Document Kalispell_doc_38b1b985e1

2013 Final Report City of Kalispell 3/21/2013    ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Contents Executive Summary 4 Introduction 4 Financial Objective of Impact Fees 4 Impact Fee Criteria 4 The Need for This Study 5 Development and Summary of the Water Impact Fee 6 Consultant’s Recommendations 8 Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) 9 Conclusion 9 Section 1: Introduction and Overview 10 1.1 Introduction 10 1.2 Overview of the Report 12 1.3 Disclaimer 12 1.4 Summary 12 Section 2: Overview of Impact Fees and Generally Accepted Industry 14 2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Defining Impact Fees 14 2.3 Historical Perspective 14 2.4 Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Practices 15 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees 18 2.6 Relationship of Impact Fees and New Construction Activities 19 2.7 Summary 20 3.0 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 21 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria 21 3.3 Growth, Risk and New Connections 22 3.4 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology 22 3.5 Summary 24 4.0 Legal Consideration in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 25 4.1 Introduction 25 4.2 Requirements Under Montana Law 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 4.3 Summary 25 5.0 Determination of the City’s Water Impact Fees 26 5.1 Introduction 26 5.2 Overview of the City’s Water System 26 5.3 Overview of the City’s Water Facility Plan 26 5.4 Present Impact Fees 26 5.5 Calculation of the City’s Impact Fees 27 5.5.1 System Planning 27 5.5.2 Calculation of Equivalent Residential Units 28 5.5.3 Calculations of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components 28 5.5.4 Debt Service Credits 32 5.6 Net Allowable Water Impact Fees 33 5.7 Key Financial Assumptions 34 5.8 Implementation of the Impact Fees 34 5.9 Summary 35 References 36 Appendix A: ERU Projections 37 Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan 40 Appendix C: Montana Code Annotated 2011 42 Appendix D: Source of Supply 50 Appendix E: Pumping Plant Facility 52 Appendix F: Storage 54 Appendix G: Transmission and Distribution 56 Appendix H: September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary 60 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Executive Summary Introduction Morrison Maierle, Inc (MMI) was retained by the City of Kalispell (City) to update the current cost-based impact fees for the City’s water and wastewater systems that comply with Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7- 6-1604 based on the new facility plan adopted by the City. This Executive Summary is intended to provide an overview of the water study, along with a summary of the findings and conclusions from the study. In addition, a comparison of the cost-based fees calculated within this study has been compared to the previous water impact fee study conducted in 2006. Impact fees are a one-time assessment against new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new utility infrastructure between existing customers and new customers connecting to the City’s water and wastewater systems. The portion of existing plant and future capital improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new customers is included in the impact fees. The objective of this report is to properly place in context the purpose of water impact fees, and to determine cost-based impact fees for the water systems that comply with Montana law. Financial Objective of Impact Fees An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue raising device. To understand this perspective, one must view new development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact fees, the utility would have insufficient revenues to provide the facilities, and therefore, the community is unable to accommodate new development. While on the surface it may appear as simply a means to extract revenue from new development, the reality is far more complicated. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives. These objectives tend to lean more towards financial equity between customers as opposed to simply producing revenue. An impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. Impact fees create equity within the system by addressing the issue of timing and the “value” of the assets and the “value” of the capacity. Impact Fee Criteria In the determination and establishment of the impact fees, a number of different criteria are often utilized. The criteria often used by utilities to establish impact fees are as follows:  Customer understanding  System planning criteria  Financing criteria, and  State/local laws The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of impact fees. System planning criteria provides the “rational nexus” between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires that there be a connection (nexus) established between new development and the existing or expanded facilities required to accommodate new development; and appropriate apportionment of the cost to the new development in relation to benefits reasonably received. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 An important consideration in establishing impact fees is any legal requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code. The Need for This Study The current water impact fee is based on the 2006 Impact Fee Final Report and on an adjustment to the fees by City Council Resolution No. 5273 in April 2008. The City Council has directed staff to update the existing cost-based water impact fee based on current conditions and according to 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-6-16. In 2010, the City of Kalispell received the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report for review and consideration by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. No adjustments were made to the impact fee at that time. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, attached for reference in Appendix H, updates the information provided in the August 2010 impact fee report with the following information: 1) Change to the Kalispell Growth Policy: On March 7, 2011, City Council adopted an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous annexation policy boundary. This report accounts for the projected water improvements within the current annexation boundary. 2) Current Water Demands: The August 2010 report used 2006 water production volumes and projected these volumes to 2010 with a theoretical population growth rate. This current report uses measured historical water production volumes between 2006 and 2011 as a baseline volume, and projects future volumes based on a growth rate currently applied by the Kalispell Planning Department. 3) Projected Population Growth Rate: This report uses a population growth rate of 2.00% as projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. This is lower than the projected population growth rates applied in the August 2010 report and in the 2008 Facility Plan Updates. The reduced 2011 annexation boundary also generates a lower projected population to be served by City utilities. 4) Updated Capital Improvement Plan: The Kalispell Public Works Department has updated the Capital Improvement Plan to reflect the current projected capital needs. The 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Plan shows projects to be completed over the next five years and future projects to be completed in approximately ten years. . 5) Key Financial Assumptions: In developing the impact fee for the City’s water system, several key assumptions were used. These include the following: • The City’s asset records were used to determine the existing assets and the value of those assets. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 • The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing assets is the 10-year treasury note rate as reported by the US Department of the Treasury at closing on November 30th of each year. • Up to fifteen years of interest is included in the cost of the existing improvements. The fifteen-year average interest rate is currently 4.25%. The August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report used an interest rate of 6.00%. 6) Administrative Fees: For the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report, and subsequent Council workshops, the City Council directed staff to use the allowable administrative charge of 5% in the impact fee analysis. This 2012 report follows that same guidance from the City Council. Development and Summary of the Water Impact Fee The City currently services a population of approximately 21,000 customers with water services. This report uses a population growth rate of 2.00% as projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. The reduced 2011 annexation boundary also generates a lower projected population to be served by City utilities. The calculation of the water impact fee was based on the City’s fixed asset records, future capital improvements as identified in the City's 2012 Capital Improvement Plan, and planning criteria and capital improvements from the master plan entitled, “City of Kalispell Water Facilities Plan Update”, dated March 2008 prepared by HDR Engineering (the “Water Facility Plan”). On March 7, 2011 the City Council adopted an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous annexation boundary. This report uses the annexation policy boundary for the planning boundary and adjusted Capital Improvement Projects to meet the infrastructure needs in the expanded service area. A number of key steps in the calculation of the water impact fees included the following: Use of System Planning Criteria: The number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) was determined based on the planning criteria from the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy which uses a projected growth rate of 2.00%. This planning criterion incorporated with water usage data from Kalispell water system establishes the average day flow and peak day flow for an ERU. Calculation of Equivalent Residential Units: The planning horizon for the study was 2012 – 2035. The number of current and future (additional) water ERUs was determined within this step. Calculation of the Impact Fee For the Major Water System Components: Each of the major functional components of the water system (e.g. source of supply, treatment, etc.) are reviewed to consider the existing plant assets, along with planned future capital improvements. This provides the basis for the value of capacity and when divided by the appropriate ERUs produces a cost per ERU for each major system component. When the cost per ERU for each major component is added together, it produces a “gross” impact fee. Debt Service Credits: If impact fees are insufficient to pay growth-related debt service, then a debt service credit is provided against the “gross” water impact fees. The debt service credit is designed to avoid the potential “double payment” of debt service (i.e. once through the payment of the impact fee and again through rates). No water debt service credits are necessary in this current impact fee analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Future Extensions: In determining the water impact fees, the City also considered significant future extension improvements to the transmission and distribution system. The impact fees were calculated “without future extensions” and “with future extensions.” The distinction between these two categories being that “without future extensions” the impact fees are calculated in a manner consistent with the City’s previous water impact fee analysis and include only the improvements within the City’s 2012 Capital Improvement Plan. In contrast to this, “with future extensions” includes extensions/improvements needed to serve the expanded planning area as contained within the annexation boundary. