Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 8-20-13City of Cape Canaveral CITY COUNCIL MEETING :APE CANAVERAL LIBRARY MEETING ROOM 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida Tuesday August 20, 2013 6:00 PM AGENDA C9_1IMCSX01NI]=1 :; PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS / INTERVIEWS: 6:05 p.m. — 6:20 p.m. Interview Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell for reappointment to the Planning and Zoning Board. Proclamation designating September 19, 2013 as "It Can Wait National Day of Action ". CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: 6:20 p.m. — 6:25 p.m. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: 6:25 p.m. — 6:45 p.m. Comments to be heard on items that do not appear on the agenda of this meeting. Citizens will limit their comments to five (5) minutes. The City Council will not take any action under the "Audience to Be Heard" section of the agenda. The Council may schedule such items as regular agenda items and act upon them in the future. CONSENT AGENDA: 6:45 p.m. — 6:50 p.m. 1. Approve the July 16, 2013 Minutes for the City Council Budget Workshop and Regular Meetings. 2. Resolution No. 2013 -14; amending Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances to establish the Site Development 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326 Telephone (321) 868 -1220 Fax: (32 1) 868 -1248 www.cityol'capecanaveral.org • email: info(ti,,cityolcapecanaveral.org City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Meeting August 20, 2013 Page 2 of 3 Permit Fee; providing for the repeal of prior, inconsistent resolutions, incorporation into Appendix B of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, severability, and an effective date. 3. Resolution No. 2013 -15; reappointing Members to the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Cape Canaveral; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions; severability; and an effective date. (Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell). 4. Approve the First Addendum to Professional Services Agreement with JB's Lawn Control, Inc. in the amount of $184,478 and authorize the City Manager to execute same. 5. Approve annual extension of the Fertilization, Insect, Disease, Weed Control and Pest Control Agreement in the Amount of $41,344 with Black's Lawn Care and Pest Control, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute same. PUBLIC HEARING: 6:50 p.m. — 7:00 p.m. 6. Ordinance No. 09 -2013; amending Chapter 78, Article ll, Division 3 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances related to sanitary sewer system impact fees; revising sewer impact fee assessment procedures consistent with the findings and recommendations set forth in the City's Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report dated April 2013; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the Code; severability; and an effective date, second reading. 7. Resolution No. 2013 -13; adopting the sanitary sewer impact fee report prepared for the City of Cape Canaveral by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc., dated April 2013; amending Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, in accordance with the report's recommendations; providing for repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, incorporation into Appendix B of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, severability, and an effective date. ITEMS FOR ACTION: 7:00 p.m. — 7:15 p.m. 8. Consider Application for Satisfaction or Release of $3,100.00 Code Enforcement Lien, Case No. 2010- 00123, 213 Pierce Ave., Unit D. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Meeting August 20, 2013 Page 3 of 3 REPORTS: 7:15 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. 9. Council. ADJOURNMENT: Pursuant to Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes, the City hereby advises the public that: If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, that person will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. This notice does not constitute consent by the City for the introduction or admission into evidence of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence, nor does it authorize challenges or appeals not otherwise allowed by law. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act: all interested parties may attend this Public Meeting. The facility is accessible to the physically handicapped. Persons with disabilities needing assistance to participate in the proceedings should contact the City Clerk's office (868 - 1220 x220 or x221) 48 hours in advance of the meeting. City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Presentations / Interviews Subject: Interview Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell for to the Planning and Zoning Board. Department: Administrative Services Summary: Currently serving as Chairperson, R. Lamar Russell has served on the Planning and Zoning Board since May 1980. His current three -year term will expire on September 15, 2013. Bruce Collins and John Price have each served on the Board since September 2012 and their current one -year terms will expire on September 15, 2013. The attached Expiration Notices indicate each Member's desire to continue serving on the Planning and Zoning Board. Per City Code of Ordinances Sec. 2- 171(c) (5), any person nominated, elected or appointed to serve on a board or committee of the City shall satisfy the following requirement: complete interviews with the board or committee on which the person is seeking appointment and with the City Council. Additionally, per City Code of Ordinances Sec. 2 -171 (f) Term, all Board and Committee Members shall be appointed to serve a three -year term and may be reappointed by the City Council for one additional three -year term. There shall be no limit on the total number of terms a Board or Committee Member may serve, except no person shall be appointed to more than two consecutive terms on the same board or committee unless no other qualified applicants submit applications seeking appointment. Notwithstanding, the City Council may appoint a Member to a term of less than three years in order to stagger the terms of the entire board or committee. If a Member is removed, or vacates their appointment for any reason, including death, excessive absence or resignation prior to the expiration of their term, the City Council may at its discretion appoint an individual to serve the remaining portion of the unexpired term. Should Mr. Collins, Mr. Price and Mr. Russell be reappointed, this begins their first three -year terms allowed under the term limits referenced in the Code. Submitting Department Director: Angela Apperson ICI Date: 08 -9 -2013 Attachments: Expiration Notices (3) Impact: None Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Dater "171`) S The City Manager recommends that City Counci take the following action(s): Interview Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell for reappointment to the Planning and Zoning Board. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene Date: City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ]Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications ( ] Tabled to Time Certain Bruce Collins 8708 Bay Ct. Cape Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Dear Mr. Collins: 1 MW Your term on the Planning and Zoning Board will expire on September 15, 2013. Please check the box that indicates your desire to serve or not continue to serve on the Board for a 3 -year term and return this Notice to your Board Secretary or the City Clerk using the enclosed stamped, self - addressed envelope. If you choose to serve, due to a City Ordinance change, you will be scheduled to appear before the City Council for an Interview at the next Regular City Council Meeting of August 20, 2013 at 6 p.m. Adoption of a Resolution for your reappointment to the Board will follow thereafter. XI DO wish to be considered for reappointment. NOT wish to be considered for reappointment. Board Member Angela M. Apperson, MMC ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK Enel: SASE (Signature) 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326 Telephone(321)868 -1220 Fax: (321) 868-1248 www,cityofcapecanaveral.org • email: info @cityofcapecanaveral.org John Price 161 Majestic Bay Ave.. Unit 301 Cape Canaveral, FL 32922 Dear Mr. Price: Your term on the Planning and Zoning Board will expire on September 15, 2013. Please check the box that indicates your desire to serve or not continue to serve on the Board for a 3 -year term and return this Notice to your Board Secretary or the City Clerk using the enclosed stamped, self - addressed envelope. If you choose to serve, due to a City Ordinance change, you will be scheduled to appear before the City Council for an Interview at the next Regular City Council Meeting of August 20, 2013 at 6 p.m. Adoption of a Resolution for your reappointment to the Board will follow thereafter. I DO wish to be considered for reappointment. ❑ I DO NOT-wish to be considered for reappointment. (Signature) John Price, Planning and Zoning Board Member Sincerely, �9 Angela M. Apperson, MMC ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER /CITY CLERIC Encl: SASE 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 ° Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326 Telephone(321)868 -1220 Fax: (321) 868-1248 www.cityofcapecatiaveral.org ° email: info(eticityofcapecanaveral.org R. Lamar Russell 376 Harbor Dr. Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Dear Mr. Russell: Your term on the Planning and Zoning Board will expire on September 15, 2013. Please check the box that indicates your desire to serve or not continue to serve on the Board for a 3 -year term and return this Notice to your Board Secretary or the City Clerk using the enclosed stamped, self - addressed envelope. If you choose to serve, due to a City Ordinance change, you will be scheduled to appear before the City Council for an Interview at the next Regular City Council Meeting of August 20, 2013 at 6 p.m. Adoption of a Resolution for your reappointment to the Board will follow thereafter. 1!1 I DO wish to be considered for reappointment. ❑ I DO NOT wish to be considered for reappointment. X4 Xll!✓ a'4- / 9"4Q -0 (Signature) R. Lam Russell, Planning and Zoning Board Chair Sincerely, lee Angela M. Apperson, MMC ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK Each SASE 105 Polk Avenue • Post Office Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326 Telephone(321)868 -1220 Fax: (321) 868 -1248 www.cityofcapecanaveral.org * email: info @cityofcapecanaveral.org City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Presentations / Interviews Subject: Proclamation designating September 19, 2013 as Action ". Department: Legislative Summary: Started by AT &T and joined by Verizon, Sprint, T- Mobile US, Inc. and more than 200 other organizations, the "It Can Wait®" Campaign to end texting and driving kicked off on May 20, 2013. Their efforts support a national advertising campaign, a nationwide texting - while- driving simulator tour, retail presence in tens of thousands of stores and outreach to millions of consumers with a special focus throughout the summer months between Memorial Day and Labor Day —known as the 100 Deadliest Days on the roads for teen drivers. The 2013 Campaign Drive will culminate on September 19, 2013, "It Can Wait National Day of Action ", when efforts turn towards encouraging everyone to get out in their community and advocate involvement on behalf of the movement. Texting while driving is an epidemic and not isolated to teen drivers. It affects adults as well. A recent AT &T survey shows business commuters know texting while driving is unsafe, but they still engage in these behaviors. In fact, they are texting and driving more than they used to: • 6 in 10 commuters said they never texted while driving three years ago. • Nearly half of the commuters admitted to texting while driving, which is more than teens. • 49 percent of commuters self -report texting while driving compared to 43 percent of teens. • Despite knowing the risks, 98 percent said sending a text or email while driving is not safe. • For many, it has become a habit. More than 40 percent of those who admitted to texting while driving called it a habit. Also, government agencies including the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and National Transportation Safety Board have all committed to help end distracted driving and support the efforts of "It Can Wait" and others who are working to raise awareness. The highlight of the summer campaign will be a national day of action on September 19. On that day, "It Can Wait' advocates will reach out in their communities to raise awareness of the risks of texting while driving, encourage everyone to make a personal commitment not to text and drive and recruit others to join the growing ranks of advocates dedicated to saving lives by ending texting while driving. To take the pledge and see a list of supporters, visit www.itCanWait.com. For additional information and resources, visit www.att.com /itcanwait. Submitting Council Member: Mayor Rocky Randels'/ /a Date: 07/11/2013 City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Presentations / Interviews: Page 2 of 2 Attachments: Proclamation and flyer. Financial Impact: Staff time to prepare Proclamation and agenda item. Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Date: The City Manager recommends that City Council t ke the following action(s): Read the Proclamation designating September 19, 2013 as "It Can Wait National Day of Action ". Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene Date:7Z5 / City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications [ ] Tabled to Time Certain li 1 1 , WHEREAS, City of Cape Canaveral holds the health and safety of its teenagers and adults as a chief concern; and WHEREAS, through ItCanWait.com, Facebook, text -to- pledge, tweet -to- pledge and events, more than 1.3 million people have committed to never text and drive; and WHEREAS, 98% of American commuters know sending a text or email while driving is not safe; and WHEREAS, 49% of commuters text while behind the wheel; and WHEREAS, 43% of commuters who text while driving reported the activity as being a habit; and WHEREAS, a Virginia Tech study showed those who send text messages while driving are 23 times more likely to crash; and WHEREAS, a driver that sends a text message while driving not only jeopardizes his or her safety, but also the safety of passengers, pedestrians, and other drivers. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rocky Randels, Mayor, of the City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida, do hereby proclaim September 19, 2013 as: "IT CAN WAIT" NATIONAL DAY OFACTION fir' il'aua 4-� rwaad the worn Place an "It can wait" hand Sticker on your car... this will act as a reminder to others on the road and will remind you to be a good example as well. Download the AT &T DriveModeT'^ App and v+erizon'S Safely Go app. These mobile apps automatically reply to your incoming texts while you're on the road to let people know you'll get back to them later. Assign a Designated Texter when you're on the road with Friends and Family. They can respond to incoming texts For you or respond with #itcarnwait out of Sight, out of mind. Put your phone on silent mode or in a place you can't reach it No phone. No texts. create a music playliSt to rock out or Sing along to in the car. It's way safer than textirig while driving - and more fun! Call, don't text! IF you need to tell someone you're running late while driving, use the approved Bluetooth Feature in your car to make the call safely instead. Speak up! If you see a friend or family member texting and driving, tell them Ws not ok and ask them to stop. TEXTING & DRIVING... IT CAN WAIT 0.Ia.M tw[messetirq cNrpasmsy.W N fpd —.-d.M qp .1..S ..1d me.myFpntea.�gN m uw -reply mesupea. ATNTOO M. 6Ir—. AZT� %w%oWv.Cn "Ubb Orrice rarybLL CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WORKSHOP MEETING CAPE CANAVERAL LIBRARY MEETING ROOM 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY July 16, 2013 4:30 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 4 ROLL CALL: Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tern John Bond Council Member Bob. Hoo9) Council Member Buzz Petsos Mayor Rocky`fj'andels Council Member Betty Walsh, Others Present: City Manager Assistant City Manager/City C_ lerk Finance Director `b , r David L. Greene Community & Economic. Development D Planning & Zoning Director Leisure Services Director. Public Wor4015 .Vises Director. Public �N!orks Service Breva'k 4.County Sheri Cape Canaveral Volu :Deputy Director �Major teen :Fire Dept. Chief i- Angela Apperson John DeLeo Todd Morley Barry Brown Gustavo Vergara Jeff Ratliff Lonnie Dunn Mike DeMorat Dave Sargeant 1. Proposed Fiscal Year 2013/2014 Budget and Five (5) Year Capital Improvement Plan: Mayor Randef',thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He noted the use of a binder instead of`a bound book and the addition of a glossary and acronyms. City Manager Greene provided highlights of the Budget and Capital Improvement Plan noting: the overall budget is $28,289,312 with approximately 14 million dollars of Capital Improvements, some of which have been discussed as far back as the 1980's; deferred maintenance has caused a shift in expense; the established goals; the decline in taxable values over the years; the small improvements in taxable value for the fiscal year; the position allocations /justifications for additional staffing; the addition of the Community Redevelopment Agency and the need for redevelopment; the need to City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Budget Workshop Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 2 of 4 improve the appearance of the City; how the Proposed Millage Rate compares to the surrounding communities and is one of the lowest in Brevard County; the use of reserves; the use of State Revolving Loan Funds for Capital Improvements; the payoff of existing Wastewater debt in relation to the anticipated loan payments; the General Fund contingency; employee benefits, insurance will be bid again this year; the City is not seen as a competitive emplover because of the use of a defined contribution pension plan and the 10% contribution toward dependent health insurance coverage, the proposed 3% merit raise, a $250.00 employee appreciation bonus; no cost of living raise; tuition reimbursement and training dollars to increase. _> employee skill set and sustainability; the use of a Renewal /Replacement Fund,, which will be replenished yearly; an overview of the Special Revenue Funds; the,.increased transparency of the budget document; review of the Fire Station Project; the financing vs the investment returns; the North Atlantic; A� possible funding from Florida Department of Transportati Planning Organization, which may require delaying the the Enterprise Capital Fund, which depicts th-6 cq pital ex Stormwater Funds, the use of SRF Loans an&,4 pa percentage breakdown of the budget by fund; and that l the City are similar to prior fiscal years, with the majodt being slated for Capital Improvements. City 'H#11. project; a proposed enue Im V ement Pro ect and � :)n /Space Coµast Transportation .project until Summer, of 2014; )enses for the ft gewater and �'off�=Qf the existing Loans; the ie ongoing operational costs of -.of the increase in the budget Mayor Randels reviewed the following questions.. received' answers: from citizens and their • Does the Budget contain a decrease in service? No, same level of service or higher. ,s " • OperationalAexpenses over the past four to,.five years? Not much difference. • Millage Rate increase? No: same as last year and previous year. • Cutting:_.employees? No, ` -a 3 %o merit raise based upon performance, a $250.00 Bonus with no furloughs or terminations, and adding additional employees. • Use of reserves for operations? No, financial stability is still there with the :anticipation of Six Million Dollars at end of FY 130 • How;are you going to increase property values? Working toward Envision Cape Canaveral by investing in Capital Improvements /Infrastructure. Mayor Pro Teri Bond noted the use of last year's Millage rate instead of the roll back rate will necessitate the advertisement to show a tax increase. Council Member Petsos indicated most individuals similar to those stated by the Mayor. He indicated Hall, agreed to the Fire Station, but do not want to City Hall. who contacted him had questions most object to building a new City saddle others with debt for a new Council Member Hoog indicated he has not received any phone calls; however, questions from people on the street include: When is North Atlantic Avenue going to be City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Budget Workshop Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 3of4 renovated; the need for a Civic Center, how are we going to get it and where are we going to put it; and what will be done with the existing City Hall. He felt this is a good Budget; was fine with staying at the same millage rate as last year and complimented the additional transparency. It was agreed that Memberships/Training/Travel for the Legislative Department will increase to allow all Council Members to attend the Florida League of Cities Annual Conference as well as the Annual Legislative Meeting, should they so desire to do so and to remove the text noting Tuition Reimbursement for the�`Adm.inistrative Services Director on page 30, as the money was previously removed .from page 31. Council Member Walsh noted the hiring of a part -time rAccoUntant for FY 12/13 and hoping to have it full time in 13/14; to which Mr.�fCreene replied ,by explaining the absence of an employee due to a medical situation; the need to meet the overall workload, improve the segregation of duties to reduce conflicts between the roles /responsibilities, the additional Capital,' �xpenditure`k which increases workload; and the need to improve sustainability.t�`° `r Mayor Randels read and explained the Program bJectives of the Community & Economic Development Department. Council Member Walsh indicated calls she received, were related to the North Atlantic Avenue Project; the increase in Staff, cost of health insurance; and the financing for Capital Improvements du;e tathe low interest,: ates. Council Member Ho,0g.. advocated for the addition of Staff in the Building Department due to the increase in J,permit activities; the need to allow for additional space to work and the efficiencies of our current Staff. He- felt this was a good budget and urged for moving forward. CounclU Member Walsh. also indicated questions she received included: the use of the roll back rate because property values have increased; the projected increase in health insurance costs. Mr. Greene explained the City needs to budget for insurance for all employees even.though some employee may not utilize the service so as to ensure the money is available should -that employee leave and the next employee need the benefit. City Manager Greene 'indicated the roll back rate could be used if that is Council's desire. He explained that although the City is approved to borrow 8 million dollars from the State Revolving Loan Fund, with lower construction prices the City should not have to borrow the entire amount. The addition of FDOT/TPO funds for the North Atlantic Avenue Project will put the City in a much better position to complete the Project without borrowing money. He also indicated the Budget Adoption will allow Staff to further study whether to borrow money or use reserves for the Fire Station and City Hall. City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Budget Workshop Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Mayor Pro Tem Bond indicated he could not question the purchase /replacement vehicles and had to trust Staffs recommendation; however, he was concerned over the proposed acquisition of Cherie Down Park. City Manager Greene indicated the proposed agreement has several deal breakers and unless they are removed, he could not recommend moving forward. The next meeting is August 20th at 4:30 p.m. It was suggested that Council Members meet with the City Manager prior to the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the Meeting adjourn •at 5: t� Rocky Rafdels, Mayor Angela M. Apperson, MMC, Assistant City Manager /City Clerk k t: �p iii CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CAPE CANAVERAL LIBRARY MEETING ROOM 201 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida TUESDAY July 16, 2013 6:00 PM MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the Meeting to Order at 6:07 P. was led by Mr. Wes Morrison. Mayor Randels reminded everyone 0 ROLL CALL: EV . w; Council Members Present: Mayor Pro Tern 'John Bond Council Member Bob': Hoog' Council Member Buzz. Petsos Mayor Rocky`Randels Council Member Betty Walsh i Others Present: City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manager /City Clerk Finance Director - Community & Economic�Development Director Planning &-Z on g`Q rector Leisure Services Director Pub c,1' Arks Service9011rector Public llX drks Services D'ep.uty Director Brevard CouFnty Sheriff or. TATIO'NS,J INTERVIEWS: .f ,. aoijwov�- eapledge of allegiance k into the microphone. David L. Greene Anthony Garganese Angela Apperson John DeLeo Todd Morley Barry Brown Gustavo Vergara Jeff Ratliff Lonnie Dunn Mike DeMorat Interview Applicant NJoseph H. Mathos for appointment to the Lommunity Appearance Board: Attorney Anthony Garganese asked Mr. Mathos if all the information in his application is true and correct, to which Mr. Mathos replied in the affirmative. Mr. Mathos explained his desire to serve on the board; stated the look of the community is directly tied to the success of development/redevelopment; answered questions of the City Council. Council Members expressed their appreciation for his willingness to serve on the board. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Attorney Garganese updated the City Council on a recent Case from the 5th District Court of Appeals (DCA), which includes the City City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 2 of 5 Council needing to follow the same criteria as the Review Board when serving in an appellate capacity. The City Manager will forward further information about the Case. AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD: Cocoa Beach Mayor David Netterstrom thanked the City Council and the Citizens for the contribution toward the fireworks display. CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Randels inquired if any items are to be removed from,,' the .Consent Agenda for discussion. No items were removed. 1. 2. Resol Board of th inconsistent 3. 4. II 5. r.j1.T- ! it . 2013 -11: aDDOintina a Member 4to the Comm: n rance . novan. Inc. for Inc. for Phase I Group, Inc. Construction A motion was made . by Mayor "Pro Tern Bond, seconded by Council Member Walsh; for approval of `the Consent Agenda. The motion carried 5 =0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem.'Bond, "'For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos, For ;, Mayor Randels, For; and Council Member Walsh, For. PUBLIC HEARING. 60 Ordinance No. 08-2013; amending Chapter 90, Floods, of the Code of Ordinances related to construction site stormwater runoff control; making conforming amendments to Chapter 2, Administration; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the Code; severability; and an effective date, second reading: Attorney Garganese read the Ordinance title into the record. Mayor Randels provided a brief explanation of the Ordinance. A motion was made by Council Member Petsos, seconded by Council Member Hoog, for approval of Ordinance No. 08 =2013 on second reading. The Public Hearing was opened. No City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 3of5 comments were received and the Public Hearing was closed. The motion carried 5 -0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Bond, For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For and Council Member Walsh, For. 7. amendinq Chapter 110, Zonin Code of Ordinances related to Vacation Resort Campuses; providing requirements for Vacation Resort Campuses; excluding Vacation Resort Campuses from the rental restrictions on dwelling units set forth in Section 110487; priding for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporationfto the Code: severability; t _� the Ordinance title into and an effective date, second reading: Attorney Gargane,""r�ead- the record, reviewed the change made to the Ordinance at first ading. Mayor Randels rovided a brief explanation. Mr. Ken Ward,... resentin ,tin ' a Cadbe Resort P P p 9 .:? ., w " advocated for approval of the Ordinance. A motion was made 169%puncil Member ■ A "a ' `rH'k Hoog, seconded by Council Member Walsh; for approval of Ord Nance No. 10= 2013. The Public Hearing was opened. NO `comments were received an`d °� the Public Hearing was closed. The motion carried 5 =0 with'voting iJollows: Mayor Pro Tern Bond, For; Council Member Hoog, For, Council, "'Member Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; and Council Member,..;Walsh, For. S 84 Ordinance No. 09 -2013; amendinq chapter 78, Article :ll `bivision 3 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances related o sa'r" f sewer system impact fees; revising sewer impact fee assessment procedures " consi "stmt with the findings and recommendations set forth lh..-the City's Sanitary Sew er °11'mriact Fee Report dated April 2013; providing fors the repeal of prior`s - ;inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; 1. incorporation into �th `Code; severability; and an effective date, first reading: Attorney Garganese read the Ordinance tide into the record; provided a brief explanation of same and the need for a Rate Resolution: upon passage of the Ordinance. City Manager Greene 4a vde`ci`uadditional` information "about the Ordinance, the rate calculation y`��1� methodsyand the increase for Taundry facilities. Mayor Randels reviewed the purpose for irn 'act fees. A motion was -made by Mayor Randels, seconded by Council Membe - "Petsos, for approval of Ordinance No. 09-2013. Discussion ensued and �` :Concerns that he reduction in impact fees could cause an increase in the included. �E� �� p rate structure if the im P act ,fees are not enough to cover the costs of future expansion; IV . , the fact that -:£,- the Impact Fees never covered the full costs of prior improvements /expansion; 'that the former Council ensured there is adequate capacity to serve the build outN :7of the City; historical changes in impact fees; the projections of growth over the next twenty years indicate no capacity additions will be needed; concern over prior payments made by former developers; the reasons the rate study was done; the approximately 40% unused capacity, which can be added to by reducing the water infiltration. The Public Hearing was opened. John Grandlich expressed appreciation for the Council trying to solve the problem. Leo Nicholas stated anytime the impact fees were previously changed, a rate study was performed prior to the rate being established. He asked for the current capacity of the plant to which City Manager Greene indicated 1.8 million gallons /day (mgd), with an annual average 1.1 mgd. The City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 4of5 Public Hearing was closed. The motion carried 5 -0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tern Bond, For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos, For; Mayor Randels, For; and Council Member Walsh, For. ITEMS FOR ACTION: 90 Resolution No.2013 -12, adoptin Ad Valorem Taxes for Fiscal Year 201 a tentative nronosed millaae rate for the levv of City of Cape Canaveral, Brevard County, Florida; providing k�f© an effective date: Attorney Garganese read the Resolution title into the reo�d and provided a brief explanation of same. Mayor Randels reminded everyonemtt ,,the millage rate set today is the maximum rate possible. He stated the Council could glo. September 3rd meeting, with the final meeting on Sop, ptember 17': by Council Member Hoog, seconded by Council _ `Member Bo ;r the rate at the motion was made I: ffcr approval of Resolution 2013 -12. City Manager Greene requested the Council provt direction as to the final tax rate and if that was the roll buck rate, .�ty could be accomplished by reducing the contingency. He urged Council not to advertise a higher) illage if the ultimate goal is to use the roll back rate. The "rateo was discussed by the Council Members. Public comment included Mr. Mathos supporting the Council Members who are attempting to start new projects;��,however, he advocated holding the line and not raising taxes. Alice Filteau indicated manyKof her neighbors- tihaae'either lost their jobs or had their hours reduced. She felt evenf.this s Council discussion continued and included; reduction in the contingen.6 .-fund, the fact "thdt to build the reserves;. 'the possible acquisitio n. reserves to accomplish projects `will not comp; The motion and second were :withdrawn. A ., . Walsh, seconded by Council Member Pets fta ncrease would hurt many residents. h6 Wd% osed 3% merit increase; the monies o`t expended each fiscal year go of Cherie Down Park; and that the use of r.omise the required emergency reserves. motion was made by Council Member os, to approve the Resolution with an amendment Ito -use the rolVback rate of 3:9083. The motion carried 5 =0 with voting y as follows: Mayor.'; Pro Tem -Bond, For; Council Member Hoog, For; Council Memb�ewr.. Petsos, For;, Mayor Randels, For; and Council Member Walsh, For. Attorney.,, `�Garganese requested clarification to ensure the calculations apply proportionally .to each of ';the millage rates to reach the roll back rate, to which the Council agreed.,0 100 Discuss /a6broue- 'Task Order No. iates. Inc. 1 in th itectural and Engineering Services related to th new City all and abthorize the City Manager to execute same: City Manager Greene explained the project was budgeted for the current fiscal year. Council Members expressed concern with the construction portion of the Task Order and the proposed architectural style of the building. City Manager Greene suggested the Council approve the Task Order through item A2, in an amount not to exceed $150,000.00 and have further discussion on the style of the building through future meetings. Discussion ensued and included: that a new building is needed to improve the image of the City, increase efficiency by combining many employees into one building, improve air quality; City of Cape Canaveral, Florida City Council Regular Meeting July 16, 2013 Page 5 of 5 provide adequate space for operations; use some of the reserve funds to offset the cost of any loan. A motion was made by Mayor Randels, seconded by Council Member Hoog, for approval of Task Order #1 in an amount of up to $150,000.00 to GLE Associates, Inc. for architectural and engineering services related to the design of a new City Hall and authorize the City Manager to sign same. The motion carried 5 =0 with voting as follows: Mayor Pro Tem Bond, For; Council Hoog, For; Council Member Petsos, For Member Walsh, For. REPORTS: 11. Council: None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Angela M. Apperson, M: " Assistant City Manager /City Mayor Randels, For; and E the Meeting"adjourned at Clerk 7:53 P. M. ayor Member Council City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. 2 Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -14; amending Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances to establish the Site Development Permit Fee; providing for the repeal of prior, inconsistent resolutions, incorporation into Appendix B of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, severability, and an effective date. Summary: Ordinance No. 08 -2013, amending Chapter 90, Floods, of the Code of Ordinances related to construction site stormwater runoff control, was adopted by City Council at second reading on July 16, 2013. As the Ordinance was developing, Staff noted the model ordinance included references to "Site Development Permits" as issued by the City. As a conforming amendment, all existing references to "permits" in current Chapter 90 were revised to "site development permits ". This distinguishes them from "building permits ". It is a common practice among many jurisdictions to separate these two types of permits. Stated more simply, building permits are for vertical construction (buildings) and site development permits are for horizontal construction (site work). Seemingly unrelated, for several months Staff had been reviewing other municipalities' procedures for capturing site development review and inspection fees intended to offset costs incurred for ensuring compliance with site development - related technical codes. Included in this agenda are two reports prepared by City Engineer, John Pekar. Report #1 provides examples of City services currently absorbed by the City. Report #2 provides a survey of local municipalities' Site Development Permit Fees. Although Mr. Pekar recommended a fee structure, Staff recommends a flat fee of $1,000 for site development project construction costs up to $100,000 and one percent (1 %) of the site development project construction costs for those projects above $100,001. This will capture costs incurred, yet keep the costs among the lowest in the County. The fee for a Site Development Permit is separate from and additional to a Building Permit Fee for projects over one acre. A closer look into the City's Ordinance, Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, revealed that a category had long been established for such a permit under Sec. 90 -131, but no fee was established. This Resolution proposes a reasonable fee structure for a Site Development Permit. SR iAN Submittina Directors: Jeff Ratliff and Todd Morley Date: 08/12/2013 1. Resolution No. 2013 -14 2. Report #1: City services currently absorbed 3. Report #2: Survey of local municipalities' Site Development Permit Fees City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. 2 Page 2 of 2 Financial Impact: Cost to prepare, advertise and incorporate the Resolution into the City Code. Site Development Permit revenue will increase as projects over one acre are developed. r Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Date: The City Manager recommends that City CounkJ1 take the following action: Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -14. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene Ovu Date: 90113 City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications Tabled to Time Certain RESOLUTION N0.2013 -14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING APPENDIX B, SCHEDULE OF FEES, OF THE CAPE CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR, INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO APPENDIX B OF THE CAPE CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Cape Canaveral, as required by its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, addresses construction site stormwater runoff control in Chapter 90, Article IV of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, section 90 431 of the Code of Ordinances requires that a site development permit be issued prior to any subdivision of land, change in the use of land, or building or rebuilding of a structure; and WHEREAS, section 90 -131 also authorizes that a fee be imposed for the issuance of said permit; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish the site development permit fee authorized by section 90 431 as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, such permit fee is intended to be separate and additional to the building permit fee established by section 82 -15 of the Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the Cape Canaveral City Council finds this Resolution to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are deemed true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as part of this Resolution. Section 2. Amendment to Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, to the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows (underlined type indicates additions and stfikeeut type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Resolution of text existing in Appendix B. It is intended that the text in Appendix B denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Resolution shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Resolution): Appendix B. Schedule of Fees City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201344 Pagel of 3 qtr 9e 4e Chapter 90. Floods Article IV. Stormwater Management. Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All prior inconsistent resolutions adopted by the City Council are hereby expressly repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Incorporation Into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. This Resolution shall be incorporated into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, to the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Resolution and the City Code may be freely made. Section 5. Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word, or provision is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive or procedural reasons, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. [ADOPTION PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201344 Page 2 of 3 Amount Code Section (a) Permit fee ... Site development project construction cost up 90431 to and including $100,000.00 ... $1,000000 Site development project construction cost exceeding $100,000.00... 1% of construction cost Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All prior inconsistent resolutions adopted by the City Council are hereby expressly repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Incorporation Into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. This Resolution shall be incorporated into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, to the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Resolution and the City Code may be freely made. Section 5. Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word, or provision is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive or procedural reasons, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. [ADOPTION PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201344 Page 2 of 3 ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, assembled this 20th day of August, 2013, Rocky Randels, Mayor ATTEST: Name FOR AGAINST John Bond Angela Apperson, Bob Hoog Assistant City Manager/ City Clerk Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Betty Walsh Approved as to legal form and sufficiency For the City of Cape Canaveral only by: Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201344 Page 3 of 3 THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION CHECKLIST IS PRESENTED AS AN OVERVIEW OFAN77CIPATED INSPECTOR ACI7VITIES THAT MIGHT BE PERFORMED ON VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL. THIS LIST DOES NOT DETAIL THE COMPLETE AND COMPLEX RANGE OF ALL POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION INSPEC77ONAC77VITIES THAT MIGHT BE ENCOUNTERED. THESE LATTER ISSUES WOULD BE HANDLED ONA CASE BY CASE BASIS. Obtain copy of approved drawings. JOHN A. PEKAR, P.E., LLC (� Pre- construction meeting with Contractor. ava Englnweing /Consubing Review of shop drawings. Review of erosion control on site. Review any environmental issues, if any. 102 Columbia Drive r 1 Ur Inspect earth moving/demucking. Photograph throughout Suite 207 Prepare and maintain inspection logs. Review buried utility placements. Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Sewer Or[cePhom:321- 613.2959 3.2959 Storm drainage Coordinate with power company, if needed. Cell Phone: 321 -288-1040 johnpekarpe'a,�gmaS.com aoui Fimve ronfflme@gmea.com office Manger Cell Phone: 32l.4o }9899 THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION CHECKLIST IS PRESENTED AS AN OVERVIEW OFAN77CIPATED INSPECTOR ACI7VITIES THAT MIGHT BE PERFORMED ON VARIOUS SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL. THIS LIST DOES NOT DETAIL THE COMPLETE AND COMPLEX RANGE OF ALL POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION INSPEC77ONAC77VITIES THAT MIGHT BE ENCOUNTERED. THESE LATTER ISSUES WOULD BE HANDLED ONA CASE BY CASE BASIS. Obtain copy of approved drawings. Obtain copies of permits (and approvals) and review permit conditions. Pre- construction meeting with Contractor. Review of shop drawings. Review of erosion control on site. Review any environmental issues, if any. Hold regular contractor meetings. Inspect earth moving/demucking. Photograph throughout Prepare and maintain inspection logs. Review buried utility placements. Water Sewer Storm drainage Coordinate with power company, if needed. JOHN A. PEKAR, P.E., LLC Clvll Engineering /Consulting 102 Columbia Drive Suite 207 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Office Phone: 321 -613 -2959 Cell Phone: 321 - 288 -1060 iohnpelsepe@g=i1.cam r®lI gme0.com Offc¢Mangger Cell PPhow /nne: 311 -40-9899 Coordinate with gas company, if needed. Coordinate with cable company, if needed. Review density test(s). Coordinate with testing lab. Inspect drainage systems. Review if off site impacts. Inspect rough grading. Inspect pavement subgrade/base placement. Obtain test reports. Review paving operations. Continue to review Contractor draws for approvals. Coordinate any change orders or field charges. Review miscellaneous construction. Fences Pavement and Striping Signage Lighting Sidewalks Detention Basins Review landscaping. Prepare Contractor walk- thrus, develop punch lists. Support agency walk - thrus. JOHN A. PEKAR, P.E, LLC Civil Enginaering /Consulting 102 Colombia Drive Suite 207 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Office Phone: 321- 613 -2959 Cell Phone: 321 - 288-1060 johnpekarpeQa Small mm ramie an meVPhowgmul.mm Office Manager CeO Phone: 311 403 -9899 Prepare project certifications. Water Management Potable Water Sewer t E , JOHN A. PEKAR, P.L. LLC Civil Engineering /Consuhing { 102 Columbia Drive f Suite 207 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Office Phone: 321 - 613 -2959 Cell Phone: 321- 288 4040 johnpekarpeQu gmail.00m May 23, 2013 Roni Flowe rosWflowe@gtnO.com Office Manager Cell Phone: 321- 4034899 Mr. Todd Morley City of Cape Canaveral Building Official 7510 North Atlantic Avenue Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 I,ePUr�- LA r J0 /J 0[w�10&sa .1414Ak1"4tb1,A1eS Jr s14e Dev oa►e,,,j Re: Potential City Construction Site Inspection Program Project # 13 -0011 Dear Todd. City construction inspections of site (and horizontal) work is a powerful tool in the loss prevention of many projects. Only by visiting the job site at appropriate intervals, can the City verify if work is progressing in general conformance with the approved plans and permits. Site inspections allow the City to answer questions or clarify and interpret documents for the contractor on the spot. This often leads to identifying trouble spots early on rather than fixing problems after work is completed (a less costly approach by far). Today's projects have increased the need for City construction inspections more than ever due to: • Extremely tight proji • The low bid process workers than ever. • Increased regulatory • The development of require special care. pct budgets requiring a minimum of change orders or time delays. and in today's economic climate the use of more inexperienced conditions opening the door to project fines if not followed properly. new products which many have not had a long history of use, and To support the City of Cape Canaveral in developing a fee program to address construction site inspection work, we have gathered some of the information from other municipalities. This information is as follows: Page 2 May 23, 2013 Potential City Construction Site Inspection Program Project # 13 -0011 SUMMARY OF LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES CONSTRUCTION SITE INSPECTIONS Brevard Countv Site Plans (unpaved roads) Up to 20,000 s.f. I% of On -Site Construction Construction w /Buildin s Over 20,000 s.f. Cost Subdivisions More than 5 Acres 2% of the first $500,000 ins ections. 1 % of the next $500,000 to Holiday Work $1M Off -Site Improvements Special Listing (See Attached) City of Melbourne Inspection Fees Up to $75,000 $1,125000 $75,001 and Over $1.5% of Construction Cost Re-Inspection (See Attached) Ci of Titusville Pre - Construction Conference $500000 Subdivisions 2.5% of Construction Cost Non - Subdivision 2.5% of Construction Cost City of Davtona Beach Construction w /Buildings Up to 20,000 s.f. $500600 Construction w /Buildin s Over 20,000 s.f. $1,000000 Inspection of Improvements More than 5 Acres 2.25% of Costs of Public Improvements Citv of Port Orange Inspections 5 acres or Less 3.25% of Est. Construction At present, the City of Cocoa Cost does not charge extra for City More than 5 Acres 2.25% of Est. Construction ins ections. Cost Holiday Work $100/hr, 6 hr Minimum Final Inspection and (1) Re- $500.00 inspection / Additional Inspections City of Winter Haven Public Improvements Horizontal Site Inspection 2.5% of Value (per Jean (863- 291 =5850) Citv of Cocoa Site Plan Review $500.00 At present, the City of Cocoa does not charge extra for City ins ections. Page 3 May 23, 2013 Cocoa Beach John Adair, P. Potential City Construction Site Inspection Program Project #13 -0011 At present, Cocoa Beach does not have an inspection fee for site or horizontal construction. They are thinking about this on a staff level as they have performed several hours of work on these items, which end up coming out of City general funds. Satellite Beach (per Bu Satellite Beach does not (yet) have a construction fee for site observations, just actual We have also attached a copy of the Brevard County code and resolution related to installation of the inspection fees. Based on the above fee structures, and our experience inspecting site projects, we would recommend for City Council review an inspection fee for site work as follows. Project Construction Costs Up to $100,000 Flat fee of $1,000.00 $100,000 to $300,000 1.5% of Construction Cost $300,000 or more 1.5% of Construction Cost plus $1,000 for each additional $100,000 of construction cost. Todd, if you have any questions on the above please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, John A. Pekar, P.E. JAP:rmf cc: Jeff Ratliff 3118!13 Municode Sec. 62 =101. - Permit and inspection fees. The board of county commissioners is authorized and empowered by resolution to fix reasonable permit and inspection fees to be charged by the board for such building permits, examinations and inspections as the board may determine are necessary in the administration of the provisions of this chapter. (Code 1979, § 14 -7) librarymudcode .conNprint.aspx?h=8 clientl D= 10473&HTM Req uest= http% 3a %2f%2flibrary.municode.com %2fHTM L %2f10473 %2fleW4 %2fCOORBRCOFLV... 111 RESOLUTION ZOOS- ?A� A RESOLUTION OIL 'I 111 BOARD OF C;Ol!N; F Y COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTN', FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN REVIEVs PERMIT ISSUANCE, INSPECTIONS, ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES, ADDRESS ASSIGNMENT AND SIGNS. Wl IFRHAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard ('ounty, Florida, has. ill the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Brevard County, and in furtherance of the requirements set forth in Chapter 577 1162, Special Acts of Florida. Laws of falorida. 1957, created a Buildinw and Construction Department and authorized said Department to make inspoctiow. of construction and other structural improvements to real proper iv in Brevard Cuunty; and WHEREAS. in an eflort to offiet casts incurred by Building Code in the conduct ofits inspection activities the Board of County C'ommissloncrs of Brcvard County has previously established a schedule of' Fees for permits designed to deter the costs of plans examination and inspection ufbuildinu construction and iinprovenwnts: and NVI IL'RI :AS. various standard codes relating: to building construction and improvrrn��rt� establish schedules of tees «hich have been adopted in the past by they Board eat' County C'ommissiOliffs of Brevard County and \l`MF :R1.=.f1S. the exictin�� schedule' c�l'tees tclatin to building: cons tructiz�n and imprciwme•nts is not sutiicient to covet the cost: incurred by Building Code in conducting the arious plans examinations and inspections required under the crude: and WIfEKkAS. the Flonda Budding t'r,de. provides for the collection ot'buiiding, permit tlecso- an WHEREAS, Building Code has reviewed the fees for now construction, alteration and demolition, and determined the fees require revision; and WHEREAS, Section 22 -314, Code of Ordinances of Brevard County, Florida, authorizes that fees shall be collected for the administrative cost of the assignment of property numbers; and WHEREAS, this resolution incorporates and supersedes all lees previously adopted under resolutions 99 -150 and 2003 -055. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, as follows: SECTION 1. This resolution is adopted pursuant to the authority vested in the Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County, Florida, by Section 10 of Chapter 57 -116?, Laws of Florida, Special Acts, 1957, Section 125.01 and 125.56, Florida Statutes. SECTION, 2. The Board finds the plans exanvnation and inspections pursuant to the Florida Building code, conducted by County staff employed by Building Code of'the Permitting and Enforcement Department should be paid for in whole or in part through the imposition of permit fees. The amount of said permit tees shall be calculated based upon square footage, flat fees, and construction valuations, Permit valuations shall include total cost, such as electrical, gas, mechanical, plumbing equipment, and other systems, including materials and labor. The permit valuation may be calculated using the International Building Code, Building Safety Journal Building- Valuation Data, or other applicable model cude organization, at the option of the Building Official. SECTION 3. The Board hereby finds that the fees appearing in OxWbit "A" "Schedule of Construction Value and Square Footage Permit laces;" Exhibit "B" "Schedule of Permit Fees*," Exhibit "C' "AdministTatives Procedures Regarding Permit Fees, ' Exhibit "i��" "Schedule of Addressing Review Fees." and exhibit " F:" "Sign }Fees and Citation lees" which are attached hereto and by this reicrence incorporated into and made a part of this Resolution, represents fair and reasonable suttic assessable against individuals receivinso; the benelits cal' plans examinations, inspections, addressing review, and sign permits by County staff Said fees appearing on Exhibit ".#V "Schedule= of Construction Value and Square Footage Permit Fees," Exhibit 'B" "Schedule of Permit Fee%.'' Exhibit '`D" "Schedule cif Addmssiae Re��itec Fees," and Exhibit "E" "Sigrt Fees and Citation Fees' are hereby adopted by the Board of Countv Commissioners of Brevard County to lorida SEC 4,19ION a. Additionally. the Beard of('otinty Commissioners (if Brevard County Florida, find a need fbi administrative procedures and guidelines for the processing of refunds, voiding of permits, and issuance of a single buildinc; permits, and the;relOre hereby adopts the attached "Administrative Procedures Regarding I'emrit Fees which is rnptrked Exhibit LT '' SECTMON s. The attached Schedule; of'Colistructiun Valuation and Square Footage Permit ees, Schedule of Permit lees, Administrative ve Procedures Reparding Permit l=ee:.. Addre%sino Review Fees, and Sigh and Citation Fees marked as Exhibits A -E respectively, shall supersede and replace all other prior tit• schedules regtuding the subjw matter for which said fees are c.harued SEC is 6. All fees and charges shall be collected by Brevard County, and shall be received in full thereby upon imnie diate demand and prior to the provision of such documents and services. Upon pavnient for such services, a receipt shall be issued to the paver, a copv of %Whic;h shall he retained by the payee. SECTION 7. 1'he schedule of tees and charges as established herein may. by resolution of• the Board o!• County C'omnussioners of Iirevard L'ounty, Florida, be amended or repealed, in whole or in Dart, rots required for economical prevision ot'such ser-Vices SAY" rjON 8. In accordance with the aforementioned Code off 44 tws and Ordinances, a certilled copy o#'this resolution shall he posted #br public inspection in the Brevard County offices of Building ('odc. SECTION 9. This Resolution, the Schedule of Permit Fees and the administrative guidelines fur the various permits set forth in the exhibits incorporated herein shrill be efliective on the 1 st day of November, 2005; and copies of the Resolution filed with the Clerk to the Board of ('ounty Comissi m oners and the Building Official of BreN and County, Flot ida. D(Mev OltllF..ItI"D& IND AD(v,•rr:t), in r��s;ular sc�sion, this _1st_ day (W oe WR C V44 W(Mo JT Ji•1S, COUNTY OF PREVAHO AD . 2005 BOARD O:E' (' BREVA&T31,( RON P Y COMNNUSS1ONERS �%Y• FLOR A `Y .:_:.. ('HARD_ DPA_ CHAIRM akN�� As apps oved by the Board on T "i j fi t:, rt,a:.::.9; 7i :'::. �trt0Q%V. ^.g :c. a 1Jc�vf•rnt�t • �' 1 trial 811d VASO -1 "st r-r!'01 o ' r !.q ! .. . —. met. .w rte/ A pprw•cd '' `t " '� so)r; ru.IS ' We r61 G_t:rt woo". Terri Ian.N As *dint Count% !�llorAC% 4 Novemlw r oe WR C V44 W(Mo JT Ji•1S, COUNTY OF PREVAHO AD . 2005 BOARD O:E' (' BREVA&T31,( RON P Y COMNNUSS1ONERS �%Y• FLOR A `Y .:_:.. ('HARD_ DPA_ CHAIRM akN�� As apps oved by the Board on T "i j fi t:, rt,a:.::.9; 7i :'::. �trt0Q%V. ^.g :c. a 1Jc�vf•rnt�t • �' 1 trial 811d VASO -1 "st r-r!'01 o ' r !.q ! .. . —. met. .w rte/ A pprw•cd '' `t " '� so)r; ru.IS ' We r61 G_t:rt woo". Terri Ian.N As *dint Count% !�llorAC% 4 BREVARD COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING INSPECTION FEES FOR SITE PLAN /SUBDIVISION /UNPAVED ROADS /RIGHT -OF -WAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Y Site Plan /Subdivision/Unpaved Road /Right -of -Way Number: Applicant Name (Type or Print): PROPOSED SITE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION A. ONSITE IMPROVEMENTS: 1. Site Pans Unpaved Roads: 1% of onsite Construction Cost Z. 2% of the first (up to) $500,000 $ 1.5% of the next $500,000 to $1,0000000 $ 1% of the amount over $1,000,000 $ "Please include a signed and sealed Engineer's Cost Estimate. Site construction costs shall include, but not be limited to, clearing, demo lition, grading, paving, drainage, lighting, landscaping, traffic control, parking, sidew lks, erosion contra /s, fencing, and other site improvements as determined by the county. On site water, sewer and reuse utility lines is not included in these costs B. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: "projects that have offsite construction costs above $200,000 00shall refer to section A -2 above for the fee schedule. A signed and sealed Engineer's Cost Estimate of the work performed in the right -of- way /easement will be required to be submitted with this form. Storm Sewer Construction $125400 $ Stormwater Discharge $300000 $ Sidewalk Construction (Improvements in R /W) $125000 $ Commercial Driveway Connection (Temporary A Permanent, per each connection) X $500900 = $ Roadway/Intersection improvements (turn lanes and signals, misc. median work), in addition to commercial driveway fee X $500.00 = $ Right -of -Way Utilization Fee (underground or aerial = $125.00 + $.29 per foot) $125.00+ x $.29 = $ Paved Road Open Cut, (per cut) X $750000 = $ Jack and Bore / All approved tunnel methods (each) X$375.00 = $ Utility Open Pits (including short side service connections) X $ 75.00 = $ TOTAL OFFSITE IMPROVEMENT FEES $ TOTAL FEES $ All fees are required to be submitted simultaneously with approved engineering plans for site plans, subdivisions, and unpaved roads prior to approval or permitting of improvements. Subsequent changes to the approved site plan or subdivision plan could result in additional fees. It is incumbent upon the applicant to notify the reviewer if a reduction in fees should occur due to any approved designed changes. Signature of Applicant Engineering Review Approval Date Date For Land Development Use Only Accepted By: Date Recd: Receipt #: Fee $: w aver %�Y >f aw Jw co of Melbourne CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW FEES Initial Submitta1:18t through 3rd Review Based on Estimated Cost of Overall Site Improvements Up to $50,000 $ 45100 $ 50,001 - 250,000 1360.50 $ 250 001 - 5009000 1815.00 $ 500,001 - 1,000,000 2268000 $1,000,001 and over 060035 0.35% 4th through Final Review FDEP Waterline Permit Processing Fee up to $502000 $ 226.50 $ 5009001 - 250,000 68025 $ 2509001 - 500,000 907.50 $ 5009001 - 1,000,000 1134.00 $1 000,001 and over 0.00175 0.175% Revised Submittal to Approved Plans includes recording fees Minor (Egg ineering review only) S 200.00 Major (Review by all departments) - 50% of original fee / MINOR PLAN ONLY (RDM and WM Plan Review: $250.00 inspection Fee: $500.00 PERMIT FEES & PROCESSING CHARGES Reference City Code - Chapter 2 - Section 2 216) Stormwater Maintenance Agreement ; $ 16850 Utility Agreement 45.00 Fire Protection System Agreement * 125.00 Stormwater Permit 37.00 ErosionlSedimentation Control Review 124,00 Verification of Available City Services Letter 49.00 FDEP Waterline Permit Processing Fee 165.00 FDEP Sewerline Permit Processing Fee 165000 FDOT Utility Permit Processing Fee 40000 Water System Pressure Re -Tests 100600 Pro -Rata Agreement 250000 Right-of-Way RightwofmWay Use Agreement 150000 includes recording fees INSPECTION FEES (Based CONCURRENCY REVIEW FEES Overall Costs) Water inside City) $ 52000 Water (outside City) 850000 208.00 Sewer 19000600 850.00 52.00 Drainage 2"d Meter Placement Up to $5,000 52.00 Recreation residential 3'd 45.00 Traffic - insignificant < 3% ADT $15,001 - 234.00 Traffic - significant > 3% ADT ' Based on Revised $25,001 - 826.00 INSPECTION FEES (Based on Estimated Overall Costs) Up to $75,000 $ 500000 $ 1,125.00 $75,001 and over Meter 850000 1.5% Pre- FinaVFinal Re -Ins ecdon -1st 19000600 850.00 166.00 Pre- Final/Final Re4ris ection - 2"d Meter Placement Up to $5,000 415.00 Pre- Final/Final Re4ns ection - 3'd 15,000 378.00 Construction Site Plan Review Application Package Engineering Department PRE= CONSTRUCTION BONDS WATER Overtime Inspection Bond %to $ 500000 As -Built Inspection Bond 1" Meter 850000 Right-of-Way RightrofmWay Restoration Bond 1 %* Meter 19000600 850.00 WOC As -built Bond Meter 3,000.00 Meter Placement Up to $5,000 Call 500000 Bond: $ 51001 - 15,000 750900 $15,001 - 25,000 12000000 ' Based on Revised $25,001 - 50.000 1,250.00 Estimated Cost of $509001 - 759000 1,500.00 Dedicated Water $75,001 -1 00,000 11750.00 System $100,001 and Over' 2% WATER & SEWER IMPACT FEES WATER CONNECTION FEES %to Meter $ 19340.00 $ 250.00 1" Meter 4,750900 475.00 1 %* Meter 9,500000 850.00 2" Meter Call for Meters Larger than 2" or Multi - Family Projects 1,600.00 Call for Meters Larger than 2" or Multlw Family Projects WATER & SEWER IMPACT FEES Meter Size (inch) Water Sewer % $ 19340.00 $ 10900000 1 3,350.00 4,750900 1 '/z 61700.00 9,500000 2 10,720.00 15,200.00 Call for Meters Larger than 2" or Multi - Family Projects TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES - See Attached Schedule - " A Capacity Reservation Fee (10% of payable water, sewer and transportation impact fees) is due 48 hours prior to Pre - Construction Conference. NON - NOTIFICATION FEE Re- Development (RD) or Re- Development Minor (RDM) Projects not requiring a Pre - Construction Conference are required to notify the Engineering Department within 48 hours prior to construction. Failure to notify will result In a $100.00 Per day fee. ABANDON & VACATE (A &1) Includes application and advertising fees $485.00 Please call the Engineering Department at (321) 953 -6242 if you have any questions relating to the fees. Page 18 of 19 315113 The CityofTitus%ille, Florida- Fee Schedule i Engioeering Services / Fee Schedule a:. , l I :l : 'r 'h I Y1'• : � t: / ,1� •�Y�:: /Uc ' Ca C.\ ✓ / •� 1 \ tirip � r i:t ; f 11 Q\ . 1�� :; _ 7 J. .f ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE * * * EFFECTIVE: September 22, 2009 ( Res. #40 -2009) * * * Please note that this fee schedule is provided for informational purposes only and is subject to change at any tim.e. Appeals from decision of administrative office - * * * Variances and Appeals Advertisement - APPEALS, VARIANCES $450 plus advertisement fee $150 each advertisement Single- family and multi - family zoning districts an $450 plus advertisement fee All other zoning districts - $750 plus advertisement fee ** *Variances and Appeals Advertisement - $150 each advertisement Subsequent items processed at the same time as the first item $100 per additional request ** *The applicant will be responsible forall re- advertising when an applicant deferral is initiated. LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FEES Class I Improvement Review Residential - Single Family Lot Non - residential Lot Rlght -of -way Reviews Minor Divisions (maximum 3 lots) Class II Site Plan Review Site Plan Pre - application Review Site Plan Engineering Review * Site Plan Multi- family Engineering Review Site Plan Marina Facilities Late Resubmittal Re- instatement Review Amendments to Approved Site Plans: Minor changes (less than 10 %) Major changes (greater than 10 %) $100 $250 $200 $500 $250 plus $10 per acre $1,000 plus $100 per acre $1,000 plus $100 per unit $1,000 plus $100 per slip $500 prior to 90 days from delinquent response date. After 90 days, new review fees will be required. $250 One -Half (1/2) Original Free * A Site Plan Multi -- family Engineering Review is a non - platted development such as an apartment or condominium development. Class II Subdivision Review Fees Subdivision Pre - application Review Subdivision Sketch Plat Review Subdivision Preliminary Plat with Engineering Subdivision Final Plat Minor Division (maximum 3 lots) $250 plus $10 per acre $500 plus $15 per lot $2,000 plus $30 per lot $1,000 plus $20 per lot $1,000 m wwtitus% it le.cwvPage.asp?NaviD= 1196&Print =True 1/3 J 3613 Late Resubmittal Re- instatement Review Amendments to Approved Site Plans: Minor changes (less Ethan 100/6.) Major changes (greater than 10 %) Lan Ascape Revi!gw Fe (Classes I and II Landscape Review Subdivision Landscape Review Non - subdivision Single Family Lot Landscape Review Tree Review Fee (greater than 2 acres) Tree Removal Request 493m, 9 ,if - I -- Land Altemations /Clearing Stormwater Improvements Residential Driveway Connection Commercial Driveway Connection Parking Lot Restriping /Resurfacing Parking Lot New Construction R.O.W. - Open Cuts /Directional Drill Utility Construction Road Repairs Sidewalks Single Family Lot Final Inspection Trash Enclosure Utility Service Connection Class II Site Development Permit Fees Pre - construction Conference Subdivision Permits Non- subdivislon Permits The Cityaf Tltusulle, Florida - Fee SchedAe $500 prior to 90 days from delinquent response date. After 90 days, new review fees will be required. $250 One -half (1/2) Original Fee 1 � plus plus plus )lus LAN12 DEVIELQPMENT PERMIT FEES Permit Extension Request Expired Permit Re- instatement Permit Re- inspections Permit Transfers Permit Modifications Work without a Permit After Hours Inspection Fee VE $10 per lot $50 per acre $75 per acre S20 per tree $300 plus $50 per acre $300 plus $10 per acre $100 each $250 each $100 plus $2 per stall $300 plus $5 per stall $200 each $2.5% of cost ($100 min.) $100 plus $50 per L.F. $50 plus $1 per L.F. $100 $250 each $100 each $500 2.5% of site construction cost 2.5% of site construction cost $10% of original permit fee ($50 minimum) $35% of original permit fee ($100 minimum) $100 each re- inspection $100 each $350 each Double Permit Fee $100 per hour (2 hr. minimum) LAND DEVELOPMENT CLOSEOUT RELM1V__FIRES Potable Water Clearance $100 Sanitary Sewer Clearance $100 Reclaimed Water Clearance $100 wm.titus%illa,convPage asp7NWD= 11988Prin =True 2/3 3813 The Cityof Titusville. Florida - Fee Schedule :tormwater Management Systems Clearance $100 Utility Service Request Final Closeout & Site CO Request Public Record Recording Fee $100 $150 LAND DEVELOPMENT MLSCELLANOUS FEES Flood Zone Determination /Certification Maintenance ofTraMc(MOT) Plan Review Special Events Permit Fire Hydrant Flow Test Force Main Pressure Test (existing tap) Force Main Pressure Test (new tap) $50 plus Brevard County filing charges $50 each $200 each $100 plus $25 per day $160 each $140 each $500 each Note #i; For all permit fees not listed above, the permit fee shall be based on 2.5% of approved site development construction cost but not less than $100. All proposed site development construction cost must be approved by the Administrator. Note #2: Refunds: A 10% administrative fee will be charged on all refunds requested if the request is within 30 days of payment receipt and no work has been performed or completed. Once work has been started or the request is after the Initial 30 day period, no refunds will be granted. Note #3: A surcharge shall be assessed on each permit fee in the amount of 0.3 mil per dollar valuation. Fee to be charged on all permits Issued regardless of type, rounded to the nearest cent including fees required under this chapter and the provisions of the Land Development Regulations, Volume II of the Code. The funds generated by the surcharge shall be used exclusively for the training of department personnel and the purchase of technological tools and equipment for the department. wwwtitus%iile caNPage -asp ?NavlD= 1196&Prirtt=True 313 The City of Daytona Beach Fee Schedule APPLICATION TYPE Any person who commences work without having first obtained all proper sign permits will be assessed double permit fees upon Site Plan M ve Sign Plan one time ACCESSED FEES $2,000.00 $100.00 Minor modification (no new building square footage) $250900 Minor modification (additional building square footage, not exceeding $500.00 Initial ayylicati $1,100.00 + 50,000 sq. ft. or over, $20.00 per 1,000 sq. ft., -up to $8,000.00 $300.00 beginning with 4th Re- submittal submittal Site inspection (site permit) $250.00 Site work Construction with buildings - up to 20,000 sq. ft. $500000 Construction with buildings - over 20,000 sq. ft. $19000000 Site reinspections $60.00 per reinspection Subdivisions Minor subdivision $250.00 Preliminary plat, maximum $1,500.00 $500.00 + $20.00 per lot over 50 lots Final plat + per lot over 50 lots Recording of final plat $3UU.UU + tees required by county Inspection of improvements 2.25 percent of costs of public improvements Tree Removal ? Tree removal or clearance $20 per tree up to $600.00 Historic tree removal $175.00 Landscape bond administration fee One percent of bond amount Page 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FEES* Effective 10/01107 Revised 6111 "ABC" Tree & Vegetation Removal Permits Permit as part of site plan /subdivision plan review Permit not a part of site /subdivision plan review Included $125 Annexations $1,100* Apoeals Technical or Procedural $100 Change of Grade /Land Clearing Permits For sites 3 acres or less /90 days permit period For sites larger than 3 acres /365 day permit period $100 $50 1acre $500 max. Change of Use $450* Comprehensive Plan / Future Land Use Amendments Small Scale Amendment Large Scale Amendment $2,500* $3,000' Concurrenc Review As part of site plan /subdivision plan review Separate from site plan /subdivision plan review Included $1700 Conditional Use $450* Development Order Extensions $300 Development Order Modifications $300 Development Permit Extensions $300 Development of Regional Impact DRI'S $15,000' plus consultant review fees EasemenUStreet Vacations $250 Improvements In The Ri ht -of -wa License Agreements) $75 Incomplete Pro ect Submittals $500 Land Development Code Text Amendments $6000* Model Home Sales Center $300 Revised 6111 Revised 6111 Pre - Construction Meeting 1st Meeting Included 2nd Meeting $300 Planned Unit Development PUD /Planned Commercial Development (PCD) Amendments Amendments (MDA & CDP) $6,500* Restatements $81500* MDA Amendment Only $4,500* CDP Amendment Only $4,500* Resubmittals after SDRC 1st resubmittal Included 2nd resubmittal $500 3rd resubmittal $1,000 4th resubmittal $1,500 5th resubmittal and each subsequent resubmittal $2,000 Rezonin s PUD/PCD Rezonings $8,500* All others $6,500* Sidewalk Sales/Special Events Sidewalk Sales $25 Minor Special Events $100 Major Special Events 7 days or less $300 Major Special Events more than 7 days $500 Site Development Review Minor Site Plan $4,000 Major Site Plan $4,500 Modifications to a plan 3 years old or less $500 Modifications to a plan more than 3 years old $1,000 Site Inspection Fees Sites 5 acres or less = 3.25% of est. construction cost Sites more than 5 acres = 2.25% of est. construction cost Holiday work = $100 / hr., 6 hr. min. Final Inspection and (1) Reinspection Included Additional Reins ections $500 Special Exception $450* Stormwater Management Permits Determination of Exemption $25 Permit as part of site plan /subdivision plan review Included Permit not a part of site /subdivision plan review $25 /acre or $250, whichever is less Subdivision Review Preliminary Plat & Plans $2,000 Final Plat & Plans $4,750 or 0.5% of const. cost (the greater #) Replat $500 Minor Subdivision (exemption) $2,000 Subdivision Inspection Fees Sites 15 acres or less = 3.25% of est. construction cost Sites more than 15 acres = 2.75% of est. construction cost Final Inspection and (1) Reinspection Included Additional Reins ections $500 Revised 6111 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -15; reappointing Members to the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Cape Canaveral; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions; severability; and an effective date. (Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell). Department: Legislative Summary: After having conducted interviews at tonight's meeting of Planning and Zoning Board Members Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell, it is now incumbent upon the City Council to reappoint each as Members of the Board. Submitting Department Director: Angela Apperson Date: 08 -9 -2013 Attachment: Resolution. No. 2013 -15 Financial Impact: Staff time and effort to prepare this Agenda Item. Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Date: S'9'13 The City Manager recommends that City Council tbke the following action(s): Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -15. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene Date: n, City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications Tabled to Time Certain RESOLUTION 201345 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA; REAPPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, has by City Code Section 110 -3 established a Board known as the Planning and Zoning Board; and WHEREAS, it is now incumbent upon the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral to reappoint Members to said Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS. Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are deemed true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as a material part of this Resolution. Section 2. Reappointments to the Planning Board. Pursuant to Section 2471(e) and (f) of the Cape Canaveral City Code, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral hereby reappoints Bruce Collins, John Price and R. Lamar Russell to the Cape Canaveral Planning and Zoning Board for three year terms. Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All prior resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion hereto. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, assembled this 20th day of August, 2013. (Signature page follows) City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -15 Pagel of 2 ATTEST. Angela Apperson, Asst. City Manager /City Clerk Approved as to legal form and sufficiency For the City of Cape Canaveral only by: Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney Rocky Randels, Mayor PLT ,_ John Bond : Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Betty Walsh City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -15 Page 2 of 2 •' AGAINST City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. Subject: Approve the First Addendum to Professional Services Agreement with JB's Lawn Control, Inc. in the amount of $184,478 and authorize the City Manager to execute same. Department: Public Works Services Summary: This Contract was awarded to JB's Lawn Control, Inc. (JB's) in September 2012 for providing services for Mowing /Maintenance of City Landscaped Areas, Rights - of -Way, Water Reclamation Plant, and Lift Stations and the Mowing /Slope Mowing of the Central Ditch and Other Areas. In general, Staff is very pleased with the services provided by JB's. JB's proposed unit prices have not been increased for FY2013 -2014. However, the City has included six (6) additional mowing areas and five (5) additional edging areas. A list of the additional locations and pricing is included as Attachment A. Exhibit "A" Scope of Services has been updated with the additional areas /pricing and is included as Attachment B. FY2012 -2013 costs totaled $181,058; FY2013 -2014 costs will increase by $3,420 for a new total of $184,478. The Professional Services Agreement between the City and JB's allows extensions for one -year periods — the Agreement expires on September 30, 2013. The First Addendum to the Professional Services Agreement (Attachment C) extends the period for one year to September 30, 2014. Submitting Department Director: Jeff Ratliff 1 Date: 08/07/13 Attachments: Attachment A — Additional Locations and Pricing Attachment B — Exhibit "A" Scope of Services Attachment C — First Addendum to Professional Services Agreement Financial Impact: $184,478 for the Mowing /Maintenance of City Landscaped Areas, Rights -of -Way, Water Reclamation Plant, and Lift Stations and the Mowing /Slope Mowing of the Central Ditch and Other Areas Agreement with JB's Lawn Control, Inc. funded by City Departments operating budgets. Staff time and effort to prepare this Agenda Item. Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo b Date: �� } The City Manager recommends that City Council ke the following action(s): Approve the First Addendum to Professional Se ices Agreement with JB's Lawn Control, Inc. in the amount of $184,478 and authorize the City Manager to execute same. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene -vi. Date: %11%,1f City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications ] Tabled to Time Certain Attachment A Additional Locations and Pricing 2013 2014 City of Cape Canaveral Additional Site Pricing JBs LOCATION North Ditch Mowing Church Lane ROW Mowing Jefferson /Poinsetta ROW Mowing Washington ROW Mowing Magnolia /Madison ROW Mowing Buchanan /Orange ROW Mowing Church Lane Edging Jefferson /Poinsetta Edging Washington Edging Magnolia /Madison Edging Buchanan /Orange Edging CUTS PRICE ANNUAL TOTAL 12 $ 90400 $ 1,080.00 24 $ 15400 $ 360.00 24 $ 15.00 $ 360.00 24 $ 15900 $ 360.00 24 $ 15.00 $ 360.00 24 $ 15000 $ 360.00 12 $ 9000 $ 108.00 12 $ 9.00 $ 108.00 12 $ 9.00 $ 108.00 12 $ 9000 $ 108.00 12 $ 9000 $ 108900 Page 1 of 1 3,420.00 Attachment B Exhibit "A" Scope of Services City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA I UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESSINOTES YEAR Bldg Dept, Library City Hall - 105 Polk Ave. perations 7P:almTrimming $ 60.00 44 $ 2,640.00 BCSO Precinct - 111 Polk Ave. rimming $ 75.00 12 $ 900.00 Bldg. Dept. - 7510 N. Atlantic Ave. 3 - ([41 IM; 12 Libj) $ 848.00 1 $ 848.00 Lib rary - 201 Polk Ave. n Complex 7300 N. Atlantic Ave. (SR Al A) Mowing Operations $ 75.00 44 $ 3,300.00 Hedge Trimming $ 190.00 12 $ 2,280.00 Palm Trimming (20) $ 320.00 1 $ 320.00 C eriscape Park South Side of City Hall (105 Polk Ave.) between Polk and Taylor Avenues wing Operations :Hedge $ 35.00 44 $ 1,540.00 Trimming $ 35.00 12 $ 420.00 lm Trimming (4) $ 64.00 1 $ 64.00 D Veteran's Memorial Park Adjacent to Library (201 Polk Ave.) Mowing Operations Hedge Trimming Palm Trimming (6) $ 35.00 44 $ 1,540.00 $ 35.00 12 $ 420.00 $ 76.00 1 $ 76.00 Page 1 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET E BID AREA I (Continued) LANDSCAPED AREAS Bennix Park UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS /NOTES YEAR Washington Ave. (Between N. Atlantic Ave. and Rosalind Ave.) Mowing Operations $ 55.00 44 $ 2,420.00 Hedge Trimming $ 95.00 12 $ 1,140.00 Palm Trimming (30) $ 480.00 1 $ 480.00 F Canaveral & Canaveral Beach Blvds. Medians Onl Mowing Operations $ 105.00 44 $ 4,620.00 Hedge Trimming $ 130.00 12 $ 1,560.00 Palm Trimming (98) $ 1,568.00 1 $ 1,568.00 G East Central Medians Onl and West Central Medians and Tree Lines Mowing Operations $ 220.00 44 $ 9,680.00 Hedge Trimming $ 60.00 12 $ 720.00 Palm Trimming (106) $ 1,696.00 1 $ 1,696.00 H Cape View Tree Line and Kindergarten Cape View Elementary School (8840 Rosalind Ave.) Mowing Operations $ 35.00 44 $ 1,540.00 Palm Trimming (17) $ 272.00 1 $ 272.00 Page 2 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA I (Continued) UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS /NOTES YEAR Harbor Heights Medians Onl Harbor Dr. (Off N. Atlantic Ave.) Mowing Operations $ 20.00 44 $ 880.00 Hedge Trimming $ 40.00 12 $ 480.00 Palm Trimming (4) $ 64.00 1 $ 64.00 J N. Atlantic Ave. and A-1 -A Landscaped Triangle Area Mowing Operations $ 35.00 44 $ 1,540.00 Hedge Trimming $ 35.00 12 $ 420.00 K Canaveral City Park and Ball Park 7920 Orange Ave. Mowing Operations $ 270.00 44 $ 11,880.00 Infield Mowing $ 40.00 88 $ 3,520.00 Hedge Trimming $ 35.00 12 $ 420.00 Palm Trimming (144) $ 2,304.00 1 $ 2,304.00 Aeration, Top Dressing, and Verticutting $ 1,800.00 1 $ 1,800.00 L Center Street Park and Streetscape west End of Center St. (Off N. Atlantic Ave.) Mowing Operations $ 25.00 44 $ 1,100.00 Hedge Trimming $ 15.00 12 $ 180.00 Palm Trimming (19) $ 304.00 1 $ 304.00 M South City Entrance Sign N. Atlantic Ave. (Between Grant Ave. and Johnson Ave.) Mowing Operations $ 15.00 44 $ 660.00 Hedge Trimming Is 15.00 1 12 1 $ 180.00 Palm Trimming (9) is 144.00 1 1 1 $ 144.00 Page 3 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA I (Continued) LANDSCAPED AREAS, UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESSINOTES YEAR N A1A Landscaped Areas See Bid Specs Pages 9 and 10 for Project Areas Mowing Operations $ 115.00 44 $ 5,060.00 Hedge Trimming $ 50.00 12 $ 600.00 Palm Trimming (35) $ 560.00 1 Is 560.00 O Patriot's Park East End of Longpoint Rd. (West Side of N. Atlantic Ave.) :Palm wing Operations $ 55.00 44 $ 2,420.00 edge Trimming $ 35.00 12 $ 420.00 Trimming (21) $ 336.00 1 $ 336.00 P Columbia Drive (Medians Only) Medians Only Mowing Operations $ 75.00 44 $ 3,300.00 Hedge Trimming $ 65.00 12 $ 780.00 Palm Trimming (9) $ 144.00 1 $ 144.00 Q Thurm Boulevard (Medians Only) Medians Only Mowing Operations $ 50.00 44 $ 2,200.00 Hedge Trimming $ 35.00 12 $ 420.00 Palm Trimming (14) $ 224.00 1 Is 224.00 Page 4 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA I (Continued) LANDSCAPED AREAS UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS/NOTES YEAR R Manatee Sanctuary Park 701 Thurm Blvd. (Park is located on river just north of Water Reclamation Plant) Mowing Operations $ 210.00 44 $ 9,240.00 Palm Trimming (238) $ 3,808.00 1 $ 3,808.00 Edging of Exercise Trail $ 75.00 12 Is 900.00 S Banana River Park Mowing Operations $ 75.00 $ 608.00 44 $ 3,300.00 Palm Trimming (38) 1 $ 608.00 T North City Entrance Sign A1A North end of Cape Canaveral on west side of Astronaut Blvd. Mowing Operations $ 15.00 44 $ 660.00 Hedge Trimming $ 15.00 12 $ 180.00 Palm Trimming (6) $ 96.00 1 $ 96.00 U N. Atlantic Ave. Entrance Sign $ 15.00 44 $ 660.00 North end of Cape Canaveral on west side of N. Atlantic Ave. by Port entrance Mowing Operations Hedge Trimming $ 15.00 12 $ 180.00 Palm Trimming (14) $ 224.00 1 $ 224.00 v Ridgewood Ave. Redevelopment project running parallel to oceanfront from East Central to Johnson Ave. Mowing Operations $ 240.00 44 $ 10,560.00 Hedge Trimming $ 105.00 12 $ 1,260.00 Palm Trimming (106) $ 1,696.00 1 $ 1,696.00 Page 5 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA II RIGHTS -OF -WAY UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESSINOTES YEAR A N. Atlantic Ave. North entrance sign to landscaped triangle area (undeveloped areas only) Mowing Operations $ 200.00 24 $ 4,800.00 Edging $ 200.00 12 $ 2,400.00 Palm Trimming (61) $ 976.00 1 $ 976.00 B East Central Blvd - From N. Atlantic East (Undeveloped areas only) to Rid ewood Ave. Mowing Operations $ 160.00 24 $ 3,840.00 Edging $ 160.00 12 $ 1,920.00 Palm Trimming (60) $ 960.00 1 $ 960.00 C West Central Blvd. - From Thurm Blvd (Undeveloped areas only) East to N. Atlantic Ave. Mowing Operations $ 50.00 24 $ 1,200.00 Edging $ 50.00 12 $ 600.00 Palm Trimming (39) $ 624.00 1 $ 624.00 D Beach End Streets (Harbor Heights to Johnson Ave. Mowing Operations $ 35.00 24 $ 840.00 Page 6 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA II (Continued) RIGHTS -OF -WAY UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS /NOTES YEAR E Harbor Heights /Harbor Dr. Harbor Dr. (Off N. Atlantic Ave.) Mowing Operations $ 55.00 24 $ 1,320.00 F Oak Lane Mowing Operations $ 55.00 24 $ 1,320.00 G SR A1A East side and west side (undeveloped areas only) Mowing Operations $ 115.00 24 $ 2,760.00 Edging $ 200.00 12 $ 2,400.00 H Thurm Blvd. Mowing Operations $ 200.00 24 $ 4,800.00 Edging $ 140.00 12 $ 1,680.00 Palm Trimming (32) $ 512.00 1 $ 512.00 I Church Lane Mowing Operations $ 15.00 1 24 $ 360.00 Edging $ 9.00 12 $ 108.00 Page 7 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA II (Continued) RIGHTS -OF -WAY UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS/NOTES YEAR J Jefferson /Poinsetta Ave Mowing Operations $ 15.00 24 $ 360.00 Edging $ 9.00 12 $ 108.00 K Washington Ave Mowing Operations $ 15.00 24 $ 360.00 Edging $ 9.00 12 $ 108.00 L Magnolia /Madison Ave Mowing Operations $ 15.00 24 $ 360.00 Edging $ 9.00 12 Is 108.00 M Buchanan Ave Mowing Operations $ 15.00 24 $ 360.00 Edging $ 9.00 12 $ 108.00 Page 8 of 10 City of Cape Canaveral Mowing and Landscape Maintenance FY14 BID TAB SHEET BID AREA III WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AND LIFT UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS /NOTES YEAR STATIONS A Water Reclamation Plant 601 Thurm Blvd. Mowing Operations $ 320.00 44 $ 14,080.00 B Lift Stations See attached list and map for locations. Mowing Operations $ 45.00 44 $ 1,980.O0 MOWINGISLOPE MOWING OF CENT UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST LOCATION: North and South of West Central Blvd. from Port to SR A1A. YEAR DITCH AND OTHER AREAS 4 Central Ditch Mowing Operations $ 675.00 12 $ 8,100.00 B North Central Ditch Mowing Operations $ 90.00 12 $ 1,060.00 C Stormwater Pond - Manatee Sanctuary LOCATION: 701 Thurm Blvd. Park Mowing Operations $ 90.00 42 $ 3,780.00 D Stormwater Ponds - Plant LOCATION: 601 Thurm Blvd. Mowing Operations $ 105.00 42 $ 4,410.00 Page 9 of 10 FY14 BID TAB SHEET GRAND TOTAL $ 115,756.00 BID AREA II - RIGHTS -OF -WAY $ 35,292.00 BID AREA III - WATER RECLAMATION PLANT AND LIFT STATIONS $ 16,060.00 BID AREA IV - MOWING /SLOPE MOWING OF CENTRAL DITCH ANIII OTHER AREAS $ 17,370.00 GRAND TOTAL OF BID AREAS I, II, III AND IV $ 184,478.00 VENDOR INFORMATION NOTES: COMPANY NAME: COMPANY REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: OFFICE - PHONE: MOBILE - Page 10 of 10 i i Attachment C is ' i- ! -i s to Professional Services Agreement FIRST ADDENDUM TO 1IONAL SERVICES AGREE THIS FIRST ADDENDUM TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "First Addendum ") is made and entered this day of , 2013 by and between the CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, a Florida municipal corporation, whose Principal address is 105 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida, 32920 ( "City "), and JB'S LAWN CONTROL, INC., a Florida corporation, whose principal address is 3655 S. Hopkins Ave., Titusville, Florida 32780 ( "Contractor"). WITNESSETH. WHEREAS, the City and Contractor previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") for mowing and maintenance of City landscaped areas, rights -of -way, water reclamation plant, lift stations, and the Central Ditch; and WHEREAS, the Agreement is scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2013; and WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Agreement provides that the parties may agree to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional one -year period; and WHEREAS, the City and Contractor mutually desire to extend the term of the Agreement, as set forth herein. WHEREAS, this First Addendum is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the City and Contractor hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 — RECITALS The foregoing recitals are deemed true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. ARTICLE 2 — EXTENSION OF TERM The City and Contractor hereby agree to extend the term of the Agreement for one (1) year, commencing on October 1, 2013 and terminating on September 30, 20144 ARTICLE 3 — PAYMENT OF COIF Contractor's proposed unit prices have not been increased for FY2013/2014. However, the City has included six (6) additional mowing areas and five (5) additional edging First Addendum to Professional Services Agreement City of Cape Canaveral / 16's Lawn Control, Inc. Page 1 of 2 areas. Exhibit "A" Scope of Services has been updated with these additional areas and pricing, and is attached hereto and expressly incorporated herein by this reference. FY2012/2013 costs totaled $181,058; FY2013/2014 will increase by $3,420 for a new total of $184,478. ARTICLE 4 — OTHER PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT. Any other term or provision of the Agreement not expressly modified by this Addendum shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHERE OF, the parties hereto have executed this First Addendum as of the day and year first above written. Attest. By: Angela Apperson, City Clerk WITNESSES: Print Name: Print Name: CITY: City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation. By: David L. Greene, City Manager CONTRACTOR. JB's Lawn Control, Inc., a Florida corporation. By: Print Name: Title: First Addendum to Professional Services Agreement City of Cape Canaveral / JB's Lawn Control, Inc. Page 2of2 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. 5- Subject: Approve annual extension of the Fertilization, Insect, Disease, Weed Control and Pest Control Agreement in the Amount of $41,344 with Black's Lawn Care and Pest Control, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute same. Department: Public Works Services Summary: This contract was awarded to Black's Lawn Care and Pest Control, Inc. (Black's) in 2008 for providing services including fertilization, disease and weed control of turf areas and the Central Ditch. A contract for pest control services for all City buildings was awarded to Black's in 2010. In general, Staff is very pleased with the services provided by Black's. Black's proposed unit prices have not been increased for FY2013 -2014. Pest control services for all City buildings currently provided by Black's are also included in this contract — annual pest control costs are $3,720. Therefore, the total cost for all services is $41,344. Bid tab sheets detailing the proposed costs and services to be provided by Black's for FY2013 -2014 are included in Attachment A. The Professional Services Agreement between the City and Black's allows extensions for one -year periods — the latest extension expires on September 30, 2013. The Sixth Addendum to the Professional Services Agreement (see Attachment B) extends the period for one year to September 30, 2014. Submitting Department Director: Jeff Ratliff M'` Date: 7/19/2013 Attachments: Attachment A — FY2013 -2014 Bid Tab Sheets Attachment B — Sixth Addendum to Agreement Financial Impact: $41,344 from Infrastructure Maintenance to fund the Fertilization, Insect, Disease, Weed Control and Pest Control Agreement with Black's Lawn Care and Pest Control . Staff time and effort to prepare this Ager item. Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Date: The City Manager recommends that City Councktake the following action(s): Approve annual extension of the Fertilization, Insect, Disease, Weed Control and Pest Control Agreement in the Amount of $41,344 with Black's Lawn Care and Pest Control, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute same. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene 0 -IX A- Date: 7 "ala City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disappro ed [ ] Approved with Modifications Tabled to Time Certain Attachment A FY2013m2014 Bid Tab Sheets City of Cape Canaveral Chemical Applications FY14 BID TAB SHEET UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS /NOTES YEAR A City Hall, Sheriffs Annex, Bldg Dept, City Hall - 105 Polk Ave. Library Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 120.00 6 $ 720.00 Annex - 111 Polk Ave. Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 150.00 2 $ 300.00 Bldg Dept .7510 N Atlantic Ave. Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 30.00 2 $ 60.00 Herbicide Applications $ 75.00 10 $ 750.00 Library - 201 Polk Ave. City Hall - $55X6; Sheriffs Annex - $65X6; Bldg - $60X6; Rec Ctr - $65X6; Facilities Pest Control Canaveral Park - $145X6; Manatee Park - $50X6; Public Works - $125X6; Streets - $55X6 $ 620.00 6 $ 3,720.00 B Recreation Complex Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 105.00 6 $ 630.00 7300 N Atlantic Ave. Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 120.00 2 $ 240.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 30.00 2 $ 60.00 Herbicide Applications $ 75.00 10 $ 750.00 C Xeriscape Park South Side of City Hall 105 Polk Ave. between Polk and Taylor Herbicide Applications Avenues D Veteran's Memorial Park Adjacent to Library Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 30.00 6 $ 180.00 201 Polk Ave. Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 45.00 2 $ 90.00 Herbicide Applications $ 30.00 10 $ 300.00 Page 1 of 8 City of Cape Canaveral Chemical Applications BID TAB SHEET E Bennix Park UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESSINOTES YEAR Washington Ave. (Between N. Atlantic and Rosalind Ave.) Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 150.00 6 $ 900.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 135.00 2 $ 270.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 60.00 2 1 $ 120.00 Herbicide Applications $ 60.00 10 $ 600.00 F Canaveral & Canaveral Beach Blvd Medians Only Turf Applications (GranularlLiquid) $ 180.00 6 $ 1,080.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 105.00 2 $ 210.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 45.00 2 $ 90.00 Herbicide Applications $ 75.00 10 $ 750.00 G N Ridgewood, E Central, W Central Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 360.00 6 $ 2,160.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 210.00 2 $ 420.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 60.00 2 $ 120.00 Herbicide Applications $ 210.00 10 $ 2,100.00 H Cape View Tree Line and Kindergarten Cape View Elementary School 8840 Rosalind Ave. Turf Applications (GranularlLiquid) $ 15.00 6 $ 90.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 $ 30.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 45.00 2 $ 90.00 Herbicide Applications $ 15.00 10 $ 150.00 Page 2 of 8 City of Cape Canaveral Chemical Applications BID TAB SHEET APPLICATION AREAS Cont M UNIT CFITIMES ER TOTAL COST ADDRESSINOTES Harbor Heights Harbor Dr. (Off North Atlantic Ave.) Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 3 $ 180.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 3 $ 60.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 1 $ 30.00 Herbicide Applications $ 30.00 10 $ 300.00 J 401IN Atlantic Avenue Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 30.00 6 $ 180.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Herbicide Applications $ 15.00 10 $ 150.00 K Canaveral City Park and Ball Park 7920 Orange Ave - (Top Choice -Both Infields and Outfields; Playground; and, Pavilion) Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 180.00 6 $ 1,080.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 $ Herbicide Applications $ 30.00 10 $ 300.00 Turf Application Little League Infield $ 75.00 12 $ 900.00 Top Choice Application $ 1,100.00 1 $ 1,100.00 L Center Street Park and Streetscape West End of Center St. (Off N. Atlantic Ave.) Turf Applications (GranularlLiquid) $ 15.00 6 $ 90.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 90.00 2 $ 180.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 30.00 2 $ 60.00 Herbicide Applications $ 100.00 10 $ 1,000.00 Page 3 of 8 City of Cape Canaveral Chemical Applications BID TAB SHEET APPLICATION AREAS (Continuedl M South City Entrance Sion UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESSMOTES YEAR N Atlantic Ave. (Between Grant Ave. and Johnson Ave.) Turf Applications(Granular /Liquid) $ - Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Herbicide Applications $ 15.00 10 $ 150.00 N A1A Landscaped Areas Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 225.00 2 $ 450.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 225.00 2 $ 450.00 Herbicide Applications $ 210.00 10 $ 2,100.00 O Patriot's Park West End of Longpoint Rd. (W side of N Atlantic Avenue) Top Choice - Playground Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 30.00 6 $ 180.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Herbicide Applications $ 30.00 10 $ 300.00 Top Choice Application $ 100.00 1 $ 100.00 P Columbia Drive Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 45.00 6 $ 270.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ - Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 30.00 2 $ 60.00 Herbicide Applications $ - Page 4 of 8 City of Cape Canaveral Chemical Applications BID TAB SHEET APPLICATION AREAS (Continued) UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESS/NOTES YEAR Q Thurm Blvd Medians Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 30.00 6 $ 180.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Herbicide Applications 1 $ - R Manatee Park 801 Thurm Blvd (Park located on river just north of Cape Canaveral Public Works Facility - Top Choice - Pavilion, Exercise Trail and Bench Areas Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 30.00 6 $ 180.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 45.00 2 $ 90.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 60.00 2 $ 120.00 Herbicide Applications $ 300.00 10 $ 3,000.00 Top Choice Application $ 750.00 1 $ 750.00 S Banana River Park 901 Thurm Blvd - Top Choice Areas - Soccer Field and Playground Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) $ 150.00 6 $ 900.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) 2 $ - Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 60.00 2 $ 120.00 Herbicide Applications $ 60.00 10 $ 600.00 Top Choice Application $ 700.00 1 $ 700.00 T N City Entrance Sign Al North End of Cape Canaveral on west side of Astronaut Blvd. Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) 6 $ - Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) 2 $ - Herbicide Applications $ 15.00 10 $ 150.00 Page 5 of 8 City of Cape Canaveral Chemical Applications BID TAB SHEET APPLICATION AREAS (Continued) UNIT COST TIMES PER TOTAL COST ADDRESSINOTES YEAR U N Atlantic Entrance Sign North end of Cape Canaveral on west side of N. Atlantic Ave. by Port Entrance Turf Applications (Granular /Liquid) 6 $ - Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 15.00 2 $ 30.00 Herbicide Applications $ 15.00 10 $ 150.00 V Water Reclamation Plant 701 Thurm Blvd. Turf Applications(Granular /Liquid) 6 $ - Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 30.00 2 $ 60.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 90.00 2 $ 180.00 Herbicide Applications $ - 10 $ - W AQUATICS North and south sides of West Central Blvd between Commerce St and Oak Manor Ln - $50.00X12= $600.00; Manatee Park Ponds - $16.25X12= $195.00; Water Treatment Plant Ponds - $6.25X12= $75.00 Aquatic Herbicide Application $ 290.00 12 $ 3,480.00 X Sandpiper Park Playground (Canaveral Ballpark) Turf Applications (Granular/Liquid) $ 60.00 6 $ 360.00 Y RIDGEWOOD AVE Ridgewood Ave. Turf Applications (GranularlLiquid) $ 223.00 6 $ 1,338.00 Ornamental Fertilization (Granular) $ 153.00 2 $ 306.00 Tree Fertilization (Granular) $ 90.00 2 $ 180.00 Herbicide Applications $ 155.00 10 $ 1,550.00 Top Choice $ - 1 $ - Aquatic Herbicide Application $ _ 4 $ _ Page 6 of 8 BID TAB SHEET GRAND TOTAL TURF AREAS $ 11698.00 TOP CHOICE $ 2,650.00 ORNAMENTALS $ 2,916.00 TREES $ 1,830.00 HERBICIDE APPLICATION $ 15,150.00 AQUATIC APPLICATION $ 3,480.00 FACILITIES PEST CONTROL $ 3,720.00 GRAND TOTAL OF CHEMICAL BID AREA $ 41,344.00 Page 7 of 8 N G/ 0 O Z N N M J LL V C A C � Z N 0 F y 0 a c G 0 V C U a` - T o m T 3 a a Z O W > 2 N ]c m m W L Z o > F z w N IL R c z %j w � O Y n n W w J U 0 O O Q z Z IL U z Z a U z J w Z a m 0 m rn a Sixth Addendum to Professional Agreement SIXTH ADDENDUM TO THIS SIXTH ADDENDUM TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ( "Sixth Addendum ") is made and entered this day of 2013 by and between the CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, a Florida municipal corporation, whose Principal address is 105 Polk Avenue, Cape Canaveral, Florida, 32920 ( "City "), and BLACK'S SPRAY SERVICE, INC., a Florida corporation, whose principal address is 3625 North Courtenay Parkway, Merritt Island, Florida 32953 ( "Contractor"). LY1111OL1 *144t;A WHEREAS, the City and Contractor previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement ( "Agreement ") for fertilization, insect, disease, and weed control of turf areas and weed control of the Central Ditch; and WHEREAS, the Agreement, as amended by several addenda, is scheduled to terminate on September 30, 2013; and WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Agreement provides that the parties may agree to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional one -year period, and WHEREAS, the City and Contractor mutually desire to extend the term of the agreement, as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, this Sixth Addendum is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Cape Canaveral; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the City and Contractor hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 — RECITALS The foregoing recitals are hereby deemed true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. ARTICLE 2 — EXTENSION OF TERM The City and Contractor hereby agree to extend the term of the Agreement for one (1) year, commencing on October 1, 2013 and terminating on September 30, 20149 Sixth Addendum to Professional Services Agreement City of Cape Canaveral / Black's Spray Service, Inc. Page 1 of 2 IONS Any other term or provision of the Agreement not expressly modified by this Sixth Addendum, or the First, Second, Third, Fourth, or Fifth Addenda, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Sixth Addendum as of the day and year first above written. Attest: By: Angela Apperson, City Clerk WITNESSES: Print Name: Print Name: CITY: City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation. By: David L. Greene, City Manager CONTRACTOR: Black's Spray Service, Inc., a Florida corporation. By: Print Name: Title: Sixth Addendum to Professional Services Agreement City of Cape Canaveral / Black's Spray Service, Inc. Page 2 of 2 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. Subject: Ordinance No. 09 -2013; amending Chapter 78, Article II, Division 3 of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances related to sanitary sewer system impact fees; revising sewer impact fee assessment procedures consistent with the findings and recommendations set forth in the City's Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report dated April 2013; providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions; incorporation into the Code; severability; and an effective date, second reading. Department: Public Works Services and Community & Economic Development Summary: Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "Raftelis ") conducted a Study to review and update the City's method of determining Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees, which are directed at recovering capital costs for major wastewater facilities. The results of the Study are transmitted in the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report (Attachment 3). Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees are a mechanism to recover costs of capacity - related Treatment and Transmission improvements, which provide system capacity benefits for new service and existing connections requesting additional services. The Fees are intended to mitigate a portion of the financial burden on existing customers to pay for capacity improvements benefiting future customers. The Study utilized a consumption -based methodology, which assumes that new service connections will utilize portions of both existing and new facilities. Wastewater Treatment and Transmission facilities improvements, historically funded through resources of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, are eligible for cost recovery through the Impact Fee. Wastewater Treatment and Transmission activities are considered the primary functional services for Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee purposes. The Study reviewed the level of service (LOS) criteria contained in the existing Code for both applicability and appropriateness. After review and discussion with City Staff, it was determined that the sanitary sewer LOS should be revised to better reflect the characteristics of customers within the City's service area. It is important to note that increasing the sanitary sewer LOS to a more accurate figure produces a corresponding reduction in the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. A summary of the existing and updated LOS and Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Level of Service and Existing and Updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. LOS Treatment Transmission Total Existing 198 gpd /ERU $1,940.38 $397.43 $2,337.81 Updated 240 gpd /ERU $1,135.20 $213.60 $1,348.80 Amount Difference ($805.18) ($183.83) ($989.01) Percent Difference -41% -46% -42 % Note: gpd — City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. Page 2 of 4 Other Community Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees Comparisons of the City's existing and updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees to those of other nearby communities for new residential wastewater service (representative of 1 ERU) are provided in Table 2. Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Comparisons (Single Family /1 ERU) Amount LOS (9pd) City of Cape Canaveral Existing $2,337081 198024 Updated $1, 348.80 240000 Other Communities Barefoot Bay $275000 150.00 North Brevard $671900 1 -3 bedrooms Indian River County $29796.00 300900 City of Cocoa $19250000 250000 City of Cocoa Beach $2,200800 275000 City of Holly Hill $1,908000 234600 City of Melbourne $1,583800 240000 City of New Smyrna Beach $19250000 250.00 City of Ormond Beach $1,950600 15 fixture units City of Palm Bay $2,965000 210.00 City of Vero Beach $2,290.00 15 fixture units City of West Melbourne $3,000000 300900 Average of Other Communities $1,844.83 City Staff identified a need to provide for alternative methods of determining Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for new connections that would (1) accommodate a variety of circumstances, (2) be easily understood and applied, (3) ensure compliance with 163631801 F.S. as amended and (4) provide a cost- friendly economic incentive for businesses wishing to locate to or expand in the City. To address these needs, three methods were developed that allow for accurate /convenient assessment of a connection's ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The three methods include the following: 1. ERU Basis: This method utilizes a table that reflects ERUs associated with characteristics of typical residential and commercial applications to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. 28 Fixture Unit Basis: This method consists of determining total Sewer Load Factor by utilizing the number of fixture units associated with the applicant's property, to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. 3. Flow Basis: This method requires that the applicant provide the property's average daily gpd of sewer flow to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. (o Page 3 of 4 Using these alternative methods establishes a City policy whereby the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee will be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated in one of the alternative methods. The concept is that each of these three methods would be available such that new customer's characteristics can easily be associated with one of the methods through the classification and application process. Using this new policy to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees will (1) serve as an economic development incentive by significantly reducing development/redevelopment costs, (2) ensure compliance with Section 163.31801 F.S. as amended and (3) provide a fair and reasonable alternate assessment method for non - conventional uses. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees reasonably represent the costs of certain improvements together with related financing costs that provide wastewater services to new connections within the Utility's service area. The Impact Fees were developed to be compliant with Section 163.31801 F.S. "Summary Letter' (Attachment 2) from Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. explains that there may potentially be a small number of sewer impact fee increases even after the Ordinance is in effect. The increases have nothing to do with the City's efforts to lower the Equivalencies. They have to do with the adoption of the flow values established by the Florida Administrative Code which are incorporated into the Report. These flow values more accurately reflect flow characteristics of devices and reclassifications of uses. Examples: 1. It is now known that a Laundromat machine produces a much higher flow than the Ordinance was previously attributing. 20 It is more accurate to look at the number of restrooms in a store than the number of sq. ft. in the store. Because there may be a small number of increases, the City must meet a Statutory requirement to advertise the Ordinance 90 days before incorporating any changes into the Code. The 90 -day requirement will be complied with by making the effective date of the Ordinance 90 days after approval. The recommended Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees represent the maximum amounts supported by the data, assumptions and estimates. City Council can elect to establish policies regarding the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees provided that such amount does not exceed the amount identified in the attached Report. Amounts not recovered through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees will, for the most part, be recovered from revenues generated by existing and future user rates and charges. Ordinance No. 09 -2013 (Attachment 1) incorporating required changes into the City Code to implement the Report's findings, was approved at first reading on July 16, 2013, The Notice of Public Hearing was advertised in the Florida Today on July 25, 2013. Resolution No. 2013 -13, outlining the proposed fees, is presented on this Agenda. Submitting Department Directors: Jeff Ratliff and Todd Morley Date: 08/07/13 City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. Page 4 of 4 Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 09 -2013. 2. Summary Letter from Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. 3. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report. Financial Impact: Forgone Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenue, cost to produce the Raftelis Report and cost to prepare, advertise and incorporate the Ordinance into the City Code. �p Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Date: The City Manager recommends that City Counbil take the following action(s): Adopt Ordinance No. 09 -2013, at second reading. Approved b City Manager: David L. Greene Date: City Council Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications Tabled to Time Certain Attachment 1 ORDINANCE NO, 09 =2013 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE II, DIVISION 3 OF THE CAPE CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES; REVISING SEWER IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES CONSISTENT WITH THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY'S SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE REPORT DATED APRIL 2013; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; INCORPORATION INTO THE CODE; SEVERABILITY; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City is granted the authority, under Section 2(b), Article VIII, of the State Constitution, to exercise any power for municipal purposes, except when expressly prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, sanitary sewer impact fees allow the City to recover the costs of capacity - related treatment and major transmission improvements installed and funded by the City; and WHEREAS, the City currently imposes sanitary sewer impact fees on new development and modified uses of structures increasing the original sewer impact caused by the use; and WHEREAS, the City recently consulted with Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "Raftelis ") to review the City's existing sanitary sewer impact fees and recommend appropriate updates to the fee structure based on the City's current level of service, costs and capacity; and WHEREAS, Raftelis prepared a Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report dated April 2013 ( "Report "), which comprehensively analyzes the City's sanitary sewer impact fee structure; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update its sanitary sewer impact fees consistent with the recommendations of the Report in order to more efficiently recover the costs associated with the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal activities comprising the City's sanitary sewer system; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that updating the City's sanitary sewer impact fee schedule will promote increased economic activity within the City of Cape Canaveral by reducing the financial burden the impact fees have on development and redevelopment activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, hereby finds this Ordinance to be in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral. City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 1 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS, Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are hereby fully incorporated herein by this reference as legislative findings and the intent and purpose of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral. Section 2. Amendment to Chapter 78, Utilities. Chapter 78, Utilities, of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows underlined type indicates additions and str-ikeeut type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Ordinance of text existing in Chapter 78. It is intended that the text in Chapter 78 denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Ordinance shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Ordinance): CHAPTER 78, UTILITIES ARTICLE II. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DIVISION 3. IMPACT FEES Sec. 78421. Established. There shall be paid an assessment to defray the cost and expense of collection, transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage and for necessary equipment, repairs, replacement and additions and for any new sewer plant expansion for the city. Such assessment shall be for the sewer system on all new construction and all structures initially connecting to the city sewer system. The assessment schedule shall be as set forth in appendix B to this Code. Construction, expansion or alteration of facilities on city -owned property shall not be subiect to the fees established by this division. Sec. 78422. — Payment. The assessments as set forth in this division shall be paid by certified funds at the time of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for such new construction, 78 123. Except as provided in section 78 -34, a building permit shall not be issued unless a sewer permit has been first obtained. The amount of the assessment shall be determined in accordance with the rates established in section 78 -121 in effect at the time a sewer permit is issued by the city. A sewer permit shall not be issued until a city sewer main line is placed within 150 feet of the applicant's property. If the assessment is not paid by the 30th day following that for which a billing has been rendered, then an amount equal to five percent of such assessment due shall be added thereto as a late charge. Upon failure of any user to pay for the assessment within 60 days from being billed, the city shall shut off or cause to be shut off the connection of such user and shall not furnish him or permit him to receive from the system further service until all obligations City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 2 of 5 owed by him to the city on account of the services shall have been paid in full. If such sewer service is shut off pursuant to this section, then before such service shall be restored, the user thereof shall pay a reinstatement fee in the amount as set forth in Appendix B to this Code in addition to any other assessments and charges due. In addition [to], and as an alternative means of, collecting such assessment, lag late charges and penalties, the city shall have a lien on such lot or parcel of land for which the sewer connection has been made, for which such lien shall be of equal dignity with the lien of state and county and municipal taxes. Such lien may be foreclosed by the city in the same manner provided by the laws of the state for the foreclosure of mortgages upon real estate. Sec. 78 =123. = Excessive quantity of wastewater. • Y A It . Y ., , . 1a -' _t -1 ___1_______ _'x__II -- L_�_ -_ -1 _ 7 • A .1 1t .• A • .Y •. •. ., n �• . . .. • _ . r&��. aMMPV.9pP • • 1UL���•.�•...il���l�l7�t• 111 11 •]. 1• A) l� •i�,•1WR7AIL•A•A•1\•Jt•J•I • . - . I @1.t•J7 iAIIAY. y AML1.