The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - November 22, 2005 B-01 PH/SMAGENDA ITEM & I J& CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TM AGENDA TITLE: Review Proposed Wastewater Capacity Fee, Provide Direction, and Set Public Hearing for January 4, 2006, to Consider Adoption of the Fee MEETING DATE: November 22, 2005 (Special Meeting) PREPARED BY: Public Works Director RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review the proposed Wastewater Capacity Fee, provide direction, and set a public hearing for January 4, 2006, to consider adoption of the fee. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The proposed amendments to the Municipal Code implement changes to the method wastewater capacity impact fees will be charged to new growth for capacity at the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WSWPCF) and facilities at the Municipal Service Center (MSC). This is a one-time fee on new development or improvements that increase loading on WSWPCF. The actual fee will be adopted by Resolution. The existing wastewater capacity fee was approved by Council following the expansion of WSWPCF in 1991, as the final step in a series of rate and capacity (connection) fee increases initiated in 1986. The present capacity fee is $2,099 per sanitary sewer unit (SSU), which is the same as was adopted in 1991. A SSU represents the equivalent demand of a two-bedroom home. Recently, the plant has undergone two additional capital construction projects, and a third is planned that increased and/or will increase the rated capacity to 8.5 million gallons per day while upgrading the level of treatment to tertiary as required by the plant's Discharge Requirements issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. A report, City of Lodi Wastewater Capacity Fees_ Revised Analysis, prepared for the City by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, is attached for reference as Exhibit 1. The report presents the results of analysis that assigns the value of past and future capital construction costs to existing and future development in the City. The recommendation is to raise the capacity fee to $5,115 per SSU. The recommended fee does not include 2% for Art in Public Places. Capital construction and debt service costs have, in each case, been allocated to new growth and existing customers. In the case of the 1991 improvements (which refinanced the 1989 improvements), 74% is allocated to serve new growth. For the 2003 (Phase 1) and 2004 (Phase Il) expansions, 26% and 24.2%, respectively, are allocated to new growth. The 2006 (Phase 111) expansion is currently in design, and 58.4% is allocated to new growth. The costs attributed to existing Lodi customers are the share attributed to increasing the plant's rated flow capacity using updated State parameters and upgrading the level of treatment provided in response to more stringent State discharge requirements. The capital and debt service costs of facilities serving existing customers are provided by user rates. As part of this analysis, the City's separate wastewater impact fee, which primarily covers costs for expansion of the MSC, has been rolled into the capacity fee. This was done to simplify the fee system to only have one sewer development fee. The ordinance changes being proposed implement this change. The actual fee, as per the existing City Code, will be set by Resolution. APPROVED: Blair King, CKy Manager JWFees\Wastewater Fees\C1ntroWWFee0rd.doc 11/17/2005 Review Proposed Wastewater Capacity Fee, Provide Direction, and Set Public Hearing for January 4, 2006, to Consider Adoption of the Fee November 22, 2005 (Special Meeting) Page 2 Another change in the capacity fee being proposed is that the fee would be adjusted annually on July 1, based on the Engineering News Record 20 Cities Average, as is now done for the other impact fees in January. As shown in Table 4 of the report, the recommended capacity fee also includes a separate fee, "high-strength connections", which is broken down into flow, BOD, and suspended solids components. With the addition of tertiary treatment this year, the relative weight among these components has shifted with a higher increase for flow than for the other constituents. This relationship is also reflected in treatment costs, and adjustments for the high-strength users service charges are also being recommended: Current Proposed Flow (per MG, annual basis) $1,170.45 $2,052.00 BOD (per 1,000 lbs., annual basis) $572.79 $338.64 SS (per 1,000 lbs., annual basis) $468.23 $211.73 Finally, the staff recommendation on the capacity does not include a component for the Public Art Program. This recommendation is based on the fact that a significant portion of the proposed fee is for past improvements made at White Slough. These improvement projects were not designated to include public art nor did they contribute to the Public Art Fund. Should the Council wish to include the full Public Art component, the fee should be increased by 2%, from $5,115 to $5,217. Another option would be to only include the art component in future projects. Based on the fee components shown in Table 1 of the attached report, and considering the 2006 project, Master Plan and MSC projects, the proportion is half, therefore, a 1% Public Art fee would be appropriate ($5,115 to $5,166). The appropriate amount will be included in the program as directed by the Council. Pending Council direction, staff would bring the ordinance changes to the Council in December for introduction and adoption in January along with the public hearing (the hearing is required to set the fee, not to change the ordinance. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council will be requested to adopt the ordinance revising the Municipal Code and adopt the resolution setting the wastewater capacity impact fee. FISCAL IMPACT: The additional utility revenue from the capacity fee will be significant, but the actual amount will obviously depend on development levels. Revenue in FY 04105 was $1.44 million. The change in the service charges for high-strength users, based on current usage, will reduce annual revenue by approximately $200,000. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. 01 Richard C. Prima, Jr. Public Works Director 1 Prepared by F. Wally Sandelin, City Engineer RCPIFWS/pmf Attachment cc: interested Parties JAMFeeslWastewater FeeskC1ntroWWFee0rd.doc 1111712005 HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Advisory Services to Municipal Management 2175 North California Boulevard, Suite 990 Walnut Creek, California 9d5% Tel: (925) 977-6950 Fax: (925) 977-6955 h)%-consultants.com August 15, 2005 Mr. Richard C. Prima Director of Public Works City of Lodi 221 West Pine Street Lodi, CA 96241-1910 Subject: Wastewater Capacity fees: Revised Analysis Dear Mr. Prima: The purpose of this letter is to present the results of our analysis of the City's wastewater capacity fees. Current Capacity Fees Exhibit 1 Walnut Creek Newport Beach The City has two sewer development fees that are charged to new connections. The fees are based on either sanitary sewer units (SSUs)1 or acreage. The fee based on sanitary sewer units is called the "capacity fee" and is intended to recover the cost of treatment and disposal facilities. The current capacity fee is $2,099 per SSU. The fee based on acreage is called the "development impact mitigation fee" (DIMF) and is intended to recover the cost of other facilities that are not directly related to treatment or disposal but are still integral with the sewer system, such as the Sewer Fund's share of the corporation yard. The DIMF varies depending on land use, ranging from $583 per acre for low-density residential development to $2,035 per acre for high-density I Sanitary sewer units are based on a system of equivalencies specified in Article III., Section 13.12.180 of the Lodi Municipal Code. For residential connections, one SSU equals a two-bedroom residence. A one - bedroom residence equals 0.75 SSUs and each additional bedroom equals 0.25 SSUs. For non-residential SSUs, 30 different parameters are used to establish the number of SSUs, such as the number of seats for restaurants, the number of machines for laundries, the number of students for schools, the number of employees for grocery stores, etc.. For high-strength connections, estimates of flow, BOD, and SS are used. Richard C. Prima August 15, 2005 Page 2 residential development with other intervening rates for non-residential development. For a typical home with a density of five units per acre, the DIMF is $116.60. Capacity Fee Methodology Capacity fees represent the unit cost of capacity paid by new connections to ensure that they contribute their fair share of capital costs. In calculating capacity fees, it is important to correlate the facilities with the corresponding connections to establish the "nexus" or relationship required by the Mitigation Fee Act.2 The unit cost is the ratio of the value of the facilities divided by the corresponding connections. Of the commonly recognized methods for calculating capacity fees, we used the incremental approach, which calculates the unit cost of the growth -related portion of system expansion. Unlike the City's current capacity fee and DIMF, we do not distinguish between wastewater treatment/ disposal facilities and other support facilities like corporation yards, which do not provide capacity per se. The City is not unique in differentiating between connection -based and acreage -based components of capacity fees. We are aware of other water and sewer agencies with a similar bifurcation. Although it is possible to distinguish between the two types of facilities, we see no compelling logic to denominate certain facilities by capacity and others by acreage. Hence, we combined all facilities into a single capacity fee that is denominated by connections. This approach is simpler, which may explain why it is more prevalent. INCREMENTAL COST CALCULATION Under the incremental cost approach, the cost of expansion attributable to growth is divided by the growth -related capacity to determine the unit cost of growth. Table 1 shows the costs associated with upgrades for existing users and with expansion for new users. The majority of these costs are the debt service on the three outstanding bonds that have been issued and one bond planned for 2006. The debt service cost includes