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Summary (Appendix H) provides a proportional cost of these “with future extensions” improvements based on the improvements that are shown within the 2011 Growth Policy annexation boundary. The total impact fee related to “with future extensions” to the existing system to accommodate future growth is $17,583,247, or $3,531 per ERU. These “with future extensions” costs may be included in or excluded from the impact fee analysis based on recommendations from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) and as set by City policy. The extension costs were provided for discussion by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. The IFAC reviewed the “with future extensions” costs and recommended not including the cost in the 2013 water impact fee total. The “with future extensions” costs are not included in this report’s recommended water impact fee. Determination of the “Net Allowable” Water Impact Fee: Based upon the steps noted above, a “net allowable” impact fee was developed. Shown below in Table ES-1 is a summary of the net allowable impact fee by major component for one ERU. Table ES-1 Allowable Water Impact Fees ($/ERU) Description Total Source of Supply $212 Pumping Facility $239 Storage Facility $417 Transmission and Distribution Mains $1,577 Administrative Cost at 5% $122 Total Impact Fee $2,567 It should be noted that in the 2006 impact fee study, the calculated water impact fee was $2,154.72. The 2006 fee was adjusted in 2008 to reflect cost of construction to $2,213. Therefore, the recommended calculated fee within this report is more ($354.00) than the current fee. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Water Impact Fee by Meter Size (Capacity): For ease of administration, the recommended charge for one ERU is $2,567. The impact fees are then “weighted” by meter size to reflect potential capacity use of the larger sized meters. This “weighting” by meter size is based upon the safe operating capacity of the meter. Provided below in Table ES-2 is a comparison between the water impact fees by meter size as developed in the 2006 water impact fee study and subsequent 2008 increase and the water impact fee by meter size developed within this report. Table ES-2 Allowable Water System Impact Fees By Meter Size Comparison Between the Current Fee and the Proposed Fee Meter Size Current Water Impact Fee Proposed Water Impact Fee Residential $2,213 $2,567 1” 5,533 $6,418 1-½” 11,066 $12,835 2” 17,705 $20,536 3” 35,411 $41,072 4” Calculated Calculated – Commercial customers with residential type usage pay the residential fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable water impact fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost-based impact fee. Consultant’s Recommendations Consultant’s recommendations on the Water Impact Fee: Based on our review and analysis of the City’s water system, MMI makes the following recommendations:  The City should implement impact fees for new hookups to the water system that are no greater than the impact fees as set forth in this report. Using the current philosophy in place, the water impact fee would be $2,567/ERU.  The City should update the actual calculations for the impact fees based on the methodology as approved by the resolution or ordinance setting forth the methodology for impact fees every two years as required by Montana law. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC) The Montana Annotated Code requires the establishment of an Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC), which serves in an advisory capacity to the governing body of the City of Kalispell. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary was reviewed and discussed with the IFAC at various meeting since October 2012. At the November 27, 2012 meeting the proposed methodology and impact fee as outlined in the Update Summary was motioned and approved by the committee members. This final report incorporates the September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, developed by MMI and approved by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. Conclusion This concludes the executive summary of the development of the water impact fee study. A more detailed discussion of the various steps associated with the development of this fee can be found in Section 5 of this report and the appendices. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Section 1: Introduction and Overview 1.1 Introduction Morrison Maierle, Inc (MMI) was retained by the City of Kalispell; Montana (City) to update the current cost-based impact fees for the City’s water systems that comply with Montana Code 7-6-1601 to 7-6- 1604 based on the facility plan adopted by the City, the change in annexation boundary, current water demands, newly projected growth rates and an updated Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This final report incorporates the September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, developed by MMI and approved by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and provides details of the development of cost-based impact fees for the City’s water systems. The current water impact fee is based on the 2006 Impact Fee Final Report and on an adjustment to the fees by City Council Resolution No. 5273 in April 2008. The City Council has directed staff to update the existing cost-based water impact fee based on current conditions and according to 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-6-16. In 2010, the City of Kalispell received the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report for review and consideration by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee. No adjustments were made to the impact fee at that time. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, attached for reference in Appendix H, updates the information provided in the August 2010 impact fee report with the following information: 1) Change to the Kalispell Growth Policy: On March 7, 2011, City Council adopted an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous annexation policy boundary. This report accounts for the projected water improvements within the current annexation boundary. The current annexation boundary is attached to this report and provides a comparison to the pre-2011 annexation boundary (original study area boundary). See Figure 1-6, 2011 Annexation Boundary, at the end of Section 1. 2) Current Water Demands: The August 2010 report used 2006 water production volumes and projected these volumes to 2010 with a theoretical population growth rate. This current report uses measured historical water production volumes between 2006 and 2011 as a baseline volume, and projects future volumes based on a growth rate currently applied by the Kalispell Planning Department. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 “The objective of this report is to properly place in context the purpose of impact fees, and to determine cost-based impact fees for the water systems that comply with Montana law.” 3) Projected Population Growth Rate: This report uses a population growth rate of 2.00% as projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. This is lower than the projected population growth rates applied in the August 2010 report and in the 2008 Facility Plan Updates. The reduced 2011 annexation boundary also generates a lower projected population to be served by City utilities. For reference, historic population growth rates are listed below. The growth calculation is shown in Appendix A. • 1990 to 2000 1.78% • 2000 to 2010 3.43% • 1990 to 2010 2.60% • 1960 to 2010 1.36% 4) Updated Capital Improvement Plan: The Kalispell Public Works Department has updated the Capital Improvement Plan to reflect the current projected capital needs. The 2012/2013 Capital Improvement Plan shows projects to be completed over the next five years and future projects to be completed in approximately ten years. The updated Capital Improvement Plan is included in Appendix B. 5) Key Financial Assumptions: In developing the impact fee for the City’s water system, several key assumptions were used. These include the following: • The City’s asset records were used to determine the existing assets and the value of those assets. • The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing assets is the 10-year treasury note rate as reported by the US Department of the Treasury at closing on November 30th of each year. • Up to fifteen years of interest is included in the cost of the existing improvements. The fifteen-year average interest rate is currently 4.25%. The August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report used an interest rate of 6.00%. 6) Council Direction on Administrative Fees: For the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report, and subsequent Council workshops, the City Council directed staff to use the allowable administrative charge of 5% in the impact fee analysis. This 2012 report follows that same guidance from the City Council. Impact fees are a one-time assessment on new development to pay for the cost of infrastructure required to provide service. Impact fees provide the means of balancing the cost requirements for new utility infrastructure between existing customers and new customers connecting to the City’s water systems. The portion of existing facilities and future capital improvements that will provide service (capacity) to new customers is included in the impact fees. In contrast to this, the City has future capital improvement projects that are related to renewal and replacement of existing facilities in service. These infrastructure costs are typically included within the rates charged to the City’s customers, and are not included within the impact fee. By establishing cost-based impact fees, the City will be taking a policy ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 action of having “growth pay for growth” and help existing utility customers be sheltered from the financial impacts of growth. 