City of PARKER LIBLISIIED PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers, City Hall Tuesday, February 18, 2025, at 5:30 P.M. AGENDA MAYOR: Andrew Kelly COUNCILMIEMIBERS: Tonya Barrow, Mayor Pro Tem Katy Bodiford Ron Chaple John Haney CITY ATTORNEY: Tim Sloan CITY CLERK: Ingrid Bundy NOTE: AT EACH OF ITS REGULAR OR SPECIAL MEETINGS, THE CITY OF PARKER COUNCIL ALSO SITS, AS EX OFFICIO, AS THE CITY OF PARKER COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) AND MAY CONSIDER ITEMS AND TAKE ACTION INTHAT CAPACITY. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE: (non-agenda items) REGULAR AGENDA 1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 7,2025 2. Recommendation of award - Anchor CEI FDEP SRF Water System Improvements project CITY COUNCIL MEETING-I February 18, 2025 3. Impact Rate Study - Florida Rural Water Association (Michael Chase, PE) Ingrid-Bundy, City Clerk Ifaj person decides to appeal any decision made by the City Council with respect to any matter considered at the meeting, if an appeal is available, such person will need a record of the proceeding and such person may need to ensure that a verbatim record oft thej proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is tol be made. Any person requiring special accommodation at this meeting because ofa disability or physical impairment should contact the City Clerk at erk@ctyofparker.com or by phone at 850-871-4104. Ify you are hearing or speech impaired and you) have TDD equipment, you may contact the City Clerk using the Florida Dual Party System, which can be reached at 1-800-955- ALL INTERESTED PERSONS DESIRING TO BE HEARD ON THE. AFORESAID agenda are invited to be present at the 8770 (Voice) or 1-800-955-8771 (TDD). meeting. 1001 West Park Street-P Parker, Florida 32404 Telephone: 85087-4104-www.cityofparker.com CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 18, 2025 City of PARKER STABLISIIEDT CITY OF PARKER AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1. DEPARTMENTMAKING REQUEST/NAME OF PRESENTER: 2. MEETING DATE: Council 3. PURPOSE: 02/18/2025 APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 4. ISTHISITEM BUDGETED (IF APPLICABLE) YES NO N/A X February 7, 2025 AGENDA ITEM # 1 CITY OF PARKER REGULAR MEETING MINUTES HELD AT: 1001 W. PARKST, FEBRUARY7, 2025-5:30PM Mayor Andrew Kelly called the meeting to order with invocation followed by the Pledge of The following were present: Mayor, Andrew Kelly, Councilmembers Tonya Barrow, Katy Bodiford, City Attorney, Tim Sloan, presented clarification that agenda item 3 (Coastal Acquisitions of Florida, LLC) will be held as a Quasi-Judicial and individuals will be sworn in. He further explained Allegiance. Ron Chaple, John Haney, City Clerk Ingrid Bundy, City Attorney Tim Sloan. that the old application will be superseded by the decision at this meeting. ITEMS FROM THE AUDIENCE (Non-Agenda) No items were presented by the audience. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes AGENDA A motion to approve the minutes was made by Councilmember Barrow; seconded by Councilmember Bodiford. The motion was carried with all voting in favor; 5-0. Reaffirmation of Planning Commissioner Terry Stryker Ar motion to approve the reaffirmation of Planning Commissioner Terry Stryker was made by Councilmember Haney; seconded by Councilmember Barrow. The motion was carried with all Planning Board Recommendations- = 9091 West St-C Coastal Acquisitions of Florida, LLC (Santora) Mr. Phillip Santora was present to request approval of the Development Order submitted. After public testimony was heard and all documents considered, a motion was made to approve the Development Order with the standard conditions by Councilmember Haney; seconded by voting in favor;5-0. Councilmember Barrow. The motion was carried with all voting in favor; 5-0. Planning Board Recommendations - East Bay Apartments The applicant was not present. A motion to table the item was made by Councilmember Barrow; seconded by Councilmember Haney. The motion was carried with all voting in favor; 5-0. Planning Board Recommendations - Parcel # 25163-000-000 (512 N 11th Street) and Parcel # Mr. Jeremy Farrell was present to discuss the request. After discussion, a motion was made to table the item until a further date by Councilmember Barrow; seconded by Councilmember 25160-000-000 (518N N11th Street) - Farrell Haney. The motion was carried with all voting in favor; 5-0. I Auction Surplus Items A motion to declare items to surplus and submit them to auction was made by Councilmember Barrow; seconded by Councilmember Bodiford. The motion was carried with all voting in favor; 5-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS BY COMMISSIONERS community yard sale fori the City of Parker. Councilmember Chaple expressed his desire to start considering the Easter event and the With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 6:57 P.M. Approved this day of 2025. Andrew Kelly, Mayor Date Ingrid Bundy, City Clerk Date 2 City of PARKER STABLISTED CITY OF PARKER AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1.D DEPARTMENT MAKING REQUEST/NAME OFA PRESENTER: 2. MEETINGI DATE: Anchor CEI 3. PURPOSE: 02/18/2025 Recommendation of Award 4. ISTHISITEM! BUDGETED (IF APPLICABLE) YES NO N/A X FDEP SRF Water System Improvements project AGENDA ITEM # 2 AMObOICEI Engineering and Inspection 450Magnolia. Avenue Pamamsoy..3201 P.850.315. 