\M •_i %l • • • _ • • • . measimed. To the extent that average daily effluent outflow peFi exceeds the amount paid for impact fees, thm of the ip • ' , an additional impact fee for the excess shall be levied as calculated and as provided for in subse ens «' and (4) e f this division sesflen. My additional fee so ealeulmed shall • . _ . . . . . • . . ^ . l• . . . . • � . . City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 3 of 5 • • III II 111 11 . . . • . - . I — 01 i 9 WIk P oil I P • oil P11 • i • - • • i • • i • . measimed. To the extent that average daily effluent outflow peFi exceeds the amount paid for impact fees, thm of the ip • ' , an additional impact fee for the excess shall be levied as calculated and as provided for in subse ens «' and (4) e f this division sesflen. My additional fee so ealeulmed shall • . _ . . . . . • . . ^ . l• . . . . • � . . City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 3 of 5 . . . PTI • • • • • I • • • • . •. • • . • . measimed. To the extent that average daily effluent outflow peFi exceeds the amount paid for impact fees, thm of the ip • ' , an additional impact fee for the excess shall be levied as calculated and as provided for in subse ens «' and (4) e f this division sesflen. My additional fee so ealeulmed shall • . _ . . . . . • . . ^ . l• . . . . • � . . City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 3 of 5 &e as set fef4h - . Form _ . mainah . . • 1 refunds of impact regardless / outflow ;Wn it Sec. 78 -128. - Change of use. For aAny structure or use of structure which is modified such that the sewer impact assessment is greater than the amount collected fef: whieh the inifial impaet fee was eemputed., the owner shall be assessed additional impact fees in accordance with sections 78421 and 78- 122. .. M. _ . _ i i_ • • • \J� - •• • 19.a!!•aa.7 }l9 C }rt♦' 7J!}l J�IR!• �1�• . W.AM i`laa lJ it }71s.•.a7ae i l� 97 }a�l�..�.: r[•}�rrra• a�iia•rt..��a..il J7lt\•J t7•\� >_:i . . •.- a•��/ men _YAMjrb Y1,119 ts•tte.a s•aav airy a• }ras J•ia!1. i►az_:aea•i►:�a�a.� &e as set fef4h - . Form _ . mainah . . • 1 refunds of impact regardless / outflow ;Wn it Sec. 78 -128. - Change of use. For aAny structure or use of structure which is modified such that the sewer impact assessment is greater than the amount collected fef: whieh the inifial impaet fee was eemputed., the owner shall be assessed additional impact fees in accordance with sections 78421 and 78- 122. .. M. _ . _ i i_ • • • \J� - •• • 19.a!!•aa.7 }l9 C }rt♦' 7J!}l J�IR!• �1�• . ►91�7•StY•a �%af'<%J . . i l� 97 M a l\lril��9i - r[•}�rrra• 1� •}IFa•a.� 1IM aa: . - .J Jill J7lt\•J t7•\� -1%il" ...�• &e as set fef4h - . Form _ . mainah . . • 1 refunds of impact regardless / outflow ;Wn it Sec. 78 -128. - Change of use. For aAny structure or use of structure which is modified such that the sewer impact assessment is greater than the amount collected fef: whieh the inifial impaet fee was eemputed., the owner shall be assessed additional impact fees in accordance with sections 78421 and 78- 122. .. M. _ . _ i i_ • • • \J� /•f�lT ll1�11�1!!•1<Tr \�),9 t_ /7 t•9 rt . S� � r[•}�rrra• =1 i�9 =971�J a�iiSll�Pi ?7177a!}!9 . . •.- a•��/ w _YAMjrb Y1,119 �AL•AM Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance and all Exhibits hereto shall be incorporated into the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 90 days after the date of adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 4 of 5 • . .. • • _ P t•9 f' la.J �!11MAMLJ7l•}•9 . =1 i�9 =971�J a�iiSll�Pi ?7177a!}!9 a•��/ ./ !} r.l'fli�•��)��lll�aa't•un.��a.l a.w l�•a �.i Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance and all Exhibits hereto shall be incorporated into the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 90 days after the date of adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 4 of 5 • • • • • _ =1 Section 3. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Ordinances and Resolutions. All prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions adopted by the City Council, or parts of ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 4. Incorporation Into Code. This Ordinance and all Exhibits hereto shall be incorporated into the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Ordinance and the City Code may be freely made. Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive, procedural or any other reason, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 90 days after the date of adoption by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 4 of 5 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida this 20th day of August , 2013. ATTEST: ANGELA APPERSON, City Clerk First Reading: Legal Ad published: Second Reading: July 16, 2013 July 25, 2013 August 20, 2013 Approved as to legal form and sufficiency for the City of Cape Canaveral only by: ROCKY RANDELS, Mayor For Against ANTHONY A. GARGANESE, City Attorney John Bond Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Betty Walsh City of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013 Page 5 of 5 950 South Winter Park Drive Phone 407. 960.1806 w .raftelis.com Suite 240 Fax 407. 960.1803 Casselberry, FL 32707 RAFTELIS FINANOIAt CONSULTANTS. INC. June 12, 2013 Todd Morley Community & Economic Development Director City of Cape Canaveral 7510 N. Atlantic Ave. P.O. Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 Subject: Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Dear Mr. Morley: Attachment 2 This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the general effect the identified Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee adjustments will have on future connections. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report, dated April 2013 (the "Report "), provided for: (i) an adjustment to the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU); (ii) an adjustment to the Level of Service (LOS) per ERU; and (iii) an update to the criteria used in determining ERUs for various categories of users. One or more of these will affect any comparison between the amount paid pursuant to the existing ordinance and the amount calculated based on provisions in the Report. If the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee provisions in the Report are adopted the vast majority of connections will experience a reduction as compared to the existing requirement. However, certain categories of connections may experience an increase. Increases will vary based on the connection's specific classification and characteristics and are not due to the amount of Sanitary Impact Fee per ERU. Any increase is directly associated with the proposed ERU criteria by classification, which was updated in the Report to reflect the estimated flow criteria currently contained in Florida Administrative Code Section 64E- 6.008. We wish to express our appreciation to be of service in this matter and should you have any questions please feel free contact the as provided on the letterhead. Sincerely, RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. '0, . WeU4.,�,- Marco H. Rocca CMC Director of Florida Operations Attachment 3 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE REPORT Prepared for the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida April 2013 (f RAFTELIS ES FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS. INC. 976 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, FL 32814 ff RAFTELIS TINANCIAL CONSULTANTS INC April 3, 2013 Mr. David Greene City Manager City of Cape Canaveral Post Office Box 326 Cape Canaveral, FI 32920 976 Lake Baldwin Lane Phone 407 .730. 5944 wwaaraftelis.com Suite 204 Fax 407 . 730. 5941 Orlando, FL 32814 Subject: Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report Dear Mr. Greene: Pursuant to your request Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "RFC ") has conducted a study to update the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for the City of Cape Canaveral ( "City") Sewer Utility System (the "Utility") as presented and documented in this Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report (the "Report "). The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is a mechanism intended to recover capital costs that benefit new connections and existing connections requesting additional service. As updated herein the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees reasonably represent the costs of certain improvements together with related financing costs that provide wastewater services to new connections within the Utility's service area. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees presented herein were developed to be compliant with Section 163.31801 F.S. The updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee represents the maximum amounts supported by the data, assumptions and estimates. The City can elect to establish policies regarding the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee provided that such amount does not exceed the amount identified in this Report. However, it should be clearly understood that amounts not recovered through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees will for the most part be recovered from revenues generated by existing and future user rates and charges. As a final note, our thanks and appreciation to you and other City staff members that provided data and assisted in the development of this update. Very truly yours, RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Marco H. Rocca, CMC Director of Florida Operations itary Sewer Impact Fee S TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........... 990909800900*ES 1 Overview................................................................................................................... ............................... ES 1 Findingsand Conclusion .......................................................................................... .............................ES 3 Findings............................................................................................................ ............................... ES 3 Conclusions........................................................................................................ .............................ES 3 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. ......................... • - - -.1 General............................................................................................................................. ..............................1 ImpactFee Overview .................................................................................................... ..............................1 Other Considerations.... METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH........... 00000000 0004000 0000000 General............................................................................................................................ ............................... 5 Background.................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 Localized Wastewater Collection ........................................................................ ............................... 5 WastewaterTransmission .................................................................................... ............................... 5 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. . 5 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Methodology and Approach ........................................ ............................... 5 EXPANSION FACILITY CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITIES ........................ ..............................7 General............................................................................................................................ ............................... 7 Wastewater Treatment and Transmission .................................................................. ..............................7 CAPITAL FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS AND CREDIT CRITERIA ................ ..............................8 General. . 0 0 0 a 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 4 0 a 0 0 0 * 0 0 a 8 FinancingAssumptions ................................................................................................ ............................... 8 DebtFunded ........................................................................................................... ..............................8 FinancingTerms ................................................................................................... ............................... 8 Debt Service Paid by Sanitary: Sewer Impact Fee.............................................. ..............................8 Financing and Credit Cost Coefficients. 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 6 6 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a a a 0 o 0 & a a a sees 9900060606 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT METHODS ...................................... .............................10 General........... ................................................................................................................. .............................10 ExistingLevel of Service .............................................................................................. .............................10 UpdatedLevel of Service ............................................................................................. .............................10 AssessmentMethods .................................................................................................... .............................10 ERUBasis .............................................................................................................. .............................11 FixtureUnit Basis ................................................................................................. .............................11 FlowBasis. . 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a & & 0 0 0 0 a a o a a a a a 0 0 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 * 0 * 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 a & a a a o o a 9 0 0 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 6 a 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 a a a a 0 4 0 9 0 0 0 0 6 0 a 0 0 6 a 0 a 0 a a 0 11 CALCULATION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE ..................................... .............................12 General..................................................................................... ............................... ........ .............................12 Cost Per Unit of Service and Level of Service Capacity .......................................... .............................12 Calculation of Treatment and Transmission Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees ............... i Sanitary Sewer Fee S Comparison to Existing.... ...... ............................... ......13 sees sees.. Comparisonwith Other Utilities ................................................................................. .............................13 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .............. ............................... ............... ............................... 15 ........ sees.. General.................................................................................... ............................... .................---- ........15 Findings........................................................................................................................... .............................15 Conclusions ............... ............................... ......................... ............................... ......................15 sees ................. LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES -1 Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees........... 00000040 @@sees@ ES -2 TABLE ES -2 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Comparison........... ES -2 TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE G Sanitary Facility Summary ................................................................. ............................... 7 FiFinancing Assumpti ons ..................................................................... ............................... 9 Financing and Credit Coefficients .................................................... ..............................9 Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. ..................................... .............................13 Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee ......................... .............................13 Sanitary Sewer Comparison .............................................................. .............................14 LIST OF SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 1 Sanitary Sewer Asset L'sting. . 4 9 0 9 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a * 0 a a a a a 0 0 & a & 17 SCHEDULE 2 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee by Classification and Amount .................... SCHEDULE 3 Sanitary Sewer Fixture Unit Schedule. 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 * 0 & a & * a a a a a a a 0 0 0 0 a a a a 022 ll SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The City of Cape Canaveral (the "City ") requested that Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) update the Sewer System's (the "Utility ") existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee, which is directed at the recovering capital costs for major wastewater facilities. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee was established on May 5, 1992 pursuant to Ordinance 5 -92 and revised to current levels by resolutions. Historically, impact fees for Florida utilities were developed and designed to comply with common law findings; however, in 2006, Section 163.31801 F.S. was added providing specific statutory requirements. The statute was amended July 1, 2009 to require governments prove by preponderance of evidence that the impact fees meet the requirements of the statute and prohibits courts from using deferential standard in court actions. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is a mechanism to recover the costs of capacity- related treatment and major transmission improvements, installed and funded by the City, which provide system capacity benefits for new service and existing connections requesting additional service. Collection of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees is intended to mitigate a portion of the financial burden on existing customers to pay for capacity improvements benefiting future customers. Localized wastewater collection improvements such as gravity sewers and lift stations, etc. together with associated appurtenances and soft costs are generally contributed by the landowner /developer, provided through assessments or otherwise not funded by the Utilin7, and therefore, are not included for cost recovery through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. This study utilizes a "Consumption" based methodology, which assumes that new service connections will utilize portions of both existing and new facilities; as compared to an "Improvements" based methodology that assumes a new set of service facilities is provided for each increment of new service. Improvements included for cost recovery through the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee include wastewater Treatment and Transmission (major backbone) facilities funded through resources of the Utility (reserve funds, bond proceeds, grants and contribution through agreements). Wastewater Treatment and Transmission activities are considered the primary functional services for Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee purposes. The approach to determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount for each functional service consists of dividing the adjusted improvement costs (including financing costs less amounts recovered from grants and other sources) by the average day capacity of such improvements resulting in a cost per gallon per day (gpd) of capacity. The study process also considers idend Ting the appropriate level of service (LOS) for each of these functional services. Costs, capacities and other pertinent data were provided by the City's Public Works Services staff along with guidance concerning LOS criteria. The study incorporated considerations for financing costs and importantly credits associated with revenues provided from sources other than Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The appropriateness of the LOS criteria contained in the existing Code was reviewed for both applicability and appropriateness. After reviews and discussions with City staff, it was determined that the sanitary sewer LOS should be revised to better reflect the characteristics of customers within the City's service area. A summary of the updated and existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee and LOS for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) are shown below in Table ES4. It should be noted that the existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee presented below is based on the existing LOS, which differs from the updated LOS. Therefore, the amount difference is attributed to a combination of both cost per gpd and the revised sanitary sewer LOS. Executive S itary Sewer Impact Fee S ES4. Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees LOS Treatment Transmission Total Updated 240 gpd /ERU Existing 198 gpd /ERU Amount Difference Percent Difference $1,135.20 $1,940.38 ($805.18) 41% $213.60 $397.43 ($183.83) -46% $1,348.80 $2,337.81 ($989.01) -42% Comparisons of the City's existing and updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees to those of Other Communes for new residential wastewater service (representative of 1 ERU) are provided i iti n Table ES -2. The amounts shown for Other Communities are based on the schedules that were in effect as of October 1, 2012 and do not include charges for other customer service related fees applied to new system connections (i.e. tap fees, application fees, inspection fees, etc.) Caution should be taken when comparing impact fees as difference can be attributed to various reasons including, but not limited to, the following: 19 Compliance status with Chapter 163.31801 F.S.; 29 Cost used by others may not be representative of actual or "Current Local Costs;" 3. Level of financing costs recovered; 4. The LOS criteria may be either higher or lower; 5. Other cost recovery from contributions, grants or other sources may be applicable; 6. Local government may elect to phase-in or not implement the total recovery amounts; and 7. Treatment processes and availability of resources may be different. Table ES -2. Sanitation Sewer Impact Fee Comparison' Single Family / 1 ERC Amount LOS (gpd) City of Cape Canaveral Existing $25337.81 198.24 Updated $15348.80 240.00 Other Communities Barefoot Bay $275.00 150.00 North Brevard 671.00 1 -3 bedrooms Indian River County 2,796.00 300900 City of Cocoa 1,250.00 250.00 City of Cocoa Beach 2,200.00 275.00 City of Holly Hill 15908.00 234.00 City of Melbourne 15583.00 240.00 City of New Smyrna Beach 14)250.00 250600 City of Ormond Beach 15950.00 15 F.U.s City of Palm Bay 2,965.00 210.00 City of Vero Beach 23290000 15 F.U.s City of West Melbourne 330000000 300.00 Average of Other Communities $15844.83 1. Per the community's ERU equivalency basis unless otherwise noted. ES 2 Executive Summary Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study Discussions with City staff identified a need to also provide for alternative methods of determining Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for new connections that would: 1) accommodate a variety of circumstances; and 2) be easily understood and applied. To address these needs three alternative methods were developed that allow for accurate and convenient assessment of a connection's ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. The concept is that each of these methods would be available such that new customer's characteristics can easily be associated with one of methods through the classification and application process. Findings and Conclusion In the preparation of this Report, certain information has been used and relied upon that was provided by other entities including the City. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the Utility's capital improvements plan, SRF loans, asset depreciation summary /listing, capacities, cost data, fee schedules for the City and other Communities, and other information provided by or through the City. Additionally, reasonably conservative assumptions were developed to establish the basis for certain required study elements that are not, have not or cannot be specifically defined through existing data. To the extent that future conditions differ from those assumed and utilized in the Report, the results of the analyses may vary from those developed herein. Findings 1. The City's recordkeeping provides sufficient information to address the requirements of updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 2. The Utility's service area is not expected to require any wastewater capacity expansions. 3. The LOS criteria should be updated to better reflect the characteristics of the potable water provider and Utility customers. 4. The method of determining and assessing the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be revised and expanded to better accommodate different requests for service. Conclusions Based on the reviews, analyses and assumptions provided herein, it is concluded that: 1. Due to the adequacy of Treatment and Transmission capacity to provide for the service area future needs, the current local cost requirements in updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein are based on actual and expansion - related actual costs. 2. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee developed herein reflects net amounts that are equitable and provide for reasonable recovery without exceeding current local cost of the capital improvements associated with providing wastewater capacity to new connections. 3. The City currently imposes other connection charges, deposits and other fees for new customers connecting to the system. Such fees are related to recovery of operating costs associated with establishing a new customer rather than capacity to serve the customer. As such, these other charges are not related to the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 4. As available the updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be budgeted to pay for the expansion related portion of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan debt service, which will reduce the burden on user rates. Furthermore, Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees collected beyond the retirement of the SRF loans can be used to reimburse the Utility for historic debt payments made at times when Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues were insufficient. 5. The City should have a policy in determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee which states the amount owed shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated in one of the 3 methods discussed herein. ES 3 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY INTRODUCTION General The City of Cape Canaveral (the "City ") requested that Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) update the existing Sanitary Sewer system's (the "Utility") impact fee, which is directed at recovering capital costs for major sanitary sewer facilities. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee was established on May 5, 1992 pursuant to Ordinance 5 -92 and revised to current levels by resolutions and may not adequately reflect the appropriated cost recovery for facilities providing wastewater services within the service area. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees paid by new and increased service connections is a mechanism to appropriately recover the facility costs for such services; thereby, reducing or eliminating the burden on existing connections to subsidize improvements for the benefit of new service connections. Localized wastewater collection improvements such as gravity sewers and lift stations, etc. together with associated appurtenances and soft costs are generally contributed by the landowner/ developer, provided through assessments or otherwise not funded by the Utility, and therefore, are not included for cost recovery through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The purpose of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth- related capital costs to those customers responsible for such additional costs. Sound financial and equitable cost recovery practice promotes the assignment of the identifiable additional growth related capital costs for utility services to connections responsible for such costs rather than existing connections. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "growth paying for growth" without burden on existing connections. Impact Fee Overview Impact fees are referred to by a number of different terms including impact fees, capital charges, capital facility charges, facility fees, connection fees, capacity reservation charges, system development charges, capital connection charges or other similar terminology. In general, these are one -time charges established as a means to recover in whole or in part, but not to exceed, the costs associated with system capacity. Such capital costs generally include the construction of improvements together with general plant, engineering, administration, curve }Ting, land, legal and financing costs. Historically, impact fees in Florida were a result of home rule powers with the requirements associated with the development, administration, accounting and expenditure governed by case law. However, in 2006, Section 163.31801 was added to the Florida Statues, which reinforced, enhanced, clarified and added to the provisions of case law. This section was amended in 2009 and Section 163.31801 F.S. is currently as follows. 163.31801 Impact Fees; short title; intent; definitions; ordinances levying impact fees. (1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act." (2) The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Legislature further finds that impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth of impact fee collections and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that, when a city or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing city complies with this section. 1 Introduction Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee (3) An impact fee adopted by ordinance of a city or municipality or by resolution of a special district must, at minimum. a. Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized data. b. Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures. If a local governmental entity imposes an impact fee to address its infrastructure needs, the entity shall account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate accounting fund. c. Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs. d. Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or amended impact fee. (4) Audits of financial statements of local governmental entities and district school boards which are performed by a certified public accountant pursuant to s. 218.39 and submitted to the Auditor General must include an affidavit signed by the chief financial officer of the local governmental entity or district school board stating that the local governmental entity or district school board has complied with this section. (5) In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential standard. History.—s. 9, ch. 2006 -218; s. 1, ch. 2009 -49; s. 5, ch. 2009 -96; s. 5, ch. 2011 -14; s. 1, ch. 2011 -149. Although the statute provides criteria, certain precedents originally set by common law need to be addressed to meet the legal requirements associated with impact fees. Common law precedent for impact fees in Florida was originally set in the landmark Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin, Florida. The litigation and judgment regarding the validity of capital - related fees provides that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact fees, can be levied for a specific purpose by a Florida municipality as a capital fee for services. In the ruling, the court identified certain conditions as necessarily present in order to have a valid fee. In general, the court decision addressed the following. 1. The impact fee should be reasonably equitable to all parties; that is, the amount of the fee must bear a relationship to the amount of services requested; 2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users; 3. The impact fee should, to the extent practical, only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for increases in or expansions of capacity or capital requirements that are required solely due to growth. Therefore, expenses due to normal renewal and replacement of a facility (e.g., replacement of a capital asset) should be borne by all users of the facility or municipality. Similarly, increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that facility should be borne by all users of the facility; and 4. The local government must adopt a revenue- producing ordinance that explicitly sets forth restrictions on revenues (uses thereof) that the imposition of the impact fee generates. Therefore, the funds collected from the impact fees should be retained in a separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes described. Based on the criteria provided above, the development of impact fees herein will: 1) include local current costs of improvements associated with the capacities to serve new customers; 2) not reflect costs of improvements associated with the renewal and replacement (R &R) of existing capital assets Introduction Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study that are allocable to existing users of the system; and 3) not include any costs of operation and maintenance of the improvements associated with the system. It is also important to note the relationship of the local government's Comprehensive Plan to the use of impact fees for funding incremental capital improvements. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act requires capital expenditures and local development regulations to be consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Other Considerations In addition to the Dunedin decision, there have been several other landmark cases dealing with the levying of impact fees in Florida. In the Hollywood, Iius. tu. Brozvard Coulrtop case, a challenge was made regarding the applicability of levying a capital charge for parks and recreation. Essentially, the Broward County ordinance provided for a park contribution agreement between the developer and the County and directed that a fee per residential unit be collected. The court upheld the imposition of the fee and addressed the more difficult question of whether the ordinance was constitutional. The major criteria associated with this case dealt with whether the fee was correlated to the benefit received (the "Rational Nexus Test "). As stated in the decision, the government must show a reasonable connection or correlation between the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits that accrue to the payee. In order to satis this requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark capital charge funds for acquiring capital improvements that benefit new residents. Palm Beach County adopted a "Fair Share Contribution for Road Improvements" ordinance requiring payment of a transportation capital charge prior to the issuance of a building permit to address a degrading level of service resulting from growth. The capital charge based on estimated trip generation rates for particular customer classes survived a challenge by the Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County per the findings that the fee was not a tax having met the Rational Nexus Test. The courts in Florida determined and affirmed that impact fees are valid to fund increased capital cost associated with the incremental improvements for growth. Specifically, impact fees must represent the incremental cost of the capital improvements to provide services for increased growth of the jurisdiction and some reasonable basis must exist between the amount of the fee and the benefits accrued to the new or incremental customer. Furthermore, impact fees are not considered special assessments or additional taxes. A special assessment is predicated upon an estimated increment in value to the property assessed by virtue of the improvement being constructed in the vicinity of the property and the assessment must be directly and reasonably related to the benefit the property receives. Impact fees are more directly related to the value of the improvements and to the level of service provided to the property. With respect to a comparison to taxes, impact fees are distinguishable primarily in the direct relationship between the impact fee amount and the measurable quantity of benefits/ improvements, Regarding taxation, there are no requirements that payments be in proportion to the quantity of public services consumed and funds received by a local government from taxes can be expended for any legitimate public purpose. It should be further noted that the calculation of impact fees involves the use of a significant amount of historical capital cost, funding and engineering data. To this extent, the courts have also stated that: "costs of Rutherford v. City of Omaha, supra 160 N.W.2d at 228. k? Introduction itary Sewer Impact Fee The above represents a very limited non -legal overview of impact fee legal criteria for general information purposes only. No legal assurances are given nor should any be interpreted by the reader on the summary provided herein. Actual legal opinion should be obtained from the City's legal counsel on such matters. M SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH General The selection and use of a methodology and approach are vital in development of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for full compliance with the applicable statutes and case law. Since there are several different methodologies it is important to fully understand the background of the capital costs providing benefits and delivery of associated benefits. Background Properties within the Utility's service area are provided sanitary sever services through three distinguishable utility functional service improvements categories: 1) Localized Wastewater Collection; 2) Wastewater Transmission, and 3) Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. These functional service improvements are further described below. Localized Wastewater Collection These improvements consist of localized piping and equipment that serve as the conduit for wastewater service between the wastewater Transmission improvements and the customer's point of connection. Wastewater Transmission These improvements consist of interceptor (trunk) gravity lines, master - pumping stations, and selected force mains serving as the backbone piping transferring wastewater from localized wastewater collection improvements to the wastewater plant. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal These improvements generally consist of treatment, disposal and sludge management equipment and buildings. Disposal is generally provided through the reclaimed water facilities. Cost recovery through the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is limited to wastewater improvements associated with Treatment and Transmission (major backbone). Such improvements are generally funded through resources of the Utility including bond proceeds, loans, grants, developer agreements, and utility reserve funds. Treatment and Transmission improvements are considered as the primary functional service facilities for impact fee purposes. The remaining Localized Collection improvements are site specific with costs that can vary from location to location within the service area. Therefore, the Utility's uniform policy should require that such Localized Collection costs be paid through developer contributions, assessments programs or other methods that do not involve subsidies by properties not benefiting from such improvements. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Methodology and Approach This study utilizes a "Consumption" based methodology, wluch assumes that new service connections will utilize portions of both existing and new improvements; as compared to an "Improvements" based methodology that assumes a new set of service improvements is provided for each new service connection. The approach to determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for each functional service consists of dividing the ad#urled improvement costs by the average day cupac7ty of such improvements resulting in an adjusted cost per gallon per day (gpd) of capacity. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee methodology provides that the amount to be recovered adequately and reasonably represents the current costs of expansion improvements consistent with the level of 5 Methodology and A Sewer Impact Fee Stud service (LOS) provided by the Utility. More specifically, the methodology uses current costs, plus financing costs, less any related cost recovery from other sources resulting in the establishment of the total cost basis. The cost basis is then divided by the ADD facility capacities taking into consideration inflow and infiltration (I &I) and other operating criteria. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount to be charged is determined by LOS needs, which are also representative of ADD criteria. The approach to address the methodology is predicated on establishing a uniform cost per unit of capacity for each area of functional service. These uniform costs per unit of capacity are then related to the LOS capacity associated for each customer class, size of connection or other criteria relative to the connection's request for sen-ice. Identification of current expansion facility cost and related capacities for the utility functional services along with the LOS criteria for water and wastewater service provides the basis for the cost per unit of capacity relationship. The total current facility cost is adjusted to consider financing cost and interest, less credit for contributions, grants, and /or amounts included in user fees for the amortization of debt related to the capital improvements. This results in the current cost basis for each of the primary.fundional services. The related capacity is also adjusted to consider I &I associated with wastewater. The cost per unit of capacity for each of the primary . functional services is determined utilizing the current cost basis and adjusted LOS capacities. The tasks associated with this approach consist of identifying: 1. Current costs for each functional service element based on information provided by the Utility's staff. This information consists of capital asset records that either represent or are adjusted to reflect facility actual cost associated with complete functional services, including land, general plant, engineering, permitting and all other relative soft costs. 2. Relative capacity and engineering design criteria for each functional service component associated with the project costs. 3. Historic and current policies on funding capital cost for Treatment and Transmission functional service improvements. 4. Relative financing costs and interest expense associated with the funding policies of the Utility. 5. Credits attributed to cost recovery provided by grants and other sources. 6. Relative cost per unit of capacity. Data for the identification of current facility costs and related capacities were obtained from the accounting and operating records of the Utility as reviewed and noted by the City's Public Works Services staff Wastewater capacity analyses are generally based on the average day design capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater Transmission capacities are rated with consideration for infiltration and inflow. As previously discussed, credits or adjustments to eliminate the potential of double payment or over recovery of facility costs are considered based on the Utility's current financing policies, capital structure and relative amount of expansion improvements funded from existing debt. The System has two items that are directing the approach consisting of. 1) the service area is nearly built out, therefore, the amount of new connections to the system is limited; and 2) no further expansion of capacity to Treatment or Transmission is contemplated. These two items modify the approach such that the facility costs basis instead of current local cost will be predicated on the recorded actual cost basis. SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY EXPANSION FACILITY CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITIES General The process of establishing current facility costs that reasonably reflect the costs associated with the relative capacities of such improvements consists of: (i) idend 7- the original costs associated with improvements to the facilities through the 1995 and 1996 SRF loans; and (ii) allocating costs across appropriate functional improvement areas. Data for existing improvements, actual costs and capacities were obtained from City records as reviewed by City staff. Since no material expansion is anticipated within the service area and the existing facilities have sufficient capacities to meet the forecasted capacity requirements, no CIP is included in this Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee update. Wastewater Treatment and Transmission Wastewater Treatment improvements consist of wastewater treatment plants and any direct disposal/ reclaimed water facilities. Transmission improvements consist of force mains and master pumping stations located throughout the service area. Localized collection improvements consisting mainly of gravity sewers and local lift stations are not included as wastewater Transmission improvements. The existing wastewater Treatment and Transmission costs and capacities are summarized in Table 1. These costs and capacities were provided by the City's Director of Public Works Services based on asset records as shown in Schedule 1. Table 1. Sanitary Sewer Facility Summary Capacity Item Existing' CIP 2 Total (MGD) Transmission Mains $3510525294 $0 $3,0525294 Subtotal $350525294 $0 $310525294 1.80 Treatment Plant $1453751602 $0 $14,37531602 General Plant; 940,071 - 9403071 Subtotal $1553155673 $0 $1553151673 Total $181)367,967 $0 $18313675967 1. Categorized facilities and costs provided by City; Schedule 1. 2. System has sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future. 3. Land and 70% of total of General Plant allocated to Sanitary Sewer. 7 1.80 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY CAPITAL FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS AND CREDIT CRITERIA Cefl Development of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for full cost recovery less credits requires that capital financing costs are included and amounts anticipated to be recovered from other sources of revenues are excluded (credits). The Utility's capital structure is based on the mixed use of long- term debt, user fees and Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees to fund the improvements. As a result, it is necessary to account for financing costs associated with the long -term debt including interest over the life of the debt. These financing costs are directly related to the benefits provided by system's capacity improvements. Since cash flows derived from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees do not coincide with the timing of annual debt service payment requirements, the Utility is required to use user fee revenues to amortize the debt associated with both the used and reserve system capacities. This requires that consideration of credits to address the amounts provided by other revenue sources, primarily user fees, is incorporated in the updating of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee to eliminate over recovery or payments above the identified amounts. Financing Assumptions The process to determine the level and costs of financing for the purpose of idend ring appropriate credits consist of developing assumptions associated with the: (i) relative portion of expansion improvements funded through debt; (ii) financing terms associated with the capital funding program used by the City; (iii) portion of the expansion debt anticipated to be paid from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees; and (iv) relative portion of debt service paid by other revenue sources. These assumptions as summarized in Table 2 are used to develop the Financing and Credit Cost Coefficients discussed in this Report. Debt Funded A review of the historical Treatment and Transmission funding activities together with discussions with City staff identified that the improvements were funded from grants, SRF loans and direct Utility cash resources. Financing Terms For the purpose of this study, financing terms for long -term debt consist of: (i) average number of years based on the SRF loans; (ii) average interest of the SRF loans; (iii) issuance cost associated with the SRF loans; and (iv) assuming an average of 1.50 years of capitalized interest for the SRF loans. Debt Service Paid by Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Full recovery through the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is not practical due to the lag time between the funding /construction of improvements and Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees derived from the connection of new customers. As a result, the development of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein assumes that future Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues will be used to amortize the existing debt and to the extent available reimburse the Utility's reserve fund. The debt service not paid from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues are provided from user fees and constitute the basis for certain credits in the determination of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee this update. No Capital Financing Assumptions and Credit Criteria Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study Table 2. Financing Assumptions Item Criteria Debt Funded 53.66% Amortized by Impact Fee 46.34% SRF Loans Term (Years) 20 Interest Rate 3.05% Issuance Expense 2.00% Capitalized Interest Yrs 1.50 Financing and Credit Cost Coefficients The financing assumptions are used to develop individual coefficients that cumulatively reflect the total facility cost and consist of 1) debt financing costs; 2) debt interest expense; and 3) credits arising from cost recovery for expansion improvements derived from sources other than Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees (primarily User Fees). The Utility's funding for the existing facilities utilized two primary sources of funding for the improvements to be recovered from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenue: 1) Direct, which consist of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee reserves that are directly used to pay the cost of improvements, (Direct also includes expansion improvement contributions in lieu of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees); and 2) Debt, which consist of proceeds derived from the SRF loans. Grants will be addressed later as the credit against cost. Table 3 provides a summary of the salient coefficients used in the calculation of total cost and credits. Table 3. Financing and Credit Coefficients Project Debt Financing Costs Total Interest Expense Total Requirement Provided by User Fees Impact Fee Requirement Direct Debt Total $0.4634 $0.5366 $1.0000 0.0115 0.0115 0.2123 0.2123 $0.4634 $0.7604 $1.2238 0.7224 0.7224 $0.5014 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT METHODS Ce7It�Ffl The approach to updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein takes into consideration City policy regarding LOS for the Sanitary Sewer system. The LOS is an important element that contributes to equitable recovery of costs and should reflect the potential flow characteristics of customers within the Utility's service area. Assessment methods refer to the process used to determine the amount of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee, based on the uniform LOS standard, for connections of differing classifications and flow characteristics on an equitable basis. Existing Level of Service The City's Comprehensive Plan provides the Sanitary Sewer LOS for single family, multifamily and mobile homes to be approximately 198 gpd per household (118 gpd /person at 1.68 persons /household based on 2010 population data). Furthermore, for commercial connections, the LOS is based on the schedule found in the City's Code's Appendix B — Schedule of Fees, Chapter 78 — Utilities. For Industrial and other commercial facilities not specifically mentioned in Appendix B, the Code provides that the determination of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee will be predicated on the number of fixture units divided by 18 (single family equivalent) or the number of workers in an office building but not less than $2,337.81. After review and discussion with City staff it was concluded that both the existing LOS and assessment methods are confusing and present City staff with challenges to identi fy equitable Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for new connections other that residential. The City's water provider, City of Cocoa, uses 265 gpd as the LOS for potable water. This relatively low potable water LOS together with reclaimed water available to many properties, means that the Sanitary Sewer LOS needs to reflect a flow that is less than potable water. Updated Level of Service After a review of the current LOS standards and discussions with City staff it was determined that the standard for customers should be adjusted to better reflect the community's characteristics. Single family residential properties in nearby coastal communities generally have wastewater LOS criteria in the range of 150 to 275 gpd. Data obtained during the Utility's last rate study together with operating records indicate that wastewater demand for single family properties suggest a LOS of 240 gpd per ERU. This updated LOS also correlates well with both the potable water LOS of 265 gpd per ERU and a 16 fixture unit loading standard for single family residential properties in the Utility's service area. Assessment Methods A critical need in determining the appropriate amount of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee to be paid by properties other that residential dwelling units relies on the methods used to equate the LOS of such other properties to that establish for an ERU. Discussions with City staff identified a need to provide for alternative methods that would: 1) accommodate a variety of circumstances; and 2) be easily understood and applied. To address these needs three alternative methods were developed consisting of: 10 Level of Service and Assessment Methods Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Stud ERU Basis This method utilizes a table that reflects ERUs associated with characteristics of typical residential and commercial applications, as provided in Schedule 2, to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. This method provides for the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount to be calculated by: 1) accumulating the applicant's ERU pursuant to the appropriate characteristics in the Schedule 2; 2) rounding the ERU to the nearest tenth; and 3) multiplying the ERUs by the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. The ERU for categories not included in this table are required to be determined using one of the other methods. Fixture Unit Basis This method consists of determining total Sewer Load Factor by utilizing the number of fixture units associated with the applicant's property, as provided in Schedule 3, to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. This method provides for the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount to be calculated by: 1) accumulating the applicant's total Sewer Load Factor pursuant to the provisions in Schedule 3; 2) multiplying the total Sewer Load Factor by the load factor per fixture unit of 15 gpd; 3) dividing the resulting gpd by the LOS criteria of 240 gpd /ERU; 4) rounding the ERUs to the nearest tenth; and 5) multiplying the rounded ERUs by the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. Flow Basis This method requires that the applicant provide the property's aver to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. the property's requested average daily gpd of sewer flow capacity criteria of 240 gpd /ERU; 2) rounding the ERUs to the nearest rounded ERUs by the Sar taq- Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. 11 age daily gpd of sewer flow This method provides that is: 1) divided by the LOS tenth; and 3) multiply the SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY CALCULATION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE General Updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee requires that the current cost per unit of service and Level of Service Capacity be identified for each_functional sen)ice. Once identified the cost per unit of service is then used together with the LOS criteria to establish the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. Cost Per Unit of Service and Level of Service Capacity Prior sections of this Report provided the cost basis, system capacities and financing assumptions for each functional service. In determining the cost per unit of service it is necessary to: (i) adjust the capital costs for grants; (ii) include costs incurred for funding the capital improvements; and (iii) adjust to address probable amounts provided from sources other than Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The remaining amount subsequent to these adjustments represents the Total Cost Basis utilized to determine the Cost per Unit of Service. The updated LOS criteria discussed earlier represent capacity levels at the customer's point of connection. To maintain consistency between the LOS criteria and facility capacities used to determine the Cost per Unit of Service, it is necessary to adjust the facility capacities to account for additional flows from inflow and infiltration (I &I). Information provided by City staff suggests that an 1 &I allowance of 10 percent reasonably represents the current system conditions. The adjustment for I &I reduces the Treatment and Transmission facility capacities from 1.8 MGD to 1.62 MGD, which is representative of capacity available at the customer's point of connection on an average day basis. Calculation of Treatment and Transmission Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees The calculation of the Sanitary Sewer Treatment and Transmission Impact Fee based on the data and assumptions discussed heretofore are provided in Table 4. The first portion of the table provides for the costs and grant reductions providing the Net Cost Basis. The second portion provides for the inclusion of financing and interest cost, which results in a Subtotal that is reduced by probable amounts anticipated to be recovered from other sources, leaving the Impact Fee Cost Basis. The next portion reduces the system capacities by the I &I allowance providing the Net Level of System Capacity, which when divided into the Impact Fee Cost Basis provides the Cost per Unit of Service. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is the result of multiplying the Cost per Unit of Service by the LOS associated with a connection. For one ERU the LOS is 240 gpd, which results in a combined Treatment and Transmission Sanitary Sewer Impact of $1,348.80. 12 Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S Table 4. Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Item Treatment Transmission Total Cost Basis $1553155673 $3505210294 $181036730967 Less Grants 2330250 1893120 21230370 Net Cost Basis Financing Cost Interest Cost Subtotal User Fee Credit Impact Fee Cost Basis $15,2925423 $2,86330174 $18101555597 17610000 3330000 20930000 312463000 6085000 3308541000 $1857145423 $355043174 $22102185597 11504630000 23006830000 133111431000 $75668,423 $1,436,174 $9,104,597 System Capacity. Average Day Capacity in MGD 1.80 1.80 Allowance for Infiltration and Inflow 10000% 10800% Net Level of Service Capacity MGD 1.62 1.62 Impact Fee Determinants: Cost Per Unit of Service $4.73 $0.89 $5.62 Level of Service (gpd) 240 240 Impact Fee $1513520 $213.60 $110348.80 Comparison to Existing A summary of the updated and existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees are shown in Table 5. It should be noted that the existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee presented below at based on the existing LOS, which differs from the updated LOS. Therefore, portions of the differences are attributed to a combination of both the Cost per Unit of Service and the proposed adjusted LOS. Table 5. Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee LOS Treatment Transmission Total Updated 240 gpd /ERU Existing 198 gpd /ERU Amount Difference Percent Difference Comparison with Other Utilities $1,135.20 $1,940.38 ($805.18) -41% $213.60 $397.43 ($183.83) -46% $1,348.80 $2,337.81 ($989.01) -42% The comparisons provided in Table 6 identi the capacity - related charges for new residential wastewater connections for one equivalency calculated under the existing and updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees of the City and those of Other Utilities. The amounts shown for Other Utilities are based on the schedules in effect as of October 1, 2012 and do not include other customer service- related fees applied to new system connections (i.e. tap fees, application fees, inspection fees, etc.) Caution should be taken when comparing impact fees for many reasons including the following: 1. Cost used by others may not be representative of "Current Local Costs;" 2. The LOS criteria may be either higher or lower; 3. Other cost recovery from contributions, grants or other sources may be applicable; 13 Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S 4. Local government may elect to phase -in or not implement the total recovery amounts; and 5. Treatment processes and availability of resources may be different. Table 6. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Comparisons ' Single Family / 1 ERU Amount LOS (gpd) City of Cape Canaveral Existing $2,337.81 198.24 Proposed $15348.80 240.00 Other Communities Barefoot Bay $275.00 150.00 North Brevard 671.00 1 -3 bedrooms City of Cocoa 111250.00 250.00 City of Cocoa Beach 23200.00 275.00 City of Holly Hill 1,908.00 234.00 City of Melbourne 15583.00 240.00 City of New Smyrna Beach 15250.00 250.00 City of Ormond Beach 15950.00 15 F.U.s Cite of Palm Bay 25965.00 210.00 City of Vero Beach 25290.00 15 F.U.s City of West Melbourne 3,000900 300.00 Average of Other Communities $1575836 1. Per the community's ERU equivalency basis unless otherwise noted. 14 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS General In the preparation of this Report, certain information has been used and relied upon that was provided by other entities including the City. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the Utility's capital improvements plan, SRI" loans, asset depreciation summary /listing, capacities, cost data, fee schedules for the City and other Communities, and other information provided by or through the City. Additionally, reasonably conservative assumptions were developed to establish the basis for certain required study elements that are not, have not or cannot be specifically defined through existing data. To the extent that future conditions differ from those assumed and utilized in the Report, the results of the analyses may vary from those developed herein. Findings 1. The City's recordkeeping provides sufficient information to address the requirements of updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 2. The Utility's service area is not expected to require any wastewater capacity expansions. 3. The LOS criteria should be updated to better reflect the characteristics of the potable water provider and Utility customers. 4. The method of determining and assessing the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be revised and expanded to better accommodate different requests for service. Conclusions Based on the reviews, analyses and assumptions provided herein, it is concluded that: 1. Due to the adequacy of Treatment and Transmission capacity to provide for the service area future needs, the current local cost requirements in updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein are based on actual and expansion - related actual costs. 29 The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee developed herein reflects net amounts that are equitable and provide for reasonable recovery without exceeding current local cost of the capital improvements associated with providing wastewater capacity to new connections. 3. The City currently imposes other connection charges, deposits and other fees for new customers connecting to the system. Such fees are related to recovery of operating costs associated with establishing a new customer rather than capacity to serve the customer. As such, these other charges are not related to the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 4. As available the updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be budgeted to pay for the expansion related portion of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan debt service, which will reduce the burden on user rates. Furthermore, Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees collected beyond the retirement of the SRF loans can be used to reimburse the Utility for historic debt payments made at times when Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues were insufficient. 5. The City should have a policy in determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee which states the amount owed shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated in one of the 3 methods discussed herein. 15 SANITARY SEWED IMPACT FEE STUDY SCHEDULES 16 Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Stud SCHEDULE 1 SANITARY SEWER ASSET LISTING Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 15023 GP Improves Other than Bldg. 9/30/1991 $10,196634 15029 GP Crew Room /Labor & Material 3/5/1993 4,781.12 1712 GP BOD Incubator 1/16/1987 130846.88 1737 GP Chlorine Kit 7/31/1987 11)004.70 1783 GP Hose Tester & Adapter 9/16/1988 1,654.95 2079 GP Sterilizer 5/24/1991 411346.00 2181 GP Analytical Balance 12/20/1991 2,285.00 2182 GP PH Meter 12/20/1991 1,888.00 2234 GP Refrigerator 8/11/1992 1,875.00 2266 GP Air Pack /Case - Crew Room 1/1/1994 2,772.50 2267 GP Concrete Mixer 1/1/1994 3,066.00 2296 GP 5000 Watt Generator 6/17/1994 1,367010 2306 GP Analytical Scale 12/20/1994 1,933961 2323 GP MCD Duplicator 9/29/1995 11375.00 2413 GP Public Works Admin. Bldg. 9/30/1996 60,550.00 2417 GP Water Jacketed Incubator 8/13/1996 2,480.26 2425 GP Roof & Mansard on Maint. Build 8/21/1997 29886.00 2487 GP Hydraulic Press 5/7/1997 31230.25 2489 GP 1997 Harben Sever Pipe Cleaner 6/23/1997 29,762.00 2498 GP Cabinets & Counters 2/3/1997 1,176.00 2499 GP Lettering on Plant 1/21/1997 1,200.00 2518 GP Portable Liquid Sampler 3/11/1998 3,001.90 2522 GP Lifepak 10C Monitor /Difibrillator 2/19/1998 6,49150 2525 GP Trbidmeter 3/11/1998 1590.00 2528 GP 900Max All Weather Refrig Smpl 4/8/1998 4,995000 2565 GP Lab Expansion 3/30/1998 33,129.42 2585 GP CL2 Titrimeter 6/11/1999 2,111000 2586 GP Fume Hood & Assembly 6/24/1999 109872.02 2594 GP Spectrophoto Meter 2/22/1999 4,662.00 2608 GP Acid Storage Cabinet 5/10/1999 1,550.00 2612 GP Self Contained Breathing Appar 9/23/1999 3,187.49 2654 GP PH Meter 4/4/1999 2,195.97 2658 GP Ikon Digital Copier 3/31/2000 10,772.00 2663 GP Microscope Phase 115V/60 2/3/2000 130659.72 2683 GP Elect Cabinet /Workstation 1/25/2000 11)788.55 2749 GP Elite SL300 Security Gate 1/25/2001 5,095.00 3001 GP Heart Defribrillator 1/10/2001 1510106.55 3022 GP BOD Refrigerator 5/10/2001 3,604.22 3023 GP Flask Heater 5/25/2001 1,88185 3063 GP Posicheck 3 Air Pack Maint. Tester 4/12/2001 2,266.90 3064 GP Maintenance Building 9/27/2001 4,650.00 3085 GP Maintenance Building 9/30/2002 1,500.00 3098 GP Lightning Protection System 4/26/2002 4,950.00 3100 GP Pressure Washer 5/9/2002 2,17195 3213 GP Lab Pure Water System 12/20/2002 6,419.37 3399 GP A/C System 5 -Ton 1/28/2005 2,345.00 3400A GP Server & Installation 4/7/2005 25078.16 3400B GP Server & Installation 4/7/2005 3,705.65 3404 GP Konica Copier 1/23/2004 18,241.76 3458 GP Chlorine Titrator 3/14/2005 3,022.00 3459 GP Autoclave Steralizer & Stand 3/24/2005 6,797.42 17 Schedules itary Sewer Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE 1 CONT. Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 3460 GP Total Chlorine Process Analyzer 6/29/2005 $2,611.75 3461 GP All Weather Sampler (Refrigerated) 4/22/2005 4,933.70 3462 GP Motor CTL Room A/C Unit 7/15/2005 19950.00 3520 GP Office Furniture -Asst PW Director 1/10/2006 19048.44 3521 GP Office Furniture -Env. Analyst 4/7/2006 1,365.86 3523 GP Macro Kjeldahl Heating Mantle 2/21/2006 2,264.00 3524 GP Turbidity Meter 2/21/2006 110950.00 3548A GP Caterpillar 416D Backhoe Loader 8/25/2006 3910313950 3560 GP Spectrophoto Meter 6/5/2006 113057100 3579 GP 2100N IS Laboratory Turbidimeter 3/26/2007 130758.00 3580 GP Sigma 900 Max Sampler 3/26/2007 530790.00 3585 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 11750.00 3586 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 11750.00 3587 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 15750.00 3588 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 11)750.00 3589 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 1,750.00 3605 GP GLI /Hach P53 PH Moonitor & Probe 9/11/2006 131462600 3606 GP Public Works Maint. Bldg 12/20/2005 27992107 360610 GP Public Works Maint. Building Improvements 1/31/2007 239,634.98 360620 GP Public Works Maint. Building 11/27/2007 353,162.95 360630 GP PW Maint. Building Impact Fee 11/26/2008 1,728.00 3615 GP Weather Station 6/15/2006 19055050 3650 GP NAPCO 8000 Water jacketed Incubator 3/26/2007 4,423.38 3651 GP Top Loading Balance Meter 3/26/2007 2,986920 3653 GP P53 pH Meter with Probe 1/26/2007 19450.00 3681 GP 2007 Dodge Caravan SE 5/18/2007 183176.10 3689 GP Trane Air Conditioner -Admin Bldg 11/27/2007 431075.00 3698 GP Commercial Link Fencing for PAX/ Facility 4/3/2008 6,200.00 3708 GP Steamscrubber Freestanding Dishwasher 12/13/2007 55176.30 3712 GP Office Furniture for Plant Supervisor 3/4/2008 2558912 3713 GP Xerox Work Centre 7132 2/1/2008 7,480.00 3716 GP Office Furniture for asst. PW Director 6/13/2008 11)351.04 3719 GP Shelves for New Maint. Building 5/21/2008 330479.85 379123 GP Nebutel 20mb Point -to -Point Antenna Towers 4/30/2010 610317.00 3800 GP Precision Gravity Oven 7/22/2010 1,318.41 3803 GP Manitowoc SD -0322A Ice Machine (50/50 w/401) 8/18/2010 1,076.40 3830 GP Whelen Super LED Light Bar 8/19/2011 08226 3855 GP Fume Hood for Lab 8/5/2011 89155.03 3885 GP Balance Link System & Software 6/4/2004 39749.28 3886 GP Life Pack Defibrulator 6/4/2004 11795.00 3964 GP Lab Oven 6/29/2004 1,386.78 5042 GP Lab Incubator 12/7/2011 5,576.01 3128 GP Accordian Hurricane Shutters 5/23/2002 4,215900 3519 GP CL17 Total Chlorine Analyzer 12/20/2005 23750.00 2569 L Parcel 502 at \VWTP 7/31/1994 2261084.12 2684 T Reuse Phase II 3/2/2000 2,552.83 2685 T Reuse Phase III 2/7/2000 415,093.50 15004 T Lift Station #8 Thurm Blvd 10/1/1967 46,305900 15005 T Lift Station #1 Washington 10/1/1967 2315525.00 15006 T Lift Station #4 Harbor Drive 10/1/1967 57,881.00 15007 T Lift Station #6 Imperial 10/1/1967 697458.00 15008 T List Station #7 W. Central 10/1/1967 108,156.00 15016 T Lift Station #2 Center Street 9/30/1988 2879667937 Schedules Sanitary SeNver Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE 1 CONT. Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 15017 T Lift Station #3 W. Central 9/30/1989 $2872667.37 15018 T Lift Station #5 Columbia Drive 9/30/1989 89,768.34 15019 T Lift Station #9 Banana River 9/30/1990 111,394.21 15020 T Lift Station # 12 Longpoint 9/30/1990 2415364.82 15025 T Lift Station 3/1/1992 1829946.00 15026 T Pump Statio 3/1/1992 689249629 2357 T 200 Long Point Road 9/30/1995 146,404.15 2365 T 12 Effluent Force Main 4/9/1996 184,322.25 2543 T Telemetry Sys / Lift Stations 5/14/1998 805739.00 2609 T Upgrade Lift Station A & B 5/24/1999 94)900000 2644 T 200 Long Point Road 1/29/1999 40,895.87 2682 T Telemetry System 5/25/2000 41393.70 3106 T Sanitary Sewer Force Main 7/29/2002 333071056 3358 T Forcemain LS1 to Thrum Blvd 8/5/2004 213472900 3465 T Sanitary Sewer Force plain Project 7/15/2005 5,120.00 346510 T Force Main, Lift Station 1 12/20/2005 5,384.96 346520 T Force Main Lift Station 1 3/6/2009 3,462.75 3574 T Upgrade /Replacement to Lift Station #5 12/18/2006 421200.00 3700 T Lift Station Back up Pump 12/13/2007 5,319.00 3701 T Lift Station Back up Pump 12/13/2007 5,806900 3702 T Lift Station Back up Pump 1/11/2008 10,039.00 3704 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit (Back up) 12/13/2007 4,542.68 3705 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit for LS #3 12/13/2007 41542.68 3706 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit (Back up) 12/13/2007 41)542.68 3707 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit for LS #1 12/13/2007 45542.66 3717 T Tradewinds Power Generator 6/13/2008 6300.00 3751 T 20 hp Lift Station Pump (Back up) 9/23/2008 10,360.00 3795 T Tradewinds Generator 6014z, 'Three Phase 3/31/2010 471539900 3861 T Generator Model TJ125KXXI 5/26/2011 46,574.00 5035B T Telemetry Control Unit 2/10/2012 5,039.75 5035C T Submersible Level Transducer 2/10/2012 535.00 5035D T Submersible WW Pump LS #9 2/10/2012 4,482.00 5035E T Transient Filter Shield 2/17/2012 88.00 503517 T Flygt pump base installation 2/17/2012 600.00 5035G T 414 Discharge Connection 1/6/2012 704.00 5036 T 20KNV Generator 4/27/2012 37,828900 5038 T Forcemain Replacement LS #3 7/3/2012 2,371.00 3552 T Upgrade Lift Station 5 8/25/2006 15,564600 2501 TP Reuse Phase I 8/31/1999 1451,413636 3053 TP Pond 5/7/2001 2,114.83 3055 TP Reuse Phase IV 8/2/2001 1414)827.11 3056 TP Reuse Phase III 2/2/2001 4,903.77 3068 TP Reuse Phase II 9/27/2001 11518.75 3141 TP Reuse Phase III 8/26/2002 11678.34 3477 TP Re -use Extension Project 04/05 12/14/2004 38,67438 15001 TP WWTP original construction 10/1/1967 8315945.00 15002 TP Aerobic Digestor 10/1/1967 2185764.45 15003 TP Chlorine Contact Basin 10/1/1967 169,561.80 15013 TP Aeration Basin 9/30/1983 111400,189.14 15014 TP Clarifier Basin 9/30/1983 357,775.39 15021 TP Expansion Funds Cost 9/30/1991 37,164.16 19 Schedules SCHEDULE 1 CONT. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 15208 TP 1995 W\` TP Upgrade 8/30/1995 $51906.00 1614 TP 500 PSI Air Compressor 9/27/1984 911735.00 2359 TP WWTP facilities - part of original plant 9/30/1995 1,0489952.15 2419 TP W\XrTP Engineering Fees 9/30/1996 88,544.23 2421 TP Bldg. Pmt Fees -\XAVI ' Expansion 9/30/1996 151085.10 2422 TP WVrTP Site Plan Review Fees 9/30/1996 29638.50 2423 TP 1995 -96 WNVrP Upgrade 9/30/1996 691795810.00 2524 TP Freyuence Controls 3/4/1998 8,385.94 2566 TP Sewer Plant Improvement -1997 9/30/1997 1,2635731975 2572 TP Sewer Plant Improvement -FY 95/96 9/30/1996 1,1625274.16 3037 TP Encore 700 Metering Alum Pump 8/2/2001 25278.39 3304 TP Wastewater Facility Improvement 1/23/2004 12409.10 3304A TP W\VTP Improve 2004, Permit Fees 4/7/2005 330914.35 3373A TP W\VTP Improvement 2003 -04 12/20/2004 397,454968 3454 TP Sludge Press Maint. Bldg. 3/24/2005 725399.33 3454A TP Sludge Press Maint. Bldg. - Office 2/20/2006 41456999 3518 TP Sutorbilt Rotary Positive Blower 11/14/2005 45600.00 3525 TP Ultramag Magnetic Flowmeter w/ Converter 2/21/2006 4532233 3573 TP Compressors for Plant Filters 11/17/2006 8,968.74 3576 TP Flygt Submersible Mixer 2/8/2007 65750.00 3584 TP Sodium Bisulfite System 5/31/2007 1500.00 3652 TP Compressors for Plant Filters 11/17/2006 81968.74 3654 TP Hach 1720E Turbidity Monitor 1/26/2007 25155900 3680 TP Snyder 6,200 Gal Alum Tank 5/31/2007 109520.80 3696 TP Cleated Belt for Belt Press 12/13/2007 9500.00 3709 TP Sodium Hypochlorite Tank 1/11/2008 7,950.00 3755 TP Belt Press Room Roof 3/27/2009 16,575.00 3790 Till Vortiblend Emulsion Feed System for Sludge Press 12/18/2009 65313920 4012 TP Flygt Mixer for Plant Mixer 10/12/2010 7,681.85 5039 TP WW`17P Oxidation Ditch 8/2/2012 9,452.50 5041 TP W\X7 TP Oxidation Ditch 9/30/2012 497.50 M _ re To of MMA Treatment Plant (TP) $14,375,602.00 Transmission (T) 31052,294.42 General Plant (GP) 1,342,958.14 Total $185770,854.55 WC Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE 2 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE BY CLASSIFICATION AND AMOUNT ERUs Amount' SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE PER ERU $1,348.80 RESIDENTIAL: (a) Single Family 1.0000 $1,348.80 (b) Multiple Family (Per Dwelling Unit /ERU) 1.0000 $1,348.80 c Each Mobile Home Space 1.0000 $1,348.80 COMMERCIAL': (a) Barber and Beauty shops, per chair 0.3125 $421.50 (b) Bowling Alleys, per lane 0.2083 $281.00 (c) Churches, per seat 0.0125 $16.86 (d) Dentist Office, per dentist 1.0417 $1,405.00 (e) Doctor Office, per doctor 1.0417 S1,405.00 (1) Food Service Operations (1) Restaurant, per seat 0.1667 5224.80 (2) 24 -hour Restaurant, per seat 0.2500 $337.20 (3) Bar and Cocktail Lounge, per seat 0.0833 $112.40 (4) Drive -In Restaurant, per car space 0.2083 $281.00 (g) Hospitals, per bed 0.8333 $1,124.00 (h) Hotels, Motels, per room (1) Regular per room 0.4167 $562.00 (1) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per room 0.8333 $1,124.00 (1) Add for establishments with self service laundry facilities per machine 3.1250 $4,215.00 (i) Laundry Facilities, per washing machine 3.1250 $4,215.00 0) Nursing, Rest Homes, per person 0.4167 $562.00 (k) Office Building, per worker 0.0625 $84.30 p) Schools, per student 0.0417 $56.20 (m) Service Stations, per water closet and per urinal (1) Open 16 hours per day or less 1.0417 $1,405.00 (2) Open more than 16 hours per day 1.3542 $1,826.50 (n) Shopping Centers without Food or Laundry, per square foot or floor space 0.0004 $0.56 (o) Stores, per bathroom 0.8333 $1,124.00 (p) Theaters, indoor, per seat 0.0167 $22.48 (q) Recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, without water and sewer hookup per vehicle space 0.2083 $281.00 (r) Recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicles ace 0.3125 $421.50 1. All Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees shall be determined based on the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated pursuant to applicable provisions in the Code. 2. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for Connections not specifically identified above shall be determined by using the Fixture Unit basis Schedule 1 or the Flow Basis. 21 Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study 'Total Load Factor x15= GPD / 240 = ERUs GPD * Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated based upon above data. a. For traps larger than 3 ", use Table 709.2 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. b. A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachment does not increase the drainage fixture unit value. c. See Sections 709.2 through 709.4 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for methods of computing unit value of fixtures not listed in this table or for rating of devices with intermittent flows. d. Trap size shall be consistent with the fixture outlet size. e. For the purpose of computing loads on building drains and sewers, water closets and urinals shall not be rated at a lower drainage fixture unit unless the lower values are confirmed by testing. f. For fixtures added to a dwelling unit bathroom group, add the DFU value of those additional fixtures to the bathroom group fixture count. g. See Section 406.3 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for sizing requirements for fixture drain, branch drain, and drainage stack for automatic clothes washer standpipe. h. Bathroom group is defined in Section 202 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. 