been completed or placed into service as of this date The number also includes two proposed wells that will be funded with the Series 2000 Bonds The remaining $529,487 is for other expansion projects undertaken by the City For the ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -3 090198 Pm Pm West System, approximately $746,336 is anticipated to be incurred in capital improvements .. which includes one new well ^ , 6 3 2 Wastewater System The City anticipates a number of major capital improvements to be made to the wastewater Pm system in the future The largest of these projects is the construction of a new 0 75 MGD wastewater treatment plant to serve the east side development areas and receive wastewater flow IMI from the existing wastewater treatment plant At this time, this new treatment plant is anticipated to cost approximately $5,984,507 In addition, approximately $2,096,449 in wastewater capital Poo projects which were funded from the City's Series 1996 BANs have yet to be completed or placed in service at this time Finally, approximately $758,025 in other wastewater capital projects (line extensions, lift station, etc) are anticipated at this time This results in a total of P OI approximately $8,838,981 in wastewater capital improvements anticipated by the City at this time 6 4 CREDITS FOR OTHER FUNDING SOURCES 6 4 1 Water System Credit Once the total existing and future capital improvements have been determined, the funding Pm sources utilized for those projects must be examined This is necessary in order to provide any credits which may be appropriate based on assets which may have been or will be funded from other sources such as grants, developer contributions or from other fees or charges (meter installation charges, etc ) P m Based on discussions with the City, the East System has received a grant for approximately $340,000 for certain line extensions and about $89,510 in developer contnbutions In addition, it ,.. is estimated that the East System has received approximately $148,200 in meter installation charges from customers as well This results in a total of about $577,710 in water capital assets funded from other sources which need to be credited in the calculation of the water impact fee for the East System Im Unlike the more recent developments on the East side, the West water system has not received any outside funding from developer contributions or grants However, based on the number of Pm customers on the West System and the meter installation charges, it is estimated that ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt ,. HAI #96 -465 00 6 -4 090198 Pmb approximately $592,800 in meter installation charges have been recovered from customers and should therefore be credited against the total capital assets on the West System 6 5 ADJUSTMENT FOR INTEREST CARRY ON DEBT Pursuant to the City's previous impact fee study, interest expense on the debt used to finance the capital facilities and provide capacity for new development is an infrastructure cost which should be proportionately charged to new growth and development In order to do this, the present value of all interest payments on existing and future bond issues were determined and allocated to the appropnate water or wastewater systems Schedule 6 -1 presents the determination of the present value of all anticipated interest payments As can be seen, this includes interest on the Senes 1993 Bonds, the Series 1996 BAN's, as well as the anticipated Series 2000 Bonds The Senes 1996 Bonds are to be issued in order to provide funds for certain wastewater capital improvements as well as defease /retire all previously issued bonds A preliminary debt service schedule was calculated for the Series 2000 Bonds For this analysis, a present value discount factor of 6 25 percent was utilized based on current market conditions for long -term municipal revenue bonds plus an additional contingency factor of 55 basis points Based on these assumptions, future interest payments are anticipated to total •- approximately $24,859,000 and have a present value of about $12,226,000 Schedule 6 -2 shows the allocation of these future interest payments to the appropnate water and wastewater systems These allocations were based on available data regarding the uses of proceeds for each bond issue A summary of these allocations are shown below in Table 6 -3 Table 6 -3 Allocation of Present Value of Interest Payments Total Future Total Interest Payments Present Value Water East $ 8,583,462 $ 4,220,113 West 1,060,193 622,384 Wastewater 15,215,373 7,383,486 Total $ 24,859,028 $ 12,225,985 i ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -5 090198 Thus, the East water system impact fees should be designed to recover approximately $4,220.000 r- in future interest carry on debt service while the West water system only has an interest carry of about $622,000 The wastewater system has an interest carry of approximately $7,383,000, due pnmanly to the future expansion projects to be funded from the Series 2000 Bonds 6 6 NET RECOVERABLE COSTS Based on the analysis detailed above, the net costs to be recovered from the water and P• wastewater impact fees are shown on Schedule 6 -3 and summanzed below in Table 6 -4 r. Table 6 -4 Breakdown of Net Costs Recoverable from Impact Fees Water East System West System Wastewater .