principal and interest as part of the value of the facilities. Interest is often mistakenly excluded in capacity fee calculations under the misapprehension that double counting will not occur. In other words, it is thought that new connections will pay the interest in both the capacity fee and later through sewer 2 Government Code 66000 et seq.. Richard C. Prima August 15, 2005 Page 3 service charges. That reasoning is flawed. New connections will only pay interest on debt service that is not included in the capacity fee. If all of the interest is included in the capacity fee, there should be no need for rate payers to also pay interest costs. It is appropriate to include interest because interest is part of the cost of the facilities in the same way that principal is. The incremental costs of debt service are allocated to growth based on the portion of capacity that is related to expansion. In the case of the 1991 improvements (which refinanced the 1989 improvements), 74% (2.7 mgd added to 5.8 mgd for a total of 8.5 mgd) was related to growth. The 2003 (Phase 12003/2004 improvements), 2004 (Phase 112004/2005 improvements), and 2006 (Phase 1112006/ 2007 improvements) bonds were allocated based on the expansion related capacity (2.2 mgd added to 6.3 mgd of current flow for a total of 8.5 mgd3) of each of the unit processes included in each of the three phases of improvements. Attachment 1 is included to show the detailed allocations that were performed to derive the growth allocations in Table 1 for the 2003, 2004, and 2006 improvements. The result is an incremental cost of capacity of $5,115 per connection or SSU. Table 1. Incremental Cost Calculation Facilities Cost Growth Allocation Growth Related Cost Growth Related Capacity al Growth Related Connections SSUS) Cost Per Connection 1991 COP debt service $28,065,964 74.0% $20,768,813 2,700,000 13,918 $1,492 2003 COP debt service $7,666,354 26.0% $1,989,711 2,200,000 11,340 $175 2004 COP debt service $37,376,493 24.2% $9,046,845 2,200,000 11,340 $798 2006 COP debt service $50.261.973 58.4% $29,364,137 2,200,000 11,340 $2.589 Subtotal $123,370;784 $61,169,508 $5,055 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan $115,970 100% $115,970 2,200,000 11,340 $10 Public Works Admin. Building $373,420 100% $373,420 2,200,000 11,340 $33 Public Works - Storage Facilities $187,870 100% $187,870 2,200,000 11,340 $17 Total $124,048,044 $61,846,768 $5,115 Table 2 shows the derivation of the unit cost of capacity for each loading category (i.e., flow, BOD and SS). The total cost allocated to growth ($61,846,768) is allocated to each 33 The 2003 and 2004 bonds pay for facilities that do not add capacity beyond the current 6.8 mgd capacity. These facilities provide tertiary filtration and disinfection. With the 2006 bonds, the capacity will be expanded to 8.5 mgd. Richard C. Prima August 15, 2005 Page 4 loading category based on the functions associated with each improvement4. Each of these three cost categories is then divided by the respective units of capacity to derive the unit cost for each loading category. Table 2. Functionalized Costs To validate the methodology, the unit cost for each loading category are applied to the loadings specific to a residential connection in Table 3. The resulting capacity fee ($5,118 per residential connection) is virtually identical to the previous capacity fee ($5,115 per SSU). Table 3. Residential Cavacitv Fee Flow Component BOD Component SS Component Residential loadings Gal/day: 194 mg/l: 243 mg/I: 285 Mg/yr: 0.0708 1.000 Ib/y: 0.1435 1,000 Ib/y: 0,1683 Cost per loading category $ 2,761 $ 1,449 $ 909 Flow component $ 2,760.61 BOD component $ 1,448.97 SS Component $ 908.83 $ 5,118.41 Fee per SSU $ 5,114.61 Rounding error $ 3.80 Table 4 summarizes the revised capacity fees and compares them with the existing capacity fees. 4 See Attachment 1. Allocations Per Loadino Category Flow BOD SS Total Cost Percent Amount Percent Amount Percent Amount 1991 COP debt service $20,768,813 40.0% S8,307,525 30.0% $6,230,644 30.0% S 6,230,644 2003 COP deb: service $1,989.711 10.4% $206,096 44.8% $891,808 44.8% 5 891,808 2004 COP debt service $9,046,845 57.2% $5,171,640 21.4% $1,937,603 21.4% 1,937,603 2006 COP debt service $29,364,137 58.8% $17,277,779 34.1% $9.999,355 7.1% 2,087,003 Subtotal $61,169,508 50.6% $30,963,041 31.2% $19,059,409 18.2% $11,147,057 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan $115,970 50.6% $58,702 31.2% $36,134 18.2% 521,133 Public Works Admin. Building $373,420 50.6% 5189,019 31.2% $116,352 18.2% $68.049 Public Works - Storage Facilities $187,870 50.6% $95.097 31.2% $58.537 18.2% S34,236 Total $61,846,768 50.6% $31,305,859 31.2% $19,270,432 18.2% $11.270,476 Units of Capaclty and Cost of Capacity Per Loading Category Units for each loading category Gal/day: 2,200,000 mgA: 285 mgA: 308 Mg/day: 2.200 1,000 Ib/day: 5.229 1,000 Ib/day: 5.644 Mg/yr: 803,0 1,000 Ib/y: 1,908.5 1,000 Ib/y: 2,087.2 Unit cost per loading category Per mgtyr: 538,986 Per 1,000 Ib/yr: $10,097 Per 1.000lb/yr: 55,400 To validate the methodology, the unit cost for each loading category are applied to the loadings specific to a residential connection in Table 3. The resulting capacity