1285 F850.215.1 1286 February 7, 2025 Sent via e-mail to: arkertireyliQa0.com Mayor Andy Kelly City of Parker 1001 West Park Street Parker, Florida 32404 Re: ITB 2023-02: Water System Improvements Construction Bid No. DW030721 Recommendation of Award I Anchor Project No. 1620.006 Dear Mayor Kelly: Anchor Consulting Engineering and Inspection, Inc. (Anchor) is pleased to present this Recommendation of Award for ITB 2023-02 - Water System Improvements (Construction Bid No. DW030721) to the City of Parker (City) for review and City Council approval. BIDDING PROCESS On Sunday, June 25, 2023, the above-referenced invitation to bid was advertised in the Orlando Sentinel per the requirements set forth in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) State Revolving Fund (SRF) program and on the City's website. In addition, the Bid was advertised in the Panama City News Herald on Tuesday, June 27, 2023 and Tuesday, June 18, 2023. Prospective Bidders were permitted to download digital copies of the bid documents from the City's website and/or obtain hard copies from the City at City Addenda was issued for this project and e-mailed to all registered bid holders as well as Hall. posted on the City's website, as follows: Addendum No. 1- August 10, 2023 Addendum No. 2- August 18, 2023 Addendum No. 3 - September 9, 2023 & % & The bid due date was extended to Thursday, September 14, 2023. Bids were received up to 2:00 p.m. CST on Thursday, September 14, 2023. Bids were opened and publicly read aloud after a City Council Public Hearing on Thursday, September 14, 2023. A copy of the Bid Tabulation is included as Attachment 1. www.anchorce.com ITB. 2023-02: Water. System Improvements- Construction Bid No. DW030721 Recommendation of Award I Anchor Project No. 1620.006 February7,2025 BIDS RECEIVED Bid Packages were received from the following Bidders for the following Bid Amounts: BIDDERS AMOUNTOF BASE BID $6,436,635.00 $7,998,673.25 $8,639,300.00 $12,902,700.00 $6,144,264.00 Extreme Land Clearing & Excavation LLC/CBC Construction Mainline Construction LLC Marshall Brothers Construction and Engineering, Inc. North Florida Construction, Inc. Royal American Construction Company, Inc. The apparent lowest bidder with a Base Bid of $6,144,264.00 was: Royal American Construction Company, Inc. 1022 West 23rd Street, Suite 300 Panama City, Florida 32405 RECOMWENDATIONOF AWARD Anchor recommends that the project be approved by the City Council and awarded to the apparent lowest bidder, Royal American Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of Due to a request by the City to increase FDEP funding for construction, this project was put on hold until a new Construction Loan could be approved for the increased inflationary cost. FDEP SRF provided the revised fully executed Construction Loan on January 14, 2025. Per conversations with Royal American Construction Company, Inc. (RAC) following receipt of the executed construction loan, RAC was asked to review its bid to ensure it could still honor the bid prices that were included in the original bid package from September 14, 2023. In early February 2025, RAC contacted Anchor to confirm that they could honor their $6,144,264.00. original bid. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Anchor has included the Notice of Award for this project in order to initiate the construction phase. Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the Notice of Award to be executed by the City of Parker. 2025-02-07_SRFV Water System! limprovements_ Dwo0P2LPsommendatone ofAward Page 2 of3 ITB 2023-02: Water System Improvements- Construction Bid No. DW030721 Recommendation of Award I Anchor Project No. 1620.006 February7, 2025 CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Substantial Construction Completion: Final Construction Completion: 335 Days from the NTP 30 Days from Substantial Completion We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to the City and look forward to awarding this important project. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Anchor Consultiyg Engineering and Inspection, Inc. Elizabeth S. Moore, P.E. President ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 Attachment 2 dI Detailed Bid Tabulation Notice of Award Copy: Mr. Tony Summerlin, City of Parker (via e-mail at summerin@cilyofparker.com) Ms. Taylor Jeffreys, City of Parker (via e-mail at ettreys@ciyotparker.com) 2025-02-07_ SRF Water Systemi Improvements Dw0072.Pecommendnton ofAward Page 3 of3 that works. gApdocsr Attachment 1 Detailed Bid Tabulation CITY OF PARKER WATERS SYSTEMI IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTIONI BIDI NO. DW030721 BIDC OPENING TABULATION RECEIVEDI BIDS VALUE VERIFICATION LLCICBC MAINLINE CONSTRUCTIONLLC CONSTRUCTIONA AND G CaUb ROYALA AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. EXTREME LAND CLEARING& CONSTRUCTION MARSHALL BROTHERS INC. NORTHFLORIDA CONSTRUCTION, INC. Description Bonds surance As-BultsbyPLS Testing. Flushing, 8-InchF FPVC DirectionB Bore Piping(STA.E B400 1 LS 38,191.26 TOSTA. 