No preview available
O-348-CCITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE • No. 348-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 "IMPACT FEES"; AMENDING SECTION Z-263 "DEFINITIONS"; AMENDING SECTION 2-264 "IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE" PROVDING FOR A NEW IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE; AMENDING SECTION 2-265 "SPECIAL STUDY OPTION"; DELETING SECTION 2-270 "REFUNDS" PROVIDING FOR LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ORDINANCE TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HEREBY ORDAINS THAT: SECTION 1. The City of Clermont Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, 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: All-adult 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 nonqualified 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. Capital 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. Ciry 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 N0.348-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 term excludes a replacement of or addition to any existing unit if no net new units are created. SECTION 2. The City of Clermont 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 Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the "Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study dated September 19, 2005," and the fee schedule incorporated therein, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Appendix "A" and is available from the city clerk. (b) If a development approval is requested for a development with mixed unit type, then the fee shall be computed by calculating number of units of each type and multiplying the • results by the appropriate fees on the schedule. When a question arises about which types on the schedule shall apply to the development, the city manager shall determine which comparable land use type shall apply, or if there is not a comparable land use, then a special study shall be required. (c) The schedule shall be reviewed periodically and revised as necessary to reflect new data and technical information that substantially affect the calculation of the proportionate fair share of capital costs represented by the schedule. (d) All impact fees set forth in this Ordinance shall be increased annually due to inflation or other such factors, in order to ensure adequate capital recovery of facility costs. Unless the City Council approves otherwise, the adjustment shall be effective as of October 1 of each year and shall be equal to the then current index pursuant to the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost index. • CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE N0.348-C • Page 3 SECTION 3. The City of Clermont Code of Ordinances Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 2, Section 2- 265 is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 2-265. Special Study Option. (a) A special study may be used to compute any impact fee: (1) At the option of the feepayer, prior to the issuance of a building permit or development approval and in the event that feepayer believes that the impact of the development is less then that assumed under the Impact Fee Schedule; (2) If the city manager determines that the location, intensity or unusual nature of the use indicates that impacts on parks and recreation, police protection, fire protection or water and wastewater treatment facilities will be substantially higher than those assumed in the fee schedule; or (3) If the use is not on the schedule and the city manager determines that a special study is required. • (b) The feepayer shall be responsible for the preparation of the special study, which shall follow the methodology and factors contained in the "Utility and Municipal Impact Fee Study dated September 19, 2005" and in a format approved by the city manager. The city manager shall accept, reject or modify the fee calculated by the special study and notify the feepayer in writing of his determination. (c) Any determination made by the city manager under this section may be appealed to the city council. The council shall review the determination at a regular meeting of the council and shall provide an opportunity for the feepayer and the city manager to address the council. The city council shall make its decision on the fee due under this section based on the following criteria: (1) The fee represents a proportionate fair share of the costs of providing capital improvements whose need is created by new development; (2) The calculation of the fee is based on established methodologies for calculating the proportionate fair share considering any appropriate local factors; and (3) The decision is compatible with and furthers the comprehensive plan. • CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE N0.348-C • Page 4 SECTION 4. The City of Clermont Code of Ordinance Chapter 2, Article VI, Division 2, Section 2- 270 is hereby amended by deleting the following section in its entirety: Sec. 2-270.Refunds Any funds collected under this division not expended or encumbered by the end of the calendar year immediately following eight years from the date on which the building permit for the development was issued may be returned to the then current property owner upon his application for refund, with interest at the rate of six percent per annum. SECTION 5. 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 6. 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 7. 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 8. This Ordinance shall be published as provided by law and it shall become law and take effect January 1, 2006. First Reading this 25`h day of October, 2005. • Second Reading this 8`" day of November, 2005. • CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ORDINANCE N0.348-C Page 5 PASSED AND ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLERMONT, LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THIS 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2005. CITY OF CLERMONT ~~~ Ma oy r Harold S. Turville, Jr. • Attest: dI Tracy Acl~oyd, City Cork • .~ r 1 U Page 1 of 10 City of Clermont APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Land Use Table 1 Recreation Impact Fee Single-Family Unit of Measurement Impact Fee 0 - 1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit $1,264.00 2 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $1,466.00 3 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $2,087.00 4 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $2,670.00 5+ Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $3,186.00 Multi-Family 0 - 1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit $1,227.00 2 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $1,945.00 3 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $2,910.00 . 4+ Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $3,725.00 Mobile Homes 0 - 1 Bedroom Dwelling Unit $748.00 2 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $1,167.00 3 Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $2,027.00 4+ Bedrooms Dwelling Unit $2,954.00 Table 2 Police Protection Impact Fee Residential Single-Family Dwelling Unit $457.00 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $390.00 Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $457.00 Non-Residential All Suites Hotel Room $337.40 Apparel Store 1,000 sf $746.13 Arts and Crafts Store 1,000 sf $644.36 Athletic Club 1,000 sf $499.49 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 sf $699.72 • Page 2 of 10 City of Clermont • APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Unit of Land Use Measurement Impact Fee Bowling Alley 1,000 sf $770.36 Building Materials and Lumber Store 1,000 sf $526.75 Business Park 1,000 sf $282.41 Cemetery Acre $160.44 Clinic 1,000 sf $846.38 Commercial Airport Flights per Day $1,245.61 Convenience Market 1,000 sf $2,136.71 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 1,000 sf $2,414.59 Corporate Headquarters Building 1,000 sf $247.20 Day Care Center 1,000 sf $2,222.29 Discount Club 1,000 sf $492.04 Discount Home Furnishings Superstore 1,000 sf $554.16 Discount Supermarket 1,000 sf $1,060.38 Drive-in Bank 1,000 sf $753.46 • Electronic Superstore 1,000 sf $525.51 Factory Outlet Center 1,000 sf $334.92 Fast-food Restaurant with Drive Through 1,000 sf $5,395.58 Fast-food Restaurant without Drive Through 1,000 sf $7,666.59 Free-Standing Discount Store 1,000 sf $638.98 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 1,000 sf $568.61 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $112.64 Gasoline /Service Station Pump Position $469.91 Gasoline /Service Station w/ Convenience Market Pump Position $455.00 Gasoline /Service Station w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash Pump Position $429.32 General Aviation Airport Flights per Day $32.22 General Heavy Industrial 1,000 sf $157.38 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $162.28 General Office Building 1,000 sf $332.28 Golf Course Hole $1,492.26 Golf Driving Range Tee $219.79 Hardware /Paint Store 1,000 sf $590.09 Health /Fitness Club 1,000 sf $395.51 High-Turnover Restaurant (Sit-down) 1,000 sf $1,584.66 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf $368.11 . Hospital 1,000 sf $756.32 Page 3 of 10 City of Clermont • APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Unit of Land Use Measurement Impact Fee Hotel Room $674.79 Industrial Park 1,000 sf $162.26 Junior /Community College Student $68.46 Lodge /Fraternal Organization Member $8.46 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $157.38 Marina Acre $304.07 Medical /Dental Office Building 1,000 sf $517.60 Mini-warehousing 1,000 sf $79.33 Motel Room $411.76 Movie Theater 1,000 sf $1,628.32 Multipurpose Recreational Facility Acre $2,272.53 New Car Sales 1,000 sf $445.83 Nursery /Garden Center Acre $892.93 Nursery Wholesale Acre $552.92 • Nursing Home 1,000 sf $661.02 Office Park 1,000 sf $272.57 Pharmacy /Drugstore (No Drive Through) 1,000 sf $335.02 Pharmacy /Drugstore (With Drive Through) 1,000 sf $330.13 Place of Worship 1,000 sf $181.92 Private School (K-12) Student $144.01 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $1,200.44 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Position $563.94 Racquet /Tennis Club Court $815.81 Recreational Community Center 1,000 sf $291.67 Research and Development Center 1,000 sf $248.08 Self-serve Car Wash Wash Stall $557.73 Shopping Center 1,000 sf $503.89 Single Tenant Office Building 1,000 sf $336.41 Specialty Retail Center 1,000 sf $518.08 Supermarket 1,000 sf $1,116.30 Tennis Courts Court $657.72 Tire Store 1,000 sf $317.15 Tire Superstore 1,000 sf $270.60 Truck Terminal Acre $1,021.69 • University /College Student $137.71 Page 4 of 10 City of Clermont APPENDIX A • Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Unit of Land Use Measurement Impact Fee Walk-in Bank 1,000 sf $587.44 Warehousing 1,000 sf $83.85 Water Slide Park Parking Space $68.03 Wholesale Market 1,000 sf $129.87 Table 3 Fire Protection Impact Fee Residential Single-Family Dwelling Unit $321.00 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $274.00 Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $321.00 Non-Residential All Suites Hotel Room $223.08 Apparel Store 1,000 sf $493.33 Arts and Crafts Store 1,000 sf $426.04 Athletic Club 1,000 sf $330.26 Automobile Parts Sales 1,000 sf $462.65 Bowling Alley 1,000 sf $509.36 Building Materials and Lumber Store 1,000 sf $348.28 Business Park 1,000 sf $186.72 Cemetery Acre $106.08 Clinic 1,000 sf $559.62 Commercial Airport Flights per Day $823.58 Convenience Market 1,000 sf $1,412.77 Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps 1,000 sf $1,596.50 Corporate Headquarters Building 1,000 sf $163.44 Day Care Center 1,000 sf $1,469.35 Discount Club 1,000 sf $325.33 Discount Home Furnishings Superstore 1,000 sf $366.41 Discount Supermarket 1,000 sf $701.12 Drive-in Bank 1,000 sf $498.18 Page 5 of 10 City of Clermont • APPENDIX A d l S h u e c e Impact Fee January 1, 2006 Unit of Land Use Measurement Impact Fee Electronic Superstore 1,000 sf $347.47 Factory Outlet Center 1,000 sf $221.45 Fast-food Restaurant with Drive Through 1,000 sf $3,567.51 Fast-food Restaurant without Drive Through 1,000 sf $5,069.07 Free-Standing Discount Store 1,000 sf $422.49 Free-Standing Discount Superstore 1,000 sf $375.96 Furniture Store 1,000 sf $74.48 Gasoline /Service Station Pump Position $310.70 Gasoline /Service Station w/ Convenience Market Pump Position $300.84 Gasoline /Service Station w/ Convenience Market & Car Wash Pump Position $283.86 General Aviation Airport Flights per Day $21.31 General Heavy Industrial 1,000 sf $104.07 General Light Industrial 1,000 sf $107.30 General Office Building 1,000 sf $219.70 a Golf Course Hole $986.66 Golf Driving Range Tee $145.32 Hardware /Paint Store 1,000 sf $390.16 Health /Fitness Club 1,000 sf $261.51 High-Turnover Restaurant (Sit-down) 1,000 sf $1,047.76 Home Improvement Superstore 1,000 sf $243.38 Hospital 1,000 sf $500.07 Hotel Room $446.16 Industrial Park 1,000 sf $107.28 Junior /Community College Student $45.27 Lodge /Fraternal Organization Member $5.59 Manufacturing 1,000 sf $104.07 Marina Acre $201.05 Medical /Dental Office Building 1,000 sf $342.24 Mini-warehousing 1,000 sf $52.45 Motel Room $272.25 Movie Theater 1,000 sf $1,076.63 Multipurpose Recreational Facility Acre $1,502.58 New Car Sales 1,000 sf $294.78 Nursery /Garden Center Acre $590.40 • Nursery Wholesale Acre $365.58 Page 6 of 10 City of Clermont • APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Land Use Unit of Measurement Impact Fee Nursing Home 1,000 sf $437.06 Office Park 1,000 sf $180.22 Pharmacy /Drugstore (No Drive Through) 1,000 sf $221.51 Pharmacy /Drugstore (With Drive Through) 1,000 sf $218.28 Place of Worship 1,000 sf $120.28 Private School (K-12) Student $95.22 Quality Restaurant 1,000 sf $793.72 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Position $372.87 Racquet /Tennis Club Court $539.41 Recreational Community Center 1,000 sf $192.85 Research and Development Center 1,000 sf $164.03 Self-serve Car Wash Wash Stall $368.77 Shopping Center 1,000 sf $333.16 Single Tenant Office Building 1,000 sf $222.43 • Specialty Retail Center 1,000 sf $342.54 Supermarket 1,000 sf $738.09 Tennis Courts Court $434.88 Tire Store 1,000 sf $209.70 Tire Superstore 1,000 sf $178.93 Truck Terminal Acre $675.53 University /College Student $91.05 Walk-in Bank 1,000 sf $388.41 Warehousing 1,000 sf $55.45 Water Slide Park Parking Space $44.98 Wholesale Market 1,000 sf $85.87 n LJ Page 7 of 10 • City of Clermont APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Unit of System Measurement Impact Fee Table 4 Water System Impact Fee Water System 1 ERU $1,608.00 Note: The water system impact fee is determined by multiplying the above impact fee amount times the equivalent residential units (ERU) indicated in Table 6 for the respective project. Table 5 Wastewater System Impact Fee ~~ Wastewater System 1 ERU $3,029.00 Note: The wastewater system impact fee is determined by multiplying the above impact fee amount times the equivalent residential units (ERU) indicated in Table 6 for the respective project. Page 8 of 10 City of Clermont APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) Table 6 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) ResidentiaL• Single-family or multiple family per dwelling unit except qualified all-adult communities 1 bedroom and 600 square feet or less heated or cooled area 0.33 2 bedrooms and 601-1,000 square feet heated or cooled area 0.67 3 bedrooms and 1,001.2,000 square feet heated or cooled area 1.00 4 or more bedrooms and 2,000 square feet or more heated or cooled area 1.33 Qualified all-adult community Up to 3 bedrooms 0.67 4 or more bedrooms 1.00 Commercial: Airports, bus terminals, train stations, port and docking facilities Use fixture units • Auditorium, per 100 square feet 0.03 Barber and Beauty shops per 100 square feet 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 square feet 0.03 Dentists' offices per 100 square feet 0.18 Doctors' offices per 100 square feet 0.06 Food service operations (a) Restaurants operating less than 16 hours per day per 100 square feet 0.34 (b) Restaurants operating 16 hours or more per day per 100 square feet 0.53 (c) Bar and cocktail lounge per 100 square feet 0.26 (d) Carry-out only per 100 square feet of floor space 0.15 (e) Food outlets excluding deli, bakery or meat department per 100 square feet of floor space 0.02 (1) Add for deli per 100 square feet of floor space 0.11 (2) Add for bakery per 100 square feet of floor space 0.11 (3) Add for meat department per 100 square feet of floor space 0,22 (f) Restaurant using single service food items only per 100 square feet 0.13 Hotels and motels (a) Regular per room 0.33 • (b) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per unit 0.43 Page 9 of 10 City of Clermont APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) (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 1,000 square feet 0.40 (b) With showers per 1,000 square feet 1.25 Laundry/self-service per machine 1.33 Office building per 250 square feet 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 square feet of floor space 0.43 Stadiums, race tracks, ball parks per 100 square feet 0.03 Swimming and bathing facilities Use fixture units Theaters, dinner per 100 square feet 0.41 • Mobile home park per mobile home space 0.44 Recreational vehicle park Recreational vehicle for overnight stay, without water and sewer hookup per vehicle space 0.17 Recreational vehicle for overnight stay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicle space 0.22 Institutional: Churches per 100 square feet 0.03 Hospitals per bed (excluding food service wastewater flows) 0.44 (a) Add for food service per 100 square feet 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 square feet 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 square feet (a) Middle and high 0.25 (b) Elementary, day care and nursery 0.09 • (c) Boarding type 0.53 Page 10 of 10 • U City of Clermont APPENDIX A Impact Fee Schedule January 1, 2006 Work/construction camps, semi-permanent Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) Use fixture units Note: Where the number of bedrooms indicated on the floor plan and 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. • Append /X cc i4 >> CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA & UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL IMPACT FEE STUDY September 19, 2005 ' Public Resources Management Group, Inc. ` „G Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants ' Public Resources Management Group, Inc. X 1% k Utility, Rate, Financial and Management Consultants September 19, 2005 PRMG #1179 -01 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Clermont 685 W Montrose Street Clermont, FL 34711 Subject: Utility and Municipal Services Impact Fee Study Ladies and Gentlemen We have completed our study of the utility and municipal Impact fees for water and wastewater services, police services, fire and rescue services, and recreational services for the City of Clermont (the "City") and have summarized the results of our analysis, assumptions, and conclusions in this report, which is submitted for your consideration This report summarizes the basis for the proposed impact fees in order to provide funds to meet the City's capital expenditure requirements for such services allocable to growth Dunng the course of the study, it was determined that the proposed impact fees should meet a number of goals and objectives These goals and objectives pnmarily deal with fee sufficiency and level Specifically, the major objectives considered in this study include • The Impact Fees should be sufficient to fund the projected capital requirements associated with providing service to new growth and development, • The Impact Fees should not be used to fund deficiencies in capital needs of the City, if any, and • The Impact Fees should be based upon reasonable level of service standards which meet the needs of the City and are similar to )Industry standards The proposed municipal and utility services impact fees presented in this report should meet the above objectives, as identified by the City during this study As such, based on information provided by the City and the assumptions and considerations reflected in this report, Public Resources Management Group, Inc considers the proposed fees to be cost - based, reasonable, and representative of the funding requirements of the City K \DM \I 179-01 \Reports \Final \ Repon 341 NORTI I MAITLAND AVENUE - SUITE 300 - MAITLAND, FL 32751 TELEPHONE (407) 628 -2600 • FAX (407) 628 -2610 • EMAIL PRMG @PRMGInc com Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Clermont September 19, 2005 Page 2 We appreciate the cooperation and assistance given to us by the City and its staff in the completion of the study Very truly yours, Public Resources Management Group, Inc. r(4 , ? ‘ 43"44.° "" Henry L Thomas Vice President Murray M Hamilton, Jr Rate Analyst HLT /dlm K \DM \I 179 -01 \Reports\Fmul\Report CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Letter of Transmittal Table of Contents . . i List of Tables 111 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .. ES -1 Executive Summary .. ES- 1 SECTION 1 — INTRODUCTION 1 -1 Introduction. 1 -1 Authonzation . . . 1 -1 Criteria For Impact Fees 1 -2 Impact Fee Methods . . 1 - Summary of Report 1 -5 Acknowledgments. .. .. . 1 -6 SECTION 2 — SERVICE AREA . 2 -1 General .. ... . . . . 2 -1 Population and Development Forecast . . 2 -1 SECTION 3 — WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES . . 3 -1 General .. 3-1 Design of Impact Fees . . . 3-1 Existing Impact Fees .. 3 -1 Level of Service Requirements . . . 3 -2 Existing Capital Facilities and Capital Improvement Program . . 3 -3 Design of Water Impact Fee . . 3 -4 Design of Wastewater Impact Fee . 3-5 Fee Application 3 -6 Companson With Other Utilities 3 -7 K \DM \I 179 -0I\Reports\Final \Rcpon I CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Title Page SECTION 4 — POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE 4 -1 General . . 4 -1 Level of Service Requirements . . 4 -1 Resource Needs Analysis . . .. 4 -2 Design of Police Services Impact Fee . . 4 -3 Police Services Impact Fce Assumptions . 4 -4 Impact Fee Calculation 4 -6 Impact Fee Comparisons 4 -6 SECTION 5 — FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE 5 -1 General 5 -1 Level of Service Requirements .. .. 5 -1 Resource Needs Analysis . 5-4 Design of Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee 5 -4 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fce Assumptions . . 5 -5 Impact Fee Calculation . . . 5 -6 Impact Fee Compansons . . . .... .. 5 -7 SECTION 6 — PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE 6 -1 General 6 -1 Definition of Recreational Facilities . 6 -1 Level of Service Standards . . 6 -2 Design of Recreational Facility Impact Fee . 6 -4 Recreational Facility Impact Fee Assumptions . 6-4 Impact Fee Calculation . . 6-4 Impact Fee Compansons . 