fee ($5,118 per residential connection) is virtually identical to the previous capacity fee ($5,115 per SSU). Table 3. Residential Cavacitv Fee Flow Component BOD Component SS Component Residential loadings Gal/day: 194 mg/l: 243 mg/I: 285 Mg/yr: 0.0708 1.000 Ib/y: 0.1435 1,000 Ib/y: 0,1683 Cost per loading category $ 2,761 $ 1,449 $ 909 Flow component $ 2,760.61 BOD component $ 1,448.97 SS Component $ 908.83 $ 5,118.41 Fee per SSU $ 5,114.61 Rounding error $ 3.80 Table 4 summarizes the revised capacity fees and compares them with the existing capacity fees. 4 See Attachment 1. Richard C. Prima August 15, 2005 Page 5 Table 4. Capacity Fee Summary and Comvarison The revised capacity fees are greater than the existing capacity fees because of the improvements financed by the 2003, 2004, and 2006 bonds, which total more that twice the improvements included in the existing capacity fees. In addition, cost per million gallons of flow has increased proportionately more than the charges per 1,000 pounds of BOD and SS because of the flow-related function provided by the improvements. Despite this increase, the revised capacity fees are less than the unit cost of capacity for a new plant.5 CONCLUSION We recommend that the City adopt the revised capacity fees described in this report. In addition, we recommend that the City periodically update the capacity fees to reflect revised cost estimates and actual costs incurred. Between periodic updates, we 5 West Yost & Associates estimated the cost of a new 8.5 mgd plant to be about $125 million, which with interest costs of financing could cost about $245 million, yielding a unit cost of $5,610 per SSU. Capacity Fees Revised Existing Residential Connections Bedrooms SSUs 1 0.75 $ 3,837 $ 1,575 2 1.00 $ 5,115 $ 2,099 3 1.25 $ 6,400 $ 2,627 4 1.50 $ 7,678 $ 3,151 5 1.75 $ 8,955 $ 3,675 6 2.00 $ 10,233 $ 4,200 7 2.25 $ 11,515 $ 4,726 Commercial/Moderate Strength Conections Per SSU $ 5,115 $ 2,099 High -Strength Connections Per MG per year $ 38,986 $ 11,193 Per 1,000 lbs BOD per year $ 10,097 $ 4,611 Per 1,000 lbs SS per year $ 5,400 $ 2,076 The revised capacity fees are greater than the existing capacity fees because of the improvements financed by the 2003, 2004, and 2006 bonds, which total more that twice the improvements included in the existing capacity fees. In addition, cost per million gallons of flow has increased proportionately more than the charges per 1,000 pounds of BOD and SS because of the flow-related function provided by the improvements. Despite this increase, the revised capacity fees are less than the unit cost of capacity for a new plant.5 CONCLUSION We recommend that the City adopt the revised capacity fees described in this report. In addition, we recommend that the City periodically update the capacity fees to reflect revised cost estimates and actual costs incurred. Between periodic updates, we 5 West Yost & Associates estimated the cost of a new 8.5 mgd plant to be about $125 million, which with interest costs of financing could cost about $245 million, yielding a unit cost of $5,610 per SSU. Richard C. Prima August 15, 2005 Page 6 recommend that the City annually escalate the capacity fees using the ENR construction cost index so that the value of the capacity fees does not decline because of inflation. Rate payers are entitled to receive reimbursement based on the current cost of capacity and should not see their investment eroded by inflation. Very truly yours, HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC Uhn W. Farnkop , P.E. Senior Vice President Attachment 1 as noted. Phase 12003 Improvements 1°G&t umiry costs not inctuaea. Estimated Users Served Item Construction Cost Existina New Mobilization and contractor indirect costs @ 12% $245,000 $50,000 Demolition $10,000 Engineered Fill (5,000 CY Q $1.501CY) Blowers (pre -purchased) $300,000 Paving $20,000 Blower accessories (cost agreed to in pre -purchase contract) $150,000 $60.000 Blower Installation $99,000 Estimetina Contingency 20% Blower building piping, valves, fittings and appurtenances $186,000 Subtotal $230,000 Startup, testing, training $19,000 $60,000 Electrical service upgrade W $150,000 Estimated Construction Cosl Electrical instrumentation and controls $1.000,000 Subtotal (rounded) $2,160,000 Estimating Contingency 20% $430,000 Subtotal $2,590,000 Engineering and Administration @ 25% $650,000 Construction Conlin en 10% $130 000 Estimated Construction Cost $3.370,0001 $2,500,000 $870,000 1°G&t umiry costs not inctuaea. Estimated Total 2003 Construction Cost Estimated Users Served Item Construction Cost ExistingNew $30,000 Mobilization and contractor indirect costs @ 12% $30,000 $50,000 Excavation $3,000 Engineered Fill (5,000 CY Q $1.501CY) Sheeting & Shoring $10,000 Paving $20,000 Concrete Structure $32,000 $60.000 30' FE Pipe $15,000 Estimetina Contingency 20% Pumps $30,000 Subtotal $230,000 Valves and Appurtenances $10,000 $60,000 Startup, testing, training $4,000 Estimated Construction Cosl Electrical instrumentation and controls $85.000 Subtotal (rounded) $200,000 Esfimating Contingency 201A $40,000 Subtotal $240,000 Engineering and Administration Q 25% $60,000 Construction Contingency 10% $12 000 Estimated