- Existing Assets $3,684,034 $4,024,858 $11,439,117 r- Future Assets 1,805,038 746,336 8,838,981 Other Funding (577,710) (592,800) (1,064,926) Net Asset Costs $4,911,362 $4,178,394 $19,213,172 PV of Interest Carry 4,220,115 622,384 7,383,486 ." Total Recoverable Costs $9,131,477 $4,800,778 $26,596,658 r Thus, impact fees for the East and West water systems are based on total costs of approximately $9,130,000 and $4,800,000, respectively, for all existing and future assets The wastewater r■ impact fees are designed to recover a total of about $26,600,000 Po r• r ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt ,.. HAI #96 -465 00 6 -6 090198 OIND 6 7 SYSTEM CAPACITY AND DEMAND FOR SERVICES 6 7 1 Water System After the above analysis of the net costs to be recovered from the water and wastewater impact fees was complete, an analysis of the existing and future capacity of each system and the demand p. for such services was conducted As mentioned previously, based on information provided by and discussions with the City staff and the City's engineers (SEI), the East System has two existing wells, is anticipated to complete an additional well in the near future and has two future wells planned The East system has a total future water treatment capacity of 3 72 MGD The West System, on the other hand, currently has a total future planned water treatment capacity of 4 32 MGD In order to determine the impact fees, the demand for service per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) was also examined For the purposes of this Report and in order to be consistent with the City's previous impact fee study, a demand of 375 gallons per day (gpd) per ERU has been utilized for both water systems 6 7 2 Wastewater System Based on information provided by the City and discussions with the City staff, the wastewater 111•1 system currently has a total wastewater treatment capacity of approximately 1 799 MGD on an average daily flow basis In addition, the future capital improvements anticipated by the City will expand this capacity by another 0 75 MGD, thereby resulting in a total wastewater treatment capacity in the future of 2 549 MGD The demand for service per ERU was also examined for the wastewater system For the purposes of this Report and in order to be consistent with the City's previous impact fee study, a demand of 250 gallons per day (gpd) per ERU has been utilized for the wastewater system AT W /tm /reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -7 090198 Ma MI 6 8 DETERMINATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES As discussed previously, the review of the City's impact fees presented herein is essentially an 4., update to the City's previous impact fee study However, unlike the previous study, no credit is given for debt service paid through monthly water and wastewater rates This credit was not included for a number of reasons The first reason is the fact that in order to determine the credit for debt service, the previous study made a number of assumptions regarding exactly how all future capital requirements would be funded, the exact levels of rate revenue utilized, etc However, it is difficult to predict exact funding levels from various sources or to anticipate changes in City policy regarding future development, thereby introducing a higher degree of .. uncertainty into the calculations The second reason is the fact that the City's bond covenants allow the use of impact fees to pay debt service in the first place Whether or not the City actually does would depend on policy decisions to be made in the future based on the particular circumstances at the time Therefore, since the impact fees could be used to pay debt service instead of rate revenue and given the uncertainty associated with predicting future policy and WI funding decisions, it is recommended that the credit for debt service payments not be included in this analysis NM Schedule 6 -3 presents the analysis of the water and wastewater impact fees This is summanzed ., below in Table 6 -5 Table 6 -5 OM Determination of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Water East System West System Wastewater 0. Net Recoverable Costs $9,131,477 $4,800,778 $26,556,658 Total Future Capacity (MGD) 3 72 4 32 2 55 Demand Per ERU (GPD) 375 375 250 Total Number of ERUs 9,920 11,520 10,196 Impact Fee /ERU (Rounded) $921 00 $417 00 $2,625 ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt PM HAI #96 -465 00 6 -8 090198 .. Thus, based on the above analysis and assumptions, the impact fees recommended for the East and West water systems are $921 00 and $417 00, respectively The wastewater impact fees are Om recommended to be $2,625 00 6 9 COMPARISON WITH EXISTING IMPACT FEES Table 6 -6 presents a comparison of the existing versus the recommended water and wastewater impact fees per ERU Pa Table 6 -6 Comparison of Existing vs. Recommended Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Per ERU WI Recommended Existing Impact Fees Service Component Impact Fees (Rounded) Difference Percent Water System East $864 00 $921 00 $57 00 7% Pim West $315 00 $417 00 $102 00 32% Wastewater System East $2,374 00 $2,625 00 $251 00 11% West $1,304 00 $2,625 00 $1,321 00 101% 0. Thus, as can be seen, the recommended water and wastewater impact fees are higher than the City's existing impact fees However, as described previously, the City has expanded both systems significantly since 1991 and is continuing to do so for the future This expansion, as .. well as the effects of inflation and increased regulatory requirements have required the City to invest significant funds in capital infrastructure in order to continue to provide its citizens with Po the level and quality of service they require and deserve In addition, it should be noted that while it is recommended that the City maintain separate impact fees for the East and West water systems, it is also recommended that only a single wastewater impact fee be adopted which would apply to all future wastewater customers The reason for this change is that while the East and West water systems are two physically separate and distinct water systems (and are r. anticipated to remain so), the City has physically interconnected their wastewater systems, thus resulting in one single wastewater system Therefore, only a single wastewater impact fee is Om recommended Regarding the relative increases for the East side versus the West side, it should ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -9 090198 be kept in mind that the East side's existing impact fees were established in 1995 while the .. existing fees for the West side were set in 1991 when no real expansion of the systems were anticipated For water, the larger percentage increase on the East side is due to the fact that most existing and future long -term water debt (and associated interest carry) is associated with the newer East side 6 10 CALCULATION OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS The waster and wastewater impact fees are determined on an ERU basis, which is equivalent to the water and wastewater generated by a single family 3 bedroom residence As mentioned previously, one ERU is equivalent to 375 gpd water demand, and 250 gpd wastewater flow The City in its impact fee ordinance has published equivalency factors to calculate the ERUs associated with various customer establishments A copy of these values is presented in Schedule 6 -4 HAI recommends instituting additional equivalency factors and amending the basis of a few of the existing factors, to provide additional flexibility and ease of application A IBM list of the new and modified ERU equivalency factors is provided in Table 6 -7 below The revised ERU factors were determined from reviews of ERU factors from neighbonng utilities, PM architectural standard and companson of existing Clermont customers Table 6 -7 Recommended Revisions to the ERU Equivalency Factors Olmk Equivalent Residential OM Units (ERU) COMMERCIAL: .. Airports, bus terminals, train stations, port and docking facilities Use Fixture Units Auditorium, per 100 sq ft 0 30 ,^ Barber and beauty shops per 100 sq ft 0 10 Convenience store w /self service gas pumps per restroom 1 50 Country Clubs excluding food per 100 sq ft 0 03 WI Dentists' Offices per 100 sq ft 0 18 Doctor's Offices 100 sq ft 0 06 ATW /tm/reports /r- l /sec6 rpt WO HAI #96 -465 00 6 -10 090198 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) COMMERCIAL (Continued) '" (c) Bar and cocktail lounge per 100 sq ft 0 26 (d) Carry -out only per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 15 (f) Restaurant using single service food items only per 100 sq ft 0 13 of floor space Resort hotels, camps, cottages per unit 0 43 Industrial/Manufacturing (excluding food service and industrial waste) (a) no showers per 1000 sq ft 0 40 (b) with showers per 1000 sq ft 1 25 Laundry/self service per machine 1 33 Service stations or detail facility (a) per day 1 00 ., (b) add per