6-5 K \DM \I 179 -01 \Rcports\Final \Report 11 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF TABLES Table No Title Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis 3 -1 Summary of Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets 3 -2 Summary of Planned Water Capital Improvements 3 -3 Summary of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements 3 -4 Development of Water System Impact Fee 3 -5 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 3 -6 Comparison of Impact Fees for the Water and Wastewater Systems Police Services Impact Fee Analysis 4 -1 Summary of Existing Personnel 4 -2 Summary of Personnel Equipment Costs 4 -3 Allocation of Capital Equipment and Cost Determinations 4 -4 Summary of Capital Costs 4 -5 Allocation of Service Calls 4 -6 Impact Fee Allocation — Base Capacity / Vanable 4 -7 Police Services Impact Fee Comparison Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis 5 -1 Summary of Existing Personnel 5 -2 Summary of Personnel Equipment Costs 5 -3 Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment and Recoupment Costs 5 -4 Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment and Cost Allocation 5 -5 Summary of Capital Costs 5 -6 Allocation of Service Calls 5 -7 Impact Fee Allocation — Base Capacity / Variable 5 -8 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comparison K \DM\1179 -01\Rcports \I mal\Report 111 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Table No Title Recreation Impact Fee Analysis 6 -1 Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities 6 -2 Existing Open -Space Needs 6 -3 Future Open-Space Needs Through 2020 6 -4 Existing Activity Standards 6 -5 Future Activity Standards Through 2020 6 -6 Summary of Capital Activity Costs to Support Future Growth 6 -7 Design of Recreation Impact Fee 6 -8 Impact Fee Allocation 6 -9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Companson K \DM \I l79-O IVicpons\F!nal\Report IV 1'1: MG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS CiTY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA UTILITY AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES IMPACT FEE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to .the extent practical, growth - related capital costs to those new customers responsible for such costs To the extent new population growth and associated development imposes identifiable capital costs to municipal services, equity and modern capital funding practices suggest the assignment of such cost to those residents or system users responsible for such costs The City of Clermont (the "City") has recognized this capital funding strategy as being an appropriate method of funding the certain future capital requirements of the City The City has, in the past, adopted impact fees for the following municipal and utility services. • Water and Wastewater Services • Police Services • Fire Rescue Services • Recreation Services This report addresses the impact fees associated with water and wastewater service, police services, fire and rescue services, and recreational services (collectively, the "Utility and Municipal Services Impact Fees ") The City currently has impact fees for all of these services as noted above Public Resources Management Group, Inc (PRMG) was retained to review and develop proposed fees, as appropriate The following is a summary of the findings and conclusions developed during our investigation, analyses, and preparation of the report 1 With the exception of the water and wastewater system analysis, the method of impact fee application recommended to the City is the cost per dwelling unit for the residential class and the cost per 1,000 square feet of development unit for the non - residential class (referred to in this report as the Equivalent Impact Fee Units) The utilization of these units for the application of such fees is common and is used to some degree by all local governments surveyed 2 The method of impact fee application recommended to the City for the water and wastewater systems is consistent with the current method utilized for such systems Charges are determined based on equivalent usage factors for a vanety of classes with the standard cost based on the assumed usage level associated with a single - family detached home (cost per ERU) A more thorough discussion related to this fee application is presented in Section 3 K \DM \1179- OIUtcports\Final\Rcport ES -1 3 The permanent residential population of the City based on estimates developed using Census data and growth estimates provided by City staff is estimated at 20,017 in 2005 and is projected to be approximately 35,658 by the end of 2020, for an average annual growth rate of 3 67% The estimated total number of households based on 2 29 persons per household is expected to increase from 8,741 to 15,571 for a net gain of 6,830 households during the forecast penod from 2005 through 2020 4 Based on data provided by the City's planning department, it has been estimated that an additional 3,701,557 square feet of non - residential development is projected to be constructed dunng the forecast period reflected in this study Future non - residential development is assumed to be approximately 236 60 square feet per resident based on histoncal relationships 5 The level of service (LOS) standard used for the development of the water and wastewater services impact fee is based on the gallons per day (GPD) required for each equivalent residential unit (ERU) The City's currently adopted LOS for water services is 520 8 GPD (217 gallons per person x 2 4 persons per average ERU) while the LOS for the wastewater system is 350 GPD The standards are consistent with current residential customer usage patterns and are used as the basis for the proposed water and wastewater impact fees Based on capital costs attributable to growth as outlined in Section 3, the following summarizes the proposed water and wastewater impact fees Water impact Fee $1,608 Wastewater Impact Fee 3.029 Total Combined Utility Impact Fee [ *] $4.637 [•] Per Equivalent residential Unit (ERU) and derived from Tables 3-4 and 3 -5 of the report 6 The level of service standard used for the development of the police services impact fee is the number of full -time patrol officers per 1,000 population This standard is commonly used in the establishment of police services impact fees and, for the City, the target level is 2 0 full -time officers per 1,000 residents. This standard is generally consistent with the standards referenced in published state and national guidelines (e g , Flonda Department of Law Enforcement), and is comparable to staffing level ratios for other Flonda communities Based on costs attributable to growth as outlined in Section 4, the following summanzes the proposed police services impact fees. Police Services Impact Fee [ *] Residential (unit) Non - Residential (sq ft ) Existing Fee $185 $0 0100 — 1 8380 Proposed Fee $457 $0 0793 — 7 6666 [•] Denved from Table 4 -7 in this report 7 The level of service standard used for the development of the fire rescue services impact fee is the maintenance of first response time of four (4) minutes or less per fire and rescue K \DM\I 179 -01\Reports\Finai\Rcpon ES -2 alarm The resources required to achieve this standard are the City's personnel and fire fighting equipment The City currently has a staffing plan that results in an LOS standard of 1 32 firefighter /rescue personnel per 1,000 population This standard is generally comparable to staffing level ratios for other Florida communities Based on costs attributable to growth as outlined m Section 5, the following summarizes the proposed fire and rescue services impact fees Fire Services Impact Fee [ Residential (unit) Non - Residential (sq ft ) Existing Fee $194 $0 0390 —1 6460 Proposed Fee $321 $0 0525 — 5 0691 [•] Denved from Table 5 -8 m this report 8 Municipalities typically adopt recreation facilities standards for recreation planning purposcs as part of the comprehensive planning process These standards deal with the types of facilities the City desires for its residents The City's adopted level of service is currently 10 0 acres per 1,000 population, and the City has vanous population standards for recreation activities and facilities The recreation services impact fee proposed herein was predicated on the estimated cost of parkland, facilities, and activities (ball fields, basketball courts, picnic facilities, etc) required to meet the recreational standards as adopted by the City These standards and their costs are outlined in Section 6 of this report. A major impact on the proposed level of recreation impact fees is the increased cost of land to maintain the City's open -space service level Based on the expected costs of these facilities and activities, and the population of the City for which they are constructed to serve, the following summarizes the proposed recreational impact fees - Recreation Services Impact Fee [ *] Existing Impact Fee $673 Proposed impact Fee $2,087 [•] Derived from Table 6 -9 and reflects the fee for a three bedroom single family dwelling unit A summary of all of the City's proposed impact fees for the single- family residential classification are as follows Proposed Residential Impact Fees Water and Wastewater $4,637 Police Protection 457 Fire and Rescue Protection 321 Recreation 2,087 Total $7.502 K \DMA 179- 01\Reports \F,nal \Report ES -3 Mt MG SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The City of Clermont (the "City") is located in Lake County (the "County") 25 miles west of the City of Orlando, a mayor metropolitan area The City, incorporated in 1916, now compnses 11 5 square miles and provides an array of services to year -round and seasonal residents The municipal services in demand include water and wastewater management, police and fire protection services, and parks and recreational services Based on the published Census in 2000, the City's permanent population was 9,333 Based on historical growth trends and discussions with the City's Planning Department, the current estimated population is 20,017 as of 2005 It is anticipated that the City will have significant growth through build -out, however, at that time it is estimated that the City's population will reach 35,658 with approximately 15,571 housing units by 2020 (the "Forecast Penod ") In addition to housing, the City anticipates commercial development to continue to support new residents In order to meet this anticipated growth and development and to maintain current levels of service, the City will need to fund capital improvements to serve such development The City's Municipal Services Impact Fees were last updated in 1998 Although the City has indexed such rates annually thereafter, rates need to be reviewed penodically to ensure that such fees reflect current growth trends and capital plans The City authorized Public Resources Management Group, Inc (PRMG) to evaluate the water, wastewater, police, fire, and recreational impact fees AUTHORIZATION PRMG was authonzed by the City to evaluate and develop water and wastewater services, police services, fire services, and recreational services impact fees pursuant to a letter agreement between the City and PRMG The scope of work for this project, as defined in the letter agreement, was to 1 For each service, review and analyze the capital requirements of the City that are needed to meet the level of service standards for the municipal function This analysis includes a review of i) the existing and future facility and equipment inventory of each specific municipal function, n) service area population and development demographics and future needs, and iii) services provided by class of customers 2 Where appropnate, develop a fee to be charged to new development in order to recover the capital costs associated with providing municipal services This analysis includes the apportionment of costs among customer /development classifications, and the development of the fee per equivalent billing unit 3 Develop a companson of the impact fees and associated billing attributes for similar charges imposed by other neighbonng jurisdictions K \DM \1179 -01 \Reports \Final\Report 1-1 4. Prepare a report that documents our analyses, assumptions, and conclusions for consideration by the City Manager and City Council CRITERIA FOR IMPACT FEES The purpose of an impact fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth- related capital costs to those new customers that benefit from the facilities funded by such expenditures To the extent new population growth and associated development Imposes identifiable capital costs to municipal services, equity and modern capital funding practices suggest the assignment of such costs to those residents or system users responsible for such costs rather than the existing population base Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying its own way " The use of impact fees as a mechanism to fund capital requirements associated with municipal growth is becoming widespread. As of November 1994, twenty-five states have adopted legislation authonzing the use of impact fees and prescribing how such fees may be enacted, assessed, collected, and expended ' Within the State of Florida, a specific statute authonzing the use of Impact fees does not exist The authority to impose an impact fee is supported by case law before the Florida courts based upon broad grants of power including the home rule power of Flonda counties and municipalities The Municipal Home Rule Powers Act grants Flonda municipalities the governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services, as limited by legislation or as prohibited by state constitution or general law Florida courts have ruled that the Municipal Home Rule Powers Act grants the requisite power and authority to establish valid impact fees The authonty for Florida governments to implement valid impact fees is further granted in the Flonda Growth Management Act of 1985 The Act allows for impact fees under land use regulation by stating "This section shall be construed to encourage the use of innovative land development regulations which include provisions such as the transfer of development rights, incentive and Inclusionary zoning, planned unit development, impact fees, and performance zoning " Flonda Statutes, Sec 163 3203(3) The precedent for impact fees in Flonda was set in the City of Dunedin litigation and judgment In this case, the Court's ruling found that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact fees, can be levied for a specific purpose by a Flonda municipality as a capital charge for services An Impact fee should not be considered as a special assessment or an additional tax A special assessment is predicated upon an estimated increment in value to the property assessed by virtue of the 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 ' Clark, D Development Fees A Legislative History Journal of the Amencan Water Works Association (November 1994) K \DM\I179 -01 \Reports\} , aI RCport 1 -2 Impact fees are not related to the value of the improvement to the property but rather to the usage of the public 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 may be entirely unrelated to the value or assessment basis of the underlying land With respect to a comparison to taxes, impact fees are distinguishable pnmanly in the direct relationship between amount charged and the measurable quantity of public facilities required In the case of taxation, there is no requirement that the payment be in proportion to the quantity of public services consumed and funds received by a municipality from taxes can be expended for any legitimate public purpose In the Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County versus 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 system 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 required (the "Rational Nexus" test) 2 The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users 3 The impact fee should, to the extent practicable, only cover the capital cost of 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 upgrading of a facility (e g , replacement of a capital asset) or an increase in the level of service should be borne by all users of the facility or municipality Likewise, increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that facility should be borne by all users of the facility 4 The City must adopt a revenue - producing ordinance that explicitly sets forth restrictions on revenues (uses thereof) that the imposition of the system impact fee generates Therefore, the funds collected from the system impact fee should be set -aside in a separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to cnsure that they are used only for the lawful purposes descnbed Based on the critena above, impact fees which will be developed in subsequent sections herein i) will include only the cost of the capital facilities necessary to serve new customer growth, ii) will not reflect renewal and replacement costs associated with existing capital assets of the City, and iii) will not include any costs of operation and maintenance of the facilities IMPACT FEE METHODS There are several different methods for the calculation of an impact fee. The calculation is dependent on the type of fee being calculated (e g , water, police services, recreational services, transportation, etc ), cost and engineenng data available, and the availability of other local data K \DM \1179 -01 \Rcports\FinaPRcport 1 -3 such as household and population projections, current levels of service, and other related items The proposed Municipal Services Impact Fees reflected in this report are based on two separate methods These two methods are i) the improvements -dnven method, and ii) the standards - dnven method Both methods have been utilized in the development of impact fees for local governments in Flonda The improvements -dnven method is an approach that utilizes a specific list of planned capital improvements over a period of time For example, the fee may correspond to the level of capital improvements that have been identified in the capital improvements element of the Comprehensive Plan or capital improvement budget of the local government The standards -dnven method does not utilize the cost of improvements based on specific capital budget needs but rather on the theoretical cost of the improvements to the City's capital facilities for incremental development For example, the standards -dnven method for a transportation impact fee would consider the theoretical cost of a mile of a new road by the tnp capacity of a mile of road to establish the cost per tnp The primary difference between the two methodologies is how the capital costs, which must be recovered from the application of the fee, are calculated Both methodologies have their advantages and disadvantages The advantages associated with the improvements -dnven method include the following 1 Based solely on budgeted capital improvements, thus providing a definite relationship between the level of fee and need ii. The use of fees can be shown to be attnbutable to growth based on the capital improvement plan utilized in the analysis as opposed to capital deficiencies in the system There are several disadvantages associated with the improvements -dnven method Some of the disadvantages include the following i Fee may be based on an intermediate range forecast of capital improvements (e g , five years) which may not reflect the true level of needs since major capital improvements may be beyond the time frame of the capital forecast. 11 The fee does not take into account unused capacity at existing facilities which should be allocated to the users of the facilities 111 The forecast of capital improvements required for new development is still an estimate of cost and is subject to revisions and updates iv It may be difficult to apportion to cost of specific improvements among present deficiencies, growth, and excess capacity With respect to the standards -dnven method of determining impact fees, there also exist certain advantages and disadvantages The advantages include the following. K \DM \1179 -01 \Kcpons\Final\Rcport 1-4 1 Fee is based on a defined level of service and type of facility and it may be easier to determine the standard cost of the capital facilities associated with such level 11 Provides governments with more flexibility in the use of the collected fees in that they can identify future capital needs in advance of establishing the specific capital budget in The development of the fee does not require a detailed projection of future capital improvements and associated costs and is more applicable to the needs of a small municipality due to constraints of staff and resources As one would expect, there are also disadvantages associated with the standards -dnven method The disadvantages include i The capital costs for the impact fee are not associated with anticipated or current capital needs as identified by the City's capital budget, thus increasing the potential of not providing a clear relationship between the fee and its use ii The development of the standard cost for capital facilities is based primarily on engineenng, planning, and financial judgment, although this may be somewhat mitigated by the level of service standards included in the Comprehensive Planning Process The proposed impact fees herein for the municipal services include the application of both the standards -dnven and improvement -dnven methods based on the capital facilities required to provide services and meet the City's service level standards Where appropnate, the blending of both methods occurred and a more complete discussion of the methods used for the determination of the impact fees are presented in Sections 3 through 6 SUMMARY OF REPORT In addition to Section 1, this report has been subdivided into five (5) other sections The following is a bnef discussion of the remaining sections included in this report Section 2 — Service Area This section of the report provides a general discussion of the residential and non - residential land use charactenstics Also presented in this section is the forecast of the residential dwelling units and non - residential development that is necessary in the design of the impact fees for the municipal services Section 3 — Water and Wastewater Services Impact Fee This section discusses the development of the proposed connection/impact fee for water and wastewater services, including the capital cost requirements associated with providing these services, the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination Section 4 — Police Services Impact Fee This section discusses the development of the proposed impact fee for police services, including the capital requirements associated with providing police services, the methodology for the determination of the proposed K \DM \1179 -01\Reports\Final\Report 1-5 fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination Section 5 — Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee This section discusses the development of the proposed impact fee for fire protection services, including the capital requirements associated with providing fire protection services, the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination Section 6 — Recreation Impact Fee This section discusses the development of the recreation impact fee, including the capital requirements associated with providing parks and recreation facilities to the City's residents, the methodology for the determination of the proposed fees, assumptions utilized in the design of the fees, and other factors associated with the fee determination ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report was prepared with the cooperation and assistance of City staff The Project Team would like to thank the following individuals for their valuable assistance in this study • Mr Wayne Saunders, City Manager, • Mr Darren Gray, Assistant City Manager, • Mr Joseph Van Zile, Administrative Services Director • Mr James Hitt, Planning Director, • Ms Tamara Richardson, Utilities Director, • Chief Enc Jensen, Interim Police Chief, • Chief Carle Bishop, Fire Chief, and • All other City staff who were vital in completing this analysis (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K 1DM11 I79-0 11Rcports\Final\Report i -6 PR MG SECTION 2 SERVICE AREA SECTION 2 SERVICE AREA GENERAL This section provides a general discussion of the current service area, including population and housing statistics and other demographic information related to land use Additionally, a discussion of the anticipated growth in population and associated growth m residential dwelling units and non - residential development is also contained in this section POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT FORECAST Regardless of the approach taken to formulate impact fees, it is necessary to develop a forecast of the population of the City in order to i) have an appropriate planning horizon to ensure that capital improvement needs and costs are apportioned over a suitable growth segment, ii) link LOS requirements to the capital facility plan, and in) identify any deficiencies in existing capital facilities related to the LOS standards and current population served As shown on the following table, the City's estimated total population as of 2000 was 9,333 Based on information provided by the City, it is estimated that the total population will approach approximately 35,658 residents by the year 2020 Thus, the population growth anticipated by the City is expected to be significant, approximately 3 67% on an average annual basis through the year 2020 Histoncal and Projected Population and Dwelling Units Average Persons Total Total Per Occupied Single- Multi- Mobile Year