11426) B-inehFPVCD TOSTA 15+20) DirectionB Bore Piping(STA. 14400 1 LS TOSTA.2 8-InchF 28459) BoreF Piping(STA. 25-11 B-InchF FPVC BoreF Piping( (STA. 30+35 TOS STA.: 34+10) 11 314" Service Connection( (Short) 12 Waters Service (Short) 13 34-Waters Sorvice (Long) Waters Service Connection( (Long) 15 Restoration TOTALOFBASEBID Description aty Unit CostPerU Unit Total Cost PerUnit Total CostPer Unit Total CostF PerUnit Total CostP PerUnit Total LS 172,125.10 172,125.10 $ 29,900.00 29,900.00 $ 863,600.00 $ 863,600.00s 500,000.00s 500,000.00s 122,885.00s 122,885.00 LS 153,535.50 153,535.50 $ 156,800.00 156,800.00 431,800.00 $ 431,800.00 300,000.00 s 300,000.00 92,164.00s 92,164.00 LS 160,833.60 160,833,60 $ 55,640.00 55,640.00 $ 554,200.00 $ 554,200.00 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 184,326.00s 82,620.00 82,620.00 151,450.00 151,450.00 27,800.00 27,800.00 30,000.00 30,000.00s 108,802.00 106,802.00 1 LS $ 148,096.35 148,096.35s 93,730.00s 93,730.00s 106,800.00 106,800.00 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00s 26,481.00s 26,481.00 BASE BID LS Water direcionalb Sytemimprovementis bore andw (excludes laterals) 1 LS S 2,895,731.64s 2,895,731.64s 4,705,507.34 4,705,507.34s 3,258,500.00 3,258,500.00 6,600,000.00 6,600,000.00 $ 3,926,981.00s 3,926,961.00 38,191.26_s 33,077.10 33,077.10 40,600.00 40,600.00 50,000.00 50,000.00s 30,996.00s 30,996.00 23,756.26 23,756.26 s 29,844.00 $ 29,844.00 25,000.00s 25,000.00 35,000.00s 35,000.00 18,469.00 18,469.00 28,808.51 28,808.51 S 28,600.50 $ 28,600.50 29,700.00s 29,700.00 40,000.00 40,000.00s 22,937.00s 22,937.00 56,235.01 56235.0s 49,118:25s 49,118.25 $ 58,800.00 58,600.00 70,000.00 70,000.00s 48,851.00 48,851.00 1,054.04 276,158.48s 1,817.06 476,069.72 1,340.00 351,080.00 1,250.00 327,500.00 1,176.66 $ 308,284.92 1,456.36 14,563.60s 2,571.06s 25,710.60 3,250,00 32,500.00 3,000.00 s 30,000.00 2,021.70 20,217.00 127 EA $ 1,480,01 $ 187,961.27 2,182.43s 277,168.61 3,910.00 S 496,570.00 3,230.00 $ 410,210.00 2,032.57 258,136.39 3,335.26 $ 10,005.78 $ 3,094.60 9,283.98s 4,750.00s 14,250.00s 3,330.00 $ 9,990.00s 2,167.00s 6,501.00 LS $ 2,168,012.64s 2,188,012.64s 1,876,773.15 1,876,773.15 2,348,100.00s 2,348,100.00s 4,200,000.00 4,200,000.00s 988,250.69 968,250.69 LS LS $ 262 EA 10 EA 3 EA $ 6,436,635.00 $ EXTREMEL LAND CLEARING& CONSTRUCTION aty Unit CostF Peru Unit Total 7,998,673.25 $ 8,639,300.00 $ MARSHALLE BROTHERS ENGINEERING, INC. 12,902,700.00 $ NORTHFLORIDA INC. 6,144,264.00 ROYAL CONSTRUCTIONG COMPANY, INC. EXCAVATION! LLCICBC MAINLINE CONSTRUCTIONLLC CONSTRUCTIONA AND CostP Per Unit Total CostF PerU Unit Total ALTERANTE BID (44,750.00) $ LS (32,968.00)s (32,986.00)s (44,750.00)s (44,750.00)s (33,400.00)s (33,400.00)s (8,000.00)s (8,000.00)s (5,000.00)s (5,000.00) nthe SubcontractBid/ Amountfo (Thornton Lanea ands SouleD Drive! Intersection- Milling andR Resurfacing) E-ThorntonL (32,988.00) $ (33,400.00) $ (8,000.00) (5,000.00) EXTREMEL LAND CLEARINGE EXCAVATION LLCICBC MAINLINE LICENSE/GENERAL CONTRACTOR- VMDEROROVMOUTUTYUCPNE: EXPIRES a/312024 MARSHALLE BROTHERS LLC CONSTRUCTION/ AND ENGINEERING, INC. EXPIRESE 8/312024 ROYALA AMERICAN INC, EXPIRESB 8/312024 Bidit Item Checklist ValidFloridac Generalc License eidForm eidBond AddendaA Acknowledgement Ant-Collusiond Clause Conficto ofinterestD DisclosureF Form IdenticalT TieB Bids/DrugFree Workplace CertficationF RegardingD Debarment, etc. CertificationR RegardingLobbying 10 Certification Regarding Scrutinizedo Companies List NORTHFLORIDA INC, CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, CONTRACTOR- LICENSEIGENERAL UNDERGROUNDU CONTRACTOR- UTILITY EXPIRESE 6/31/2024 BTC- DIRECTIONE BORE ($52,314y BTC- DIRECTIONE BORE( ($65,000y BTCOR TBL LANDMARK ORC CINCH WATERS SERVICES GROUP- TAP ASPHALT ROBERTSA (S405,000yA ANDF ROBERTS. ARSOR CONTRACTING DIRECTIONE BORE ORA AMERICAN CWR BTC- DRILLING( FARM- ($16, SOD( 300yN soD TIGHTLINE. CONCRETE WORK SAND ORF ROBERTSA ANDR ROBERTS BORES ($50,0000 V NOSUBST TOBEUSED ($300,000) -PAVING(NOC COSTSI INCLUDED) Certificateo afCompliancew withth theF FloridaT Trenchs SafetyAct AppendkA AtotheF FDEPS SupplementalConditions that works. gAndotcer Attachment 2 Notice of Award NOTICE OF AWARD TO: ROYAL AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. 1022 WEST 23RD STREET, SUITE 300 PANAMA CITY,FLORIDA 32405 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The OWNER has considered the BIDs submitted in response to its advertised ITB 2023- 02: CITY OF PARKER - WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTION BID All interested parties are, hereby notified that the BID submitted by Royal American Construction Company, Inc. for the City of Parker - Water System Improvements Construction Bid No. DW030721 (ITB 2023-02) has been accepted for the Work As required by the Instruction to Bidders, please acknowledge this Notice of Award in the space below, execute the Agreement and the Construction Bond, and deliver all Contract Forms along with the CONTRACTOR'S Certificates of Insurance to the City of Parker within 10 business days from the date of this notice. If you have any questions, please contact Mandy O'Regan, Anchor (OWNER's Representative), moregan@anchoreicom: NO. DW030721. described in the Bid Documents in the amount of $6,144,264.00. (850) 215-1285. Dated this City of Parker By: day of February 2025. Name: Andrew Kelly Title: Mayor ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE Receipt of the above Notice of Award is hereby acknowledged: By This Name: Title: day of February 2025. CONFORMED - NOTICE OF AWARD-1 Cityo of PARKER TABLISIIEDT CITY OF PARKER AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY 1. DEPARTMENT MAKING REQUEST/NAME OF PRESENTER: 2. MEETING DATE: FL Rural Water Association = Michael Chase, PE 3.F PURPOSE: 02/18/2025 Presentation of Impact Rate Study 4. ISTHIS ITEM BUDGETED (IFA APPLICABLE) YES NO N/A X Impact Rate Study AGENDA ITEM #3 3 FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 2970 Wellington Circle-Tallahassee, FL32309-7813 (850)668-2746 February 18, 2025 Mr. Tony Summerlin Public Works Director City of Parker 1001 West Park: Street Parker, FL3 32404 Phone: (850) 871-5599 Email: summerlin@cityofparker.com