Lindon Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Facilities Plan - Amazon Web ...
LINDON CITY 2015 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN
Prepared by:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. Adopted by Lindon City Council on ______ , 2016
LINDON CITY 2015 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN
Prepared by:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. Adopted by Lindon City Council on ______ , 2016
SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................1 B. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1 C. SCOPE ................................................................................................................................1
II. LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................................................................2 A. LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ..................................................................................................................................2 B. SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................................................2 III. EXISTING AND FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMANDS ...............................2 IV. EXISTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITH RESERVE CAPACITY ..............................2 A. RESERVE CAPACITY OF COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ..........................................2 B. RESERVE CAPACITY OF LIFT STATION FACILITIES .............................................................3 C. HISTORIC COSTS ................................................................................................................4 V. FUTURE PROJECTS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH ........................................................5 VI. FUNDING FUTURE PROJECTS...............................................................................................6 D. CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................6 E. IMPACT FEE CREDIT...........................................................................................................6 APPENDIX A – UTAH IMPACT FEE ACT.................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B – SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN.B-1 APPENDIX C – DETAILS OF PIPES WITH RESERVE CAPACITY........................................C-1 APPENDIX D – HISTORIC COSTS.............................................................................................D-1 APPENDIX E – IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN CERTIFICATION......................................E-1
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Historic Project Costs and Engineering Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection .............................................................................................................................5 Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Projects Needed to Accommodate Future Growth .....................................5 Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail .............................................C-1 Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail ......................C-8 Table C-3. Cost Sharing Percentage Calculation for Improvement Project #1 and #2 ...............C-11 Table D-1. Historic Cost per Foot Paid by Lindon for 1975 Project ........................................... D-1 Table D-2. Historic Costs of 700 North Project ........................................................................... D-1 Table D-3. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project...................................................... D-2 i
Table D-4. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project – Lindon’s Share ......................... D-2 Table D-5. Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index History ..................................... D-3 Table D-6. Engineering / Financial Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection ................................................................................................................... D-4
ii
I.
INTRODUCTION A. Purpose The purpose of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) is to fulfill the requirements established in Utah Code Title 11 Chapter 36a, the “Impact Fees Act” relative to impact fee facilities plans. Appendix A contains the Impact Fee Act (Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session). B. Background The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan (MP & CFP) is a document that establishes long term plans for Sanitary Sewer infrastructure for Lindon City. It also performs the following functions pertinent to the Impact Fee Facilities Plan: 1. Identifies the level of service 2. Distinguishes between system improvements and project improvements 3. Identifies system improvements that will be required in the future to accommodate future growth and associated costs 4. Identifies cost sharing based on proportional historical, current, and projected future growth. 5. Evaluates available funding sources 6. Recommends a schedule of project construction based on projected growth rates and prioritizes projects This IFFP document extracts information from the Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP to provide the information that becomes the foundation for the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Analysis (IFA). Appendix B contains the Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP by reference. C. Scope The Sanitary Sewer IFFP takes results and documentation from the MP & CFP and supplements it to provide the basis needed to complete the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Analysis. It is the intent that this document comply with the Utah Impact Fee Act as it currently exists.
1
II.
LEVEL OF SERVICE A. Level of Service from Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP in Appendix B contains the sanitary sewer system level of service established for Lindon City. B. Service Areas Utah Code requires the impact fee enactment to establish one or more service areas within which impact fees will be imposed. The impact fee related costs identified in this document will be assessed to a single service area encompassing the entire service area of the Lindon sanitary sewer system.
III.
EXISTING AND FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMANDS The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP contains a detailed description of existing and future demands on the sanitary sewer system. It illustrates the impact of future development on the system. See Appendix B for more information.
IV.
EXISTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITH RESERVE CAPACITY Shown on the following pages are system facilities that have reserve capacity available to accommodate future growth, as well as the proportion of the facility capacity that is available for future growth. This existing capacity will gradually be consumed as development occurs. A. Reserve Capacity of Collection/Transmission System We evaluated the capacity of all modeled collection and transmission system pipelines that were deemed to be a system improvement according to the definition in the Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP and the Impact Fee Act. Most of these pipelines are at or over 8 inches in diameter and are not part of a special assessment district. The process of determining reserve capacity in the collection/transmission system improvements is as follows: 1. Identify existing q/Qfull (peak flow divided by the maximum capacity of the pipe) in each existing pipe segment identified as a system improvement that is not part of a special assessment district.
2
2. Identify buildout q/Qfull in the same existing pipe segments. In most cases the pipe would still have the ability to carry more flow at buildout, but we are only counting that portion of capacity that will actually get consumed for reserve capacity calculations. 3. Calculate the weighted average existing q/Qfull and the weighted average buildout q/Qfull for all pipes of a given size (weighted based on the length of the segment). 4. Calculate the reserve capacity as the difference between the weighted average of existing flow and the weighted average of buildout flow. For the purposes of the Sanitary Sewer MP, CFP & IFFP, buildout demands are estimated to occur in the year 2082. The master plan identifies 3908 existing ERUs and 6595 ERUs at buildout. We therefore anticipate that 2687 ERUs will be added between now (considered to be 2015) and buildout. We also anticipate that these ERUs of future growth will consume the portions of existing transmission/ distribution system pipe capacity over the next 66 years. See Table C-1 in Appendix C for a detailed tabulation of each modeled pipe’s existing, 10-year, and buildout q/Qfull, reserve capacity, capacity to be consumed by the horizon year, historical costs, as well as its impact fee eligible cost. Table C-2 in Appendix C contains similar data for pipes not modeled, and assume flow values match adjacent modeled pipes. B. Reserve Capacity of Lift Station Facilities Lift Station #4 and Lift Station #5 are part of a special assessment area, which means they are being paid for by development in their respective areas and thus not impact fee eligible. Lift Station #1, Lift Station #2, and Lift Station #3 are planned to be abandoned with the proposed Anderson Farms Development and construction of Lift Station #7, and thus will not have 10-year horizon or buildout scenario demands. The Geneva Road Lift Station was constructed in 2013 and included a 24-inch gravity main and force mains. Lindon’s share of the lift station was 85.12%. Based on modeled demands at the flume, growth in the next 10-years is responsible for 15.46% of the system improvement cost. C. Reserve Capacity of Orem Water Reclamation Facility Contract In the “Interlocal Agreement with Orem City (Sewer Services and Expansion of Water Reclamation Facility)” signed in 2010, Lindon is shown to have expanded their contractual treatment capacity at the Orem Water Reclamation Facility from 1.155 MGD to 1.65 MGD. According to the Lindon City Water Reclamation Reconciliation Reports in 2010 when the Orem Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) was expanded, Lindon’s average day demand was 1.2 MGD. Based on 3
the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan, Lindon’s average day demand in fiscal year 2014-2015 was 1.04 MGD. The decrease in demand is assumed to be due to a large user discontinuing operations, reduction in infiltration and inflow (I&I), and other factors. We based the reserve capacity on the demand in 2010 when the agreement was signed. Based on General Plan Land Use and estimated growth rates, demand is expected to reach 1.384 MGD by 2025 and 1.754 MGD by buildout. Based on the agreement, growth will be capped once the average daily demand reaches 1.65 MGD, so the reserve capacity is the difference between the maximum capacity of 1.65 MGD and the 2010 demand of 1.2 MGD. Lindon’s share of the Orem WRF expansion was 12.24%. Growth in the next 10-years is responsible for 40.8% of the expansion cost. D. Historic Costs We used actual historic costs where available. Where they were not available we estimated the year of construction of the facility, we then estimated what it would cost to construct the facility in 2015 (using the same method used to estimate the cost of future system improvements), and calculated an approximate historic cost of construction based on the ratio of the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index (see Table D-5 in Appendix D) between the year of construction and 2015. The reserve capacity to be consumed by the horizon year is coupled with the actual or estimated historic cost to determine the impact fee eligible cost. The total historic costs for modeled transmission/distribution lines eligible for impact fee collection is $482,235 (see Table C-1 in Appendix C). There were 113 pipe segments installed as part of the original system construction that were not modeled. We conservatively estimated their reserve capacity to be the same as the pipe directly downstream. These 113 pipe segments’ total historical cost was $12,827 (see Table C-2 in Appendix C). Lindon’s share of the Geneva Road Lift Station construction cost was $1,493,570, which included $334,847 in interest payments (see Table D-4 in Appendix D). The percentage of reserve capacity to be used in the next ten years is 15.46% (rounded; see Table C-1 in Appendix C). The impact fee eligible cost is $230,942. The force main and gravity main portion of the project is taken into account in the “Modeled Transmission/Distribution Lines” line item. Lindon’s share of the Orem WRF expansion was $1,504,825 or about 12.24% of the total cost. The percentage of reserve capacity to be used in the next ten years is 40.8% which equates to $613,969. In addition to historic costs, Lindon also paid for the master plan and capital facilities plan, impact fee facilities plan, and impact fee analysis. These costs totaled about $81,300, and are impact fee eligible (see Table D-6 in Appendix D). 4
Table 1. Historic Project Costs and Engineering Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection
V.
Modeled Transmission/Distribution Lines Non-Modeled Transmission/Distribution Lines
$ $
Impact Fee Eligible Cost 482,235 12,827
2011 Geneva Road Lift Station Project
$
230,942
Orem Water Reclamation Facility Expansion $ MP/CFP, IFFP, IFA $ Total $
613,968 81,300 1,421,272
FUTURE PROJECTS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP identifies which projects will be needed to accommodate future growth and determines at what point they will be needed. Given the growth rate contained in the master plan, it also calculates what year (or range of years, for later projects) Lindon expects the projects to be needed. Projects expected to be needed in the next 10 years to accommodate growth are listed in Table 2. Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Projects Needed to Accommodate Future Growth Impact Fees Project Name
Estimated Total Cost
Project Timeline
1
(Rounded) Install Flow Metering and VFDs at Lift Station #4, and #5. $ Install Backup Power and SCADA at Lift Station #5. Abandon Lift Station #1 and #3, and Install Gravity Main 2
to Anderson Farms Lift Station 3
Install Lift Station #7
79,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
79,000
588,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
489,317
$
24,879 $
73,804
$ 2,647,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
2,367,000 $
233,926
$
12,233 $
33,841
596,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
522,800 $
61,155 $
3,198 $
8,847
146,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2020
$
Install 8-inch FM from Anderson Farms Lift Station to Existing 8-inch on 200 S. (City pays for upsizing from 6$ inch to 8-inch) Install 10-inch FM from 200 S. and 800 W. to Freeway (City pays for upsizing from 8-inch to 10-inch) Abandon Lift Station #2 and Install Gravity Pipe $ Connection to Anderson Ln. Infiltration Reduction Lining 1 2 3 4
Costs are in 2015 dollars
$ 2,036,000
Total (Rounded):
Land Developer Proposed Future (Project City Funds Impact Fee Impact Fee Improvement)
$
146,000
0.5 Mile/Year
$ 2,036,000
4
Starting in 2027
$6,092,000
$
2,889,800 $1,009,398
$ 40,310 $2,152,492
Cost sharing calculated by comparing existing and future flows from the model (see Table C-3) Lindon City to pay appoximately 10.6% of lift station cost based on cost of Anderson Development to do improvements on their own Year 2027 is when Lindon's discharge is projected to pass 85% of the contracted discharge limit. Infiltration reduction needs to commence to meet level of service.
5
We have chosen the commonly accepted period of 10 years, which is supported by the following reasoning. Current legislation requires that impact fees collected must be spent within 6 years. Impact fees will be collected as calculated in an IFA based on this IFFP until the IFFP is updated, which should happen no less frequently than every 5 years. So impact fees based on this IFFP may be collected 4 years after its adoption. Those fees would need to be spent within 6 years thereafter, which would be 10 years from the date of IFFP adoption. Thus projects as far as 10 years into the future are included in this IFFP. VI.
FUNDING FUTURE PROJECTS E. Consideration of Funding Sources Section 302 (2) of the Impact Fee Act requires the City to “generally consider all revenue sources, including impact fees and anticipated dedication of system improvements, to finance the impacts on system improvements.” By doing so, the City ensures fair and equitable treatment among users and concludes whether impact fees are the most appropriate method to fund the growth. The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP considered multiple revenue sources, including impact fees and anticipated dedication of system improvements. It establishes that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation to the costs borne in the past and to be borne in the future, in comparison to the benefits already received and yet to be received. F. Impact Fee Credit The Impact Fee Act allows a “…credit against impact fees for any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of, any system improvements provided by the developer if the facilities: are system improvements; or are dedicated to the public; and offset the need for an identified system improvement.” The improvements do not necessarily need to be made in the proposed development. This plan does not contemplate a credit owed, and any credits given in the future would be negotiated between the developer and the City on a case by case basis as they arise.
6
APPENDIX A – UTAH IMPACT FEE ACT
A-1
Utah Code
Chapter 36a Impact Fees Act Part 1 General Provisions 11-36a-101 Title. This chapter is known as the "Impact Fees Act." Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-102 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (1) (a) "Affected entity" means each county, municipality, local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act, school district, interlocal cooperation entity established under Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation Act, and specified public utility: (i) whose services or facilities are likely to require expansion or significant modification because of the facilities proposed in the proposed impact fee facilities plan; or (ii) that has filed with the local political subdivision or private entity a copy of the general or long-range plan of the county, municipality, local district, special service district, school district, interlocal cooperation entity, or specified public utility. (b) "Affected entity" does not include the local political subdivision or private entity that is required under Section 11-36a-501 to provide notice. (2) "Charter school" includes: (a) an operating charter school; (b) an applicant for a charter school whose application has been approved by a charter school authorizer as provided in Title 53A, Chapter 1a, Part 5, The Utah Charter Schools Act; and (c) an entity that is working on behalf of a charter school or approved charter applicant to develop or construct a charter school building. (3) "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. (4) "Development approval" means: (a) except as provided in Subsection (4)(b), any written authorization from a local political subdivision that authorizes the commencement of development activity; (b) development activity, for a public entity that may develop without written authorization from a local political subdivision; (c) a written authorization from a public water supplier, as defined in Section 73-1-4, or a private water company: (i) to reserve or provide: (A) a water right; (B) a system capacity; or (C) a distribution facility; or (ii) to deliver for a development activity: (A) culinary water; or
Page 1
Utah Code
(B) irrigation water; or (d) a written authorization from a sanitary sewer authority, as defined in Section 10-9a-103: (i) to reserve or provide: (A) sewer collection capacity; or (B) treatment capacity; or (ii) to provide sewer service for a development activity. (5) "Enactment" means: (a) a municipal ordinance, for a municipality; (b) a county ordinance, for a county; and (c) a governing board resolution, for a local district, special service district, or private entity. (6) "Encumber" means: (a) a pledge to retire a debt; or (b) an allocation to a current purchase order or contract. (7) "Hookup fee" means a fee for the installation and inspection of any pipe, line, meter, or appurtenance to connect to a gas, water, sewer, storm water, power, or other utility system of a municipality, county, local district, special service district, or private entity. (8) (a) "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon new development activity as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public infrastructure. (b) "Impact fee" does not mean a tax, a special assessment, a building permit fee, a hookup fee, a fee for project improvements, or other reasonable permit or application fee. (9) "Impact fee analysis" means the written analysis of each impact fee required by Section 11-36a-303. (10) "Impact fee facilities plan" means the plan required by Section 11-36a-301. (11) "Level of service" means the defined performance standard or unit of demand for each capital component of a public facility within a service area. (12) (a) "Local political subdivision" means a county, a municipality, a local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, or a special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act. (b) "Local political subdivision" does not mean a school district, whose impact fee activity is governed by Section 53A-20-100.5. (13) "Private entity" means an entity in private ownership with at least 100 individual shareholders, customers, or connections, that is located in a first, second, third, or fourth class county and provides water to an applicant for development approval who is required to obtain water from the private entity either as a: (a) specific condition of development approval by a local political subdivision acting pursuant to a prior agreement, whether written or unwritten, with the private entity; or (b) functional condition of development approval because the private entity: (i) has no reasonably equivalent competition in the immediate market; and (ii) is the only realistic source of water for the applicant's development. (14) (a) "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are: (i) planned and designed to provide service for development resulting from a development activity; (ii) necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of development resulting from a development activity; and Page 2
Utah Code
(iii) not identified or reimbursed as a system improvement. (b) "Project improvements" does not mean system improvements. (15) "Proportionate share" means the cost of public facility improvements that are roughly proportionate and reasonably related to the service demands and needs of any development activity. (16) "Public facilities" means only the following impact fee facilities that have a life expectancy of 10 or more years and are owned or operated by or on behalf of a local political subdivision or private entity: (a) water rights and water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; (b) wastewater collection and treatment facilities; (c) storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; (d) municipal power facilities; (e) roadway facilities; (f) parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails; (g) public safety facilities; or (h) environmental mitigation as provided in Section 11-36a-205. (17) (a) "Public safety facility" means: (i) a building constructed or leased to house police, fire, or other public safety entities; or (ii) a fire suppression vehicle costing in excess of $500,000. (b) "Public safety facility" does not mean a jail, prison, or other place of involuntary incarceration. (18) (a) "Roadway facilities" means a street or road that has been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat, roadway plan, or general plan of a political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. (b) "Roadway facilities" includes associated improvements to a federal or state roadway only when the associated improvements: (i) are necessitated by the new development; and (ii) are not funded by the state or federal government. (c) "Roadway facilities" does not mean federal or state roadways. (19) (a) "Service area" means a geographic area designated by an entity that imposes an impact fee on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles in which a public facility, or a defined set of public facilities, provides service within the area. (b) "Service area" may include the entire local political subdivision or an entire area served by a private entity. (20) "Specified public agency" means: (a) the state; (b) a school district; or (c) a charter school. (21) (a) "System improvements" means: (i) existing public facilities that are: (A) identified in the impact fee analysis under Section 11-36a-304; and (B) designed to provide services to service areas within the community at large; and (ii) future public facilities identified in the impact fee analysis under Section 11-36a-304 that are intended to provide services to service areas within the community at large. (b) "System improvements" does not mean project improvements. Page 3
Utah Code
Amended by Chapter 363, 2014 General Session
Part 2 Impact Fees 11-36a-201 Impact fees. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure that any imposed impact fees comply with the requirements of this chapter. (2) A local political subdivision and private entity may establish impact fees only for those public facilities defined in Section 11-36a-102. (3) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to repeal or otherwise eliminate an impact fee in effect on the effective date of this chapter that is pledged as a source of revenues to pay bonded indebtedness that was incurred before the effective date of this chapter. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-202 Prohibitions on impact fees. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity may not: (a) impose an impact fee to: (i) cure deficiencies in a public facility serving existing development; (ii) raise the established level of service of a public facility serving existing development; (iii) recoup more than the local political subdivision's or private entity's costs actually incurred for excess capacity in an existing system improvement; or (iv) include an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with: (A) generally accepted cost accounting practices; and (B) the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; (b) delay the construction of a school or charter school because of a dispute with the school or charter school over impact fees; or (c) impose or charge any other fees as a condition of development approval unless those fees are a reasonable charge for the service provided. (2) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may not impose an impact fee: (i) on residential components of development to pay for a public safety facility that is a fire suppression vehicle; (ii) on a school district or charter school for a park, recreation facility, open space, or trail; (iii) on a school district or charter school unless: (A) the development resulting from the school district's or charter school's development activity directly results in a need for additional system improvements for which the impact fee is imposed; and (B) the impact fee is calculated to cover only the school district's or charter school's proportionate share of the cost of those additional system improvements; or
Page 4
Utah Code
(iv) to the extent that the impact fee includes a component for a law enforcement facility, on development activity for: (A) the Utah National Guard; (B) the Utah Highway Patrol; or (C) a state institution of higher education that has its own police force. (b) (i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may not impose an impact fee on development activity that consists of the construction of a school, whether by a school district or a charter school, if: (A) the school is intended to replace another school, whether on the same or a different parcel; (B) the new school creates no greater demand or need for public facilities than the school or school facilities, including any portable or modular classrooms that are on the site of the replaced school at the time that the new school is proposed; and (C) the new school and the school being replaced are both within the boundary of the local political subdivision or the jurisdiction of the private entity. (ii) If the imposition of an impact fee on a new school is not prohibited under Subsection (2)(b) (i) because the new school creates a greater demand or need for public facilities than the school being replaced, the impact fee shall be based only on the demand or need that the new school creates for public facilities that exceeds the demand or need that the school being replaced creates for those public facilities. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may impose an impact fee for a road facility on the state only if and to the extent that: (i) the state's development causes an impact on the road facility; and (ii) the portion of the road facility related to an impact fee is not funded by the state or by the federal government. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a local political subdivision may impose and collect impact fees on behalf of a school district if authorized by Section 53A-20-100.5. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-203 Private entity assessment of impact fees -- Charges for water rights, physical infrastructure -- Notice -- Audit. (1) A private entity: (a) shall comply with the requirements of this chapter before imposing an impact fee; and (b) except as otherwise specified in this chapter, is subject to the same requirements of this chapter as a local political subdivision. (2) A private entity may only impose a charge for water rights or physical infrastructure necessary to provide water or sewer facilities by imposing an impact fee. (3) Where notice and hearing requirements are specified, a private entity shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements for local districts. (4) A private entity that assesses an impact fee under this chapter is subject to the audit requirements of Title 51, Chapter 2a, Accounting Reports from Political Subdivisions, Interlocal Organizations, and Other Local Entities Act. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-204 Other names for impact fees. Page 5
Utah Code
(1) A fee that meets the definition of impact fee under Section 11-36a-102 is an impact fee subject to this chapter, regardless of what term the local political subdivision or private entity uses to refer to the fee. (2) A local political subdivision or private entity may not avoid application of this chapter to a fee that meets the definition of an impact fee under Section 11-36a-102 by referring to the fee by another name. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-205 Environmental mitigation impact fees. Notwithstanding the requirements and prohibitions of this chapter, a local political subdivision may impose and assess an impact fee for environmental mitigation when: (1) the local political subdivision has formally agreed to fund a Habitat Conservation Plan to resolve conflicts with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq. or other state or federal environmental law or regulation; (2) the impact fee bears a reasonable relationship to the environmental mitigation required by the Habitat Conservation Plan; and (3) the legislative body of the local political subdivision adopts an ordinance or resolution: (a) declaring that an impact fee is required to finance the Habitat Conservation Plan; (b) establishing periodic sunset dates for the impact fee; and (c) requiring the legislative body to: (i) review the impact fee on those sunset dates; (ii) determine whether or not the impact fee is still required to finance the Habitat Conservation Plan; and (iii) affirmatively reauthorize the impact fee if the legislative body finds that the impact fee must remain in effect. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 3 Establishing an Impact Fee 11-36a-301 Impact fee facilities plan. (1) Before imposing an impact fee, each local political subdivision or private entity shall, except as provided in Subsection (3), prepare an impact fee facilities plan to determine the public facilities required to serve development resulting from new development activity. (2) A municipality or county need not prepare a separate impact fee facilities plan if the general plan required by Section 10-9a-401 or 17-27a-401, respectively, contains the elements required by Section 11-36a-302. (3) A local political subdivision or a private entity with a population, or serving a population, of less than 5,000 as of the last federal census that charges impact fees of less than $250,000 annually need not comply with the impact fee facilities plan requirements of this part, but shall ensure that: (a) the impact fees that the local political subdivision or private entity imposes are based upon a reasonable plan that otherwise complies with the common law and this chapter; and (b) each applicable notice required by this chapter is given.