Population Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Family Family Homes Duplex 2000 [1] 9,333 4,675 2 29 3,439 617 317 302 2005 [2] 20,017 8,741 2 29 6,430 1,429 317 565 2010 22,696 9,911 2 29 7,291 1,663 317 640 2015 28,448 12,423 2 29 9,139 2,165 317 802 2020 [2] 35,658 15,571 2 29 11,454 2,794 317 1,006 [1] Amounts denvcd from the 2000 Census [2] Amounts provided based on information provided by the City's Planning Department Based on the assumption of continued commercial development and information submitted by the City's Planning Department, the following estimates of future non - residential development were assumed for the purposes of this report Estimated Non - Residential Development (Sq Ft ) Projected 2020 [1] Sq Ft of Building Space Commercial 3,107,557 [ 11 Based on information provided by the City's Planning Department commercial development has histoncally averaged 236 60 square feet per person K \DM \1179 -01\Reports \Final \Report 2 -1 The anticipated non - residential development reflected above, is based upon the existing non - residential square feet of approximately 4,735,126 or 236 60 square feet per existing resident By 2020 it is estimated that the City's population will grow to 35,658 and require commercial and industrial services of approximately 8,436,683 square feet It is then estimated that new non- residential development of 3,701,557 square feet will be developed over the forecast period To the extent the projections of future development materially changes, it would then be appropnate for the City to re- evaluate the impact fees developed in this report (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM \] 179 -01\ Reports \ Final \Report 2 -2 Mt MG SECTION 3 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES SECTION 3 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES GENERAL This section of the report summanzes the basis for the development of the City's proposed water and wastewater impact fees Included in this section is a discussion of the design and calculation of the proposed water and wastewater impact fees for consideration by the City DESIGN OF IMPACT FEES The review of the water and wastewater impact fees is based on the improvements -driven approach In calculating the proposed fees there are two significant components that are addressed These two components include i) the level of service to be assigned to the applicants that request system capacity, and ii) the level or amount of capital cost to be recovered from a new applicant requesting service Both of these components influence the level of the impact fee charged expressed on an equivalent residential unit (ERU) basis Generally, there are two different methods of developing water and wastewater impact fees The "average" method is bascd on total system assets and capabilities available to serve new growth (including existing and future expansion), while the "incremental' method is based upon the cost of the next increment of capacity including only additional assets or expansion capacity needed to serve new growth The incremental method takes into consideration future capital investment and capacity additions as identified in the City's water and wastewater capital improvements plan Since the water and wastewater systems contain existing assets and capabilities that also have capacity available to serve future growth and the City has also prepared a Master Plan to further improve and expand such systems to serve new customers, it was determined that the average method is the appropnate method to calculate the cost of water and wastewater treatment capacity required to serve new growth EXISTING IMPACT FEES The City currently charges a water impact fee by two separate service temtones, East and West, equal to $1,088 and $490 per ERU, respectively, based on the capital costs of the utility system's capacity for treatment and transmission/distnbution of potable water. The City also currently charges a wastewater impact fee equal to $3,104 per ERU for the entire utility service temtory based on the capital costs of the utility system's capacity for wastewater treatment and collection of wastewater The reasons for using impact fees as a source of utility capital funding include the following 1 To defray the capital cost of constructing new utility facilities necessitated by growth, 2 To shift the financial burden of constructing new utility facilities to the new residents for whose benefit the facilities will be built, and K \DM\I179 -0I\Reports\Fmnl\Report 3 -1 3 To maintain, to the extent possible, existing utility rates while funding a portion of capital costs associated with growth The existing water and wastewater impact fees were adopted in 1998 pursuant to City Ordinance which sets forth the purpose of the fees, the level of fees charged to new applicants requesting water and wastewater service, and other parameters related to the administration of impact fees The water and wastewater impact fees are applied on an ERU basis, which reflects a unit of measure that approximates the average demand or capacity requirements of a single - family residential customer The ERU concept defines all other types of customers as a percentage or a multiple of a single - family residence on the basis of the estimated water consumption (and/or wastewater flow) of such customers relative to residential service levels The City has indexed such fees annually since adoption in 1998 based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing water and wastewater utility services, it is important that a level of service (LOS) standard be developed Pursuant to Chapter 9J -5, Flonda Administrative Code, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degree of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by a facility based on and related to the operational charactenstics of the facility Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163 3202(2)(g) of the Flonda Statutes As further stated in the Administrative Code, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local government has authority to issue development orders or permits Such LOS standards are set for each mdividual facility or facility type and not necessanly on a system -wide basis For water and wastewater service, the level of service that is commonly used in the industry is the amount of capacity allocable to an equivalent residential unit (ERU) expressed as the amount of usage (gallons) allocated on an average daily basis This allocation of capacity represents the amount of capacity allocable to an ERU, whether or not such capacity is actually used (commonly referred to as "readiness to serve ") As previously mentioned, an ERU is representative of the average capacity required to serve a typical individually- metered single - family residential account This class of users represents the largest group of customers served by a public utility such as the City and has among the lowest level of usage requirements for specifically metered accounts Based on information provided by the City, the level of service has previously been established for both the water and wastewater utility systems as part of the master planning process The level of service assumed for each specific utility service is shown below (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM \1179-0 I\ Reports \ Final\ Report 3 -2 Water Wastewater Level of Service per ERU 520 8 gpd 350 0 gpd [ *] gpd = gallons per day EXISTING CAPITAL FACILITIES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The City maintains a significant investment in the existing water and wastewater systems Such assets are used to produce, treat, and distribute potable water to customers and to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater As discussed previously, the existing investment in facilities currently has some capacity available to serve future customers, therefore, an allocated portion of the cost of these assets is Included in the impact fees The City constructed and currently maintains a number of water and wastewater treatment plants and has a significant investment in transmission and distribution lines As shown in Table 3 -1, the following reflects the City's existing investment in the water and wastewater systems Water System Wastewater System Treatment Plants $5,814,904 $17,925,881 Disposal Facilities - -- 1,667,047 Transmission/Collection 4.143.443 4.718.773 investment in Existing Facilities [ *1 $9,958,347 $24.311.201 1.70I [*] Reflects gross assets allocable for impact fee determination denved from Table 3 -1 The City also maintains a long -range capital Improvement program (CIP) for its water and wastewater systems and recently adopted a Master Plan prepared by Boyle Engineenng Corporation The capital projects identified in the Master Plan are provided in detail in Tables 3- 2 and 3 -3 for the water and wastewater systems, respectively. The Master Plan anticipates the City's water and wastewater demands through estimated build -out and Includes the following improvements • Water System Capital Improvement — Construction of Sunburst Lane WTP — Expansion of Greater Hills WTP — Construction of a Conceptual WTP — Expansion of Water Reclamation Facility (Water Supply) — Construction of Water Transmission Mains • Wastewater System Capital Improvement — Expansion of Water Reclamation Facility (Wastewater Treatment) — Decommission/Conversion of West WWTP — Construction of Lift Stations and Force Mains K \DM\I 179 -01\Reports\FinaIVtcport 3 -3 The City will also incur significant expenditures for renewals and replacements, however, no such costs are included in the proposed impact fees, which is consistent with impact fee cntena as established by Flonda case law As shown in Table 3 -2, the City will invest approximately $69 million in the water system adding 19 03 million gallons per day (MGD) of water capacity Table 3 -3 reflects the City's planned investment in the wastewater system of approximately $80 million, which will expand its capacity by 8 0 MGD DESIGN OF WATER IMPACT FEE The City currently maintains a separate water system impact fee for the eastern and western portions of the utility system Based on the current system configuration, the system now operates as a single system, therefore, maintaining separate fees is no longer appropriate As shown on Table 3 -4, the proposed impact fee for the water system is $1,608 per ERU This represents an increase in the eastern fee of $520 or 48% above the current fee per ERU and an increase of $1,118 in the western fee or 228% per ERU The reasons for these increases are due to the need to add additional water supply and treatment capacity which benefits future growth Although the increase in the fee is significant when expressed on a percentage basis, as will be discussed later in this report, the proposed fees reflect system costs and are comparable with neighboring ,jurisdictions in the development of the proposed water impact fees, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed water impact fees are 1 The level of service for a water ERU was assumed to be 520 8 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis as reflected in the City's Impact Fee Ordinance and is based on 217 GPD per person at 2.4 persons per ERU 2 The existing water production and treatment facilities have capacity available to serve new customer growth and are essential in providing such service Table 3 -4 presents the histoncal cost of existing production and treatment facilities plus planned improvements and less estimated developer contributions Based upon the City's current LOS for the water system of 520 8 GPD per ERU, the existing facilities have approximately 4 39% of total capacity available to serve new growth, or approximately $326,000 in reserved capital investment 3 The capital improvements previously identified and reflected in Table 3 -2 will provide an additional capacity of approximately 19 MGD The costs associated with this expansion capacity are estimated at $14,623,661 as shown in Table 3 -2 and included in the fee determination on Table 3 -4 Based upon the City's water LOS of 520 8 GPD per ERU, the new facilities are of serving 36,532 new ERUs. 4 The water transmission and distribution system is currently anticipated to be capable of serving a total capacity of 46,932 ERUs (10,400 current capacity and 36,532 future capacity) The City's current investment in the existing transmission system is approximately $4,143,443 and as illustrated in Table 3 -2, the City plans $52,913,661 in K \DM\I179 -0I\ Reports \ Final \Report 3-4 total improvements After reducing such investment for developer contributions and grants, the City's total planned investment is approximately $56,529,279 As shown_on Table 3 -4, the proposed water impact fee was calculated on a blend of histoncal and future capital costs for the water production and treatment facilities and histoncal and future costs of the transmission system facilities By designing the water system impact fee to recover certain costs on a prospective basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will provide funds to help meet the future capital needs of the water system It should be noted that in the event the construction costs, capacity requirements, or utility service area matenally change, the water impact fee may need to be adjusted accordingly As shown on Table 3 -4, the proposed water impact fee is $1,608 per ERU Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fce, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate are as follows Water Production/Treatment $404 Water Transmission/Distnbution 1.204 Total Fee DESIGN OF WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE As shown on Table 3 -5, the proposed impact fee for the wastewater system is $3,029 per ERU This reflects a proposed reduction in the current fee In the development of the proposed wastewater impact fee, several assumptions were utilized or incorporated in the analysis The major assumptions utilized in the design of the proposed wastewater impact fees are 1 The level of service for a wastewater ERU was assumed to be 350 gallons per day (gpd) expressed on an average daily flow basis as provided by the City 2 The existing wastewater treatment facilities have capacity available to serve new customer growth and are essential in providing such service Table 3 -5 presents the histoncal cost of existing treatment facilities plus planned improvements and less estimated planned retirements Based upon the City's current LOS for the wastewater system of 350 GPD per ERU, the existing facilities have approximately 7 91% of total capacity available to serve new growth 3 The capital improvements identified previously and reflected in Table 3 -3 will provide an expansion capacity of approximately 8 0 MGD The costs associated with this expansion are estimated at $36,000,000 as shown in Table 3 -3 and included in the fee determination on Table 3 -4 Based upon" the City's wastewater LOS of 350 GPD per ERU, the new 'facilities are capable of serving 22,857 new ERUs 4 The wastewater disposal and collection system is currently anticipated to be capable of serving a total capacity of 28,571 ERUs (5,714 current capacity and 22,857 future K \DM \I 179 -0I\Repons \Final\Repo i 3 -5 capacity) The City's current investment in the disposal system is approximately $1,667,047 and the City plans for $18,275,235 in total improvements available to serve new growth The City's current investment in the collection system is approximately $4,718,773 and the City plans $17,440,000 in collection improvements Following adjustments for developer contnbutions, the City's net investment in the collection and disposal system available to serve new growth is estimated at $40,124,685 As shown on Table 3 -5, the proposed impact fee was calculated on a blend of histoncal and future costs for wastewater treatment facilities and histoncal and future costs of the disposal and collection system available to serve future growth By designing the system impact fee to recover costs on this basis, an attempt is made to design a charge that will provide funds on a reasonable basis in order to meet the future capacity needs of the wastewater system It should be noted that in the event the capacity requirements or costs matenally change from what was reflected, the wastewater impact fee may need to be adjusted accordingly. As shown on Table 3 -5, the proposed wastewater impact fee is recommended to be $3,029 per ERU to be applied to an ERU basis Based on the capital facilities associated with the determination of the fee, the functional breakdown of the components of the rate are as follows Wastewater Treatment $1,625 Wastewater Disposal 680 Wastewater Collection 724 Total Fee $. FEE APPLICATION With respect to the application of impact fees a variety of methods are used by Florida utilities, meter - based, attnbute- based, and fixture -based Based on our expenence in working with utilities in Flonda and throughout the State, the following is a summary of impact fee application procedures 1 For impact fees charged to individually- metered residential accounts (single- family), such accounts are generally considered as one (1) equivalent residential unit (ERU) An equivalent residential unit represents the average water or wastewater demand expressed on an average gallons per day basis utilized by a typical single- family residence Generally due to administrative concerns, all individually- metered residential customers are considered to be one (1) ERU However, some utilities further differentiate the single family residential class by square footage, number of bedrooms within the residence or meter size serving the account recognizing the trade -off between a higher degree of equity in fee application versus the administrative cost It should be noted that this class of customers represents the majority of connections made to most utility systems. 2 The impact fees charged for master metered residential customers (connections which serve a multiple of residential dwelling units with the usage measured through a single meter), institutional, and commercial or general service customers generally are structured to vary in order to recognize differences in the usage /capacity charactenstics of such K \DM\1179- 01Vicpons\Final\Repon 3 -6 customers Essentially, those customers that require a higher level of plant capacity (i e , have greater usage requirements) will pay a higher impact fee The specific method for calculating the fee to be charged to such non - single family residential connections vanes based on the practices and policies of each utility The vanous practices with respect to determining non - single family residential ERUs include a For the master metered residential connections, many utilities consider these customers as residential use and base impact fees on the number of dwelling units served behind the meter Generally, the ERU factor applied to each multi - family dwelling unit is expressed as a multiple of single - family ERU (e g , 0 7 ERCs per dwelling unit) with such factor not being greater than 1 0 ERU per dwelling unit In some instances, however, no differentiation is made between master metered residential accounts or commercial accounts with the size of the service (e g , meter size) dictating the implied capacity requirements and impact fee level b For commercial and institutional customers, many utilities, including the City, attempt to differentiate the capacity charactenstics of a customer based on certain demographics or business attnbutes of the customer This approach relies upon specific customer charactenstics to estimate each individual customer's capacity needs For example, the capacity of a restaurant may be based on the number of square feet of the restaurant Another example of using this method is to estimate the capacity needs for a hotel based on the number of rooms Also, a number of utilities base the estimate of individual customer capacity needs on a fixture count of the physical number of taps and drains located in the customer's premises and estimated flow per fixture based on amounts published in the Standard Plumbing Code This method is often used in conjunction with other methods that rely upon specific business attnbutes for calculating the capacity needs of certain types of customers c Another approach for the determination of the impact fees for the vanous service connections is the use of meter or service size equivalents in the determination of customer capacity needs Essentially the size of the meter is assumed to be linked to the capacity requirements of a user whereby the higher the usage needs of a customer, the larger the size of the meter that needs to be installed for service This method generally incorporates information published by the American Water Works Association (the M22 manual entitled Sizing Water Service Lines and Meters) and is usually based on the instantaneous demands capable of such meter This methodology, while easy to administer, does not account for the potential usage diversity among customers being served by larger meters (c g , two different customers with the same meter size often have significant differences in capacity needs) The City currently has an impact fee ordinance for its water and wastewater systems, and it is recommended that the City continue its current method of application on an ERU basis COMPARISON WITH OTHER UTILITIES In order to provide additional information regarding the competitiveness of the proposed impact fees, a comparison of the recommended fees with similar fees charged by neighbonng K \DM\1179 -0 I\ Reports \FinaNtcport 3 -7 junsdictions was prepared This companson is summanzed on Tables 3 -6 for the water and wastewater systems The companson reflects a standard equivalent residential unit (ERU) which is typical for the fees charged to an individually- metered single- family residential connection, and compnses the majonty of connections, served by both the City and the surveyed public utilities included in the comparison It is important to note that no in -depth analysis has been performed to determine the methods used in the development of the impact fees imposed by others, nor has any analysis been made to determine whether 100% of the cost of new facilities is recovered from capital facility charges, or some percentage less than 100% with the balance being recovered through user charges Additionally, no analysis was conducted as to the type of utility plant facilities (treatment process, level of service, etc) currently in service or planned for the surveyed utility For example, the costs of wastewater effluent disposal utilizing a deep injection well system or reclaimed water distribution system generally have a higher capital cost per unit of capacity than surface water discharge Additionally, utilities that have a poor quality water supply (which is contrary to the City) generally will have increased capital costs associated with higher levels or degrees of water treatment (c g., reverse osmosis) As shown on Tables 3 -6, the proposed water and wastewater impact fees for the City are comparable with similar fees charged by other neighboring utilities. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM \I 179 -01 \Reports \FinahReport 3 -8 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA SECTION 3 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS LIST OF TABLES Table No Title 3 -1 Summary of Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets 3 -2 Summary of Planned Water Capital Improvements 3 -3 Summary of Planned Wastewater Capital Improvements 3 -4 Development of Water System Impact Fee 3 -5 Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee 3 -6 Companson of Impact Fees for the Water and Wastewater Systems Page 1 of 1 Table 3 -1 The City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Water and Wastewater Fixed Assets (1) Line Fixed Assets at Original Cost No Function Water Wastewater Assets Included in the Impact Fee 1 Treatment Plant $5,814,904 $17,925,881 2 Disposal Facilities - 1,667,047 3 Transmission / Collection 4,143,443 4,718,773 Total Embedded Costs Included 4 in the Impact Fee Analysis $9,958,347 $24,311,701 Assets Excluded from the Impact Fee 5 Equipment 521,534 519,141 Total Embedded Costs Excluded 6 from the Impact Fee Analysis $521,534 $519,141 7 Total Fixed Assets $10,479,881 $24,830,842 8 Total System Assets $35.310.722 Footnotes: (1) Reported by the City as of September 30, 2004 m 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r r n n o p 0 p 0 0 0 o e e e e o h m N 0000 E., 2 0.0 m N b b O O O O CA P b U O - O F G c 2 § 2 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 00 P P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry y „ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O n 00 0000 000000 LL 9 0 O O O 0 �0 '0 00 N b 00 n O COO v v0i 01 0 P O r d M O 0 0 0 0 0 P O P y W r N - h P O N O 2 O 4 P E T m N n __ d b n v1 N N a `62) r v - r n N C C O COO O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 h p p 0000000000000 0 0000 U o IS P I §y`x LL e f5 ,Y M P N d 00 000 0 0000 00 o 0 0 o 00 N 0 0 0 000000000000 0 0 0000 en O N O O d F T E i1 co r In 0 00 00 O h K a2 - - I+3 y F e. =.e e g eeeeeeee a \° a "gg". eeg 0 0 00 m 0 °o 0 o0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 Ei0 $� °o 0000 o o 00 e 00 00 0 0 (0 m00 00 00 00 CO (0 p 0 p 0 p00 °O 00000000 0000 § ° o o ° o ° o e v 0 e e 0 e < v e v O O O e0 eO e0 0 0 O °o °o eo e0 0 00 0 e x e,eee ee6 e eeee ee eeee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 O a a 0 0 e e N N `V N N O O o 0 0 0 0 o O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U ti r h r h N N r r h r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 r 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 T O 2i G o o n o O o O o 0 o O o N P d O 0 2 O O 00 8 8 00 8 2° N P 1 a C Y'. ° 0 0 W . ry e e ry n e n 0 n 00 M 00 0 n 0 O o O C e < e ° K w a o i z m a''' I - U E a 0 0 0 O O 0 .... 0 e 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0003 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 u O p ° m i m ' E b, F U d S = 0 9 1 -3 € 1, t, 12 0000 0 088888 0 0 088880088888$ 3 oeee '8 G 0000 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e 0 0 0 G C 822882882221'2 000000000000 m q 9 u h 0 r 0 ... N o o O r 0) O 00 n d v O N n wi N b C 0 r CO r d N r d t1 r0 N v. r n N r N P C L n„ .p d O d (2 , U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 0 0000000000000 0 0000 VI 9 Q 0000 o 0000000020Q 0 e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pp 8 p 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 o 2 8 0 0 0 0 82222282282 o O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 2.° 0 0 0 0 . U 2 00,0 N 0 0 0 0 0„ 0 88 O W O O N p T 4 O O O 8 r P d V VV E 00 r CO n ' 0 O N d n b N e V1 N r n n r N 0 n 8 8 0 N N . v P W d m w d 0 d O 4 et I. E 5 € v a o 2 a' -ar El- j J G � O = p O d E 9 p 'J 9 n 9 0 { O C $ m C 0 L Q 2 2 >< r 3 `- .e. 1= 0 9 g ` 2 e F p a 00 f tf2 3 � 0 0 m ' o e y S f o0 § m = 1 0. S $ a .a. w o 3P� 2 .1 . 5=c-) 2 .1 . 5=c-) = F 33 °� = at o '� -6 °u ° v E a > s a e _ 3 a9 § =og d - 3 e33 �§ E '' g � § $ d § oo € = _9; § gQ E t v h= °�� °� u ;uuuu F vNrv = =w s�sc i d n = s o �`^_"°u ! = =3�s'=c� i m i- i- 3 I- O C O 0 N CO d h 0 h W P 0 --• IN N d ry r co N 0 N r1 , , , d ^ . r 00 , P ^ O n d h b r O P Z _ N N N N N N N n n 01 n .n 0 C C 0 N N N P. b - b h w O O O O 0 O 0 N 4 P 0 - N b 0 P 0 b N N O b O T n T m b P. m b 0 m ry O N N N 4— - n b p 0 b r b P N b b N P O N S N n Q T ry n— O 4 = vwi , 0 r ‘ 8 N N en m n n b 0 Q. P Q N O - N N h P vl r N N CO - P N W P w .- n CO N er '0 I. E 4 N b eel N P N e� -- 4 Q h P 0-0 b N Y — -- - 4 Q N E' U 55 e4 � F 0. o N S L C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 00 in 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0000000 LL y 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 % N 0 P 0 . ° p 4 q O E N n b r 6 N en W / N C g 0 O V Q 0 b 00 �D M e0 4 0000 O N O 01 N O P Q Q O n P m N O O 00 m N n p. O N P (0 N (0 C° O r (0 0 4 :7, P r P Q N N b O b N m Q b 00 `O P 4 E N = N ��$ � W N m ry ' 000 eo r� - $nro ,...7; n n o n o p co 00 E wl O N b Q Q— P m N b - N V C D - P N m C O ~ O y C O 0 0..000. 0 0 0 O P 0 O O O 0 000000000000 O 0000000 p 9 C O O O O O A n 0 O a N g->'0./ �{ h m N _ „ �; s e e s e 000 ee.�°a.�°ea'° e e e see c n n n n n - 0 ° O 0 0 0 0 r 4 r r n r n r n n n n n n n O r n n r r r r r 01 ° m m m m y _ n 1- n r n n n r r r r r r h r r r h h Ili m e e ee e°e ee e ,. .. 5 .. .°e °e °e e see e °e °eFe e L °O 8 S S 00 P P P N P N N P P P P P e m P T T 01 C N N N N N N N N P 0000 N N CO N N 0 0 N N ry '1 .1 ry ry ry p '^ m m m m m n m ry 0 0 00 00 m m CO CO 00 ry m OD 00 00 0 0 0 0 m m U < N N N N 0 N N N CO CO N N N N N N N CO N N N N N N o 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 000 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0000000 O ° 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O p p O O O O ° 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 g E e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 b N O 8 O O 8 0 000000.0 0o 000 0 0 0000 d m0 N M P M r `L 1 ° ° p ^ O 0 N N 00 Yi N 4 b N m b T N - 0 '0 M1 ..n 0 go [L 9 C P N - - O I mm '1 P w m m O N -- P - 01 b N N ' P b P .- 4 P 4 m O V O L 00 - Q N - N P 00 '.- Cy g z 4 W N 4 I. C g n U e U 0 0 00000000 0 0 0 0000 0 000000000000 0 0000000 ` Y 1 d g w y 0 a • c 9 ° gg 88888888 8 8 8 8888 88588 8 0 8°8 8 88 o S 00000000 o O o 0 0 0 0 $ °888 0000 00000 0 0 0000 a w U b Nwi Q o obP r VD 0 o o N - 0m b PON oN 0 p 0 N - r N O o ry N CO ,- N„ b m .- 00 N — .p V O � P N - - O n O .0.' W m p N P - n b ry P b P — Q - E F j % 4 - Q N - N eh P ...0 m N - 41 0 N G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000000000000 0 0000000 O L 9 Q ° G p 0 8 8 0 0 0 O S 8 0 00 e O O O 0 0 0 Op o O o O O O o O O O 0 0 0 C 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 v "o p o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 00,00 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 8 00000000 0 0 0000 !!��'' U _ -'.2. N W O h b W n N 'n 8 O O - 0 m e0 P 0 N o en N Q N O 0 ■ F� P N- eel P w W m O G G (J 0 w - e . 0 . N P b P N - 4 T Q m 0. 4 41e. Y N N N P 4 ..- m N 0 m 4 y e 9 112 w e°' n d P i S T Y ` Q i C p t E _ C m Yi n 5 w 6 T. 8` a T. `L+ , L 3 B` m C 'd' i Q w m g € g 8 d _ a o o a g g S Y 3 _ u z _ u € o u n a A d `„ � aa00 00 A t. P _ 3 M o » aacc0000u ° o 8 F _ u 5$$ t € m g W i - 9 a $ s s, Y a a u u t z u �+ s ' x_5555 E O 3 - o � onb 5 rve ° vnn 6 p E F V b m o wN F a ,3 O 00 ry a 2.1ob ,5 F F z y 6 F b w- C7 C o - N ry Q b h P „- 0 „ N m P O - ti P O -^ n Q ^^ W P m m ' z 4 4 4 4 4 4 Q Q Q N N N N N N b b b .O �p .p .p �p b .p r r n r n m SO E E 0 0 0 fl ry r O m - 00 �J ,-J b b N W O b CI y F O O O M y '^ N — R U a F p 0 C 00000 0 N N li V O N T V fL 9. p ''E. ~ p h. e 0 0r O Men n N n O Al 'et N rn O V V o 0 o - N O � C O ~ p O N n a 00000 0 n n y W 9 N N C m b S T � O N u� oF V N n e e e n r n w N O LL r r M1 M1 M1 N U e e eeeee e e ' ▪ C N N r-I N N W L G m m N � N V % N N N N N W ■ O O O O O O C .� e V 00 O h r h S^, o 2 2 1 LL v N w 4 n d E Zµ6 ° n $ E ) 11 00 . u ,1 % . gc N V ri 00000 0 0 0 0 p V C O V V ° a ; 0 E ~ c7 t 5 C T. y s o °°°88 o — — — „ ° 3 E F° 2 5 °' n e' o a y {y o N b U 00000 0 0 0 0 E a 9 a 00000 C WI V 9 0 O O O h h h 2C)? P O N E Ti r m :(1 r $ " arO r O IOV b W V D p O V e S e L 5 2 C 6 M f Lo a m L ° u 3 _u g E -6 ! E a B 3 g 000 •, C L L L 9 V 4 r, XMMEt o n n n U 6 m „r m a` F F F =zl wwwmm m a a } s. 2 ; / �!; j\ ) } ! / \ E �� \ k \ k G.)"- ) Am . ▪ % | _ : . ! ■ !; ; !! _ ! ; ! { § X55 XXX 2)2 X55 § ) _� K£K , tea — ® © K - - . ) ■ : ; ° ! ! , -- ■ — ;;! _.o ` — { go { 7 - i 1 ; !\0 — | 0 | k { ( r T. ft r, 3 ! t § / ) . . \ t. . $ ! § = ) \ . r. 25 | 7 ! =. - \ !! | i ) 9, » � � / ! g, : » � f 7 .71:t . , � : ; . 3 ) 8 ƒ f ! # , !. k § k% k � -k / k j � k ) » \ // & \ !� |! !) i / . ° ;,! », t ;:;! *; z ; ° " v « ! § 1 ,,, . 7 , T p ~ . !\ !! ; ; _ — r 7 ! ;! I f / { j 7• j ) f \ ) //! !!) j: }ƒ » i!£ !� �:a. ) !! / !!!; 0n \ • O N vi W - n - O n W N n n N 0 0 P O O O O O O p W vj b W 01 W* N n m r-i n O N Q N O n V O N O pp p pO m p p ry1 O �n O P m v m N v 10 t� N - O n M P M N N N Q M VI n Q N Q „ N O a 8 - V FP w F P. }G?G v} !!$$ o O o 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 p 0 8 0 § SO 8 8 O 8 $ e 0 S O O 0 Y b b m m r r 0 LL F ❑ O m P n- n n„ m r 0 ryry — N M — O O 0 0 O O O — O O � v n C P b C� m pp n O b t� N V v1 p P f 7.7 P O— 0 . N� $ $ 10 N M Q O b V� O M b b m O n- O b 0 b P O e1 b y w ° y N N - b - N Ip Ip O O n Q b N N N w ❑ G 1 ' O J ' 4 • O 0 0 0 000000000 O 0000000000 O § 8 O O G G G S G O O O O O O O 5 G 0 8 8 8 0 0 N O 0 0 K D W _ 1 Q g a` ° ° e e e . a g g e a e a a e e e e e a Y O R o n n n en M M M n G O 0 0 o 0 M n n n n n n n n n M n nn+ n n ■ n n n n n n m m m ea a LL a a C p pep°��pep°��pep�� `e. ep�� e C C C C e ee ° e e . J' b$ b b t �O P a 0 2" e P S. S. P P P P a Q Q O$$$ ° _ b b S V b `OOD b b b b b b b O $ IN 01 01 01 N N N N N N N 2 V b ry ry ry p U b b b V b bO D n0 b b b b b `O b 10 V 10 N n 61 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8$ 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 0 8 8 8 0 . 0 $$ 5 8 8 8 p 8 p 8 8 8 8 n 9 W C O N H I O „ N Q^ N_ O O m N O 0 - m O 0 Q m m S S 0 0 0 p O m Q O a E 4 M G O N -- M N N N P v n 1 O r �O - 0 0 0 CO Q w w Y E E. 0000000 ° - O N P W W O O VD b a E z 0. 4 i' p C W 8 n 4. U 0 O W 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n V - LE F u 3 ' F3 -01 8 § 88 88 8 8 00 00 8 ° 88 88 °$ 8 8 a ° U $ O O O vl - O C O O p N m O O m O b h b C Q Q Q p O p 0 3 O F N a9 W W y N N N f O N_ r N 0 VI N Q P N $ 1� b m 0 N s g 0 O G O S & - P O b N U M 0 y 0 0 0 00000000000 0 0000000000 0 0000 0 0 0 `° a -.0 0 9 ° o $ $$ °o °o 0 0 8 0° o e 8 8 °p $ 88 $$$ 8 8 8$ °o fi 5 8 8 8 8 8 Cy -V U 9 $ v � a b n ry O Q 0 Q C ,.3 O- O„ W 0 S N O O O O O III:. d 2 y N N- N M O N -- N n n el, N P Vl C y 4 m •-• Q N- - - P m m O O n N L U 0 C O i C P O € i - U e C ° e w a e i e ` ` pp .2 8 8 -rv.., 6 c 6 r -P b F ' gg E >r z z Z ° Ti e 8 [ c g ry ry ° ry E L G D 4 _ y y y a et y E 3`g g d i g 8 E t F' = 0 0 nu r, 0 o a. n b a `° `O 5 °° U 5 F g g u g o 3 z z z z i z z E 8 7 "e a 6 ° `� � $ 5 k 6 y y y y y y y o = I,U U > > > > > > " C U U U U U U '$ y N I w �i I m .4 .4 - .1 .J .J .a € 55 € U w° S ` W ' w w 0.411l11-- , c ❑ � 7 € €1 €3uu -�7 z�� =rsr � a uu o o p 0 e S 5 s V F U `c�ayK �� C r9i 08 w V O o € b m prvb r ry n ° U V 1 p rvrvry o w ` p M V F [.1 N F F � F O N O- N n O v1 b r W P O- O N N ° n M .L M C vi �p r W P N N [NV N N N N N n.i n n n n 8800 8 m a O O O N 1 O N O° P P 0 VD -,.,,E, ° V C. W �' yi y �p N W IN p U N 6 C 06, 0000 O 0 0 O LL , _ 8 f C 8 S L y, E d w 8888 G 8 V g 8 8 8 8 O r V e Q O P 0 b m 3 E 9 -� ry 0 v C 5 p w L C s,,,, e e e 8 LL _ o e 5�" 8 w eo w ge e C e 00000 8 p 00000 0 L g m g -e, g , e e e e Q 0 0 80 0 8 O° o NNNNN N U N N W [ _ 00000 88888 n P .n C C 2 i N 0 0- O 8 8 O O O Vt 5 Q t , ° , Nan n v n - r E e e 0 Qt w Q E Z LL w E ■ 0 Y g V € 1 O 0000 O 0 O p V 0 t a e (7). % a !•i p p pp 8 .5 c 9 5 O O O O O O R N N .V. 0 O y 0 0 0 j 4 v1 m N O g l 3 t- m w -N 0 e 0 W u E = 00 0 0000 0 0 0 e . P. 9 Q 88 8 '^ V 9 e 0 O L O O O , 1` t O N N N N N N ,° m m r q m N- O m N 0,3 w i. d §0,1 a a e 6 V fi a 6 66 A 6 .=000 L C m 6 ° f z. t 5 t e ;_m a = o L ' E SS - dx ` m S € i 3 yg6 m D - o V o m o Q 5 L' n o o V. . 5 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 a t ° N N N P 5 °� m 0000- ' Z, 0 v v e , v v e )1 ! r gt !!! :I! ) §! \` } ate ! }) k 1 ! ! / \ } .-\ \ : a.q. t § (-3 j 2 2 ]{ ' � �� P ;oo rn 8 222 222 ; �!! 8 !a( 'w K§ »»» #$£ R ;■« I" | \ ° — °!! _, !E : mG! ± ! f § \ 6 | /{/ ° 5 u g w k ) # ! ! I . . § k \ ( ° ) ` { ! ! / i) i )! } _ / !) ® \ } / ( / \) \/ E /k \/ k //) } 5 ) \ \ \ } \1 \) \ // )k { } /} \} \ Page I of 2 Table 3-4 The City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Water System Impact Fee Line No Description Amount Total Estimated Cost of Existing Water Production and Treatment Facilities 1 Cost of Existing Facilities (1) $5,814,904 2 Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant in Service (2) 2,111,443 3 Less Anticipated Retirements (3) - 4 Less Meter Installations (4) (499,177) 5 Less Receipt of Grant Funds (5) - 6 Subtotal Water Production and Treatment Facilities $7,427,171 7 Existing Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) (6) 5 416 8 Projected Average Daily Flow (MGD) (ADF) (7) 5 178 9 ERU Factor - GPD (8) 520 8 10 Estimated ERUs to be Served by Existing Facilities 10,400 11 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 4 39% 12 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Incremental Growth $326,237 13 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $714 18 Total Estimated Cost of Additional Water Production and 1 reatment Facilities 14 Cost of Additional Water Productionffreatment Facilities (9) $14,623,661 15 New Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) (10) 19 026 16 Estimated ERUs to be Served by Additional Facilities 36,532 17 Rate per ERU Associated with Additional Facilities $400 30 18 Rate per ERU Allocable to Water Productionfl reatment Facilities $404 17 Pnmary Transmission System 19 Existing Facilities (11) $4,143,443 20 Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant in Service (12) 52,913,661 21 Less Estimated Contnbuted Lines (13) (187,824) 22 Less Anticipated Retirements (14) 23 Less Receipt of Grant Funds (15) (340,000) 24 Total Pnmary Transmission Facility Costs $56,529,279 25 Estimated ERU's Served by Existing Facilities (16) 10,400 26 Estimated Future ERUs served by Transmission Facilities (16) 36,532 27 Total Estimated ERUs served by Transmission Facilities (16) 46,932 28 Net Rate per ERU of Pnmary Transmission Facilities $1,204 51 29 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $1,608 68 30 Rounded Rate per ERU $1,608 00 31 Cost Per Gallon of Capacity (ADF) $3 088 ADF = Average Daily Flow ERU = Equivalent Rcsidennal Una GPD = Gallons per Day Footnotes continued on the following page Page 2 of 2 Table 3-4 The City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Water System Impact Fee Foomotes (1) Amount based on Table 3 -1 and reflects estimated water production and treatment assets currently in service as of September 30, 2004 (2) Amount denved from Table 3 -2 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing water production and treatment facilities (3) Reflects estimated fixed asset retirements, if any, based o the City's capital plan and recognizes the replacement of such assets within note two (2) above (4) Reflects estimated contnbutions from customers for meter installations embedded in the fixed assets at $48 00 credit per ERU (5) Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the City (6) Amount reflects adjustment of the maximum daily flow capacity to an average daily flow capacity based on the following histoncal average to peak relationships FY04 Average Daily Flow (MGD) 5 178 FY04 Average Maximum Daily Flow (MGD) 9 138 Peak / Avg Ratio 1 765 Avg / Peak Ratio 0 567 Peak Day WTP Capacity (MGD) 9 558 Adjustment to the ADF (Based on Avg /Peak Flow Ratio) 0 567 Recognized WTP Capacity - ADF (MGD) 5 416 (7) Amount estimated based on actual daily flow detail from Fiscal Year 2001 through 2004 as provided by the City (8) Amount reflects the City's planned and reserved level of service for each ERU, Equivalent Residential Unit, on an average daily basis (9) Amount derived from Table 3 -2 and reflects expansion related additions to the water production and treatment facilities (10) Amount as provided by the City's consulting engineers and reflects the design capacity of such new facilities (11) Amount based on Table 3 -1 and reflects existing water transmission and distnbution assets currently in service (12) Amount denved from Table 3 -2 and reflects the recognized additions to the water transmission and distribution system (13) Reflects estimated developer contnbutions based upon a review of lines in service (14) Reflects estimated fixed asset retirements, if any, based on the City's capital plan and recognizes the replacement of such assets within note twelve (12) above (15) Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the City (16) Amount assumes transmission capacity is equal to existing and estimated future water treatment capacity Page 1 of 2 Table 3-5 The City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Line No Description Amount Total Estimated Cost of Existing Wastewater Treatment Faculties 1 Cost of Existing Facilities (1) $17,925,881 2 Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant m Service (2) 9 000 000 3 Less Anticipated Retirements (3) (3 248 931) 4 Less Receipt of Grant Funds (4) - 5 Subtotal Wastewater Treatment Facilities $23,676,950 6 Existing Plant Capacity (MGD) (MDF) (5) 2 000 7 Projected Average Daily Flow (MGD) (ADF) (6) 1 842 8 ERU Factor GPD (7) 350 9 Estimated ERUs to be Served by Existing Facilities 5 714 10 Percent Remaining Capacity of Existing Facilities 7 91% 11 Allocation of Existing Facilities to Inert-menial Growth 51 873 598 12 Rate per ERU Associated with Existing Facilities $4,143 47 Total Estimated Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities 13 Cost of Additional Wastewater Treatment Facilities (8) $36 000 000 14 Ncw Plant Capacity (MGD) (ADF) (9) 8 000 15 Estimated ERUs to be Served by Additional Facilities 22,857 16 Rate per ERU Associated with Additional Facilities $1,575 01 17 Rate per ERU Allocable to Wastewater Treatment Facilities 51,624 84 Effluent Disposal System 18 Existing Facilities (10) $1 667 047 19 Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant In Service (11) 18,275,235 20 Less Estimated Contributed Lines (12) (515 940) 21 Less Anticipated Retirements (13) - 22 Less Receipt of Grant Funds (14) - 23 Total Pnmary Collection Faculty Costs $19,426 342 24 Estimated ERU's Served by Existing Facilities (15) 5 714 25 Estimated Future ERUs served by Collection Facilities (15) 22,857 26 Total Estimated ERUs served by Collection Facilities (15) 28,571 27 Net Rate per ERU of Effluent Disposal Facilities 5679 93 Pnnmry Collection System 28 Fxlslmg Facilities (10) 54718,773 29 Additional Costs Capitalized to Plant in Service (I I) 17 440,000 30 Less Estimated Contributed Lines (12) (1 460 430) 31 Lem Anticipated Retirements (13) - 32 Less Receipt of Grant Funds (14) - 33 Total Primary Collection Facility Costs $20 698,343 34 Estimated ERU's Served by Extstmg Facthttcs (15) 5,714 35 Estimated Future FRUs served by Collection Facilities (15) 22 857 36 Total Estimated ERUs served by Collation Facilities (15) 28 571 37 Net Rate per ERU of Primary Collection Facilities 5724 45 38 Total Combined Rate per ERU After Rate Adjustment $3 029 21 39 Rounded Rate per ERU 53 029 00 40 Cost Per Gallon of Capacity (ADF) 58 654 MDF - Maxim= Daily Flew ADF = Average Daily Flow FRU = &mendua Residential Una OFD - Wilms tin Day Footnotes continued on thefollonmg page Page 2 of 2 Table 3 -5 The City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Development of Wastewater System Impact Fee Footnotes (1) Amount based on Table 3 -1 and reflects estimated assets currently in service as of September 30, 2004 (2) Amount denved from Table 3 -3 and reflects the planned upgrades to the existing wastewater treatment facilities (3) Reflects estimated fixed asset retirements, if any, based o the City's capital plan and recognizes the replacement of such assets within note two (2) above (4) Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the City I listoncally, the City reflected an EPA grant for the W WTP, however, since such assets are being retired in three (3) above, such grant is not deducted here (5) Amount reflects permitted capacity of existing facilities after retirements as follows Total Design Capacity of Facilities (MGD) 2 75 Less Planned Retirements (MGD) 0 75 Rematmng Design Capacity (MGD) 2 00 (6) Amount estimated based on actual daily flow detail from Fiscal Year 2001 through 2004 as provided by the City (7) Amount reflects the City's planned and reserved level of service for each ERU, Equivalent Residential Unit, on an average daily basis (8) Amount denved from Table 3 -3 and reflects expansion related additions to the wastewater treatment facilities (9) Amount as provided by the City's consulting engineers and reflects the design capacity of such new facilities (10) Amount based on Table 3 -1 and reflects existing wastewater collection assets currently in service (11) Amount denved from Table 3 -3 and reflects the recognized additions to the wastewater collection system (12) Reflects estimated developer contributions based upon a review of lines in service (13) Reflects estimated fixed asset retirements, if any, based on the City's capital plan and recognizes the replacement of such assets within note eleven (1 I) above (14) Total cost of facilities is reduced by grants and other outside funding sources, if any, as provided by the City (15) Amount assumes transmission capacity is equal to existing and estimated future wastewater treatment capacity Page 1 of 1 Table 3 -6 The City of Clermont Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis Comparison of Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater Service (II Line Residential 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Effective No Description Water Wastewater Combined Date The City of Clermont 1 Existing Impact Fees - East $1,088 $3,104 $4,192 2005 2 Existing impact Fees - West 490 3,104 3,594 2005 3 Proposed Impact Fees - Average System 1,608 3,029 4,637 Proposed 2006 Other Florida Utilities 4 City of Apopka $2,298 $3,612 $5,910 2005 5 City of Edgewater 1,504 2,077 3,581 N/A 6 City of Eustis 800 2,500 3,300 2005 7 City of Groveland 1,944 2,610 4,554 2004 8 City of Kissimmee 1,150 2,451 3,601 2005 9 City of Lake Mary 1,010 2,535 3,545 N/A 10 City of Lake Wales 959 2,799 3,758 2005 11 City of Lakeland 910 1,100 2,010 1990 12 City of Leesburg 872 2,064 2,936 2005 13 City of Minneola 2,315 N/A 2,315 N/A 14 City of Mount Dora 1,468 2,808 4,275 2005 15 City of Ocoee 1,379 4,089 5,468 2005 16 City of St Cloud 744 2,358 3,102 2003 17 City of Tavares 920 3,060 3,980 2003 18 City of Winter Garden 1,310 2,035 3,345 2001 19 City of Winter Haven 735 2,384 3,119 2004 20 Other Utilities' Average $1,270 $2,565 $3,675 (1) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect residential rates in effect July 2005 and are exclusive of taxes or franchise fees, if any, and reflect rates charged for inside the city service All rates are as reported by the respective utility This companson is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for comparison purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed utility (2) Utility currently has a rate study in progress Pt MG SECTION 4 POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE SECTION 4 POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the development and design of the impact fee for police protection services Included in this section is a discussion of the level of service requirements, capital costs included in the fee determination, and the design of the impact fee for police services to be applied to new growth within the City LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS In the evaluation of the capital facility needs for providing municipal services such as police protection, a level of service (LOS) standard should be developed Pursuant to Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, the "level of service" means an indicator of the extent or degrees of service provided by, or proposed to be provided by a facility based on and related to the operational characteristics of the facility Level of service shall indicate the capacity per unit of demand for each public facility or service Essentially, the level of service standards are established in order to ensure that adequate facility capacity will be provided for future development and for purposes of issuing development orders or permits, pursuant to Section 163 3202(2)(g) of the Flonda Statutes As further stated in the Administrative Code, each local government shall establish a LOS standard for each public facility located within the boundary for which such local govemment has authonty to issue development orders or permits Such LOS standards are set for each individual facility or facility type and not on a system -wide basis Based on information provided by the City's Police Department, there currently are 10 administrative officers and 28 patrols officers to serve a total population of 20,017 permanent residents as shown m Table 4 -1 Based upon current staffing plans, the City has budgeted for six (6) more patrol officers or a total of 34 This translates to a current level of service of 1 70 full -time patrol officers per 1,000 population served Based on discussions with the Police Department, the targeted level of service