RE: Water and' Wastewater Final BOARD of DIRECTORS BRUCE MORRISON Niceville President SCOTTKELLY Atlantic Beach Vice President POONAMI KALKAT Boynton Beach Secretary/reasurer ROBERTI MUNRO Orlando National Director JOHNBOSTICI Zephyrhills MELISSAI PILCHER Santa Rosa Beach RANDYV WILKERSON Chiefland EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALICIAKEETER Tallahassee Capacity Fee Study City of Parker, Bay Co., PWS: 1030520, Fac. No. FLA645541 Dear Mr. Summerlin: Florida Rural Water Association is pleased to provide this Capacity Fee Study to the City of Parker as a membership benefit. FRWA is dedicated to assisting water and wastewater systems provide Floridians with an ample affordable supply ofh high-quality water and wastewater disposal services, while protecting natural systems. staff. With unfunded mandates continuing to roll down from state and federal governments along with the aging of pipes, pumps, and plants, you have risen to the challenge and continue to provide quality services. To make a very difficult more difficult, revenues have lagged behind expenses. Utility operators have done more with less each year, as measured in real dollars. They have shouldered the responsibility of running the system in a responsible manner and in compliance with state rules and You should be congratulated water wastewater and on your system and operations job regulations. Capacity Fees. Capacity Fees (Connection Charges) are one-time the new commercial and residential connections to reimburse assessed charges to for utility systems LORIDA FRAL ATER infrastructure required to supply water and collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater from these new commercial and residential connections. Capacity Fees are proportional to the capacity set aside for the new customer. In some systems these charges are called Capacity Fees while others may be called Benefit Assessments, User Fees, Contributions In Aid of Construction (CIAC), Impact Fees or System The goals and objectives considered ini the study include the following: EMAIL frwa@frwa.net WEBSITE www.frwa.net Development Charges. 1 Proposed Capacity Fees should be equitable among customer classes; Proposed Capacity Fees should minimize "shock" to customers if possible; AWWA, Manual M1- Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, 7thE Edition, American' Water Works Association, Denver CO., 2017, pp. 321-347 Proposed Capacity Fees should reimburse the City fori infrastructure required to supply water and collect treat, and disposal of wastewater from new commercial and residential connections; and Proposed Capacity Fees should provide for capital improvement needs and not operation and maintenance costs FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page2 Executive Summary Findings & Recommendations The City of Parker has two options for setting Capacity Fees: Option A -l Use the Remaining Useful Life Basis to capture the existing cost of running the City of Parker Option B-Uset the Replacement Value Basis to capture the true and sustainable cost ofr running the City Water and Wastewater Utility. of Parker Water and Wastewater Utility. Remaining Useful Life (RUL) is the length of time the utility infrastructure, piping, pumps, tanks, and equipment is likely to be functional before it requires replacement. Ap piece ofe equipment may last longer than its estimated useful life, buti it will need more and more maintenance as it reaches that point. It may become obsolete or require major repairs. An especially old asset, while technicalyfunctional, may be more of al liability than a benefitifitrequires frequent repair work. The Remaining Useful Life basis for computing Capacity Fees provides a value to existing utility assets based on their depreciated condition, estimated based on the years it is expected to continue to function. This can also be called Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation. This basis does not provide for the cost of replacing the pipe or equipment when it reaches the end ofi its useful life, the cost that the utility will have to bear to serve the development being added to the As an example oft thei implication of Remaining Use Life Basis, a community has an Elevated Storage Tank at the school constructed around 1952, over 70 years ago. The AWWA useful life of an elevated storage tank is 44 years. The elevated storage tank at the school would have no value when computing Capacity Fees based on Remaining Useful Life Basis. For this portion of the Capacity Fee, the new user will have almost no Capacity Fee to pay. However, the true, sustainable value to the utility is the replacement cost for the elevated storage tank, this is the cost the utility will have to bear tol keep treated water available for new users as they are added to the system. Replacement Value is the original cost escalated to current-day dollars. That is, the cost to the utility to install new infrastructure to replace existing piping, pumps, tanks, and equipment in today's dollars. The Replacement Value recognizes the expense the utility must incur to purchase new piping and equipment as the existing piping and equipment have become unusable due toa age and wear. Thisi is the cost the existing users have been incurring fora allt the previous yearsi in keeping sufficient and usable piping and equipment available for the users now coming onto the system. Replacement Value reasonably reflects the cost of providing new expansion capacity to users as if the capacityy was added at thet time the