Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