1.2 Overview of the Report The development of cost-based water impact fees requires detailed analyses of each utility. To better understand the approach and methodology used, along with the development of the City’s impact fees, this report has been divided into a number of sections (chapters). This report is organized in the following manner: • Section 1–Introduction and Overview • Section 2 – Review of “generally accepted” practices related to impact fees • Section 3 – Overview of the criteria and methodologies used to establish the impact fees • Section 4 – Summary of the legal requirements for enactment of impact fees under Montana law • Section 5 – Review of the development of the cost-based water impact fees 1.3 Disclaimer Morrison Maierle, Inc, in its determination of impact fees presented in the September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary, has relied upon data and information provided by the City. At the same time, Morrison Maierle, Inc used “generally accepted” engineering, accounting, and ratemaking principles in the development of these cost-based impact fees. This should not be construed as a legal opinion with respect to Montana law. 1.4 Summary This section of the report has provided an overview of the water impact fee report developed by the City in coordination with Morrison Maierle, Inc. This report provides the basis for the establishment of cost-based impact fees by the City. The next section of the report will discuss the “generally accepted” utility industry practices as they relate to impact fees ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Section 2: Overview of Impact Fees and Generally Accepted Industry Practices 2.1 Introduction An important starting point in discussing the City’s continued implementation of water impact fees is an understanding of the purpose and concept of impact fees and the financial objective of those fees. This section of the report will discuss the concept of impact fees and the “generally accepted” practices of the industry. 2.2 Defining Impact Fees One must first define an “impact fee” before beginning an assessment and review of the fees. Impact fees are also often called system development charges (SDCs), capacity charges, buy-in fees, facility expansion charges, plant investment fees, etc. Regardless of the name applied to the fee, the concept is still the same. Simply stated, impact fees are capital recovery fees that are generally established as one- time charges assessed on developers or new water and wastewater customers as a way to recover a part or all of the cost of system capacity constructed for their use. Their application has generally occurred in areas that are experiencing extensive new residential and/or commercial development.1 The main objective of an impact fee is to assess the benefiting party, their proportionate share of the cost of infrastructure required to provide them service. Stated another way, impact fees imply that new development creates new or additional costs on the system, and the impact fee assesses that cost in an equitable manner to those customers creating the additional cost. 2.3 Historical Perspective Historically, the financing of infrastructure was typically paid for via long-term debt and “pay as you go” rates. However, over the last twenty years, the use of impact fees as a method of financing growth and infrastructure has risen sharply. To the best of our knowledge, no clear surveys or data exists to show this change, however, there are a number of examples within the literature that point out this phenomena. As an example, a survey of 67 Florida communities was undertaken in 1986 and 1989. The number of communities in 1986 using impact fees was 15. By 1989, the number of communities using impact fees had more than doubled to 32.2 As this funding mechanism gained popularity, legislatures across the U.S. were developing legislation to provide utilities with the authority to impose impact fees. Typical legislation generally provides the approach to be used to develop the fees and requires that the fees be used only for growth-related needs and not for current O&M requirements. At this time, the State of Montana has very specific legislation related to impact fees. This specific legislation regarding the fees provides the City with the authority to establish and collect impact fees. This authority is provided in Montana Code Section 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604. 1 George A. Raftelis, 2nd Edition, Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1993), p. 73. 2 James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson and Julian C. Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner’s Guide to Development Impact Fees (Chicago: Planners Press, 1991) p. 3. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 While many utility managers viewed impact fees as an important and alternative source of funding for new capital construction, these fees were also being rationalized from a number of different perspectives. Among these were the following:3 1. To shift the fiscal burdens from existing development to new development. 2. To the construction of new or expanded facility capacity with the arrival of new development. 3. To subject new development decisions to pricing discipline. Each of these different perspectives is discussed in more detail below. Historically, existing development was often subsidized by federal or state resources. As an example, in the early 1970s, many wastewater treatment plants in the U.S. were 90% grant funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Today, grants are nearly extinct, often replaced instead by low- interest state revolving fund (SRF) loans. Therefore, as existing customers were being impacted by the cost of growth, local communities searched for methods to help minimize rates and the impacts of the cost of growth. Unchecked growth and sprawling expansion is very costly on a per unit basis. In response to this dilemma, many legislative bodies created urban growth boundaries. At the same time, utilities moved towards impact fee and extension policies that assist in managing system growth in an orderly and coordinated manner. As a result, improved planning and cost-based fees have helped utilities manage the costs of growth, while stabilizing rates to existing customers. Establishing the price of a commodity equal to its cost is a basic economic and market principle. In theory, consumers of a service will make “optimal” consumption decisions when the price of the commodity is set equal to its price. By establishing cost-based impact fees, developers should be in a position to make better and more rational decisions concerning new development. At the same time, proper pricing of impact fees also encourages “right sizing” of facilities to serve new development. In other words, given the proper price signal, the developer will properly size their service facilities to meet their needs, e.g., installing a ¾-inch meter versus a 2” meter. In summary, the use of impact fees has changed over time, as historical funding sources such as grants have been reduced or eliminated. In response, many communities have moved towards adoption of cost-based impact fees, particularly in areas of high growth. 2.4 Impact Fees and “Generally Accepted” Practices Impact fees are one input into the rate setting process. Therefore, it is important to understand how, within the context of “generally accepted” utility industry practices, impact fees may be used. In conducting a comprehensive water rate study, three interrelated analyses are typically conducted. They are a revenue requirement analysis, cost of service analysis and rate design analysis. Figure 2-1 provides an overview of each of these analyses. 3 Adapted from: Arthur C. Nelson, System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities (Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers, 1995) p. 6-7. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Figure 2-1 Overview of the Three-Interrelated Analyses to Review Rates Impact fees are taken into account within the revenue requirement analysis. The revenue requirement analysis determines the overall funding needs of the utility, while considering prudent financial planning criteria, e.g., adequate reserves, meeting debt service coverage requirements, etc. For most municipal utilities, the methodology used to establish their revenue requirements is referred to as the “cash basis” approach. Figure 2-2, shown below, provides an overview of the key components of the “cash basis” approach to developing revenue requirements. Revenue Requirement Analysis Compares the sources of funds (revenues) to the expenses of the utility to determine the overall adjustment to rates Cost of Service Analysis Allocates the total revenue requirements to the various customer classes of service in a “fair and equitable” manner Rate Design Analysis Considers both the level and the structure of the rate design to collect the appropriate and targeted level of revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Figure 2-2 Overview of the “Cash-Basis” Approach to E As can be seen in Figure 2-2, there are two elements to establishing the “cash basis” revenue requirements. The top or blue box shows the four basic cost components that are included within the “cash basis” revenue requirements. In contrast, the bottom or yellow box illustrates the various methods used to fund capital infrastructure projects. It should be noted in Figure 2-2 that impact fees may be used (applied) in two different ways, each having a different impact upon the utility’s revenue requirements and, ultimately, the utility’s rates. The first possible use of impact fees is shown in the bottom or yellow box. In that particular case, the impact fees are applied directly to growth or expansion related capital projects. The effect of using the funds in this manner is it helps minimize long-term borrowing. For each dollar of impact fees applied in this manner, one less dollar of long-term borrowing is required. Typically, total capital improvements funded from rates is established and fixed in the financial planning process. Therefore, applying impact fees to capital projects typically will not have a significant impact upon the amount of capital improvements funded from rates. The other potential use of impact fees is to apply the fees toward growth-related debt service. As shown in Figure 2-2, debt service is shown as net of any impact fees. In contrast to applying impact fees directly toward the capital project, in this particular case, for every dollar applied in this manner, there is ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 “An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue raising device. To understand this perspective, one must view new development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities.” . . an impact fee is also a form of a financial reimbursement to existing ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer connecting to the system.” a corresponding dollar decrease in revenue requirements and the resulting rates. This is a very effective method to help minimize rates, but even better at matching the cost of growth to the gradual way in which customer growth occurs over time. In other words, a utility may build or expand a facility with sufficient capacity to handle growth over the next ten to twenty years. That growth doesn’t occur in the first year, but rather, trickles in over a number of years. Therefore, applying the impact fees against the debt service associated with the project creates a better matching of the cost incurrence (debt payments) to the actual customer growth. 