Hafferman's ConcernsCOUNCIL February 21, 2012 — Water & Sewer Impact Fee concerns
This document is out-of-date.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(???) be revised.
What is the "analysis" period — 2025 or 2035? (see Chapter 5 insert, & Exhibits A-1 and B-1).
Page 3: Correct first line by deleting "customers" The 18,000 refers to people not "customers".
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? 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.
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, (2) what portion of the $3,325 is for
the WWTP expansion bond and (3) which Exhibits are applicable to to the $3,325 figure.
Page 7: Please list the "committed" collection system lots and which projects are involved.
Page 25: The Noffsinger supply is from a s rin not a well. (Also see Exhibit A-2)
Page 27: Note in second paragraph reference to the "expanded area". Note 1st 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.
Page 31: Bottom of page — is 6% reasonable interest on investments?
Exhibits A-6 and B-4: Does this reflect current status?
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 capacity. These figures should be adjusted to current data.
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)?