wash bay (not recycled) 3 20 (c) add per water closet or urinal 2 56 Swimming and bathing facilities Use Fixture Units Pmi Theaters, dinner per 100 sq ft 0 41 INSTITUTIONAL Churches per 100 sq ft 0 30 Hospitals per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows) 0 44 (a) add for food service per 100 sq ft of food service area 0 53 Nursing homes per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows) 0 22 ^, (a) add for food service per 100 sq ft of food service area 0 53 Parks, public (a) per water closet 0 30 (b) add per shower or urinal 0 13 Public institutions other than schools and hospitals Use Fixture Units Schools per 100 sq ft (a) Middle and High 0 25 (b) Elementary, Day Care and Nursery 0 09 (c) Boarding type 0 52 r , Work/construction camps, semi- permanent Use Fixture Units ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -11 090198 r• A revised impact fee schedule is presented in Schedule 6 -5 which includes the additional uses •• and revisions to the existing descriptions Although the ERU equivalency factors, as published in the City's Impact Fee Ordinance, include the main utility customer types, they cannot cover every situation In some cases, a customer may not fit any of the preset categories or existing facilities may be expanded In these cases, it is recommended that the fixture units method be utilized Fixture units are published in the Standard Plumbing Code and are an industry standard method of estimating water and wastewater demands, using the actual plumbing fixtures (i e faucets, toilets, etc) of the facility Tables listing the current fixture unit values as published in the Standard Plumbing Code are presented in Appendix A Fixture unit calculation to determine ERUs can be performed in the following manner 1 The number of fixture units can be calculated using the equivalency factors on the Tables in Appendix A The number and type of fixtures is typically provided on the construction drawings r• 2 Once the number of fixture units has been determined the number of ERUs can be calculated using the following equations •■ No of fixture units X 25 gpd( fixture um No of water ERUs .• 375 gpd/ERU No of fixture units X 25 gpd(fixture um No of wastewater ERUs 250 gpd/ERU For customers that change their establishment category after construction of the facility, (a house being converted to an office for example), we recommend not charging additional impact fees, unless additional fixture units are constructed that will exert an additional demand on the water and wastewater system Pm ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /sec6 rpt HAI #96 -465 00 6 -12 090198 O- v. N - - a r en 00 N v. 0- v. N r r 0. - r .t N r 0 00 N b O b O 00 (4 Y N en •-• b- N v. O o) b 00 on v. O N 0. 00 b< 0. N V b a r co R O Q 00 0 M Co 7 en O .D e4 0. en 0' e r v_ y r vl (4 b v e v. r 00 r N 7 0 0 fn 0. r Vl '0 N O' r 00 P A v vi AD O .o r O ed CO I: o; v N 44 v. O -a so r " O V+ •-• a *O a pph� N .o - = c- t - . < r v 0 r h 00 N b O 'Cr O. a 0 b N 00 r 00 ( ( ( (4 0 0 0 r m - 0. 00 b (( '. 4 N -- N t(. v. vn R P 00 00 r r .D h v V e-. m en N N N N - - - 41 w w 49 4i 41 41 '4 N /m C 4) 41 49 49 49 49 49 4. 4i 4f eA iA fA 41 41 41 49 4i 41 41 W 41 4( 4) 49 4i C,1 00 U 0` a . u o 4 0o en ow, O .D - V. N (n r 0. r 00 O vl p V 0. N -+ b V .D '0 O O O. O' O' OA N N O N 00 N 00 C N 0. N CO •-• O O v. O T v. N N 00 N v. O .D en N T R Al ■ .O N (n fn en 0( O. eV en N L en O OT - v. vi v. V (n O .7 ‘D Cr r .D CO" R - O 011 N v. (n vi ON. v. O M N .1 O .O - O F C O. -- C - CY: .- N N - 0 v. O C .D r .D o O < - v e4 0 - CO en v. (n CO P r - O O 0h r r 0" . v. VD - O 00 .D v -- T r Q -- 00 v. N 0. v. - r en 00 '0 O. en CO N b P N v. 0o 0o n en '4 N N - 0 0 0 0 P O. n 00 CO 00 r r vD .D vn n et v en N N - w e n o0 a 4i 41 W 41 _ . . . . . 41 41 49 49 49 49 49 4i 4i 41 w 41 49 49 49 H 4) 49 C VI 49 49 41 41 49 49 49 41 41 (4 2 4. 2 S O. r (n 0o b v. O- v. N r r V a N et V N r 0 CO N •D O'0 CIO 00 h - N - v. O M v. .D 00 en v. O N 0. 00 b er 0. N R .D 0. r O < O ? 00 O. en rt simm O 01 en T R r ? < v. v. (f .D o v v. f . CO r N V O O Cl 0. r v..0 N 0. v. CO .D . O f ` - O N 0 0 r 01 '7 N N v O r .O N O vt --. 0% 00 00 O, N •D ^ N . en - _ O O. 'O i v . 00 N b O 'C 0. 'R O b N 00 v. - 00 V. O 00 v. . 4 -+ O. 00 .O v. (n N N C 0. CO CO r r b v. v. r of Q (n (n en N N N N 4i 41 41 4) !A 4i 4) 44 (n D 4i 44 44 4i 4( 49 4( 4i 4! Gn 41 41 41 41 4i W '4 41 41 41 41 41 0 O g'i iA cn N 0. Ilmo O U 0= [ .r y r v. en r O. r 00 v h v v Ch N- .D v .O •D v co O. O. O. O\ N N O N 00 N O 4 - O O v. O 0. v. N N CO N v. O .D M N O. V ((. b N ((. e4 en v. O 7 try U2 U 5 v. .n v. v rn O' ? .D v r b 00 O. - CO O' l " N v. e4 v. 01 v. O (^1 N v. 0 .D - v. 01 - N N - 00 V O ' .D r b K O V. v. M 00 00 M v. en 0 0 OZ r O O 01 O 00 .D O .