Construction Cost $312,0001 $230,000 $82,000 Estimated Total 2003 Construction Cost Estimated Users Served Item Construction Cost Existina New Mobilization and contractor indirect Costs @ 12% $30,000 • Estimated 2003 Construction Cost Serving New Users Excavation & Loading (5,000 CY G S101CY) $50,000 Hauling (5,000 CY C 53.501CY) $25,000 Engineered Fill (5,000 CY Q $1.501CY) $7,500 Paving $20,000 PIDIno $60.000 Subtotal (rounded) $190,000 Estimetina Contingency 20% $40 000 Subtotal $230,000 Engineering and Administration (92 25% $60,000 Construction Contingency 10% $12,000 Estimated Construction Cosl 5302 000 $220,000 $62,000 Estimated Total 2003 Construction Cost $3,984,000 Estimated 2003 Construction Cost Serving Existing Users $2,950,000 Estimated 2003 Construction Cost Serving New Users $1,034,000 % Estimated 2003 Construction Cost Serving Existing Users 74.0% To Table 11 • Estimated 2003 Construction Cost Serving New Users 28.0% To Table 12 Allocation to Functional Categories Flow Q SS Flow BOD SS Total 0% 50% 50% $ . $ 1,685,000 $ 1,685,000 $ 3,370,000 100% 0% 0% $ 312,000 $ $ $ 312,000 33% 33% 33% $ 100,667 S 100,667 $ 100,667S 302,000 $ 412,667 $ 1,785,667 $ 1,785,667 S 3,984,000 10.4% 44.8% 44.8% To Table 11 Phase 112004 Improvements ..— 1,. 7 Raetna Item $21,814,000 $16,5 4 Estimated Users Served Construction Cost Existing New Item Mobilization @ 5% $55,000 21.4% 21.4% Contractor indirect costs @ 12% $130,000 Demolition o1 existing diffusers/piping $5,000 Purchase aeration panels & appurtenances $270,000 Aeration piping and panel installation $350,000 Baffle wall and mixers $85,000 Startu , lestin , trainin $5,000 Subtotal (rounded) $900,000 Estimating Contingency 20% $180,000 Subtotal $1,080.000 Engineering and Administration Q 25% $270,000 Construction Contingency 10% $54,000 r,ki—tad 17--tmction Cost $1,404,000 $1,404.00 Item $21,814,000 $16,5 4 Estimated Users Served Construction Cost Existin Naw Tertiary Filtration Improvements (Estimate from Master Plan) UV Disinfection Facilities Based on Estimate from Wedecol $11,910,000 $8,830,000 $8.500 000 $6,300,0 00 $3,080,000 $2 200 000 5 280m. Estimated Total 2004 Construction Cost Estimated 2004 Construction Cost Serving Existing Users Estimated 2004 Construction Cost Serving New Users % Estimated 2004 Construction Cost Serving Existing Users % Estimated 2004 Construction Cost Serving New Users $ 21,814,000 $16.534,000 $0 $5,280,000 75.8% To Table 11 24.2% To Table 11 Allocation to Functional Categories Flow Q Flow Q aa 0% 50% 33% 33% 100% 50% $0 $702,000 $702,000 33% $3,970,000 $3,970,000 $3,970,000 $8,500.000 $0 $0 $12,470,000 $4,672,000 $4,672,000 57.2% 21.4% 21.4% Estimated Total 2005-6 Construction Cost Estimated Users Served Item Construction Cost E)dslinq New Influent Screening $650,000 $480,000 $170,000 Headworks Improvements $260,000 $190,000 $70,000 Modify Domestic Pumps $210,000 $160,000 $50,000 Industrial Pumping Improvements $360,000 $360,000 $ 2 New Aeration Basins $4,440,000 100% $4,440,000 New Diffusers in Existing Aeration Basins $1,080,000 $1,080,000 $ - New Secondary Clarifier $2,700,000 $2,700,000 RAS/WAS Improvements $1,360,000 $1,090,000 $270,000 New Anaerobic Digester $1,710,000 $ $1,710,000 Sludge Lagoon Improvements $930,000 $690,000 $240,000 Storage Pond Aeration $250,000 $190,000 $60,000 Control System & Miscellaneous Operational Upgrades $460,000 $340,000 $120,000 Operation Building Improvements $150,000 $110,000 $40,000 100 Ac Wetlands $3,000,000 $2,220,000 $780,000 Reaeration Diffuser $1,200,000 $890.000 $310 000 Subtotal 518,760,000 $7,800,000 $10,960,000 Contingencies n 20% $3,752,000 $1,560,000 $2,192,000 50% $22,512,000 $9,360,000 $13,152,000 Estimated Total 2005-6 Construction Cost $22,512,000 Es1.2005-6 Construction Cost Serving Existing Users $9,360,000 Est. 2005-6 Construction Cost Serving New Users $13,152,000 % Est:2005-6 Construction Cost Serving Exist. Users 41.6% % Est.2005-6 Construction Cost Serving New Users 58.4% Allocation to Functional Categories Flow BOD SS Flow BOD SLS Tota 50% 50% S 325,000 S S 325,000 S 650,000 100% $ 260,000 $ $ - $ 260,000 100% S 210,000 $ $ - $ 210,000 100% $ 360,000 S $ - $ 360,000 50% 50% $ 2,220,000 $ 2,220,000 $ - $ 4,440,000 50% 50% $ 540,000 $ 540,000 $ - $ 1,080,000 50% 50% $ 1,350,000 $ 1,350,000 $ - $ 2,700,000 50% 50% S 680,000 $ 680,000 S - $ 1,360,000 50% 50% $ - $ 855,000 $ 855,000 $ 1,710,000 50% 50% $ 465,000 $ 465,000 $ - $ 930,000 50% 50% $ 125,000 $ 125,000 $ - $ 250,000 33% 33% 33% $ 153,333 $ 153,333 $ 153,333 $ 460,000 100% $ 150,000 $ - $ - $ 150,000 100% 0% 0% $ 3,000,000 $ $ - $ 3,000,000 IW% 0% S 1,200,000 S S S 1,200 000 $ 11,038,333 $ 6,388,333 $ 1,333,333 $ 18,760,000 59% 34% 7% 100°% $ 1,289,767 $ 746,441 $ 155,792 $ 2,192,000 S 12 328 100 7,134,774 $ 1 489 126 $ 20,952,000 59% 34% 796 To Table 11 13.12.020 Definitions. 5. "Capacity" or "Impact fee" means a charge as described in this chapter, levied on construction, or on new, expanded or ongoing activity, which uses POTW capacity and other wastewater facilities associated with growth. The fee is normally paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. 