is 2 0, which is considered an appropnate LOS for police services The City's targeted level of service is comparable with police staffing guidelines as published by state and national law enforcement agencies as follows • The Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S Department of Justice, Uniform Cnme Report that indicated an average achieved standard of 2 5 police officers and 0 7 support personnel per 1,000 inhabitants for population areas in the Southern United States • The Florida Department of Law Enforcement recognizes a state average of 2 2 officers and 0 8 support personnel per 1,000 population Each full time patrol officer requires a complement of personnel equipment, vehicles and other equipment, and base facilities, as follows K \DM \I 179 -01\Rcports\FinaNtcport 4 -1 Personnel Equipment • Each sworn officer must be equipped with uniforms, weapons, and other relevant personal equipment to perform his/her duties A complete inventory of personal equipment is identified in Table 4 -2 A few of the basic issue items include 1 Service weapon, 2 Ballistic (protective) vest, 3. Handcuffs and baton, and 4 Portable radio Based on discussions with the City's Finance Department, it is currently the City's policy to expense equipment with costs less than $1,000 These costs are all mission - essential, but only $1,439 per officer is anticipated to be capitalized as assets based upon this standard Vehicles and Other Equipment • The department maintains a fleet of patrol and administrative vehicles to provide police protection services to the City The City anticipates providing 0 75 vehicles per one patrol officer, which means that officers will have to share vehicles between shifts Therefore, the level of service per patrol vehicle for fee determination is 0 75 1 The City also anticipates funding 0 29 administrative and supervisory vehicles per one patrol officer This will allow the City to accrue a portion of costs for new administrative and supervisory vehicles required for new administrative positions required by new growth Therefore, the level of service per administrative vehicle for fee determination is 0 29 1 Generally, each vehicle must be equipped with relevant communications, detection /surveillance, and defense equipment. Table 4 -3 provides a detail of vehicles and vehicle equipment Also Table 4 -3 presents other mission - essential equipment used in operations such as radar units, cnme prevention trailer, generators, and special weapons This equipment is anticipated to serve 28 patrol officers at the current level Base Facilities • The City's existing police headquarters compnses 9,921 square feet or a current level of service of 354 square feet per existing patrol officer The existmg facility is considered built -out and will need to be expanded to accommodate new patrol officers The expansion will accommodate forty-three (43) new officers, which includes twelve (12) officer deficiencies to meet the LOS of 2 0 and thirty-one (31) officers to serve new growth Table 4 -4 presents the allocation of headquarters cost per patrol officer to future growth RESOURCE NEEDS ANALYSIS Currently, the Police Department's level of service standard requires forty (40) full -time patrol officers as adjusted for staff deficiencies Based on the assumed level of service standards (2 0 officers per 1,000 population) and population projections for the City, it is anticipated that the City will need a police force of 71 sworn full -time patrol officers to provide police protection services by 2020 This represents an increase of thirty-one (31) patrol officers over the existing K \DM\1179 -01\Reports\FinaNieport 4 -2 staffing level needs Additional support staff (administrative personnel) will also need to be increased accordingly, as will equipment (personnel and vehicular) for the officers Number of Employees Personnel Descnption Current LOS Anticipated [ *] Administrative Officers 10 21 Full -Time Patrol Officers 40 71 Support Personnel 17 30 Total Personnel 41 122 [ *] Personnel assumed at a population of 35,658 based on a level of service of 2 0 full -time patrol officers per 1,000 population The standards -dnven method, described in Section 1, was used to develop the police services impact fees The standards -driven method was used to determine the direct capital cost to equip and provide a portion of vehicle, headquarter, and other equipment costs for a full -time patrol officer In the development of the capital cost required to serve new development, several capital cost parameters were recognized as shown in Table 4 -4 The parameters include the costs of directly equipping the next increment of police protection services (i e , a full -time patrol officer) These capital costs would include personnel equipment, vehicles, communication equipment, and other support related equipment and machinery A final parameter deals with the cost recovery of the headquarters required to house the new patrol officers and support staff and includes investment in the land, buildings, and furnishings allocable to the police service function Tables 4 -2 and 4 -3 provide a breakdown of the individual cost items Table 4 -4 summanzes the estimated capital costs to equip a full -time patrol officer for the City recognizing the parameters descnbed above The estimated capital cost of an additional full -time patrol officer is $146,899, including the cost of vehicles, other related equipment, and allocated headquarters costs The following is a summary of the estimated capital cost required to equip and support a full -time patrol officer Amount Percent Personnel Equipment Costs $1,439 1 0% Vehicles and Equipment Costs 60,254 41 0% Headquarter Costs 85.206 58 0% Total Allocated Costs $146,899 100.0% [ *] Denved from Table 4-4 DESIGN OF POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE The method used to determine the police services Impact fee was based upon a four -step process Tables 4 -5 and 4 -6 help to illustrate the results of the approach The following is a bnef description of the method used in this study K \DM \I 179 -01\Itcports \Final \Rcpon 4 -3 • Development of Total Capital Need — Based on population projections, level of service standards, and allocated incremental capital costs per patrol officer This amount is the total allocated capital cost to serve the projected population growth • Allocation of Base Capital Costs to Customer Classes — This step allocates the base capital costs, the reserved service capacity allocable to all customer classes irrespective of call demand The base costs are calculated on a per person basis and then allocated between residential and non - residential land -uses based on "functional population" estimates • Allocation of Variable Costs to Customer Classes — This step allocates the remaining capital costs to equip a new patrol officer between the resident and non - residential land - uses based upon call demand Therefore, some classes of land -use, which may incur few or no service calls, will carry a lower cost than other high- demand sectors such as convenience stores, bars, and restaurants • Calculation of Cost per Equivalent Impact Fee Unit — Once the allocated base and vanable costs are identified per land -use, they are summarized and presented as a unit of measure basis, per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet, or per acre Table 4 -6 provides a detailed listing of the proposed impact fees and their appropnate land -use and measures Police Services Impact Fee Assumptions The development of the police services impact fees required a number of assumptions The major assumptions used in the development of the proposed impact fees are as follows 1 In the development of the capital costs required to equip a full -time patrol officer, the capital costs of providing police protection services were allocated to establish the cost of serving the next incremental full -time patrol officer The costs were allocated to the next increment of service (one full -time patrol officer) based on the following allocation parameters a The direct cost of equipping one full -time patrol officer (e g , personnel equipment) was allocated based on discussions with the City's Finance Department The new officers are not required to contnbute a cost recovery to basic issue equipment, and it is the City's current policy to capitalize those costs greater than $1,000 This equipment is mission essential and is listed on Table 4 -2 b Based on discussions with the department, the targeted service level of patrol and administrative vehicles to a full -time patrol officer is considered reasonable for the purpose of this study Therefore, the level of service for patrol vehicles has been assumed to be equal to 0 75 vehicles per new full -time patrol officer and for administrative vehicles has been assumed to be equal to 0 29 vehicles per new patrol officer Based on discussions with the City's Police Chief, it is assumed that other mission - essential equipment, including radar units, generators, and special weapons, although not easily assignable per patrol officer, would be acquired in relation to the number of new patrol officers The existing inventory levels for these items per patrol K \DM\1179 -0 I\Reports\ final \Report 4-4 officer are therefore projected to remain constant As Illustrated in Table 4 -3, the following represents the estimated costs for equipment as allocated per full -time patrol officer Patrol Vehicles per Officer $20,171 Administrative /Supervisory Vehicles per Officer 7,800 Other Equipment per Officer 32.283 Total $60,254 c The City's existing police headquarters comprises 9,921 square feet or a current level of service of 354 square feet per existing patrol officer Based on discussions with the Police Chief and City staff, the existing facility is considered built -out and will need to be expanded to accommodate new patrol officers The cost per new patrol officer is presented in Table 4 -4 and is summanzed as follows Police Facilities Cost Building Cost per Patrol Officer $61,950 Land Cost per Patrol Officer 23.256 Total Facilities Cost per Patrol Officer $85,206 2 In the development of the capital costs per patrol officer, it was assumed that the targeted level of service be achieved by the City through the entire forecast period This level of service includes only the amount of full -time patrol officers to serve the general population of the City As previously mentioned, the level of service assumed in this study is 2 0 full - time patrol officers per 1,000 of population 3 The estimated capital base costs or .reserved service capacity, allocable to all customer classes were allocated between the residential and non - residential customer classes based on "functional population" estimates The concept of functional population is incorporated in order to spread capital costs more equitably between residential and non - residential land - uses Businesses place demands on police services in exactly the same manner as residents do, and it is equitable to spread -these costs based on the average number of people expected to be present For the residential uses, the allocation is calculated per resident based on the average amount of time spent at the residence The resident's remaining time is then allocated as either an employee and/or visitor to the remaining non - residential classes as determined using traffic generations, estimated employment data, and operational details The net result is the total number of person hours per location The base costs are calculated on a per person basis and then applied to the residential and non- residential land -uses based upon the respective functional population coefficient 4 The estimated variable capital cost of providing for a full -time patrol officer was allocated between the residential and non - residential customer classifications based on the number of service calls made by the Police Department per land -use for 2004 and is projected through 2020 K \DM\I 179-0 I\Reports\Ftnol\Itcpon 4 -5 For the purposes of this study, all traffic calls were assigned to the customer classes based on the percent relationship of the specifically identified service calls for such classes Based on the average number of service calls, the number of calls allocated to each class of customer was assumed for the forecast penod as follows Residential 49 17% Non - Residential 50 83% Impact Fee Calculation Based on the above - referenced assumptions, the allocated capital facilities, and the population and land use projections of the City, the police services impact fees for the residential and non - residential customer classifications were developed As shown in Table 4 -6 at the end of this section, the cost per equivalent impact fcc unit by customer classification was determined The following summanzcs thc proposed changes to the residential police protection impact fees Existing Proposed Single- Family (per Dwelling Unit) [ *] $185 $457 Multi -Family (per Dwelling Unit) 72 390 [ *] Includes mobile homes Taking into account the methodology used for the determination of the fee and the estimates of the capital requirements, it is concluded that the proposed impact fee based on the City's LOS standard is reasonable It should be noted that In the development of the fee per equivalent impact fee unit that no credits associated with developer land dedication or other similar activities have been recognized Also, it should be noted that the proposed incremental capital improvements do not include any inflationary allowances In the development of the cost per equivalent impact fee unit, it was determined that the rate should be applied on a "per dwelling unit" basis for the residential class and pnmanly on a "per square footage" of commercial development for the non - residential class As shown in Table 4- 6, some non - residential land -uses are measured by units other than square feet These factors are common throughout the state as thc equivalent impact fee unit for fee determination The use of these equivalency factors was based on discussions with the City, comparisons of fee applicability provisions of neighbonng junsdictions, and promotion of administrative simplicity IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide the City additional information about the proposed impact fees, a companson of the proposed fees for the City and those charged by other neighbonng junsdictions was prepared Table 4 -7 at the end of this section summarizes the impact fees for police protection services charged by other communities with the proposed rates of the City K \DM \I 179 -0I \Repons \Final\Report 4 -6 Also, as shown in Table 4 -7 for other communities, the fees charged to the residential class are applied using a "per dwelling unit" basis, which is consistent with the recommended fee applicability provisions of the City's proposed fees For the non - residential class and, as previously discussed, the fees are applied on the basis of the amount of square foot of facility development (This was consistent for all of the local governments surveyed ) (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM\I 179- 01\Reports\Final \Rcport 4 -7 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA SECTION 4 POLICE SERVICES IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS LIST OF TABLES Table No Title 4 -1 Summary of Existing Personnel 4 -2 Summary of Personnel Equipment Costs 4 -3 Allocation of Capital Equipment and Cost Determinations 4 -4 Summary of Capital Costs 4 -5 Allocation of Service Calls 4 -6 Impact Fee Allocation — Base Capacity / Variable 4 -7 Police Services Impact Fee Companson Page I of 1 Table 4 -1 The City of Clermont Pohce Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Existine Personnel Allocation to Future Officers Line Current Total Staff Allocation Achieved No Staff(1) Planned (2) Basis LOS Personnel Administrative Officers 10 0 10 0 Per Patrol Officer 0 29 2 Patrol Officers 28 0 34 0 Per 1,000 Population 1 70 3 Total Sworn Officers (3) 38 0 44 0 4 Civilian and Administrative (4) 17 0 17 0 Per Patrol Officer 0 50 5 Total Personnel 55 0 61 0 Footnotes (1) As provided by the City's Police Chief (2) As provided by the Police Chief requinng the addition of 6 sworn patrol officers (3) Reflects 28 current officers on patrol and a level of service estimated at 34 patrolling officers (4) Civilian and Administrative Personnel at a Full -Time Equivalency as provided by the Chief, 16 Full -Time and 3 Part-Time Page 1 of 1 Table 4-2 The City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Personnel Equipment Costs Line Total Capital No Quantity Pnce Each Market Value Cost (1) Adjustments (2) Market Value Cost Officer Equipment 1 Weapon I 0 3424 S424 50 S424 2 Weapon Box 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 Holster 1 0 57 57 (57) 0 4 Mag Pouch I 0 20 20 (20) 0 5 Magazines 10 0 0 0 0 6 Belt Keepers 1 0 10 10 (10) 0 7 Handcuffs 2 0 22 44 (44) 0 8 Handcuff Case 10 20 20 (20) 0 9 Baton 10 40 40 (40) 0 10 Radio (Includes Battery and Holder) 1 0 1 015 1 015 0 1 015 11 Ballistic Vest with Liners 1 0 430 430 (430) 0 12 OC &OC Holder 10 19 19 (19) 0 13 Pager 10 0 0 0 0 14 Flashlight 10 0 0 0 0 15 Subtotal Officer Equipment 2 079 (640) 1,439 Officer Uniforms 16 Traffic Vcst I 0 S20 S20 (520) 30 17 Trousers 4 0 40 160 (160) 0 18 Shirts 5 0 35 175 (175) 0 19 Tie 10 0 0 0 0 20 Belt 10 40 40 (40) 0 21 Gloves 1 0 20 20 (20) 0 22 Lightweight Jacket I 0 18 18 (18) 0 23 Winter Jacket I 0 50 50 (50) 0 24 Raincoat 10 20 20 (20) 0 25 Ball cap 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 Badge 2 0 70 140 (140) 0 27 Collar Brass 1 0 10 10 (10) 0 28 Name Tag 1 0 8 8 (8) 0 29 Whistle & Chant 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 Sub -total Officer Uniforms 661 (661) 0 Officer Miscellaneous Equipment Needs 31 Citation Cip Board and forms I 0 S44 S44 (544) 50 32 FTO Manuel 1 0 0 0 0 0 33 Law Handbook 10 0 0 0 0 34 Sub-total °Meer Miscellaneous Equipment Needs 44 (44) 0 35 Total Projected Costa per Officer 52,784 (51,345) 51,439 Footnotes (1) As provided by the City's Police Clucf m Detail and estimated m 2005 dollars (2) Based on discussions with City Staff New Officers do not contnbute to recover costs of basic issue equipment, however, it is not the City's current policy to capitalize uniforms and equipment unless such asset's useful hfe exceeds one year and its cost or consolidated vests arc equal to or greater than 51 000 Therefore, thcse costs have been removed from Tabls 4-5 Summary of Capital Costs Page I of 2 Table 4-3 The City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Allocation of Capital Equipment and Cost Determinations (1) Allocation Basis to One Officer Line Market Value Existing Allocation to No Descnption Cost LOS One Officer 1 Patrol Vehicles (2) $18,758 Additional Equipment to Place in Service 2 OPV Camera 3,500 3 Whelen Strobe Light Bar 1,000 4 Installation 600 5 UHF 4 Channel Radio 450 6 Cage 410 7 Plastic Backseat 300 8 Shotgun Rack 280 9 Comer Strobe Kit 225 10 Console 200 11 Switch Box 190 12 Laptop Mount 150 13 Siren 150 14 Rear Deck Lights 140 15 Computer Bracket 100 16 Siren Speaker 100 17 Rechargeable Flashlight 100 18 Console Armrest 50 19 Headlight Flashers 50 20 Fire Extinguisher 50 21 First Aid Kit 50 0 75 22 12 Volt Outlets / Console 22 Vehicles 23 Bio Hazard Kit 20 per 10 24 Estimated Cost of Patrol Vehicle $26,895 Officer $20,171 25 Administrative Vehicles (3) $18,758 Additio Eg moment to Place in Service 26 OPV Camera 3,500 27 Whelen Strobe Light Bar 1,000 28 Installation 600 29 UHF 4 Channel Radio 450 30 Cage 410 31 Plastic Backseat 300 32 Shotgun Rack 280 33 Comer Strobe Kit 225 34 Console 200 35 Switch Box 190 36 Laptop Mount 150 37 Siren 150 38 Rear Deck Lights 140 39 Computer Bracket 100 40 Siren Speaker 100 41 Rechargeable Flashlight 100 42 Console Armrest 50 43 Headlight Flashers 50 44 Fire Extinguisher 50 45 First Aid Kit 50 0 29 46 12 Volt Outlets / Console 22 Vehicles 47 Bio Hazard Kit 20 per 10 48 Estimated Cost of Patrol Vehicle $26,895 Officer $7,800 49 Other Isqulpment (4) $903,931 28 $32,283 Page 2 of 2 Table 4 -3 The City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Allocation of Capital Equipment and Cost Determinations (1) Footnotes (1) As provided by the Police Chief (2) Cost per Patrol Vehicle estimated based on the current market value provided by the Police Chief and 75% of each vehicle cost is allocated to 1 0 Patrol Officers based on a needs assessment by the Police Chief (3) Cost per Administrative Vehicle estimated based on the current market value provided by the Police Chief and a need of I vehicle per administrative officer or 29% of each vehicle cost based upon the existing level of staffing needs (4) Other Equipment in support of the department's mission allocated on a patrol officer basis based on existing staff needs and adjusted as follows Cost Mobile Speed Monitor $10,984 Radar Units 33,000 Cnme Prevention Trailer 5,500 Cnme Prevention Trailer 4,500 Generators 1,500 Special Weapons and Other Accessones 101,687 Communications and Office Equipment 608,488 Total Historical Cost of Other Equipment $765,659 Increase in Construction Index [•] 2 40% Estimated Current Value $903,931 [•[ Capital Costs reflected at historical value are adjusted to current market values based on the following adjustments from the Engineenng News Record Construction Cost Index Annual Average Increase m Charges 2 40% Page I of 1 Table 4-4 The City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Capital Costs Line Total Officer Allocated No Descnption Total Cost (I) Requirements (2) Cost 1 Personnel Equipment Costs per Patrol Officer (3) $1,439 00 31 $44,609 2 Patrol Vehicle per Patrol Officer (4) 20,171 00 31 625,301 3 Administrative Vehicle per Patrol Officer (4) 7,800 00 31 241,800 4 Other Equipment per Patrol Officer (4) 32,283 00 31 1,000,773 5 Headquarters per Patrol Officer (5) 85,206 00 31 2,641,386 6 Total Allocated Costs $146,899 00 $4,553,869 Footnotes (1) Total estimated capital costs per officer as identified in Tables 4 -2 and 4 -3 (2) Future Patrol Officer Requirements based on level of Service Standards adopted by the City Future Patrol Officer needs are calculated as follows Projected Population at 2020 35,658 Targeted LOS per 1,000 population 2 00 Total Patrol Officers Required in 2020 71 Total Patrol Officers Required based on LOS 40 Total Additional Officers Required to Serve Growth 31 (3) Amount reflects only those charges calculated in Table 4 -2 based upon the City's capitalization policy, which will provide benefit to future penods and residents (4) Based on information provided by the City as derived in Table 4 -3 (5) The existing headquarters is built -out in support of 28 patrol officers and an expansion is expected The expansion is estimated to cost the following per patrol officer Design of Existing Facility (Square Feet) 9,921 Total Patrol Officers Servicable 28 Square Feet per Officer 354 Estimated Cost of Construction per Square Feet $175 Total Estimated Cost of Facilities per Officer $61,950 Plus Total Cost of Land for Expansion $1,000,000 Total Patrol Officers Servicable by Expansion 43 Total Estimated Cost of Land per Officer 523,256 Total Cost of Facilities per New Patrol Officer $85,206 $ ! | ( !` § 1 9: 0 - : !! :1,3 !` \!! ,- . ;f ! :. ; nl ;! < ; !! \) ) )( ;,.. ; g} w „ ...,,,,.,, !a - == ▪ , E, ® :,`!!§ |3| 1 =;;- 1.2 . °` : ` � -, ! { §/ [ ;l :' ' ! :! , \ E !!;!lr;;!!! \i !,! :; \ } § » i§ / ={i ` . . E. . « 'A' _ .__ ,- _ | 1 | I!f ,,1: !| ; .,. ▪ E. | _§ ); =.;,Z ! \ , . / \ _. § • \ \§ !! ! !![ :l; Z E! - 6!! f -� - -., ! ;/| 1 1 . - ! ` 2 i §.: _ 113 ` -- °6 ! ; ) . ] ! } | : ;;; ; ; ; ;I§! g g 226112222 { ! \ / i ,,,,, §,,,, ) d it, ,,,1 =!!Et§ i , . 1 1 1 ] ) � 3 . q ) ! >i . '! ]) \ |\ |!!!!!|!!)