- 0. r 7 - 00 h N a v. ■ r (n 02 a O. (4 oo N .D O. N r 00 CO b W q e0 N N ^. 0 0 0 0 O. 0` 0. 00 00 00 r r b b vl vl v v (4 N N- 41 41 r 7 Cl. • - • 4i 41 4/ 49 4i 4i to 44 41 49 41 41 44 41 4! 4! 49 '4 (4 y GA 4/ 4i 4i V> Vi 41 fA Vi Vi N ... 0 fA CL w MO m .. . en ^ v, O co to ° u w 7 4i 49 Vi 41 Nq F A p G 3 u a O ce y , 4 r r r et PM VD w�c m r = --� o g N 0 ¢ 0. w w w I..4 w U2 4X 1:4 0 - w w u t V U F u S pm! h 4. • en O w IN h 00 et F 0 v .o re et ND VD - D CO „ ., U 2 en ..7 0 q O en 0\ 00 ^ y ( j imi ¢ 7 b 0. C 4i 4i 4i LA 0 u r� 3 n( WM 0. 7� c. m CA et v p .0 (4(4(4 r- C) 2n ND 0 ' .o - N N N r ^ 0. K w w Vi N OM et F C 1 4+ 5 0 W (-4 e w - v. N N 00 0 WM 0 ' y r 0o r r p 7 r I^r r oo Ti > .- r es. w 4. 49 'n �3 w c 4 Y. 0 plim m 0-- 0 e0 en U 0 0 - v.v.00 v v v r en u v r 0 r o Ch E N .n 00 - 00 Jo oo pon ( S. .O v. C O O 7 C4 41 49 49 w ` w u u 0' S n. p.. / y r c C _ u r o0 0. O- N en v v. V r 00 0. o N en Q v. .D r CO O. O^ N ((. a v, b r 0o a O J Y T P O\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N e4 Ch pMI �, -- O. 0 cD 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O -- N CA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F Pie ;., � v 'n r '0 1 W M M N^ O. 00 Csi G Vl M V c 00 sO O o O v 65 00 N PM N a 64) N v v o o c. o0 00 v W 0 6.) v, ,n N -- n rn 0 00 0 v w V r1 N t— v1 vi T F en r, a g o r v - % ..0 to co > (7) a I ^ N ( n N 69 F d — 4 S 6 , C4 a 0 ^ e- 111 ° v 0 0 0 , , 0 0 0 -, ° ^ O O O N e. 0 co 0 GL 7 O 00 m C EA — 0 N fa., 4. vfa., U 0 0 w X''77 „ a o o v v W y 0 0 0 ' ' r1 M y F CO O O O WI ►7 N N rn a w 0 Q > ai a ` i 8 W v d9 0 o O t F IV ri. go ^, .11Z o e �. w z A r.v 0 0 0 0 0 r te , ' ' VI W > 0 0 0 0 a Q p ° . c FR w V ___74 1.. W `° 0. 69 0 0 Q N O O O F CC) O 0 0 O ' ' r- U - � 000 vi ,n C.1 rs1 1.4 CT a 0 b W N F v N v 3 v)~ O LT. N9 0 N D W O . 0 0 0.• 0.• ,.a v o 0 0 0 Os W 0 Q 7 0 0 0 ' er R 0 0 0 V > 7 O O O N as as 00" N w !No En W N 0 W 0 v - �' 0 0 0 o. o 0 0 - f+ 0 0 ■0 vt - O v 0 y y 0 0 0 ' N N V 0 O 0 00 Q � r-1 VD 0 U > N IMR 0 v y Q 5 4. 69 0. N X Wm v'1 0 3 c 3 U 4. 3 3 °3 (0 0 - a ¢ t-- PM PM CO ON 0 00 S ■D N '0 00 ON O ON O '0 O -- 00 N N 00 in ON v1 'rl' V) ON in 0 .. CT ON "t '0 N N v) N ,- y ON 00 M M — O N O O N +-' M M ■0 — 00 ON -- 00 O vO ■O N M V1 N N 00 ON CZ VD `-■ Cl 00 C'S V) En 69 69 Eel min w W* F r. '0 00 O 'ct d' 00 co — co 1!) co M O .. .. 0 M co 0' 00 N N N N N 0 a 00 M 00 M M N N M M V7 N 0' S N 0 M .-, N 00 O N v1 VD 00 a v PM Q W A 69 69 69 69 0 H Mw 3 �F Q r4 71000 N v, t- 00 0 in 0 .1 o M M .-r a0 A 00N M •-- v ON N 0 0 0 o .- A Z o o 0 S ~ N M ~~ M 0' CA W d . VD 00 vl ON N •--■ cn Pm xa w co M.—" 'r o V F w Q ^, 0 6s 0 69 69 V Z :8 0 0 A -v Qt ‘5 0 0 0 0 o _ o .. U W . a4 F a+ O N y A W y a PM A U N o o U �' U ° P a) a) c ° '- a� .� c a W w w j U w N ca . . fl �, G. C c+. r ti Q En y - Q col a' i 0 E W i a. 0. .. Q c 0 > o. .1::' a) a, w o E S Uw > ° U ° , A a -0 -o X z N y y X 0 Q. h sa. ca. w Z Z.. E ° � E ° U E° a s "' 0 v N U PnR OM SCHEDULE 6 -4 .. CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA ERU FACTORSW Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) RESIDENTIAL .. Single or multiple family per dwelling unit except qualified all -adult communities (a) 1 bedroom and 600 sq ft or less heated or cooled area 0 33 MN (b) 2 bedrooms and 601 - 1,000 sq ft heated or cooled area 0 67 (c) 3 bedrooms and 1,001 - 2,000 sq ft heated or cooled area 1 00 (d) 4 or more bedrooms and 2,000 - 3,000 sq ft heated or cooled area 1 33 Other per occupant 0 17 Qualified all -adult community (a) Up to 3 bedrooms 0 67 (b) 4 or more bedrooms 1 00 COMMERCIAL: •. Airports, bust terminals, train stations, port and docking facilities (a) Per passenger 0 01 (b) Add per employee per eight hour shift 0 04 Barber and beauty shops per chair 0 02 Bowling alleys toilet wastes only per lane 0 22 Country Clubs (a) Per resident 0 22 (b) Per member 0 06 (c) Per employee per eight hour shift 0 04 ., Dentists' Offices (a) Per wet chair 0 44 Om (b) Per non -wet chair 0 11 Doctor's Offices per doctor 0 56 Factories, exclusive of industrial wastes, gallons per employee per eight hour shift Iwo (a) No showers provided 0 04 (b) Showers provided 0 08 Ism SCHEDULE 6 -4 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA ERU FACTORS" (Continued) Equivalent OM Residential Units (ERU) COMMERCIAL (Continued): OM Food Service Operations (a) Restaurants operating less than 16 hours per day per seat 0 11 pm (b) Restaurant operating 16 hours or more per day seat 0 17 (c) Restaurant using single service articles only per seat 0 06 pm (d) Bar and cocktail lounge per seat 0 07 (e) Drive -in restaurant per space 0 11 om . (f) Carry-out only (1) Per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 11 (2) Add per employee per eight hour