2.5 Financial Objectives of Impact Fees An impact fee is a regulation and not a user fee or revenue raising device. To understand this perspective, one must view new development as creating the need for new or expanded facilities. As a result, without payment of impact fees, the utility would have insufficient funds to provide the facilities, and therefore the community is unable to accommodate new development. With this said, impact fees do have certain financial objectives associated with them. While on the surface it may appear as simply a means to extract revenue from new development, the reality is far more complex. Impact fees help utilities achieve a number of different financial objectives. These objectives tend to lean more towards financial equity between customers, as opposed to simply producing revenue. One key financial/rate objective that is achieved from impact fees is equity. Equity is achieved in two different ways. First, an impact fee establishes equity between existing (old) customers and new customers. For example, assume that a water treatment plant is expanded by 5 million gallons per day (MGD) to accommodate growth and the facility is financed over a 20-year period. Without an impact fee, new customers connect to the system and pay for the debt service on the facility via their rates. The customer that connects to the system in year one will contribute to the cost of that facility for 20 years. In contrast, the person who connects in year 10 will only pay for debt service on the facility for ten years, even though the “value” of the capacity was the same for the person connecting in year 1 or year 10. Impact fees create equity within the system by addressing the issue of timing and the “value” of the assets and the “value” of the capacity. The second way in which impact fees help to create equity is after a facility is paid for. Continuing with the example above, after the debt service is fully paid off in year 20, and assuming that some capacity is still available, a new customer connecting to the system would “in theory” receive their capacity at zero cost, because the debt service is paid in full. All the existing customers connected to the system, over the past twenty years, paid for that customer’s capacity. Therefore, an impact fee is also a form of a financial reimbursement to existing ratepayers who paid for those facilities in advance of the new customer connecting to the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of “growth paying for growth.” Based upon the above example, impact fees also have an equity perspective associated with the rate setting process. That is, impact fees are a form of “system buy-in.” A properly established impact fee implies that a new customer connecting to the system has bought into the system at its current cost. Therefore, from a rate setting perspective the utility does not need to have rates for “old” and “new” customers. Again, existing customers have been equitably reimbursed for their past investments. Even with the above discussion, not all communities have impact fees. Most commonly, impact fees are adopted in high growth areas where infrastructure expansion has strained existing financial resources. Philosophically, many utilities desire to have a policy of “growth paying for growth.” Impact fees comport with that philosophy, and it is achieved by applying the impact fees either directly against the capital cost of the expansion facilities or against the debt service associated with it. 2.6 Relationship of Impact Fees and New Construction Activities There are a number of surrounding impact fees. In a very broad sense, some may argue that impact fees are bad for economic development. These arguments center around two issues. These are as follows: • Development will occur on those parcels with lower or non-existent impact fees. • Impact fees raise the cost of doing business and hinder development. Of the research conducted on these topics, just the opposite has been found. Provided below is a brief explanation of each. Developers look at many factors before a parcel is developed. One myth concerns the selection of parcels for development and whether impact fees are applied to the land. “The argument goes that if a developer is choosing between two parcels of land on which to build—where the first parcel is inside a city where SDCs (impact fees) are charged and the second is just outside where lower or no SDCs (impact fees) are charged—the developer will choose the second parcel. The trouble is this means that the owner of the first parcel does not make a sale. The landowner must lower the land price to offset the fee in order to make a sale. However, if the landowner does not lower the price, this indicates that the value of future development may be higher on that parcel. Thus, be wary of developers who claim they will choose the second parcel. Chances are they would not have chosen the first parcel anyway. In the meantime, the land market will be holding the first parcel available for higher value development. In effect what might look like a loss in the short term may be a much higher level of development in the long-term.”4 4 Nelson. “System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities” P. 55. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 “As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, SDCs (impact fees) do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth.” The other argument and myth that one commonly hears about impact fees is that they are bad for economic development. The argument against this position is as follows: “The argument goes that because SDCs (impact fees) raise the price of doing business, they frustrate economic development. However, just the opposite is really true. First, remember that SDCs (impact fees) will be offset by reduced land prices and by enabling the community to more easily expand the supply of buildable land relative to demand. Now, consider what economic development really looks for: skilled labor, access to markets, and land with adequate infrastructure. Competitiveness for economic development will be stimulated by the new or expanded infrastructure paid in part by SDCs (impact fees). In the competition for certain kinds of development, it will be able to show developers the dollar value of SDCs (impact fees) waived as a solid demonstration of the local government’s commitment to such development.”5 As can be seen, at least in the opinion of Nelson, SDCs (impact fees) do not hinder growth, but in fact may help to spur growth. It must be remembered that an important concept associated with impact fees is that the fees are required to develop infrastructure in advance of the actual development. From the developer’s perspective, absent impact fees (i.e. a moratorium on new connections) no new development can occur. Therefore, developers are generally supportive of cost-based impact fees, particularly when it provides available capacity and opportunities for development. 2.7 Summary This section of the report has provided an overview of the financial objectives associated with impact fees and some of the issues surrounding them. This section should have provided a basic understanding of the fees such that when the City is ready to have a policy discussion concerning the continued implementation of impact fees and the imposition of new impact fees, they can be placed in proper perspective. The next section of the report will provide an overview of methodologies for the application of impact fees. 5 Nelson, “System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Facilities” P. 56. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 “The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of the impact fees. System planning criteria provides the “rational nexus” between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer.” 3.0 Overview of Impact Fee Methodologies 3.1 Introduction An important starting point in establishing impact fees is to have a basic understanding of the purpose of these charges, along with criteria and general methodology that is used to establish cost-based impact fees. Presented in the section of the report is an overview of impact fee criteria and the “generally accepted” methodologies that are used to develop cost-based impact fees. 3.2 Impact Fee Criteria In the determination and establishment of the impact fees, a number of different criteria are often utilized. The criteria often used by utilities to establish impact fees are as follows: • Customer understanding • System planning criteria • Financing criteria, and • State/local laws The component of customer understanding implies that the charge is easy to understand. This criterion has implications on the way that the fee is implemented, administered and assessed to the customer. Generally, for a water system, the fee is based on the size (capacity) of the meter. This makes it easy for the customer to understand the level of fee based on the size of a meter required to provide service. In some instances, larger meter sizes are calculated based on actual usage. While this is more complicated, it applies to very few customers and generally more sophisticated industrial customers. For wastewater systems, the charge can be based on meter size or the type of dwelling or business type being assessed. For example, a school could be assessed based on a per student basis corresponding to the sanitary sewer flow per student. The other implication of this criterion is that the methodology is clear and concise in its determination of the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service. The use of system planning criteria is one of the more important aspects in the determination of impact fees. System planning criteria provides the “rational nexus” between the amount of infrastructure necessary to provide service and the charge to the customer. The rational nexus test requires that there be a connection (nexus) established between new development and the existing or expanded facilities required to accommodate new development; and appropriate apportionment of the cost to the new development in relation to benefits reasonably received. An example of using system-planning criteria is the determination that a single-family residential customer requires 415 gallons of water distribution storage. The impact fee methodology then charges the customer for 415 gallons of water distribution storage at the per gallon cost of storage. ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 One of the driving forces behind establishing cost-based impact fees is that “growth pays for growth.” Therefore, impact fees are typically established as a means of having new customers pay an equitable share of the cost of their required capacity (infrastructure). The financing criteria for establishing impact fees relates to the method used to finance growth-related infrastructure of the system and assures that customers are not paying twice for growth-related infrastructure – once through impact fees and again through rates. The double payment can come in through the imposition of impact fees and then the requirement to pay debt service within a customer’s rates. The financing criteria also reviews the basis under which main line and collection line extensions were provided and addresses the issue such that customers are not charged for infrastructure that was provided (contributed) by developers. Many states and local communities have enacted laws which govern the calculation and imposition of impact fees. These laws must be followed in the determination of the impact fees. Most statutes require a “reasonable relationship” between the fee charged and the cost associated with providing service (capacity) to the customer. The charges do not need to be mathematically exact, but must bear a reasonable relationship to the cost burden imposed. As discussed above, the utilization of the planning criteria and the actual costs of construction and the planned costs of construction provide the nexus for the reasonable relationship requirement. 3.3 Growth, Risk and New Connections One of the common phrases associated with impact fees is “growth paying for growth.” While this is a simple and convenient phrase to convey the concept and purpose of impact fees, the reality of the transaction is far more complicated. As the recent downturn in the economy has demonstrated, customer growth is not assured or to be taken for granted. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that it is the existing customers that bear the risk of growth-related facilities that are built. If growth- related facilities are built in anticipation of future growth, and little or no connections occur, it will be the existing ratepayers that will bear the burden of any financial responsibility (e.g. long-term debt) associated with those growth-related facilities. Absent some form of an impact fee, existing ratepayers would likely be hesitant to fully support undertaking such risk. 3.4 Overview of the Impact Fee Methodology There are “generally-accepted” methodologies that are used to establish impact fees. Within the “generally accepted” impact fee methodologies, there are a number of different steps undertaken. These steps are as follows: • Determination of system planning criteria. • Determination of equivalent residential units (ERUs). • Calculation of system component costs. • Determination of any credits. The first step in establishing impact fees is the determination of the system planning criteria. This implies calculating the amount of water required to serve a single-family residential customer. Generally for a water system, two different criteria are determined due to differences in planning criteria. The first planning criterion is the peak day water usage per ERU and the second is a water ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 storage requirement per ERU. These two different planning criteria are developed since a majority of the water system infrastructure is sized to meet the peak day demand, and water storage is sized to meet equalizing, emergency and fire flow requirements. Once the system planning criteria is determined, the number of ERUs can be determined. For the water system, this is determined by utilizing the peak day water system demand and dividing it by served ERUs. This is a very important calculation since it provides the linkage between the amounts of infrastructure necessary to provide service to a set number of customers. This implies that if the system is designed to provide service to demands up to the year 2035, then the infrastructure costs are divided by the ERUs in 2035 to determine the cost per ERU. Once the number of ERUs has been determined, a component by component, e.g., source of supply, treatment, storage, etc., analysis is undertaken to determine the component impact fee in dollar per ERU. Individual facility components are analyzed separately for the water systems given that the planning criteria for the design of the various system components differ. The calculation of the component impact fee includes both historical assets and planned future assets. Historical assets can be valued in a number of different ways. These include original cost plus interest, replacement cost and depreciated replacement costs. 1. The original cost plus interest method includes original cost plus fifteen (15) years worth of interest. This calculation is done to reflect the fact that existing customers have provided for excess capacity in the system and hence need to be reimbursed for not only their initial investment, but also the “carrying cost” on that investment. The reimbursement to existing customers is accomplished by the fact that without an impact fee, rates would otherwise be higher than they would be without impact fees. 2. The replacement cost method values existing assets based on the cost to replace the assets in today’s dollars. This is done by escalating the original cost by the Engineering News Record Construction Cost (ERN) index. The theory behind the use of replacement cost is that customers are indifferent since they would have to pay replacement cost if the infrastructure was built today to serve their needs. 3. The use of depreciated replacement cost reflects the fact that the assets have been used and hence their value to the new customer is less that the replacement cost. Caution needs to be exercised in the use of depreciated replacement cost, since the book or accounting lives used by many utilities are not reflective of the actual life of the asset and may result in the assets being undervalued. An example is using a useful life for a storage reservoir of 40 years, when in reality, with maintenance, the actual life may be between 60 to 80 years. MMI recommends and used the original cost with interest method, since it will reflect the actual cost of the City’s system, to calculate the impact fee in this report. The City’s system is developed to serve future development through existing capacity and planned future capacity additions. This has been accomplished by the City building excess capacity and using borrowing to finance this capacity and the City building future capacity. Therefore, the use of the original cost with interest method will reflect the actual costs that have been incurred or will be incurred by the City in providing capacity to new development. This is also the most commonly used method to value capacity in water systems. This ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 method also appears to comply with the requirements under Montana law wherein in the actual cost of infrastructure is required. Once the total cost of the capital infrastructure is determined, it is then divided by the appropriate number of equivalent residential units the infrastructure will serve to develop the cost per ERU for the specific facility component. After each plant component is analyzed and a cost per ERU is determined, the cost per ERU for each of the facility components is added together to determine the “gross impact fee.” The “gross impact fee” is calculated before any credits for debt service. The last step in the calculation of the impact fee is the determination of any debt credits. This is generally a calculation to assure that customers are not paying twice  once through impact fees and again through debt service included within the water rates. A crediting mechanism is also utilized if general obligation or tax revenue has been used to finance the infrastructure. The final cost-based impact fee is determined by taking the “gross impact fee” and subtracting any credits. This results in a “net impact fee” stated in dollar per ERU. The general basis of this calculation for a water system is the assumption that an ERU is equivalent to a single family residential customer. Larger meter sizes are then imposed fees based on the number of ERUs for a given meter size based on its safe operating capacity. The number of ERUs per meter size is generally based on the safe operating capacity of the meter. 3.5 Summary This section has provided a discussion of the criteria typically used in the determination of impact fees. In addition, an overview of the “generally accepted” methodology used in the calculation of the water impact fees has been provided. Given this background, the next section of the report discusses any specific legal criteria that must be used by the City in the establishment of its impact fees. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 “The laws for the enactment of impact fees in Montana are found in 7-6-1601 to 7-6-1604 of the Montana Code. 4.0 Legal Consideration in Establishing Impact Fees for the City 4.1 Introduction An important consideration in establishing impact fees is any legal requirements at the state or local level. The legal requirements often establish the methodology around which the impact fees must be calculated or how the funds must be used. Given that, it is important for the City to understand these legal requirements. This section of the report provides an overview of the legal requirements for establishing impact fees under Montana law. The discussion within this section of the report is intended to be a summary of our understanding of the relevant Montana law as it relates to establishing impact fee. It in no way constitutes a legal interpretation of Montana law. 4.2 Requirements Under Montana Law In establishing impact fees, an important requirement is they be developed and implemented in conformance with local laws. In particular, many states have established specific laws regarding the establishment, calculation, and implementation of capacity fees. The main objective of most state laws is to assure that these charges are established in such a manner that they are fair, equitable, and cost-based. In other cases, state legislation may have been needed to provide the legislative powers to the utility to establish the charges. The Montana law enabling legislation for impact fees was enacted in 2005 via Senate Bill 185. This was comprehensive legislation allowing public entities in the State of Montana to enact impact fees for various services. The legal basis for the enactment of impact fees is found in Title 7, Chapter 6, and Part 1601 to 1604 of the Montana Code. A copy of the code is summarized in Appendix C. 4.3 Summary This section of the report has reviewed the legal basis for establishing impact fees in Montana. MMI concludes that the City has the authority to establish cost-based impact fees and the proposed methodology to be used within this study, in the opinion of MMI and the City, meets the requirements of Montana law. ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 5.0 Determination of the City’s Water Impact Fees 5.1 Introduction This section of the report presents the development of the City’s 2013 water impact fee. The calculations of the water impact fee presented in this section are based on: 1. The City’s fixed asset records 2. Future capital improvements as identified in the City's current Capital Improvement Plan (Appendix B) 3. Planning criteria projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy 5.2 Overview of the City’s Water System The City currently provides water services for a population of approximately 21,000 customers. This report uses a population growth rate of 2.00% as projected by the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. This is lower than the projected population growth rates applied in the August 2010 report and in the 2008 Facility Plan Updates. The City obtains 100% of its water supply from wells. The City’s source of supply is provided by eight active well sites. (The Noffsinger Spring, located at the north end of the Lawrence Park complex, will be considered a well for discussion purposes, as it does not have sufficient artesian pressure to contribute to the system without additional pumping, and it was recently classified as a well by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.) The City also has four storage reservoirs including the recently constructed Sheepherders Hill reservoir. The capital improvement plan calls for the construction of a new well, upgrades to the distribution and transmission system, and new storage. 5.3 Overview of the City’s Water Facility Plan The water facility plan provides an update to the water system portions of the City of Kalispell Water, Sewer, and Storm Drainage System Facility Plan, completed in July 2002. Since completion of the 2002 report, the City has continued to experience population growth and the expansion of infrastructure; therefore, in 2006 and 2008 the City chose to update their facility plan to analyze potential growth and effectively plan for growth while protecting water and environmental resources. The area studied in the 2006 and 2008 Water Facility Plan is represented in Section 1, Figure 1-6 – Water and Sewer Impact Fee Update. The basis of planning was to determine the requirements for the next 50 years in areas that the City will have to provide water service as growth continues. On March 7, 2011 the City Council adopted an annexation policy that significantly revised the previous annexation boundary. This report uses the annexation policy boundary for the planning boundary and adjusted Capital Improvement Projects to meet the infrastructure needs in the expanded service area. 5.4 Present Impact Fees The City currently assesses an impact fee for connection to the water system. The current water impact fees are shown in Table 5-1. ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 Table 5-1 Current Water Impact Fees Meter Size ERU Factor Charge 3/4” 1.0 $2,213 1” 2.5 5,533 1-1/2” 5.0 11,066 2” 8.0 17,705 3” 16.0 35,411 Over 3” Calculated Calculated 5.5 Calculation of the City’s Impact Fees As was discussed in Section 3, the process of calculating impact fees is based upon a four-step process. In summary form, these steps were as follows: • Determination of system planning criteria • Determination of equivalent residential units (ERU) • Calculation of the impact fee for system component costs • Determination of any impact fee debt credits Each of these areas is discussed in more detail below. 5.5.1 System Planning The number of equivalent residential units (ERUs) was determined based on the planning criteria from the 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy which uses a projected growth rate of 2.00%. Kalispell water usage data calculates a 166 gallons per capita day average flow and an assumed typical peaking factor of 2.67. An averaged 2.5 persons per household or ERU was utilized to develop a peak day flow of 1,108 gallons per day per ERU. A summary of the ERU conversion factors is presented below in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 Water System Planning Criteria Planning Criteria Gallons/Day/ERU Planning Criteria Average Day Flow 1 415 Gallons/Day/ERU Peak Day Flow 2 1,108 Gallons/Day/ERU From the Kalispell water production reports. Based on a peaking factor of 2.67x ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 As discussed previously, certain facilities may be planned and sized around different planning criteria. Therefore, the system planning criteria shown above will be used for different facility components to determine the cost per ERU for that specific facility component. 5.5.2 Calculation of Equivalent Residential Units The planning horizon of this study was 2012 – 2035. Other impact fee components were based on the number of ERUs in 2035 or additional ERUs from 2012 to 2035 As a part of this study, a projection of the number of new/additional ERUs per year must be determined, along with the total number of ERUs at 2035. The City’s total number of residential ERUs for each year was determined by dividing the peak day usage factor per ERU into total peak day demand. The number of ERUs added during each year of the study period was made based on a 2% growth rate as set forth 2011 Kalispell Growth Policy. The ERU calculation in correspondence with the 2% growth rate is located in Appendix A. A summary of the ERUs for 2012 and 2035 are presented in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Water System Equivalent Residential Units Year ERUs Equivalent Residential Units – 2012 8,632 Equivalent Residential – 2035 13,612 Given the development of the total water ERUs for each year of the planning period, the focus can shift to the calculation of the impact fee for each facility component. This aspect of the analysis is discussed in detail below. 5.5.3 Calculations of the Impact Fee for the Major System Components The next step of the analysis is to review each major functional component of facility in service and determine the impact fee for that component. In calculating the water impact fee for the City, both existing facility assets, along with planned future CIP were included within the calculation. The major components of the City’s water system that were reviewed for purposes of calculating impact fee were as follows: • Source of Supply • Pumping Facilities • Storage Facilities • Transmission and Distribution Mains • Administrative Charge A brief discussion of the impact fee calculated for each of the functional plant components is provided below. ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 SOURCE OF SUPPLY The City’s source of supply is provided entirely from wells. (The Noffsinger Spring, located at the north end of the Lawrence Park complex, will be considered a well for discussion purposes, as it does not have sufficient artesian pressure to contribute to the system without additional pumping, and it was recently classified as a well by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.) The sources of supply consist of eight active well sites. Details of the calculations for source of supply are provided in Appendix D, with present costs. The current wells have a firm capacity of 10.195 million gallons per day (mgd). This firm capacity assumes all wells, except the single largest, are on 24 hours per day. The firm capacity provides a characterization of the system, but does not constrain the system to operate under such conditions; the system should not operate with all pumps turned on 24 hours per day, as this would create obvious problems with operation and maintenance of equipment. The current pumping capacity of the system is sufficient to meet current 2012 peak day demands (9.560 mgd) and to meet peak day demands into 2015 (10.150 mgd). Between 2012 and 2015, the City should consider developing additional supply capacity in the system. This will likely be accomplished through development of the Grossweiler well (2.880 mgd). The Grossweiler well is located adjacent to the DNRC/DEQ/911 Center complex on Stillwater Road. The costs associated with this well development are included in this impact fee analysis, and are shown in Appendix D. The addition of the Grossweiler well will bring the peak day capacity to 13.075 mgd. This is the approximate peak day demand at the 2028 planning year, or 13.130 mgd. Note on Planning Period: The 2008 Water Facility Plan Update uses the design year 2035 for facility planning. This same design year is used as the planning year in this report. Extending the planning year further into the future will increase the number of ERUs over which to distribute the impact fees. This will decrease the impact fee, but will also create a greater risk to the City of not collecting sufficient impact fee when the improvements are needed. Conversely, bringing the planning year closer to the present year will decrease the number of ERUs and will increase the per-ERU impact fee. For these reasons, the 2035 planning year is used for this water impact fee update. By following the 2011 Montana Code Annotated 7-6-1602 (2 k iv), regarding the update of the impact fee analysis, the City will be able to respond to changes in the actual population growth rates and development patterns. This response will allow the City to modify future capital improvement plans to meet changing population growth rates. An Equivalent Residential Unit, or ERU, is a standard way to measure capacity within a utility system. An ERU is the water flow demand arising from an average single-family home. Within the Kalispell water system, an ERU is 415 gallons per day, or 166 gallons per person with 2.5 persons per single-family residence. A facility that consumes 830 gallons per day would have the impact of two ERUs. This unit creates the equitable distribution of costs across residential, commercial and industrial demands. ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 The total current cost for source of supply equipment is $2,879,260. This total cost is divided by the ERUs at the 2035 planning year, or 13,612 ERUs. This generates a per-ERU supply cost shown below. Details of this calculation are shown in Appendix D. Total Impact 2012 Source of Supply Costs: $ 2,879,260 Total Projected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612 Impact Fee (Source of Supply) per ERU: $ 212 PUMPING FACILITIES The City currently has pumping facilities at all well sites. No future capital improvements were identified as part of the 2012 Capital Improvement Plan. The costs of future pumping facilities associated with the Grossweiler Well are included in the source of supply costs in the previous section. The total cost of existing pumping facilities are shown in Appendix E. Details of the pumping facilities calculation are also provided in Appendix E. The total 2012 cost for pumping facilities is $3,250,836. This total cost is divided by the ERUs at the 2035 planning year, or 13,612 ERUs. This generates a per-ERU cost shown below: Total 2012 Pumping Facilities Costs: $ 3,250,836 Total Projected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612 Impact Fee (Pumping Facilities) per ERU: $ 239 STORAGE FACILITIES The City currently has four storage reservoirs with a total storage volume of 6.5 million gallons. Each reservoir contains the following components of storage volume: Operational Storage: this is the water that is stored between the pump “on” and pump “off” settings. This is a relatively small component of the storage system, and allows the well pumps to cycle and alternate rather than run continuously during average demand conditions. This is currently approximately 0.880 million gallons. Equalization Storage: This is the water used when the supply system cannot provide sufficient water at peak system flows, e.g., summer watering patterns and daily peak demands. The use of this equalization water does not indicate a deficiency in the system; rather, this component of storage allows the system to function more cost-effectively by not requiring additional wells and pumps to meet peak day demands; the storage tanks are in place to meet these peak day demands. The storage facilities contain 1.625 million gallons of equalization storage, or 25% of the total storage volume. Fire Storage: This water is used for fire suppression activities and is determined by the size of the community and the land uses within the community. The City of Kalispell applies a 4000 gpm fire flow over a period of four hours to develop the fire storage volume. This equates to 960,000 gallons of fire storage. Emergency Storage: This component is used to provide water to the community during extraordinary events such as prolonged supply failures. The City’s water system contains redundancies in the system, ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 which minimize the probability of an emergency scenario. These redundancies include multiple wells, multiple tanks, auxiliary power, upper/lower zone connections and comprehensive monitoring by means of the SCADA system (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition). The current emergency storage volume is approximately 2.720 million gallons. Remaining storage is water that may be unavailable due to outlet levels or low pressures as the system empties. This component is not considered in Kalispell storage calculations, as it comprises an insignificant volume of water in the Kalispell system. The total available operational and equalizing water storage is 2.820 million gallons. The City currently utilizes approximately 0.880 million gallons of this available storage. Discussions with water department staff have indicated the City intends to study the viability of optimizing the water system to use approximately 1.195 of this storage. The full amount of this storage is not currently used due to low pressures that develop when the tanks are drawn to lower levels. When the tanks are drawn to lower levels in an attempt to use the full storage capacity, the water pressure (near the top of the lower pressure zone) drops below what citizens typically expect. The total cost of existing storage facilities was divided by the planning year 2035 ERUs to develop the cost for storage facilities per ERU. Details of the storage facilities calculation are provided in Appendix F. The total 2012 cost for storage facilities is $5,672,604. This total cost is divided by the ERUs at the 2035 planning year, or 13,612 ERUs. This generates a per-ERU cost shown below: Total 2012 Storage Facilities Costs: $ 5,672,604 Total Projected ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 13,612 Impact Fee (Storage Facilities) per ERU: $ 417 TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION MAINS The City’s transmission/distribution network consists of numerous lines of 8-inch, 10-inch, 12-inch, 16- inch, and 20-inch diameter mains. To determine the impact fee for transmission mains and booster pumps, an inventory of the existing system was undertaken as well as those planned improvements as identified in the capital improvement program. The historical investments of the City were adjusted for interest charges up to a maximum of fifteen years and allocated to growth based on the capacity of the assets to provide service to new development. Recoupment Costs and Capital Projects within the Existing System A significant component of the water impact fee arises from recoupment costs associated with existing transmission and distribution facilities that have excess capacity. The total 2012 cost of these facilities is $20,196,005. The impact fee related costs were determined by considering the additional ERUs that are projected to connect to the system during the planning period (2012 to 2035), and then dividing this number of ERUs by the total ERUs projected at the 2035 planning year. All existing mains that were contributed by developers, financed through improvement districts, or contributed by grants were excluded from the analysis. All mains less than six inches were also excluded from the analysis since these would not be able to provide capacity to new development. Water main replacements were also ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 excluded since these are not growth-related and should be paid for through rates. The total impact fee related to existing transmission and distribution facilities is $6,416,138, or $1,288 per ERU. A summary of these costs and this calculation is shown in Appendix G. A second component of the transmission and distribution facility impact fee is the cost related to capital improvement projects (CIP) within the existing system that are necessary to accommodate future growth. The total impact fee related to capital improvements to the existing system is $1,438,603, or $289 per ERU. These costs are also summarized in Appendix G. The two components of the transmission and distribution facilities impact fee are shown below with the associated per-ERU impact fee. Transmission and Distribution Recoupment Impact Fee: $ 6,416,138 ($1,288 / ERU) Transmission and Distribution CIP Impact Fee: $ 1,438,603 289 / ERU) Total Projected Additional ERUs at 2035 Planning Year: 4,980 Impact Fee (Trans. & Dist.) per ERU: $ 1,577 Extensions to the Existing System A third component of the transmission and distribution facility impact fee is the cost related to extensions to the existing system that are necessary to accommodate future growth. The costs of these extensions were calculated based on the pre-2011 Kalispell Growth Policy Update. The September 2012 Water Impact Fee Summary (Appendix H) provides a proportional cost of these improvements based on the improvements that are shown within the 2011 Growth Policy annexation boundary. A summary of these costs and this calculation is shown in the summary report. The total impact fee related to extensions to the existing system to accommodate future growth is $17,583,247, or $3,531 per ERU. These extension costs were provided for discussion by the Impact Fee Advisory Committee (IFAC). These costs may be included in or excluded from the impact fee analysis based on recommendations from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee and as set by City policy. The IFAC reviewed the extension costs and recommended not including the cost in the 2013 water impact fee total. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE Under Montana statute, an impact fee may include a fee for the administration of the impact not to exceed 5% of the impact fee collected. For the August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report, the City Council guided staff to use the allowable administrative charge of 5% in the impact fee analysis. The same guidance from the City Council is followed for this report, and therefore the water administrative charge of $122 per ERU equal to 5% is included as a part of the collected water impact fee. 5.5.4 Debt Service Credits The final step in calculating the water impact fees was to determine if a credit for payment on debt service for the City’s outstanding bonds. Based on current growth projections, the water impact fee will collect sufficient funds to cover the debt service related to growth. For example, the average annual debt service payments for the drinking water loans is $235,259, and the projected annual water impact fee revenue is $516,000. No water debt service credits are necessary in this current impact fee analysis. ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 5.6 Net Allowable Water Impact Fees Based on the sum of the component costs calculated above, the net allowable water impact fee can be determined. “Net” refers to the “gross” impact fee, net of any debt service credits. “Allowable” refers to concept that the calculated impact fee as shown in Table 5-4 is the City’s cost-based impact fee. The City, as a matter of policy, may charge any amount up to the allowable impact fee, but not over that amount. Charging an amount greater than the allowable impact fee would not meet the nexus test of a cost-based impact fee. A summary of the calculated net allowable water impact fee for the City is shown in the Table 5-4. Table 5-4 Allowable Water Impact Fees ($/ERU) Description Total Source of Supply $212 Pumping Facility $239 Storage Facility $417 Transmission and Distribution Mains $1,577 Administrative Cost at 5% $122 Total Impact Fee $2,567 Based on the impact fee for 1 ERU, the charges for a residential customer with a ¾” meter and various sized meters results in the following impact fees as shown in Table 5-5. One ERU is defined as the usage for a single family residential customer. Other meter sizes are then weighted based on their safe operating capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 Table 5-5 Allowable Water System Impact Fees By Meter Size Meter Size ERU Factor 1 Charge 3/4” 1.0 $2,567 1” 2.5 $6,418 1-1/2” 5.0 $12,835 2” 8.0 $20,536 3” 16.0 $41,072 Over 3” Calculated – Commercial customers with residential type usage pay the residential fee. In Table 5-5 the impact fees for the larger meter sizes are determined by multiplying the impact fee for an ERU by the meter capacity weighting factors for up to 3 inches. The weighting factors are determined based on the American Water Works Association (AWWA) safe operating capacities for the type and size of meter. For meter sizes over 3 inches, the impact fee is calculated based on the actual usage of the customer. 5.7 Key Financial Assumptions In the development of the impact fees for the City’s water system, a number of key assumptions were utilized. These are as follows: • The City’s asset records were used to determine the existing assets and the value of those assets. • The interest rate used for calculating interest on existing assets is the 10-year Treasury Note Rate as reported by the US Department of the Treasury at closing on November 30th of each year. • Up to fifteen years of interest is included in the cost of the existing improvements. The fifteen- year average interest rate is currently 4.25%. The August 2010 Impact Fee Final Report used an interest rate of 6.00%. 5.8 Implementation of the Impact Fees The methodology used to calculate the impact fees takes into account the cost of money or interest charges and inflation. Therefore, consultants recommend the City adjust the impact fees each year by an escalation factor to reflect the cost of interest and inflation. The most frequently used source to escalate impact fees is the ENR index which tracks changes in construction costs for municipal utility projects. This method of escalating the City’s impact fee should be used for no more than a two-year period. After this time period, as required by Montana law, the City should update the charges based on ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 the actual cost of infrastructure and any new planned facilities that would be contained in an updated master plan or capital improvement plan. 5.9 Summary The water impact fees developed and presented in this report are based on the engineering design criteria of the City’s water system, the value of the existing assets, future capital improvements and “generally accepted” ratemaking principles. Adoption of the proposed impact fees will provide multiple benefits to the City and create equitable and cost-based charges for new customers connecting to the City’s water system. ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 References 1. September 2012 Water Impact Fee Summary 2. Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater system August 2010 (non-adopted impact fee report) ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 Appendix A: ERU Projections ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 City of Kalispell Water System Impact Fees ERU Projections Water Production Peak2 Average1 Day Flow Day Flow Total Additional Year (MGD) (MGD) ERUs ERUs 2005 9.02 3.38 2006 9.93 3.72 2007 10.79 4.04 2008 10.01 3.75 2009 10.51 3.94 2010 9.09 3.40 8,204 2011 9.38 3.51 8,463 2012 9.56 3.58 8,[PHONE REDACTED] 9.76 3.65 8,[PHONE REDACTED] 9.95 3.73 8,[PHONE REDACTED] 10.15 3.80 9,[PHONE REDACTED] 10.35 3.88 9,[PHONE REDACTED] 10.56 3.96 9,[PHONE REDACTED] 10.77 4.03 9,[PHONE REDACTED] 10.99 4.11 9,[PHONE REDACTED] 11.21 4.20 10,[PHONE REDACTED] 11.43 4.28 10,[PHONE REDACTED] 11.66 4.37 10,[PHONE REDACTED] 11.89 4.45 10,[PHONE REDACTED] 12.13 4.54 10,[PHONE REDACTED] 12.37 4.63 11,[PHONE REDACTED] 12.62 4.73 11,[PHONE REDACTED] 12.87 4.82 11,[PHONE REDACTED] 13.13 4.92 11,[PHONE REDACTED] 13.39 5.02 12,[PHONE REDACTED] 13.66 5.12 12,[PHONE REDACTED] 13.93 5.22 12,[PHONE REDACTED] 14.21 5.32 12,[PHONE REDACTED] 14.50 5.43 13,[PHONE REDACTED] 14.79 5.54 13,[PHONE REDACTED] 15.08 5.65 13,[PHONE REDACTED] 15.38 5.76 13,884 272 ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 Water Production Peak2 Average1 Day Flow Day Flow Total Additional Year (MGD) (MGD) ERUs ERUs 2037 15.69 5.88 14,[PHONE REDACTED] 16.01 5.99 14,[PHONE REDACTED] 16.33 6.11 14,[PHONE REDACTED] 16.65 6.24 15,[PHONE REDACTED] 16.99 6.36 15,[PHONE REDACTED] 17.32 6.49 15,[PHONE REDACTED] 17.67 6.62 15,[PHONE REDACTED] 18.02 6.75 16,[PHONE REDACTED] 18.39 6.89 16,[PHONE REDACTED] 18.75 7.02 16,[PHONE REDACTED] 19.13 7.16 17,[PHONE REDACTED] 19.51 7.31 17,[PHONE REDACTED] 19.90 7.45 17,[PHONE REDACTED] 20.30 7.60 18,319 359 1 2005 through 2011 Actual Water Production, 2012 through 2050 are projected flows based on growth rate by Kal. Planning Department 2 Average Day Water Production with Peaking Factor Applied 2.00% Growth Rate from Kalispell Planning Department (Growth Policy Update 05/26/2011) 1108 gallons per day per ERU (from 2.5 persons per dwelling unit X 166 gallons pp/day X 2.67 peaking factor) 415 gallons per day per ERU actual without peaking factor (from 2.5 persons per dwelling unit X 166 gallons pp/day) 166 gallons per day per capita without peaking factor 2.67 peaking factor ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 Appendix B: Capital Improvement Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 Appendix C: Montana Code Annotated 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 Appendix D: Source of Supply ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 Source of Supply Original Cost Year Equipment List Cost 2012 2002 Source Water Delineation Study $ 94,868 $ 169,894 2002 Noffsinger Springs Chlorine Room 10,398 18,621 Total Existing Source $ 105,266 $ 188,515 Existing Wells 1913 Lawrence Park Well (Noffsinger Spring) $ 9,835 $ 18,362 1956 Depot Park Well 38,306 $ 71,517 1966 Armory Well 34,251 $ 63,946 1979 Buffalo Hill Well 94,577 $ 176,574 1982 Buffalo Hill Well to Res 11,042 $ 20,615 1956 Northridge Well Site 10 $ 19 1997 Northside Water Wells (Grandview 1 and 2) 306,028 $ 571,350 2007 Old School Water Well (Wells 1 and 2) 90,106 $ 110,952 2009 West View Water Project 853,355 $ 966,847 2011 Grosswieler Well Development 92,626 $ 96,563 2011 Silverbrook Well (by Developer) - - Total Existing Wells $ 1,530,136 $ 2,096,744 Future Wells 2012-2023 Grosswieller Water Supply $ 575,000 $ 594,000 Total Future Wells $ 575,000 $ 594,000 Total Wells $ 2,879,260 2035 ERUs 13,612 Source of Supply Impact Fee per ERU $ 211.53 ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 Appendix E: Pumping Plant Facility ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 Pumping Plant Facility Year Equipment List Original Cost Cost 2012 Existing Pumping Plant 1913 Lawrence Park Pump & Springhouse $ 112,024 $ 209,147 1966 Lawrence Park Pump # 1 & Motor 4,025 9,646 1964 Lawrence Park Pump # 2 & Motor 3,302 7,913 1959 Lawrence Park Pump # 3 & Motor 7,785 18,657 1971 Lawrence Park Chlorine Injector 1,073 2,572 1965 Lawrence Park Furnace 2,129 5,102 1987 L. Park-2 Cylinder Chlorine Scale 3,820 9,155 1951 Depot Park Pump house 3,000 7,190 1951 Depot Park Pump house Elec. & meter 6,780 16,249 2000 Chlorine Room Addition 7,550 15,192 1951 Depot Pump # 1 4,644 11,130 1959 Buffalo Hill Booster Station 2,150 5,153 1956 Buffalo Hill Booster Motor 4,870 11,671 1965 Armory Well Pump house 2,744 6,576 2000 Chlorine Room Addition 7,839 15,774 1965 Armory Pump/ Motor 7,293 17,478 1965 Armory Well Flow Meter 1,972 4,726 1975 Armory Well Muesco Valve 4,995 11,971 1967 Telemetry System 30,140 72,232 1974 Buffalo Hill Booster Station 22,678 54,349 1999 Buffalo Hill Fuel Tank 8,117 17,313 1986 B.H. Pressure Transducer System 5,330 12,774 1979 B.H. Well Turbine Pump 107,930 258,661 1985 Buffalo Hill Flow meter 1,979 4,743 1990 Remodel Lawrence Park Pump house 37,130 88,984 1991 Buffalo Hill Flow meter 2,467 5,912 1992 Buffalo Hill Telemetry System 60,276 144,455 1999 Telemetry System Upgrade 3,945 8,414 1998 Northside Pump house and Telemetry 501,757 1,134,424 2001 Noffsinger/Chlorine Room 6,249 11,862 2001 2002 Noffsinger Upgrade 4,148 7,874 2002 Standby Power Upgrade 249,924 447,576 2005 Wtr Supply Electrical Safety Syst Upgrade 346,497 521,003 2008 Grandview System Improvements 33,105 41,794 2011 Telemetry System wide upgrades 31,286 33,163 Total Existing Pumping Plant $ 1,640,953 $ 3,250,836 Total ERUs 2035 13,612 Pumping Plant Impact Fee per ERU $ 238.83 ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 Appendix F: Storage ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 Storage Original Cost Year Equipment List Cost 2012 Existing Storage Plant 1958 Buffalo Hill Standpipe $ 48,117 $ 89,834 1914 Reservoir # 1 24,031 $ 44,866 1952 Reservoir # 2 73,691 $ 137,580 1957 Reservoir Covers 97,577 $ 182,175 1965 Buffalo Hill Elevated Storage Tank 111,970 $ 209,046 1982 Buffalo Hill to Reservoir pipe 11,042 $ 20,615 2001 Water Reservoir Roof 420,128 $ 664,077 1914 Reservoir # 1 Land 715 $ 1,335 1935 Noffsinger Land 1,500 $ 2,800 1939 Monteath Land 650 $ 1,214 1952 Reservoir # 2 Land 1 $ 2 2009 Sheepherder's Hill 3,812,072 $ 4,319,060 Total Existing Storage Plant $ 4,601,494 $ 5,672,604 Future Storage Plant beyond 2035 North Kalispell Reservioir 1 $ 3,374,100 $ 3,907,350 beyond 2035 West Kalispell Reservior 2 3,277,500 3,795,483 beyond 2035 South Kalispell Reservior 3 3,277,500 3,795,483 Total Future Storage Plant $ 9,929,100 $ 11,498,317 Total Storage Plant $ 5,672,604 Total ERUs 2035 13,612 Distribution Storage Plant Impact Fee per ERU $ 416.75 1 - See Table 5-16 City of Kalispell Water Facility Plan Update - 2008 2 - See Table 5-18 City of Kalispell Water FacilityPlan Update - 2008 3 - See Table 5-20 City of Kalispell Water FacilityPlan Update - 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 Appendix G: Transmission and Distribution ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 Appendix H: September 2012 Water Impact Fee Update Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---