! { ! |! ) 44_- ,...,00__,00. / Page 1 of 2 Table 4-6 The C113 of Clermont Pollee Services Impart Fee Analysls Jmpanr Fee ARonrlon - Base Gulch' / Variable Lmo Functional Persons per Base Cost Base Cut Variable Cost Proposed Existing Incense No Land Use Code Unit of Measure Pop Factor Unit per Person (I) Per Una Pa Uni(2) Impact Feu Impm Fee ( Decease) Residential 1 Single -kamdy SF Dwelling Um( 0670084 242 521836 535422 510237 545700 518500 527200 2 Multi Fmmly MF Dwelling Ono 0670084 250 21836 36516 2517 39000 7200 31800 NonRaldentW 3 Curmmacul Arrpon OTII Flight per Day 3 768750 N/A 5218 36 582294 5422 67 51,245 61 N/A S1 245 61 4 General Aviation Airport OTII Flight per Day 0097500 N/A 21836 2129 1093 3222 N/A 3222 5 Truck Terminal WII Acre 3091250 WA 21836 67501 34668 1 021 69 N/A 1 021 69 6 General Light Industrial MD 000 sf 0490997 N/A 218 36 10721 55 07 162 28 N/A 162 28 7 General l lcavy Indusmal IND 000 sf 0A76190 N/A 218 36 103 98 53 40 157 38 N/A 15718 8 Industrial Park IND 000 sf 0 491921 N/A 218 36 10720 55 06 162 26 N/A 162 26 9 Maoufanurmg IND 000 of 0,476190 WA 21836 10398 5340 13718 N/A 15718 10 Warehoustg WH 000 sf 0253720 N/A 21836 5540 2845 8385 N/A 8385 11 Mini unmhousmg W11 000 sf 0240030 N/A 21836 5241 2692 7911 N/A 7911 12 Hotel 84/54 Room 2041667 WA 21836 44582 22897 67479 N/A 67479 11 All Suites Howl 11/9 Room 1020833 N/A 21836 22291 11449 33740 N/A 11740 14 Motel 84/54 Room 1245011 WA 21836 27204 13972 41176 N/A 41176 15 Water Slide Park REC Parking Space 0205833 N/A 21836 9495 2300 6803 N/A 6801 16 Marva REC Acre 0920000 WA 21816 20089 10318 30407 N/A 304 07 17 Golf Course REC Ilok 4515000 N/A 21836 90590 50636 1 492 26 N/A 1 492 26 18 Golf Dnvmg Range REC Tee 0665000 N/A 21816 14521 7458 21979 N/A 21979 19 Multipurpose Recreational Facility RFC Acre 6875833 N/A 21836 150191 77112 2,27253 N/A 2 272 53 20 Bowling Ally REC 1000 sf 2330833 N/A 21816 30896 26140 77036 N/A 77036 21 Movie Theater REC 1 000 sf 4 926667 WA 218 36 1 075 79 552 53 1 628 32 N/A 1 628 32 22 Tanis Courts REC Caul 19911000 N/A 21816 43454 22318 65772 N/A 65772 23 Racquet /Tames Club RFC Court 2468333 N/A 21836 53899 27682 81581 N/A 01581 24 Health / Fitness Club REC 1 000 sf 1 196667 N/A 218 16 261 10 134 21 395 51 N/A 395 51 25 Athlete Club REC 1000 sf 1511250 WA 21836 33000 16949 49949 N/A 49949 26 Recreational Community Center REC 1000 sf 0882500 WA 21816 19270 9897 29167 N/A 29167 27 Pnvale School (K 12) MST Student 0435714 WA 21836 9514 9887 14401 N/A 14401 28 Junior / Community College INST Student U 207143 WA 21816 4523 2323 6846 N/A 6846 29 University / College MST Student 0416667 N/A 21836 9098 4673 13771 N/A 11771 30 Plea of Worship INST 1 000 sf 0 550417 WA 218 36 12019 61 73 181 92 N/A 181 92 31 Day Care Center INST 1000 of 6723810 N/A 21836 146821 7540A 2 222 29 N/A 2 222 29 32 Cannery INST Acre 0485417 N/A 21836 10600 5444 16044 N/A 16044 33 Lodge /kmwnul Organiwion MST Member 0025595 N/A 21836 559 287 846 N/A 846 34 Hospital MST 000 sf 2288333 WA 21816 499.68 25664 75632 N/A 75632 35 Nursing llome MST 000 sf 2000000 N/A 21836 43672 22430 66102 N/A 66102 16 Clinic INST 0005 2560033 N/A 21816 55918 28720 84638 N/A B4638 37 General Office Buldmg OFF 000 sf 1005357 N/A 21836 21953 11275 33228 N/A 13228 38 Consume Headquarters Budding OFF 000 sf 0797917 N/A 21816 16332 8388 24720 N/A 24720 39 Single Tennnt Office BWldmg OFF 000 sf 1017057 N/A 21836 22226 11915 33641 N/A 11641 40 Medial / Dental OIlie Buldmg OFF 000sf 1566071 N/A 21836 14197 17563 51760 N/A 51760 41 Office Park OFF 000sf 0824702 N/A 21836 18008 9249 27257 N/A 27257 42 Research and Development Center OFF 000 sf 0750595 N/A 21836 16190 8418 248 U8 N/A 24808 43 Business Park OFF 000 sf 0 854464 N/A 218 36 186 58 95 83 282 41 WA 282 41 44 Budding Matenals and Lumber Store GR 000 51' 1393750 N/A 21836 34001 17874 52675 WA 52675 45 Free-Standing Discount Superstore GR 000 sf 1720417 N/A 21836 37567 19299 56861 N/A 56861 46 Specialty Road Center GR 000 sf 1567500 WA 21836 34228 17580 51808 NIA 51808 47 Free-Standing Discount Store GR 000 sf 1933333 WA 21836 42216 21682 63898 N/A 63898 48 Hardware/ Pamt Store GR 000 sf 1785417 N/A 21836 18986 20023 59009 N/A 59009 49 Nursery /Garden Center OR Aran 2701667 N/A 21836 58994 30299 89291 N/A 89293 50 Nursery Wholmale GR Acre 1672917 WA 21836 36530 18762 55292 N/A 55292 51 Shopping Center GR DM sf 1524583 N/A 21836 33291 17098 50189 N/A 50389 52 Factory Oiler Center GR 000 sf 1013333 N/A 21836 22127 11365 33492 N/A 33492 53 New Car Sales MV 000 sf 1 348929 N/A 218 36 294 55 151 28 443 01 N/A 415 83 59 Automobile Parts Sala S5 000 of 2117083 N/A 21816 46229 23743 69972 N/A 69972 55 Toe Sloe SS 000 sf 0959583 N/A 21836 20953 107 62 31715 N/A 31713 56 Tire Superstore SS 000 sf 0818750 WA 21816 17878 9102 27060 N/A 27D6D 57 Supermarket OR 000 sf 3177500 WA 21836 73731 37879 1 116 30 N/A 1 116 30 58 Convcmence Markel GR 000 sf 6464896 WA 21836 1 411 67 72504 2 136 71 N/A 2 136 71 59 Conarniencc Market with Gasoline Primps SS 000 sf 7105625 WA 21836 159526 81933 241439 N/A 2 414 59 60 Dscouot Supenturket GR 000 sf 3.208333 N/A 21816 70057 35981 106038 N/A 106038 61 Wholesale Market GR 000 of 0 392917 N/A 218 36 85 80 44 07 129 87 N/A 129 87 62 Discount Chub GR 000 sf 1488750 WA 21836 12508 16696 49204 N/A 992 U4 63 Home Imprmoment Superstore GR 000 sf 1 113750 N/A 218 36 243 20 129 91 368 11 N/A 368 11 64 Electroeue Superstore GR 000 sf 1590000 WA 21836 14719 17832 52551 N/A 52551 65 Ihscoun Horne Funeslungs Superstore GR 000 sf 1 676667 N/A 218 36 366 12 188 04 554 16 N/A 554 16 66 Apparel Store GR 000 sf 2257500 N/A 2113 36 49295 25318 74613 N/A 74613 67 Arts and Cents Slone GR 000 sf 1949581 WA 21836 42571 21865 64436 N/A 64436 68 Pharmacy/ DnigSlore (No Drive Through) GR 000 sf 1 013646 N/A 218 36 221 34 113 68 335 02 N/A 335 02 69 Pharmacy / Drugstore (With Drive Though) GR 000 sf 0990034 WA 21836 21811 11202 33013 N/A 33013 70 Rename Store GR 000 of 0 340833 N/A 218 36 74 42 38 22 11264 N/A 112 64 71 Walk in Bank F/1 000sf 1777381 N/A 21836 38011 19933 58744 N/A 38744 72 Dnve-m Bank F/1 000 sf 2279688 WA 21836 49779 25567 75346 N/A 75396 73 Quakily Restaurant ED 000 sf 3632083 N/A 21836 79310 40734 1211044 N/A 120044 79 High Turnover Rummy/11 (Si-d0ue) EL) 000 sf 4794583 WA 21836 104695 53771 1,58466 N/A 158466 75 Fast food Restaurant utthom Dnve Through ED 000 sf 23 196250 WA 218 36 5 065 11 2 601 46 7.666 59 N/A 7 666 59 76 Fut food Restaurant with Dnve Through ED 000 sf 16 325000 WA 218 36 3,564 73 1 830 85 5,395 58 N/A 5 395 58 77 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop SS Sernce Posmmn 1706250 WA 21836 37258 19116 56394 N/A 56394 78 Gas0lmc /Service Station SS Puorp Position 1421771 N/A 21016 31046 15945 46991 N/A 46991 79 Gasoline / Service Station u/ Convenience Market SS Pump Position 1376667 WA 21836 30061 15439 45500 N/A 45500 80 Gasoline / Sernec Station 6/ Convenience Markel & Car Wadi SS Pub Pism0n 1298958 WA 21836 20364 14568 42932 N/A 42932 81 Self save Car Wash SS Wash Stall I 68750 N/A 21836 36848 18925 55773 N/A 35771 Page 2 oft Table 4-6 The Clly of Clermont Pollee Sullen Impart Fee Analysis )ntpael Fee Mandan - Base CaortBv / Variable 82 Should none of the above land uses adequately define a proposal non mtdenual development 00 determined by the City Manager al the Managels discretion the following average charge per non residential development Is considered appropriate Non residential Total Ctwr per Person I Base 1(1) 5218 36 Posen Allocable to Resident 67 0l Amount Allocable to the Resided 914612 Amami Allocable to Non nsrdmtml 57204 Plus Cost per Person [ Venable I (2) 112 IS Amount Allocable to Non =Mama! 5184 19 Square Fee of Non residential Development per Person 23660 Persons per 1 000 Square FM 4 23 Average Cosl per 1 000 Square Feet of Non residential Development 5779 12 Footnotes (1) Base Capacity estimated as follows Lusting Population 20 017 Existing LOS per 1 000 population 2 00 Total Patrol (Midas Rjmred LOS 40 Mmunum Servtcc level pa 1 000 population 1 50 Total Mmmn m O8Ficen 30 Pacait Rase Cep400y LOS 75 00% Tonal Bose oapocny mammal as follows Tonal Fstimated Capital Costs Investment in Police Services 54553869 Percent Base Capacity 7510196 Tonal esturmled Base Capacity 01015 S3 415 402 Total Growth to Population 2020 15 641 Total Lost per Person 5218 36 (2) Venable Cost pa Unit estimated es follows Total Estimated Capital Costs Involmml to Police Scan® 54 553 869 Lcs ontnont allocated to Base Capacity 3 415 402 Total Variable Cost 51 138467 Permit Residential 49 17% Total Residential Costs 5559 784 Total Non residential Casts 5578 683 Estimated Residential Variable Allocation Costs pa Growth in Units Variable Percent Calls Class 2020 Cost pa Unn Single Family 9188% 5514330 5024 510237 Multi family 812% 45454 1 806 2517 10000% 5559784 6830 Non residential Vmmble Allocation Total Estimated Capital Casts Investment m Pollee Semen 5578 683 Teal Growth in Panamint (Nonresidential) Population 2020 5 160 Taal Cost pa Person I'1 5112 15 Applied on a funamnal population basis Table 4 - 7 Pose 1 011 The City of Clermont Police Services Impact Fee Analysis Pollee Services Impact 4 c Comparison (II Residential Line Single Multi- Mobile Non Residential Effective No Descnpuon Family Family Home ($ per square foot) Date The City of Clermont 1 Existmg 518500 57200 $18500(2) $00100 18380 2005 2 Proposed 457 00 390 00 45700 (2) 0 0793 - 7 6666 (3) Proposed 2006 Other Florida Government Agencies 3 City of Apopka N/A N/A N/A N/A 2003 4 City of Ldgeuater 14473 9616 7930 01150 -03222 N/A 5 City of Eustis 13798 9864 9003 00152.02602 2004 6 City of Kissimmee N/A N/A N/A N/A 2005 7 City of Lake Mary 16500 16500 16500 00820 N/A 8 Coy of Lake Wales 15800 15800 15800 00510 -07450 2005 9 City of Lakeland 12900 12200 10500 00490 06600 2004 10 City of Leesburg 160 00 160 00 16000 0 1345 2005 11 City of Mmneola N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 CO of Mount Dora 240 79 62604 N/A 0 0578 - 0 8331 2005 13 City of Ocoee 501 04 501 04 501 04 0 3300 2005 14 City of St Cloud 28500 28500 28500 08500 2003 15 City of Tavares 47 00 4700 47 00 0 0520 2003 16 City of Winter Garden 26000 26000 26000 05000 2004 17 City of Winter Haven N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 18 Other Florida Governmental Agencies Average 5202 59 522899 $185 04 $0 0152 - 50 8500 (4) Footnotes (1) Unless otherwise noted amounts shown reflect impact fees m effect July 2005 This companson is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for companson purposes only and is not Intended to be a complete listing of all roles and charges offered by each listed municipaluy (2) Based upon the Qty's existing ordinance and procedures, one new mobile home is charged as one single family dwelling inn (3) Average proposed impact fee for non - residential development is 5779 12 per 1,000 square feel (4) Reflects the lowest and highest rate per square feet Pt AUG SECTION 5 FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE SECTION 5 FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the development and design of the impact fee for fire rescue services Included in this section is a discussion of the level of service requirements and capital costs included as the basis for the determination of the fee level and the design of the fee to be applied to new growth within the City LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIREMENTS There is 'currently no formally adopted level of service for the City's fire rescue services, however, it is the City's intent to maintain staffing levels that provide services to all developed areas in order to be able to respond to service calls within a specified time penod to maintain Insurance Service Organization (ISO) property insurance ratings in the community As a practical matter, this response time standard (4 minutes or less) is based upon recognized industry standards not only having to do with property protection, but also in providing Emergency Medical Support services (EMS) The department will continue to set appropnate goals related to service standards Another important critena related to the response capability of a municipal Fire Department such as the City's is related to the type of service area in terms of occupancy and structures to be protected The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) his developed certain guidelines for the evaluation of a Fire Department's response which are summarized as follows (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM \I I79 -OIVL(,ports \ final \Report 5 -i Evaluation of Response Capability High Hazard Occupancies (Schools, hospitals, nursing homes, explosive plants, refineries, high -nee buildings, and other high -life hazard or large fire potential occupancies) At least 4 pumpers, 2 ladder trucks, 2 chief officers, and other specialized apparatus, as may be needed to cope with the combustible Involved, not Tess than 24 firefighters and 2 chief officers Medium Hazard Occupancies (Apartments, offices, mercantile and industnal occupancies not normally requiring extensive rescue or firefighting forces) At least 3 pumpers, 1 ladder truck, 1 chief officer, and other specialized apparatus, as may be needed or available, not less than 16 firefighters and 1 chief officer Low Hazard Occupancies (One, two, or three family dwellings and scattered small businesses and industnal occupancies At least 2 pumpers, 1 ladder truck, 1 chief officer, and other specialized apparatus, as may be needed or available, not less than 12 firefighters and 1 chief officer Rural Operations (Scattered dwellings, small businesses and farm buildings) At least I pumper with a large water tank (500 or more gallons), one mobile water supply apparatus (1,000 gallons or larger) and such other specialized apparatus, as may be necessary to perform effective, initial firefighting operations, at least 6 firefighters and 1 chief officer Additional Alarms At least the equivalent of that required for Rural Operations for second alarms, equipment, as may be needed according to the type of emergency and capabilities of the Fire Department This may involve the immediate use of mutual aid companies until local forces can be supplemented with additional off -duty personnel Based on the occupancies descnbed above, recognizing that the City has a number of multi -story buildings (e g , condominiums) hospitals, or large fire potential occupancies such as schools located within the City, it appears that the City should plan its firefighting capabilities towards a medium to high hazard occupancy level In order to meet the service standards required of the community for responding to fire and rescue alarms, the City has entered into several mutual aid agreements with other parties, including Lake County (the "County"), to provide mutual assistance in emergencies, as deemed feasible (the "Mutual Agreement ") The purpose of the Mutual Agreements are to initiate action leading to a first- response program for fire and rescue services and provide additional service support at the request of either party The benefit of these agreements is a cost savings by all parties due to reduced staffing and equipment requirements needed in emergency situations Also, the City further enhances its services and reduces its operational costs through the use of volunteers, citizen firefighters K \DM \I179 -0 l\Rcporls\FmuNtcpon 5 -2 Generally, the level of service standard for fire rescue services and emergency medical services is based on response times in a first alarm situation The City is committed to maintaining an average response time of four (4) minutes or less The most vital resource to meeting this standard is the City's personnel The existing number of personnel and projected staffing needs have been identified by the City Presently, the City has 25 5 full -time personnel of whom 20 0 are full -time firefighter /rescue personnel, as shown in Table 5 -1 and below Summary of Existing Personnel Fire Chief 1 0 Captain/Fire Marshall 1 0 Fire Inspector 2 0 Firefighter /Rescue Personnel 20 0 Administrative Assistant 1 5 Total Current Full -Time Personnel 25.5 The City utilizes resources from the Police Department for dispatching Approximately twelve (12) police dispatchers are allocated for the service The City also pools twenty-two (22) volunteer, citizen firefighters, which allows the City to keep operating costs low Based on the needs of the City and as discussed with the Fire Chief, current staffing needs have been identified through 2020 and includes the staffing of a new fire station, Number 4 These include the following Firefighter/Rescue Personnel — The Fire Chief has identified the need for twenty-seven (27) additional firefighter /rescue personnel through 2020 Thus, the staffing requirements for the existmg LOS are as follows: Summary of Personnel Required Level of Service Fire Chief 1 0 Division Commander 2 0 - Captain/Fire Marshall 0 0 Fire inspector 2 0 Firefighter/Rescue Personnel 47 0 Administrative Assistant 2 0 Total Required Personnel for Existing Level of Service 54.0 Based on planned staffing levels above, the level of service relative to the future population of 35,658 residents is 47 firefighter /rescue personnel or 1 32 personnel per 1,000 population Based on the current staffing levels for the existing population and with respect to anticipated development, this would seem to be a reasonable LOS (in terms of firefighter /rescue personnel per 1,000 population) K 'DM \I 179- O1Vtcports\Final \Report 5 -3 RESOURCE NEEDS ANALYSIS The method used to determine the fire rescue services impact fees is the standards -dnven method The standards -dnven method was utilized in thc allocation of costs associated with major capital facilities that service the City's first alarm service area The capital cost parameters include allocations for personnel equipment, vehicles, other direct firefighting and emergency medical equipment, and fire station and headquarter facilities Personnel protection equipment such as helmets and bunker coats and trousers are mission - essential, a portion of these costs is included in fee determination since the City does capitalize equipment charges greater than $1,000 Table 5 -2 itemizes the personnel equipment as provided by the City Table 5 -3 reflects the existing facilities and equipment required to maintain the City's level of service and Table 5 -4 provides the proposed facilities and equipment to maintain such standards through 2020 Table 5 -5 summarizes these costs on a per rescue personnel basis As shown on Table 5 -5, and summanzed below, approximately $7,210,854 in total capital investments will have been made in order to provide fire services within the City's emergency management response area through 2020 Estimated Capital Costs Amount [ *] Capital Recoupment Costs — Existing Facilities $4,403,544 Capital Costs — Proposed Facilities 2.807.310 Total Capital Costs Recognized $7,210,854 [ *] Derived from Table 5 -5 DESIGN OF FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE The method used to determine the fire rescue services impact fee was based upon the same four step process as was descnbed for the determination of the police impact fee. Tables 5 -6 and 5 -7 help to illustrate the results of the approach The following is a brief descnption of the method used in this study • Development of Total Capital Need — Based on discussions with the City and the Fire Department and the level of service requirements related to the maintenance of first response time, the incremental facilities and related costs to serve the population through the forecast penod reflected in the analysis was developed • Allocation of Base Capital Costs to Customer Classes — This step allocates the base capital costs, the reserved service capacity allocable to all customer classes irrespective of call demand The base costs are calculated on a per person basis and then allocated between residential and non - residential land -uses based on "functional population" estimates • Allocation of Vanable Costs to Customer Classes — This step allocates the remaining capital costs to provide fire rescue services between the residential and non - residential land -uses based upon call demand Therefore, some classes of land -use, which may incur K \DM\I 179 -01 \Reports\Final\Report 5-4 few or no service calls, will carry a lower cost than other high- demand sectors such as bars and restaurants • Calculation of Cost per Equivalent Impact Fee Unit — Once the allocated base and variable costs are identified per land -use, they are summanzed and presented as a unit of measure basis, per dwelling unit, per 1,000 square feet, or per acre Table 5 -7 provides a detailed listing of the proposed impact fees and their appropnate land -use and measures Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Assumptions The development of the fire rescue services impact fees' required several assumptions The major assumptions used in the development of the proposed impact fees are as follows 1 In the development of the capital costs allocable to serve the projected fire rescue needs of the City, the City addressed its facility needs and staffing requirements through 2020 As previously mentioned, the level of service assumed in this report was to maintain a four - minute response time within the response zone of the City This level of service is generally related to the location and proximity of available fire stations and the number of firefighters /rescue personnel and vehicles such that the response times can be achieved Based on prospective demands and a need for another fire station, the City will require 47 firefighters /rescue personnel by 2020 Based on staffing needs for firefighting/rescue personnel, the relationship appears to be adequate to maintain the first response LOS for medium to high hazard occupancies The staffing level of service as previously discussed was calculated at 1 32 firefighter /rescue personnel per 1,000 population 2 In the development of the total capital costs of providing fire rescue services through the forecast period, an estimate of the total capital costs required for such service was developed The total capital costs were based on information provided by and discussions with the City's Fire Department and the following summarizes the significant assumptions used in the fee determination a The direct cost of equipping one full -time firefighter /rescue personnel (e g , personnel equipment) was allocated based on discussions with the City's Finance Department The new personnel are not required to contribute to basic equipment issued, and it is the City's current policy to capitalize those costs greater than $1,000. This equipment is mission - essential and is listed on Table 5 -2 b The City maintains a fleet of emergency vehicles, equipment, and facilities to support existing and future fire rescue services Table 5 -3 provides the existing inventory of such resources in current dollars to denve the "buy -in" or "recoupment" cost per rescue personnel Since such capital assets along with future assets required will support the total population and staffing base in 2020 The capital costs associated with existing assets are allocated against the total planned rescue personnel of 47 c The City addressed its needs based on future demand for vehicles, equipment, and facilities Table 5 -4 itemizes the planned improvements and purchases to maintain the service standards discussed earlier Specifically, the City plans to construct, staff, and K \DM \1179 -0 I\ ReportsTml \Report 5 -5 equip a new fire station, Number 4 Table 5 -4 lists the equipment and vehicle needs associated with Station No 4 The City also plans to construct a headquarters facility at an estimated cost of $850,000 A total of $2,807,333 in planned purchases, expansions, and improvements is anticipated through 2020 3 The estimated capital base costs or reserved service capacity, allocable to all customer classes were allocated between the residential and non - residential customer classes based on "functional population" estimates The concept of functional population is incorporated in order to spread capital costs more equitably between residential and non - residential land - uses Businesses place demands on fire rescue services in exactly the same manner as residents do, and it is equitable to spread these costs based on the average number of people expected to be prcscnt For the residential uses, the allocation is calculated per resident based on the average amount of time spent at the residence The resident's remaining time is then allocated as either an employee and /or visitor to the remaining non- residential classes is determined using traffic generations, estimated employment data, and operational details The net result is the total number of person hours per location The base costs arc calculated on a per person basis and then applied to the residential and non- residential land -uses based upon the respective functional population coefficient 4 The estimated variable cost of providing fire rescue services was allocated between the residential and non - residential customer classifications