Page 6
Utah Code
Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-302 Impact fee facilities plan requirements -- Limitations -- School district or charter school. (1) (a) An impact fee facilities plan shall: (i) identify the existing level of service; (ii) subject to Subsection (1)(c), establish a proposed level of service; (iii) identify any excess capacity to accommodate future growth at the proposed level of service; (iv) identify demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity at the proposed level of service; and (v) identify the means by which the political subdivision or private entity will meet those growth demands. (b) A proposed level of service may diminish or equal the existing level of service. (c) A proposed level of service may: (i) exceed the existing level of service if, independent of the use of impact fees, the political subdivision or private entity provides, implements, and maintains the means to increase the existing level of service for existing demand within six years of the date on which new growth is charged for the proposed level of service; or (ii) establish a new public facility if, independent of the use of impact fees, the political subdivision or private entity provides, implements, and maintains the means to increase the existing level of service for existing demand within six years of the date on which new growth is charged for the proposed level of service. (2) In preparing an impact fee facilities plan, each local political subdivision shall generally consider all revenue sources to finance the impacts on system improvements, including: (a) grants; (b) bonds; (c) interfund loans; (d) impact fees; and (e) anticipated or accepted dedications of system improvements. (3) A local political subdivision or private entity may only impose impact fees on development activities when the local political subdivision's or private entity's plan for financing system improvements establishes that impact fees are necessary to maintain a proposed level of service that complies with Subsection (1)(b) or (c). (4) (a) Subject to Subsection (4)(c), the impact fee facilities plan shall include a public facility for which an impact fee may be charged or required for a school district or charter school if the local political subdivision is aware of the planned location of the school district facility or charter school: (i) through the planning process; or (ii) after receiving a written request from a school district or charter school that the public facility be included in the impact fee facilities plan. (b) If necessary, a local political subdivision or private entity shall amend the impact fee facilities plan to reflect a public facility described in Subsection (4)(a). (c)
Page 7
Utah Code
(i) In accordance with Subsections 10-9a-305(3) and 17-27a-305(3), a local political subdivision may not require a school district or charter school to participate in the cost of any roadway or sidewalk. (ii) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(c)(i), if a school district or charter school agrees to build a roadway or sidewalk, the roadway or sidewalk shall be included in the impact fee facilities plan if the local jurisdiction has an impact fee facilities plan for roads and sidewalks. Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-303 Impact fee analysis. (1) Subject to the notice requirements of Section 11-36a-504, each local political subdivision or private entity intending to impose an impact fee shall prepare a written analysis of each impact fee. (2) Each local political subdivision or private entity that prepares an impact fee analysis under Subsection (1) shall also prepare a summary of the impact fee analysis designed to be understood by a lay person. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-304 Impact fee analysis requirements. (1) An impact fee analysis shall: (a) identify the anticipated impact on or consumption of any existing capacity of a public facility by the anticipated development activity; (b) identify the anticipated impact on system improvements required by the anticipated development activity to maintain the established level of service for each public facility; (c) subject to Subsection (2), demonstrate how the anticipated impacts described in Subsections (1)(a) and (b) are reasonably related to the anticipated development activity; (d) estimate the proportionate share of: (i) the costs for existing capacity that will be recouped; and (ii) the costs of impacts on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development activity; and (e) based on the requirements of this chapter, identify how the impact fee was calculated. (2) In analyzing whether or not the proportionate share of the costs of public facilities are reasonably related to the new development activity, the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, shall identify, if applicable: (a) the cost of each existing public facility that has excess capacity to serve the anticipated development resulting from the new development activity; (b) the cost of system improvements for each public facility; (c) other than impact fees, the manner of financing for each public facility, such as user charges, special assessments, bonded indebtedness, general taxes, or federal grants; (d) the relative extent to which development activity will contribute to financing the excess capacity of and system improvements for each existing public facility, by such means as user charges, special assessments, or payment from the proceeds of general taxes; (e) the relative extent to which development activity will contribute to the cost of existing public facilities and system improvements in the future; (f) the extent to which the development activity is entitled to a credit against impact fees because the development activity will dedicate system improvements or public facilities that will offset the demand for system improvements, inside or outside the proposed development; Page 8
Utah Code
(g) extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing the newly developed properties; and (h) the time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-305 Calculating impact fees. (1) In calculating an impact fee, a local political subdivision or private entity may include: (a) the construction contract price; (b) the cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials, and fixtures; (c) the cost for planning, surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and directly related to the construction of the system improvements; and (d) for a political subdivision, debt service charges, if the political subdivision might use impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued to finance the costs of the system improvements. (2) In calculating an impact fee, each local political subdivision or private entity shall base amounts calculated under Subsection (1) on realistic estimates, and the assumptions underlying those estimates shall be disclosed in the impact fee analysis. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-306 Certification of impact fee analysis. (1) An impact fee facilities plan shall include a written certification from the person or entity that prepares the impact fee facilities plan that states the following:"I certify that the attached impact fee facilities plan: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; or c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; and 3. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act." (2) An impact fee analysis shall include a written certification from the person or entity that prepares the impact fee analysis which states as follows:"I certify that the attached impact fee analysis: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; Page 9
Utah Code
b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; or c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; 3. offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment; and 4. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act." Amended by Chapter 278, 2013 General Session
Part 4 Enactment of Impact Fees 11-36a-401 Impact fee enactment. (1) (a) A local political subdivision or private entity wishing to impose impact fees shall pass an impact fee enactment in accordance with Section 11-36a-402. (b) An impact fee imposed by an impact fee enactment may not exceed the highest fee justified by the impact fee analysis. (2) An impact fee enactment may not take effect until 90 days after the day on which the impact fee enactment is approved. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-402 Required provisions of impact fee enactment. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure, in addition to the requirements described in Subsections (2) and (3), that an impact fee enactment contains: (a) a provision establishing one or more service areas within which the local political subdivision or private entity calculates and imposes impact fees for various land use categories; (b) (i) a schedule of impact fees for each type of development activity that specifies the amount of the impact fee to be imposed for each type of system improvement; or (ii) the formula that the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, will use to calculate each impact fee; (c) a provision authorizing the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, to adjust the standard impact fee at the time the fee is charged to: (i) respond to: (A) unusual circumstances in specific cases; or (B) a request for a prompt and individualized impact fee review for the development activity of the state, a school district, or a charter school and an offset or credit for a public facility for which an impact fee has been or will be collected; and (ii) ensure that the impact fees are imposed fairly; and (d) a provision governing calculation of the amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development that permits adjustment of the amount of the impact fee based upon studies and data submitted by the developer.
Page 10
Utah Code
(2) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure that an impact fee enactment allows a developer, including a school district or a charter school, to receive a credit against or proportionate reimbursement of an impact fee if the developer: (a) dedicates land for a system improvement; (b) builds and dedicates some or all of a system improvement; or (c) dedicates a public facility that the local political subdivision or private entity and the developer agree will reduce the need for a system improvement. (3) A local political subdivision or private entity shall include a provision in an impact fee enactment that requires a credit against impact fees for any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of, any system improvements provided by the developer if the facilities: (a) are system improvements; or (b) (i) are dedicated to the public; and (ii) offset the need for an identified system improvement. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-403 Other provisions of impact fee enactment. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity may include a provision in an impact fee enactment that: (a) provides an impact fee exemption for: (i) development activity attributable to: (A) low income housing; (B) the state; (C) subject to Subsection (2), a school district; or (D) subject to Subsection (2), a charter school; or (ii) other development activity with a broad public purpose; and (b) except for an exemption under Subsection (1)(a)(i)(A), establishes one or more sources of funds other than impact fees to pay for that development activity. (2) An impact fee enactment that provides an impact fee exemption for development activity attributable to a school district or charter school shall allow either a school district or a charter school to qualify for the exemption on the same basis. (3) An impact fee enactment that repeals or suspends the collection of impact fees is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 11-36a-504. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 5 Notice 11-36a-501 Notice of intent to prepare an impact fee facilities plan. (1) Before preparing or amending an impact fee facilities plan, a local political subdivision or private entity shall provide written notice of its intent to prepare or amend an impact fee facilities plan. (2) A notice required under Subsection (1) shall: (a) indicate that the local political subdivision or private entity intends to prepare or amend an impact fee facilities plan;
Page 11
Utah Code
(b) describe or provide a map of the geographic area where the proposed impact fee facilities will be located; and (c) subject to Subsection (3), be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701. (3) For a private entity required to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website under Subsection (2)(c): (a) the private entity shall give notice to the general purpose local government in which the private entity's private business office is located; and (b) the general purpose local government described in Subsection (3)(a) shall post the notice on the Utah Public Notice Website. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-502 Notice to adopt or amend an impact fee facilities plan. (1) If a local political subdivision chooses to prepare an independent impact fee facilities plan rather than include an impact fee facilities element in the general plan in accordance with Section 11-36a-301, the local political subdivision shall, before adopting or amending the impact fee facilities plan: (a) give public notice, in accordance with Subsection (2), of the plan or amendment at least 10 days before the day on which the public hearing described in Subsection (1)(d) is scheduled; (b) make a copy of the plan or amendment, together with a summary designed to be understood by a lay person, available to the public; (c) place a copy of the plan or amendment and summary in each public library within the local political subdivision; and (d) hold a public hearing to hear public comment on the plan or amendment. (2) With respect to the public notice required under Subsection (1)(a): (a) each municipality shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and, except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Sections 10-9a-205 and 10-9a-801 and Subsection 10-9a-502(2); (b) each county shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and, except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Sections 17-27a-205 and 17-27a-801 and Subsection 17-27a-502(2); and (c) each local district, special service district, and private entity shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and receive the protections of, Section 17B-1-111. (3) Nothing contained in this section or Section 11-36a-503 may be construed to require involvement by a planning commission in the impact fee facilities planning process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-503 Notice of preparation of an impact fee analysis. (1) Before preparing or contracting to prepare an impact fee analysis, each local political subdivision or, subject to Subsection (2), private entity shall post a public notice on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701. (2) For a private entity required to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website under Subsection (1): (a) the private entity shall give notice to the general purpose local government in which the private entity's primary business is located; and
Page 12
Utah Code
(b) the general purpose local government described in Subsection (2)(a) shall post the notice on the Utah Public Notice Website. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-504 Notice of intent to adopt impact fee enactment -- Hearing -- Protections. (1) Before adopting an impact fee enactment: (a) a municipality legislative body shall: (i) comply with the notice requirements of Section 10-9a-205 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; (ii) hold a hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-502 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; and (iii) except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Section 10-9a-801 as if the impact fee were a land use ordinance; (b) a county legislative body shall: (i) comply with the notice requirements of Section 17-27a-205 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; (ii) hold a hearing in accordance with Section 17-27a-502 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; and (iii) except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Section 17-27a-801 as if the impact fee were a land use ordinance; (c) a local district or special service district shall: (i) comply with the notice and hearing requirements of Section 17B-1-111; and (ii) receive the protections of Section 17B-1-111; (d) a local political subdivision shall at least 10 days before the day on which a public hearing is scheduled in accordance with this section: (i) make a copy of the impact fee enactment available to the public; and (ii) post notice of the local political subdivision's intent to enact or modify the impact fee, specifying the type of impact fee being enacted or modified, on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701; and (e) a local political subdivision shall submit a copy of the impact fee analysis and a copy of the summary of the impact fee analysis prepared in accordance with Section 11-36a-303 on its website or to each public library within the local political subdivision. (2) Subsection (1)(a) or (b) may not be construed to require involvement by a planning commission in the impact fee enactment process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 6 Impact Fee Proceeds 11-36a-601 Accounting of impact fees. A local political subdivision that collects an impact fee shall: (1) establish a separate interest bearing ledger account for each type of public facility for which an impact fee is collected;
Page 13
Utah Code
(2) deposit a receipt for an impact fee in the appropriate ledger account established under Subsection (1); (3) retain the interest earned on each fund or ledger account in the fund or ledger account; (4) at the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report on each fund or ledger account showing: (a) the source and amount of all money collected, earned, and received by the fund or ledger account; and (b) each expenditure from the fund or ledger account; and (5) produce a report that: (a) identifies impact fee funds by the year in which they were received, the project from which the funds were collected, the impact fee projects for which the funds were budgeted, and the projected schedule for expenditure; (b) is in a format developed by the state auditor; (c) is certified by the local political subdivision's chief financial officer; and (d) is transmitted annually to the state auditor. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-602 Expenditure of impact fees. (1) A local political subdivision may expend impact fees only for a system improvement: (a) identified in the impact fee facilities plan; and (b) for the specific public facility type for which the fee was collected. (2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a local political subdivision shall expend or encumber the impact fees for a permissible use within six years of their receipt. (b) A local political subdivision may hold the fees for longer than six years if it identifies, in writing: (i) an extraordinary and compelling reason why the fees should be held longer than six years; and (ii) an absolute date by which the fees will be expended. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-603 Refunds. A local political subdivision shall refund any impact fee paid by a developer, plus interest earned, when: (1) the developer does not proceed with the development activity and has filed a written request for a refund; (2) the fee has not been spent or encumbered; and (3) no impact has resulted. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 7 Challenges 11-36a-701 Impact fee challenge.
Page 14
Utah Code
(1) A person or an entity residing in or owning property within a service area, or an organization, association, or a corporation representing the interests of persons or entities owning property within a service area, has standing to file a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of an impact fee. (2) (a) A person or an entity required to pay an impact fee who believes the impact fee does not meet the requirements of law may file a written request for information with the local political subdivision who established the impact fee. (b) Within two weeks after the receipt of the request for information under Subsection (2)(a), the local political subdivision shall provide the person or entity with the impact fee analysis, the impact fee facilities plan, and any other relevant information relating to the impact fee. (3) (a) Subject to the time limitations described in Section 11-36a-702 and procedures set forth in Section 11-36a-703, a person or an entity that has paid an impact fee that was imposed by a local political subdivision may challenge: (i) if the impact fee enactment was adopted on or after July 1, 2000: (A) subject to Subsection (3)(b)(i) and except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), whether the local political subdivision complied with the notice requirements of this chapter with respect to the imposition of the impact fee; and (B) whether the local political subdivision complied with other procedural requirements of this chapter for imposing the impact fee; and (ii) except as limited by Subsection (3)(c), the impact fee. (b) (i) The sole remedy for a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A) is the equitable remedy of requiring the local political subdivision to correct the defective notice and repeat the process. (ii) The protections given to a municipality under Section 10-9a-801 and to a county under Section 17-27a-801 do not apply in a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A). (c) The sole remedy for a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) is a refund of the difference between what the person or entity paid as an impact fee and the amount the impact fee should have been if it had been correctly calculated. (4) (a) Subject to Subsection (4)(d), if an impact fee that is the subject of an advisory opinion under Section 13-43-205 is listed as a cause of action in litigation, and that cause of action is litigated on the same facts and circumstances and is resolved consistent with the advisory opinion: (i) the substantially prevailing party on that cause of action: (A) may collect reasonable attorney fees and court costs pertaining to the development of that cause of action from the date of the delivery of the advisory opinion to the date of the court's resolution; and (B) shall be refunded an impact fee held to be in violation of this chapter, based on the difference between the impact fee paid and what the impact fee should have been if the government entity had correctly calculated the impact fee; and (ii) in accordance with Section 13-43-206, a government entity shall refund an impact fee held to be in violation of this chapter to the person who was in record title of the property on the day on which the impact fee for the property was paid if:
Page 15
Utah Code
(A) the impact fee was paid on or after the day on which the advisory opinion on the impact fee was issued but before the day on which the final court ruling on the impact fee is issued; and (B) the person described in Subsection (3)(a)(ii) requests the impact fee refund from the government entity within 30 days after the day on which the court issued the final ruling on the impact fee. (b) A government entity subject to Subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall refund the impact fee based on the difference between the impact fee paid and what the impact fee should have been if the government entity had correctly calculated the impact fee. (c) Subsection (4) may not be construed to create a new cause of action under land use law. (d) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply unless the resolution described in Subsection (3)(a) is final. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-702 Time limitations. (1) A person or an entity that initiates a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a) may not initiate that challenge unless it is initiated within: (a) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(i)(A), 30 days after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee; (b) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(i)(B), 180 days after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee; or (c) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(ii), one year after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee. (2) The deadline to file an action in district court is tolled from the date that a challenge is filed using an administrative appeals procedure described in Section 11-36a-703 until 30 days after the day on which a final decision is rendered in the administrative appeals procedure. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-703 Procedures for challenging an impact fee. (1) (a) A local political subdivision may establish, by ordinance or resolution, or a private entity may establish by prior written policy, an administrative appeals procedure to consider and decide a challenge to an impact fee. (b) If the local political subdivision or private entity establishes an administrative appeals procedure, the local political subdivision shall ensure that the procedure includes a requirement that the local political subdivision make its decision no later than 30 days after the day on which the challenge to the impact fee is filed. (2) A challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a) is initiated by filing: (a) if the local political subdivision or private entity has established an administrative appeals procedure under Subsection (1), the necessary document, under the administrative appeals procedure, for initiating the administrative appeal; (b) a request for arbitration as provided in Section 11-36a-705; or (c) an action in district court. (3) The sole remedy for a successful challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(1), which determines that an impact fee process was invalid, or an impact fee is in excess of the fee allowed under this act, is a declaration that, until the local political subdivision or private entity enacts a new
Page 16
Utah Code
impact fee study, from the date of the decision forward, the entity may charge an impact fee only as the court has determined would have been appropriate if it had been properly enacted. (4) Subsections (2), (3), 11-36a-701(3), and 11-36a-702(1) may not be construed as requiring a person or an entity to exhaust administrative remedies with the local political subdivision before filing an action in district court under Subsections (2), (3), 11-36a-701(3), and 11-36a-702(1). (5) The judge may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action brought under this section. (6) This chapter may not be construed as restricting or limiting any rights to challenge impact fees that were paid before the effective date of this chapter. Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-704 Mediation. (1) In addition to the methods of challenging an impact fee under Section 11-36a-701, a specified public agency may require a local political subdivision or private entity to participate in mediation of any applicable impact fee. (2) To require mediation, the specified public agency shall submit a written request for mediation to the local political subdivision or private entity. (3) The specified public agency may submit a request for mediation under this section at any time, but no later than 30 days after the day on which an impact fee is paid. (4) Upon the submission of a request for mediation under this section, the local political subdivision or private entity shall: (a) cooperate with the specified public agency to select a mediator; and (b) participate in the mediation process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-705 Arbitration. (1) A person or entity intending to challenge an impact fee under Section 11-36a-703 shall file a written request for arbitration with the local political subdivision within the time limitation described in Section 11-36a-702 for the applicable type of challenge. (2) If a person or an entity files a written request for arbitration under Subsection (1), an arbitrator or arbitration panel shall be selected as follows: (a) the local political subdivision and the person or entity filing the request may agree on a single arbitrator within 10 days after the day on which the request for arbitration is filed; or (b) if a single arbitrator is not agreed to in accordance with Subsection (2)(a), an arbitration panel shall be created with the following members: (i) each party shall select an arbitrator within 20 days after the date the request is filed; and (ii) the arbitrators selected under Subsection (2)(b)(i) shall select a third arbitrator. (3) The arbitration panel shall hold a hearing on the challenge no later than 30 days after the day on which: (a) the single arbitrator is agreed on under Subsection (2)(a); or (b) the two arbitrators are selected under Subsection (2)(b)(i). (4) The arbitrator or arbitration panel shall issue a decision in writing no later than 10 days after the day on which the hearing described in Subsection (3) is completed. (5) Except as provided in this section, each arbitration shall be governed by Title 78B, Chapter 11, Utah Uniform Arbitration Act. (6) The parties may agree to: Page 17
Utah Code
(a) binding arbitration; (b) formal, nonbinding arbitration; or (c) informal, nonbinding arbitration. (7) If the parties agree in writing to binding arbitration: (a) the arbitration shall be binding; (b) the decision of the arbitration panel shall be final; (c) neither party may appeal the decision of the arbitration panel; and (d) notwithstanding Subsection (10), the person or entity challenging the impact fee may not also challenge the impact fee under Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (8) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (8)(b), if the parties agree to formal, nonbinding arbitration, the arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act. (b) For purposes of applying Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, to a formal, nonbinding arbitration under this section, notwithstanding Section 63G-4-502, "agency" means a local political subdivision. (9) (a) An appeal from a decision in an informal, nonbinding arbitration may be filed with the district court in which the local political subdivision is located. (b) An appeal under Subsection (9)(a) shall be filed within 30 days after the day on which the arbitration panel issues a decision under Subsection (4). (c) The district court shall consider de novo each appeal filed under this Subsection (9). (d) Notwithstanding Subsection (10), a person or entity that files an appeal under this Subsection (9) may not also challenge the impact fee under Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (10) (a) Except as provided in Subsections (7)(d) and (9)(d), this section may not be construed to prohibit a person or entity from challenging an impact fee as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (b) The filing of a written request for arbitration within the required time in accordance with Subsection (1) tolls all time limitations under Section 11-36a-702 until the day on which the arbitration panel issues a decision. (11) The person or entity filing a request for arbitration and the local political subdivision shall equally share all costs of an arbitration proceeding under this section. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Page 18
APPENDIX B – SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The 2015 Lindon City Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan is incorporated herein by reference.