45. "Sewage service unit or SSU" is defined as each increment of flow equal to the flow from an average two-bedroom residence (bAfe hundred and six one -hundred and ninety- four gallons per day) and having a strength less than three hundred milligrams per liter BOD and SS. 13.12.180 Domestic system service charges. A. Basis. Charges for use of the domestic system shall be determined by the volume, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) of wastes discharged. In addition, charges for preparation and maintaining the Sewer Master Plan, expansion of the Public Works Administration Building and expansion of the Public Works Storage Facilities are allocated based upon volume, BOD and SS. 13.12.190 Domestic system capacity or impact fees. The capacity fee shall cover the capital cost associated with the POTW capacity which will be utilized by the rdicnharnor and the planning, financing, acquisition and development of other services and facilities directly related to the utilization of capacity by the discharger. Any actual costs incurred by the city in making the physical connection (tap) shall be separate and in addition to the capacity fee described in this section. D. The capacity fee shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued and cannot be prepaid. 15.64.010 Findings and purpose. F. The specific improvements and costs for wastewater capacity impact fees are described in the City of Lodi Wastewater Capacity Fees Analysis prepared for the City by Hilton, Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC, dated Auciust 15, 2005, and the Development Impact Fee Update Study prepared for the City by Harris & Associates, dated October 2001, copies of which are on file with the City Clerk. The calculation of the fee is presented in Title 13, Chapter 13.12 of the Lodi Municipal Code. G. New development will generate new demand for facilities which must be accommodated by construction of new or expanded facilities. The amount of demand generated and, therefore, the benefit gained, varies according to kind of use. Therefore, a "residential acre equivalent" (RAE) factor was developed to convert the service demand for general plan based land use categories into a ratio of the particular use's rate to the rate associated with a low-density, single-family dwelling gross acre. The council finds that the fee per unit of development is directly proportional to the RAE associated with each particular use. H. The city has previously approved various development projects which have made significant financial expenditures towards completion, including the payment of the then current development impact mitigation fees; but have not obtained a building permit. The city council finds and declares that such projects should be allowed to proceed without the imposition of new development impact mitigation fees imposed under this chapter. (Ord. 1547 § 1, 1992; 1526 § 1, 1991; Ord. 1518 § 1 (part), 1991) 15.64.030 Development impact funds. A. The city finance director shall create in the city treasury the following special interest- bearing trust funds into which all amounts collected under this chapter shall be deposited: 1. Water facilities; 2. Sewer facilities: a. General 6 . faGilities , h Kettle -Man Lane a lift s.t.Rtie., , E LJaFney Lane a lift station d- Gb uff Avenue lift station 3. Storm drainage facilities; 4. Street improvements; 5. Police facilities; 6. Fire facilities; 7. Parks and recreation facilities; 8. General city facilities and program administration. 15.64.060 Calculation of fees. C. Sewer fees shall be calculated and collected Der LMC 13.12. 15.64.070 Residential acre equivalent factor. B. The residential acre equivalent (RAE) factors are as set out in the following table. PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density 1.00 4-:09 Storm 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 General Land Use Water SeweF Drainage Streets Police Fire Parks & Facilities Categories RAE RAE RAE RAE RAE RAE Recreation RAE High Density 3.49 34-9 1.00 3.05 4.72 RAE 2.80 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL Low Density 1.00 4-:09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Medium 1.96 4-.N 1.00 1.96 1.77 1.96 1.43 1.43 Density Office High Density 3.49 34-9 1.00 3.05 4.72 4.32 2.80 2.80 East Side INDUSTRIAL Residential 1.00 4-.09 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.10 1.10 1.10 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL Low Density 1.00 4-:09 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Medium 1.96 4-.N 1.00 1.96 1.77 1.96 1.43 1.43 Density High Density 3.49 34-9 1.00 3.05 4.72 4.32 2.80 2.80 COMMERCIAL Retail Commercial 0.64 9�4 1.33 2.08 4.12 2.69 0.32 0.89 Office Commercial 0.64 9�4 1.33 3.27 3.72 2.46 0.54 1.53 INDUSTRIAL Light Industrial 0.26 9-42- 1.33 2.00 0.30 0.64 0.23 0.64 Heavy 0.26 9A-2 1.33 1.27 0.19 0.61 0.33 0.93 Industrial (Ord. 1547 § 3, 1992; Ord. 1518 § 1 (part), 1991) PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Joaquin I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to or interested in the above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the Lodi News -Sentinel, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published daily except Sundays and holidays, in the City of Lodi, California, County of San Joaquin and which newspaper had beem adjudicated a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court, Department 3, of the County of San Joaquin, State of California, under the date of May 26th, 1953. Case Number 65990; that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than non-pareil) has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereto on the following dates to -wit: December 3rd, ..................................