22 SCHEDULE 3 SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS FIXTURE TYPE LOAD FACTOR "A" NO. OF TYPES "B" LOAD FACTOR licit is AxB =C Automatic clothes washers, commercial a, 3.00 Automatic clothes washers, residential 2.00 Bathroom group ( < =1.6 gpf water closet, toilet, sink, tub and shower ) (f,h 5.00 Bathroom group (>1-6 gpf water closet, toilet, sink, tub and shower f,h G.00 Bathtub (with or without overhead shower or whirlpool attachments 0) 00 Bidet 1900 Combination sink and tray 2.00 Dental lavatory (bathroom sink 1000 Dental unit or or cuspidor 1600 Dishwashing machine domestic c 2.00 Drinking fountain 0.50 Emergency floor drains 0000 Floor drains 2.00 Kitchen sink, domestic 2.00 Kitchen sink, domestic with food waste grinder 2600 Laundry tray (1 or 2 compartments) 2.00 Lavatory (bathroom sink 1000 Shower 2.00 Service sink 200 Sink 2.00 Urinal 4.00 Urinal, <1 gpf e 2.00 Urinal, non water supplies a 0950 Wash sink circular or multiple) each set of faucets 2.00 Water closet, flushometer tank, public or private toilet onl y e 4.00 Water closet, private 1.6 gpf, toilet only e 100 Water closet, private (>1.6 gpf, toilet only) e 4.00 Water closet, public 1.6 gpf, toilet only) e 4.00 Water closet, public (>1.6 gpf, toilet onl (e ) 6.00 Total 'Total Load Factor x15= GPD / 240 = ERUs GPD * Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated based upon above data. a. For traps larger than 3 ", use Table 709.2 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. b. A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachment does not increase the drainage fixture unit value. c. See Sections 709.2 through 709.4 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for methods of computing unit value of fixtures not listed in this table or for rating of devices with intermittent flows. d. Trap size shall be consistent with the fixture outlet size. e. For the purpose of computing loads on building drains and sewers, water closets and urinals shall not be rated at a lower drainage fixture unit unless the lower values are confirmed by testing. f. For fixtures added to a dwelling unit bathroom group, add the DFU value of those additional fixtures to the bathroom group fixture count. g. See Section 406.3 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for sizing requirements for fixture drain, branch drain, and drainage stack for automatic clothes washer standpipe. h. Bathroom group is defined in Section 202 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. 22 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. 7 Subject: Resolution No. 2013 -13; adopting the sanitary sewer impact fee report prepared for the City of Cape Canaveral by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. dated April 2013; amending Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, in accordance with the report's recommendations; providing for repeal of prior inconsistent resolutions, incorporation into Appendix B of the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances, severability, and an effective date. Public Works Services and Communitv & Economic Summary: Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "Raftelis ") conducted a Study to review and update the City's method of determining Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees, which are directed at recovering capital costs for major wastewater facilities. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees are a mechanism to recover costs of capacity - related Treatment and Transmission improvements, which provide system capacity benefits for new service and existing connections requesting additional services. The Fees are intended to mitigate a portion of the financial burden on existing customers to pay for capacity improvements benefiting future customers. The Study utilized a consumption -based methodology, which assumes that new service connections will utilize portions of both existing and new facilities. Wastewater Treatment and Transmission facilities improvements, historically funded through resources of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, are eligible for cost recovery through the Impact Fee. Wastewater Treatment and Transmission activities are considered the primary functional services for Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee purposes. The Study reviewed the level of service (LOS) criteria contained in the existing Code for both applicability and appropriateness. After review and discussion with City Staff, it was determined that the sanitary sewer LOS should be revised to better reflect the characteristics of customers within the City's service area. It is important to note that increasing the sanitary sewer LOS to a more accurate figure produces a corresponding reduction in the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. A summary of the existing and updated LOS and Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is shown in Table 1. Table 1. Level of Service and Existing and Updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. LOS Treatment Transmission Total Existing 198 gpd /ERU $1,940.38 $397.43 $2,337.81 Updated 240 gpd /ERU $1,135.20 $213.60 $1,348.80 Amount Difference ($805.18) ($183.83) ($989.01) Percent Difference -41% -46% -42% Note: gpd — gallons per day. City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. Page 2 of 3 Other Community Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees Comparisons of the City's existing and updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees to those of other nearby communities for new residential wastewater service (representative of 1 ERU) are provided in Table 2. Table 2. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Comparisons (Single Family /1 ERU) Amount LOS d City of Cape Canaveral Existing $2,337.81 198024 Updated $19348680 240000 Other Communities Barefoot Bay $275.00 150000 North Brevard $671000 1 -3 bedrooms Indian River County $29796000 300000 City of Cocoa $19250000 250000 City of Cocoa Beach $29200000 275600 City of Holly Hill $1,908000 234.00 City of Melbourne $1,583600 240.00 City of New Smyrna Beach $19250.00 250.00 City of Ormond Beach $19950000 15 fixture units City of Palm Bay $29965600 210000 City of Vero Beach $2,290000 15 fixture units City of West Melbourne $3,OOOwOO 300.00 Average of Other Communities $1,844.83 City Staff identified a need to provide for alternative methods of determining Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for new connections that would (1) accommodate a variety of circumstances, (2) be easily understood and applied, (3) be in full compliance with 163031801 F.S. and (4) provide a cost- friendly economic incentive for businesses wishing to locate to or expand in the City. To address these needs, three methods were developed that allow for accurate /convenient assessment of a connection's ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. The three methods include the following: 1. ERU Basis: This method utilizes a table that reflects ERUs associated with characteristics of typical residential and commercial applications to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. 20 Fixture Unit Basis: This method consists of determining total Sewer Load Factor by utilizing the number of fixture units associated with the applicant's property, to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. 3. Flow Basis: This method requires that the applicant provide the property's average daily gpd of sewer flow to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. City Council Meeting Date: 8/20/2013 Item No. Page 2 of 3 Using these alternative methods establishes a City policy whereby the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee will be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated in one of the alternative methods. The concept is that each of these three methods would be available such that new customer's characteristics can easily be associated with one of the methods through the classification and application process. Using this new policy to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee will (1) serve as an economic development incentive by significantly reducing development/redevelopment costs, (2) ensure compliance with Section 163.31801 F.S. as amended and (3) provide a fair and reasonable alternate assessment method for non - conventional uses. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees reasonably represent the costs of certain improvements together with related financing costs that provide wastewater services to new connections within the Utility's service area. The Impact Fees were developed to be compliant with Section 163.31801 F.S. The recommended Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee represents the maximum amounts supported by the data, assumptions and estimates. City Council can elect to establish policies regarding the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee provided that such amount does not exceed the amount identified in the Report. Amounts not recovered through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees will, for the most part, be recovered from revenues generated by existing and future user rates and charges. Ordinance 09 -2013 is presented for adoption at second reading on this Agenda. Submitting Department Directors: Jeff atliff and Todd Morl y Date: 08/6/13 Attachment: Resolution 2013 -13 Financial Impact: Forgone Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenue, cost to produce the Raftelis Report and cost to prepare, advertise and incorporate the Resoluton into the City Code. Reviewed by Finance Director: John DeLeo Date: i I3 The City Manager recommends that City Cou ci take the folloWnb action(s): Adopt Resolution No. 2013 -13. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greene Date: I 12, City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended (] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications [ ] Tabled to Time Certain RESOLUTION NO. 201343 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL BY RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. DATED APRIL 2013; AMENDING APPENDIX B, SCHEDULE OF FEES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF PRIOR, INCONSISTENT RESOLUTIONS, INCORPORATION INTO APPENDIX B OF THE CAPE CANAVERAL CODE OF ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, sanitary sewer impact fees allow the City to recover the costs of capacity= related treatment and major transmission improvements installed and funded by the City; and WHEREAS, the City currently imposes sanitary sewer impact fees on new development and modified uses of structures increasing the original sewer impact caused by the use; and WHEREAS, the City recently consulted with Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "Raftelis ") to review the City's existing sanitary sewer impact fees and recommend appropriate updates to the fee structure based on the City's current level of service, costs and capacity; and WHEREAS, Raftelis prepared a Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report dated April 2013 ( "Report "), which comprehensively analyzes the City's sanitary sewer impact fee structure; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to update its sanitary sewer impact fees consistent with the recommendations of the Report in order to more efficiently recover the costs associated with the collection, transmission, treatment and disposal activities comprising the City's sanitary sewer system, and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that updating the City's sanitary sewer impact fee schedule will promote increased economic activity within the City of Cape Canaveral by reducing the financial burden the impact fees have on development and redevelopment activities; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds this Resolution to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Cape Canaveral. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are deemed true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference as part of this Resolution. City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201343 Page 1 of 7 Section 2. Report of Raftelis Financial Consultants. The City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral hereby adopts the Raftelis' Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report dated April, 2013 and incorporates the fees and calculation methodologies proposed therein into the City's Schedule of Fees. A copy of the Report is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and is expressly incorporated herein. Section 3. Amendment to Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, to the Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows underlined type indicates additions and stFikeeut type indicates deletions, while asterisks (* * *) indicate a deletion from this Resolution of text existing in Appendix B. It is intended that the text in Appendix B denoted by the asterisks and set forth in this Resolution shall remain unchanged from the language existing prior to adoption of this Resolution): Appendix B Schedule of Fees * * * Chapter 78. Utilities (e) Impact Fees. SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE BY CLASSIFICATION AND AMOUNT ERUs Amount' SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE PER ERU 1 348.80 RESIDENTIAL: (a) Single Family 100000 1 348.80 b Multiple Family Per Dwelling Unit/ERU 100000 $11348a80 c Each Mobile Home S ace 1.0000 11,348080 COMMERCIAL (a) Barber and Beauty Shops, per chair 03125 1421 .50 b Bowling Alleys, per lane 022083 281.00 c Churches er seat 0.0125 16.86 (d) Dentist Office, per dentist 1.0417 1 405.00 e Doctor Office per doctor 100417 1 405.00 (f) Food Service Operations 1 Restaurant per seat 0.1667 224.80 (2) 24 -hour Restaurant, per seat 02500 337020 (3) Bar and Cocktail Lounge, per seat 0.0833 JLL2040 4 Drive -In Restaurant per cars ace 1 0.2083 281600 (a) Hospitals, per bed 008333 1 124.00 (h) Hotels, Motels, per room 1 Regglar 12er room 004167 jL6100 2 Resort Hotels Cams Cottages per room 0.8333 ILLZ4000. (3) Add for establishments with self - service laundry facilities per machine 3.1250 3.1250 $44215e00 142L5 .00 i Laundry Facilities per washing machine City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -13 Page 2 of 7 f).Nursing, Rest Homes per person 0.4167 562000 k Office Building, per worker 000625 JaL30 Schools, per student 0.0417 56.20 Lm Service Stations er water closet and er urinal 1 Open 16 hours 12er day or less 1.0417 $1,405sOO 2 Open more than 16 hours per day 13542 1 826.50 n Shopping Centers without Food or Laundry, per s ware foot or floors ace 0.0004 JL5 6 and shower) (f,h) o Stores per bathroom 0.8333 JLJ 24.00 Theaters indoor er seat 0.0167 IZZ048 (q) Recreational vehicle space for ovemi hg t stay, without water and sewer 0.2083 281.00 hookup per vehicles ace (r) Recreational vehicle space for ovemi hg t stay, with water and sewer hookup ger vehicle sl2ace 03125 421.50 1.x111 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees shall be determined based on the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated up rsuant to the above table. 2. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for Connections not specifically identified above shall be determined by using ter of _=aP the Fixture Unit basis or the Flow Basis. SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS D.F.U. FIXTURE TYPE LOAD FACTOR NO* OF TYPES "Bit LOAD FACTOR licit "All It t� AxB =C Automatic clothes washers commercial a 3.00 Automatic clothes washers residential 2900 Bathroom group ( < =1.6 gpf water closet, toilet, sink, tub 5.00 and shower) (f,h) Bathroom group N.6 gpf water closet, toilet, sink, tub 6.00 and shower) (f,h) Bathtub (with or without overhead shower or whirlpool 2000 attachments) (b) Bidet 1.00 Combination sink and tray 2.00 Dental lavatory bathroom sink 1.00 Dental unit or cuspidor 1000 Dishwashing machine (domestic) (c) 2000 Drinkin fountain 0.50 Emergency floor drains 0800 Floor drains (d) 2.00 Kitchen sink, domestic 100 Kitchen sink domestic with food waste gdnder 2.00 Laundry tray 1 or 2 compartments 2.00 Lavato athroom sink 1600 Shower 2900 Service sink 100 City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -13 Page 3 of 7 Sink IN Urinal 4000 Urinal <1 &pjLej 2.00 Urinal non water supplies a 0.50 Wash sink circular or multiple) each set of faucets 2000 Water closet, flushometer tank, public or private (toilet 4900 onl e Water closet private 1.6 gpf, toilet onl a 3.00 Water closet private f> 1.6 gpf, toilet onlylLel 4000 Water closet public 1.6 gpf, toilet onl a 4.00 Water closet public N.6 gpf, toilet onl a 6.00 Total Total Load Factor: GPD / 240 = ERUs x $1,348.80 = x 15= ERUs GPD * Sanitary Sewer lmnact Fee shall be the ereater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated based upon above data. * gpf = gallon flushing cycle a. For traps larger than 3 ", use Table 709.2 of the Florida Plumbing Code adopted by City Code section 82 -31. b. A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachment does not increase the drainage fixture unit value. c. See Sections 709.2 through 709.4 of the Florida Plumbing Code adopted by City Code section 82 -31 for methods of computing unit value of fixtures not listed in this table or for rating of devices with intermittent flows. d. See Sections 709.4 and 704.4 of the Florida Plumbing Code adopted by City Code section 82 -31. e. For the purpose of computing loads on building drains and sewers, water closets and urinals shall not be rated at a lower drainage fixture unit unless the lower values are confirmed by testing. f. For fixtures added to a dwelling unit bathroom group, add the DFU value of those additional fixtures to the bathroom group fixture count. g. See Section 406.3 of the Florida Plumbing Code adopted by City Code section 82 -31 for sizing requirements for fixture drain, branch drain, and drainage stack for automatic clothes washer standpipe. h. Bathroom group is defined in Section 202 of the Florida Plumbing Code adopted by City Code section 82 -31. WER IMPACT FEE B Flow Basis This method requires that the applicant provide the property's average daily gpd of sewer flow to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. This method provides that the property's requested average daily gpd of sewer flow capacity is: 1) divided by the LOS criteria of 240 gpd/ERU; 2 rounding the ERUs to the nearest tenth, and 3 multiply the rounded ERUs by the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. I �U Avg Daily Sewer Flow (ADSF) ADSF / 240 gpd per ERU = nearest tenth = ewer City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -13 Page 4 of 7 City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201343 Page 5 of 7 PRIM ■ - ., - I - ._ • .Y IF -- : :: • ■ _ - .. - -• - .. .. RwafiR W1 - - ■ _ AS -- .. ■ - .. .. iipniij - _- .' WAIN I ■ ' - III UI MI ml owdrAnwd _ .- ._. - WINE ■ AWoL" - If - _ - VIIIIIIII-A - - - - - - - • - • . - 11 111111 11 Ah . • _ , • ■ 111 .. L",%mrTY21 IN -%fteffAl Ili City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 201343 Page 5 of 7 so :: 77 Section 4. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All prior inconsistent resolutions adopted by the City Council are hereby expressly repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 5. Incorporation Into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. This Resolution shall be incorporated into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, to the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Resolution and the City Code may be freely made. Section 6. Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word, or provision is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive or procedural reasons, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon the effective date of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -13 Page 6 of 7 N - a - - . IN 0 M m Me 11 No pip . _ . Wlilpo III, III oil . • 0 ! . K MM"A 111 IF Vol 11 MY 114111, 1:1111 IV, 10 01 111 111INIIIIIII!,11,111 11 Jill" V - - - - - me - - - - - • of IN 0 10 M100 -.- IN mYqLqj _ VA&NM ;q ;q i 4,;Wj 11 11 111 11 11 amm�ummmam 1 111113 M 11 11 111 11 1 IIIH, - — IN Ma - - - - • -- so :: 77 Section 4. Repeal of Prior Inconsistent Resolutions. All prior inconsistent resolutions adopted by the City Council are hereby expressly repealed to the extent of the conflict. Section 5. Incorporation Into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees. This Resolution shall be incorporated into Appendix B, Schedule of Fees, to the City of Cape Canaveral City Code and any section or paragraph, number or letter and any heading may be changed or modified as necessary to effectuate the foregoing. Grammatical, typographical and like errors may be corrected and additions, alterations and omissions, not affecting the construction or meaning of this Resolution and the City Code may be freely made. Section 6. Severability. If any section, clause, phrase, word, or provision is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether for substantive or procedural reasons, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon the effective date of Cape Canaveral Ordinance No. 09 -2013. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -13 Page 6 of 7 ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, assembled this day of , 20130 ATTEST: Angela Apperson, City Clerk Approved as to legal form and sufficiency For the City of Cape Canaveral only by: Anthony A. Garganese, City Attorney Rocky Randels, Mayor Name III .414 Buzz Petsos Rocky Randels Betty Walsh City of Cape Canaveral Resolution No. 2013 -13 Page 7 of 7 FOR AGAINST Exhibit "A" to Resolution 2013 -13 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE REPORT Prepared for the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida April 2013 RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS. INC. 976 Lake Baldwin Lane Orlando, FL 32814 RAFTELIS 1� FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS. INC. April 3, 2013 Mr. David Greene City Manager City of Cape Canaveral Post Office Box 326 Cape Canaveral, F132920 976 Lake Baldwin Lane Phone 407 .730. 5944 ♦'mrw.raftelis.com Suite 204 Fax 407 a 73 . 5941 Orlando, FL 32814 Subject: Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report Dear Mr. Greene. Pursuant to your request Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. ( "RFC ") has conducted a study to update the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for the City of Cape Canaveral ( "City") Sewer Utility System (the "Utility ") as presented and documented in this Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Report (the "Report"). The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is a mechanism intended to recover capital costs that benefit new connections and existing connections requesting additional service. As updated herein the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees reasonably represent the costs of certain improvements together with related financing costs that provide wastewater services to new connections within the Utility's service area. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees presented herein were developed to be compliant with Section 163.31801 F.S. The updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee represents the maximum amounts supported by the data, assumptions and estimates. The City can elect to establish policies regarding the amount of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee provided that such amount does not exceed the amount identified in this Report. However, it should be clearly understood that amounts not recovered through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees will for the most part be recovered from revenues generated by existing and future user rates and charges. As a final note, our thanks and appreciation to you and other City staff members that provided data and assisted in the development of this update. Very truly yours, R.AFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Marco H. Rocca, CHIC Director of Florida Operations itary Sewer Impact Fee S TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................... ............................... 0000. .......... Overview. . 0 0 # 4 a 6 a 8 4 a & * a a 0 0 a 0 0 # 6 6 0 6 # 0 6 6 0 6 a * 0 f 0 0 0 0 a a a a a a 0 & 0 # 0 a 0 4 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 a a 9 a 0 a a a 4 & 0 0 4 0 4 0 a 0 # 0 a 0 a * 0 0 0 a 0 a a a a a 0 0 0 a a 0 a & a a a a a 0 a 0 0 0 6 0 a 0 1 Findings and Conclusion.... 0000404 3 Findings.............................................................................................................. .............................ES 3 Conclusions........................... ............................... 0000........................... ......... ...........ES 3 ............... ......... INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. ..............................1 General. . 0 # 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 a 0 a 0 4 a D 0 a a 4 0 a 4 0 a 0 a a 9 0 a a 0 9 0 9 a a a a 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 9 a a 0 0 0 a a a a a a 0 a 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 a 0 a 4 4 9 a 9 9 0 r 0 a 0 a a 0 0 * a 9 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a # 6 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 a a a a a 0 a 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 1 . Impact Fee Overview ................................................................................................... ............................... 1 Other Considerations 3 0000.. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH.. sea mass go a a 0 a a am maps 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 4 0 am 0 # 9 0 9 me am 00 0 9 sea 0 2 me D am a a me a a 4 000 0 0 0 5 General............................................................................................................................ ............................... 5 Background.................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 Localized Wastewater Collection. ...................................................................... ............................... .5 Wastewater Transmission ......................... ........ ............................... .................. 5 ............ 0000... ............. isosal ................................................................. ............................... 5 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Methodology and Approach, . # 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 a 0 9 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 a 0 # a 4 0 0 0 0 0 EXPANSION FACILITY CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITIES ........................ ..............................7 General............................................................................................................................ ............................... 7 Wastewater Treatment and Transmission .................................................................. ..............................7 CAPITAL FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS AND CREDIT CRITERIA ............... ............................... 8 General ................... .. .. .....0640... 0000 .... .................. ............................... .................. 8 ............... 0000 ... ... ................... FinancingAssumptions ................................................................................................ ............................... 8 Debt Funded .......................................................................... ............................... .. ............ 8 .................. FinancingTerms .................................................................................................... ............................... 8 arm, a ............................................. ............................... 8 Financing and Credit Cost Coefficients ..................................................................... ............................... 9 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT METHODS ...................................... .............................10 General............................................................................................................................ .............................10 ExistingLevel of Service .............................................................................................. .............................10 UpdatedLevel of Service ............................................................................................. .............................10 AssessmentMethods .................................................................................................... .............................10 ERUBasis.*** a 4 00*4 am a a a a sea a a seems a**** 0 6 0 *a** 0 0 am a same 4 0 0 0 09 * 6 60 # 0 0 0 04 a see 0 a a a as a 0 0 0 am a a a a** 0 or&**** same 0 0 mass 0 600 as a a me a a&&*&* 0 seems sea 4 a 06* me a a 0 1 1 FixtureUnit Basis.... a sea a am**** a a 0 me a a a a a a* of a a me 9 we a a Oda 9 0 9 0 0 am a a sea 0 0* & arm 9 a so am 4 am a a a a mass 9 0 0 0 0 a seems 0 0 a 0000 amp a *a* on a *a* 0 D a am a a&& am a a a 0*000 FlowBasis ............................................................................................................... .............................11 CALCULATION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE ..................................... .............................12 General............................................................................................................................ .............................12 Cost Per Unit of Service and Level of Service Capacity. . 0 a a a a 0 4 a a 0 a 0 a 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Calculation of Treatment and Transmission Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. . 1 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S Comparisonto Existing ............................................................................... ............................... Comparison with Other Utilities ................................................................................. .............................13 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................. .............................15 General............................................................................................................................ .............................15 Findings ........................................................................................................................... .............................15 Conclusions................................................................................................................. ............................... 015 LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES -1 Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees ................. ............................... ES -2 TABLE ES -2 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Comparison ................................... ............................... ES -2 TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 TABLE 6 Sanitary Facility Summary ................................................................. ............................... 7 FinancingAssumptions ..................................................................... ............................... 9 Financing and Credit Coefficients ....-.• ............................................. ..............................9 Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee ...................................... .............................13 Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee ......................... .............................13 Sanitary Sewer Comparison .............................................................. .............................14 LIST OF SCHEDULES SCHEDULE 1 Sanitary Sewer Asset Listing ........................................................ .............................17 SCHEDULE 2 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee by Classification and Amount.... ..21 SCHEDULE 3 Sanitary Sewer Fixture Unit Schedule ........................................ .............................22 ll SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The City of Cape Canaveral (the "City ") requested that Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) update the Sewer System's (the "Utility ") existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee, which is directed at the recovering capital costs for major wastewater facilities. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee was established on May 5, 1992 pursuant to Ordinance 5 -92 and revised to current levels by resolutions. Historically, impact fees for Florida utilities were developed and designed to comply with common law findings; however, in 2006, Section 163.31801 F.S. was added providing specific statutory requirements. The statute was amended July 1, 2009 to require governments prove by preponderance of evidence that the impact fees meet the requirements of the statute and prohibits courts from using deferential standard in court actions. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is a mechanism to recover the costs of capacity - related treatment and major transmission improvements, installed and funded by the City, which provide system capacity benefits for new service and existing connections requesting additional service. Collection of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees is intended to mitigate a portion of the financial burden on existing customers to pay for capacity improvements benefiting future customers. Localized wastewater collection improvements such as gravity sewers and lift stations, etc. together with associated appurtenances and soft costs are generally contributed by the landowner /developer, provided through assessments or otherwise not funded by the Utility, and therefore, are not included for cost recovery through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. This study utilizes a "Consumption" based methodology, which assumes that new service connections will utilize portions of both existing and new facilities; as compared to an "Improvements" based methodology that assumes a new set of service facilities is provided for each increment of new service. Improvements included for cost recovery through the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee include wastewater Treatment and Transmission (major backbone) facilities funded through resources of the Utility (reserve funds, bond proceeds, grants and contribution through agreements). Wastewater Treatment and Transmission activities are considered the primary functional services for Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee purposes. The approach to determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount for each functional service consists of dividing the adjusted improvement costs (including financing costs less amounts recovered from grants and other sources) by the average day capacity of such improvements resulting in a cost per gallon per day (gpd) of capacity. The study process also considers idend ring the appropriate level of service (LOS) for each of these functional services. Costs, capacities and other pertinent data were provided by the City's Public Works Services staff along with guidance concerning LOS criteria. The study incorporated considerations for financing costs and importantly credits associated with revenues provided from sources other than Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The appropriateness of the LOS criteria contained in the existing Code was reviewed for both applicability and appropriateness. After reviews and discussions with City staff, it was determined that the sanitary sewer LOS should be revised to better reflect the characteristics of customers within the City's service area. A summary of the updated and existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee and LOS for an Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) are shown below in Table ES4. It should be noted that the existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee presented below is based on the existing LOS, which differs from the updated LOS. Therefore, the amount difference is attributed to a combination of both cost per gpd and the revised sanitary sewer LOS. Executive Summary Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S ES4. Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees LOS Treatment Transmission Total Updated 240 gpd /ERU $1,135.20 $213960 $1,348.80 Existing 198 gpd /ERU $1,940.38 $397.43 $23337.81 Amount Difference ($805.18) ($183.83) ($989.01) Percent Difference -41% -46% 42% Comparisons of the City's existing and updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees to those of Other Communes for new residential wastewater service (representati iti ve of 1 ERU) are provided in Table ES -2. The amounts shown for Other Communities are based on the schedules that were in effect as of October 1, 2012 and do not include charges for other customer service related fees applied to new system connections (i.e. tap fees, application fees, inspection fees, etc.) Caution should be taken when comparing impact fees as difference can be attributed to various reasons including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Compliance status with Chapter 163.31801 F.S.; 2. Cost used by others may not be representative of actual or "Current Local Costs;" 3. Level of financing costs recovered; 4. The LOS criteria may be either higher or lower; 5. Other cost recovery from contributions, grants or other sources may be applicable; 6. Local government may elect to phase -in or not implement the total recovery amounts; and 7. Treatment processes and availability of resources may be different. Table ES -2. Sanitation Sewer Impact Fee Comparison ' Single Family / 1 ERC Amount LOS (gpd) City of Cape Canaveral Existing $2,337.81 198.24 Updated $13348.80 240.00 Other Communities Barefoot Bay $275.00 150.00 North Brevard 671.00 1 -3 bedrooms Indian River County 2,796.00 300.00 City of Cocoa 13250.00 250.00 City of Cocoa Beach 23200.00 275.00 City of Holly Hill 15908.00 234.00 City of Melbourne 1558100 240.00 City of New Smyrna Beach 15250.00 250.00 City of Ormond Beach 1,950.00 15 F.U.s City of Palm Bay 25965.00 210.00 City of Vero Beach 231290.00 15 F.U.s City of West Melbourne 331000000 300.00 Average of Other Communities $12844.83 1. Per the community's ERU equivalency basis unless otherwise noted. ES 2 Executive S Sewer Impact Fee S Discussions with City staff identified a need to also provide for alternative methods of determining Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for new connections that would: 1) accommodate a variety of circumstances; and 2) be easily understood and applied. To address these needs three alternative methods were developed that allow for accurate and convenient assessment of a connection's ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. The concept is that each of these methods would be available such that new customer's characteristics can easily be associated with one of methods through the classification and application process. Findings and Conclusion In the preparation of this Report, certain information has been used and relied upon that was provided by other entities including the City. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the Utility's capital improvements plan, SRF loans, asset depreciation summary /listing, capacities, cost data, fee schedules for the City and other Communities, and other information provided by or through the City. Additionally, reasonably conservative assumptions were developed to establish the basis for certain required study elements that are not, have not or cannot be specifically defined through existing data. To the extent that future conditions differ from those assumed and utilized in the Report, the results of the analyses may vary from those developed herein. Findings 1. The City's recordkeeping provides sufficient information to address the requirements of updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 2. The Utility's service area is not expected to require any wastewater capacity expansions. 3. The LOS criteria should be updated to better reflect the characteristics of the potable water provider and Utility customers. 4. The method of determining and assessing the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be revised and expanded to better accommodate different requests for service. Conclusions Based on the reviews, analyses and assumptions provided herein, it is concluded that: 1. Due to the adequacy of Treatment and Transmission capacity to provide for the service area future needs, the current local cost requirements in updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein are based on actual and expansion - related actual costs. 2. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee developed herein reflects net amounts that are equitable and provide for reasonable recovery without exceeding current local cost of the capital improvements associated with providing wastewater capacity to new connections. 3. The City currently imposes other connection charges, deposits and other fees for new customers connecting to the system. Such fees are related to recovery of operating costs associated with establishing a new customer rather than capacity to serve the customer. As such, these other charges are not related to the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 4. As available the updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be budgeted to pay for the expansion related portion of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan debt service, which will reduce the burden on user rates. Furthermore, Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees collected beyond the retirement of the SRF loans can be used to reimburse the Utility for historic debt payments made at times when Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues were insufficient. 5. The City should have a policy in determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee which states the amount owed shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated in one of the 3 methods discussed herein. ES 3 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY INTRODUCTION General The City of Cape Canaveral (the "City") requested that Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) update the existing Sanitary Sewer system's (the "Utility") impact fee, which is directed at recovering capital costs for major sanitary sewer facilities. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee was established on May 5, 1992 pursuant to Ordinance 5 -92 and revised to current levels by resolutions and may not adequately reflect the appropriated cost recovery for facilities providing wastewater services within the service area. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees paid by new and increased service connections is a mechanism to appropriately recover the facility costs for such services; thereby, reducing or eliminating the burden on existing connections to subsidize improvements for the benefit of new service connections. Localized wastewater collection improvements such as gravity sewers and lift stations, etc. together with associated appurtenances and soft costs are generally contributed by the landowner /developer, provided through assessments or otherwise not funded by the Utility, and therefore, are not included for cost recovery through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The purpose of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is to assign, to the extent practical, growth- related capital costs to those customers responsible for such additional costs. Sound financial and equitable cost recovery practice promotes the assignment of the identifiable additional growth related capital costs for utility services to connections responsible for such costs rather than existing connections. Generally, this practice has been labeled as "gromrth paying for growth" without burden on existing connections. Impact Fee Overview Impact fees are referred to by a number of different terms including impact fees, capital charges, capital facility charges, facility fees, connection fees, capacity reservation charges, system development charges, capital connection charges or other similar terminology. In general, these are one -time charges established as a means to recover in whole or in part, but not to exceed, the costs associated with system capacity. Such capital costs generally include the construction of improvements together with general plant, engineering, administration, surveying, land, legal and financing costs. Historically, impact fees in Florida were a result of home rule powers with the requirements associated with the development, administration, accounting and expenditure governed by case law. However, in 2006, Section 163.31801 was added to the Florida Statues, which reinforced, enhanced, clarified and added to the provisions of case law. This section was amended in 2009 and Section 163.31801 F.S. is currently as follows. 163.31801 Impact Fees; short title; intent; definitions; ordinances levying impact fees. (1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Impact Fee Act." (2) The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Legislature further finds that impact fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth of impact fee collections and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that, when a city or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing city complies with this section. 1 Introduction itary Sewer Impact Fee S (3) An impact fee adopted by ordinance of a city or municipality or by resolution of a special district must, at minimum. a. Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based on the most recent and localized data. b. Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures. If a local governmental entity imposes an impact fee to address its infrastructure needs, the entity shall account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate accounting fund. c. Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs. d. Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or amended impact fee. (4) Audits of financial statements of local governmental entities and district school boards which are performed by a certified public accountant pursuant to s. 218.39 and submitted to the Auditor General must include an affidavit signed by the chief financial officer of the local governmental entity or district school board stating that the local governmental entity or district school board has complied with this section. (5) In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential standard. History. —s. 9, ch. 2006 -218; s. 1, ch. 2009 -49; s. 5, ch. 2009 -96; s. 5, ch. 2011 -14; s. 1, ch. 2011 -149. Although the statute provides criteria, certain precedents originally set by common law need to be addressed to meet the legal requirements associated with impact fees. Common law precedent for impact fees in Florida was originally set in the landmark Florida Supreme Court decision, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County vs. City of Dunedin, Florida. The litigation and judgment regarding the validity of capital - related fees provides that an equitable cost recovery mechanism, such as impact fees, can be levied for a specific purpose by a Florida municipality as a capital fee for services. In the ruling, the court identified certain conditions as necessarily present in order to have a valid fee. In general, the court decision addressed the following: 1. The impact fee should be reasonably equitable to all parties; that is, the amount of the fee must bear a relationship to the amount of services requested; 2. The system of fees and charges should be set up so that there is not an intentional windfall to existing users; 3. The impact fee should, to the extent practical, only cover the capital cost of construction and related costs thereto (engineering, legal, financing, administrative, etc.) for increases in or expansions of capacity or capital requirements that are required solely due to growth. Therefore, expenses due to normal renewal and replacement of a facility (e.g., replacement of a capital asset) should be borne by all users of the facility or municipality. Similarly, increased expenses due to operation and maintenance of that facility should be borne by all users of the facility; and 4. The local government must adopt a revenue - producing ordinance that explicitly sets forth restrictions on revenues (uses thereof) that the imposition of the impact fee generates. Therefore, the funds collected from the impact fees should be retained in a separate account, and separate accounting must be made for those funds to ensure that they are used only for the lawful purposes described. Based on the criteria provided above, the development of impact fees herein will: 1) include local current costs of improvements associated with the capacities to serve new customers, 2) not reflect costs of improvements associated with the renewal and replacement (R &R) of existing capital assets E Introduction Sani Sewer Im Fee that are allocable to existing users of the system; and 3) not include any costs of operation and maintenance of the improvements associated with the system. It is also important to note the relationship of the local government's Comprehensive Plan to the use of impact fees for funding incremental capital improvements. The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act requires capital expenditures and local development regulations to be consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Other Considerations In addition to the Dunedin decision, there have been several other landmark cases dealing with the levying of impact fees in Florida. In the Hollywood, Inc. vs Bmward County case, a challenge was made regarding the applicability of levying a capital charge for parks and recreation. Essentially, the Broward County ordinance provided for a park contribution agreement between the developer and the County and directed that a fee per residential unit be collected. The court upheld the imposition of the fee and addressed the more difficult question of whether the ordinance was constitutional. The major criteria associated with this case dealt with whether the fee was correlated to the benefit received (the "Rational Nexus Test "). As stated in the decision, the government must show a reasonable connection or correlation between the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits that accrue to the payee. In order to satis this requirement, the ordinance must specifically earmark capital charge funds for acquiring capital improvements that benefit new residents. Palm Beach County adopted a "Fair Share Contribution for Road Improvements" ordinance requiring payment of a transportation capital charge prior to the issuance of a building permit to address a degrading level of service resulting from growth. The capital charge based on estimated trip generation rates for particular customer classes survived a challenge by the Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County per the findings that the fee was not a tax having met the Rational Nexus Test. The courts in Florida determined and affirmed that impact fees are valid to fund increased capital cost associated with the incremental improvements for growth. Specifically, impact fees must represent the incremental cost of the capital improvements to provide services for increased growth of the jurisdiction and some reasonable basis must exist between the amount of the fee and the benefits accrued to the new or incremental customer. Furthermore, impact fees are not considered special assessments or additional taxes. A special assessment is predicated upon an estimated increment in value to the property assessed by virtue of the improvement being constructed in the vicinity of the property and the assessment must be directly and reasonably related to the benefit the property receives. Impact fees are more directly related to the value of the improvements and to the level of service provided to the property. With respect to a comparison to taxes, impact fees are distinguishable primarily in the direct relationship between the impact fee amount and the measurable quantity of benefits /improvements. Regarding taxation, there are no requirements that payments be in proportion to the quantity of public services consumed and funds received by a local government from taxes can be expended for any legitimate public purpose. It should be further noted that the calculation of impact fees involves the use of a significant amount of historical capital cost, funding and engineering data. To this extent, the courts have also stated that: "costs of . . . Rutherford v. City of Omaha, supra 160 N.W.2d at 228. 3 Introduction Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Stud The above represents a very limited non -legal overview of impact fee legal criteria for general information purposes only. No legal assurances are given nor should any be interpreted by the reader on the summary provided herein. Actual legal opinion should be obtained from the City's legal counsel on such matters. SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH General The selection and use of a methodology and approach are vital in development of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for full compliance with the applicable statutes and case law. Since there are several different methodologies it is important to fully understand the background of the capital costs providing benefits and delivery of associated benefits. Background Properties within the Utility's service area are provided sanitary sewer services through three distinguishable utility functional service improvements categories: 1) Localized Wastewater Collection; 2) Wastewater Transmission; and 3) Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. These functional service improvements are further described below. Localized Wastewater Collection These improvements consist of localized piping and equipment that serve as the conduit for wastewater service between the wastewater Transmission improvements and the customer's point of connection. Wastewater Transmission These improvements consist of interceptor (trunk) gravity lines, master - pumping stations, and selected force mains serving as the backbone piping transferring wastewater from localized wastewater collection improvements to the wastewater plant. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal These improvements generally consist of treatment, disposal and sludge management equipment and buildings. Disposal is generally provided through the reclaimed water facilities. Cost recovery through the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is limited to wastewater improvements associated with Treatment and Transmission (major backbone). Such improvements are generally funded through resources of the Utility including bond proceeds, loans, grants, developer agreements, and utility reserve funds. Treatment and Transmission improvements are considered as the primary functional service facilities for impact fee purposes. The remaining Localized Collection improvements are site specific with costs that can vary from location to location within the service area. Therefore, the Utility's uniform policy should require that such Localized Collection costs be paid through developer contributions, assessments programs or other methods that do not involve subsidies by properties not benefiting from such improvements. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Methodology and Approach This study utilizes a "Consumption" based methodology, wluch assumes that new service connections will utilize portions of both existing and new improvements; as compared to an "Improvements" based methodology that assumes a new set of service improvements is provided for each new service connection. The approach to determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for each functional service consists of dividing the adjusted improvement costs by the average day capacity of such improvements resulting in an adjusted cost per gallon per day (gpd) of capacity. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee methodology provides that the amount to be recovered adequately and reasonably represents the current costs of expansion improvements consistent with the level of Methodology and A Sanitary Sewer Fee S service (LOS) provided by the Utility. More specifically, the methodology uses current costs, plus financing costs, less any related cost recovery from other sources resulting in the establishment of the total cost basis. The cost basis is then divided by the ADD facility capacities taking into consideration inflow and infiltration (I &I) and other operating criteria. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount to be charged is determined by LOS needs, which are also representative of ADD criteria. The approach to address the methodology is predicated on establishing a uniform cost per unit of capacity for each area of functional service. These uniform costs per unit of capacity are then related to the LOS capacity associated for each customer class, size of connection or other criteria relative to the connection's request for service. Identification of current expansion facility cost and related capacities for the utility functional services along with the LOS criteria for water and wastewater service provides the basis for the cost per unit of capacity relationship. The total current facility cost is adjusted to consider financing cost and interest, less credit for contributions, grants, and /or amounts included in user fees for the amortization of debt related to the capital improvements. This results in the current cost basis for each of the primary functional services. The related capacity is also adjusted to consider I &I associated with wastewater. The cost per unit of capacity for each of the primary functional services is determined utilizing the current cost basis and adjusted LOS capacities. The tasks associated with this approach consist of identifying: 1. Current costs for each functional service element based on information provided by the Utility's staff. This information consists of capital asset records that either represent or are adjusted to reflect facility actual cost associated with complete functional services, including land, general plant, engineering, permitting and all other relative soft costs. 2. Relative capacity and engineering design criteria for each functional service component associated with the project costs. 3. Historic and current policies on funding capital cost for Treatment and Transmission functional service improvements. 4. Relative financing costs and interest expense associated with the funding policies of the Utility. 50 Credits attributed to cost recovery provided by grants and other sources. 6. Relative cost per unit of capacity. Data for the identification of current facility costs and related capacities were obtained from the accounting and operating records of the Utility as reviewed and noted by the City's Public Works Services staff. Wastewater capacity analyses are generally based on the average day design capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. Wastewater Transmission capacities are rated with consideration for infiltration and inflow. As previously discussed, credits or adjustments to eliminate the potential of double payment or over recovery of facility costs are considered based on the Utility's current financing policies, capital structure and relative amount of expansion improvements funded from existing debt. The System has two items that are directing the approach consisting of: 1) the service area is nearly built out, therefore, the amount of new connections to the system is limited; and 2) no further expansion of capacity to Treatment or Transmission is contemplated. These two items modify the approach such that the facility costs basis instead of current local cost will be predicated on the recorded actual cost basis. 6 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY EXPANSION FACILITY CAPITAL COSTS AND CAPACITIES General The process of establishing current facility costs that reasonably reflect the costs associated with the relative capacities of such improvements consists of: (i) identify the original costs associated with improvements to the facilities through the 1995 and 1996 SRF loans; and (ii) allocating costs across appropriate functional improvement areas. Data for existing improvements, actual costs and capacities were obtained from City records as reviewed by City staff. Since no material expansion is anticipated within the service area and the existing facilities have sufficient capacities to meet the forecasted capacity requirements, no CIP is included in this Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee update. Wastewater Treatment and Transmission Wastewater Treatment improvements consist of wastewater treatment plants and any direct disposal /reclaimed water facilities. Transmission improvements consist of force mains and master pumping stations located throughout the service area. Localized collection improvements consisting mainly of gravity sewers and local lift stations are not included as wastewater Transmission improvements. The existing wastewater Treatment and Transmission costs and capacities are summarized in Table 1. These costs and capacities were provided by the City's Director of Public Works Services based on asset records as shown in Schedule 1. Table 1. Sanitary Sewer Facility Summary Capacity Item Existing' CIP 2 Total (MGD) Transmission Mains Subtotal Treatment Plant General PlanO $3,052,294 $3,052,294 $14,375,602 1 $3.052,294 $0 $3,0525294 1.80 $0 $1453751602 - 940,071 Subtotal $153031530673 $0 $15,31531673 Total $18303673967 $0 $18,3675967 1. Categorized facilities and costs provided by City; Schedule 1. 2. System has sufficient capacity for the foreseeable future. 3. Land and 70% of total of General Plant allocated to Sanitary Sewer, 7 Woolf] SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY' CAPITAL FINANCING ASSUMPTIONS AND CREDIT CRITERIA General Development of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee for full cost recovery less credits requires that capital financing costs are included and amounts anticipated to be recovered from other sources of revenues are excluded (credits). The Utility's capital structure is based on the mixed use of long- term debt, user fees and Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees to fund the improvements. As a result, it is necessary to account for financing costs associated with the long -term debt including interest over the life of the debt. These financing costs are directly related to the benefits provided by system's capacity improvements. Since cash flows derived from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees do not coincide with the timing of annual debt service payment requirements, the Utility is required to use user fee revenues to amortize the debt associated with both the used and reserve system capacities. This requires that consideration of credits to address the amounts provided by other revenue sources, primarily user fees, is incorporated in the updating of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee to eliminate over recovery or payments above the identified amounts. Financing Assumptions The process to determine the level and costs of financing for the purpose of identifying appropriate credits consist of developing assumptions associated with the: (i) relative portion of expansion improvements funded through debt; (ii) financing terms associated with the capital funding program used by the City; (iii) portion of the expansion debt anticipated to be paid from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees; and (iv) relative portion of debt service paid by other revenue sources. These assumptions as summarized in Table 2 are used to develop the Financing and Credit Cost Coefficients discussed in this Report. Debt Funded A review of the historical Treatment and Transmission funding activities together with discussions with City staff identified that the improvements were funded from grants, SRF loans and direct Utility cash resources. Financing Terms For the purpose of this study, financing terms for long -term debt consist of. (i) average number of years based on the SRF loans; (ii) average interest of the SRF loans; (iii) issuance cost associated with the SRF loans; and (iv) assuming an average of 1.50 years of capitalized interest for the SRF loans. Debt Service Paid by Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Full recovery through the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is not practical due to the lag time between the funding /construction of improvements and Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees derived from the connection of new customers. As a result, the development of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein assumes that future Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues will be used to amortize the existing debt and to the extent available reimburse the Utility's reserve fund. The debt service not paid from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues are provided from user fees and constitute the basis for certain credits in the determination of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee this update. 0 Capital Financing Assumptions and Credit Criteria Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study Table 2. Financing Assumptions Item Criteria Debt Funded 53.66% Amortized by Impact Fee 46.34% SRF Loans $1.2238 Term (Years) 20 Interest Rate 3.05% Issuance Expense 2.00% Capitalized Interest Yrs 1.50 Financing and Credit Cost Coefficients The financing assumptions are used to develop individual coefficients that cumulatively reflect the total facility cost and consist of: 1) debt financing costs; 2) debt interest expense; and 3) credits arising from cost recovery for expansion improvements derived from sources other than Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees (primarily User Fees). The Utility's funding for the existing facilities utilized two primary sources of funding for the improvements to be recovered from Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenue: 1) Direct, which consist of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee reserves that are directly used to pay the cost of improvements, (Direct also includes expansion improvement contributions in lieu of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees); and 2) Debt, which consist of proceeds derived from the SRF loans. Grants will be addressed later as the credit against cost. Table 3 provides a summary of the salient coefficients used in the calculation of total cost and credits. Table 3. Financing and Credit Coefficients Project Debt Financing Costs Total Interest Expense Total Requirement Provided by User Fees Impact Fee Requirement Direct Debt Total $0.4634 $0.5366 $1.0000 0.0115 0.0115 0.2123 0.2123 $0.4634 $0.7604 $1.2238 0.7224 0.7224 ® $0.5014 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUD' LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT METHODS Dvrj �- - --- The approach to updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein takes into consideration City policy regarding LOS for the Sanitary Sewer system. The LOS is an important element that contributes to equitable recovery of costs and should reflect the potential flow characteristics of customers within the Utility's service area. Assessment methods refer to the process used to determine the amount of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee, based on the uniform LOS standard, for connections of differing classifications and flow characteristics on an equitable basis. Existing Level of Service The City's Comprehensive Plan provides the Sanitary Sewer LOS for single family, multi- family and mobile homes to be approximately 198 gpd per household (118 gpd /person at 1.68 persons /household based on 2010 population data). Furthermore, for commercial connections, the LOS is based on the schedule found in the City's Code's Appendix B — Schedule of Fees, Chapter 78 — Utilities. For Industrial and other commercial facilities not specifically mentioned in Appendix B. the Code provides that the determination of the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee will be predicated on the number of fixture units divided by 18 (single family equivalent) or the number of workers in an office building but not less than $2,337.81. After review and discussion with City staff it was concluded that both the existing LOS and assessment methods are confusing and present City staff with challenges to identify equitable Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for new connections other that residential. The City's water provider, City of Cocoa, uses 265 gpd as the LOS for potable water. This relatively low potable water LOS together with reclaimed water available to many properties, means that the Sanitary Sewer LOS needs to reflect a flow that is less than potable water. Updated Level of Service After a review of the current LOS standards and discussions with City staff it was determined that the standard for customers should be adjusted to better reflect the community's characteristics. Single family residential properties in nearby coastal communities generally have wastewater LOS criteria in the range of 150 to 275 gpd. Data obtained during the Utility's last rate study together with operating records indicate that wastewater demand for single family properties suggest a LOS of 240 gpd per ERU. This updated LOS also correlates well with both the potable water LOS of 265 gpd per ERU and a 16 fixture unit loading standard for single family residential properties in the Utility's service area. Assessment Methods A critical need in determining the appropriate amount of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee to be paid by properties other that residential dwelling units relies on the methods used to equate the LOS of such other properties to that establish for an ERU. Discussions with City staff identified a need to provide for alternative methods that would. 1) accommodate a variety of circumstances; and 2) be easily understood and applied. To address these needs three alternative methods were developed consisting of. W1; Level of Service and Assessment Methods Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee ERU Basis This method utilizes a table that reflects ERUs associated with characteristics of typical residential and commercial applications, as provided in Schedule 2, to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. This method provides for the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount to be calculated by: 1) accumulating the applicant's ERU pursuant to the appropriate characteristics in the Schedule 2; 2) rounding the ERU to the nearest tenth; and 3) multiplying the ERUs by the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. The ERU for categories not included in this table are required to be determined using one of the other methods. Fixture Unit Basis This method consists of determining total Sewer Load Factor by utilizing the number of fixture units associated with the applicant's property, as provided in Schedule 3, to determine the appropriate ERU and corresponding Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. This method provides for the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount to be calculated by: 1) accumulating the applicant's total Sewer Load Factor pursuant to the provisions in Schedule 3; 2) multiplying the total Sewer Load Factor by the load factor per fixture unit of 15 gpd; 3) di- %iding the resulting gpd by the LOS criteria of 240 gpd /ERU; 4) rounding the ERUs to the nearest tenth; and 5) multiplying the rounded ERUs by the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. Flow Basis This method requires that the applicant provide the property's average daily gpd of sewer flow to determine the appropriate Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee amount. This method provides that the property's requested average daily gpd of sewer flow capacity is: 1) divided by the LOS criteria of 240 gpd /ERU; 2) rounding the ERUs to the nearest tenth; and 3) multiply the rounded ERUs by the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee per ERU. 11 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY CALCULATION OF SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE General Updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee requires that the current cost per unit of service and Level of Service Capacity be identified for each functional semce. Once identified the cost per unit of service is then used together with the LOS criteria to establish the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. Cost Per Unit of Service and Level of Service Capacity Prior sections of this Report provided the cost basis, system capacities and financing assumptions for each functional service. In determining the cost per unit of service it is necessary to: (i) adjust the capital costs for grants; (ii) include costs incurred for funding the capital improvements; and (iii) adjust to address probable amounts provided from sources other than Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees. The remaining amount subsequent to these adjustments represents the Total Cost Basis utilized to determine the Cost per Unit of Service. The updated LOS criteria discussed earlier represent capacity levels at the customer's point of connection. To maintain consistency between the LOS criteria and facility capacities used to determine the Cost per Unit of Service, it is necessary to adjust the facility capacities to account for additional flows from inflow and infiltration (I &I). Information provided by City staff suggests that an I &I allowance of 10 percent reasonably represents the current system conditions. The adjustment for I &I reduces the Treatment and Transmission facility capacities from 1.8 MGD to 1.62 MGD, which is representative of capacity available at the customer's point of connection on an average day basis. Calculation of Treatment and Transmission Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees The calculation of the Sanitary Sewer Treatment and Transmission Impact Fee based on the data and assumptions discussed heretofore are provided in Table 4. The first portion of the table provides for the costs and grant reductions providing the Net Cost Basis. The second portion provides for the inclusion of financing and interest cost, which results in a Subtotal that is reduced by probable amounts anticipated to be recovered from other sources, leaving the Impact Fee Cost Basis. The next portion reduces the system capacities by the I &I allowance providing the Net Level of System Capacity, which when divided into the Impact Fee Cost Basis provides the Cost per Unit of Service. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee is the result of multiplying the Cost per Unit of Service by the LOS associated with a connection. For one ERU the LOS is 240 gpd, which results in a combined Treatment and Transmission Sanitary Sewer Impact of $1,348.80. 12 Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S Table 4. Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Item Treatment Transmission Total Cost Basis $15331530673 $3300523294 $183367,967 Less Grants 2331250 189,120 2125370 Net Cost Basis Financing Cost Interest Cost $ 15,2921423 $2,863,174 $18,155597 176,000 3330000 2091000 312463000 60811000 3,8545000 Subtotal $1817143423 $3,504,174 $22,218597 User Fee Credit 11,046,000 2,0682000 13,114,000 Impact Fee Cost Basis $736681423 $134361174 $9,104597 System Capacity: Average Day Capacity in MGD 1.80 1.80 Allowance for Infiltration and Inflow 10.00% 10.00% Net Level of Service Capacity MGD 1962 1.62 Impact Fee Determinants: Cost Per Unit of Service $433 $0.89 $5.62 Level of Service (gpd) 240 240 Impact Fee $1,135020 $21160 $1,348.80 Comparison to Existing A summary of the updated and existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees are shown in Table 5. It should be noted that the existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee presented below at based on the existing LOS, which differs from the updated LOS. Therefore, portions of the differences are attributed to a combination of both the Cost per Unit of Service and the proposed adjusted LOS. Table 5. Updated and Existing Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee LOS Treatment Transmission Total Updated 240 gpd /ERU $1,135820 $21160 $1,348980 Existing 198 gpd /ERU $1,940.38 $397.43 $2,337.81 Amount Difference ($805.18) ($183.83) ($989901) Percent Difference -41% -46% 42% Comparison with Other Utilities The comparisons provided in Table 6 identify the capacity- related charges for new residential wastewater connections for one equivalency calculated under the existing and updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees of the City and those of Other Utilities. The amounts shown for Other Utilities are based on the schedules in effect as of October 1, 2012 and do not include other customer service- related fees applied to new system connections (i.e. tap fees, application fees, inspection fees, etc.) Caution should be taken when comparing impact fees for many reasons including the following: 1. Cost used by others may not be representative of "Current Local Costs ;" 2. The LOS criteria may be either higher or lower; 3. Other cost recovery from contributions, grants or other sources may be applicable; 13 Calculation of Sewer Fees Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S 4. Local government may elect to phase -in or not implement the total recovery amounts; and 5. Treatment processes and availability of resources may be different. Table 6. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Comparisons ' Single Family / 1 ERU Amount LOS (gpd) City of Cape Canaveral Existing $210337.81 198424 Proposed $1,348.80 240900 Other Communities Barefoot Bay $275.00 150.00 North Brevard 671.00 1 -3 bedrooms City of Cocoa 1,250.00 250.00 City of Cocoa Beach 22200.00 275.00 City of Holly Hill 13908.00 234.00 City of Melbourne 1358100 240.00 City of New Smyrna Beach 1,250.00 250.00 City of Ormond Beach 15950.00 15 F.U.s City of Palm Bay 2,965.00 210.00 City of Vero Beach 25290.00 15 F.U.s City of West Melbourne 3,000.00 300.00 Average of Other Communities $13075836 1. Per the community's ERU equivalency basis unless otherwise noted. 