B-1
APPENDIX C – DETAILS OF PIPES WITH RESERVE CAPACITY Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail
Pipe Segment ID
Dia (in)
Se gment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft) A
FM3 FM1 50 CDT-15 FM2 KCA-2KC-4 KCAA-6KCAA-5 KCAA-5KCAA-4 KCAA-4KCAA-3 KCAA-3KCAA-2 KCAA-2KCA-4 KCA-4KCA-3 KCA-3KCA-2 KC-5KC-4 KC-6KC-5 KC-7KC-6 KC-8KC-7 KC-9KC-8 T-2T-1 TA-2T-2 TA-3TA-2 TA-4TA-3 TB-2TA-4 TA-5TA-4 T-3T-2 T-4T-3 T-5T-4 T-6T-5 T-7T-6 T-8T-7 T-9T-8 T-10T-9 TA-6TA-5 TB-3TA-4 TA-7TA-8 TA-8TA-9 TA-9D-2 P-2R-1 P-3P-2 P-4P-3 P-5P-4 P-7P-6 P-6P-5 P-8P-7 K-6K-5A K-5AK-5 K-5K-4
4 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
1,874 1,246 19 2,770 1,134 322 319 317 314 314 121 53 259 279 276 537 536 492 344 313 310 186 445 171 285 277 297 352 115 799 488 387 402 447 363 329 210 433 344 411 380 398 429 297 80 314 401
1992 1975 1998 1989 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1989 1992 1992 1992 1990 1990 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
62% 51% 16% 15% 21% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 5% 6% 4% 4% 7% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 31% 26% 28% 3% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 6% 10% 11%
Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to 2025 q/Qfull Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Growth 10-Year Growth B C D E = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% 34% 62% 75% 29% 26% 98% 85% 11% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% 5% 5% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 4% 5% 13% 0% 5% 6% 15% 0% 6% 9% 31% 0% 4% 5% 16% 0% 4% 5% 15% 0% 6% 8% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32% 38% 92% 76% 51% 61% 99% 82% 63% 75% 99% 82% 54% 65% 99% 82% 1% 1% 17% 0% 51% 61% 100% 83% 3% 3% 12% 6% 4% 4% 11% 5% 5% 5% 12% 8% 2% 2% 24% 24% 1% 1% 29% 14% 2% 2% 29% 24% 1% 2% 27% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3% 4% 30% 0% 5% 8% 32% 0% 3% 5% 41% 0% 2% 4% 46% 0% 1% 2% 59% 0% 1% 2% 53% 0% 0% 1% 77% 0% 6% 7% 12% 5% 11% 12% 11% 4% 11% 12% 11% 4%
C-1
Estimated Estimated Present Historical Day Project Project 1 2 Cost ($) Cost ($) F
$
84,346
$ 1,134 $ 138,477 $ 56,701 $ 22,117 $ 21,931 $ 21,770 $ 21,586 $ 21,586 $ 8,342 $ 3,654 $ 17,772 $ 19,181 $ 18,975 $ 36,923 $ 36,852 $ 33,828 $ 23,617 $ 21,549 $ 21,302 $ 12,788 $ 30,594 $ 11,757 $ 19,596 $ 19,015 $ 20,420 $ 24,200 $ 7,880 $ 54,933 $ 33,553 $ 26,607 $ 27,646 $ 30,731 $ 24,961 $ 22,639 $ 14,445
$
20,399
G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
41,941 7,797 670 63,746 28,194 12,853 12,745 12,651 12,545 12,545 4,848 2,124 10,328 8,830 8,735 16,997 16,964 15,573 11,744 10,715 10,592 6,359 15,213 5,846 9,744 9,455 10,154 12,033 3,918 27,315 16,684 12,248 13,747 15,281 12,412 10,686 6,818 3,067 2,437 2,908 2,693 2,815 3,040 4,501 567 2,224 2,840
Impact Estimate d Fee Impact Fe e Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 26 $ 97 $ 119
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
K-4K-3 K-3K-2 K-2F-6 Q-6Q-5A Q-5AQ-5 Q-5Q-4 Q-4Q-3 Q-3Q-2 Q-2F-1 L-8L-7A L-9L-8 L-7AL-7 L-7L-6 L-6L-5A L-5AL-5 L-5L-4A L-4AL-4 L-4L-3 L-3L-2 L-2K-8 K-8K-7 K-7K-6 F-20F-19 DD-4DD-3 DC-3DC-2 DC-2D-6A DF-5DF-4 DF-4DF-3 DF-3DF-2 DFA-2DF-2 DFA-3DFA-2 DD-3DD-2 DD-2D-7A D-13D-12 D-14D-13 D-15D-14 D-15AD-15 D-16D-15A D-17D-16 D-18D-17 D-19D-18 D-20D-19 D-21D-20 D-22D-21 D-23D-22 D-23AD-23 D-24D-23A F-21F-20 F-22F-21 E-10E-9
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
397 405 267 70 328 368 402 399 396 67 432 183 395 267 147 254 148 398 386 414 391 406 401 246 431 361 164 399 404 340 369 449 320 395 404 393 230 177 393 458 340 354 399 400 401 324 58 372 167 86
1975 1975 1975 2003 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 2011 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1999 1999 1999 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1999 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
18% 16% 10% 2% 2% 22% 26% 20% 15% 6% 3% 5% 5% 7% 12% 8% 10% 13% 14% 17% 10% 14% 31% 0% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 14% 13% 9% 10% 9% 8% 7% 8% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 28% 25% 19%
18% 16% 10% 2% 2% 21% 25% 20% 14% 5% 3% 5% 5% 7% 12% 8% 10% 13% 15% 17% 11% 14% 35% 0% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 16% 14% 10% 11% 10% 7% 7% 8% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 32% 28% 21%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 20% 12% 5% 18% 11% 4% 11% 11% 5% 2% 0% 0% $ 4,813 2% 0% 0% $ 22,555 21% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% $ 29,701 5% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 12% 2% 2% 8% 1% 1% 10% 2% 2% 13% 2% 2% 15% 2% 2% 17% 2% 2% 11% 10% 4% 15% 10% 4% 45% 31% 10% 0% 0% 0% $ 16,909 10% 25% 5% $ 29,617 16% 24% 4% $ 24,850 3% 96% 0% $ 11,275 3% 89% 0% $ 27,431 3% 85% 0% $ 27,775 0% 25% 0% $ 23,407 0% 0% 0% $ 25,374 0% 0% 0% $ 30,870 0% 0% 0% $ 22,010 19% 23% 12% $ 27,171 17% 17% 8% $ 27,787 15% 16% 8% $ 27,027 11% 18% 9% $ 15,827 12% 17% 9% $ 12,178 11% 17% 8% $ 27,038 8% 11% 0% $ 31,512 8% 10% 0% $ 23,392 9% 10% 0% $ 24,359 7% 13% 0% $ 27,447 3% 6% 0% 3% 10% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 41% 31% 10% 36% 32% 9% 24% 23% 10%
C-2
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
2,812 2,869 1,891 3,214 4,977 2,609 2,844 2,828 2,807 475 26,871 1,296 2,797 1,891 1,041 1,799 1,048 2,819 2,734 2,932 2,769 2,875 2,842 10,220 17,900 15,019 5,607 13,640 13,811 11,639 12,617 18,657 4,856 5,995 6,131 5,963 3,492 2,687 5,966 6,953 5,161 5,375 6,056 2,832 2,842 2,296 411 2,632 1,182 611
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 128 $ 113 $ 85 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 17 $ 24 $ 21 $ 44 $ 57 $ 51 $ 121 $ 113 $ 279 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 255 $ 109 $ 63
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
F-23F-22 F-24F-23 G-2F-24 G-3G-2 B-2G-2 B-3B-2 B-4B-3 B-5B-4 B-6B-5 B-7B-6 G-4G-3 G-5G-4 G-6G-5 G-7G-6 C-2G-7 C-3C-2 C-4C-3 C-5C-4 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AE-3 AE-3AE-2A AE-2AAE-2 AE-2A-12 B-8B-7 B-9B-8 A-17A-16 A-18A-17 A-19A-18 AF-2A-16 AF-3AF-2 AF-4AF-3 AF-5AF-4 A-20A-19 C-9C-8 C-10C-9 C-11C-10 C-13C-12 C-14C-13 C-15C-14 C-16C-15 C-17C-16 C-20C-19 CG-1C-20 CGA-1CG-1 CGA-2CGA-1 CGA-3CGA-2 CGA-4CGA-3 CGA-5CGA-4 CGA-6CGA-5 CGA-7CGA-6
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
400 439 362 400 492 209 379 402 307 491 396 267 166 481 118 412 449 401 159 400 372 25 396 212 398 243 398 395 398 271 396 240 305 400 219 374 397 306 368 447 305 333 108 132 213 182 210 179 257 124
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1992 1992 1992 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
29% 26% 28% 14% 5% 5% 4% 4% 8% 5% 14% 14% 21% 21% 40% 28% 32% 32% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 37% 34% 13% 15% 17% 12% 28% 28% 11% 11% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%
33% 29% 32% 16% 6% 6% 5% 4% 8% 5% 15% 14% 22% 22% 41% 29% 33% 33% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 2% 2% 2% 1% 5% 38% 34% 13% 15% 17% 12% 27% 28% 10% 11% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 42% 30% 10% 36% 30% 10% 40% 30% 10% 21% 30% 10% 7% 29% 9% 7% 29% 9% 6% 29% 8% 5% 29% 8% 9% 19% 4% 6% 19% 5% 19% 23% 2% 18% 23% 2% 27% 23% 2% 28% 23% 2% 51% 23% 2% 37% 23% 2% 42% 24% 2% 42% 24% 2% 2% 10% 0% 3% 12% 4% 4% 16% 5% 2% 15% 5% 4% 16% 5% 5% 20% 6% 6% 20% 5% 5% 33% 24% 6% 34% 26% 7% 34% 25% 2% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% $ 18,631 2% 0% 0% $ 27,225 1% 0% 0% $ 16,507 6% 34% 26% 50% 25% 2% 44% 23% 0% 17% 23% 1% 19% 22% 0% 22% 22% 0% 15% 24% 1% 36% 23% 0% 37% 23% 0% 14% 25% 0% $ 22,895 17% 35% 0% $ 7,411 2% 10% 0% $ 9,075 3% 7% 0% $ 14,644 2% 6% 0% $ 12,509 2% 11% 0% $ 14,429 1% 17% 0% $ 12,297 1% 0% 0% $ 17,669 1% 20% 0% $ 8,504
C-3
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
2,833 3,109 2,564 2,834 3,486 1,478 2,683 2,847 2,171 3,476 2,808 1,888 1,176 3,405 836 2,919 3,180 2,840 1,126 2,833 2,635 177 2,804 1,499 2,819 1,721 2,819 2,797 2,819 9,264 13,538 8,208 2,160 2,833 1,551 2,650 2,812 2,168 2,606 3,162 2,160 11,385 3,685 4,513 7,282 6,220 7,175 6,115 9,182 4,419
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 271 $ 299 $ 247 $ 276 $ 299 $ 129 $ 216 $ 219 $ 92 $ 177 $ 61 $ 42 $ 26 $ 74 $ 16 $ 56 $ 68 $ 54 $ $ 109 $ 123 $ 9 $ 130 $ 90 $ 143 $ 414 $ 739 $ 710 $ $ $ $ $ 559 $ 63 $ 4 $ 16 $ $ 10 $ 17 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
CGA-8CGA-7 CGA-8ACGA-8 CGA-9CGA-8A CGA-10CGA-9 CGA-11CGA-10 CGA-12CGA-11 CGA-13CGA-12 CGA-14CGA-13 CGA-16CGA-15 CGA-15CGA-14 C-21C-20 C-22C-21 C-23C-22 C-24C-23 C-25C-24 C-26C-25 C-27C-26 C-8C-7 C-7C-6 C-6C-5 L-10L-9 L-11L-10 L-12L-11 C-12C-11 C-18C-17 C-19C-18 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 CDT-21 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 DG-2D-12 DG-3DG-2 114
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
133 90 199 290 140 166 41 229 246 245 225 396 400 272 129 294 184 402 396 400 216 139 299 403 399 799 293 292 340 344 342 346 336 342 16 344 315 26 399 422 410 364 361 365 188 52 395 110 306
1993 1993 1993 1998 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1975 1975 1975 2011 2011 2011 1975 1992 1992 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2002 2002 1989 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 1975 1975 2006
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 5% 6% 1% 1% 1% 36% 36% 33% 6% 6% 6% 18% 5% 10% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% 4% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 5% 6% 1% 1% 1% 37% 37% 34% 6% 6% 6% 18% 5% 9% 11% 6% 5% 5% 9% 4% 3% 3% 6% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% 4% 1%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 0% 0% 0% $ 9,144 0% 0% 0% $ 6,188 0% 0% 0% $ 13,681 0% 0% 0% $ 19,938 0% 0% 0% $ 9,625 0% 0% 0% $ 11,405 0% 33% 0% $ 2,819 0% 0% 0% $ 15,746 0% 0% 0% $ 16,913 0% 0% 0% $ 16,820 3% 9% 0% $ 15,473 4% 8% 0% $ 27,227 5% 11% 0% $ 27,504 6% 10% 0% $ 18,701 1% 8% 0% $ 8,871 1% 8% 0% $ 20,184 1% 9% 0% $ 12,649 48% 25% 2% 48% 25% 2% 43% 24% 2% 6% 0% 0% $ 14,853 6% 0% 0% $ 9,556 6% 0% 0% $ 20,557 23% 23% 0% 7% 23% 0% $ 27,440 13% 25% 0% $ 54,936 42% 90% 18% $ 20,152 21% 91% 17% $ 20,041 19% 89% 18% $ 23,405 19% 90% 17% $ 23,652 32% 90% 18% $ 23,527 14% 90% 18% $ 23,808 7% 74% 14% $ 23,093 7% 76% 15% $ 23,527 11% 61% 16% $ 1,090 6% 75% 14% $ 23,654 6% 76% 15% $ 21,631 4% 76% 14% $ 1,805 6% 76% 14% $ 27,398 6% 79% 14% $ 29,027 6% 80% 15% $ 28,212 2% 47% 6% $ 24,993 2% 46% 4% $ 24,829 1% 0% 0% $ 25,073 1% 0% 0% $ 12,928 1% 0% 0% $ 3,579 10% 33% 7% 6% 37% 10% 3% 96% 21%
C-4
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
4,752 3,216 7,110 11,773 5,253 6,224 1,538 8,593 9,230 9,179 4,284 7,539 7,616 5,178 2,456 5,589 3,503 2,848 2,805 2,833 13,437 8,646 18,599 2,854 13,645 27,317 12,505 12,436 14,524 14,677 14,600 14,774 15,060 15,343 502 15,426 14,107 1,177 17,868 18,930 18,398 16,299 16,192 16,351 8,431 2,334 2,797 782 21,985
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 59 $ 59 $ 59 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 200 $ 78 $ 4,711
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
116 118 120 122 124 T-1WW3 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 FM4 58 CDT-29 CDT-25 KC-2KC-1 KC-3KC-2 KC-4KC-3 D-2R-1 D-3D-2 D-3AD-3 D-6D-5 D-5D-4 D-4D-3A F-16F-15 F-17F-16 F-18F-17 F-19F-18 E-2F-18 E-3E-2 E-4E-3 E-5E-4 E-6E-5 E-7E-6 D-6AD-6 D-7D-6A D-7AD-7 D-8D-7A D-9D-8 D-10D-9 D-11D-10 D-12D-11 E-8E-7 E-9E-8 A-2E-10
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Estimated Estimated % of Segment % of Capacity Year Existing Capacity to Present Length 2025 q/Qfull Buildout q/Qfull Available for Built q/Qfull be Used by Day Project (ft) Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth A B C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 400 2007 0% 1% 3% 86% 11% 399 2007 0% 1% 3% 86% 14% 80 2007 0% 1% 3% 85% 12% 381 2007 1% 3% 13% 94% 15% 399 2007 1% 3% 12% 94% 15% 67 1992 2% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% $ 4,633 401 2007 1% 3% 12% 95% 15% 399 2007 1% 2% 12% 96% 16% 400 2007 0% 2% 12% 97% 16% 314 2007 0% 2% 12% 97% 15% 316 2007 0% 0% 2% 88% 12% 314 2007 0% 1% 3% 88% 12% 315 2007 0% 1% 3% 88% 12% 635 2007 0% 1% 3% 88% 12% 85 1975 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 4,977 1989 63% 29% 53% 0% 0% $ 298,644 67 2000 0% 1% 4% 91% 16% $ 4,596 1,749 1989 63% 73% 96% 35% 11% $ 104,938 358 1997 2% 2% 3% 38% 9% $ 24,613 255 1989 9% 9% 12% 26% 1% $ 20,342 497 1989 13% 13% 17% 27% 1% $ 39,641 532 1989 11% 11% 15% 27% 1% $ 42,428 400 1975 88% 49% 59% 0% 0% 400 1975 107% 79% 93% 0% 0% 111 1975 50% 36% 43% 0% 0% 400 1975 63% 46% 54% 0% 0% 402 1975 62% 45% 53% 0% 0% 288 1975 49% 36% 42% 0% 0% 404 1975 48% 55% 68% 29% 10% 391 1975 40% 46% 57% 29% 10% 404 1975 49% 56% 69% 29% 10% 341 1975 21% 24% 31% 32% 10% 306 1975 28% 31% 37% 25% 11% 327 1975 27% 31% 36% 25% 11% 65 1975 27% 31% 37% 25% 11% 155 1975 26% 30% 35% 25% 11% 399 1975 16% 18% 21% 24% 10% 398 1975 13% 15% 17% 23% 10% 237 1975 54% 37% 45% 0% 0% 165 1975 46% 29% 34% 0% 0% 328 1975 37% 40% 47% 22% 7% 72 1975 14% 15% 18% 25% 10% 401 1975 25% 28% 33% 24% 9% 401 1975 22% 25% 30% 26% 11% 398 1975 22% 25% 29% 26% 11% 205 1975 25% 28% 33% 26% 11% 401 1975 13% 15% 17% 23% 11% 343 1975 12% 13% 15% 23% 11% 156 1975 33% 38% 43% 24% 11%
C-5
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
28,738 28,633 5,743 27,325 28,682 2,304 28,783 28,680 28,733 22,533 22,684 22,531 22,582 45,598 600 137,478 2,852 48,307 14,303 9,364 18,248 19,531 3,283 3,284 911 3,288 3,298 2,364 3,315 3,209 3,316 2,800 2,516 2,688 533 1,273 3,281 3,265 1,947 1,358 2,693 593 3,294 3,294 3,270 1,688 3,292 2,817 1,282
Impact Estimated Impact Fee Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 3,079 $ 4,090 $ 663 $ 4,153 $ 4,164 $ $ 4,446 $ 4,467 $ 4,512 $ 3,408 $ 2,669 $ 2,600 $ 2,606 $ 5,261 $ $ $ $ 5,217 $ $ 77 $ 106 $ 128 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 334 $ 324 $ 336 $ 275 $ 268 $ 288 $ 58 $ 137 $ 342 $ 332 $ $ $ 188 $ 59 $ 312 $ 351 $ 360 $ 183 $ 353 $ 298 $ 142
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
A-3A-2 A-4A-3 AA-6AA-5A AA-5AAA-5 AA-5AA-4 A-5A-4 AA-2A-5 AA-2AAA-2 AA-3AAA-3 AA-3AA-2A A-6A-5 A-9A-8 A-8A-7 A-7A-6 A-10A-9 A-11A-10 A-12A-11 A-13A-12 A-14A-13 A-15A-14 A-16A-15 AG-4AG-3 AG-3AG-2 AG-2A-16 AA-4AA-3A KC-1_20 106 108 110 112 R-1WW1 F-14F-13 F-13F-12 F-15F-14 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 52 54
Dia (in)
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Estimated Estimated % of Segment % of Capacity Year Existing Capacity to Present 2025 q/Qfull Buildout q/Qfull Available for Length Built q/Qfull be Used by Day Project (ft) Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth A B C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 414 1975 12% 13% 15% 24% 11% 401 1975 12% 13% 15% 24% 11% 280 1975 3% 4% 4% 23% 7% 125 1975 4% 4% 4% 17% 2% 397 1975 6% 6% 7% 15% 1% 397 1975 25% 29% 33% 24% 11% 397 1975 7% 8% 9% 20% 6% 160 1975 9% 9% 11% 20% 5% 30 1975 6% 6% 7% 15% 1% 244 1975 8% 8% 9% 18% 3% 410 1975 5% 6% 6% 24% 13% 291 1975 6% 7% 7% 24% 15% 313 1975 6% 7% 7% 23% 12% 458 1975 5% 6% 7% 24% 13% 420 1975 12% 14% 16% 24% 14% 211 1975 14% 17% 19% 24% 14% 141 1975 20% 24% 26% 24% 14% 397 1975 16% 19% 21% 26% 16% 400 1975 15% 19% 21% 27% 17% 401 1975 15% 18% 20% 27% 17% 151 1975 15% 18% 20% 27% 17% 400 1975 1% 1% 0% 30% 30% 401 1975 1% 1% 1% 50% 21% 396 1975 1% 1% 2% 40% 10% 366 1975 6% 6% 7% 15% 1% 31 1989 15% 15% 20% 24% 1% $ 2,506 399 2007 1% 2% 10% 90% 14% 399 2007 1% 2% 10% 91% 14% 400 2007 1% 2% 10% 91% 14% 400 2007 1% 2% 10% 92% 14% 50 1975 12% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% $ 3,963 116 1975 53% 61% 75% 29% 10% 139 1975 49% 56% 69% 29% 10% $ 13,204 400 1975 33% 38% 47% 29% 10% 156 1989 9% 15% 32% 73% 21% $ 14,815 93 1998 8% 15% 31% 74% 22% $ 8,823 219 1998 9% 17% 36% 74% 22% $ 20,723 153 1998 10% 18% 37% 74% 22% $ 14,526 144 1998 10% 17% 37% 74% 22% $ 13,646 172 1998 10% 17% 37% 74% 22% $ 16,313 159 2000 10% 19% 39% 74% 22% $ 15,110 400 2000 10% 19% 39% 74% 22% $ 37,915 400 2000 9% 17% 36% 76% 23% $ 37,917 400 2000 9% 17% 36% 75% 23% $ 37,855 464 2000 9% 17% 36% 75% 23% $ 43,924 285 1998 8% 14% 24% 67% 26% $ 26,983 369 1998 6% 14% 25% 75% 29% $ 34,998 24 1998 5% 11% 20% 75% 29% $ 2,277 448 1998 5% 11% 21% 74% 29% $ 42,405 227 1998 5% 11% 21% 76% 30% $ 21,485
C-6
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3,404 3,296 2,302 1,028 3,265 3,263 3,259 1,311 247 2,005 3,370 2,391 2,573 3,765 3,450 1,736 1,160 3,262 3,286 3,294 1,241 3,286 3,294 3,253 3,007 1,153 28,649 28,649 28,730 28,690 874 1,132 2,913 3,902 6,820 5,210 12,237 8,578 8,058 9,633 9,377 23,528 23,529 23,490 27,256 15,934 20,666 1,345 25,041 12,687
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 381 $ 371 $ 157 $ 24 $ 48 $ 356 $ 181 $ 60 $ 4 $ 66 $ 435 $ 355 $ 313 $ 477 $ 474 $ 244 $ 159 $ 528 $ 556 $ 557 $ 212 $ 986 $ 706 $ 325 $ 44 $ 6 $ 4,011 $ 4,051 $ 4,063 $ 4,099 $ $ 115 $ 296 $ 401 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Dia (in)
Pipe Segment ID
56 98 100 102 104 F-12F-11 F-11F-10A F-7F-6 F-8F-7 F-9F-8 F-9AF-9 F-2F-1 F-3AF-2 F-4F-3 F-5F-4 F-6F-5 F-10F-9A F-10AF-10 M-5M-4 F-1M-5 CDT-45 CDT-47 CDT-49 Geneva Road Lift Station Gravity and Force Mains 1
3
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
12 12 12 12 12 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 24 24 24 24
347 139 72 335 401 400 267 342 371 436 284 392 385 348 425 384 166 32 117 328 282 27 16
1998 2002 2007 2007 2007 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 2011 2011 2011 1989 2011
4% 0% 4% 4% 4% 29% 29% 59% 57% 55% 73% 85% 85% 42% 84% 85% 41% 39% 27% 37% 45% 23% 36%
9% 0% 9% 8% 9% 33% 33% 36% 36% 34% 45% 47% 47% 22% 45% 44% 25% 33% 34% 45% 55% 28% 45%
24
-
2013
45%
55%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 17% 76% 29% $ 32,843 0% 0% 0% $ 13,203 16% 75% 32% 14% 74% 33% 15% 75% 33% 41% 29% 10% 41% 29% 10% 45% 0% 0% 45% 0% 0% $ 41,463 42% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% 57% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 53% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 41% 6% 0% 42% 35% 16% $ 15,066 57% 35% 15% $ 42,285 69% 35% 15% $ 36,313 35% 35% 16% $ 3,472 56% 35% 15% $ 2,012 69%
35%
15%
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($)
19,394 8,611 5,136 24,060 28,771 4,604 3,074 3,938 9,149 5,019 3,269 4,517 4,432 4,006 4,893 4,421 1,911 369 13,631 38,256 32,853 1,598 1,820
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ $ $ 1,657 $ 7,853 $ 9,459 $ 465 $ 311 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,120 $ 5,891 $ 5,080 $ 248 $ 280
$ 2,293,137
Yes
$
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
H
354,575
Total Impact Fee Eligible Reimbursement $ 482,235
If no historical cost data exists, present unit costs were used to calculate present day project costs
2
If historical cost data exists (see Appendix D), they were entered in column G. If not, present day project costs (column F) were reduced by the applicable ENR factor based on construction year.