•.............................---............... all in the year 200,5- I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Lodi, California, this 3rd day of Dece aa5 -------------- I This space is for the County Clerk's Filing Stamp Proof of Publication of Special Notice of Publicmr January 4, 2006, Review the Proposed W (acity Fee, Provide Direction. to Conte Awn of the Fee Signature 1 8502466 • CITY OF LODI Carnegie Forum • 305 West Pune Street, Lodi NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date: January 4, 2006 Time: 7:00 p.m. For information regarding this notice please contact: Susan J. Blackston City Clerk Telephone: (209) 333-6702 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, January 4, 2006 at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing at the Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi, to consider the following matter: a) Adoption of Wastewater Capacity Fees information regarding this item may be obtained in the Public Works Department, 221 West Pine Street, Lodi, California. All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior to the close of the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said hearing. If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West Pine Street, at or prior to the close of the public hearing. By Order of the Lodi City Council: Susan J. Blacks#on City Clerk Dated: November 22, 2005 Approved as to form: D. Stephen Schwabauer City Attorney J:ICITYCLRKIFORMSIPH NOTICE publication MASTER for LNS.doc 11128!05 Please immediately confirm receipt of this fax by calling 333-6702 CITY OF LODI P. O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 ADVERTISING INSTRUCTIONS SUBJECT: SPECIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 4, 2006, REVIEW THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER CAPACITY FEE, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE FEE. PUBLISH DATE DECEMBER 3, 2005 TEAR SHEETS WANTED: Three (3) please SEND AFFIDAVIT AND BILL TO: SUSAN BLACKSTON, CITY CLERK City of Lodi P.O. Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1 91 0 DATED: TUESDAY NOVEMBER 29, 2005 ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. PERRIN, CMC D TY CITY CLERK j DANA R. CHAPMAN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY CLERK JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR, CMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK er.fy Appe-arr, ice of his Legal Ir the Newspaper Copy to File formstiadvins.doc DECLARATION OF MAILING PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 4, 2006, REVIEW THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER CAPACITY FEE, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE FEE On November 29, 2005, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I deposited in the United States mall, envelopes with first-class postage prepaid thereon, to review the proposed wastewater capacity fee, provide direction to consider adoption of the fee. There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi, California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 29, 2005, at Lodi, California. ORDERED BY: JENNIFER M. PERRIN, CMC D UTY CITY CLERK f) -wmja'�' DANA R. CH PMAN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK Forms/decmail.doc ORDERED BY: SUSAN BLACKSTON CITY CLERK, CITY OF LODI JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR, CMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK DECLARATION OF POSTING PUBLIC HEARING FOR JANUARY 4, 2006, REVIEW THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER CAPACITY FEE, PROVIDE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE FEE On Friday, December 2, 2005, in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, a notice of public hearing to review the proposed wastewater capacity fee, provide direction to consider adoption of the fee was posted at; Lodi Public Library Lodi City Clerk's Office Lodi City Hall Lobby Lodi Carnegie Forum I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on December 2, 2005, at Lodi, California. JENNIFER M. PERRIN, CMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK i DANA R. CHAPMAN ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK N:1Administration\CLERK\Fo=\DECPOST. DOC ORDERED BY: SUSAN J. BLACKSTON CITY CLERK JACQUELINE L. TAYLOR, CMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY COUNCIL JOHN BECKMAN, Mayor SUSAN HITCHCOCK Mayor Pro Tempore LARRY D. HANSEN BOBJOHNSON JOANNE L. MOUNCE Interested Parties CITY OF LODI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)333-6706 FAX (209) 333-6710 EMAIL pwdept@lodi.gov http:\\Www.lodi.gov November 17, 2005 BLAIR KING City Manager SUSAN J. BLACKSTON City Clerk D. STEVEN SCHWABAUER City Attorney RICHARD C. PRIMA, JR. Public Works