based on the estimated number of service calls made by the Fire Department per land -use for 2004 and is projected through 2020 The determination of the fire service calls to the customer classifications was performed using two parameters With respect to those service call responses directly allocable to a particular class of customers (e g , residential) based on information compiled by the Fire Department as reported in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) reports, such amounts were directly assigned to such classes The remaining service calls dealt primanly with emergency medical responses and other requirements Table 5 -6 summarizes the calls as follows Total Residential Non - Residential Total Direct Service Calls 6,418 3,952 2,466 Percent of Total 61 57% 38 43% Impact Fee Calculation Based on the above - referenced assumptions, the allocated capital facilities considered necessary to maintain the level of service requirements, and the population and land use projections of the City, the fire rescue services impact fees for the residential and non - residential customer classifications were estimated As shown in Table 5 -7 at the end of this section, the cost per equivalent impact fee unit by customer classification was calculated The following summanzes the proposed changes to the residential fire rescue impact fees K \DM \I 179 -0IUtcports\Finai\Rcport 5 -6 Existing Proposed Single -Family per Dwelling Unit [ *] $194 - $321 Multi- Family per Dwelling Unit 207 274 [ *] Includes mobile homes Taking into account the methodology used for the determination of the fec and the estimates associated with determining the fire rescue capital needs of the City, it is concluded that the proposed impact fee utilizing the City's LOS standard arc reasonable It should be noted that in the development of the fee per equivalent impact fec unit, no credits associated with developer land dedication or similar activities have been recognized In the development of the cost per equivalent impact fee unit, it was determined that the rate should be applied on a "per dwelling unit" basis for the residential class and pnmanly on a "per square footage" of commercial development for the non - residential class As shown in Table 5- 7, some non - residential land -uses are measured by units other than square feet These factors are common throughout the state as the equivalent impact fee unit for fee determination The use of these equivalency factors was based on discussions with thc City, comparisons of fee applicability provisions of neighbonngJunsdictions, and promotion of administrative simplicity IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide the City additional information about the proposed impact fees, a companson of the proposed fees for the City and those charged by other neighboring jurisdictions was prepared Table 5 -8 at the end of this section summarizes the impact fees for fire protection services charged by other communities with the proposed rates of the City Also, as shown in Table 5 -8 for other communities, the fees charged to the residential class are applied using a "per dwelling unit" basis, which is consistent with the recommended fee applicability provisions of the City's proposed fees For thc non - residential class and, as previously discussed, the fees are applied on the basis of the amount of square foot of facility development (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM \1179 -01 \Rcpons \ Finn! \Report 5 -7 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA SECTION 5 FIRE RESCUE SERVICES IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS LIST OF TABLES Table No Title 5 -1 Summary of Existing Personnel 5 -2 Summary of Personnel Equipment Costs 5 -3 Inventory of Existing Capital Equipment and Recoupment Costs 5 -4 Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment and Cost Allocation 5 -5 Summary of Capital Costs 5 -6 Allocation of Service Calls 5 -7 Impact Fee Allocation — Base Capacity / Vanable 5 -8 Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comparison Table 5 -1 Page 1 of I The City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Existing Personnel Line Current Needs Planned No Quantity (1) Needs (2) Station 4 (3) Staffing Personnel 1 Fire Chief 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Division Commanders 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Captain/ Fire Marshall 10 (1 0) 0 0 0 0 4 Firefighter/ Inspector 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 Administrative Assistant plus Clerk 1 5 0 5 0 0 2 0 6 Fire Lieutenant (Shift Commander) 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 Firefighter / Paramedic 8 0 4 0 6 0 18 0 8 Firefighter / EMT 7 0 8 0 7 0 22 0 9 Firefighter / Paramedic - P/T @ Full -time Equivalency 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 10 Firefighter / EMT - P/T @ Full -time Equivalency 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 Total Personnel 25 5 15 5 13 0 54 0 12 Dispatchers (Police Department Employees) 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 13 Volunteers 22 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 14 Total Support 59 5 15 5 13 0 88 0 Level of Service 15 Firefighter /Rescue Division 20 0 14 0 13 0 47 0 Footnotes (1) As provided by the City's Fire Chief (2) In addition to exiting personnel, these members have been identified as current deficiencies in terms of level of service based on information provided by the Fire Chief (3) Thirteen (13) Firefighters required for Station 4 as provided by the City Table 5 -2 Page I of 1 The City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Personnel Eaurament Costs Lme No Quanhty Pncc Each Market Value Cost (1) Adjustments (2) Market Value Cost (I ) Firefighter/Rescue Equipment 1 Umform Items 1 0 $680 $680 ($680) $0 2 Safety Equipment 1 0 100 100 (100) 0 3 Turnout Gear 10 1 600 1 600 0 1,600 4 SCBA Mask 1 0 175 175 (175) 0 5 Portable Radio 1 0 550 550 (550) 0 6 Radio Pager I 0 440 440 (440) 0 Total Projected Costs per Firefighter/Rescue Personnel $3,545 ($ 19� $1 600 Footnotes (1) M provided by the City's hue Chief and estimated m 2005 dollars (2) Based on discussions with City Staff, New Officers do not contribute to recover costs of basic issue equipment however, it Is not the Cttys current policy to capitalize uniforms and equipment unless such asset s useful life exceeds one year and its cost or consolidated costs are equal to or greater than $1,000 Therefore, these costs have been removed from 1 able 5 -5, Summary of Capital Costs Table 5-3 Page 1 of 1 The City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of Fdslinn Capital Fqulpment and Reenactment Cosi Allocation Lme Current Market Cost per Rescue No Equipment Class and Dcsmpuon Basis Value Cost (1) Personml (2) Equipment (Other than Personnel) 1 General / Mission Essential Equipment 526 420 2 Extncauon Equipment Set 40000 3 High Pressure Air Bag Set 20,000 4 Con -Space Communications Set 6,000 5 Ldepack 12 Defibtllator 45000 6 Breathing Am Compressor end Cacrvd , System 20000 7 Themial Imaging Camera 10000 8 Admimslratne Whales 121 000 9 Total Equipment 5288 420 56,137 10 Major Vehkles and Firefighting Equipment I I Engine 21, 1963 American LaFmnce Pumper 5175 000 12 Fqurpment Needs 50,833 13 Less Retirements (3) (175 000) 14 Total Vehicle 50,833 15 Attack 31, 1978 E -One Mint Pumper (Brush/Quick Attack) 5130 000 16 Equipment Needs 18487 17 lout Vchrcle 148,487 18 Ladder 21 1985 American LaFrance "Tele -Squm" 50 Aerial 5500,000 19 Equipment Needs 62 389 20 Less Retirements (3) 0 21 Total Vehicle 562 389 22 Tower I 1989 Grumman Acnalcat 102' tower-ladder 5850 000 23 Equipment Needs 62 ,389 24 Total Vehicle 912 389 25 Engmc 11, 1996 First Out/International 4-door Pumper 5175000 26 Equipment Needs 50833 27 Total Vehicle 225,833 28 Squad 21 2000 Piero Intemauonal 2-door Rescue Pumper 5175 000 29 Egmpmenl Needs 50833 30 Total Vehicle 225 833 31 Squad 11 2003 Fenem/Frclghllmer 4-door Rescue Pumper 5175,000 32 Equipment Needs 63 807 33 Total Vehicle 238 807 34 Marine 11988 Wellcrall 21 Center Concolc Boat 575000 35 EqurpmennNeeds 0 36 Total Vehicle 75000 37 Dne -1 1980 14 Zodiac Inflatable Boat 520 000 38 Equipment Needs 0 39 Total Vehicle 20000 40 Total Vehrdes and Firefighting Equipment 2 459 571 552,331 Cost per Rescue 41 Other Capital Equipment and Required Furnishings Basis Hrsloncal Cost (1) Personnel (2) 42 }wanton 43 Sutton 1- Headquarters Bmldrng 5628 598 44 Station I - Headquarters Land 102,034 45 Station 2 King Rrdgc 510 992 46 Station 3 96 47 Total Other Ftre Department Equipment and Required Fmmshmgs 1 338 616 528 481 48 Total Existing Capnol Fac Costs with Capacny to Serve Future Growth 54,086 607 586,949 Footnotes (I) Amounts reflected as provided by the City unless otherwise indicated (2) Based upon planned rescue personnel identified in Table 5 -1 (3) Reflects planned retirements where Engine 21 will be l00 ruined and Ladder21 will be held m reserve based upon capital needs in [able 5-4 Table 5-4 Page 1 of I The City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysts Inventory of Proposed Capital Equipment and Cost Allocation Line Current Market Cost per Future No Equipment Class and Description Basis Value Cost (1) Personnel (2) Equipment (Other than Personnel) 1 Thermal Imaging camera (Quint) $10,000 2 Exmcation Equipment Set ( Engme 41) 20,000 3 Lifepack 12 Defibillator (Engine 41) 15,000 4 Ihcrmal Imaging camera (Engine 41) 10 000 5 Advanced Life Support EMS 2,500 6 Hazardous Matenals Response Equipment 5,000 7 Confined Space Rescue Equipment 3,000 8 Technical Rope Rescue Equipment 4,000 9 Trench/Collapse Rescue Equipment 10,000 10 Equipment for Dive Team 2 000 I1 total Equipment $81,500 $1,734 12 Major Vehicles and Firefighting Equipment 13 Engine 41 (Pumper) Station 4 $175,000 14 Equipment Needs 50,833 15 Total VLhaie 225,833 16 Ladder Truck (Quint) (3) $500,000 17 Equipment Needs 0 18 Total Vehicle 500,000 19 Total Vehicles and Firefighting Equipment 725,833 $15 443 20 Other Capital Equipment and Required Furnishings 21 Location 22 Admimsttanon - Land $100,000 23 Administration - Budding 750,000 24 Station 4 - Land 300,000 25 Station 4 - Budding 850,000 26 Total Other Fire Department Equipment and Required Furnishings 2,000,000 $42,553 27 Total Existing Capital Facility Costs with Capacity to Serve Futurc Growth $2,807,333 $59,730 Footnotes (I) Amounts reflected as provided by the City unless otherwise indicated (2) Based upon plannexl rescue personnel identified in Table 5 -5 (3) Reflects planned retirements where Engine 21 will be 100% retired and Ladder 21 will be held in reserve based upon area needs Vehicle equipment needs reflect only those items above exiting Inventories Page 1 of 1 Table 5-S The City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Cannel Costs Line Market Value Allocated Total Personnel Allocated No Description Total Cost (1) Cost Index (2) Cost Requirements (3) Cost Recoupment Costs I Personnel Equipment Costs per Full Time Rescue Personnel (4) $1,600 00 N/A $1,600 00 47 $75 200 2 Other Equipment per Rescue Personnel (5) 6 137 00 N/A 6,137 00 47 288,439 3 Vehicles per Rescue Personnel (5) 52,331 00 N/A 52,331 00 47 2,459,557 4 Existing Stations per Rescue Personnel (5) 28,481 00 2 40% 33,62443 47 1,580,348 5 Total Rccoupment Costs 88 549 00 93 692 43 4,403,544 Proposed Capital Additions 6 Other Equipment per Rescue Personnel (5) 1,734 00 N/A 1,734 00 47 81,498 7 Vehicles per Rescue Personnel (5) 15,443 00 N/A 15,443 00 47 725 821 8 Stations per Rcscuc Personnel (5) 42,553 00 N/A 42,553 00 47 1,999,991 9 Total Proposed Costs 59,730 00 59,730 00 2,807,310 10 Total Allocated Costs per Full Time Rescue Personnel $148,279 00 $153,422 43 $7,210,854 Footnotes (1) Total estimated capital costs per rescue personnel as identified in Tables 5 -2, 5 -3 and 5-4 (2) Capital Costs reflected at histoncal value are adjusted to current market values based on the following adjustments from the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Annual Average Incrcasc in Charges Since 1998 2 40% (3) Future Requirements based on Level of Service Standards adopted by the City Future needs are calculated as follows Projected Population at 2020 35,658 Existing LOS per 1,000 population 1 32 Total Rescue Personnel Required to 2020 47 (4) Amount reflects only those charges based upon the Citys capitalization policy, which will provide befit to future pcnods and residents (5) Based on information provided by the City as derived to Table 5 -3 and 5-4 i ! ( ; ' { 22.2.2 }' n (!) ; ; }} \� P. ( ;!!!!,!!7_ 14�. 79: ''.. ! .. § !` -.-°- : ! . ... .l ; \ /� } } ;:Z \ 2 !!, _ § :,]: § ,,, �° !!! ! > ,!; } �� E` ° ` ° 8,, `| ;,! ! ;!! „ !i! , -.�. . :. :! „ !:! !| )) , ; >,!!;! !! }!§ | ; li g ; ` . !l ,. 1 ! ! - 2222 .. , ,a, 5.a.. 5% ! : 1 4m - \\ \" "~•.! } ) | FEZ .. _ 2222._ § !(! !'L : " & !!!| _. ; ,< : ! ) ! _ !\ r !!! !; ! , l : :! : :=:; } |/ E ; ; ;:: § §! I!! !!!!!!; ! i (§ ; ; ; Z; ! ! , I ! g / 1 / 55. / \ 5 5. \ 4 ,5 _ 8 22 2 . 2 ! ' 1 ;5 ! 1 ) ! {f /! 4 |: 4 1 !;!4 . ! / \ \\ }/ \ \2/{ / Page 1 012 Table S7 The City of Clermmt Floe Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Impart Fee Allocation - BIM Capaclry / Variable Line F tool Perams per Base Cost Base Cos Venable Cost Proposed Faawg [nanse/ Na lend Ilse Code Ilan nfMensore Pop Facia Uio per P (1) pa U Per Unit Impact For Impact Fee ( Decrease ) Rnkkntal 1 Single-Family 51 Dwcllmg Unit 0670084 242 010325 016749 115331 132100 019400 012700 2 Muhl Fmoly MF DwellmgUna 0 670084 250 10325 17266 10123 27400 20700 6700 1m- Resltleoda! 3 Commercial Airport OTH Flight pa Day 3768750 NA 1 0325 338912 343446 38235B N/A 382358 4 General A0118100 Ampon 01H Flmg■ pa Day 0097500 N/A 0325 1007 11.24 2131 NA 2131 5 Task Terminal WH Acre 3091250 N/A 0325 31917 35636 67553 N/A 67553 6 Omani Light Industrial IND 1 000 sf 0490997 6/A 0125 5070 5660 10730 N/A 107 30 7 General Heavylodmmal IND 1000 of 0476190 N/A 0325 4917 5490 104 07 NA 10407 8 InAemal Pak IND 1 000 sf 0490923 NA 0325 5069 5659 10720 6/A 10728 9 Mavuhawmg 11.0 1000 sf 0476190 N/A 0125 4917 5490 10407 NA 10407 10 Warehasmg WH 1 000 sf 0253720 NA 0325 2620 2925 5545 N/A 5545 II Mm narehonemg WH 1000e1 0240030 NA 0325 2478 2767 5245 6/13 5245 12 Hotel H/M Room 2041667 N/A 0125 21080 23536 44616 NIA 44616 13 All Smcs Hula H/M Roam 1020813 NA 0325 10540 11768 22308 6/A 22308 14 Moral HIM Room 1245833 NA 0325 12063 14362 27225 N/A 27225 15 Water Slide Park REC Parking Space 0 205833 N/A 03 25 21 25 23 71 44 98 N/A 44 98 16 Manna REC Acre 0920000 NA 0325 9499 10606 20105 N/A 20105 17 Golf Course RLC 11010 4515000 N/A 0125 46617 52049 98666 N/A 98666 18 GulfDnvmg Rmgc RFC Tire 0665000 NA 0325 6866 7666 14532 N/A 14532 19 MuIIipmpmc Rmnuomal Feahty REC Aae 6875833 NA 0325 70993 79265 150258 NIA 1,50250 20 Bowling Alley REC 1 000 sf 2330831 N/A 0325 24066 26870 50936 NIA 50936 21 Movie Theater RFC I OM sf 4926667 NA 0325 50868 567 95 1 076 63 N/A 1 076 63 22 Tams Cows RLC Coo 1990000 NA 0125 20547 22941 43488 N/A 43488 23 Reryw /Tams Club RFC Com 2468333 N/A 0325 25486 28455 53941 NA 53991 24 Health / Fimess Club RLC 1 000 sf 1 196667 N/A 0325 123 56 137 95 261 31 NIA 261 51 25 Athletic Club REC 1 000 sf 1511250 N/A 0325 15604 17422 33026 N/A 33026 26 RamOonal Cmmmmiry Cotta REC 1 000 sf 0 882500 NA 03 25 91 12 101 73 192 85 N/A 192 85 27 Pnsam School (K 125 INS StdcI 0435714 N/A 0325 4499 5023 0522 NIA 9522 20 lwaor/ COmmuntty College HST Student 0207141 N/A 0325 2139 2388 4527 N/A 4527 29 Umvasty /College INST 5mdcnl 0416667 6/A 0325 4302 4803 9105 NIA 9105 30 Place of WOrshp 1651 1 000 s1 0550417 N/A 0125 5683 6345 12028 NIA 12028 31 Day Care Center INST 1 000 sf 6723810 N/A 0325 69423 77512 1 469 35 N/A 1 469 35 32 Cemetery INST Acre 0485417 NA 0325 5012 5596 10600 N/A 10608 33 Lodge /Frataml Orgaaivnoo INST Marta 0025595 N/A 0125 264 295 559 6/A 559 34 Hnpral INST 000.0 2288333 NA 0325 23627 26380 50007 N/A 50007 35 Nursing Ham INST 000 sf 2000000 N/A 0325 20650 21056 43706 N/A 43706 36 Clmc INST 000 sf 2560811 1 0325 26441 29521 55962 N/A 55962 37 Gmem1 Office Balding OFF 000 sf 1 005357 NA 03 25 103 80 11590 219 70 N/A 219 70 38 Corporate Headquarters Bmldmg OFF 000 sf 0 747917 N/A 03 25 77 22 86 22 163 44 N/A 163 44 39 Single Tenon Office Buldmg OFF 000 sf 1017857 N/A 0325 10509 11734 22243 N/A 22243 40 Medical / Dental Office Bmldmg OFF 000 sf 1566071 N/A 0125 16170 18054 34224 N/A 34224 41 Office Pad OFF 001060 0824702 NA 0325 8515 9507 18022 N/A 10022 42 Research and Development Cana OFF 000 sf 0750595 NA 0125 7750 8653 16403 N/A 16403 43 0m11c0. Park OFF 000.0 0854464 N/A 0325 BB22 9850 18672 N/A 18672 44 Bwldmg 5.4ilmaN and Lumber Sore GR 000.0 1 593750 N/A 0125 164 55 183 73 148 28 N/A 348 28 45 Free-Standing Discount Superstore GR 000 sf 1720417 N/A 0325 17763 19833 37596 N/A 37596 46 Specialty Read Center GR 000 sf 1567500 N/A 0325 16184 18070 34254 N/A 34254 47 Free-Sanding Discount Store GR 000.1 1933333 N/A 0325 19962 22287 42249 NA 42249 48 Hardware /Pamt Store 411 000 sf 1785417 N/A 0325 18434 20582 39016 N/A 39016 49 Nursery /Chaim Center GR Acre 2701667 N/A 0325 27895 31145 59040 NA 59040 50 Maury Wholesale GR Acre 1672917 N/A 0125 17273 19285 36558 N/A 36558 51 Shopping Center GR 000 sf 1524583 61A 0325 15741 17573 33316 N/A 13116 52 Faa0ry Outlet Center GR 000 sf 1015313 N/A 0325 10463 11682 22145 NA 22145 53 New Cm Sales MV 000 sf 1348929 NA 0325 13928 15550 29478 NA 29478 54 Aatomoblk Pans Sales SS /RIO sf 2117083 N/A 0325 21859 24906 46265 N/A 46265 55 Tux Sumo 05 000 sf 0959583 N/A 0325 9908 11062 20970 NA 20970 56 The Superstore SS 000 sf 0818750 N/A 0325 8454 9439 17893 NA 17091 57 Sopmarkel GR 000,0 3377500 N/A 0325 34873 18936 73809 N/A 73809 513 Cmvmece Madre GR 007 sf 6464896 6/A 0325 66750 74527 1 412 77 NA 141277 59 Consomme Market with Gasoline Purrs 5S 000 sf 7305625 N/A 0325 75431 84219 159650 6113 1 .59650 60 Discount Sigeimmke GR 000 sf 1208333 N/A 03 25 331 26 36986 701 12 N/A 701 12 61 Wholesale Market GR 000 sf 0192917 NIA 03 25 40 57 45 30 85 87 N/A 85 87 62 Ursrpum Club GR 000 of 1 488750 N/A 03 25 153 71 171 62 325 33 N/A 323 33 63 Home Impmvetmt Superstom GR 000 sf 1113750 6I6 0325 11499 12839 24138 N/A 24138 64 Elea me Superstore GR (6/0 sf 1 590000 N/A 03 25 169 17 18150 347 47 N/A 347 47 65 Dam& Home Furnishings Supasmc GR 000 of 1 676667 N/A 03 25 173 12 193 29 36641 N/A 366 41 66 Apparel Store (I0 000 sf 2 257500 N/A 03 25 23309 260 24 493 33 NA 493 33 67 Am and Crafts Store GR 000 sf 1 9495113 NA 03 25 201 29 224 75 42604 NIA 426 04 68 Phemucy/ Drugstore (6n Davelluough) GR 00080 1013646 N/A 0325 10466 11685 22151 NIA 22151 69 Pharmacy/ Dnigsorc(With Unvc Through) GR 000 sf 0998854 N/A 0325 10313 11515 21828 NIA 21828 70 Fumnwc Stem GR 000 sf 0340833 N/A 0325 3519 3929 7448 N/A 7448 71 Walk m Bank F/I 000 sf 1 777381 N/A 03 25 183 51 204 90 188 41 NIA 38841 72 Dnvc -In Bork 50/1 000 sf 2 279688 6/13 03 25 235 38 262 80 498 18 6/0. 498 18 73 Quakily Restaurant ED 000 sf 3632083 6/A 0123 37501 41871 79372 N/A 79172 74 Hi Timer Reston= (6ralown) 111 000 sf 4794581 N/A 0325 49504 55272 1 047 76 5.54 1 047 76 75 Fast food Restaurant withal Doe Mount] ED OM of 23 196250 N/A 0325 239501 2 674 06 5 069 07 NA 5 069 07 76 Fast food Restaurant with Dove/G mmgh FD 000 sf 16 325000 N/A 03 25 1 685 56 1 881 95 3 567 51 N/A 3 567 51 77 (Ruck Lahnmhm Vehcle Shop S5 Sawa Posmm 1706250 N/A 0325 17617 19670 37287 N/A 37287 78 Gasoline / Sal Smnon 55 Pump Portion 1 421771 N/A 03 25 146 80 163 90 310 70 N/A 310 70 79 Gasoline / Service 5tenm w/ Convmuse Marla 5S Pop Pmnna 1376667 N/A 0325 14214 15870 30084 N/A 30084 80 Gad / Service Saturn wd Convenience Marla R Car Wash 55 Pop Position 1 298958 N/A 03 25 134 12 149 74 283 86 N/A 2133 86 81 Sdf save Cm Wash 55 Wash Stag 16675110 6/A 0325 17423 19454 16877 NA 36877 Page 2 oft Table 5-7 The CBS of Clermont Fire Rncce Strokes Impact Fee Anayab Impact Pee Allocadon Base Capacity /Variable 82 Should none of Ne above land uses adequately define a proposed non resdeoual dcvclopmeol as dele msncd by the City Manager at the Menage's dismeltoo the 10iiowng avenge charge per wnvaidmual development 0 considered apptopnate Nunmideonai Total Cost pa Person( Base ((I) 8103 25 Pasco Allocable no Resident 67 01% Mrwmt Ailombie to the Rind= 069 19 Amount Allocable to Non- resideancl 134 06 Plus Cost per Person 1 Venable 1(2) 115 28 Aniwmt Aliomble to Nonnsidebnal 5149 34 Square heel ofNoomsidmnal Development per Person 23660 Persons per 1 000 Squme Fea 4 23 Average Cost pa 1 000 Square Fm of Non.nsihanal Development 5631 71 hwmma (1) TOM! Base Cnponry mowed as 1011001 Hazard Levels as providod by NFPA (Nab ®i Free Protection Assoavmon) Hezeids LOS Law Medium High Pia 6 2 3 4 Ladder Imt 3 1 I 2 Chief Officer 1 1 I 2 Elm Fighters 47 12 16 24 Percent LOS 2551% 14 04% 5106% Fquneimcy 05 07 10 Total Cannntd Capital Costs lnvcnmrnt to Foe Serum 87 210,854 Peneut Base Capacity for High Hazard °economaa 51 06% Total estimated Base Capacity costs 03.681.862 Total Population 2020 35 658 Total Cost per Person 8103 25 (2) Violable Cost per Unit meowed ns follows Total LSna0td Capital Costs Investment a hue Scrum 57,210 854 Less mot= annulled to hose meaty 3 601 862 Total Venable Cost 53 528 992 Pcicem Residential 61 57% Total Reddcmni Costs 52 172 800 Total Nmasdcmiel Costs SI 356 192 Resdeolai Venable Allomnon Costs per Fsnmetd Units Venable Percent Calls Class 2020 Cost per Unit Single Fanuly 8082% 01756057 11454 515331 Mullsfanuly 19 18% 416 743 4 117 101 23 10000% 52 172 800 15571 Non- tendemul Venable Allocation Total Emulated Capital Costs Investment m Police Smtm SI 356 192 Total Functional (Non residential) Popuimm 2020 11 764 Total Cuss pm Person PI 0115 28 Applied on a fimnional population basis Table 54 Page 1 01 The City of Clermont Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Analysis Fire Rescue Services Impact Fee Comoanson 11) Residential Lint Single Multi- Mobile Non - Residential Effective No Dcscnptton Family Family Home (5 per square foot) Date The City of Clermont 1 Extsung 5194 00 S207 00 5194 00 (2) SO 0390 - 1 6460 2005 2 Proposed 321 00 274 00 321 00 (2) 0 0525 - 5 0691 (3) Proposed 2006 Other Honda Government Agencies 3 City of Apopka N/A N/A N/A N/A 2003 4 City of Edgewater 320 88 139 59 320 88 0 0112 - 0 2343 N/A 5 City of Eustis 146 72 104 88 95 73 0 0162.0 2766 2004 6 City of Kissimmee N/A N/A N/A N/A 2005 7 City of Lake Mary 175 00 175 00 175 00 0 1290 N/A 8 City of Lake Wales 38300 38300 38300 00100 -08900 2005 9 City of Lakeland 144 00 81 00 81 00 0 1100 - 01730 2004 10 City of Leesburg 180 00 180 00 180 00 0 1017 2005 11 City of Mineola 287 00 180 00 112 00 0 0560 - 1 2250 N/A 12 City of Mount Dora 277 38 143 82 N/A 0 0411 - 1 5821 2005 13 City of Ocoec 636 00 636 00 63600 0 4700 2005 14 City of St Cloud 283 00 283 00 283 00 0 5300 2003 15 City of Tavares 70 00 70 00 70 00 0 1750 2003 16 City of Winter Garden 34000 34000 34000 06100 2004 17 City of Wmtcr Haven N/A N/A N/A N/A 2004 18 Other rlonda Governmental Agencies' Average S270 25 5226 36 S243 33 50 0100. 