C-7
Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail
Pipe Dia Segment Year Reference Existing q/Qfull Segment ID (in) Length (ft) Built Pipe 1 A
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 A-35 A-36 A-37 A-38 A-39
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
196 99 113 330 466 105 85 164 401 401 375 218 324 169 120 287 36 110 156 134 121 131 361 194 138 400 393 100 310 124 220 260 401 203 415 387 429 379 408
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 G-2F-24 G-2F-24 G-2F-24 G-2F-24 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20
17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28%
2025 q/Qfull
Buildout q/Qfull
B
C
17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32%
17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 40% 40% 40% 40% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
% of Capacity Available for Growth D = 1-(A/Max of A, B, & C) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 30% 30% 30% 30% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%
C-8
Estimated Estimated % of Estimated Capacity to be Used Historical Project Impact Fee by 2025 Growth Eligible Cost ($) Cost2 ($) F
E
G = ExL
= D-(C-A) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1,390 698 801 2,335 3,303 744 599 1,165 2,838 2,842 2,657 1,540 2,292 1,200 851 2,029 254 781 1,106 951 859 931 2,555 1,372 975 2,836 2,786 708 2,198 877 1,558 1,841 2,840 1,438 2,936 2,744 3,038 2,687 2,887
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
24 12 14 40 57 13 10 20 49 49 46 27 40 21 15 35 4 13 19 16 15 16 44 24 17 49 269 68 212 85 151 178 275 139 284 266 294 260 280
Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Dia Segment Year Reference Existing Segment ID (in) Length (ft) Built Pipe* q/Qfull A
A-40 A-41 A-42 A-43 A-44 A-45 A-46 A-47 A-48 A-49 A-50 A-51 A-52 A-53 A-55 A-56 A-57 A-58 A-59 A-60 A-61 A-62 A-63 A-64 A-65 A-66 A-67 A-68 A-69 A-70 A-71 A-72 A-73 A-74 A-75 A-76 A-77 A-78
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
432 263 145 401 360 326 82 638 80 501 534 399 329 390 81 398 257 86 197 400 323 138 151 241 169 197 172 384 414 490 428 194 78 337 400 403 340 322
1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 DG-3DG-2 1975 D-24D-23A 1975 D-18D-17 1975 D-18D-17 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-3C-2 1975 C-3C-2 1975 C-3C-2 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-15C-14 1975 C-15C-14 1975 C-15C-14 1975 C-14C-13 1975 C-14C-13 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9
28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 4% 3% 8% 8% 33% 33% 33% 33% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 12% 12% 12% 17% 17% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
2025 q/Qfull
Buildout q/Qfull
B
C
32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 4% 2% 7% 7% 34% 34% 34% 34% 29% 29% 29% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 12% 12% 12% 17% 17% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 6% 3% 8% 8% 43% 43% 43% 43% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 15% 15% 15% 22% 22% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44%
C-9
% of Capacity Estimated % of Available for Capacity to be Used Growth by 2025 Growth D E = 1-(A/Max of A, = D-(C-A) B, & C) 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 37% 10% 7% 0% 11% 0% 11% 0% 24% 2% 24% 2% 24% 2% 24% 2% 23% 2% 23% 2% 23% 2% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 24% 1% 24% 1% 24% 1% 22% 0% 22% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0%
Estimated Estimated Historical Project Impact Fee Cost ($) Eligible Cost ($) F G = ExL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3,057 1,865 1,025 2,837 2,546 2,307 582 4,520 567 3,549 3,783 2,827 2,329 2,759 573 2,815 1,822 607 1,395 2,834 2,286 975 1,068 1,709 1,198 1,395 1,218 2,720 2,928 3,474 3,033 1,374 552 2,386 2,832 2,853 2,409 2,282
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
296 181 99 275 247 223 56 438 55 355 58 12 59 38 12 27 54 8 18 19 16 14 3 1 5 6 7 6 5
Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Dia Segment Year Reference Existing Pipe* q/Qfull Segment ID (in) Length (ft) Built A
A-79 A-80 A-81 A-82 A-83 A-84 A-85 A-86 A-87 A-88 A-89 A-90 A-91 A-92 A-93 A-94 A-95 A-96 A-97 A-98 A-99 A-100 A-101 A-102 A-103 A-104 A-105 A-106 A-107 A-108 A-109 A-110 A-111 A-112 A-113 1 2
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
322 283 232 164 239 302 105 327 207 239 273 169 244 391 64 244 266 400 95 395 151 257 370 393 392 395 304 418 224 158 263 88 129 241 144
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-5B-4 B-5B-4 B-5B-4 B-5B-4 B-2G-2 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AAE-4 AA-6AA-5A AA-6AA-5A AA-6AA-5A A-7A-6 A-7A-6 A-5A-4 A-5A-4 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 25% 25% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
2025 q/Qfull
Buildout q/Qfull
B
C
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 29% 29% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 33% 33% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
% of Capacity Estimated % of Available for Capacity to be Used Growth by 2025 Growth D E = 1-(A/Max of A, = D-(C-A) B, & C) 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 29% 8% 29% 8% 29% 8% 29% 8% 29% 9% 10% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 23% 7% 23% 7% 23% 7% 24% 13% 24% 13% 24% 11% 24% 11% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26%
First downstream modeled pipe. Uses historical costs from 1975 project (see Table D-1)
C-10
Estimated Estimated Historical Project Impact Fee Cost ($) Eligible Cost ($) F G = ExL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
2,281 2,005 1,643 1,162 1,690 2,136 746 2,315 1,469 1,695 1,930 1,193 1,731 2,771 453 1,731 1,881 2,835 675 2,797 1,070 1,820 2,624 2,783 2,779 2,796 2,152 2,959 1,588 1,120 1,866 621 913 1,710 1,017
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
116 102 84 59 86 109 38 118 75 86 148 92 133 213 39 191 73 124 333 353 303 305 557 765 411 290 483 161 236 442 263
Total Impact Fee Eligible Reimbursement $
12,827
Table C-3 uses modeled flows to determine cost sharing percentages for Project #1 and #2 which are based on flow proportionality. Table C-3. Cost Sharing Percentage Calculation for Improvement Project #1 and #2
Percent of Buildout Flow that is Growth Related (Existing Flow - Buildout) / Buildout Percent of Buildout Flow Peak Flow along Center Street that is Existing 1 west of Geneva Road (Existing Flow / Buildout) Existing 10-year Buildout
83.2%
386 405 463 1
Next 10 Years
Beyond 10 Years
4.2%
12.6%
Assumes Lift Station #2 is not taken offline.
Percent of Buildout Flow that is Growth Related (Existing Flow - Buildout) / Buildout Peak Flow into Lift Station #7 2 from Lindon City Existing 10-year Buildout
413 435 495
Percent of Buildout Flow that is Existing (Existing Flow / Buildout)
Next 10 Years
Beyond 10 Years
83.5%
4.4%
12.1%
2
Assumes Lift Station #2 is not taken offline and excludes Anderson Farms Development because they are paying separately.
C-11
APPENDIX D – HISTORIC COSTS The following tables show a summary of projects with known historical costs. The Lindon City sanitary sewer system was installed in 1975 when the City installed miles of sewer pipe. The project was funded 80% by EPA and other government agencies, and the other 20% was bonded for by the City. The bond was for $375,000 as reported by the Daily Herald on February 23, 1975. Lindon also paid an additional $433,795 in interest costs and $123,827 in additional construction costs for a total of $932,622. Table D-1 shows how present day costs per foot for various pipe diameters were reduced to historic costs paid for by Lindon. These costs were used in Table C-2 and C-3. Table D-1. Historic Cost per Foot Paid by Lindon for 1975 Project
Historical Project (Total Cost) Estimated Present Day Cost
$ $
2,724,278 8,982,000 30.33% (a)
Lindon Out-of-Pocket Costs Historical Project (Total Cost)
$ $
932,622 2,724,278 34.23% (b) Historic Costs Paid
Diameter (inches) 4 8 10 12 18 1 2
1
Present Day Cost/ft $ 55.75 $ 68.75 $ 79.75 $ 94.75 $ 111.75
$ $ $ $ $
Historic Cost / ft 16.91 20.85 24.19 28.74 33.89
2
by Lindon Cost / ft $ $ $ $ $
5.79 7.14 8.28 9.84 11.60
Present Day Cost multiplied by (a) Historic Cost multiplied by (b)
The information in Table D-2 was used to calculate the cost per foot for each diameter of pipe for the 700 North (now North County Boulevard) Project, and then used in Table C-1 and C-2. Table D-2. Historic Costs of 700 North Project Cost Per Foot by Diameter No.
Project #
1
50796
2
50796
Project Description 700 N State St To Geneva Road Utilities 700 North~Phase 3, 2000 West to Geneva Rd
Date
Actual Historic Cost
2003
$
164,312.54 $
55.16
2007
$
658,102.90 $
71.80 $
D-1
8-inch
10-inch
12-inch
79.30 $
89.56
Table D-3 details cost sharing of the Geneva Road Lift Station Project between Lindon and Orem. Table D-4 details Lindon’s share of the project. Table D-3. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project
Total Cost
Base Construction Expences Sewer Force Main Lift Station Gravity Sewer Main Extra Gravity Main Sewer Work
Orem Percent Share Cost
$ 280,886 $ 1,113,526 $ 1,078,300 $ 140,114 Total $ 2,612,826
Incidentals and Extra Construction Work Legal and Bonding DWQ Loan Origination Fee Property Acquisition - Lift Station Property Acquisition - Gravity Sewer Payment to UDOT via Orem for Paving Work on Geneva Road (Gravity Sewer) Payment to PRC for Curb & Gutter on 1600 N (Gravity Sewer) Payment to PRC for Asphalting behind sidewalk along 1600 N (Gravity Sewer) Payment to Rocky Mountain Power for power upgrade at lift station (Lift Station) Credit to Orem for Payment for Asphalt Patch on 1600 N (Gravity Sewer) Engineering Expenses Total
Total Cost
20% 20% 10% 10%
$ 56,177 $ 222,705 $ 107,830 $ 14,111 $ 400,824
Orem Percent Share Cost
$ 14,253 $ 30,000 $ 31,530 $ 64,100 $ 39,441 $ 13,350 $ 5,000 $ 11,311 $ 1,836 $ 535,875 $ 746,696
Total $ 3,359,522
20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 10%
Lindon Percent Share Cost 80% 80% 90% 90%
$ 224,709 $ 890,821 $ 970,470 $ 126,003 $ 2,212,002
Lindon Percent Share Cost
$ $ $ 6,306 $ 6,410 $ 3,944 $ 1,335 $ 500 $ 2,262 $ 184 $ $ 20,941
100% 100% 80% 90% 90% 90% 90% 80% 90% 100%
$ 14,253 $ 30,000 $ 25,224 $ 57,690 $ 35,497 $ 12,015 $ 4,500 $ 9,049 $ 1,652 $ 535,875 $ 725,755
$ 421,765
$ 2,937,757
Loan Interest (Lindon's Portion Only
$ 848,950 TOTAL
$ 3,786,707
Table D-4. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project – Lindon’s Share
Lindon Cost Sewer Force Main Lift Station Gravity Sewer Main Extra Gravity Main Sewer Work Total
$ 224,709 $ 890,821 $ 970,470 $ 126,003 $ 2,212,002
% of Base DWQ Loan Misc Construction Property Legal and Origination Construction Total Acquisition Bonding Fee Work Engineering 10.2% 40.3% 43.9% 5.7%
$ $
25,224 57,690
$
82,914
$ $ $ $ $
D-2
1,448 $ 5,740 $ 6,253 $ 812 $ 14,253 $
3,048 12,082 $ 13,162 $ 1,709 30,000 $
$ 9,049 $ 53,664 $ $ 62,713 $
Loan Interest
54,437 $ 215,808 $ 235,104 $ 30,525 $ 535,875 $
81,967 334,847 386,175 45,962 848,950
Total $ 365,608 $ 1,493,570 $ 1,722,518 $ 205,010 $ 3,786,707
Table D-5 shows the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, which is an index based on labor, steel, concrete and lumber in 20 major cities in the United States. Table D-5. Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index History Construction Index Ratio to 2015 to Year Cost Construction Year 2015 10025 1.000 2014 9806 1.022 2013 9547 1.050 2012 9308 1.077 2011 9070 1.105 2010 8799 1.139 2009 8570 1.170 2008 8310 1.206 2007 7966 1.258 2006 7751 1.293 2005 7446 1.346 2004 7115 1.409 2003 6694 1.498 2002 6538 1.533 2001 6343 1.581 2000 6221 1.612 1999 6059 1.655 1998 5920 1.693 1997 5826 1.721 1996 5620 1.784 1995 5471 1.832 1994 5408 1.854 1993 5210 1.924 1992 4985 2.011 1991 4835 2.073 1990 4732 2.119 1989 4615 2.172 1988 4519 2.218 1987 4406 2.275 1986 4295 2.334 1985 4195 2.390 1984 4146 2.418
Construction Index Ratio to 2015 to Year Cost Construction Year 1983 4066 2.466 1982 3825 2.621 1981 3535 2.836 1980 3237 3.097 1979 3003 3.338 1978 2776 3.611 1977 2576 3.892 1976 2401 4.175 1975 2212 4.532 1974 2020 4.963 1973 1895 5.290 1972 1753 5.719 1971 1581 6.341 1970 1381 7.259 1969 1269 7.900 1968 1155 8.680 1967 1074 9.334 1966 1019 9.838 1965 971 10.325 1964 936 10.711 1963 901 11.127 1962 872 11.497 1961 847 11.836 1960 824 12.166 1959 797 12.579 1958 759 13.208 1957 724 13.847 1956 692 14.487 1955 660 15.190 1954 628 15.964 1953 600 16.709 1952 569 17.619
D-3
Construction Index Ratio to 2015 to Year Cost Construction Year 1951 543 18.463 1950 510 19.657 1949 477 21.017 1948 461 21.747 1947 413 24.274 1946 346 28.975 1945 308 32.549 1944 299 33.529 1943 290 34.570 1942 276 36.323 1941 258 38.857 1940 242 41.426 1939 236 42.480 1938 236 42.480 1937 235 42.660 1936 206 48.666 1935 196 51.149 1934 198 50.632 1933 170 58.972 1932 157 63.855 1931 181 55.388 1930 203 49.385 1929 207 48.431 1928 207 48.431 1927 206 48.666 1926 208 48.198 1925 207 48.431 1924 215 46.629 1923 214 46.847 1922 174 57.616 1921 202 49.630 1920 251 39.941
Table D-6 details the engineering and financial costs related to planning for impact fee collection. These costs include modeling, master planning, capital facilities planning, and impact fee facilities plan (by J-U-B Engineers), and an impact fee analysis (by Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc.). Table D-6. Engineering / Financial Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection
Master Plan & Capital Facilities Plan Impact Fee Facilities Plan Impact Fee Analysis Total
D-4
$ $ $ $
Cost 55,000 20,000 6,300 81,300
APPENDIX E – IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN CERTIFICATION
As required by Section 11-36a-306 of the Impact Fee Act, J-U-B Engineers, Inc. provides the following statement: I certify that the attached Impact Fee Facilities plan: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed in the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within 6 years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to the methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursements; and 3. complies with each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act. J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
E-1
Prepared by:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. Adopted by Lindon City Council on ______ , 2016
LINDON CITY 2015 SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN
Prepared by:
J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. Adopted by Lindon City Council on ______ , 2016
SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1 A. PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................1 B. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................1 C. SCOPE ................................................................................................................................1
II. LEVEL OF SERVICE .................................................................................................................2 A. LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ..................................................................................................................................2 B. SERVICE AREAS .................................................................................................................2 III. EXISTING AND FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMANDS ...............................2 IV. EXISTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITH RESERVE CAPACITY ..............................2 A. RESERVE CAPACITY OF COLLECTION/TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ..........................................2 B. RESERVE CAPACITY OF LIFT STATION FACILITIES .............................................................3 C. HISTORIC COSTS ................................................................................................................4 V. FUTURE PROJECTS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH ........................................................5 VI. FUNDING FUTURE PROJECTS...............................................................................................6 D. CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING SOURCES ............................................................................6 E. IMPACT FEE CREDIT...........................................................................................................6 APPENDIX A – UTAH IMPACT FEE ACT.................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B – SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN.B-1 APPENDIX C – DETAILS OF PIPES WITH RESERVE CAPACITY........................................C-1 APPENDIX D – HISTORIC COSTS.............................................................................................D-1 APPENDIX E – IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN CERTIFICATION......................................E-1
LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Historic Project Costs and Engineering Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection .............................................................................................................................5 Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Projects Needed to Accommodate Future Growth .....................................5 Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail .............................................C-1 Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail ......................C-8 Table C-3. Cost Sharing Percentage Calculation for Improvement Project #1 and #2 ...............C-11 Table D-1. Historic Cost per Foot Paid by Lindon for 1975 Project ........................................... D-1 Table D-2. Historic Costs of 700 North Project ........................................................................... D-1 Table D-3. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project...................................................... D-2 i
Table D-4. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project – Lindon’s Share ......................... D-2 Table D-5. Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index History ..................................... D-3 Table D-6. Engineering / Financial Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection ................................................................................................................... D-4
ii
I.