Director SUBJECT: Review Proposed Wastewater Capacity Fee, Provide Direction, and Set Public Hearing for January 4, 2006, to Consider Adoption of the Fee The above item was scheduled to be an item on the City Council agenda on November 16, 2005, and background information was sent to you at that time. However, this item was held over and will now be on the agenda of a City Council Special Meeting. The Special Meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 22, at 7 a.m. in the City Council Chamber, Carnegie Forum, 305 West Pine Street. You are welcome to attend. If you wish to write to the City Council, please address your letter to City Council, City of Lodi, P. O. Box 3006, Lodi, California, 95241-1910. Be sure to allow time for the mail. Or, you may hand -deliver the letter to City Hall, 221 West Pine Street. If you wish to address the Council at the Special Meeting, be sure to fill out a speaker's card (available at the Carnegie Forum immediately prior to the start of the meeting) and give it to the City Clerk. If you have any questions about communicating with the Council, please contact Susan Blackston, City Clerk, at (209) 333-6702. If you have any questions about the item itself, please call Wally Sandelin, City Engineer, at (209) 333-6709. T Richard C. Prima, Jr. Y' Public Works Director RCPIpmf cc: City Clerk NCINTROWWFEEORD2.00C EDWARD BARKETT A FRED BAKER ATLAS PROPERTIES INC DELMAR BATCH PO BOX 1514 2800 W MARCH LN STE 250 11174 N DAVIS RD LORI! CA 95241-1510[ { STOCKTON CA 95219-8218 [ LODI CA 95242] Iflil rll, lirrllllll,11111111111111111}1II111i111llllfllll 11111111111111111111111111111111111i111i11111l1II11111111 11111 k11111111111111111111f 11111 DENNIS BENNETT & STEVE MOORE VIC DEMAYO STEVE SINNOCK BENNETT DEVELOPMENT BROWMAN DEVELOPMENT KJELDSEN SINNOCK & NEUDECK 777 S HAM LN 100 SWAN WY STE 206 PO BOX 844 JLODI CA 95242 ] OAKLAND CA 94621 STOCKTON CA 95201-08J44 Illlllllllllllllllrlllllllilllil 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111 f1111111III,1111111111111111111111111!111111[ CECIL DILLON JOHN FARROS DILLON & MURPHY ENGINEERING GEWEKE PROPERTIES PO BOX 2180 PO BOX 1210 LODI CA 95241-2180 LODI CA 95241 II III EIII LllI11111I1 rE 111,11111111111JIIIIl111 r11111 r11 111111) IIrr111LII1ilE11111i111 WAYNE CRAIG SANDHILL DEVELOPMENT 2424 COCHRAN RD STE 1 LODI CA 95242 JEFFREY KIRST TOKAY DEVELOPMENT INC PO BOX 1259 Wj OODBRIDGE CA 9/5258 I111111i111l1Ii 11111 EI11111111i1 MARK CHANDLER EXEC DIR LODI WOODBRIDGE GRAPE COMM 2575 W TURNER RD LODI CA 95242 !!1lIIIIII111i111l I,iEllllllllll MAMIE STARR LUSO 1305 E VINE ST LODI CA 95240 II111ll111111111111111 i, 11111!1! LOWELL FLEMMER KATZAKIAN WILLIAMS SHERMAN 777 S HAM LN STE A LODI CA 95242 j II1111111IIIIIIIIIIII111111r1111 STEVE ROBERTS HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 35 E 10TH ST STE A TRACY CA 95376 11111111/ it 11111.1111111111111111 STEVE: PECHIN BAUMBACH & PIAZZA INC 323 W ELM ST LODI CA 95240 !llillllrirrlilillll!lllllllllll DARRELL SASAKI RON THOMAS LEX CORALES DRS REAL ESTATE APPRAISALS R THOMAS DEVELOPMENT INC SIEGFRIED & ASSOCIATES 1806 W KETTLEMAN LN STE 1 PO BOX 1598 4045 CORONADO AVE CA 95242[ CA 95241-1598 STOCKTON CA 95204 jLODI 11, 11111111111 FI11lIIIIl1II1I 111 jLODI IlII, 11I1111111I1I1r1111111111I11111111111111111111111111 II1111111I11I I11III111111111Y1li WENTLAND SNIDER MCINTOSH LWM SOUTHWEST INC TOM DOUCETTEIJIM JIMISON 301 S HAM LN STE A PO BOX 414 FRONTIERS LODI CA 95242 PACIFIC PALISADES CA 90272 3247 W MARCH LN STE 222 iililllilill111ili1Eiltilllllill IIIiEIIIIIrlr1,11111I1E111111111 STOCKTON CA 95219 RUSS MUNSON TOM DAVIS KEVIN SHARRAR WINE & ROSES LEE & ASSOCIATES BIA OF THE DELTA 2505 W TURNER RD 241 FRANK WEST CIR STE 300 509 W WEBER AVE STE 410 LODI CA 95242 111111111il III till 11111111111111 STOCKTON CA 95206 !11111 E11i, 11111!1111111111 hill STOCKTON CA 95203-3167 MICHAEL E LOCKE CEO SAN JOAQUIN PARTNERSHIP 2800 W MARCH LN STE 470 STOCKTON CA 95219 1111111!1! 111111111 LI 11111 RICK CHURCHILL PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTORS 5635 STRATFORD CIR STE C45 STOCKTON CA 95207 ED CORNEJO KB HOME NORTH BAY INC 2420 DEL PASO RD SACRAMENTO CA 95834 PAT PATRICK DR CHRIS KESZLER THOMAS SMITH LODI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 816 W LODI AVE FOX CREEK DEVELOPMENT INC 35 S SCHOOL ST LODI CA 95240 1171 QUARTZ DR LODI CA 9524011 E11111111111111I„111,,,11,,,1 AUBURN CA 95602 111i1,1i11r11ililillilillllj llll! RICHARD HANSCXV JOHN COSTAMAGNA KRISTMONT WEST INC :CUFF LLC PO BOX 131 7700 COLLEGE TOWN DR STE 111 -08 W TURNER RD _ODI CA 95242 WOODBRIDGE CA 95258 SACRAMENTO CA 95826 4NTONIO CONTI 'ONTI & ASSOCIATES INC :10 BOX 1396 NOODBRIDGE CA 95258 NADE BROUGHTON 3ENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS >.000 W TURNER RD .ODI CA 95242 DAVID DUGGINS CERTAINTEED CORP 300 S BECKMAN RD LODI CA 95240 MARCIANO DEL CASTILLO LA COMPANA 2346 MAGGIO CIR LODI CA 95240 TERRY KNUTSON COTTAGE BAKERY 40 NEUHARTH DR LODI CA 95240 REGGIE MASON LODI CHROME 316 N MAIN ST LODI CA 95240 `,HRIS COLBERT VICTOR LEWKOWITZ DENNY GOMES .USTRE CAL NA1t4EPLATE CORP MILLER PACKING RE SERVICE CO 115 S GUILD AVE 1122 INDUSTRIAL WY 500 S BECKMAN RD _ODI CA 95240 LODI CA 95240 LODI CA 95240