new user connected toi the water system. The utility isf fairly compensatedi fori the carrying costs of the excess capacity that needed to be built into the system in advance of the new users connecting to the system sO it would be available at the time the connection was needed. With pipelines and treatment plants it is impossible to put in increments of capacity at exactly the time a new development needs to have it available. Capacity-related utility. FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 3 infrastructure must be planned, designed, and constructed in large increments and the new users the capacity is intended to serve will typically connect to the system over many years. Utilities must make investments in capacity-related infrastructure that will provide services to new development well in advance of the time when the new development occurs. Meanwhile, the utility is incurring the cost of keeping the capacity-related infrastructure in proper working With Capacity Fees based on Replacement Value, the new users are paying for the true, sustainable value of the capacity that the utility has purchased and kept available for them until now to us. While Replacement Value capacity fees represent a higher cost per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) than Remaining Useful Life, FRWA recommends Replacement Value because it represents a more equitable compensation to the utility for the cost of constructing and keeping condition SO it will be fully available when needed by the new development. necessary, effective capacity available for new users when iti is needed. FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 4 1. Water Capacity Fee Finding The current Water Connection Fees charge only for tapping the city water main. The tapping feei fora5/8" tapi is $500.00. For the Water Capacity Fee, the City has the option of using the evaluated Fee of $2,190 per ERC using the Remaining Useful Life Basis -or- 4,250 per ERC using the Replacement Value Basis to capture thet true and: sustainable cost of running its Water Utility. FRWArecommends usingt the Replacement Value. The current Wastewater Impact Fees for Parker is $1,400 per ERC. There is an additional capacity charge for the Bay County wastewater treatment plant. For Wastewater Capacity Fee, the City has the option of using the evaluated Fee of $2,880 per ERC using the Remaining Useful Life Basis -or- $6,350 per ERC using the Replacement Value Basis to capture the true and sustainable cost of running its Wastewater Utility. Capacity Fees per ERC are proportional to the existing Average Day Flow per connection. Parker has an average day flow per connection of 105 gpd. According to the Water Research Foundation, average water use per household is 138 gpd (Water Research Foundation, Residential End Uses of Water, Version. 2, 2016) Wastewater discharge would be even less than 138 gpd/household because not all water used is returned toi the wastewater system. That means the wastewater flows for Parker arei in line with the Water Research Foundation recommendation and infiltration/inflow, is not an issue for the wastewater system. 2. Wastewater Capacity Fee Findings FRWA recommends using the Replacement Value. Water & Wastewater Capacity Fee Findings Inc combination both the Water and' Wastewater Capacity Fees are: Equivalent Residential Water & Wastewater Connection (ERC) Calculation Comparison Option A Remaining Useful Life Value $2,190/ERC $2,880/ ERC $5,070/ ERC Category Water Wastewater Totals Current Impact Fees $500/ERC $1,400/ERC $1,900/ERC Option B Replacement Value $4,250/ ERC $6,350/ ERC $10,600/ERC 3. Water and' Wastewater Capacity Fee Recommendations FRWA recommends' that the City use the evaluated fees to capture the true and: sustainable cost ofr running its Water and' Wastewater Utility andi tor maintain and protect the City'svitali infrastructure. Werecommend and can assist with continuing to establish a 5 and 10-year Capital Improvement Program to keep the City's utility financially sound. 4. Other Utility Fee Recommendations Fees for turn-ons, turn-offs, and late fees might need to be increased for inflation. Fees should be reviewed/updated. atl least annually by staffbasedo on actual time and materiald costs for meters, fittings, The Utility's policies on payments, late charge fees, illegal turn on penalty, or returned check penalty boxes, equipment costs, fuel costs, and salaries. should also be reviewed /updated at least annually by staff. FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 5 FRWA recommends implementing annual adjustments in accordance with the Florida Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission price index is established annually to allow franchised water and wastewater utilities to adjust rates and charges as a reflection oft the determined increase in operation and maintenance expenses. The following table shows the Public Service Commission Annual Approved Index for water and wastewater utilities. Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Commission Approved Index 1.63% 1.41% 1.57% 1.29% 1.51% 1.76% Year 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Commission Approved Index 2.36% 1.79% 1.17% 4.53% 7.07% 3.24% Itisr recommended thaty your revisit this Capacity Fee study every 31 to! 5 years or as needed. Indicators of need include changes to revenue or CIP expenses predictions, current financial position and other indicators that become evident during the annual budget approval process. FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 6 Capacity Fee Evaluation Capacity Fee Calculations. Capacity Fee Calculations are performed in accordance with the American Water Works Association Manual M1- Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges guidelines for calculating and allocating Capacity Fees to new customers.2 FRWA uses a rational and conservative approach when performing these evaluations. This approach ist transparent, defendable, and complies with statute and case law. Since there is a rational nexus of allocating Capacity Fees to customer groups it also follows the intent oft the Florida Statutes that set the basis for rates and Capacity Fees by counties and municipalities. Such fees shall bej just and equitable. 3 Capacity Fees are set using the following criteria: The water/ /wastewater system has the legal authority to charge Capacity Fees. Costs are allocated to specific customer classes based on use of the water / wastewater system New customers add incremental capital costs to the utility and the fees are set to recapture their The evaluation of system data is sufficient to reasonably estimate the value of water / wastewater system infrastructure and support charges to new customers. The evaluation includes water / wastewater consumption, historical flow trends, growth, and inventories of water lines, wells, infrastructure. impacts to the system. treatment, collection, manholes, lift stations, etc. Justification of capital costs is clearly provided in the calculation of fees. The costs of grant-funded and contributed assets are not included ini the Capacity Fee calculations. Outstanding principal on debt that has beeni incurred for infrastructure is not included in asset valuet for The capital costs /f fee requirements for new customers are consistent, predictable, and uniform. Each customer class equitably pays its own way. No undue burden is placed on one class over another Capacity Fee calculations. customer class. Compliance with the Dual Rational Nexus Test The City is responsible for compliance with Florida statutes for all aspects of Capacity Fees - establishment, collection, and expenditures. The dual rational nexus test is a basis for the validity of impact fees. The test has The local government must demonstrate a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in population generated by the subdivision. In addition, the government must show a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the expenditures of thet funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision.* To understand the first prong of the dual rational nexus test, a rational nexus between the need for additional capitalf facilities and the growth in population generated bya a new development, itisf firsti important to understand what is consideredi rational. To be rational, the nexus must be substantial, demonstrably clear, and present. The Capacity Fee Study attempts to define (monetarily) the benefit new customers receive from hooking up to the 2AWWA, Manual M1- Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, 7th Edition, American' Water' Works Association, Denver CO., 2017, pp. 4St.. Johns Countyv V. Northeast. Florida Builders Ass'n, Inc. 583 So.2d635,637 (Fla. 1991),; Hollywood, Inc. V. Broward County, 431 So.2d606, two prongs, each of which are: a rational nexus that must be found: 321-347 3 See Florida Statutes Chapter 1531 for County Water & Sewer Systems and Chapter 180- Municipal Public Works. 611-612 (Fla. 4th DCA1 1983) FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 7 utility in demonstrating the value ofi infrastructure capacity made available to the new customer. The Capacity Fee Study specifically focuses on the pro-rate share new customers should payf for the infrastructure required to meet the new demand. The goals of the Capacity Fee Study are rational and consistent with the first prong of The second prong oft the dual rational nexus testi ist that there must be ar rational nexus between the expenditures ofthef funds collected and thel benefits accruing to the payor oft thei impact fee. This can! be satisfied by specifically earmarking the funds collected for use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit the new residents. How the City handles thet fees collected is the responsibility of the City and is not addressed in this Capacity Fee Study. Capacity Fees provide a revenue source for replacement and upgrade of existing infrastructure as new customers are added to the system and thei funds collected must benefit the new customers paying the fee. This revenue is intended to be used for funding major expansions as well as minimizing future debt or reducing the need for future debt. Capacity Fees also provide for the utility to maintain an appropriate level of retained earnings and cash reserves to meet capital improvement needs. Utilities that are committed to regular renewal and replacement of aging infrastructure regularly see cost savings in their O&M budget, avoid unnecessary costly emergency repairs and minimize community health and safety concerns due to critical water and wastewater the dual rational nexus test. Cost Savings and Benefits. equipment failures. Accuracy of Revenue Predictions. Wel have performed our analyses using the data and information obtained; wel have relied upon suchi information to be accurate. Projected Capacity Fee revenue precision is limited by the accuracy of the financial information provided = good information "in" equals good information "out", and vice versa. Should our capacity fees not meet your expectations, we