INTRODUCTION A. Purpose The purpose of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) is to fulfill the requirements established in Utah Code Title 11 Chapter 36a, the “Impact Fees Act” relative to impact fee facilities plans. Appendix A contains the Impact Fee Act (Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session). B. Background The Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan (MP & CFP) is a document that establishes long term plans for Sanitary Sewer infrastructure for Lindon City. It also performs the following functions pertinent to the Impact Fee Facilities Plan: 1. Identifies the level of service 2. Distinguishes between system improvements and project improvements 3. Identifies system improvements that will be required in the future to accommodate future growth and associated costs 4. Identifies cost sharing based on proportional historical, current, and projected future growth. 5. Evaluates available funding sources 6. Recommends a schedule of project construction based on projected growth rates and prioritizes projects This IFFP document extracts information from the Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP to provide the information that becomes the foundation for the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Analysis (IFA). Appendix B contains the Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP by reference. C. Scope The Sanitary Sewer IFFP takes results and documentation from the MP & CFP and supplements it to provide the basis needed to complete the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Analysis. It is the intent that this document comply with the Utah Impact Fee Act as it currently exists.
1
II.
LEVEL OF SERVICE A. Level of Service from Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP in Appendix B contains the sanitary sewer system level of service established for Lindon City. B. Service Areas Utah Code requires the impact fee enactment to establish one or more service areas within which impact fees will be imposed. The impact fee related costs identified in this document will be assessed to a single service area encompassing the entire service area of the Lindon sanitary sewer system.
III.
EXISTING AND FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DEMANDS The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP contains a detailed description of existing and future demands on the sanitary sewer system. It illustrates the impact of future development on the system. See Appendix B for more information.
IV.
EXISTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITH RESERVE CAPACITY Shown on the following pages are system facilities that have reserve capacity available to accommodate future growth, as well as the proportion of the facility capacity that is available for future growth. This existing capacity will gradually be consumed as development occurs. A. Reserve Capacity of Collection/Transmission System We evaluated the capacity of all modeled collection and transmission system pipelines that were deemed to be a system improvement according to the definition in the Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP and the Impact Fee Act. Most of these pipelines are at or over 8 inches in diameter and are not part of a special assessment district. The process of determining reserve capacity in the collection/transmission system improvements is as follows: 1. Identify existing q/Qfull (peak flow divided by the maximum capacity of the pipe) in each existing pipe segment identified as a system improvement that is not part of a special assessment district.
2
2. Identify buildout q/Qfull in the same existing pipe segments. In most cases the pipe would still have the ability to carry more flow at buildout, but we are only counting that portion of capacity that will actually get consumed for reserve capacity calculations. 3. Calculate the weighted average existing q/Qfull and the weighted average buildout q/Qfull for all pipes of a given size (weighted based on the length of the segment). 4. Calculate the reserve capacity as the difference between the weighted average of existing flow and the weighted average of buildout flow. For the purposes of the Sanitary Sewer MP, CFP & IFFP, buildout demands are estimated to occur in the year 2082. The master plan identifies 3908 existing ERUs and 6595 ERUs at buildout. We therefore anticipate that 2687 ERUs will be added between now (considered to be 2015) and buildout. We also anticipate that these ERUs of future growth will consume the portions of existing transmission/ distribution system pipe capacity over the next 66 years. See Table C-1 in Appendix C for a detailed tabulation of each modeled pipe’s existing, 10-year, and buildout q/Qfull, reserve capacity, capacity to be consumed by the horizon year, historical costs, as well as its impact fee eligible cost. Table C-2 in Appendix C contains similar data for pipes not modeled, and assume flow values match adjacent modeled pipes. B. Reserve Capacity of Lift Station Facilities Lift Station #4 and Lift Station #5 are part of a special assessment area, which means they are being paid for by development in their respective areas and thus not impact fee eligible. Lift Station #1, Lift Station #2, and Lift Station #3 are planned to be abandoned with the proposed Anderson Farms Development and construction of Lift Station #7, and thus will not have 10-year horizon or buildout scenario demands. The Geneva Road Lift Station was constructed in 2013 and included a 24-inch gravity main and force mains. Lindon’s share of the lift station was 85.12%. Based on modeled demands at the flume, growth in the next 10-years is responsible for 15.46% of the system improvement cost. C. Reserve Capacity of Orem Water Reclamation Facility Contract In the “Interlocal Agreement with Orem City (Sewer Services and Expansion of Water Reclamation Facility)” signed in 2010, Lindon is shown to have expanded their contractual treatment capacity at the Orem Water Reclamation Facility from 1.155 MGD to 1.65 MGD. According to the Lindon City Water Reclamation Reconciliation Reports in 2010 when the Orem Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) was expanded, Lindon’s average day demand was 1.2 MGD. Based on 3
the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan, Lindon’s average day demand in fiscal year 2014-2015 was 1.04 MGD. The decrease in demand is assumed to be due to a large user discontinuing operations, reduction in infiltration and inflow (I&I), and other factors. We based the reserve capacity on the demand in 2010 when the agreement was signed. Based on General Plan Land Use and estimated growth rates, demand is expected to reach 1.384 MGD by 2025 and 1.754 MGD by buildout. Based on the agreement, growth will be capped once the average daily demand reaches 1.65 MGD, so the reserve capacity is the difference between the maximum capacity of 1.65 MGD and the 2010 demand of 1.2 MGD. Lindon’s share of the Orem WRF expansion was 12.24%. Growth in the next 10-years is responsible for 40.8% of the expansion cost. D. Historic Costs We used actual historic costs where available. Where they were not available we estimated the year of construction of the facility, we then estimated what it would cost to construct the facility in 2015 (using the same method used to estimate the cost of future system improvements), and calculated an approximate historic cost of construction based on the ratio of the Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index (see Table D-5 in Appendix D) between the year of construction and 2015. The reserve capacity to be consumed by the horizon year is coupled with the actual or estimated historic cost to determine the impact fee eligible cost. The total historic costs for modeled transmission/distribution lines eligible for impact fee collection is $482,235 (see Table C-1 in Appendix C). There were 113 pipe segments installed as part of the original system construction that were not modeled. We conservatively estimated their reserve capacity to be the same as the pipe directly downstream. These 113 pipe segments’ total historical cost was $12,827 (see Table C-2 in Appendix C). Lindon’s share of the Geneva Road Lift Station construction cost was $1,493,570, which included $334,847 in interest payments (see Table D-4 in Appendix D). The percentage of reserve capacity to be used in the next ten years is 15.46% (rounded; see Table C-1 in Appendix C). The impact fee eligible cost is $230,942. The force main and gravity main portion of the project is taken into account in the “Modeled Transmission/Distribution Lines” line item. Lindon’s share of the Orem WRF expansion was $1,504,825 or about 12.24% of the total cost. The percentage of reserve capacity to be used in the next ten years is 40.8% which equates to $613,969. In addition to historic costs, Lindon also paid for the master plan and capital facilities plan, impact fee facilities plan, and impact fee analysis. These costs totaled about $81,300, and are impact fee eligible (see Table D-6 in Appendix D). 4
Table 1. Historic Project Costs and Engineering Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection
V.
Modeled Transmission/Distribution Lines Non-Modeled Transmission/Distribution Lines
$ $
Impact Fee Eligible Cost 482,235 12,827
2011 Geneva Road Lift Station Project
$
230,942
Orem Water Reclamation Facility Expansion $ MP/CFP, IFFP, IFA $ Total $
613,968 81,300 1,421,272
FUTURE PROJECTS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP identifies which projects will be needed to accommodate future growth and determines at what point they will be needed. Given the growth rate contained in the master plan, it also calculates what year (or range of years, for later projects) Lindon expects the projects to be needed. Projects expected to be needed in the next 10 years to accommodate growth are listed in Table 2. Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Projects Needed to Accommodate Future Growth Impact Fees Project Name
Estimated Total Cost
Project Timeline
1
(Rounded) Install Flow Metering and VFDs at Lift Station #4, and #5. $ Install Backup Power and SCADA at Lift Station #5. Abandon Lift Station #1 and #3, and Install Gravity Main 2
to Anderson Farms Lift Station 3
Install Lift Station #7
79,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
79,000
588,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
489,317
$
24,879 $
73,804
$ 2,647,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
2,367,000 $
233,926
$
12,233 $
33,841
596,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2016
$
522,800 $
61,155 $
3,198 $
8,847
146,000
Estimated to begin construction in 2020
$
Install 8-inch FM from Anderson Farms Lift Station to Existing 8-inch on 200 S. (City pays for upsizing from 6$ inch to 8-inch) Install 10-inch FM from 200 S. and 800 W. to Freeway (City pays for upsizing from 8-inch to 10-inch) Abandon Lift Station #2 and Install Gravity Pipe $ Connection to Anderson Ln. Infiltration Reduction Lining 1 2 3 4
Costs are in 2015 dollars
$ 2,036,000
Total (Rounded):
Land Developer Proposed Future (Project City Funds Impact Fee Impact Fee Improvement)
$
146,000
0.5 Mile/Year
$ 2,036,000
4
Starting in 2027
$6,092,000
$
2,889,800 $1,009,398
$ 40,310 $2,152,492
Cost sharing calculated by comparing existing and future flows from the model (see Table C-3) Lindon City to pay appoximately 10.6% of lift station cost based on cost of Anderson Development to do improvements on their own Year 2027 is when Lindon's discharge is projected to pass 85% of the contracted discharge limit. Infiltration reduction needs to commence to meet level of service.
5
We have chosen the commonly accepted period of 10 years, which is supported by the following reasoning. Current legislation requires that impact fees collected must be spent within 6 years. Impact fees will be collected as calculated in an IFA based on this IFFP until the IFFP is updated, which should happen no less frequently than every 5 years. So impact fees based on this IFFP may be collected 4 years after its adoption. Those fees would need to be spent within 6 years thereafter, which would be 10 years from the date of IFFP adoption. Thus projects as far as 10 years into the future are included in this IFFP. VI.
FUNDING FUTURE PROJECTS E. Consideration of Funding Sources Section 302 (2) of the Impact Fee Act requires the City to “generally consider all revenue sources, including impact fees and anticipated dedication of system improvements, to finance the impacts on system improvements.” By doing so, the City ensures fair and equitable treatment among users and concludes whether impact fees are the most appropriate method to fund the growth. The Sanitary Sewer MP & CFP considered multiple revenue sources, including impact fees and anticipated dedication of system improvements. It establishes that impact fees are necessary to achieve an equitable allocation to the costs borne in the past and to be borne in the future, in comparison to the benefits already received and yet to be received. F. Impact Fee Credit The Impact Fee Act allows a “…credit against impact fees for any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of, any system improvements provided by the developer if the facilities: are system improvements; or are dedicated to the public; and offset the need for an identified system improvement.” The improvements do not necessarily need to be made in the proposed development. This plan does not contemplate a credit owed, and any credits given in the future would be negotiated between the developer and the City on a case by case basis as they arise.
6
APPENDIX A – UTAH IMPACT FEE ACT
A-1
Utah Code
Chapter 36a Impact Fees Act Part 1 General Provisions 11-36a-101 Title. This chapter is known as the "Impact Fees Act." Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-102 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (1) (a) "Affected entity" means each county, municipality, local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act, school district, interlocal cooperation entity established under Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation Act, and specified public utility: (i) whose services or facilities are likely to require expansion or significant modification because of the facilities proposed in the proposed impact fee facilities plan; or (ii) that has filed with the local political subdivision or private entity a copy of the general or long-range plan of the county, municipality, local district, special service district, school district, interlocal cooperation entity, or specified public utility. (b) "Affected entity" does not include the local political subdivision or private entity that is required under Section 11-36a-501 to provide notice. (2) "Charter school" includes: (a) an operating charter school; (b) an applicant for a charter school whose application has been approved by a charter school authorizer as provided in Title 53A, Chapter 1a, Part 5, The Utah Charter Schools Act; and (c) an entity that is working on behalf of a charter school or approved charter applicant to develop or construct a charter school building. (3) "Development activity" means any construction or expansion of a building, structure, or use, any change in use of a building or structure, or any changes in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. (4) "Development approval" means: (a) except as provided in Subsection (4)(b), any written authorization from a local political subdivision that authorizes the commencement of development activity; (b) development activity, for a public entity that may develop without written authorization from a local political subdivision; (c) a written authorization from a public water supplier, as defined in Section 73-1-4, or a private water company: (i) to reserve or provide: (A) a water right; (B) a system capacity; or (C) a distribution facility; or (ii) to deliver for a development activity: (A) culinary water; or
Page 1
Utah Code
(B) irrigation water; or (d) a written authorization from a sanitary sewer authority, as defined in Section 10-9a-103: (i) to reserve or provide: (A) sewer collection capacity; or (B) treatment capacity; or (ii) to provide sewer service for a development activity. (5) "Enactment" means: (a) a municipal ordinance, for a municipality; (b) a county ordinance, for a county; and (c) a governing board resolution, for a local district, special service district, or private entity. (6) "Encumber" means: (a) a pledge to retire a debt; or (b) an allocation to a current purchase order or contract. (7) "Hookup fee" means a fee for the installation and inspection of any pipe, line, meter, or appurtenance to connect to a gas, water, sewer, storm water, power, or other utility system of a municipality, county, local district, special service district, or private entity. (8) (a) "Impact fee" means a payment of money imposed upon new development activity as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public infrastructure. (b) "Impact fee" does not mean a tax, a special assessment, a building permit fee, a hookup fee, a fee for project improvements, or other reasonable permit or application fee. (9) "Impact fee analysis" means the written analysis of each impact fee required by Section 11-36a-303. (10) "Impact fee facilities plan" means the plan required by Section 11-36a-301. (11) "Level of service" means the defined performance standard or unit of demand for each capital component of a public facility within a service area. (12) (a) "Local political subdivision" means a county, a municipality, a local district under Title 17B, Limited Purpose Local Government Entities - Local Districts, or a special service district under Title 17D, Chapter 1, Special Service District Act. (b) "Local political subdivision" does not mean a school district, whose impact fee activity is governed by Section 53A-20-100.5. (13) "Private entity" means an entity in private ownership with at least 100 individual shareholders, customers, or connections, that is located in a first, second, third, or fourth class county and provides water to an applicant for development approval who is required to obtain water from the private entity either as a: (a) specific condition of development approval by a local political subdivision acting pursuant to a prior agreement, whether written or unwritten, with the private entity; or (b) functional condition of development approval because the private entity: (i) has no reasonably equivalent competition in the immediate market; and (ii) is the only realistic source of water for the applicant's development. (14) (a) "Project improvements" means site improvements and facilities that are: (i) planned and designed to provide service for development resulting from a development activity; (ii) necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of development resulting from a development activity; and Page 2
Utah Code
(iii) not identified or reimbursed as a system improvement. (b) "Project improvements" does not mean system improvements. (15) "Proportionate share" means the cost of public facility improvements that are roughly proportionate and reasonably related to the service demands and needs of any development activity. (16) "Public facilities" means only the following impact fee facilities that have a life expectancy of 10 or more years and are owned or operated by or on behalf of a local political subdivision or private entity: (a) water rights and water supply, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities; (b) wastewater collection and treatment facilities; (c) storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; (d) municipal power facilities; (e) roadway facilities; (f) parks, recreation facilities, open space, and trails; (g) public safety facilities; or (h) environmental mitigation as provided in Section 11-36a-205. (17) (a) "Public safety facility" means: (i) a building constructed or leased to house police, fire, or other public safety entities; or (ii) a fire suppression vehicle costing in excess of $500,000. (b) "Public safety facility" does not mean a jail, prison, or other place of involuntary incarceration. (18) (a) "Roadway facilities" means a street or road that has been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat, roadway plan, or general plan of a political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. (b) "Roadway facilities" includes associated improvements to a federal or state roadway only when the associated improvements: (i) are necessitated by the new development; and (ii) are not funded by the state or federal government. (c) "Roadway facilities" does not mean federal or state roadways. (19) (a) "Service area" means a geographic area designated by an entity that imposes an impact fee on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles in which a public facility, or a defined set of public facilities, provides service within the area. (b) "Service area" may include the entire local political subdivision or an entire area served by a private entity. (20) "Specified public agency" means: (a) the state; (b) a school district; or (c) a charter school. (21) (a) "System improvements" means: (i) existing public facilities that are: (A) identified in the impact fee analysis under Section 11-36a-304; and (B) designed to provide services to service areas within the community at large; and (ii) future public facilities identified in the impact fee analysis under Section 11-36a-304 that are intended to provide services to service areas within the community at large. (b) "System improvements" does not mean project improvements. Page 3
Utah Code
Amended by Chapter 363, 2014 General Session
Part 2 Impact Fees 11-36a-201 Impact fees. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure that any imposed impact fees comply with the requirements of this chapter. (2) A local political subdivision and private entity may establish impact fees only for those public facilities defined in Section 11-36a-102. (3) Nothing in this chapter may be construed to repeal or otherwise eliminate an impact fee in effect on the effective date of this chapter that is pledged as a source of revenues to pay bonded indebtedness that was incurred before the effective date of this chapter. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-202 Prohibitions on impact fees. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity may not: (a) impose an impact fee to: (i) cure deficiencies in a public facility serving existing development; (ii) raise the established level of service of a public facility serving existing development; (iii) recoup more than the local political subdivision's or private entity's costs actually incurred for excess capacity in an existing system improvement; or (iv) include an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with: (A) generally accepted cost accounting practices; and (B) the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; (b) delay the construction of a school or charter school because of a dispute with the school or charter school over impact fees; or (c) impose or charge any other fees as a condition of development approval unless those fees are a reasonable charge for the service provided. (2) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may not impose an impact fee: (i) on residential components of development to pay for a public safety facility that is a fire suppression vehicle; (ii) on a school district or charter school for a park, recreation facility, open space, or trail; (iii) on a school district or charter school unless: (A) the development resulting from the school district's or charter school's development activity directly results in a need for additional system improvements for which the impact fee is imposed; and (B) the impact fee is calculated to cover only the school district's or charter school's proportionate share of the cost of those additional system improvements; or
Page 4
Utah Code
(iv) to the extent that the impact fee includes a component for a law enforcement facility, on development activity for: (A) the Utah National Guard; (B) the Utah Highway Patrol; or (C) a state institution of higher education that has its own police force. (b) (i) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may not impose an impact fee on development activity that consists of the construction of a school, whether by a school district or a charter school, if: (A) the school is intended to replace another school, whether on the same or a different parcel; (B) the new school creates no greater demand or need for public facilities than the school or school facilities, including any portable or modular classrooms that are on the site of the replaced school at the time that the new school is proposed; and (C) the new school and the school being replaced are both within the boundary of the local political subdivision or the jurisdiction of the private entity. (ii) If the imposition of an impact fee on a new school is not prohibited under Subsection (2)(b) (i) because the new school creates a greater demand or need for public facilities than the school being replaced, the impact fee shall be based only on the demand or need that the new school creates for public facilities that exceeds the demand or need that the school being replaced creates for those public facilities. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a political subdivision or private entity may impose an impact fee for a road facility on the state only if and to the extent that: (i) the state's development causes an impact on the road facility; and (ii) the portion of the road facility related to an impact fee is not funded by the state or by the federal government. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a local political subdivision may impose and collect impact fees on behalf of a school district if authorized by Section 53A-20-100.5. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-203 Private entity assessment of impact fees -- Charges for water rights, physical infrastructure -- Notice -- Audit. (1) A private entity: (a) shall comply with the requirements of this chapter before imposing an impact fee; and (b) except as otherwise specified in this chapter, is subject to the same requirements of this chapter as a local political subdivision. (2) A private entity may only impose a charge for water rights or physical infrastructure necessary to provide water or sewer facilities by imposing an impact fee. (3) Where notice and hearing requirements are specified, a private entity shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements for local districts. (4) A private entity that assesses an impact fee under this chapter is subject to the audit requirements of Title 51, Chapter 2a, Accounting Reports from Political Subdivisions, Interlocal Organizations, and Other Local Entities Act. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-204 Other names for impact fees. Page 5
Utah Code
(1) A fee that meets the definition of impact fee under Section 11-36a-102 is an impact fee subject to this chapter, regardless of what term the local political subdivision or private entity uses to refer to the fee. (2) A local political subdivision or private entity may not avoid application of this chapter to a fee that meets the definition of an impact fee under Section 11-36a-102 by referring to the fee by another name. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-205 Environmental mitigation impact fees. Notwithstanding the requirements and prohibitions of this chapter, a local political subdivision may impose and assess an impact fee for environmental mitigation when: (1) the local political subdivision has formally agreed to fund a Habitat Conservation Plan to resolve conflicts with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531, et seq. or other state or federal environmental law or regulation; (2) the impact fee bears a reasonable relationship to the environmental mitigation required by the Habitat Conservation Plan; and (3) the legislative body of the local political subdivision adopts an ordinance or resolution: (a) declaring that an impact fee is required to finance the Habitat Conservation Plan; (b) establishing periodic sunset dates for the impact fee; and (c) requiring the legislative body to: (i) review the impact fee on those sunset dates; (ii) determine whether or not the impact fee is still required to finance the Habitat Conservation Plan; and (iii) affirmatively reauthorize the impact fee if the legislative body finds that the impact fee must remain in effect. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 3 Establishing an Impact Fee 11-36a-301 Impact fee facilities plan. (1) Before imposing an impact fee, each local political subdivision or private entity shall, except as provided in Subsection (3), prepare an impact fee facilities plan to determine the public facilities required to serve development resulting from new development activity. (2) A municipality or county need not prepare a separate impact fee facilities plan if the general plan required by Section 10-9a-401 or 17-27a-401, respectively, contains the elements required by Section 11-36a-302. (3) A local political subdivision or a private entity with a population, or serving a population, of less than 5,000 as of the last federal census that charges impact fees of less than $250,000 annually need not comply with the impact fee facilities plan requirements of this part, but shall ensure that: (a) the impact fees that the local political subdivision or private entity imposes are based upon a reasonable plan that otherwise complies with the common law and this chapter; and (b) each applicable notice required by this chapter is given.
