POWDER MOUNTAIN WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WATER IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN

Transcription

1 May 31, 2018 POWDER MOUNTAIN WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WATER IMPACT FEE FACILITIES PLAN 4246 S. Riverboat Rd. Ste 200 Salt Lake City, Utah T F

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Impact Fee Certification Introduction Methodology and Assumptions Service Area Demand Units Level of Service Standards Existing Level of Service Proposed Level of Service Existing Conditions Existing Infrastructure Water Production Water Storage Water Conveyance Excess Capacity Future Development Demographics Water Demands Based on Projected Development Proposed Capital Improvements Capital Improvements within District Service Areas Original District ERC Growth Capital Facility Analysis System and Existing Deficiency Costs Funding of Future Facilities...10 P a g e i

3 APPENDICES Appendix A Capital Improvement Analysis Appendix B Maps FIGURES Figure Population Growth in Powder Mountain (Number of ERCs)... 7 TABLES Table Capital Improvements....5 Table Original District ERC Growth.5 Table A.1 - Capital Facilities Analysis. 10 P a g e ii

4 1.0 IMPACT FEE CERTIFICATION As required in Utah Code Title 11 Chapter 36a-306, an impact fee facilities plan requires a written certification. CRS Engineers certifies 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 with the Impact Fees Act. A p p e n d i x B 3

5 2.0 INTRODUCTION Powder Mountain Water and Sewer Improvement District (PMWSID or the District) is the political subdivision established to provide water and sewer services to the Powder Mountain Ski Resort Area and the adjacent community. The District currently has 90 active water connections, and is anticipating a significant increase in development over the next ten years. In order to meet the growing demands placed on the system, the District has retained CRS Engineers to prepare the Water Master Plan (WMP, September 2016) and this Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP). This Impact Fee Facilities Plan, prepared according to the Impact Fees Act (Title 11, Chapter 36a of the Utah Code), identifies water projects that will be necessary to support future growth and development in Powder Mountain over the next ten years and what proportion of the cost of those projects may be funded by impact fees. According to the Impact Fees Act, an impact fee is 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. Impact fees may not be imposed to remedy existing deficiencies or to raise the established level of service of a public facility. Impact fees may only include capital expenses and may not include any operations and maintenance costs. Impact fees collected must be spent within six years of being collected. Per 11-36a-302, an impact fee facilities plan shall identify the existing level of service, a proposed level of service, any excess capacity to accommodate future growth at the proposed level of service, identify demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity at the proposed level of service, and identify the means by which the political subdivision will meet those growth demands. A p p e n d i x B 4

6 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 3.1 Service Area Powder Mountain is located on the northern border of Weber County and the southern border of Cache County. It is approximately twenty miles northeast of Ogden, Utah. The area surrounding Powder Mountain is primarily a rural farming community, with several outdoor recreational areas. Nearby rural communities include Eden, Liberty, and Huntsville. Due to its location and elevation, it is not feasible for Powder Mountain to receive water services from any of the other communities in the area; the District is the sole provider of water services for any residents or developments in the area. 3.2 Demand Units The District is responsible for providing enough water (measured in gallons) to serve each of its customers. Each residential customer is considered one connection, while non-residential uses are charged based on an Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC). One ERC is equal to 2.3 people per connection. The District follows State regulations for gallons produced per connection or ERC. 3.3 Level of Service Standards The level of service is defined as the performance standard for each capital component of a public facility within a service area. The proposed level of service may diminish or equal the existing level of service, but may not raise the established level of service Existing Level of Service The State regulations for water (Utah Administrative Code R ) requires the District to have the capability to provide 800 gallons per day per connection (gpd/c). This regulation is the existing Level of Service (LOS) standard for the District Proposed Level of Service The District has committed itself to maintaining the capability to provide 800 gpd/c. This will allow the District to continue to provide the same LOS to its customers, and to meet State regulations. A p p e n d i x B 5

