Responses to Hafferman's ConcernsCOUNCIL February 21, 2012 - Water & Sewer Impact Fee concerns
Below are responses to Councilman Hafferman's concerns regarding impact fees.
This document is out-of-date. One Match 7 2011.
The Council revised the annexation policy by pulling the near -automatic annexation boundary into a
better economically manageable area. This will have a considerable influence on (1) sizing of
components based on the Extension of Services Plan for replacement costing and (2) the timing of
installing of sewer interceptors. This change in "growth management" should to be addressed and the
estimated amounts needed by 2025(7??) be revised.
• Great point, staff agrees the report can be updated to reflect the annexation boundary. The
revision will take time to review the new development ERUs and associated impact fees. The
facility master plan reflects population and growth to 2035.
What is the "analysis" period —2025 or 2035? (see Chapter 5 insert, & Exhibits A-i and B- 1).
• Water main extension including distribution and storage was analyzed to 2035 (pg 5-14, 5-18
FPU)
• Waste water collection and conveyance was analyzed to 2035 (pg 5-1 FPU). A design year
population for 2035 was used because theoretical build out was overly conservative and
costly. See page 36 IF report.
• AWWTP was analyzed to 2025 (pg 6-1 and 1-16 FPU), from Basis of Design Report for the
AWWTP 2005 to 2025.
• BI chart simply carried it out to 2035 due to the collection analysis.
Page 3: Correct first line by deleting "customers" The 18,000 refers to people not "customers". Concur.
Page 5. The second bullet about developer extensions is very confusing. Are the regulations not clear in
the Extension of Services Plan that (1) the developer extends ALL infrastructure from existing City
services to the development, (2) the developer can enter into a Developer Extension Agreement to recoup
from latecomers their proportional share of the extension and (3) impact fees pay for oversizing?
The impact fee report provides two options for fees, with extensions and without extensions.
The recommended fee is without extensions, and thus the table showing the cost with the
extension is irrelevant and should be removed. The table can be revised to not show the cost
with extension making the table less confusing.
Is it also unclear that if there is a blockage in the City's existing infrastructure that cannot handle the
development's flow that the developer must reconstruct the blockage and be reimbursed from impact fees
and replacement fees the cost of reconstruction less the development needs? Perhaps our Extension of
Services Plan needs clarifying.
• It is my understanding that at the time of development if a "blockage" for a facility/line
exists the developer pays for their portion of the capacity upgrade for their development.
The city will then pay for the remaining cost to upgrade the facility/line to meet future
capacity needs with impact fees.
Page 7: It is VERY difficult trying to sort through the exhibits and the text. With the recent increase in
sewer rates touted as a need to make the bond payments for the WWTP expansion it is also difficult to
understand which accounts are paying for the WWTP annual bond payment. Please show
(1) the accounts paying the annual bond payment for the WWTP? $225,000 is allocated annually
from the treatment impact fee reserves (account #10124) toward the WWTP bond payment. $25,000
is allocated annually from the collections impact fee reserves (account #10123) toward Hwy 93
South Utility Extension.
(2) what portion of the $3,325 is for the WWTP expansion bond? Table 6-5, pg 38 explains that
3,299.03 is allocated for the WWTP expansions which includes Phase I,II, 2,3,4.
(3) which Exhibits are applicable to the $3,325 figure? See Exhibit B2 which shows a breakout
line cost.
Page 7: Please list the "committed" collection system lots and which projects are involved.
• Please clarify the question; Are you asking for the lots allocated from the preliminary plats
which will be served by these extensions? See Exhibit B-3, committed due to development.
Page 25: The Noffsinger supply is from a spring not a well. (Also see Exhibit A-2) Concur.
Page 27: Note in second paragraph reference to the "expanded area". Note 1' concern above, but also
explain about the time the Council approved expanding the planning area south (to beyond Old School
Station) and west (nearly to Sheepherder's Hill) about 5 years ago.
• Please provide clarification, cannot locate reference in the report on page 27.
Page 31: Bottom of page - is 6% reasonable interest on investments?
• Staff can review per Council's request to see if a different rate is more appropriate.
Exhibits A-6 and B-4: Does this reflect current status? No, the report is outdated.
Exhibit B- 1, page 2 of 2: According to the numbers shown the current plant is nearing capacity and by
2015 the plant will be over capacily. These figures should be adjusted to current data.
• True, the Average Day Flow was estimated using a 3% growth rate, which did not occur. In
2011, average flow was 2.96 MGD, the peak monthly flow for 2010 was 6.028 MGD. The
report can be looked at to reflect current growth rates. As a reminder the study was done
over a period which anticipated highs and lows in growth. The estimated flows are a best
fit line to take into account slow and fast growth, but 3% may be too high with the current
state of the economy, and can be reviewed.
Sewer CIP: The only impact fee expenditure shown is $75,000 annual payment for projects that have
been oversized and completed. Future costs only shows $75,000. This would indicate that all the
Agreements for oversizing have been paid off by FY 15-16. I don't believe that is the case. What is the
total contract agreement remaining in the "future" column, at 2012 dollars, for the various oversizing
agreements (Owens, Starling and Old School Station that I am aware of)?
• The $75,000 CIP is an upsizing contingency number placed in the CIP budget annually to
be used to pay for upsizing mains above and beyond what a single development is required
to construct.
• The reserves for water and sewer are carried each year, and have been reduce to $45,000
for sewer and $50,000 for water.
• The report needs to be updated.
V