1 5821 (4) Footnotes (1) Unless otherwise noted amounts shown reflect impact fccs in effect July 2005 This comparison is intended to show comparable charges for similar service for companson purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each hsted muntctpaliry (2) Based upon the City's existing ordmance and procedures, one new mobile home is charged as one single family dwelling unit (3) Average proposed impact fee for non - residential development is 5631 71 per 1 000 square feet (4) Reflects the lowest and highest rate per square feet PIC AVG SECTION 6 RECREATION IMPACT FEE SECTION 6 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE GENERAL This section provides a discussion of the development and design of the proposed impact fee for recreational services Included in this section is a discussion of the City's adopted level of service (LOS) standards, facility requirements, and related capital costs included as the basis for the fee determination, and the design of the fee to be applied to new growth within the City DEFINITION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES The Department of Natural Resources ( "DNR ") has identified seven classifications or categones of parks The seven classifications are i) equipped play area and tot lot, ii) neighborhood park, iii) community park, iv) urban open space, v) urban - distnct park, vi) regional park, and vu) beach access site There are specific site guidelines for the recreational classifications that are basically directed towards size, accessibility, and population requirements Urban - District parks, regional parks, and beach access sites arc not normally applicable to every City As illustrated in the summary of existing City-owned and operated parks, Table 6 -1, the City maintains an extensive inventory of recreational facilities and activities The following is a discussion of the site guidelines as identified by the DNR • Equipped Play Area and Tot Lot — These recreational areas generally consist of open areas with play apparatus for school age or preschool children. Usually, these areas range in size from 1/4 to one acre and serve neighborhoods of between 500 and 2,500 people Recommended facilities include playground equipment, benches and picnic tables, landscaping and open space • Neighborhood Park — These recreational areas generally consist of a vanety of facilities designed for the specific needs of the neighborhood This park is usually considered as a "walk -to" park where access is directed towards the local residents of the neighborhood The park is usually designed to serve a radius of up to 1/2 mile and has a size ranging from five to ten acres (i c , approximately two acres per 1,000 people) Recommended facilities include playground equipment, recreational buildings, multipurpose courts, sports fields, picnic areas, and open space • Community Park — These recreational areas are considered as "ride -to" parks and are typically located on major collector or arterial streets This type of park is designed to serve the needs of four to six neighborhoods or generally a radius of up to three miles It is recommended that this type of park be a minimum of twenty acres based on a minimum standard of two acres per 1,000 population. Just as the neighborhood park is designed to serve the needs of the neighborhood, a community park is designed to meet the needs of the surrounding community Recommended facilities may include swimming pools, ball fields, tennis courts, playground equipment, multipurpose courts, recreation buildings, sports fields, and other associated equipment Also, the park should include allowances for K \DM \1179- OI\Reports\rmaKRepon 6 -1 open space, adequate parking, and landscaping The facilities included in the neighborhood park may also be included in a community park • Urban Open Space — These areas arc landscaped or natural open areas usually located within built -up areas and may serve a variety of population sizes based on the size of the open space The principal function of these areas is to provide a buffer to congested environments Facilities for this type of park may include benches, commemorative structures, trails, and paths The foregoing recreational facilities may also be classified into two categones resource -based and activity-based Resource -based sites and facilities are defined as those centered around particular natural resources These sites provide opportunities for activities such as picnics, hiking, water sports, fishing or just explonng nature Activity-based recreational sites and facilities are defined as those developed for the enjoyment of particular commercial or non- commercial activities These sites include facilities for basketball, baseball, football, soccer, golf, amusement parks, arcades, water parks, and community or senior citizen centers As descnbed above, the two types of public recreational areas that appear to best meet the recreational open space needs of the City ire the neighborhood park and community park Due to the size of the City, these recreational areas appear to satisfy the major recreational requirements of the City since there is easy access and all of the types of facilities that may be required by the population are either currently provided or planned Additionally, the City provides an array of public recreational activities for its residents These public activities arc mainly in the form of picnic areas, exercise trails, and vanous athletic fields The City's existing public recreational activities provide diverse recreational opportunities for all residents LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS As outlined in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the City has adopted level of service standards for recreational facilities and activities With respect to open space, the City has adopted a recreational open -space LOS standard of ten (10) acres per 1,000 residents in total The City's targeted facilities include five (5) acres per 1,000 of Neighborhood/Tot Lots and fifteen (15) acres per -1,000 of Community Parks For impact fee development, only the total acreage standard of ten (10) acres per 1,000 residents will be summarized into the fee The City currently owns and maintains an inventory of parks A summary of the City-owned and - operated parks (existing and under development) is summanzed on Table 6 -1 The City's current inventory includes 131 9 acres Neighborhood Parks/Tot Lots (7 9 acres), Comm unity Parks (102 5 acres), Special Facilities (20 5 acres), and General Open Space (1 0 acres) As shown in Table 6 -2 and based on the estimated population of 20,017 residents in 2005, the City has an existing level of service for_ total open space of approximately 6 6 acres per 1,000 population, which results in the City having an existing deficiency as follows K \I)M \1179 -0 I\Rcports\Final \Rcpon 6 -2 Existing Population 20,017 Open Space LOS 10 0 acres per 1,000 population Required Acres 200 17 acres Current City inventory 131 90 acres Surplus/(Deficiency) (68.27) acres As can be seen below and in Table 6 -3, as the City continues to develop through 2020, it will continue to incur an inventory deficit of approximately 224 68 acres Projected Population 2020 35,658 Open Space LOS 10 acres per 1,000 population Required Acres 356 58 acres Current City Inventory 131 90 acres Surplus /(Deficiency) (224.68) acres The deficiency at 2020 shown above includes a current service deficit that is neither recoverable from nor assignable to future growth The current deficiency of 68 27 acres is not included in the impact fee calculations Therefore, only 156 41 acres are included in the proposed impact fee and is calculated as follows Open Space Requirement 2020 356 58 acres Less Open Space Requirement 2005 200 17 acres Total Open Space Allocable to Growth 156.41 acres In addition to open space parkland, the City provides its residents with a number of recreational activities, both passive and active activities The City has adopted service standards for each activity as illustrated in Tables 6 -4 and 6 -5 These tables summarize the City's existing and future surpluses and/or deficiencies in service activities based upon the adopted standards Such activities include, but are not limited to, the following • Tennis Courts • Baseball/Softball Fields • Racquetball Courts • Basketball Courts • Multipurpose Fields Table 3 -6 presents the activity requirements allocated to future growth based upon the City's adopted activity standards. Lastly, the City has addressed an additional capital need which will serve the entire population through 2020 The City is in the design phase of constructing a new community center Since the facility will be considered a Special Use Facility, the land itself, which is already purchased, K \DM \I 179 -0 I Vtcports \Final\Report 6 -3 is included in the parks inventory, Table 6 -1, discussed previously The City anticipates construction costs of approximately $6 million to be allocated over all residents within the forecast penod It is estimated that the City's population will be approximately 35,658 residents in 2020 (an increase of 15,641 residents), therefore, forty-four percent (44 %) of the total costs are allocable to the new residents DESIGN OF RECREATIONAL FACILITY IMPACT FEE The method used to determine the impact fee is the standards -dnven method This method which was used to determine the recreational facilities component of the recreation impact fee was based upon an allocation process to assign costs between existing and future residents Tables 6 -6 and 6 -7 at the end of this section summanzes the results of the approach The following is a brief description of the method used in this study • Development of Total Capital Need — Based on the City's estimated capital costs of developing existing and future park facilities, population projections, and recommended LOS requirements, the total estimated cost to serve new residents is developed and then is allocated to the projected population conditions • Development of Equivalent Impact Fee Units — This step develops the estimated number of equivalent impact fee units, which the fee is to be calculated such that a specific rate can be developed This municipal service is applicable only to the residential class and the equivalent unit is considered to be one (1) resident (per resident application) • Calculation of Cost per Development — Once the total capital costs allocable to the future growth of the City and the per equivalent impact fee units were estimated, the cost per development unit was calculated, or the impact fee unit per dwelling (residence) Recreational Facility Impact Fee Assumptions In the development of the recreation impact fees, several assumptions were required The major assumptions used in the development of the impact fees are as follows 1 The development of the cost for the recreation facilities impact fees was based on the City's current inventory of parks and recreational activities, the recommended service standards for recreational facilities and activities, and the City's estimated capital costs to develop future facilities and activities 2 As indicated in Table 6 -7, the City has identified future needs totaling $16,688,339 The total capital costs were determined using the standards - dnvcn method Other funding sources (grants and contributions) are estimated at twenty-five percent (25 %) of total costs reducing such burden by $4,172,085 Impact Fee Calculation Based on the above - referenced assumptions, the recreation impact fee as set forth in detail on Table 6 -7 was determined as follows K \DM\I 179-0 I\Repons\Final\Report 6-4 Total Costs Allocated to Growth $16,688,339 Less Other Funding Sources (25 %) (4,172,085) Total Capital Cost Net of Contributions $12,516,254 Projected Population Growth to 2020 15,641 Proposed Rate per Person $800.22 The proposed rate per person is applied to the residential classes (single - family, multi - family, and mobile homes) based on the number of residents per dwelling unit A detailed comparison of proposed and existing impact fees by residential class and unit design is presented in Table 6 -8 IMPACT FEE COMPARISONS In order to provide the City additional information about the proposed impact fees, a companson of the proposed fees for the City and those charged by other ,lunsdictions was prepared Table 6 -9 at the end of this section summanzes the impact fees for recreational services charged by other communities with the proposed rates of the City Please note that each community may establish a different LOS standard to meet its demographic needs for recreation facilities and activities The City can anticipate variances between other communities. (Remainder of page intentionally left blank) K \DM \1 179 -01\Reports \Final \Report 6 -5 CITY OF CLERMONT, FLORIDA SECTION 6 PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS LIST OF TABLES Table No Title 6 -1 Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities 6 -2 Existing Open -space Needs 6 -3 Future Open -space Needs Through 2020 6 -4 Existing Activity Standards 6 -5 Future Activity Standards Through 2020 6 -6 Summary of Capital Activity Costs to Support Future Growth 6 -7 Design of Recreation Impact Fee 6 -8 Impact Fee Allocation 6 -9 Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Comparison Page I of 3 Table 6-1 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities f1) Line No Facility Classification Acres Activity Facilities 1 Community Parks 10250 2 Hancock Park 22 00 Aclrve Batting Cages Softball Field Soccer Fields Basketball Courts Tennis Courts General Play Ground Pavilion Concession Stand 3 Lost Lake Reserve 1000 Active Softball Fields Soccer Field Tennis courts Basketball Courts Tot Lot 4 Palatlakaha Recreation Area 3000 Active Volleyball Court Little League Fields Senior League Fields Bull Pens Softball Fields Football / Soccer Fields Press Box Concession Stand Tennis Courts Basketball Court Racquetball Court Nature Trail Boardwalk Canoe Launch Fishing Pier Pavilion Picnic Table General Play Ground Exeruse and Fitness Trail 5 West Park 3 00 Active Little League Field Softball Field Concession Stand 6 Center Lake Park 1000 Active Fitness Trail 7 Kehlor Park 1 50 Active Recreation Center Tennis Courts Shuffleboard Courts Horseshoe Area 8 Waterfront Park 15 00 Active Waterfront Fishing / Swimming Pier Both House Volleyball Court Basketball Courts Pavilions Picnic Tables Gulls Benches 9 McKinney Park 5 00 Active Basketball Courts Volleyball court Page 2 of 3 Table 6-1 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysts Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities Ill Line No Facility Classification Acres Activity Faahucs Pavilion General Play Ground Benches Fitness Trail Softball Field 10 Bishop Field 6 00 Acnvc Baseball Complex Lighted Fields Dugouts Covered Grandstand Announcers' Booth 11 Neighborhood Parks / Tot Lots 7 90 12 Lakeview Ihlls Park 100 Passive Fitness Trail Picnic Table Benches 13 Azalea Park 1 50 Passive Picnic Table Landscaping 14 Chestnut Park 0 30 Active Basketball Courts General Play Ground - Swings General Play Ground - Merry-Go -Round Picnic Tables 15 Kiwanis Park 0 30 Active General Play Ground Benches Picnic Table 16 Park of Indian Hills 1 00 Passive Benches Landscaping 17 Seminole Park 0 30 Active General Play Ground Benches Picnic Table 18 West Beach 1 00 Active Waterfront Pier Picnic Tables General Play Ground - Swngs 19 8th Street Trailhead 025 Passive Pavilion Picnic Tables Benches 20 Veteran's Park 1 00 Passive Flag Plaques Benches 21 Edgcwood Place Park 1 00 Passive General Play Ground - Swings Picnic Table Bench 22 Montrose Tot Lot 0 25 Active Basketball Court General Play Ground Benches 23 Special Use Facilities 20 50 24 Wcst Beach Corridor Park 2 00 Active Trail Page 3 of 3 Table 6-1 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysts Inventory of City Parks and Recreational Facilities (11 Line No Facility Classification Acres Acbvity Facilities 25 Boat Ramp 3 00 Passive 2 Boat Ramps 26 8th Street Pier 000 Passive Pier 27 5th Street Pier 3 50 Passive Pier 28 Clermont- Mmneola Trail 3 50 Active Trail - Walking Jogging Blading & Biking 29 2nd Street Fishing pier 0 00 Passive Pier 30 Clermont Women's Club 0 00 Passive 31 Jenkins Auditorium 0 00 Passive Auditorium, Stage, Kitchen, Offices and Resirooms 32 Histonc Village 2 50 Passive Historic Homes and Old Tram Depot 33 Ncw Community Center 6 00 Passive Banquet Seating Kitchen and Offices 34 Open Space 1 00 Passive Future Use Parkland 35 Summary 36 Community Parks 102 50 37 Neighborhood Parks / Tot Lots 7 90 38 Special Use Facilities 20 50 39 Open Space 100 40 Total Acres in Service 131 90 Footnotes (I) Inventory as provided by the City and in service as of September 30, 2004 \ \ } $ $ \ } $ \ co C CI co & C3 2 j < < < < < } , " - z z 2 2 z q a Z — - < < < — - / /\\ z z 2 4 7} 2 • \ § \ o < 9 0 < < < a ) ) 2 2 2 q _ / I w < OS a g 0 _ § k � ? < < < < < e RI 2 § s — © 2¥» 2 2 2 3 ( 0.1 ® ] ° _ R / ) c / / k 2 d ' k \ •4-81 \ \ 2 2 ea ; / \ { ) ` e « < < < $ E k o ] < z Z 2 w 2 © { ! f u 01 ƒ E 0 ] / } \ 2§ 0 0 ƒ § { c 2 } \ \ ! ) o k a @ | \ \ ) 2 co \ CO 44 ; I:, t 2 / \ ; 2 e 2 § } o { \ \ \ k / 5 { e e , , _ , ] 2 # % ! ƒ z u \ \ / / / 6 . / r / k = — \ G| _ 0 � e E § ) / 2 = < < f ± < f 0. M 2 2 \� 2 2 z z 2 z )V) § e / Q ] f < < < < < / , • » 2 2 2 2 2% ; $ r m % ƒ 00 00 < < < / csa & 2 2 2 vi 4-7 § / 0 » r r 0 F.3 En \ j — ° < & a < < < @ @ Z Z y q . —. £ 2 < Ta CAI k / C k 2 E < < < < < @ 2) f ! y 2 2 2 2 0. Z \ / } § § f a \ e 2 ) & 0 0 / § - \ \ 0 = 6 j \ \ V. P § \ < < < < < o / [ \ < w z 2 z 2 2 ; 0 ] 0 0 / ! ( ( k \ } k . 0 �) ° el al u } 0 \[ 0 2 e / (3 ) ) \ 2 2 / 7 / / \ \ 0 k 00 { k ) z ) \ \ } \ / \ 0 - / \ En \ 2| m el" ,.0 0 ) C E Page 1 of 1 Table 6-4 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis ExistinE Activity Standards City Activity Standards (1) Existing City Activities (2) To City Standards Line Surplus / No Facility Classification Standard per Population Standard per Population Required (Deficiency) 1 Picnic Table 20 0 4,000 96 0 20,017 100 1 (4 1) Tables 2 Baseball/Softball 1 0 2,000 15 0 20,017 10 0 5 0 Field 3 Tennis 1 0 1,400 9 0 20,017 14 3 (5 3) Court 4 Basketball 1 0 3,600 6 0 20,017 5 6 0 4 Court 5 Volleyball 10 6,000 40 20,017 33 07 Court 6 Racquetball 1 0 6,000 2 0 20,017 3 3 (1 3) Court 7 Recreational Building 1 0 15,000 3 0 20,017 1 3 1 7 Center 8 Shooting Range 1 0 50,000 1 0 20,017 0 4 0 6 Range 9 Golf Course 1 0 25,000 1 0 20,017 0 8 0 2 Course 10 Equipped Play Area 1 0 3,000 10 0 20,017 6 7 3 3 Area 11 Football / Soccer 1 0 7,000 2 0 20,017 2 9 (0 9) Field 12 Multi-use Court 10 10,000 2 0 20,017 2 0 (0 0) Court 13 Shuffleboard I 0 1,000 18 0 20,017 20 0 (2 0) Court 14 Multi -sport Playfields 1 0 5,000 5 0 20,017 4 0 1 0 Field Footnotes (I) As provided in the City's recreation department within the City's Recreation and Open Space Element (2) As provided by the City Pagc 1 of 1 Table 6-5 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fcc Analysts Future Activity Standards Throunh 2020 City Activity Standards (1) Existing City Activities To City Standards Line Projected Surplus / No Facility Classification Standard per Population Standard per Population Required (Deficiency) 1 Picnic Table 20 0 4 000 96 0 35,658 178 3 (82 3) Tables 2 Baseball/Softball 1 0 2,000 15 0 35 658 17 8 (2 8) Field 3 Tennis 1 0 1,400 9 0 35,658 25 5 (16 5) Court 4 Basketball 1 0 3 600 6 0 35 658 9 9 (3 9) Court 5 Volleyball 1 0 6,000 4 0 35,658 5 9 (1 9) Court 6 Racquetball 1 0 6,000 2 0 35,658 5 9 (3 9) Court 7 Recreational Building 1 0 15,000 3 0 35 658 2 4 0 6 Center 8 Shooting Range 1 0 50 000 1 0 35,658 0 7 0 3 Runge 9 Golf Course 10 25,000 10 35,658 14 (04) Course 10 Equipped Play Arca 1 0 3,000 10 0 35 658 11 9 (1 9) Area 11 Football / Soccer 1 0 7 000 2 0 35 658 5 1 (3 1) Field 12 Multi -use Coin 1 0 10,000 2 0 35,658 3 6 (1 6) Court 13 Shuffleboard 1 0 1,000 18 0 35 658 35 7 (17 7) Coin 14 Multi -sport Playfields 1 0 5 000 5 0 35,658 7 1 (2 1) Field Footnotes (1) As provided in the City's recreation department within the Coy's Recreation and Open Space Element Page 1 of 1 Table 6-6 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Summary of Capital Activity Costs to Support Future Growth Estimated Total Capital Line 2005 2020 Activities Assigned 2005 Costs per Cost Allocable No Facility Classification Requirement (1) Requirement (2) to Future Growth Activity (3) to Growth I Picnic Table 100 1 178 3 78 2 $500 $39,103 2 Baseball/Softball 10 0 17 8 7 8 94,200 736,691 3 Tennis 14 3 25 5 1 12 17,700 197,747 4 Basketball 5 6 9 9 4 3 13,000 56,481 5 Volleyball 3 3 5 9 2 6 3,000 7,821 6 Racquetball 3 3 5 9 2 6 16,500 43,013 7 Recreational Building 1 3 2 4 1 0 100,000 104,273 8 Shooting Range (4) 0 4 0 7 0 3 0 0 9 Golf Course (4) 0 8 1 4 0 6 0 0 10 Equipped Play Arca 6 7 1 1 9 5 2 11,800 61,521 11 football / Soccer 2 9 5 1 2 2 71,800 160,432 12 Multi -use Court 2 0 3 6 1 6 30,000 46,923 13 Shuffleboard 20 0 35 7 15 6 3,000 46,923 14 Multi -sport Playfields 4 0 7 1 3 1 15,000 46,923 15 Total Capital Cost Allocable to Growth $1,547,851 Footnotes (1) Derived from Table 6-4 (2) Dcnvcd from Table 6 -5 (3) Capital Costs reflected at historical value and adjusted to current market values based on adjustments from the Engmeenng News Record Construction Cost Index (4) Costs estimated at zero for such activities that are not anticipated to be developed at the cost of the community, but rather through private enterpnse Table 6 Page I of I The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Desten of Recreation Impact Fee Line No Basis Amount Capital Costs to Acquire Land for Future Parks I Open Space Requirement in 2020 (Acres) ( 356 58 2 Less Open Space Requirement for Existing Residents (Acres) (2) 200 17 3 1 otal Open Space Required to serve Growth (Acres) 156 41 4 Estimated Cost per Acre (3) $80,000 5 1 otal Capital Costs to Acquire Land for Future Parks $12,512,800 6 1 otal Capitals Cost to Develop Future Activities (4) 1,547,851 7 Total Capitals Cost to Develop Future Facilities (5) 2,627,688 8 Total Capital Costs Allocable to Future Growth $16,688,339 9 Less Other Funding Sources (6) 25% $4,172,085 10 Total Cost Allocated to Future Growth Net of Allowable Deductions $12,516,254 I 1 Projected Population Growth through 2020 (7) 15,641 12 Proposed - Rate per Person $800 22 Footnotes (1) Reflects total futurc requirements as denved in Table 6 -3 (2) Reflects total existing requirements as derived in Table 6 -2 (3) Estimated cost per acre for recreational land based upon City estimates (4) Estimated requirements allocated to future growth as determined in Table 6 -6 (5) The total capital cost to develop future facilities as allocable to future growth is estimated as follows Amount Total Capital Cost of Planned Community Center $6,000,000 Service Population 35,658 Total Cost per Person $168 00 Projected Population Growth through 2020 15,641 Total Capital Cost Allocable to Future Growth $2,627,688 (6) The City could not identify all funding sources such as grants and donations over the forecast penod, therefore the total estimated other funding sources used to determine the existing fees is anticipated to remain reasonable into future periods, which reduce the total capital costs by 25% (7) Reflects the estimated change in population through 2020 Page 1 of 1 Table 6 -8 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Impact Fee Allocation Line Fee per Person per Proposed Existing Increase / No Housing Type Person (1) Dwelling Impact Fee Impact Fcc (Decrease) 1 Single - Family 2 0 - 1 Bedroom $800 22 1 58 $1,264 00 $407 00 $857 00 3 2 Bedrooms 800 22 1 83 1466 00 474 00 992 00 4 3 Bedrooms 800 22 2 61 2087 00 673 00 1414 00 5 4 Bedrooms 800 22 3 34 2670 00 865 00 1805 00 6 5+ Bedrooms 800 22 3 98 3186 00 1032 00 2154 00 7 Multi- Family 8 0 - 1 Bedroom $800 22 1 53 $1,227 00 $396 00 $831 00 9 2 Bedrooms 800 22 2 43 1945 00 629 00 1316 00 10 3 Bedrooms 800 22 3 64 2910 00 941 00 1969 00 11 4+ Bedrooms 800 22 4 65 3725 00 1205 00 2520 00 12 Mobile Homes 13 0 - 1 Bedroom $800 22 0 93 $748 00 $241 00 $507 00 14 2 Bedrooms 800 22 1 46 1167 00 375 00 792 00 15 3 Bedrooms 800 22 2 53 2027 00 656 00 1371 00 16 4+ Bedrooms 800 22 3 69 2954 00 955 00 1999 00 Footnotes (1) Derived from Table 6 -7 Table 6 - Page i of 1 The City of Clermont Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Analysis Parks and Recreational Services Impact Fee Comparison (1) Residential Lme Single Multi- Mobile Effective No Description Family Family Home Date The City of Clermont (2) 1 Existing $673 00 $629 00 5375 00 2005 2 Proposed 2087 00 1945 00 1167 00 Proposed 2006 Other Florida Government Agencies 3 City of Apopka $241 05 $241 05 $241 05 2003 4 City of Edgewater (2) 588 00 417 79 433 27 N/A 5 City of Eustis 599 27 428 38 390 93 2004 6 City of Kissimmee 300 00 300 00 300 00 2005 7 City of Lake Mary 335 00 335 00 335 00 N/A 8 City of Lake Wales 945 00 945 00 945 00 2005 9 City of Lakeland 660 00 600 00 495 00 2004 10 City of Leesburg 310 00 310 00 310 00 2005 11 City of Mmneola 222 00 171 00 177 00 N/A 12 City of Mount Dora 1645 34 825 67 N/A 2005 13 City of Ocoee 1560 00 1560 00 1560 00 2005 14 City of St Cloud 220 00 220 00 220 00 1992 15 City of Tavares 222 00 171 00 177 00 2003 16 City of Winter Garden 671 00 598 00 451 00 2004 17 City of Winter Haven N/A N/A N/A 2004 18 Other Flonda Governmental Agencies' Average $608 48 $508 78 $464 25 Footnotes (1) Unless otherwise noted, amounts shown reflect impact fees m effect July 2005 This comparison is mtended to show comparable charges for similar service for companson purposes only and is not intended to be a complete listing of all rates and charges offered by each listed municipality (2) Amounts shown assume single family homes with three bedrooms, multi -family dwelling with two bedrooms, and mobile homes with two bedrooms