7 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 Existing Infrastructure The existing infrastructure owned by PMWSID can be divided into three functions: production, storage, and conveyance. Each of these functions is essential to the system overall Water Production In the past, Powder Mountain had two water sources the Cobabe Well, and Pizzle Springs. However, neither of these sources are usable. In 2015, the Summit Mountain Holding Group constructed the Hidden Lake Well which now serves as the primary water source for the District. The Hidden Lake Well is approved to produce approximately 172,800 gallons per day, enough water for 173 ERCs Water Storage The District s water storage facilities are comprised of four tanks in two different pressure zones. The lower zone is designated as the Timberline area that has a usable tank storage capacity of 160,000 gallons. The Hidden Lake area has 415,000 gallons of tank storage in the upper pressure zone. The Hidden Lake zone presently supplies water to the Timberline area through a pressure regulator station. While the overall storage volume exceeds all State capacity standards, future development of the Summit Powder Mountain property will require that the lower zone add reservoir capacity. This change will facilitate all of the Hidden Lake reservoir storage being committed to the development s needs. If the existing Timberline reservoirs needed to reserve 120,000 gallons for fire flow demands, the remaining storage could serve only 100 ERC per State criteria. This report recommends that a 500,000-gallon storage reservoir be constructed in the lower zone to meet the future needs of 200 ERC plus emergency storage for the lower zone Water Conveyance The District s conveyance and distribution system is made up of approximately 35,000 linear feet of ductile iron pipe. These pipes range in size from 4-inch diameter to 8-inch diameter. However, a recent analysis of the water system showed the 4-inch pipe does not provide enough water for fire protection. Therefore, going forward the District s standard will be 8-inch pipe. 4.2 Excess Capacity Excess capacity in existing water infrastructure may be utilized to support future growth. The Impact Fee Act allows an impact fee to recoup the actual costs incurred for excess capacity in an existing system improvement. The District currently has 90 active connections. As stated above, the Hidden Lake Well can support up to 173 connections, and the combined capacity of the storage tanks can support 900 connections. This means that an excess capacity of 83 connections (66,400 gpd) exists in the water production system, and an excess capacity of 810 connections exists in the water storage system. A p p e n d i x B 6

8 ERC PMWSID 5.0 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 5.1 Demographics Powder Mountain is expecting an unprecedented level of growth in the near future. Based on data collected in 2017, the population will double in the next 2-3 years, and double again within 10 years. Figure 5.1 shows the estimated population growth in the District Figure Population Growth in Powder Mountain (Number of ERCs) Powder Mountain Population Growth Year Water Demands Based on Projected Development Based on the population data, it is estimated that the demand for water will exceed the production at Hidden Lake Well by 2019, and will exceed the storage capacity by Due to this growth, it is necessary that the District increase its ability to produce water. Collecting impact fees will be essential to this development. 5.2 Proposed Capital Improvements In order to meet the demands placed on the system by increased development, the District is planning to construct two new wells and one new tank in the next 5 years. With the addition of these two wells, the District should be able to produce enough water to meet demands through The district will also need to upgrade the existing 4-inch pipes in order to have enough flow for fire protection requirements. These projects, as well as additional upgrades for long-term buildout are outlined in Table 5-1. A p p e n d i x B 7

9 Improvement Storage Table 5.1 Capital Improvements Timing Estimated Cost Additional 1,000,000 Gallon Emergency Storage 2040 $1,250,000 Additional 500,000 Gallons Storage 2025 $800,000 Final 300,000 Gallons Storage $500,000 Production Cobabe Well 2018 $1,488,000 Bloomington Well 2020 $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 New Well # $1,450,000 Remaining 9 Wells TBD Surface Treatment System Based on Aquifer Limits TBD Distribution 6-inch DI Line from Cobabe to System 2019 $1,932,000 8 Line from Sundown to Powder Ridge 2020 $68,303 8 PVC Waterline Between Tanks 2023 $1,200,000 Replace Existing 4 Distribution Lines w/8 PVC 2030 $950,000 Replace Existing 6 Pipe w/8 PVC 2035 $320,000 Future Water Connection Fee Payment to the Cobabe Trust 2018 $110,000 District Expenses Service Truck and Carport 2018 $12,450 *All costs based upon 2017 values 5.3 Capital Improvements within District Service Areas Capital Improvements as described in Paragraph 6.1 System and Existing Deficiency Costs defines the various categories for allocating capitol costs in determining impact fee charges. Appendix A.1-Powder Mountain Water Capital Facilities Analysis presents a detailed breakdown A p p e n d i x B 8