Page 6
Utah Code
Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-302 Impact fee facilities plan requirements -- Limitations -- School district or charter school. (1) (a) An impact fee facilities plan shall: (i) identify the existing level of service; (ii) subject to Subsection (1)(c), establish a proposed level of service; (iii) identify any excess capacity to accommodate future growth at the proposed level of service; (iv) identify demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity at the proposed level of service; and (v) identify the means by which the political subdivision or private entity will meet those growth demands. (b) A proposed level of service may diminish or equal the existing level of service. (c) A proposed level of service may: (i) exceed the existing level of service if, independent of the use of impact fees, the political subdivision or private entity provides, implements, and maintains the means to increase the existing level of service for existing demand within six years of the date on which new growth is charged for the proposed level of service; or (ii) establish a new public facility if, independent of the use of impact fees, the political subdivision or private entity provides, implements, and maintains the means to increase the existing level of service for existing demand within six years of the date on which new growth is charged for the proposed level of service. (2) In preparing an impact fee facilities plan, each local political subdivision shall generally consider all revenue sources to finance the impacts on system improvements, including: (a) grants; (b) bonds; (c) interfund loans; (d) impact fees; and (e) anticipated or accepted dedications of system improvements. (3) A local political subdivision or private entity may only impose impact fees on development activities when the local political subdivision's or private entity's plan for financing system improvements establishes that impact fees are necessary to maintain a proposed level of service that complies with Subsection (1)(b) or (c). (4) (a) Subject to Subsection (4)(c), the impact fee facilities plan shall include a public facility for which an impact fee may be charged or required for a school district or charter school if the local political subdivision is aware of the planned location of the school district facility or charter school: (i) through the planning process; or (ii) after receiving a written request from a school district or charter school that the public facility be included in the impact fee facilities plan. (b) If necessary, a local political subdivision or private entity shall amend the impact fee facilities plan to reflect a public facility described in Subsection (4)(a). (c)
Page 7
Utah Code
(i) In accordance with Subsections 10-9a-305(3) and 17-27a-305(3), a local political subdivision may not require a school district or charter school to participate in the cost of any roadway or sidewalk. (ii) Notwithstanding Subsection (4)(c)(i), if a school district or charter school agrees to build a roadway or sidewalk, the roadway or sidewalk shall be included in the impact fee facilities plan if the local jurisdiction has an impact fee facilities plan for roads and sidewalks. Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-303 Impact fee analysis. (1) Subject to the notice requirements of Section 11-36a-504, each local political subdivision or private entity intending to impose an impact fee shall prepare a written analysis of each impact fee. (2) Each local political subdivision or private entity that prepares an impact fee analysis under Subsection (1) shall also prepare a summary of the impact fee analysis designed to be understood by a lay person. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-304 Impact fee analysis requirements. (1) An impact fee analysis shall: (a) identify the anticipated impact on or consumption of any existing capacity of a public facility by the anticipated development activity; (b) identify the anticipated impact on system improvements required by the anticipated development activity to maintain the established level of service for each public facility; (c) subject to Subsection (2), demonstrate how the anticipated impacts described in Subsections (1)(a) and (b) are reasonably related to the anticipated development activity; (d) estimate the proportionate share of: (i) the costs for existing capacity that will be recouped; and (ii) the costs of impacts on system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development activity; and (e) based on the requirements of this chapter, identify how the impact fee was calculated. (2) In analyzing whether or not the proportionate share of the costs of public facilities are reasonably related to the new development activity, the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, shall identify, if applicable: (a) the cost of each existing public facility that has excess capacity to serve the anticipated development resulting from the new development activity; (b) the cost of system improvements for each public facility; (c) other than impact fees, the manner of financing for each public facility, such as user charges, special assessments, bonded indebtedness, general taxes, or federal grants; (d) the relative extent to which development activity will contribute to financing the excess capacity of and system improvements for each existing public facility, by such means as user charges, special assessments, or payment from the proceeds of general taxes; (e) the relative extent to which development activity will contribute to the cost of existing public facilities and system improvements in the future; (f) the extent to which the development activity is entitled to a credit against impact fees because the development activity will dedicate system improvements or public facilities that will offset the demand for system improvements, inside or outside the proposed development; Page 8
Utah Code
(g) extraordinary costs, if any, in servicing the newly developed properties; and (h) the time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-305 Calculating impact fees. (1) In calculating an impact fee, a local political subdivision or private entity may include: (a) the construction contract price; (b) the cost of acquiring land, improvements, materials, and fixtures; (c) the cost for planning, surveying, and engineering fees for services provided for and directly related to the construction of the system improvements; and (d) for a political subdivision, debt service charges, if the political subdivision might use impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued to finance the costs of the system improvements. (2) In calculating an impact fee, each local political subdivision or private entity shall base amounts calculated under Subsection (1) on realistic estimates, and the assumptions underlying those estimates shall be disclosed in the impact fee analysis. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-306 Certification of impact fee analysis. (1) An impact fee facilities plan shall include a written certification from the person or entity that prepares the impact fee facilities plan that states the following:"I certify that the attached impact fee facilities plan: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; or c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; and 3. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act." (2) An impact fee analysis shall include a written certification from the person or entity that prepares the impact fee analysis which states as follows:"I certify that the attached impact fee analysis: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed under the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within six years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; Page 9
Utah Code
b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; or c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to a methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursement; 3. offsets costs with grants or other alternate sources of payment; and 4. complies in each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act." Amended by Chapter 278, 2013 General Session
Part 4 Enactment of Impact Fees 11-36a-401 Impact fee enactment. (1) (a) A local political subdivision or private entity wishing to impose impact fees shall pass an impact fee enactment in accordance with Section 11-36a-402. (b) An impact fee imposed by an impact fee enactment may not exceed the highest fee justified by the impact fee analysis. (2) An impact fee enactment may not take effect until 90 days after the day on which the impact fee enactment is approved. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-402 Required provisions of impact fee enactment. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure, in addition to the requirements described in Subsections (2) and (3), that an impact fee enactment contains: (a) a provision establishing one or more service areas within which the local political subdivision or private entity calculates and imposes impact fees for various land use categories; (b) (i) a schedule of impact fees for each type of development activity that specifies the amount of the impact fee to be imposed for each type of system improvement; or (ii) the formula that the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, will use to calculate each impact fee; (c) a provision authorizing the local political subdivision or private entity, as the case may be, to adjust the standard impact fee at the time the fee is charged to: (i) respond to: (A) unusual circumstances in specific cases; or (B) a request for a prompt and individualized impact fee review for the development activity of the state, a school district, or a charter school and an offset or credit for a public facility for which an impact fee has been or will be collected; and (ii) ensure that the impact fees are imposed fairly; and (d) a provision governing calculation of the amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development that permits adjustment of the amount of the impact fee based upon studies and data submitted by the developer.
Page 10
Utah Code
(2) A local political subdivision or private entity shall ensure that an impact fee enactment allows a developer, including a school district or a charter school, to receive a credit against or proportionate reimbursement of an impact fee if the developer: (a) dedicates land for a system improvement; (b) builds and dedicates some or all of a system improvement; or (c) dedicates a public facility that the local political subdivision or private entity and the developer agree will reduce the need for a system improvement. (3) A local political subdivision or private entity shall include a provision in an impact fee enactment that requires a credit against impact fees for any dedication of land for, improvement to, or new construction of, any system improvements provided by the developer if the facilities: (a) are system improvements; or (b) (i) are dedicated to the public; and (ii) offset the need for an identified system improvement. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-403 Other provisions of impact fee enactment. (1) A local political subdivision or private entity may include a provision in an impact fee enactment that: (a) provides an impact fee exemption for: (i) development activity attributable to: (A) low income housing; (B) the state; (C) subject to Subsection (2), a school district; or (D) subject to Subsection (2), a charter school; or (ii) other development activity with a broad public purpose; and (b) except for an exemption under Subsection (1)(a)(i)(A), establishes one or more sources of funds other than impact fees to pay for that development activity. (2) An impact fee enactment that provides an impact fee exemption for development activity attributable to a school district or charter school shall allow either a school district or a charter school to qualify for the exemption on the same basis. (3) An impact fee enactment that repeals or suspends the collection of impact fees is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 11-36a-504. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 5 Notice 11-36a-501 Notice of intent to prepare an impact fee facilities plan. (1) Before preparing or amending an impact fee facilities plan, a local political subdivision or private entity shall provide written notice of its intent to prepare or amend an impact fee facilities plan. (2) A notice required under Subsection (1) shall: (a) indicate that the local political subdivision or private entity intends to prepare or amend an impact fee facilities plan;
Page 11
Utah Code
(b) describe or provide a map of the geographic area where the proposed impact fee facilities will be located; and (c) subject to Subsection (3), be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701. (3) For a private entity required to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website under Subsection (2)(c): (a) the private entity shall give notice to the general purpose local government in which the private entity's private business office is located; and (b) the general purpose local government described in Subsection (3)(a) shall post the notice on the Utah Public Notice Website. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-502 Notice to adopt or amend an impact fee facilities plan. (1) If a local political subdivision chooses to prepare an independent impact fee facilities plan rather than include an impact fee facilities element in the general plan in accordance with Section 11-36a-301, the local political subdivision shall, before adopting or amending the impact fee facilities plan: (a) give public notice, in accordance with Subsection (2), of the plan or amendment at least 10 days before the day on which the public hearing described in Subsection (1)(d) is scheduled; (b) make a copy of the plan or amendment, together with a summary designed to be understood by a lay person, available to the public; (c) place a copy of the plan or amendment and summary in each public library within the local political subdivision; and (d) hold a public hearing to hear public comment on the plan or amendment. (2) With respect to the public notice required under Subsection (1)(a): (a) each municipality shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and, except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Sections 10-9a-205 and 10-9a-801 and Subsection 10-9a-502(2); (b) each county shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and, except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Sections 17-27a-205 and 17-27a-801 and Subsection 17-27a-502(2); and (c) each local district, special service district, and private entity shall comply with the notice and hearing requirements of, and receive the protections of, Section 17B-1-111. (3) Nothing contained in this section or Section 11-36a-503 may be construed to require involvement by a planning commission in the impact fee facilities planning process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-503 Notice of preparation of an impact fee analysis. (1) Before preparing or contracting to prepare an impact fee analysis, each local political subdivision or, subject to Subsection (2), private entity shall post a public notice on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701. (2) For a private entity required to post notice on the Utah Public Notice Website under Subsection (1): (a) the private entity shall give notice to the general purpose local government in which the private entity's primary business is located; and
Page 12
Utah Code
(b) the general purpose local government described in Subsection (2)(a) shall post the notice on the Utah Public Notice Website. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-504 Notice of intent to adopt impact fee enactment -- Hearing -- Protections. (1) Before adopting an impact fee enactment: (a) a municipality legislative body shall: (i) comply with the notice requirements of Section 10-9a-205 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; (ii) hold a hearing in accordance with Section 10-9a-502 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; and (iii) except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Section 10-9a-801 as if the impact fee were a land use ordinance; (b) a county legislative body shall: (i) comply with the notice requirements of Section 17-27a-205 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; (ii) hold a hearing in accordance with Section 17-27a-502 as if the impact fee enactment were a land use ordinance; and (iii) except as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(b)(ii), receive the protections of Section 17-27a-801 as if the impact fee were a land use ordinance; (c) a local district or special service district shall: (i) comply with the notice and hearing requirements of Section 17B-1-111; and (ii) receive the protections of Section 17B-1-111; (d) a local political subdivision shall at least 10 days before the day on which a public hearing is scheduled in accordance with this section: (i) make a copy of the impact fee enactment available to the public; and (ii) post notice of the local political subdivision's intent to enact or modify the impact fee, specifying the type of impact fee being enacted or modified, on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Section 63F-1-701; and (e) a local political subdivision shall submit a copy of the impact fee analysis and a copy of the summary of the impact fee analysis prepared in accordance with Section 11-36a-303 on its website or to each public library within the local political subdivision. (2) Subsection (1)(a) or (b) may not be construed to require involvement by a planning commission in the impact fee enactment process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 6 Impact Fee Proceeds 11-36a-601 Accounting of impact fees. A local political subdivision that collects an impact fee shall: (1) establish a separate interest bearing ledger account for each type of public facility for which an impact fee is collected;
Page 13
Utah Code
(2) deposit a receipt for an impact fee in the appropriate ledger account established under Subsection (1); (3) retain the interest earned on each fund or ledger account in the fund or ledger account; (4) at the end of each fiscal year, prepare a report on each fund or ledger account showing: (a) the source and amount of all money collected, earned, and received by the fund or ledger account; and (b) each expenditure from the fund or ledger account; and (5) produce a report that: (a) identifies impact fee funds by the year in which they were received, the project from which the funds were collected, the impact fee projects for which the funds were budgeted, and the projected schedule for expenditure; (b) is in a format developed by the state auditor; (c) is certified by the local political subdivision's chief financial officer; and (d) is transmitted annually to the state auditor. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-602 Expenditure of impact fees. (1) A local political subdivision may expend impact fees only for a system improvement: (a) identified in the impact fee facilities plan; and (b) for the specific public facility type for which the fee was collected. (2) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (2)(b), a local political subdivision shall expend or encumber the impact fees for a permissible use within six years of their receipt. (b) A local political subdivision may hold the fees for longer than six years if it identifies, in writing: (i) an extraordinary and compelling reason why the fees should be held longer than six years; and (ii) an absolute date by which the fees will be expended. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-603 Refunds. A local political subdivision shall refund any impact fee paid by a developer, plus interest earned, when: (1) the developer does not proceed with the development activity and has filed a written request for a refund; (2) the fee has not been spent or encumbered; and (3) no impact has resulted. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Part 7 Challenges 11-36a-701 Impact fee challenge.
Page 14
Utah Code
(1) A person or an entity residing in or owning property within a service area, or an organization, association, or a corporation representing the interests of persons or entities owning property within a service area, has standing to file a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of an impact fee. (2) (a) A person or an entity required to pay an impact fee who believes the impact fee does not meet the requirements of law may file a written request for information with the local political subdivision who established the impact fee. (b) Within two weeks after the receipt of the request for information under Subsection (2)(a), the local political subdivision shall provide the person or entity with the impact fee analysis, the impact fee facilities plan, and any other relevant information relating to the impact fee. (3) (a) Subject to the time limitations described in Section 11-36a-702 and procedures set forth in Section 11-36a-703, a person or an entity that has paid an impact fee that was imposed by a local political subdivision may challenge: (i) if the impact fee enactment was adopted on or after July 1, 2000: (A) subject to Subsection (3)(b)(i) and except as provided in Subsection (3)(b)(ii), whether the local political subdivision complied with the notice requirements of this chapter with respect to the imposition of the impact fee; and (B) whether the local political subdivision complied with other procedural requirements of this chapter for imposing the impact fee; and (ii) except as limited by Subsection (3)(c), the impact fee. (b) (i) The sole remedy for a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A) is the equitable remedy of requiring the local political subdivision to correct the defective notice and repeat the process. (ii) The protections given to a municipality under Section 10-9a-801 and to a county under Section 17-27a-801 do not apply in a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(i)(A). (c) The sole remedy for a challenge under Subsection (3)(a)(ii) is a refund of the difference between what the person or entity paid as an impact fee and the amount the impact fee should have been if it had been correctly calculated. (4) (a) Subject to Subsection (4)(d), if an impact fee that is the subject of an advisory opinion under Section 13-43-205 is listed as a cause of action in litigation, and that cause of action is litigated on the same facts and circumstances and is resolved consistent with the advisory opinion: (i) the substantially prevailing party on that cause of action: (A) may collect reasonable attorney fees and court costs pertaining to the development of that cause of action from the date of the delivery of the advisory opinion to the date of the court's resolution; and (B) shall be refunded an impact fee held to be in violation of this chapter, based on the difference between the impact fee paid and what the impact fee should have been if the government entity had correctly calculated the impact fee; and (ii) in accordance with Section 13-43-206, a government entity shall refund an impact fee held to be in violation of this chapter to the person who was in record title of the property on the day on which the impact fee for the property was paid if:
Page 15
Utah Code
(A) the impact fee was paid on or after the day on which the advisory opinion on the impact fee was issued but before the day on which the final court ruling on the impact fee is issued; and (B) the person described in Subsection (3)(a)(ii) requests the impact fee refund from the government entity within 30 days after the day on which the court issued the final ruling on the impact fee. (b) A government entity subject to Subsection (3)(a)(ii) shall refund the impact fee based on the difference between the impact fee paid and what the impact fee should have been if the government entity had correctly calculated the impact fee. (c) Subsection (4) may not be construed to create a new cause of action under land use law. (d) Subsection (3)(a) does not apply unless the resolution described in Subsection (3)(a) is final. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-702 Time limitations. (1) A person or an entity that initiates a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a) may not initiate that challenge unless it is initiated within: (a) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(i)(A), 30 days after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee; (b) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(i)(B), 180 days after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee; or (c) for a challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a)(ii), one year after the day on which the person or entity pays the impact fee. (2) The deadline to file an action in district court is tolled from the date that a challenge is filed using an administrative appeals procedure described in Section 11-36a-703 until 30 days after the day on which a final decision is rendered in the administrative appeals procedure. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-703 Procedures for challenging an impact fee. (1) (a) A local political subdivision may establish, by ordinance or resolution, or a private entity may establish by prior written policy, an administrative appeals procedure to consider and decide a challenge to an impact fee. (b) If the local political subdivision or private entity establishes an administrative appeals procedure, the local political subdivision shall ensure that the procedure includes a requirement that the local political subdivision make its decision no later than 30 days after the day on which the challenge to the impact fee is filed. (2) A challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(3)(a) is initiated by filing: (a) if the local political subdivision or private entity has established an administrative appeals procedure under Subsection (1), the necessary document, under the administrative appeals procedure, for initiating the administrative appeal; (b) a request for arbitration as provided in Section 11-36a-705; or (c) an action in district court. (3) The sole remedy for a successful challenge under Subsection 11-36a-701(1), which determines that an impact fee process was invalid, or an impact fee is in excess of the fee allowed under this act, is a declaration that, until the local political subdivision or private entity enacts a new
Page 16
Utah Code
impact fee study, from the date of the decision forward, the entity may charge an impact fee only as the court has determined would have been appropriate if it had been properly enacted. (4) Subsections (2), (3), 11-36a-701(3), and 11-36a-702(1) may not be construed as requiring a person or an entity to exhaust administrative remedies with the local political subdivision before filing an action in district court under Subsections (2), (3), 11-36a-701(3), and 11-36a-702(1). (5) The judge may award reasonable attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party in an action brought under this section. (6) This chapter may not be construed as restricting or limiting any rights to challenge impact fees that were paid before the effective date of this chapter. Amended by Chapter 200, 2013 General Session 11-36a-704 Mediation. (1) In addition to the methods of challenging an impact fee under Section 11-36a-701, a specified public agency may require a local political subdivision or private entity to participate in mediation of any applicable impact fee. (2) To require mediation, the specified public agency shall submit a written request for mediation to the local political subdivision or private entity. (3) The specified public agency may submit a request for mediation under this section at any time, but no later than 30 days after the day on which an impact fee is paid. (4) Upon the submission of a request for mediation under this section, the local political subdivision or private entity shall: (a) cooperate with the specified public agency to select a mediator; and (b) participate in the mediation process. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session 11-36a-705 Arbitration. (1) A person or entity intending to challenge an impact fee under Section 11-36a-703 shall file a written request for arbitration with the local political subdivision within the time limitation described in Section 11-36a-702 for the applicable type of challenge. (2) If a person or an entity files a written request for arbitration under Subsection (1), an arbitrator or arbitration panel shall be selected as follows: (a) the local political subdivision and the person or entity filing the request may agree on a single arbitrator within 10 days after the day on which the request for arbitration is filed; or (b) if a single arbitrator is not agreed to in accordance with Subsection (2)(a), an arbitration panel shall be created with the following members: (i) each party shall select an arbitrator within 20 days after the date the request is filed; and (ii) the arbitrators selected under Subsection (2)(b)(i) shall select a third arbitrator. (3) The arbitration panel shall hold a hearing on the challenge no later than 30 days after the day on which: (a) the single arbitrator is agreed on under Subsection (2)(a); or (b) the two arbitrators are selected under Subsection (2)(b)(i). (4) The arbitrator or arbitration panel shall issue a decision in writing no later than 10 days after the day on which the hearing described in Subsection (3) is completed. (5) Except as provided in this section, each arbitration shall be governed by Title 78B, Chapter 11, Utah Uniform Arbitration Act. (6) The parties may agree to: Page 17
Utah Code
(a) binding arbitration; (b) formal, nonbinding arbitration; or (c) informal, nonbinding arbitration. (7) If the parties agree in writing to binding arbitration: (a) the arbitration shall be binding; (b) the decision of the arbitration panel shall be final; (c) neither party may appeal the decision of the arbitration panel; and (d) notwithstanding Subsection (10), the person or entity challenging the impact fee may not also challenge the impact fee under Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (8) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (8)(b), if the parties agree to formal, nonbinding arbitration, the arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act. (b) For purposes of applying Title 63G, Chapter 4, Administrative Procedures Act, to a formal, nonbinding arbitration under this section, notwithstanding Section 63G-4-502, "agency" means a local political subdivision. (9) (a) An appeal from a decision in an informal, nonbinding arbitration may be filed with the district court in which the local political subdivision is located. (b) An appeal under Subsection (9)(a) shall be filed within 30 days after the day on which the arbitration panel issues a decision under Subsection (4). (c) The district court shall consider de novo each appeal filed under this Subsection (9). (d) Notwithstanding Subsection (10), a person or entity that files an appeal under this Subsection (9) may not also challenge the impact fee under Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (10) (a) Except as provided in Subsections (7)(d) and (9)(d), this section may not be construed to prohibit a person or entity from challenging an impact fee as provided in Subsection 11-36a-701(1) or Subsection 11-36a-703(2)(a) or (2)(c). (b) The filing of a written request for arbitration within the required time in accordance with Subsection (1) tolls all time limitations under Section 11-36a-702 until the day on which the arbitration panel issues a decision. (11) The person or entity filing a request for arbitration and the local political subdivision shall equally share all costs of an arbitration proceeding under this section. Enacted by Chapter 47, 2011 General Session
Page 18
APPENDIX B – SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
The 2015 Lindon City Sanitary Sewer Master Plan and Capital Facilities Plan is incorporated herein by reference.
