Loading...
08. Sewer Extension/Hook Up FeesA 1 V 1 i Incorporated 1892 Telephone (406) 752-6600 FAX (406) 752-6639 Post Office Box 1997 Douglas Rauthe Mavor Zip 59903-1997 Date: June 13, 1994 Bruce Williams City Manager To: Bruce Williams City Manager —. City Council From: Bob Babb, Public Works Director/City Engineer Re: Sewer Connection/Plant Investment Fees Members: Gary W. Nystul Ward I In response to the Council's request, we have evaluated our sewer connection fees with Cliff Collins attention to new customers in the Evergreen area who lie outside the Evergreen Rural Ward I Special Improvement District. Aside from the Evergreen question, our evaluation indicates that the current connection fees are too low to recover each customer's share of Barbara Moses Ward II our capital improvement costs. The treatment plant's reserve capacity is also addressed. Dale Haarr Ward II Our recommendation is to increase the in -city sewer connection fee to $1000 per equivalent dwelling unit, with $835 to be attributed to the treatment plant and Jim Atkinson Ward III $165 to the collection system. Recommended connection fees for larger services would be based on the size of the water service, as indicated in the following table. Lauren Granmo Ward III It is also recommended that the out -of -city connection fee surcharge be increased to 100%. Pamela B. Kennedy Ward Iv M. Duane Larson With respect to those customers who connect to the Evergreen system but lie Ward Iv outside the RSID, it is recommended that a connection fee be implemented and based on that portion of the fee attributed to the treatment plant. The out -of -city surcharge would also be applicable. Sewer ConnectionTlant Investment Fees Recommended Fee Current Fee Meter Volume Treatment Collection Total (In -City) Size Ratio Units Plant System Fee 5/8" 1.0 835 165 1000 500 3/a" 1.44 1200 240 1440 500 i" 2.56 2140 420 2560 1250 1'/2 5.76 4810 950 5760 2500 2" 10.24 8550 1690 10,240 3500 Y 23.04 19,240 3800 23,040 6500 4" 40.96 34200 6760 40,960 9000 As with our current policy, we recommend that these fees be used as a minimum. The actual fee would be the greater of the minimum shown or $1000 times the number of dwelling units. The fee for non-residential customers would be based on the size of the water meter. June 12, 1994 Connection/Plant Investment Fees Page 2 Currently, the City is without a policy regarding connection fees for those customers who will connect to the Evergreen system but who are outside the Evergreen RSID. The District compensates the City for 22% of the plant's capital improvement costs, in conjunction with their allotted 22% of plant capacity. Those Evergreen sewer customers who lie outside the District will contribute flows that will not be included in Evergreen's 22% of plant capacity. Accordingly; these customers should compensate the City for capital improvement costs, aside from the District's obligation. Since the sewage from Evergreen's system is received at the plant without utilizing our collection system, the connection fee should be based only on treatment plant capital improvements. The out -of -city surcharge should also be applied. A final issue with respect to connection fees is collection. Currently the Building Department collects connection fees as part of their permitting process. With Evergreen customers this may not suffice as some areas adjacent to the Evergreen Sewer District are not included in Kalispell's building permit jurisdiction. The options, as we see them, are to either make arrangements with the County Building Department or assess the customer/developer for connection fees at the time of approval for connection. We do not have a recommendation on this question at this time. Aside from fees, another question to consider is the number of connections to be allowed outside the city limits. The following is a conservative evaluation of the available capacity. Assuming a typical household sewage flow of 300 gallons per day (GPD), the treatment plant has the capacity to serve 10,333 household equivalents. This conservative assumption has been used here because it is the State's standard for sewer system design. This value makes an allowance for inflow and infiltration since actual household flows are probably in the range of 150 to 200 GPD. We have pledged 22% of this capacity to the Evergreen Sewer District, leaving 2,418,000 GPD or 8060 household equivalents available for other customers we may choose to serve. With approximately 6510 household equivalents committed to our current customers, the remaining capacity is adequate to serve approximately 1550 household equivalents. In terms of typical meter sizes and volume ratio units, this could be viewed as 1000 dwelling units and 50 to 75 small to medium size commercial accounts. In comparison, our sewer system, exculsive of Evergreen, includes approximately 4300 residential and 650 non-residential services. It is recommended that the majority of this reserve capacity be designated for in -city customers. G�/zf�T`i• c��fCCrL�;t Tigv �" �ye.�-.cT�c.i�J•'�•� �.�J�EsTrs�,GvT.�S f lli�lie SrrrF,-4�5--s,e;/vrkE �Gv. C=/.(�T Csf�i'i9UT}� /GO Cp0 �P1j/o, 333 ;�ous�.raea'•✓•rcursl . > L4-� 3od GPls � r 8Z CGC CjP-b LZZ7-Y rravWvry EW.ra 3 cr� viv9tF..vT' .YaLtsENocdS � �c:� v G to O 7Z9! 4Z5 Tr1Ti9C JKICc1E2El� r9�1 CS.Q'f GOitStJ •�v �� 7Z8 17425leow - C Gr GTJ� sySTE/il t�EBT `/� �5oa, c0 6 Tvrfc �v1711 / f/dGyY.nE Cv.�dr.1r .�luyrr� !.� ev,re�r' i/aJf.£HGY.� ��S / �l0 3D Ala 30 ! lz S. 7(o Z71 �- JQ, 24 IZ? .4 f= 9 zo? ;� . 44 3 /Z - Vac dw c :OT//G ;/E"s �/trAiUl�CE To (i ry / v`' S� �'f'.�'.s s�t�rliG.�S[E �!2 ,-ziTir/Ir'y 'Carr>rUEGTci(1S AMAMW-kolu R.22WI R.21W. Figure 11 2 STAHLY ENGINEERING & ABBOCIATlaw 'I SOUTH OAKOTA HELENA, MONTANA - 5913W WRIGHT-McLAUGHLIN ENGINEERN 2420 A( COTT STREET DENVER COU ADO.1 :)R A "Mm-