will work with you to carefully review and update financial records, revisit our calculations, valuation parameters, assumptions, etc. We are always happy to return, revisit your Capacity Fees, and adjust the analyses as necessary, consistent with Florida law. Growth should pay for Growth. Growth causes the need for expansion and should therefore pay its fair share for the costs incurred. These new connections use existing capacity or require expanded capacity in thei form of plant expansions and water/sewer line extensions - requiring significant capital expenditures. Existing ratepayers have supported and maintained the existing facilities, and new customers should: support any new, additional, or expanded facilities plus pipelines Some officials and new customers have argued incorrectly that the utility should allow new customers on the system without charge or at original plant costs (not adjusted fori inflation). It's noti fair to existing ratepayers and itis not a prudent utility practice. Nor would it be good business practice. Public officials may be tempted at times to trim budgets; lower utility rates below operational costs; and keep Capacity Fees below actual capital investment needs - but this seriously reduces utilities' ability to perform its central mission, shortchanges ratepayers by delaying costs, sets up unrealistic expectations, and undermines the future vitality of the that are required for the use oft these new customers. community. Dealing with Growth & Infrastructure Decay. Communities must maintain adequate levels ofs service for publici facilities and anticipate and prepare for growth. Some older or agingi infrastructure may need to be upgraded which requires adequate funding. As new customers come online more and more of the treatment capacity is used up until the plant is at capacity and must be expanded. Further, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection requires that when a water plant reaches 75% of capacity that the supplier of water must submit ure/teatmenvstorage capacity analysis reports bya aj professional engineer documenting projected flows. Ifthe operating capacity oft the water treatment plant or finished water storage is exceeded in less than 5 years, documentation of timely design, permitting, and FRWA Capacity Fee Study City ofF Parker Page 8 construction must be submitted with the report (Rule 62-555.348 F.A.C.). Similarly, for wastewater treatment plants, FAC 62-600.405 requires timely planning, design, and construction of needed wastewater treatment facility expansion. This requirement includes a statement signed and sealed by a professional engineer that planning and preliminary design of the necessary expansion has been initiated if the Capacity Analysis Report documents that the permitted capacity of the facility will be exceeded within the next five years. Bay County operates and maintains the water treatment plant supplying treated source water to Parker. Parker is a consecutive wholesale customer. Existing Water System Demand. Parker Water Demand History per Bay County Billing Records 500,000gpd Source Water Purchased from Bay County Utilities Maximum Month Daily Demand =4 448,613GPD for past 2years 400,000gpd 300,0008 gpd Monthly Average Demand Max. Month Demand Linear MonthlyAverage Demand) Average Daily Demand = 336,050 GPD for past 2 years 200,000gpd 100,000gpd Jan-21 Jul-21 Jan-22 Jul-22 Jan-23 Jul-23 Jan-24 Figure 1" Historic Water Demands (GPD denotes Gallons per Day) The amount of water used by the customers on the system is provided below, see Figure 1for flow records: City Population.. (based on datacensusgov-2020) Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC). Average Daily Demand (ADD) for past 2 years. Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for past 2 years. Total Permitted Plant Capacity (MDD). .4,010 2,279 336,050 gpd (233 gpm) 448,613 gpd (311 gpm) N/A-Purchased water from Bay County FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 9 Percentage oft total water treatment plant capacity used Water used per Equivalent Residential Connection (ADD /ERC). N/A 147 gpd The City of Parker is a distribution only system that purchases water from Bay County Water System, PWSID 1030050. The water system receives treated water under pressure directly from Bay County Water System through eight interconnects. The interconnect flow meters are maintained by Bay County' Water System. The City of Parker maintains a water service contract with Bay County Water System on file. The contract is effective through July 2041. The contract stipulates conditions of sale including water quality, water quantity, area of service, and water rates. City of Parker serves 1882 residential connections, 4 multi-family connections, 102 commercial connections, and 38 unclassified connections. Existing Wastewater System Demand. Parker Wastewater Demand History per Bay County Billing Records 0.300MGD Wastewater Flow Treated by Bay County Utilities Average Daily Flow = 0.223 MGD (past 2 years) 0.250MGD 0.200MGD Annual Average Daily Flow= 0.221 MGD (past 2years) 0.150MGD Average! DailyFlow AnnualA Average DalyFlow (AADF) Linear( (Average DalyFiow) May-22 0.100MGD Dec-21 Nov-22 May-23 Nov-23 Figure 2 N Historic Wastewater Flows (MGD denotes Million Gallons per Day) The amount of wastewater used by the customers on the system is provided below, see Figure 21 fort flow records: City Population. (based on data.censusgov-2020) Equivalent Residential Connections. .4,010 .2136 Monthly Average Daily Flow per DMRS (for past 2 years). 