B-1
APPENDIX C – DETAILS OF PIPES WITH RESERVE CAPACITY Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail
Pipe Segment ID
Dia (in)
Se gment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft) A
FM3 FM1 50 CDT-15 FM2 KCA-2KC-4 KCAA-6KCAA-5 KCAA-5KCAA-4 KCAA-4KCAA-3 KCAA-3KCAA-2 KCAA-2KCA-4 KCA-4KCA-3 KCA-3KCA-2 KC-5KC-4 KC-6KC-5 KC-7KC-6 KC-8KC-7 KC-9KC-8 T-2T-1 TA-2T-2 TA-3TA-2 TA-4TA-3 TB-2TA-4 TA-5TA-4 T-3T-2 T-4T-3 T-5T-4 T-6T-5 T-7T-6 T-8T-7 T-9T-8 T-10T-9 TA-6TA-5 TB-3TA-4 TA-7TA-8 TA-8TA-9 TA-9D-2 P-2R-1 P-3P-2 P-4P-3 P-5P-4 P-7P-6 P-6P-5 P-8P-7 K-6K-5A K-5AK-5 K-5K-4
4 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
1,874 1,246 19 2,770 1,134 322 319 317 314 314 121 53 259 279 276 537 536 492 344 313 310 186 445 171 285 277 297 352 115 799 488 387 402 447 363 329 210 433 344 411 380 398 429 297 80 314 401
1992 1975 1998 1989 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1989 1992 1992 1992 1990 1990 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
62% 51% 16% 15% 21% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 4% 5% 6% 4% 4% 7% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 3% 4% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 0% 0% 31% 26% 28% 3% 5% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 6% 10% 11%
Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to 2025 q/Qfull Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Growth 10-Year Growth B C D E = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% 34% 62% 75% 29% 26% 98% 85% 11% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% 5% 5% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 4% 5% 13% 0% 5% 6% 15% 0% 6% 9% 31% 0% 4% 5% 16% 0% 4% 5% 15% 0% 6% 8% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 32% 38% 92% 76% 51% 61% 99% 82% 63% 75% 99% 82% 54% 65% 99% 82% 1% 1% 17% 0% 51% 61% 100% 83% 3% 3% 12% 6% 4% 4% 11% 5% 5% 5% 12% 8% 2% 2% 24% 24% 1% 1% 29% 14% 2% 2% 29% 24% 1% 2% 27% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2% 3% 0% 0% 3% 4% 30% 0% 5% 8% 32% 0% 3% 5% 41% 0% 2% 4% 46% 0% 1% 2% 59% 0% 1% 2% 53% 0% 0% 1% 77% 0% 6% 7% 12% 5% 11% 12% 11% 4% 11% 12% 11% 4%
C-1
Estimated Estimated Present Historical Day Project Project 1 2 Cost ($) Cost ($) F
$
84,346
$ 1,134 $ 138,477 $ 56,701 $ 22,117 $ 21,931 $ 21,770 $ 21,586 $ 21,586 $ 8,342 $ 3,654 $ 17,772 $ 19,181 $ 18,975 $ 36,923 $ 36,852 $ 33,828 $ 23,617 $ 21,549 $ 21,302 $ 12,788 $ 30,594 $ 11,757 $ 19,596 $ 19,015 $ 20,420 $ 24,200 $ 7,880 $ 54,933 $ 33,553 $ 26,607 $ 27,646 $ 30,731 $ 24,961 $ 22,639 $ 14,445
$
20,399
G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
41,941 7,797 670 63,746 28,194 12,853 12,745 12,651 12,545 12,545 4,848 2,124 10,328 8,830 8,735 16,997 16,964 15,573 11,744 10,715 10,592 6,359 15,213 5,846 9,744 9,455 10,154 12,033 3,918 27,315 16,684 12,248 13,747 15,281 12,412 10,686 6,818 3,067 2,437 2,908 2,693 2,815 3,040 4,501 567 2,224 2,840
Impact Estimate d Fee Impact Fe e Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 26 $ 97 $ 119
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
K-4K-3 K-3K-2 K-2F-6 Q-6Q-5A Q-5AQ-5 Q-5Q-4 Q-4Q-3 Q-3Q-2 Q-2F-1 L-8L-7A L-9L-8 L-7AL-7 L-7L-6 L-6L-5A L-5AL-5 L-5L-4A L-4AL-4 L-4L-3 L-3L-2 L-2K-8 K-8K-7 K-7K-6 F-20F-19 DD-4DD-3 DC-3DC-2 DC-2D-6A DF-5DF-4 DF-4DF-3 DF-3DF-2 DFA-2DF-2 DFA-3DFA-2 DD-3DD-2 DD-2D-7A D-13D-12 D-14D-13 D-15D-14 D-15AD-15 D-16D-15A D-17D-16 D-18D-17 D-19D-18 D-20D-19 D-21D-20 D-22D-21 D-23D-22 D-23AD-23 D-24D-23A F-21F-20 F-22F-21 E-10E-9
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
397 405 267 70 328 368 402 399 396 67 432 183 395 267 147 254 148 398 386 414 391 406 401 246 431 361 164 399 404 340 369 449 320 395 404 393 230 177 393 458 340 354 399 400 401 324 58 372 167 86
1975 1975 1975 2003 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 2011 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1999 1999 1999 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1999 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
18% 16% 10% 2% 2% 22% 26% 20% 15% 6% 3% 5% 5% 7% 12% 8% 10% 13% 14% 17% 10% 14% 31% 0% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 14% 13% 9% 10% 9% 8% 7% 8% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 28% 25% 19%
18% 16% 10% 2% 2% 21% 25% 20% 14% 5% 3% 5% 5% 7% 12% 8% 10% 13% 15% 17% 11% 14% 35% 0% 8% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 17% 16% 14% 10% 11% 10% 7% 7% 8% 6% 3% 3% 3% 2% 32% 28% 21%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 20% 12% 5% 18% 11% 4% 11% 11% 5% 2% 0% 0% $ 4,813 2% 0% 0% $ 22,555 21% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 14% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% $ 29,701 5% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 12% 2% 2% 8% 1% 1% 10% 2% 2% 13% 2% 2% 15% 2% 2% 17% 2% 2% 11% 10% 4% 15% 10% 4% 45% 31% 10% 0% 0% 0% $ 16,909 10% 25% 5% $ 29,617 16% 24% 4% $ 24,850 3% 96% 0% $ 11,275 3% 89% 0% $ 27,431 3% 85% 0% $ 27,775 0% 25% 0% $ 23,407 0% 0% 0% $ 25,374 0% 0% 0% $ 30,870 0% 0% 0% $ 22,010 19% 23% 12% $ 27,171 17% 17% 8% $ 27,787 15% 16% 8% $ 27,027 11% 18% 9% $ 15,827 12% 17% 9% $ 12,178 11% 17% 8% $ 27,038 8% 11% 0% $ 31,512 8% 10% 0% $ 23,392 9% 10% 0% $ 24,359 7% 13% 0% $ 27,447 3% 6% 0% 3% 10% 0% 3% 7% 0% 3% 7% 0% 41% 31% 10% 36% 32% 9% 24% 23% 10%
C-2
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
2,812 2,869 1,891 3,214 4,977 2,609 2,844 2,828 2,807 475 26,871 1,296 2,797 1,891 1,041 1,799 1,048 2,819 2,734 2,932 2,769 2,875 2,842 10,220 17,900 15,019 5,607 13,640 13,811 11,639 12,617 18,657 4,856 5,995 6,131 5,963 3,492 2,687 5,966 6,953 5,161 5,375 6,056 2,832 2,842 2,296 411 2,632 1,182 611
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 128 $ 113 $ 85 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 17 $ 24 $ 21 $ 44 $ 57 $ 51 $ 121 $ 113 $ 279 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 255 $ 109 $ 63
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
F-23F-22 F-24F-23 G-2F-24 G-3G-2 B-2G-2 B-3B-2 B-4B-3 B-5B-4 B-6B-5 B-7B-6 G-4G-3 G-5G-4 G-6G-5 G-7G-6 C-2G-7 C-3C-2 C-4C-3 C-5C-4 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AE-3 AE-3AE-2A AE-2AAE-2 AE-2A-12 B-8B-7 B-9B-8 A-17A-16 A-18A-17 A-19A-18 AF-2A-16 AF-3AF-2 AF-4AF-3 AF-5AF-4 A-20A-19 C-9C-8 C-10C-9 C-11C-10 C-13C-12 C-14C-13 C-15C-14 C-16C-15 C-17C-16 C-20C-19 CG-1C-20 CGA-1CG-1 CGA-2CGA-1 CGA-3CGA-2 CGA-4CGA-3 CGA-5CGA-4 CGA-6CGA-5 CGA-7CGA-6
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
400 439 362 400 492 209 379 402 307 491 396 267 166 481 118 412 449 401 159 400 372 25 396 212 398 243 398 395 398 271 396 240 305 400 219 374 397 306 368 447 305 333 108 132 213 182 210 179 257 124
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1992 1992 1992 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1993 1993
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
29% 26% 28% 14% 5% 5% 4% 4% 8% 5% 14% 14% 21% 21% 40% 28% 32% 32% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 4% 37% 34% 13% 15% 17% 12% 28% 28% 11% 11% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%
33% 29% 32% 16% 6% 6% 5% 4% 8% 5% 15% 14% 22% 22% 41% 29% 33% 33% 2% 2% 4% 2% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 2% 2% 2% 1% 5% 38% 34% 13% 15% 17% 12% 27% 28% 10% 11% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 42% 30% 10% 36% 30% 10% 40% 30% 10% 21% 30% 10% 7% 29% 9% 7% 29% 9% 6% 29% 8% 5% 29% 8% 9% 19% 4% 6% 19% 5% 19% 23% 2% 18% 23% 2% 27% 23% 2% 28% 23% 2% 51% 23% 2% 37% 23% 2% 42% 24% 2% 42% 24% 2% 2% 10% 0% 3% 12% 4% 4% 16% 5% 2% 15% 5% 4% 16% 5% 5% 20% 6% 6% 20% 5% 5% 33% 24% 6% 34% 26% 7% 34% 25% 2% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% $ 18,631 2% 0% 0% $ 27,225 1% 0% 0% $ 16,507 6% 34% 26% 50% 25% 2% 44% 23% 0% 17% 23% 1% 19% 22% 0% 22% 22% 0% 15% 24% 1% 36% 23% 0% 37% 23% 0% 14% 25% 0% $ 22,895 17% 35% 0% $ 7,411 2% 10% 0% $ 9,075 3% 7% 0% $ 14,644 2% 6% 0% $ 12,509 2% 11% 0% $ 14,429 1% 17% 0% $ 12,297 1% 0% 0% $ 17,669 1% 20% 0% $ 8,504
C-3
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
2,833 3,109 2,564 2,834 3,486 1,478 2,683 2,847 2,171 3,476 2,808 1,888 1,176 3,405 836 2,919 3,180 2,840 1,126 2,833 2,635 177 2,804 1,499 2,819 1,721 2,819 2,797 2,819 9,264 13,538 8,208 2,160 2,833 1,551 2,650 2,812 2,168 2,606 3,162 2,160 11,385 3,685 4,513 7,282 6,220 7,175 6,115 9,182 4,419
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 271 $ 299 $ 247 $ 276 $ 299 $ 129 $ 216 $ 219 $ 92 $ 177 $ 61 $ 42 $ 26 $ 74 $ 16 $ 56 $ 68 $ 54 $ $ 109 $ 123 $ 9 $ 130 $ 90 $ 143 $ 414 $ 739 $ 710 $ $ $ $ $ 559 $ 63 $ 4 $ 16 $ $ 10 $ 17 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
CGA-8CGA-7 CGA-8ACGA-8 CGA-9CGA-8A CGA-10CGA-9 CGA-11CGA-10 CGA-12CGA-11 CGA-13CGA-12 CGA-14CGA-13 CGA-16CGA-15 CGA-15CGA-14 C-21C-20 C-22C-21 C-23C-22 C-24C-23 C-25C-24 C-26C-25 C-27C-26 C-8C-7 C-7C-6 C-6C-5 L-10L-9 L-11L-10 L-12L-11 C-12C-11 C-18C-17 C-19C-18 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 CDT-21 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 DG-2D-12 DG-3DG-2 114
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
133 90 199 290 140 166 41 229 246 245 225 396 400 272 129 294 184 402 396 400 216 139 299 403 399 799 293 292 340 344 342 346 336 342 16 344 315 26 399 422 410 364 361 365 188 52 395 110 306
1993 1993 1993 1998 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1978 1975 1975 1975 2011 2011 2011 1975 1992 1992 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2002 2002 1989 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 1975 1975 2006
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 5% 6% 1% 1% 1% 36% 36% 33% 6% 6% 6% 18% 5% 10% 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% 4% 0%
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 5% 6% 1% 1% 1% 37% 37% 34% 6% 6% 6% 18% 5% 9% 11% 6% 5% 5% 9% 4% 3% 3% 6% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 7% 4% 1%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 0% 0% 0% $ 9,144 0% 0% 0% $ 6,188 0% 0% 0% $ 13,681 0% 0% 0% $ 19,938 0% 0% 0% $ 9,625 0% 0% 0% $ 11,405 0% 33% 0% $ 2,819 0% 0% 0% $ 15,746 0% 0% 0% $ 16,913 0% 0% 0% $ 16,820 3% 9% 0% $ 15,473 4% 8% 0% $ 27,227 5% 11% 0% $ 27,504 6% 10% 0% $ 18,701 1% 8% 0% $ 8,871 1% 8% 0% $ 20,184 1% 9% 0% $ 12,649 48% 25% 2% 48% 25% 2% 43% 24% 2% 6% 0% 0% $ 14,853 6% 0% 0% $ 9,556 6% 0% 0% $ 20,557 23% 23% 0% 7% 23% 0% $ 27,440 13% 25% 0% $ 54,936 42% 90% 18% $ 20,152 21% 91% 17% $ 20,041 19% 89% 18% $ 23,405 19% 90% 17% $ 23,652 32% 90% 18% $ 23,527 14% 90% 18% $ 23,808 7% 74% 14% $ 23,093 7% 76% 15% $ 23,527 11% 61% 16% $ 1,090 6% 75% 14% $ 23,654 6% 76% 15% $ 21,631 4% 76% 14% $ 1,805 6% 76% 14% $ 27,398 6% 79% 14% $ 29,027 6% 80% 15% $ 28,212 2% 47% 6% $ 24,993 2% 46% 4% $ 24,829 1% 0% 0% $ 25,073 1% 0% 0% $ 12,928 1% 0% 0% $ 3,579 10% 33% 7% 6% 37% 10% 3% 96% 21%
C-4
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
4,752 3,216 7,110 11,773 5,253 6,224 1,538 8,593 9,230 9,179 4,284 7,539 7,616 5,178 2,456 5,589 3,503 2,848 2,805 2,833 13,437 8,646 18,599 2,854 13,645 27,317 12,505 12,436 14,524 14,677 14,600 14,774 15,060 15,343 502 15,426 14,107 1,177 17,868 18,930 18,398 16,299 16,192 16,351 8,431 2,334 2,797 782 21,985
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 59 $ 59 $ 59 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 200 $ 78 $ 4,711
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
116 118 120 122 124 T-1WW3 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 FM4 58 CDT-29 CDT-25 KC-2KC-1 KC-3KC-2 KC-4KC-3 D-2R-1 D-3D-2 D-3AD-3 D-6D-5 D-5D-4 D-4D-3A F-16F-15 F-17F-16 F-18F-17 F-19F-18 E-2F-18 E-3E-2 E-4E-3 E-5E-4 E-6E-5 E-7E-6 D-6AD-6 D-7D-6A D-7AD-7 D-8D-7A D-9D-8 D-10D-9 D-11D-10 D-12D-11 E-8E-7 E-9E-8 A-2E-10
Dia (in)
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Estimated Estimated % of Segment % of Capacity Year Existing Capacity to Present Length 2025 q/Qfull Buildout q/Qfull Available for Built q/Qfull be Used by Day Project (ft) Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth A B C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 400 2007 0% 1% 3% 86% 11% 399 2007 0% 1% 3% 86% 14% 80 2007 0% 1% 3% 85% 12% 381 2007 1% 3% 13% 94% 15% 399 2007 1% 3% 12% 94% 15% 67 1992 2% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% $ 4,633 401 2007 1% 3% 12% 95% 15% 399 2007 1% 2% 12% 96% 16% 400 2007 0% 2% 12% 97% 16% 314 2007 0% 2% 12% 97% 15% 316 2007 0% 0% 2% 88% 12% 314 2007 0% 1% 3% 88% 12% 315 2007 0% 1% 3% 88% 12% 635 2007 0% 1% 3% 88% 12% 85 1975 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 4,977 1989 63% 29% 53% 0% 0% $ 298,644 67 2000 0% 1% 4% 91% 16% $ 4,596 1,749 1989 63% 73% 96% 35% 11% $ 104,938 358 1997 2% 2% 3% 38% 9% $ 24,613 255 1989 9% 9% 12% 26% 1% $ 20,342 497 1989 13% 13% 17% 27% 1% $ 39,641 532 1989 11% 11% 15% 27% 1% $ 42,428 400 1975 88% 49% 59% 0% 0% 400 1975 107% 79% 93% 0% 0% 111 1975 50% 36% 43% 0% 0% 400 1975 63% 46% 54% 0% 0% 402 1975 62% 45% 53% 0% 0% 288 1975 49% 36% 42% 0% 0% 404 1975 48% 55% 68% 29% 10% 391 1975 40% 46% 57% 29% 10% 404 1975 49% 56% 69% 29% 10% 341 1975 21% 24% 31% 32% 10% 306 1975 28% 31% 37% 25% 11% 327 1975 27% 31% 36% 25% 11% 65 1975 27% 31% 37% 25% 11% 155 1975 26% 30% 35% 25% 11% 399 1975 16% 18% 21% 24% 10% 398 1975 13% 15% 17% 23% 10% 237 1975 54% 37% 45% 0% 0% 165 1975 46% 29% 34% 0% 0% 328 1975 37% 40% 47% 22% 7% 72 1975 14% 15% 18% 25% 10% 401 1975 25% 28% 33% 24% 9% 401 1975 22% 25% 30% 26% 11% 398 1975 22% 25% 29% 26% 11% 205 1975 25% 28% 33% 26% 11% 401 1975 13% 15% 17% 23% 11% 343 1975 12% 13% 15% 23% 11% 156 1975 33% 38% 43% 24% 11%
C-5
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
28,738 28,633 5,743 27,325 28,682 2,304 28,783 28,680 28,733 22,533 22,684 22,531 22,582 45,598 600 137,478 2,852 48,307 14,303 9,364 18,248 19,531 3,283 3,284 911 3,288 3,298 2,364 3,315 3,209 3,316 2,800 2,516 2,688 533 1,273 3,281 3,265 1,947 1,358 2,693 593 3,294 3,294 3,270 1,688 3,292 2,817 1,282
Impact Estimated Impact Fee Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 3,079 $ 4,090 $ 663 $ 4,153 $ 4,164 $ $ 4,446 $ 4,467 $ 4,512 $ 3,408 $ 2,669 $ 2,600 $ 2,606 $ 5,261 $ $ $ $ 5,217 $ $ 77 $ 106 $ 128 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 334 $ 324 $ 336 $ 275 $ 268 $ 288 $ 58 $ 137 $ 342 $ 332 $ $ $ 188 $ 59 $ 312 $ 351 $ 360 $ 183 $ 353 $ 298 $ 142
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Segment ID
A-3A-2 A-4A-3 AA-6AA-5A AA-5AAA-5 AA-5AA-4 A-5A-4 AA-2A-5 AA-2AAA-2 AA-3AAA-3 AA-3AA-2A A-6A-5 A-9A-8 A-8A-7 A-7A-6 A-10A-9 A-11A-10 A-12A-11 A-13A-12 A-14A-13 A-15A-14 A-16A-15 AG-4AG-3 AG-3AG-2 AG-2A-16 AA-4AA-3A KC-1_20 106 108 110 112 R-1WW1 F-14F-13 F-13F-12 F-15F-14 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 52 54
Dia (in)
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12
Estimated Estimated % of Segment % of Capacity Year Existing Capacity to Present 2025 q/Qfull Buildout q/Qfull Available for Length Built q/Qfull be Used by Day Project (ft) Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth A B C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 414 1975 12% 13% 15% 24% 11% 401 1975 12% 13% 15% 24% 11% 280 1975 3% 4% 4% 23% 7% 125 1975 4% 4% 4% 17% 2% 397 1975 6% 6% 7% 15% 1% 397 1975 25% 29% 33% 24% 11% 397 1975 7% 8% 9% 20% 6% 160 1975 9% 9% 11% 20% 5% 30 1975 6% 6% 7% 15% 1% 244 1975 8% 8% 9% 18% 3% 410 1975 5% 6% 6% 24% 13% 291 1975 6% 7% 7% 24% 15% 313 1975 6% 7% 7% 23% 12% 458 1975 5% 6% 7% 24% 13% 420 1975 12% 14% 16% 24% 14% 211 1975 14% 17% 19% 24% 14% 141 1975 20% 24% 26% 24% 14% 397 1975 16% 19% 21% 26% 16% 400 1975 15% 19% 21% 27% 17% 401 1975 15% 18% 20% 27% 17% 151 1975 15% 18% 20% 27% 17% 400 1975 1% 1% 0% 30% 30% 401 1975 1% 1% 1% 50% 21% 396 1975 1% 1% 2% 40% 10% 366 1975 6% 6% 7% 15% 1% 31 1989 15% 15% 20% 24% 1% $ 2,506 399 2007 1% 2% 10% 90% 14% 399 2007 1% 2% 10% 91% 14% 400 2007 1% 2% 10% 91% 14% 400 2007 1% 2% 10% 92% 14% 50 1975 12% Decommissioned Decommissioned 0% 0% $ 3,963 116 1975 53% 61% 75% 29% 10% 139 1975 49% 56% 69% 29% 10% $ 13,204 400 1975 33% 38% 47% 29% 10% 156 1989 9% 15% 32% 73% 21% $ 14,815 93 1998 8% 15% 31% 74% 22% $ 8,823 219 1998 9% 17% 36% 74% 22% $ 20,723 153 1998 10% 18% 37% 74% 22% $ 14,526 144 1998 10% 17% 37% 74% 22% $ 13,646 172 1998 10% 17% 37% 74% 22% $ 16,313 159 2000 10% 19% 39% 74% 22% $ 15,110 400 2000 10% 19% 39% 74% 22% $ 37,915 400 2000 9% 17% 36% 76% 23% $ 37,917 400 2000 9% 17% 36% 75% 23% $ 37,855 464 2000 9% 17% 36% 75% 23% $ 43,924 285 1998 8% 14% 24% 67% 26% $ 26,983 369 1998 6% 14% 25% 75% 29% $ 34,998 24 1998 5% 11% 20% 75% 29% $ 2,277 448 1998 5% 11% 21% 74% 29% $ 42,405 227 1998 5% 11% 21% 76% 30% $ 21,485
C-6
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3,404 3,296 2,302 1,028 3,265 3,263 3,259 1,311 247 2,005 3,370 2,391 2,573 3,765 3,450 1,736 1,160 3,262 3,286 3,294 1,241 3,286 3,294 3,253 3,007 1,153 28,649 28,649 28,730 28,690 874 1,132 2,913 3,902 6,820 5,210 12,237 8,578 8,058 9,633 9,377 23,528 23,529 23,490 27,256 15,934 20,666 1,345 25,041 12,687
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($) H
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ 381 $ 371 $ 157 $ 24 $ 48 $ 356 $ 181 $ 60 $ 4 $ 66 $ 435 $ 355 $ 313 $ 477 $ 474 $ 244 $ 159 $ 528 $ 556 $ 557 $ 212 $ 986 $ 706 $ 325 $ 44 $ 6 $ 4,011 $ 4,051 $ 4,063 $ 4,099 $ $ 115 $ 296 $ 401 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -
Table C-1. Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Dia (in)
Pipe Segment ID
56 98 100 102 104 F-12F-11 F-11F-10A F-7F-6 F-8F-7 F-9F-8 F-9AF-9 F-2F-1 F-3AF-2 F-4F-3 F-5F-4 F-6F-5 F-10F-9A F-10AF-10 M-5M-4 F-1M-5 CDT-45 CDT-47 CDT-49 Geneva Road Lift Station Gravity and Force Mains 1
3
Segment Year Existing Length Built q/Qfull (ft)
2025 q/Qfull
A
B
12 12 12 12 12 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 24 24 24 24
347 139 72 335 401 400 267 342 371 436 284 392 385 348 425 384 166 32 117 328 282 27 16
1998 2002 2007 2007 2007 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 2011 2011 2011 1989 2011
4% 0% 4% 4% 4% 29% 29% 59% 57% 55% 73% 85% 85% 42% 84% 85% 41% 39% 27% 37% 45% 23% 36%
9% 0% 9% 8% 9% 33% 33% 36% 36% 34% 45% 47% 47% 22% 45% 44% 25% 33% 34% 45% 55% 28% 45%
24
-
2013
45%
55%
Estimated Estimated % of % of Capacity Capacity to Present Buildout q/Qfull Available for be Used by Day Project Growth 10-Year Cost ($)1 Growth C D E F = 1-(A/Max of = D-(C-A) A, B, & C) 17% 76% 29% $ 32,843 0% 0% 0% $ 13,203 16% 75% 32% 14% 74% 33% 15% 75% 33% 41% 29% 10% 41% 29% 10% 45% 0% 0% 45% 0% 0% $ 41,463 42% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% 57% 0% 0% 56% 0% 0% 27% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 53% 0% 0% 31% 0% 0% 41% 6% 0% 42% 35% 16% $ 15,066 57% 35% 15% $ 42,285 69% 35% 15% $ 36,313 35% 35% 16% $ 3,472 56% 35% 15% $ 2,012 69%
35%
15%
Estimated Historical Project Cost2 ($) G
Impact Estimated Fee Impact Fee Eligible Eligible ? Cost ($)
19,394 8,611 5,136 24,060 28,771 4,604 3,074 3,938 9,149 5,019 3,269 4,517 4,432 4,006 4,893 4,421 1,911 369 13,631 38,256 32,853 1,598 1,820
No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
I = (GxE) if H is "Yes" $ $ $ 1,657 $ 7,853 $ 9,459 $ 465 $ 311 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,120 $ 5,891 $ 5,080 $ 248 $ 280
$ 2,293,137
Yes
$
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
H
354,575
Total Impact Fee Eligible Reimbursement $ 482,235
If no historical cost data exists, present unit costs were used to calculate present day project costs
2
If historical cost data exists (see Appendix D), they were entered in column G. If not, present day project costs (column F) were reduced by the applicable ENR factor based on construction year.