10 of these capital costs by the various categories. An additional designation is made for each capital cost in Appendix A-1 by District Service Area. There are two District Service Areas, Original District (OD) and Summit Powder Mountain (). The Original District is defined as the service area of the Power Mountain Water and Sewer Improvement District that predates new development areas owned by Summit Powder Mountain and its related entities. The Summit Powder Mountain service area is segregated given the fact that all infrastructure needed to develop the land is provided and paid for by Summit Powder Mountain and its related entities. Any category with the designation of found on left hand column of Appendix A-1 does not qualify for Impact Fee charges due to the developer exaction for all water related infrastructure in that service area. 5.4 Original District Anticipated ERC Growth The Original District Service Area is projected to accommodate a total of 200 equivalent residential connections (ERCs) which represents build out for this service area. As of 2017, the District serves or is committed to 90 ERCs. Table 5-2 provides an approximate allocation of the remaining 110 ERCs over the next 10 years. Table 5-2 Original District ERC Growth YEAR ERC A p p e n d i x B 9

11 6.0 CAPITAL FACILITY ANALYSIS 6.1 System and Existing Deficiency Costs Capital Improvements are divided into three categories: System Impact, Developer Costs, and District Costs. Cost for the proposed capital improvements may be allocated to one or multiple categories. Costs are allocated on the criteria below. The actual costs for proposed capital improvements are provided in Appendix A. System Impacts are considered to be the infrastructure necessary for the District s system to meet the additional demand caused by development. System Projects serve multiple developments, and the benefits are shared by all the residents/customers. The District is charged with the design and construction of these improvements. These improvements may be funded using Impact Fees in accordance with Utah Code 11-36a-202. Developer Costs are improvements that typically benefit one development. The cost for these improvements falls upon the developer. District Costs are existing District infrastructure that do not meet standards or provide the established LOS. These existing Deficiencies may not be funded by impact fees. 6.2 Funding of Future Facilities Per Utah Code11-36a-302, consider all revenue sources including grants, bonds, interfund loans, impact fees and anticipated or accepted dedications of system improvements. Impact fees may only be imposed when they are necessary to maintain the proposed level of service. District Funding The District has considered all revenue sources in preparing this Impact Fee Facilities Plan. As stated above, the District will use funds other than impact fees to pay the portion of the costs attributed to existing deficiencies. Federal\State Funding The District may seek Federal and State funding through grants and loans. At the present time, no Federal or State funding is expected. Should such funding become available, the District would credit back any impact fees that may have been collected towards State or Federally funded projects. A p p e n d i x B 10

12 7.0 REFERENCES CRS Engineers. Powder Mountain Water and Sewer District Water Master Plan. September Utah Administrative Code. Rule R Facility Design and Operation: Minimum Sizing. February 2018 A p p e n d i x B 11

13 APPENDIX A: CAPITAL FACILITIES ANALYSIS A p p e n d i x B 12

14 03/2018 Project or Feature ID Storage STOR - 1 STOR - 2 OD STOR - 3 Production PROD - 1 OD PROD PROD - 4 PROD - 5 PROD - 6 PROD - 7 PROD - 8 PROD - 9 Project or Feature Description Table A.1 - Powder Mountain Water Capital Facilities Analysis Estimate of Probable Costs (based on costs in 2017) System Impact Cost Estimate (10 Years) System Impact (11+ Years) District Costs Developer Costs Install additional 1,000,000 Gallon Emergency Storage $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 Subtotal: $1,250,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Install additional 500,000 Gallons Storage $800,000 $440,000 $0 $360,000 $0 Subtotal: $800,000 55% 0% 45% 0% Install 300,000 Gallons Storage $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 Subtotal: $500,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Section Totals: $2,550,000 $440,000 $0 $360,000 $1,750,000 Cobabe Well $1,488,000 $873,400 $0 $714,600 $0 Legal & Admin Services $100,000 Subtotal: $1,588,000 55% 0% 45% 0% Bloomington Well $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Well #3 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Well #4 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Well #5 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Well #6 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Well #7 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Well #8 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Priority