0.223 MGD (155 gpm) FRWA Capacity Fee! Study Cityo of Parker Page 10 Permitted Plant Capacity (Monthly Average Day Flow). Percentage of wastewater treatment plant used.. 0.7189 MGD (500 gpm) 30% The City's wastewater system consists of approximately 25 miles of gravity collection lines to 16 pump stations and a master pump station to the Bay County operated Military Point Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, FL0167959. An interlocal agreement between Bay County and Parker dated September 24, 1996, reserves treatment capacity of 0.719 MGD1 for the City of Parker's raw wastewater. Parker's wastewater collection system and pump stations are also maintained and operated by Bay County under an interlocal agreement. Utilities are Capital Intensive. The water supply and wastewater treatment industrya are very capital intensive because almost every component of these systems requires fixed capital investments in long-term infrastructure. Water facilities include water supply,treatment, storage, distribution, and disposal oftreatment residuals. Wastewater facilities include sewage collection, pumping (lifts stations), transmission, treatment, disposal oft treated effluent, and disposal of biosolids. Utilities typically operate for many) years without fully recovering the initial construction costs. Loans and grants supported by rates are used to finance capital facilities. In addition to paying the debt obligation for existing facilities, rates support operation, maintenance, salaries, chemicals, power, vehicles, equipment, repair and replacement. Rates frequently cannot be structured to accommodate new or expanded facilities for new customers. Capacity Fees are used to assess new customers for capital construction costs and allow new customers to "buy-in" to the system. Capacity Fees bridge the funding gapi needed to build the new facilities to provide service to new residents and businesses. Capacity Fees cannot be used for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, or normal utility administrative costs. Capacity Fees should be held in a separate account from water/wastewater revenue and general funds. Finally, Capacity Fees must benefit the new users paying the It is just too easy to neglect existing facilities and run them into the ground instead of being proactive in their Funding Utilities. Capacity Fees. repair and replacement. Problems with this approach are: 1. Cost for replacement is several times greater than for repair and maintenance; 2. Real cost of utility operation is hidden from the ratepayer and governing board; 3. Assets are not properly valued and preserved; 4. Improper stewardship of public assets; 5. Grants never cover all replacement costs; and 6. Diversion of public funds from more worthy uses. FRWA Rough Order of Magnitude Capital Improvement Cost Projections. Twenty years ago, conventional lime softening water treatment plants would cost about $41 to $6 per gallon to construct, today one would expect to spend approximately $10 to $15 per gallon to construct. Actual costs vary greatly by community, by region, and between design consultants. Plus, any estimate must include unique site- specific needs like new raw water wells, piping, land, instrumentation & controls, emergency power, generation, or deep wells. The FRWA has developed cost estimating curves based on construction work in Florida for various types of water treatment techniques. These estimating curves have been used to prepare the rough order of magnitude costs for replacement shown herein. FRWA Capacity Fee Study CityofParker Page 11 Establishing the cost for new' wastewater treatment capacity is equally difficult for wastewater treatment plants. Rough order of magnitude costs is included for wastewater plants, collection systems, lift stations, and force mains. Twenty years ago, an extended aeration secondary treatment plant would cost about $3 to $5 per gallon to construct, today you would expect to spend approximately $20 to $40 per gallon to construct. Actual costs vary greatly by regulated treatment requirements, by community, by region, and between design consultants. Recent final construction costs for advanced treatment wastewater plant and effluent reuse systems required by regulatory consent order for al Florida utility similar to Parker have been more than $30/gallon. All costs included are the Engineer's opinion of probable costs based on professional judgement and reviewing a sample of recent bids submitted to the FDEP State Revolving Fund program. Scheduling Presentation of Capacity Fees Study Findings and Recommendations. We are happy to come to your next City Council meeting to explain our analysis and report. We anticipate that you will have questions to discuss and options to consider. The presentation is between 20 to 30-minutes in length, which would bei followed by commission discussion. This activity typically takes about 601 to! 90 minutes and can be held during a special workshop or a normal commission meeting. This is an informative meeting and decisions about Capacity Fees are usually taken at subsequent meetings. It is important that all commission members be in attendance since the adoption of Capacity Fees increases can produce public comment. We have enjoyed serving you and wish your water and wastewater system the best. Please feel free to contact me ify you have any further questions. Sincerely, qml Michael Chase, P.E. Florida Rural Water Association LORIDA TRAL VNTER OCIATION FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 12