14 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS General In the preparation of this Report, certain information has been used and relied upon that was provided by other entities including the City. Such information includes, but is not limited to, the Utility's capital improvements plan, SRF loans, asset depreciation summary /listing, capacities, cost data, fee schedules for the City and other Communities, and other information provided by or through the City. Additionally, reasonably conservative assumptions were developed to establish the basis for certain required study elements that are not, have not or cannot be specifically defined through existing data. To the extent that future conditions differ from those assumed and utilized in the Report, the results of the analyses may vary from those developed herein. Findings 1. The City's recordkeeping provides sufficient information to address the requirements of updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 2. The Utility's service area is not expected to require any wastewater capacity expansions. 3. The LOS criteria should be updated to better reflect the characteristics of the potable water provider and Utility customers. 4. The method of determining and assessing the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be revised and expanded to better accommodate different requests for service. Conclusions Based on the reviews, analyses and assumptions provided herein, it is concluded that: 1. Due to the adequacy of Treatment and Transmission capacity to provide for the service area future needs, the current local cost requirements in updating the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee herein are based on actual and expansion- related actual costs. 2. The Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee developed herein reflects net amounts that are equitable and provide for reasonable recovery without exceeding current local cost of the capital improvements associated with providing wastewater capacity to new connections. 30 The City currently imposes other connection charges, deposits and other fees for new customers connecting to the system. Such fees are related to recovery of operating costs associated with establishing a new customer rather than capacity to serve the customer. As such, these other charges are not related to the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee. 4. As available the updated Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee can be budgeted to pay for the expansion related portion of the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan debt service, which will reduce the burden on user rates. Furthermore, Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees collected beyond the retirement of the SRF loans can be used to reimburse the Utility for historic debt payments made at times when Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee revenues were insufficient. 5. The City should have a policy in determining the Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee which states the amount owed shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated in one of the 3 methods discussed herein. 15 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE STUDY SCHEDULES 16 Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE 1 SANITARY SEWER ASSET LISTING Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 15023 GP Improves Other than Bldg. 9/30/1991 $10,196.34 15029 GP Crew Room /Labor & Material 3/5/1993 4,781912 1712 GP BOD Incubator 1/16/1987 1,846.88 1737 GP Chlorine Kit B 7/31/1987 11004.70 1783 GP Hose Tester & Adapter 9/16/1988 12654.95 2079 GP Sterilizer 5/24/1991 4,346.00 2181 GP Analytical Balance 12/20/1991 2,285.00 2182 GP PH Meter 12/20/1991 11)888.00 2234 GP Refrigerator 8/11/1992 1,875.00 2266 GP Air Pack /Case - Crew Room 1/1/1994 2,772.50 2267 GP Concrete Mixer 1/1/1994 3,066900 2296 GP 5000 Watt Generator 6/17/1994 1,367.10 2306 GP Analytical Scale 12/20/1994 1,93161 2323 GP MCD Duplicator 9/29/1995 1,375.00 2413 GP Public Works Admin. Bldg. 9/30/1996 601)550.00 2417 GP Water Jacketed Incubator 8/13/1996 2,480.26 2425 GP Roof & Mansard on Maint. Build 8/21/1997 2,886.00 2487 GP Hydraulic Press 5/7/1997 3,230.25 2489 GP 1997 Harben Sewer Pipe Cleaner 6/23/1997 29,762.00 2498 GP Cabinets & Counters 2/3/1997 11176.00 2499 GP Lettering on Plant 1/21/1997 1,200.00 2518 GP Portable Liquid Sampler 3/11/1998 3,001.90 2522 GP Lifepak 10C Monitor /Difibrillator 2/19/1998 6,492.50 2525 GP Trbidmeter 3/11/1998 1590.00 2528 GP 900Max All Weather Refrig Smpl 4/8/1998 41995900 2565 GP Lab Expansion 3/30/1998 332129.42 2585 GP CL2 Titrimeter 6/11/1999 25111600 2586 GP Fume Hood & Assembly 6/24/1999 10,872.02 2594 GP Spectrophoto Meter 2/22/1999 4,662.00 2608 GP Acid Storage Cabinet 5/10/1999 110550.00 2612 GP Self Contained Breathing Appar 9/23/1999 3,187.49 2654 GP PH Meter 4/4/1999 22195.97 2658 GP Ikon Digital Copier 3/31/2000 10577100 2663 GP Microscope Phase 115V/60 2/3/2000 1,659.72 2683 GP Elect Cabinet /Workstation 1/25/2000 1,788.55 2749 GP Elite SL300 Security Gate 1/25/2001 5,095.00 3001 GP Heart Defribrillator 1/10/2001 15,106.55 3022 GP BOD Refrigerator 5/10/2001 31604.22 3023 GP Flask Heater 5/25/2001 1,883.85 3063 GP Posicheck 3 Air Pack Maint. Tester 4/12/2001 2,266.90 3064 GP Maintenance Building 9/27/2001 4,650.00 3085 GP Maintenance Building 9/30/2002 1,500.00 3098 GP Lightning Protection System 4/26/2002 4,950.00 3100 GP Pressure Washer 5/9/2002 23017195 3213 GP Lab Pure Water System 12/20/2002 6,419.37 3399 GP A/C System 5 -Ton 1/28/2005 2,345.00 3400A GP Server & Installation 4/7/2005 230078.16 3400B GP Server & Installation 4/7/2005 3,705.65 3404 GP Konica Copier 1/23/2004 18,241.76 3458 GP Chlorine Titrator 3/14/2005 3,022.00 3459 GP Autoclave Steralizer & Stand 3/24/2005 6,797.42 17 Schedules SCHEDULE 1 CONT. Asset Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee S Purchase Date Cast 3460 GP Total Chlorine Process Analyzer 6/29/2005 $2,611.75 3461 GP All Weather Sampler (Refrigerated) 4/22/2005 4,933.70 3462 GP Motor CTL Room A/C Unit 7/15/2005 1,950.00 3520 GP Office Furniture -Asst PW Director 1/10/2006 1,048.44 3521 GP Office Furniture -Env. Analyst 4/7/2006 12365.86 3523 GP Macro Kjeldahl Heating Mantle 2/21/2006 231264900 3524 GP Turbidity Meter 2/21/2006 1,950900 3548A GP Caterpillar 416D Backhoe Loader 8/25/2006 39,313.50 3560 GP Spectrophoto Meter 6/5/2006 11,572.00 3579 GP 2100N IS Laboratory Turbidimeter 3/26/2007 12758.00 3580 GP Sigma 900 Max Sampler 3/26/2007 5,790900 3585 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 1,750.00 3586 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 1,750.00 3587 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 1,750.00 3588 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 12750.00 3589 GP Lifepak 500 AED Defibrillator 9/28/2006 1,750.00 3605 GP GLI /Hach P53 PH Moonitor & Probe 9/11/2006 1,462.00 3606 GP Public Works Maint. Bldg 12/20/2005 27,922.07 360610 GP Public Works Maint. Building Improvements 1/31/2007 2391P634.98 360620 GP Public Works Maint. Building 11/27/2007 35330162995 360630 GP PW Maint. Building Impact Fee 11/26/2008 11728.00 3615 GP Weather Station 6/15/2006 1,055.50 3650 GP NAPCO 8000 Water Jacketed Incubator 3/26/2007 4,423.38 3651 GP Top Loading Balance Meter 3/26/2007 2,986.20 3653 GP P53 pH Meter with Probe 1/26/2007 1,450.00 3681 GP 2007 Dodge Caravan SE 5/18/2007 181P176.10 3689 GP Trane Air Conditioner -Admin Bldg 11/27/2007 41075.00 3698 GP Commercial Link Fencing for PW Facility 4/3/2008 6,200.00 3708 GP Steamscrubber Freestanding Dishwasher 12/13/2007 5,176.30 3712 GP Office Furniture for Plant Supervisor 3/4/2008 2,558.12 3713 GP Xerox Work Centre 7132 2/1/2008 7,480.00 3716 GP Office Furniture for Asst. PDT' Director 6/13/2008 110351.04 3719 GP Shelves for New Maint. Building 5/21/2008 3,479.85 379123 GP Nebutel 20mb Point -to -Point Antenna Towers 4/30/2010 62317.00 3800 GP Precision Gravity Oven 7/22/2010 1,318.41 3803 GP Manitowoc SD -0322A Ice Machine (50/50 w /401) 8/18/2010 1,076.40 3830 GP Whelen Super LED Light Bar 8/19/2011 11038126 3855 GP Fume Hood for Lab 8/5/2011 8055003 3885 GP Balance Link System & Software 6/4/2004 31749.28 3886 GP Life Pack Defibrulator 6/4/2004 1,795.00 3964 GP Lab Oven 6/29/2004 13,386.78 5042 GP Lab Incubator 12/7/2011 52576.01 3128 GP Accordian Hurricane Shutters 5/23/2002 4,215.00 3519 GP CL17 Total Chlorine Analyzer 12/20/2005 2,750.00 2569 L Parcel 502 at WWTP 7/31/1994 226,084.12 2684 T Reuse Phase II 3/2/2000 2,552.83 2685 T Reuse Phase III 2/7/2000 415,093.50 15004 T Lift Station #8 Thurm Blvd 10/1/1967 46,305.00 15005 T Lift Station #1 Washington 10/1/1967 231,525.00 15006 T Lift Station #4 Harbor Drive 10/1/1967 57,881.00 15007 T Lift Station #6 Imperial 10/1/1967 69,458.00 15008 T List Station #7 W. Central 10/1/1967 1082156.00 15016 T Lift Station #2 Center Street 9/30/1988 2871166737 H'? Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE 1 CONT. Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 15017 T Lift Station #3 W. Central 9/30/1989 $2871667.37 15018 T Lift Station #5 Columbia Drive 9/30/1989 893768.34 15019 T Lift Station #9 Banana River 9/30/1990 111,394.21 15020 T Lift Station # 12 Longpoint 9/30/1990 24111364.82 15025 T Lift Station 3/1/1992 182,946.00 15026 T Pump Statio 3/1/1992 68,249.29 2357 T 200 Long Point Road 9/30/1995 146,404.15 2365 T 12 Effluent Force Main 4/9/1996 184,322.25 2543 T Telemetry Sys / Lift Stations 5/14/1998 80,739600 2609 T Upgrade Lift Station A & B 5/24/1999 9,900000 2644 T 200 Long Point Road 1/29/1999 401)895.87 2682 T Telemetry System 5/25/2000 4,393.70 3106 T Sanitary Sewer Force Main 7/29/2002 332071.56 3358 T Forcemain LS to Thrum Blvd 8/5/2004 211)472.00 3465 T Sanitary Sewer Force Main Project 7/15/2005 5,120900 346510 T Force Main, Lift Station 1 12/20/2005 51384.96 346520 T Force Main Lift Station 1 3/6/2009 3,462.75 3574 T Upgrade /Replacement to Lift Station #5 12/18/2006 422200.00 3700 T Lift Station Back up Pump 12/13/2007 5,319.00 3701 T Lift Station Back up Pump 12/13/2007 530806.00 3702 T Lift Station Back up Pump 1/11/2008 1039.00 3704 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit (Back up) 12/13/2007 4,542.68 3705 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit for LS #3 12/13/2007 4,542.68 3706 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit (Back up) 12/13/2007 4542.68 3707 T Tac Pack TCU & Install Kit for LS #1 12/13/2007 43542.66 3717 T Tradewinds Power Generator 6/13/2008 6330880.00 3751 T 20 hp Lift Station Pump (Back up) 9/23/2008 10,360.00 3795 T Tradewinds Generator 60Hz, Three Phase 3/31/2010 47,539.00 3861 T Generator Model TJ 125KW 5/26/2011 46,574.00 5035B T Telemetry Control Unit 2/10/2012 5,039.75 5035C T Submersible Level Transducer 2/10/2012 535.00 5035D T Submersible WW Pump LS #9 2/10/2012 4,482400 5035E T Transient Filter Slueld 2/17/2012 88.00 5035F T Flygt pump base installation 2/17/2012 600.00 5035G T 4x4 Discharge Connection 1/6/2012 704.00 5036 T 20KVZ' Generator 4/27/2012 37,828.00 5038 T Forcemain Replacement LS #3 7/3/2012 2,371600 3552 T Upgrade Lift Station 5 8/25/2006 15564.00 2501 TP Reuse Phase I 8/31/1999 145,41336 3053 TP Pond 5/7/2001 2,114.83 3055 TP Reuse Phase IV 8/2/2001 141,827.11 3056 TP Reuse Phase III 2/2/2001 41903.77 3068 TP Reuse Phase II 9/27/2001 13518.75 3141 TP Reuse Phase III 8/26/2002 1,678.34 3477 TP Re -use Extension Project 04/05 12/14/2004 38,674.58 15001 TP XXWTP original construction 10/1/1967 8312945900 15002 TP Aerobic Digestor 10/1/1967 2181764.45 15003 TP Chlorine Contact Basin 10/1/1967 1691561.80 15013 TP Aeration Basin 9/30/1983 1,400,189.14 15014 TP Clarifier Basin 9/30/1983 357177539 15021 TP Expansion Funds Cost 9/30/1991 37,164.16 19 Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee SCHEDULE 1 CONT. Asset Category Description Purchase Date Cost 15208 TP 1995 WXXTP Upgrade 8/30/1995 $519,656.00 1614 TP 500 PSI Air Compressor 9/27/1984 9,735.00 2359 TP WWTP facilities - part of original plant 9/30/1995 1,048,952.15 2419 TP WWTP Engineering Fees 9/30/1996 88,544.23 2421 TP Bldg. Pmt Fees -WWII' Expansion 9/30/1996 15,085.10 2422 TP WWTP Site Plan Review Fees 9/30/1996 2,638.50 2423 TP 1995 -96 W W`rP Upgrade 9/30/1996 63179,810.00 2524 TP Frequence Controls 3/4/1998 8,385.94 2566 TP Sewer Plant Improvement -1997 9/30/1997 19263573135 2572 TP Sewer Plant Improvement -FY 95/96 9/30/1996 110162,274.16 3037 TP Encore 700 Metering Alum Pump 8/2/2001 2,278939 3304 TP Wastewater Facility Improvement 1/23/2004 124,699.10 3304A TP WWTP Improve 2004, Permit Fees 4/7/2005 3,91435 3373A TP W`VVTP Improvement 2003 -04 12/20/2004 397,454.68 3454 TP Sludge Press Maint. Bldg. 3/24/2005 72,399.33 3454A TP Sludge Press Maint. Bldg. -Office 2/20/2006 42456.99 3518 TP Sutorbilt Rotary Positive Blower 11/14/2005 4,600.00 3525 TP Ultramag Magnetic Flowmeter w/ Converter 2/21/2006 4,322.33 3573 TP Compressors for Plant Filters 11/17/2006 8,968.74 3576 TP Flygt Submersible Mixer 2/8/2007 6,750900 3584 TP Sodium Bisulfite System 5/31/2007 15,800.00 3652 TP Compressors for Plant Filters 11/17/2006 8,968.74 3654 TP Hach 1720E Turbidity Monitor 1/26/2007 2055900 3680 TP Snyder 6,200 Gal Alum Tank 5/31/2007 10520.80 3696 TP Cleated Belt for Belt Press 12/13/2007 9,500.00 3709 TP Sodium Hypochlorite Tank 1/11/2008 7,950.00 3755 TP Belt Press Room Roof 3/27/2009 16575900 3790 TP Vortiblend Emulsion Feed Svstem for Sludge Press 12/18/2009 6,313.20 4012 TP Flygt Mixer for Plant Mixer 10/12/2010 7,681.85 5039 TP WWTP Oxidation Ditch 8/2/2012 9,452.50 5041 TP \X/WTP Oxidation Ditch 9/30/2012 497.50 ►1;8 Treatment Plant (TP) $14,375,602.00 Transmission M 3,052,294042 General Plant (GP) 12342,958.14 Total $18,770,854.55 20 Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Study SCHEDULE 2 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE BY CLASSIFICATION AND AMOUNT ERUs Amount' SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE PER ERU $1,348.80 RESIDENTIAL: (a) Single Family 1.0000 $1,348.80 (b) Multiple Family (Per Dwelling Unit /ERU) 1.0000 $1,348.80 c Each Mobile Home Space 1.0000 $1,348.80 COMMERCIAL': (a) Barber and Beauty shops, per chair 0.3125 $421.50 (b) Bowling Alleys, per lane 0.2083 $281.00 (c) Churches, per seat 0.0125 $16.86 (d) Dentist Office, per dentist 1.0417 $1,405.00 (e) Doctor Office, per doctor 1.0417 $1,405.00 (f) Food Service Operations (1) Restaurant, per seat 0.1667 $224.80 (2) 24 -hour Restaurant, per seat 0.2500 $337.20 (3) Bar and Cocktail Lounge, per seat 0.0833 $112.40 (4) Drive -In Restaurant, per car space 0.2083 $281.00 (g) Hospitals, per bed 0.8333 $1,124.00 (h) Hotels, Motels, per room (1) Regular per room 0.4167 $562.00 (1) Resort hotels, camps, cottages per room 0.8333 $1,124.00 (1) Add for establishments with self service laundry facilities per machine 3.1250 $4,215.00 (i) Laundry Facilities, per washing machine 3.1250 $4,215.00 0) Nursing, Rest Homes, per person 0.4167 S562.00 (k) Office Building, per worker 0.0625 $84.30 (1) Schools, per student 0.0417 $56.20 (m) Service Stations, per water closet and per urinal (1) Open 16 hours per day or less 1.0417 $1,405.00 (2) Open more than 16 hours per day 1.3542 $1,826.50 (n) Shopping Centers without Food or Laundry, per square foot or floor space 0.0004 $0.56 (o) Stores, per bathroom 0.8333 $1,124.00 (p) Theaters, indoor, per seat 0.0167 $22.48 (q) Recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, without water and sewer hookup per vehicle space 0.2083 $281.00 (r) Recreational vehicle space for overnight stay, with water and sewer hookup per vehicles ace 0.3125 $421.50 1. All Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees shall be determined based on the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated pursuant to applicable provisions in the Code. 2. Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees for Connections not specifically identified above shall be determined by using the Fixture Unit basis Schedule I or the Flow Basis. 21 Schedules Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Studv Total Load Factor x15= GPD / 240 = ERUs GPD * Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated based upon above data. a. For traps larger than 3 ", use Table 709.2 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. b. A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachment does not increase the drainage fixture unit value. C. See Sections 709.2 through 709.4 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for methods of computing unit value of fixtures not listed in this table or for rating of devices with intermittent flows. d. Trap size shall be consistent with the fixture outlet size. e. For the purpose of computing loads on building drains and sewers, water closets and urinals shall not be rated at a lower drainage fixture unit unless the lower values are confirmed by testing. f. For fixtures added to a dwelling unit bathroom group, add the DFU value of those additional fixtures to the bathroom group fixture count. g. See Section 406.3 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for sizing requirements for fixture drain, branch drain, and drainage stack for automatic clothes washer standpipe. h. Bathroom group is defined in Section 202 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. 22 SCHEDULE 3 SANITARY SEWER DRAINAGE FIXTURE UNITS FIXTURE TYPE LOAD FACTOR NO. OF TYPES "A" "B" LOAD FACTOR licit A x B =C Automatic clothes washers, commercial a, 3.00 Automatic clothes washers, residential 2.00 Bathroom group ( < =1.6 gpf water closet, toilet, sink, tub and shower (f,h ) 5.00 Bathroom group ( >1.6 gpf water closet, toilet, sink, tub and shower f,h 6.00 Bathtub (with or without overhead shower or whirlpool attachments 2 00 Bidet 1.00 Combination sink and tray 2.00 Dental lavatory (bathroom sink ) 1000 Dental unit or or cuspidor 1000 Dishwashing machine domestic c 100 Drinking fountain 0.50 Emergency floor drains 0400 Floor drains 2.00 Kitchen sink, domestic 2.00 Kitchen sink, domestic with food waste grinder 2.00 Laundry tray 1 or 2 compartments) 2.00 Lavatory (bathroom sink 1.00 Shower 2.00 Service sink 2.00 Sink 2.00 Urinal 4.00 Urinal, <1 gpf e 2900 Urinal, non water supplies a 0.50 Wash sink circular or multiple) each set of faucets 2.00 Water closet, flushometer tank, public or private toilet only) e 4900 Water closet, private 1.6 gpf, toilet onl y e 3.00 Neater closet, private >1.6 gpf, toilet only) a 4.00 Water closet, public 1.6 gpf, toilet only) e 4.00 Water closet, public >1.6 gpf, toilet only) a 6.00 Total Total Load Factor x15= GPD / 240 = ERUs GPD * Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee shall be the greater of 1 ERU or the amount calculated based upon above data. a. For traps larger than 3 ", use Table 709.2 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. b. A showerhead over a bathtub or whirlpool bathtub attachment does not increase the drainage fixture unit value. C. See Sections 709.2 through 709.4 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for methods of computing unit value of fixtures not listed in this table or for rating of devices with intermittent flows. d. Trap size shall be consistent with the fixture outlet size. e. For the purpose of computing loads on building drains and sewers, water closets and urinals shall not be rated at a lower drainage fixture unit unless the lower values are confirmed by testing. f. For fixtures added to a dwelling unit bathroom group, add the DFU value of those additional fixtures to the bathroom group fixture count. g. See Section 406.3 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code for sizing requirements for fixture drain, branch drain, and drainage stack for automatic clothes washer standpipe. h. Bathroom group is defined in Section 202 of the 2007 Florida Plumbing Code. 22 City of Cape Canaveral City Council Agenda Form City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. S Subject: Consider Application for Satisfaction or Release of I Enforcement Lien, Case No. 2010 - 00123, 213 Pierce Ave., Unit D. Deaartment: Communitv and Economic Develooment Summary: This Complex has four buildings, each having four units. The Complex had four water meters, each serving one building. In 2011, the HOA dissolved, yet multiple violations existed, including some units with no water. Code Enforcement Staff mailed Notices of Violation to the individual unit owners. On May 19, 2011 the Code Enforcement Board entered an Order Imposing Penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for May 20, 2011, and fifty dollars ($50.00) per day thereafter, including all costs authorized by law related to the violation, until the violation is corrected and full compliance is confirmed (Attachment #1). The owner of 213 Pierce Ave. Unit D did not come into compliance until July 19, 2011 (Attachment #2). The total fine is $3,100.00 (Attachment #3). During the period of non - compliance, Hanna Herlich was the record owner of 213 Pierce Avenue, Unit D. On June 13, 2012 the City was notified that the water meter serving the building at 213 Pierce Avenue was removed. Code Enforcement visited the property and found it to be vacant. At that time, the four units at 213 Pierce Avenue were posted "Unfit for Human Occupancy" and monitored for any signs of habitation. Mr. Juan S. Gonzalez purchased Unit D of 213 Pierce Avenue on February 12, 2013 and immediately took necessary steps to install and connect an individual water meter for the unit. Accordingly, on February 28, 2013 a plumbing permit was applied for and on May 22, 2013 the permit received an approved final inspection. On June 7, 2013 Mr. Gonzalez applied for the full satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Lien (Attachment #4) due to the fact he was not the owner at the time of the violation and that he quickly restored the property to a habitable condition. On June 20, 2013 the Code Enforcement Board considered the request for satisfaction or reduction of a Code Enforcement Board Lien in the amount of three thousand one hundred dollars ($3,100.00) (Attachment #5). Staff recommended to the Code Enforcement Board that it recommend to the City Council a reduction of the lien to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). Staffs recommendation considers the relatively quick action to correct the violations, the minor blighting effect on the surrounding properties, the fact that the applicant was not the original violator, and the fact that the applicant confirmed he knew of the lien prior to purchase. This amount also adequately reimburses the City for Staff /Attorney time spent in the enforcement of the Case. The Board, however, unanimously recommended the City Council reduce the outstanding lien to five hundred dollars ($500.00). Further Staff research: Staff responded to two lien inquiries for this unit. One prior to the sale in January 2013 and one after the sale in March 2013. City Council Meeting Date: 08/20/2013 Item No. 8 Page 2 of 2 • Fannie Mae sold the unit to Mr. Gonzalez via Special Warranty Deed, which deed generally covenants against defects in the title which arose by, through, or under the acts of Fannie Mae while it held title. • Mr. Gonzalez indicated that he was not instructed by Fannie Mae to escrow any funds at closing. • Mr. Gonzalez indicated that his realtor informed him that he should set aside funds for lien payment. • The City's lien was not paid off at the time Mr. Gonzalez purchased the property from Fannie Mae because the City's lien was recorded subsequent to a mortgage foreclosure action being commenced against the former property owner. Submitting Department Director: Todd Morley "'%k- Date: 08/9/2013 Attachments: #1 - May 19, 2011 Board Order #2 - Notice of Compliance #3 - Current lien amount calculation #4 - Application for Satisfaction or Release of Code Enforcement Lien #5 - Code Enforcement Board Memo and Draft Minutes from the June 20� meeting Financial Impact: Up to $3,100.00 in forgone lien collections; Staff time for preparation of Agenda Item. 10 Reviewed by Financial Services Director: John DeLeo Date: 7-1343 The City Manager recommends that City Council take t44 following action(s): Approve a lien reduction from $3,100 to $2,000, as requ ted by Code Enforcement Staff. Approved by City Manager: David L. Greened Dateg 16,1,1j- City Council Action: [ ] Approved as Recommended [ ] Disapproved [ ] Approved with Modifications [ ] Tabled to Time Certain City of Cape Canaveral CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD e °cWN•VC�` CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, A Florida municipal corporation, Case #10 -00123 Complainant, CFN 2011096673, OR BK 6392 PAGE 2270, Recorded 05!312011 at 07:07 PM, Mitch Needelman. Clerk V. Of Courts, Brevard County Hanna Herlich c/o Absolute Title Insurance # Pgs:3 Owner of the Property located at: 213 Pierce Ave., Unit D Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 LEGAL: UNIT 213D PIERCE CONDO AS DESC IN ORB 5624 PG 1776 AND ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO Respondent, ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY ON FIRST VIOLATION THIS CAUSE having come on for consideration, after being duly noticed, before the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida, on May 19, 2011 to determine whether any violations of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances exist or existed on the property. The Board, having heard the arguments of the parties and the evidence presented and having reviewed the record and being otherwise fully advised, makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law incorporated into this Order as set forth herein. Findinas of Fact and Conclusions of Law Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at this hearing, the Code Enforcement Board finds: 1. That Respondent was provided a 2 -258 of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of sections 162.06 and 162.12, Florida Statutes; Notice of Violation in accordance with Section Ordinances ( "City Code ") and consistent with 2. That a violation of Section 504.1, General; Section 604.3, Electrical System Hazards; and Section 302.4, Weeds, of the of the International Property Maintenance Code (1998 edition), as adopted by Section 82 -221, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances; and NFPA 10, Fire Extinguishers, of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by Section 38 -26, of the City Code, exist or existed upon the Property and Respondent yras further Drovided a reasonable time to correct said violation; 7510 N. Atlantic Avenue • Post Office Box 326 • Cape Canaveral, FL Telephone: (321) 868 -1222 • Fax: (321) 868 -1247 w ..myflorida.com /cape • email: ccapecanaveraI&IFI.mcom 1 Case #10 -00123 3. That Respondents either failed or refused to correct such violation within the reasonable time period provided in the Notice of Violation; that the Respondent was provided notice of hearing before the Code Enforcement Board and was not present at the hearing; 4. That based on the testimony and evidence presented, Respondent has violated the City Code, to wit: Section 504.1, General; Section 604.3, Electrical System Hazards; and Section 302.4, Weeds, of the of the International Property Maintenance Code (1998 edition), as adopted by Section 82 -221, of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances; and NFPA 10, Fire Extinguishers, of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by Section 38 -26, of the City Code; 50 That said violations exist or existed within the City of Cape Canaveral and that such constitutes violation of the City of Cape Canaveral Code of Ordinances. BASED UPON THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED. 1. A fine shall be entered immediately in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for May 209 2011 and fifty dollars ($50.00) per day thereafter, including all cost authorized by law related to the violation, until the violation is corrected and full compliance is confirmed by the Code Enforcement Officer. Respondents shall be responsible to provide notice of such violation being corrected to the Code Enforcement Officer. Upon such confirmation, the Code Enforcement Officer shall promptly file a Notice of Compliance; 29 The Clerk of the Code Enforcement Board is hereby directed to record a certified copy of this Order in the public records for Brevard County, Florida, which shall serve as a lien against the Property and any other real or personal property owned by the Respondent. 3. Any and all future recurrence(s) of any violation(s) addressed herein after same have been corrected shall necessitate further proceedings before the Code Enforcement Board without necessarily providing Respondent(s) an opportunity to correct such violation(s) and that the Code Enforcement Board, upon finding such repeat violation(s) exist(s) shall impose a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per day for each repeat violation, beginning on the first day the repeat violation(s) is / are found to exist. 4. The Code Enforcement Board hereby reserves the right to take further necessary action against the Respondent(s) to enforce this Order and correct any violation(s) on Respondent's property, in accordance with Section 162.09, Florida Statutes, and City of Cape Canaveral Code, Chapter 2, Article VI. DONE AND ORDERED at Cape Canaveral, Florida, this 19th day of May, 2011. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA Mary RussHl, Chairperson I Case #10 -00123 Copies furnished to. Hanna Heriich c/o Absolute Title Insurance, Property Owner City of Cape Canaveral, Case File hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Order Imposing Penalty on First Violation has been furnished by certified mail to the Respondent (s) and /or Respondent's authorized representative on this 075 day of Nf 4,c4 , 20110 Joy L& ibardi, Board Secretary Duree Alexander, Code Enforcement Officer City of Cape Canaveral Community Development Department NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE August 31, 2011 Hanna Herlich C/O Absolute Title Insurance 325 Indian River Avenue Titusville, FL 32796 CASE #: 2010 -00120 LOCATION OF VIOLATION: 213 Pierce Avenue, Unit D, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 PROPERTY PARCEL #: 24- 37- 23 -CG- 00062.0- 0004.12 Respondent(s):Hanna Herlich, C/O Absolute Title Insurance: The above property was found in compliance on July 19, 2011, by meeting the requirements of the Notice of Violation. Description of Violation(s) at property: Sec. 82 -221. International Property Maintenance Code adopted. The International Property Maintenance Code, 1998 edition, as published by the International Code Council, is hereby adopted by reference and incorporated herein as if fully set out. IPMC Sec 504. 1, General. IPMC Sec 505.1, General. IPMC Sec 604.3, Electrical System Hazards. IPMC Sec 302.4, Weeds. FFPC, Sec. 38 -26. Florida Fire Prevention Code — Adopted: The Florida Fire Prevention Code and the life safety code adopted. NFPA 10, Fire extinguishers shall be certified annually, Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (321) 868 -1222. S' erely, Duree Alexander Code Enforcement Officer 7510 N Atlantic Avenue – P.O. Box 326 – Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326 Telephone (321) 868 -1222 – Fax (321) 868 -1247 www.mvflorida.com /cape e-mail: cityofcapecanaveral.org ATTACHMENT #3 213 PIERCE AVENUE, UNIT D, CAPE CANAVERAL The fines are as follows: Month 5/20/11 5/21/11 6/11 7/19/11 No. Da 1 day 11 days 30 days 19 days Amt. 100.00 = 50.00 = 50.00 = 50.00 = Total 100.00 550.00 1,500.00 950.00 TOTAL $3,100.00 44a\Wt�-ly City of Cape Canaveral APPLICANT PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING &Y NCG FOR A uQuEsTOpment Department OR SATISFACTION OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN Where a certified copy of an Order imposing a penalty or fine, as described in F.S. Ch. 162, has been recorded in the public records of Brevard County, Florida, and has become a lien against the land and/or property, once the property has been found in compliance a request for the satisfaction or release of the lien may be submitted in writing on the application form provided by the City of Cape Canaveral. The following procedures apply to any person applying for a satisfaction or release of the Code Enforcement Board lien. 1. The application must be submitted at least ten (10) days prior to the next available Code Enforcement Board Meeting, on the application provided by the City. 2. A one -time application fee of $100.00 must be paid at the time the application is submitted to Staff. This fee is non - refundable without regard for the final determination of the request. 3. If the person applying for the satisfaction or release of the Code Enforcement Board Lien is not the current property owner a notarized statement allowing the individual(s) to represent the property must be submitted with the application. 4. Once the completed application has been reviewed and approved the request will be scheduled for the first available Code Enforcement Board Hearing and a Code Enforcement Officer will notify you of the location, date, and time of the scheduled Hearing. Staff strongly recommends you or a representative is present at the hearing. Please initial here: J C� 5. The request will be presented to the Code Enforcement Board and the Board will provide the applicant with an opportunity to address the Board regarding the Request. The Board shall, by motion, make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application. 6. The Code Enforcement Board Secretary will prepare the recommendation to be submitted for the next available City Council meeting date, which is usually the following month. 7. The Code Enforcement Board Secretary will contact the applicant with the location, date and time of the next available City Council Meeting. This information is also available on the City of Cape Canaveral's on line calendar at www.cityofcapecanaveral.org. It is strongly recommended that you be present at this hearing to represent your request for the satisfaction or release of the lien. 8. The City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application to satisfy or release the lien 9. The violator shall have thirty (30) days in which to comply with the conditions imposed by the City Council. Failure of the violator to comply will result in the automatic denial of the application for satisfaction or release of the lien. 10. If the application is denied for any reason the violator /application shall not be allowed to apply for a subsequent satisfaction or release of the lien for a period of one (1) year. During that period the lien may only be satisfied and re d upon full payment of the fine or penalty imposed. Signature of Applicant: _ Date: 7510 N Atlantic Avenue — P.O. Box 326 — Cape Canaveral, FL 32920 -0326 Telephone (321) 868 -1222 — Fax (321) 868 -1247 CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL APPLICATION FOR SATISFACTION OR RELEASE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE #: cQ010 *' Oo1 QZ APPLICANT: ADDRESS: CITY: APPLICATION FEE: $ 100 Q' lb 0� a0civi G DATE: U NATURE OF VIOLATION(S): ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: DATE FINE/LIEN IMPOSED: 0% 4 raa,00 �f DO STATE: ZIP: L/ COMPLIANCE DATE: 1119111 RELIEF REQUESTED. ATISFACTION REDUCTION (Circle one) IF REDUCTION, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES $. 4 AS THE AMOUNT OF THE REDUCED FINE. y THE FACTUAL BASIS UPON WHICH THE VIOLATOR BELIEVES THIS APPLICATION SHOULD BE GRANTED: TERMS OR CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED UPON APPLICANT SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE GRANTED: (If more space is needed add additional pages) c)yl THE REASONS, IF ANY, WHY THE APPLICANT DID NOT BRING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO THE ORDER OF PENALTY OR FINE BEING HOSED AND RECORDED: (If more space is needed add additional pages) A • r 0 ANY ADDITIONAL FACTS OR INFORMATION THE APPLICANT DEEMS PERTINENT TO THE REQUEST, INCLUDING BUT NOT LMTED TO, THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST WHICH WOULD WARRANT THE REDUCTION OR SATISFACTION OF PENALTY OR FINE: C1 0 19U11 So moo lu X41 (If more space is`- needed add additional pages) t" I r Date: 6 /703 Out lei i A STATE OF F'j auac,, COUNTY OF Ga t t BEFORE ME the undersigned authority did personally appear_ as identificatiolL and who information contained within this application is true and correct. after being place under oath, FOR STAFF USE ONLY APPLICATION FEE: $ 1 do. ©o RECEIVED BY CITY ON COMPLIANCE CONFIRMED BY BOLDING OFFICIAL ON SL; t t Q 20 t CODE ENFORCEMENT REVIEW ON 3u n 2p 2p CODE ENFORCEMENT RECOMMENDATION ATTACHED: YES H ACTION OF CITY COUNCIL: APPROVE; _ DENY; APPROVE WITH FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: DATE OF COUNCIL ACTION: CONDITIONS AND PAYMENT OF REDUCED FINE TO BE NET WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COUNCIL ACTION, TO WIT: ON OR BEFORE 0. I Memo TO: David Greene, City Manager VIA: Todd Morley, Community and Economic Development DirectSlo FROM: Joy Lombardi, Code Enforcement Board Secretary DATE: June 24, 2013 RE: Code Enforcement Board Recommendation to the City Council for the Satisfaction or Reduction of Lien (213 Pierce Avenue, Unit D, Case #10- 00123) At the June 20, 2013 Code Enforcement Board Meeting, the Board considered a request for satisfaction or reduction of a Code Enforcement Board Lien in the amount of three thousand one hundred dollars ($3,100.00). Mr. Gonzalez, property owner, requested the satisfaction of the Code Enforcement Board Lien in full due to the fact that they he was not the owner at the time of the violation and immediately brought the property into compliance. Staff requested the Code Enforcement Board recommend to City Council to reduce the outstanding lien to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). The Board unanimously recommended that City Council reduce the outstanding lien to five hundred dollars ($500.00). Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes June 20, 2013 Page 6 Motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Lotspeich, to accept Staffs recommendation and find the respondent in violation and impose a fine in the amount of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) for the first day and seventy -five dollars ($75.00) per day thereafter until found in compliance. Vote on the motion carried by a 5 to 1 majority, with Raymond Viens voting against. OLD BUSINESS: Case No. 10 -00123 — Application for Satisfaction or Release of Code Enforcement Lien, (213 Pierce Ave., Unit D) — Juan Gonzalez, Property Owner. Code Enforcement Officer, Duree Alexander, provided an overview of the Case history and presented exhibits for the Board's review. Officer Alexander testified that the violation was for exterior maintenance and no water. Officer Alexander stated that Mr. Gonzalez has purchased the property, had water meters installed, and has connected to the meter. Officer Alexander explained that Staffs consideration for the reduction of the lien included attorney fees; the fact that the new owner was not the cause of the violation; the length of time to bring the property into compliance once they purchased the property; the minor blighting effect on the surrounding properties; and the amount of Staff time involved in the enforcement of the violations. Mr. Gonzalez, property caner, at s oTcpli0awnce. ner that was cited in violation and explained at h h br h p into Mr. Gonzalez is requesting the satisfacti li Officer Alexander respectfully requested that the Board recommend to the City Council the reduction of the lien in the amount of three thousand one hundred dollars ($3,100.00) to two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). Motion by Mr. Lotspeich, seconded by Mr. Viens, to recommend that Council reduce the lien in the amount of three thousand one hundred dollars ($3,100.00) to five hundred dollars ($500.00). Vote on the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:16 P.M Approved on this day Joy Lombardi, Board Secretary 2013. Mary Russell, Chairperson