shift 0 04 pm (g) Institutions per meal 0 01 (h) Food Outlets excluding dell's, bakery or meat department per 100 sq ft 0 02 •- of floor space (1) Add for deli per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 11 pm (2) Add bakery per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 11 (3) Add for meat department per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 22 Hotels and Motels pm (a) Regular per room 0 33 (b) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per person 0 17 pm (c) Add for establishments with self service laundry facilities per machine 0 89 Office building per 250 sq ft of floor space 0 04 pm Service stations per water closet & per urinal 0 56 Shopping centers without food or laundry (per 1,000 sq ft of floor space) 0 43 Stadiums, race tracks, ball parks per seat 0 01 pp Stores per 1,000 sq ft of floor space 0 43 Swimming and bathing facilities, public per person 0 02 pm Theaters (a) Indoor, auditoriums per seat 0 01 'M (b) Outdoor, drive -ins per space 0 02 Mobile Home Park per mobile home space 0 44 ATW /11/R- C -2/6 -4 sch ■ - HAI #96 -465 00 061298 OM SCHEDULE 6 -4 .. CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA ERU FACTORSW (Continued) Equivalent ..` Residential Units (ERU) COMMERCIAL (Continued): Recreational Vehicle Park (a) Recreational vehicle for overnight stay, w/o and sewer hookup per 0 17 .. vehicle space (b) Recreational vehicle for overnight use, with water and sewer hookup per 0 22 vehicle space Churches per seat 0 01 Hospitals per bed which does not include kitchen wastewater flows 0 44 Nursing, rest homes per bed which does not include kitchen wastewater flows 0 22 Parks, public picnic .. (a) With toilets only per person 001 (b) With bathhouses, showers and toilets per person 0 02 Public institutions other than schools and hospitals per person which does not 0 22 include kitchen wastewater flows Schools per student (a) Day type 0 03 (b) Add for showers 0 01 .. (c) Add for cafeteria 0 01 (d) Add for day school workers 0 03 (e) Boarding type 0 17 Work/construction camps, semi - permanent per worker 0 11 Notes (1) City of Clermont Impact Fee Ordinance .•. (2) Where the number of bedrooms indicated on the floor plan and the correspondmg heated or cooled area of a dwelling unit m the table do not coincide, the criteria which will reflect m the greatest estimated ERU shall apply am Iwo Ps Poo ATW /ll/R- C -2/6 -4 sch — HAI #96 -465 00 061298 •• SCHEDULE 6 -5 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA RECOMMENDED ERU FACTORS ( •. Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) RESIDENTIAL ( Single or multiple family per dwelling unit except qualified all -adult communities (a) 1 bedroom and 600 sq ft or less heated or cooled area 0 33 (b) 2 bedrooms and 601 - 1,000 sq ft heated or cooled area 0 67 (c) 3 bedrooms and 1,001 - 2,000 sq ft heated or cooled area 1 00 PM (d) 4 or more bedrooms and 2,000 - 3,000 sq ft heated or cooled area 1 33 Qualified all -adult community (a) Up to 3 bedrooms 0 67 (b) 4 or more bedrooms 1 00 COMMERCIAL: Airports, bus terminals, train stations, port and docking facilities Use Fixture Units Auditorium, per 100 sq. ft. 0.30 Barber and beauty shops per 100 sq. ft. 0.10 Bowling alleys toilet wastes only per lane 0 22 Convenience store w /self service gas pumps per restroom 1.50 Country Clubs excluding food per 100 sq. ft. 0.03 Dentists' Offices per 100 sq. ft. 0.18 Doctor's Offices 100 sq. ft. 0 06 Food Service Operations (a) Restaurants operating less than 16 hours per day per 100 sq. ft. 0 34 0. (b) Restaurant operating 16 hours or more per day 100 sq. ft 0.53 (c) Bar and cocktail lounge per 100 sq. ft. 0.26 (d) Carry -out only per 100 sq ft. of floor space 0.15 pm ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /6 -5- schedule atw .. HAI #96 -465 00 1 083198 SCHEDULE 6 -5 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA RECOMMENDED ERU FACTORS ( Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) .. COMMERCIAL (Continued) (e) Food Outlets excluding deli's, bakery or meat department .. per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 02 (1) Add for deli per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 11 (2) Add bakery per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 11 0. (3) Add for meat department per 100 sq ft of floor space 0 22 (1) Restaurant using single service food items only per 100 sq. ft. 0.13 Hotels and Motels (a) Regular per room 0 33 "' (b) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per unit 0.43 (c) Add for establishments with self service laundry facilities per machine 0 89 ,. Industrial/Manufacturing (excluding food service and industrial waste) (a) no showers per 1000 sq. ft. 0.40 (b) with showers per 1000 sq. ft. 1.25 Laundry /self service per machine 1.33 Office building per 250 sq ft of floor space (not including food) 0 04 Service stations or detail facility (a) per day 1.00 (b) add per wash bay (not recycled) 3.20 (c) add per water closet or urinal 2.56 .. Shopping centers and stores without food or laundry (per 1,000 sq ft of floor space) 0 43 Stadiums, race tracks, ball parks per 100 sq ft 0 03 Stores per 1,000 sq ft of floor space 0 43 Swimming and bathing facilities Use Fixture Units Theaters, dinner per 100 sq ft 0.41 Mobile Home Park per mobile home space 0 44 ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /6- 5- schedule atw .