C-7
Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail
Pipe Dia Segment Year Reference Existing q/Qfull Segment ID (in) Length (ft) Built Pipe 1 A
A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-11 A-12 A-13 A-14 A-15 A-16 A-17 A-18 A-19 A-20 A-21 A-22 A-23 A-24 A-25 A-26 A-27 A-28 A-29 A-30 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 A-35 A-36 A-37 A-38 A-39
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
196 99 113 330 466 105 85 164 401 401 375 218 324 169 120 287 36 110 156 134 121 131 361 194 138 400 393 100 310 124 220 260 401 203 415 387 429 379 408
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 L-2K-8 G-2F-24 G-2F-24 G-2F-24 G-2F-24 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20 F-21F-20
17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28%
2025 q/Qfull
Buildout q/Qfull
B
C
17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32%
17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17% 40% 40% 40% 40% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41%
% of Capacity Available for Growth D = 1-(A/Max of A, B, & C) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 30% 30% 30% 30% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%
C-8
Estimated Estimated % of Estimated Capacity to be Used Historical Project Impact Fee by 2025 Growth Eligible Cost ($) Cost2 ($) F
E
G = ExL
= D-(C-A) 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
1,390 698 801 2,335 3,303 744 599 1,165 2,838 2,842 2,657 1,540 2,292 1,200 851 2,029 254 781 1,106 951 859 931 2,555 1,372 975 2,836 2,786 708 2,198 877 1,558 1,841 2,840 1,438 2,936 2,744 3,038 2,687 2,887
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
24 12 14 40 57 13 10 20 49 49 46 27 40 21 15 35 4 13 19 16 15 16 44 24 17 49 269 68 212 85 151 178 275 139 284 266 294 260 280
Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Dia Segment Year Reference Existing Segment ID (in) Length (ft) Built Pipe* q/Qfull A
A-40 A-41 A-42 A-43 A-44 A-45 A-46 A-47 A-48 A-49 A-50 A-51 A-52 A-53 A-55 A-56 A-57 A-58 A-59 A-60 A-61 A-62 A-63 A-64 A-65 A-66 A-67 A-68 A-69 A-70 A-71 A-72 A-73 A-74 A-75 A-76 A-77 A-78
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
432 263 145 401 360 326 82 638 80 501 534 399 329 390 81 398 257 86 197 400 323 138 151 241 169 197 172 384 414 490 428 194 78 337 400 403 340 322
1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 F-21F-20 1975 DG-3DG-2 1975 D-24D-23A 1975 D-18D-17 1975 D-18D-17 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-6C-5 1975 C-3C-2 1975 C-3C-2 1975 C-3C-2 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-17C-16 1975 C-15C-14 1975 C-15C-14 1975 C-15C-14 1975 C-14C-13 1975 C-14C-13 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9 1975 C-10C-9
28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 4% 3% 8% 8% 33% 33% 33% 33% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 12% 12% 12% 17% 17% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
2025 q/Qfull
Buildout q/Qfull
B
C
32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 4% 2% 7% 7% 34% 34% 34% 34% 29% 29% 29% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 28% 12% 12% 12% 17% 17% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34% 34%
41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 6% 3% 8% 8% 43% 43% 43% 43% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 15% 15% 15% 22% 22% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44% 44%
C-9
% of Capacity Estimated % of Available for Capacity to be Used Growth by 2025 Growth D E = 1-(A/Max of A, = D-(C-A) B, & C) 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 31% 10% 37% 10% 7% 0% 11% 0% 11% 0% 24% 2% 24% 2% 24% 2% 24% 2% 23% 2% 23% 2% 23% 2% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 24% 1% 24% 1% 24% 1% 22% 0% 22% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0% 23% 0%
Estimated Estimated Historical Project Impact Fee Cost ($) Eligible Cost ($) F G = ExL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
3,057 1,865 1,025 2,837 2,546 2,307 582 4,520 567 3,549 3,783 2,827 2,329 2,759 573 2,815 1,822 607 1,395 2,834 2,286 975 1,068 1,709 1,198 1,395 1,218 2,720 2,928 3,474 3,033 1,374 552 2,386 2,832 2,853 2,409 2,282
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
296 181 99 275 247 223 56 438 55 355 58 12 59 38 12 27 54 8 18 19 16 14 3 1 5 6 7 6 5
Table C-2. Non-Modeled Existing Sanitary Sewer Pipes Reserve Capacity Detail (Continued)
Pipe Dia Segment Year Reference Existing Pipe* q/Qfull Segment ID (in) Length (ft) Built A
A-79 A-80 A-81 A-82 A-83 A-84 A-85 A-86 A-87 A-88 A-89 A-90 A-91 A-92 A-93 A-94 A-95 A-96 A-97 A-98 A-99 A-100 A-101 A-102 A-103 A-104 A-105 A-106 A-107 A-108 A-109 A-110 A-111 A-112 A-113 1 2
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
322 283 232 164 239 302 105 327 207 239 273 169 244 391 64 244 266 400 95 395 151 257 370 393 392 395 304 418 224 158 263 88 129 241 144
1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975 1975
B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-9B-8 B-5B-4 B-5B-4 B-5B-4 B-5B-4 B-2G-2 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AAE-4 AE-4AAE-4 AA-6AA-5A AA-6AA-5A AA-6AA-5A A-7A-6 A-7A-6 A-5A-4 A-5A-4 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19 A-20A-19
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 5% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 3% 3% 3% 5% 5% 25% 25% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
2025 q/Qfull
Buildout q/Qfull
B
C
5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 1.90% 4% 4% 4% 6% 6% 29% 29% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 7% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10% 2.10% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 33% 33% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
% of Capacity Estimated % of Available for Capacity to be Used Growth by 2025 Growth D E = 1-(A/Max of A, = D-(C-A) B, & C) 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 20% 5% 29% 8% 29% 8% 29% 8% 29% 8% 29% 9% 10% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 23% 7% 23% 7% 23% 7% 24% 13% 24% 13% 24% 11% 24% 11% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26% 34% 26%
First downstream modeled pipe. Uses historical costs from 1975 project (see Table D-1)
C-10
Estimated Estimated Historical Project Impact Fee Cost ($) Eligible Cost ($) F G = ExL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
2,281 2,005 1,643 1,162 1,690 2,136 746 2,315 1,469 1,695 1,930 1,193 1,731 2,771 453 1,731 1,881 2,835 675 2,797 1,070 1,820 2,624 2,783 2,779 2,796 2,152 2,959 1,588 1,120 1,866 621 913 1,710 1,017
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
116 102 84 59 86 109 38 118 75 86 148 92 133 213 39 191 73 124 333 353 303 305 557 765 411 290 483 161 236 442 263
Total Impact Fee Eligible Reimbursement $
12,827
Table C-3 uses modeled flows to determine cost sharing percentages for Project #1 and #2 which are based on flow proportionality. Table C-3. Cost Sharing Percentage Calculation for Improvement Project #1 and #2
Percent of Buildout Flow that is Growth Related (Existing Flow - Buildout) / Buildout Percent of Buildout Flow Peak Flow along Center Street that is Existing 1 west of Geneva Road (Existing Flow / Buildout) Existing 10-year Buildout
83.2%
386 405 463 1
Next 10 Years
Beyond 10 Years
4.2%
12.6%
Assumes Lift Station #2 is not taken offline.
Percent of Buildout Flow that is Growth Related (Existing Flow - Buildout) / Buildout Peak Flow into Lift Station #7 2 from Lindon City Existing 10-year Buildout
413 435 495
Percent of Buildout Flow that is Existing (Existing Flow / Buildout)
Next 10 Years
Beyond 10 Years
83.5%
4.4%
12.1%
2
Assumes Lift Station #2 is not taken offline and excludes Anderson Farms Development because they are paying separately.
C-11
APPENDIX D – HISTORIC COSTS The following tables show a summary of projects with known historical costs. The Lindon City sanitary sewer system was installed in 1975 when the City installed miles of sewer pipe. The project was funded 80% by EPA and other government agencies, and the other 20% was bonded for by the City. The bond was for $375,000 as reported by the Daily Herald on February 23, 1975. Lindon also paid an additional $433,795 in interest costs and $123,827 in additional construction costs for a total of $932,622. Table D-1 shows how present day costs per foot for various pipe diameters were reduced to historic costs paid for by Lindon. These costs were used in Table C-2 and C-3. Table D-1. Historic Cost per Foot Paid by Lindon for 1975 Project
Historical Project (Total Cost) Estimated Present Day Cost
$ $
2,724,278 8,982,000 30.33% (a)
Lindon Out-of-Pocket Costs Historical Project (Total Cost)
$ $
932,622 2,724,278 34.23% (b) Historic Costs Paid
Diameter (inches) 4 8 10 12 18 1 2
1
Present Day Cost/ft $ 55.75 $ 68.75 $ 79.75 $ 94.75 $ 111.75
$ $ $ $ $
Historic Cost / ft 16.91 20.85 24.19 28.74 33.89
2
by Lindon Cost / ft $ $ $ $ $
5.79 7.14 8.28 9.84 11.60
Present Day Cost multiplied by (a) Historic Cost multiplied by (b)
The information in Table D-2 was used to calculate the cost per foot for each diameter of pipe for the 700 North (now North County Boulevard) Project, and then used in Table C-1 and C-2. Table D-2. Historic Costs of 700 North Project Cost Per Foot by Diameter No.
Project #
1
50796
2
50796
Project Description 700 N State St To Geneva Road Utilities 700 North~Phase 3, 2000 West to Geneva Rd
Date
Actual Historic Cost
2003
$
164,312.54 $
55.16
2007
$
658,102.90 $
71.80 $
D-1
8-inch
10-inch
12-inch
79.30 $
89.56
Table D-3 details cost sharing of the Geneva Road Lift Station Project between Lindon and Orem. Table D-4 details Lindon’s share of the project. Table D-3. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project
Total Cost
Base Construction Expences Sewer Force Main Lift Station Gravity Sewer Main Extra Gravity Main Sewer Work
Orem Percent Share Cost
$ 280,886 $ 1,113,526 $ 1,078,300 $ 140,114 Total $ 2,612,826
Incidentals and Extra Construction Work Legal and Bonding DWQ Loan Origination Fee Property Acquisition - Lift Station Property Acquisition - Gravity Sewer Payment to UDOT via Orem for Paving Work on Geneva Road (Gravity Sewer) Payment to PRC for Curb & Gutter on 1600 N (Gravity Sewer) Payment to PRC for Asphalting behind sidewalk along 1600 N (Gravity Sewer) Payment to Rocky Mountain Power for power upgrade at lift station (Lift Station) Credit to Orem for Payment for Asphalt Patch on 1600 N (Gravity Sewer) Engineering Expenses Total
Total Cost
20% 20% 10% 10%
$ 56,177 $ 222,705 $ 107,830 $ 14,111 $ 400,824
Orem Percent Share Cost
$ 14,253 $ 30,000 $ 31,530 $ 64,100 $ 39,441 $ 13,350 $ 5,000 $ 11,311 $ 1,836 $ 535,875 $ 746,696
Total $ 3,359,522
20% 10% 10% 10% 10% 20% 10%
Lindon Percent Share Cost 80% 80% 90% 90%
$ 224,709 $ 890,821 $ 970,470 $ 126,003 $ 2,212,002
Lindon Percent Share Cost
$ $ $ 6,306 $ 6,410 $ 3,944 $ 1,335 $ 500 $ 2,262 $ 184 $ $ 20,941
100% 100% 80% 90% 90% 90% 90% 80% 90% 100%
$ 14,253 $ 30,000 $ 25,224 $ 57,690 $ 35,497 $ 12,015 $ 4,500 $ 9,049 $ 1,652 $ 535,875 $ 725,755
$ 421,765
$ 2,937,757
Loan Interest (Lindon's Portion Only
$ 848,950 TOTAL
$ 3,786,707
Table D-4. Historic Costs of Geneva Rd. Lift Station Project – Lindon’s Share
Lindon Cost Sewer Force Main Lift Station Gravity Sewer Main Extra Gravity Main Sewer Work Total
$ 224,709 $ 890,821 $ 970,470 $ 126,003 $ 2,212,002
% of Base DWQ Loan Misc Construction Property Legal and Origination Construction Total Acquisition Bonding Fee Work Engineering 10.2% 40.3% 43.9% 5.7%
$ $
25,224 57,690
$
82,914
$ $ $ $ $
D-2
1,448 $ 5,740 $ 6,253 $ 812 $ 14,253 $
3,048 12,082 $ 13,162 $ 1,709 30,000 $
$ 9,049 $ 53,664 $ $ 62,713 $
Loan Interest
54,437 $ 215,808 $ 235,104 $ 30,525 $ 535,875 $
81,967 334,847 386,175 45,962 848,950
Total $ 365,608 $ 1,493,570 $ 1,722,518 $ 205,010 $ 3,786,707
Table D-5 shows the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, which is an index based on labor, steel, concrete and lumber in 20 major cities in the United States. Table D-5. Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index History Construction Index Ratio to 2015 to Year Cost Construction Year 2015 10025 1.000 2014 9806 1.022 2013 9547 1.050 2012 9308 1.077 2011 9070 1.105 2010 8799 1.139 2009 8570 1.170 2008 8310 1.206 2007 7966 1.258 2006 7751 1.293 2005 7446 1.346 2004 7115 1.409 2003 6694 1.498 2002 6538 1.533 2001 6343 1.581 2000 6221 1.612 1999 6059 1.655 1998 5920 1.693 1997 5826 1.721 1996 5620 1.784 1995 5471 1.832 1994 5408 1.854 1993 5210 1.924 1992 4985 2.011 1991 4835 2.073 1990 4732 2.119 1989 4615 2.172 1988 4519 2.218 1987 4406 2.275 1986 4295 2.334 1985 4195 2.390 1984 4146 2.418
Construction Index Ratio to 2015 to Year Cost Construction Year 1983 4066 2.466 1982 3825 2.621 1981 3535 2.836 1980 3237 3.097 1979 3003 3.338 1978 2776 3.611 1977 2576 3.892 1976 2401 4.175 1975 2212 4.532 1974 2020 4.963 1973 1895 5.290 1972 1753 5.719 1971 1581 6.341 1970 1381 7.259 1969 1269 7.900 1968 1155 8.680 1967 1074 9.334 1966 1019 9.838 1965 971 10.325 1964 936 10.711 1963 901 11.127 1962 872 11.497 1961 847 11.836 1960 824 12.166 1959 797 12.579 1958 759 13.208 1957 724 13.847 1956 692 14.487 1955 660 15.190 1954 628 15.964 1953 600 16.709 1952 569 17.619
D-3
Construction Index Ratio to 2015 to Year Cost Construction Year 1951 543 18.463 1950 510 19.657 1949 477 21.017 1948 461 21.747 1947 413 24.274 1946 346 28.975 1945 308 32.549 1944 299 33.529 1943 290 34.570 1942 276 36.323 1941 258 38.857 1940 242 41.426 1939 236 42.480 1938 236 42.480 1937 235 42.660 1936 206 48.666 1935 196 51.149 1934 198 50.632 1933 170 58.972 1932 157 63.855 1931 181 55.388 1930 203 49.385 1929 207 48.431 1928 207 48.431 1927 206 48.666 1926 208 48.198 1925 207 48.431 1924 215 46.629 1923 214 46.847 1922 174 57.616 1921 202 49.630 1920 251 39.941
Table D-6 details the engineering and financial costs related to planning for impact fee collection. These costs include modeling, master planning, capital facilities planning, and impact fee facilities plan (by J-U-B Engineers), and an impact fee analysis (by Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc.). Table D-6. Engineering / Financial Costs Related to Planning Eligible for Impact Fee Collection
Master Plan & Capital Facilities Plan Impact Fee Facilities Plan Impact Fee Analysis Total
D-4
$ $ $ $
Cost 55,000 20,000 6,300 81,300
APPENDIX E – IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN CERTIFICATION
As required by Section 11-36a-306 of the Impact Fee Act, J-U-B Engineers, Inc. provides the following statement: I certify that the attached Impact Fee Facilities plan: 1. includes only the costs of public facilities that are: a. allowed in the Impact Fees Act; and b. actually incurred; or c. projected to be incurred or encumbered within 6 years after the day on which each impact fee is paid; 2. does not include: a. costs of operation and maintenance of public facilities; b. costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities, through impact fees, above the level of service that is supported by existing residents; c. an expense for overhead, unless the expense is calculated pursuant to the methodology that is consistent with generally accepted cost accounting practices and the methodological standards set forth by the federal Office of Management and Budget for federal grant reimbursements; and 3. complies with each and every relevant respect with the Impact Fees Act. J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
E-1