15 03/2018 Project or Feature ID PROD - 10 PROD - 11 Table A.1 - Powder Mountain Water Capital Facilities Analysis Estimate of Probable Costs (based on costs in 2017) System Impact System Impact Developer Project or Feature Description Cost Estimate District Costs (10 Years) (11+ Years) Costs Well #9 $1,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,450,000 Subtotal: $1,450,000 0% 0% 0% 100% Remaining 9 Wells TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Subtotal: Surface Water Treatment System TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD OD Subtotal: Section Totals: $13,188,000 $873,400 $0 $714,600 $11,600,000 Distribution DIST - 1 OD 6-inch DI Line from Cobabe to System $1,941,632 Legal Services & Right-of-Way $60,000 $1,100,898 $0 $900,734 $0 Subtotal: $2,001,632 55% 0% 45% 0% DIST - 2 8" Line from Sundown to Powder Ridge $68,303 $37,567 $0 $30,736 $0 OD Subtotal: $68,303 55% 0% 45% 0% DIST - 3 & 5 Replace Existing 6" Pipe w/ 8" PVC $320,000 Replace 4" pipe between Tanks w /8" PVC $1,200,000 $871,750 $0 $713,250 $0 Legal Services & Right-of-Way $65,000 OD Subtotal: $1,585,000 55% 0% 45% 0% DIST - 4 OD Replace Existing 4" Distribution Lines w/ 8" PVC $950,000 Legal Services & Right-of-Way $50,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $0 Subtotal: $1,000,000 0% 0% 100% 0% Section Totals: $4,654,935 $2,010,214 $0 $2,644,721 $0 Future Water Connection Fee CF - 1 Payment to the Cobabe Trust* $110,000 $90,000 $20,000 $0 $0 OD Subtotal: $110,000 82% 18% 0% 0% District Expenses DE - 1 Service Truck and Carport $12,450 $7,719 $0 $4,731 $0 OD Subtotal: $12,450 62% 0% 38% 0% GRAND TOTALS: $20,515,385 $3,323,616 $0 $3,719,321 $13,350,000 Priority Based on Aquifer Limits ONGOING 2018 LEGEND: OD=Original District Service area

16 APPENDIX B: MAPS A p p e n d i x B 13

17 A p p e n d i x B 14

18 N 0 500' 1,000' File Path:P:\18033C Zions-PMWSID Water & Sewer Impact Fee Eval\Drawings\Water Improvements.dwg Mar 13, :29pm NEW 8" LINE NEW 6" LINE EXISTING 4" LINE EXISTING 6" LINE EXISTING 8" LINE EXISTING 10" LINE EXISTING 18" LINE RECORD OF REVISIONS 0 1 IF THE ABOVE SCALE BAR DOES NOT MEASURE 1-INCH IN LENGTH, DO NOT USE THIS DRAWING FOR SCALING PURPOSES. DIMENSIONS AND MEASUREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE DRAWING TAKE PRECEDENCE TO SCALED MEASUREMENTS. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF CRS ENGINEERS AND IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY OTHER PROJECT OR EXTENSION OF THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT WITH CRS ENGINEERS. 2 PRINCIPAL P. HIRST PROJECT MANAGER M. CHANDLER CHECKED BY J. PUGMIRE DRAWN BY D. ZOLLINGER DRAWING SCALE AS SHOWN ISSUE DATE CALDWELL RICHARDS SORENSEN ANSWERS TO INFRASTRU CTU RE SALT LAKE CITY OFFICE: 2060 EAST 2100 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH PHONE: FAX: POWDER MOUNTAIN SEWER AND WATER DISTRICT SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS SYSTEM OVERVIEW EDEN UTAH CU 101 STAMP PROJECT NUMBER SHEET SHEET NUMBER 16037F OF 2 2