• HAI #96 -465 00 2 083198 PM PIM SCHEDULE 6 -5 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA RECOMMENDED ERU FACTORS ( Equivalent ,.. Residential Units (ERU) COMMERCIAL (Continued) ... Recreational Vehicle Park (a) Recreational vehicle for overnight stay, w/o and sewer hookup per 0 17 vehicle space o o (b) Recreational vehicle for overnight use, with water and sewer hookup 0 22 per vehicle space INSTITUTIONAL OM Churches per 100 sq. ft. 0.30 Hospitals per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows) 0.44 (a) add for food service per 100 sq. ft. of food service area 0.53 Nursing, rest homes per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows) 0.22 "' (a) add for food service per 100 sq. ft. of food service area 0.53 Parks, public ., (a) per water closet 0.30 (b) add per shower or urinal 0.13 Public institutions other than schools and hospitals Use Fixture Units PM Schools per 100 sq. ft. (a) Middle and High 0.25 ION (b) Elementary, Day Care and Nursery 0.09 (c) Boarding type 0.52 Work/construction camps, semi - permanent Use Fixture Units Notes (1) Items in bold denote additional or revised factors ' M (2) Where the number of bedrooms indicated on the floor plan and the corresponding heated or cooled area of a dwelling unit in the table do not coincide, the criteria which will reflect in the greatest estimated ERU shall apply O M OM WI ATW /tm /reports /r -1 /6 -5- schedule atw .. HAI #96 -465 00 3 083198 L � I LL i r E ! L, L, E SECTION 7 E P• um SECTION 7 COMPARISON WITH OTHER UTILITIES 71 GENERAL The purpose of this section is to present a comparison of both the City's existing and recommended impact fees for the single family class relative to those currently charged by other similar governmental agencies in the area It is important to note that the reader must keep in mind that no in -depth analysis has been performed on the impact fees charged by the other entities ., and that there are numerous underlying factors which could affect the level of charge imposed For example, no analysis was conducted to determine the methods used by the other entities to develop their existing fees, the methods of financing capital needs used or the levels of service and facilities provided by the other entities Thus, this comparison should be viewed as merely providing information regarding the levels of impact fees charged by other area governmental entities only and does not imply that any of the existing or recommended fees are either appropriate or inappropnate 7 2 COMPARISON OF IMPACT FEES WITH OTHER ENTITIES 0. Schedule 7 -1 provides the companson of the City's existing and recommended impact fees for parks and recreation, fire protection, police protection and water and wastewater service for single family residential development with those currently charged by other governmental entities in the surrounding area The results of this comparisons are summanzed below in Table 7 -1 Pm Pm Pm PA Pm Owl ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec? rpt I. HAI #96 -465 00 7 -1 090198 Table 7 -1 ,.. Impact Fee Comparison Single Family Residential Development (with 3 Bedrooms) City of Clermont Other Area Entities Service Provided Existing Proposed High Low Average Parks/Recreation $ 397 $ 572 $ 357 $ 87 $ 243 Police Protection 37 158 172 35 73 Fire Protection 45 167 349 60 138 Water Service - East 864 921 2,019 226 1,105 Water Service - West 315 417 2,019 226 1,105 Sewer Service - East 2,374 2,625 3,717 1,222 2,106 Sewer Service - West 1,304 2,625 3,717 1,222 2,106 As shown above, in virtually every cases, the individual recommended impact fees are well within the range of high and low fees charged by the other entities It should be noted that the averages shown for the other entities represent the average for only those entities with that ., particular impact fee Overall, the impact of the proposed fees for a typical single family residential unit is a total .. adjustment of approximately 20 percent for the East side and 88 percent for the West side This is shown for the East and West side in Table 7 -2 below Table 7 -2 Existing Versus Proposed Impact Fees s. Single Family Residential Development (With 3 Bedrooms) "' East Side West Side Existing Proposed Difference Percent Existing Proposed Difference Percent sm Parks /Recreation $397 $572 $175 44% $397 $572 $175 44% Police Protection 37 158 121 327% 37 158 121 327% pm Fire Protection 45 167 122 271% 45 167 122 271% Water Service 864 921 57 7% 315 417 102 32% ^, Sewer Service 2,374 2,625 251 11% 1,304 2,625 1,321 101% Total $3,717 $4,443 $726 20% $2,098 $3,939 $1,841 88% pm ATW /tm/reports /r -1 /sec? rpt .. HAI #96 -465 00 7 -2 090198 (insert schedule 7 -1) E I L, E 1, E E AT W /tm/re orts /r -1 /sec? t P � HAI #96 -465 00 7 -3 090198 .. 00 o, N PM N Q Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o 0. Q Q o Q Q N c co co co M O O O M O O O O �? O "1 .. 7) C t-- 0o -- ° r•-• 00 -- ° ON N t -- v) z Z k Z Z M u 6! M V'1 N t- M V'1 N t- 00 t� Vl M t� d 6A —. -- (N GS -- -- (N 6A ^- 6i4 O. C M M L 0. PP X N v v v no d .. G o o o 0 o o o o ° o ° o o o n < Z o Z z o a � 0 a) Y1 t� N '� V'1 t-- N O ON 0 t 0 N 00 �a 1- u . 1 - '.O N -- �t '.O N - -- M ,t t � VD '. 0 � - . - rn '.Tr 4 ' N N GS M EA °� - Ni i 3 y v w a g c E 0 5 fsl v v a b�- C 0000 0000 00 -- QQQQ r0 C... r. c `. 0 O 0000 0 0000 0 oz ° �zzzz0 0 0 0 ■ +'r �' t- N v1 0 t— N (n ° t N n 00 M 0, ND 0 C Os n t` ON t` t .1 � N 00 05 .0 Cl.) L M Vl -- cr M h -- M N M N N , ) Li S E u 69 EA) EA) 6 m CA — ) C v $' ,-, z 0 s > . w r.+ 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O O 'O ti 0 y t) w f:::1 B L co co co t co co co co co co co O O VD O O O O k.0 C 7 �. ��,] y U1 -- M 0 N'1 0 M 0 t - N V1 '.O 00 V1 CG 8 v . R t - (N v1 0 0 N N ^ - 0 NO 0 0' •-- N v1 M v1 0 • ro) 'y M N^ M E M O O N --- M O t N <T V 'fit C W � 0 c H c N - N -- - c- i- N -- N M- N N N GS ,_,o al Va GS EA CI a) a o L c. . _ o �, 3 o 0 — O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0' °' L h y 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 '"0 0 i0 U ▪ ( w .1' -- N. 'O ',I t- N M V'1 '.0 0 ON 0 V'1 NO 00 t.- (N ti y N.0 c..1 v1 �O -- -- 0 N t �O O -- 00 �O N V� V 1 0 0 H C 8 4" 3 00 M y '-+ M 0o ON t- 0 ON v"1 N 0 ^- v 0 _ b A 69 b9 ... N '-- .-- .-- .. >-. .a.,..4.) 0 0 . v 0 CC 0 0 44 a 5 CA Co y 0 v 0 .0 U 5 O 5 0 V ° 0) 8 4 �o o E z V W Ls. cL. 6(0 0 `. `" V Ii- 6) ca C) (0 CJ Q) > 4. NV' . Q) O y C) C. 0 0. C tom. Q m O 'b , 0 O .D ++ U U 6J rn o O �s ca 5 O 0 c 0 0 y CLII > _ w f. b Q) N PM O L) C) D. a] C L O �� T. 0 g ^ O p ... t3. O N co $' N 4 m H 6. b R 61 U OA N E' G 5 y L 3 O w ,... u. O w N w ,... o> Hnn 0. O O O O 0 0 0 0 O O c u, `ti 1- 0 Uw � f > a. w r� ODUU UUUUOUV vv E o 0) a .. 0) U 0 c 5 um 7 7 7 r 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 E 7 r ' APPENDIX A 7 7 r- pea r. APPENDIX A WO Oft OM P M TABLE 709 1 DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS FOR FIXTURES AND GROUPS DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNIT VALUE FIXTURE TYPE AS LOAD FACTORS MINIMUM SIZE OF TRAP (inches) we Automatic clothes washers, commercials 3 2 Automatic clothes washers, residential 2 2 Bathroom group consisting of water closet, lavatory, bidet and 6 — bathtub or shower Bathtubb (with or without overhead shower or whirlpool 2 1 attachments) 2 — 1 /4 .. Bidet Combination sink and tray 2 1 Dental lavatory 1 11/4 Dental unit or cuspidor 1 1 1 /4 P M 11/ Dishwashing machine ,c domestic 2 2 Dnnking fountain 1 /2 11/4 Emergency floor dram 0 2 ' a_ ' Floor drains 2 2 Kitchen sink, domestic 2 1 Kitchen sink, domestic with food waste gnnder and/or dishwasher 2 11/2 .. Laundry tray (1 or 2 compartments) 2 11/2 Lavatory 1 1 Shower compartment, domestic 2 2 MN Sink 2 11/2 Unnal 4 Footnote d Unnal, 1 gallon per flush or less 2e Footnote d Wash sink (circular or multiple) each set of faucets 2 11 /2 Water closet, flushometer tank, public or private 4C Footnote d Water closet, private installation 4 Footnote d Water closet, public installation 6 Footnote d NM For SI 1 inch = 25 4 mm 1 gallon = 3 785 L a For traps larger than 3 inches use Table 709 2 b A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachments does not increase the drainage fixture unit value .., a See Sections 709 2 through 709 4 for methods of computing unit value of fixtures not listed in Table 709 1 or for rating of devices with intermittent flows d Trap size shall be consistent with the fixture outlet size e For the purpose of compuung loads on building drains and sewers water closets or unnals shall not be rated at a lower drainage fixture unit unless the lower values o. are confirmed by testing . ■i TABLE 709 2 DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS FOR FIXTURE DRAINS OR TRAPS FIXTURE DRAIN OR TRAP SIZE (inches) DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNIT VALUE I /4 1 .•, 11 /2 2 2 3 21/2 4 3 5 4 6 1 For SI 1 inch = 25 4 mm OM Standard Plumbing Code©1997 55