endly e4 y b or fcor L o City of PAPKER ESTLLESIEDT 1961 PARKER CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP Council Chambers, City Hall Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 5:30 P.M. MAYOR: CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Kelly Tim Sloan COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK: Tonya Barrow, Mayor Pro Tem Ingrid Bundy Katy Bodiford Ron Chaple John Haney 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 IN THAT CAPACITY. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION ROLL CALL REGULAR AGENDA 1. Impact Fees dourden Ingrid Bundy, City Cerk If a 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 of the proceeding is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be made. Any person requiring special accommodation at this meeting because of a disability or physical impairment should contact the City Clerk at cleik@eiyofparker.com: or by phone at 850-871-4104. If 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 1-800-955-8770 (Voice) or 1-800-955-8771 (TDD). ALL INTERESTED PERSONS DESIRING TO BE HEARD ON THE AFORESAID agenda are invited to be present at the meeting. 1001 West Park Street - Parker, Florida 32404 Telephone: 850-871-4104 - www.tityofparker.com CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WORKSHOP - May 15, 2025 FLORIDA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 2970 Wellington Circle e Tallahassee, FL 32309-7813 (850) 668-2746 February 18, 2025 BOARD of Mr. Tony Summerlin DIRECTORS Public Works Director BRUCE MORRISON City of Parker Niceville 1001 West Park Street President Parker, FL32404 SCOTTKELLY Phone: (850) 871-5599 Atlantic Beach Email: Vice President ummetinedietsiersen POONAM KALKAT RE: Water and Wastewater Final Capacity Fee Boynton Beach Study Secretary/Treasurer City of Parker, Bay Co., PWS: 1030520, Fac. No. FLA645541 ROBERTI MUNRO Orlando Dear Mr. Summerlin: National Director JOHN BOSTIC III Florida Rural Water Association is pleased to provide this Capacity Fee Study to the City Zephyrhills of Parker as a membership benefit. FRWA is dedicated to assisting water and MELISSA PILCHER wastewater systems provide Floridians with an ample affordable supply of high-quality Santa Rosa Beach water and wastewater disposal services, while protecting natural systems. RANDY Chiefland WILKERSON You should be congratulated on your water and wastewater system and operations staff. With unfunded mandates continuing to roll down from state and federal EXECUTIVE with DIRECTOR governments along the aging of pipes, pumps, and plants, you have risen to the challenge and continue to provide quality services. To make a very difficult job more ALICIA KEETER Tallahassee 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 regulations. Capacity Fees. Capacity Fees Connection Charges) are one-time charges assessed to LORIDA FRAL the new commercial and residential connections to reimburse utility systems for ASquaTos 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 Development EMAIL Charges. 1 frwa@frwa.net The goals and objectives considered in the study include the following: WEBSITE www.frwa.net Proposed Capacity Fees should be equitable among customer classes; Proposed Capacity Fees should minimize "shock" to customers if possible; 1 AWWA, Manual M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, 7th Edition, American Water Works Association, Denver CO., 2017, pp. 321-347 Proposed Capacity Fees should reimburse the City for infrastructure required to supply water and collect treat, and disposal of wastewater from new commercial and residential connections; and V Proposed Capacity Fees should provide for capital improvement needs and not operation and maintenance costs FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 2 Executive Summary Findings & Recommendations The City of Parker has two options for setting Capacity Fees: Option A = Use the Remaining Useful Life Basis to capture the existing cost of running the City of Parker Water and Wastewater Utility. Option B - Use the Replacement Value Basis to capture the true and sustainable cost of running the City 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. A piece of equipment may last longer than its estimated useful life, but 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 technically functional, may be more of a liability than a benefit if it requires 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 of its useful life, the cost that the utility will have to bear to serve the development being added to the utility. As an example ofthe 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 to 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 to age and wear. This is the cost the existing users have been incurring for all the previous years 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 capacity was added at the time the new user connected to the water system. The utility isi fairly compensated for 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 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 condition SO it will be fully available when needed by the new development. 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 necessary, effective capacity available for new users when it 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 fee for a 5/8" tap is $500.00. For the Water Capacity Fee, the City has the option of using the evaluated Fee of $1,580 per ERC using the Remaining Useful Life Basis -or- $3,070 per ERC using the Replacement Value Basis to capture the true and sustainable cost of running its Water Utility. FRWA recommends using the Replacement Value. 2. Wastewater Capacity Fee Findings 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 $2,820 per ERC using the Remaining Useful Life Basis -or- $6,150 per ERC using the Replacement Value Basis to capture the true and sustainable cost of running its Wastewater Utility. FRWA recommends using the Replacement Value. 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 to the wastewater system. That means the wastewater flows for Parker are in line with the Water Research Foundation recommendation and infiltration/inflow is not an issue for the wastewater system. Water & Wastewater Capacity Fee Findings In combination both the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees are: Equivalent Residential Water & Wastewater Connection (ERC) Calculation Comparison Option A Category Current Impact Fees Remaining Useful Life Option B Replacement Value Value Water $500/ERC $1,580/ERC $3,070/ ERC Wastewater $1,400/ERC $2,820/ ERC $6,150/ ERC Totals $1,900/ERC $4,400/ ERC $9,220/ ERC 3. Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Recommendations FRWA recommends that the City use the evaluated fees to capture the true and sustainable cost of running its Water and Wastewater Utility and to maintain and protect the City's vital infrastructure. We recommend 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 at least annually by staff based on actual time and material costs for meters, fittings, boxes, equipment costs, fuel costs, and salaries. The Utility's policies on payments, late charge fees, illegal turn on penalty, or returned check penalty 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 of the determined increase in operation and maintenance expenses. The following table shows the Public Service Commission Annual Approved Index for water and wastewater utilities. Commission Approved Commission Approved Year Year Index Index 2013 1.63% 2019 2.36% 2014 1.41% 2020 1.79% 2015 1.57% 2021 1.17% 2016 1.29% 2022 4.53% 2017 1.51% 2023 7.07% 2018 1.76% 2024 3.24% Iti is recommended that you revisit this Capacity Fee study every 3 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. FRWA uses a rational and conservative approach when performing these evaluations. This approach is 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 of the Florida Statutes that set the basis for rates and Capacity Fees by counties and municipalities. Such fees shall be 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 infrastructure. New customers add incremental capital costs to the utility and the fees are set to recapture their impacts to the system. 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, 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 in the Capacity Fee calculations. Outstanding principal on debt that has been incurred for infrastructure is not included in asset value for Capacity Fee calculations. The capital costs / 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 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 two prongs, each of which are a rational nexus that must be found: 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 the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision.4 To understand the first prong of the dual rational nexus test, a rational nexus between the need for additional capital facilities and the growth in population generated by a new development, iti is first important to understand what is considered 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 ofWater Rates, Fees and Charges, 7th Edition, American Water Works Association, Denver CO., 2017, pp. 321-347 3 See Florida Statutes Chapter 153 for County Water & Sewer Systems and Chapter 180 Municipal Public Works. 4St.. Johns County V. Northeast Florida Builders Ass'n, Inc. 583 So.2d 635, 637 (Fla. 1991),; Hollywood, Inc. V. Broward County, 431 So.2d 606, 611-612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 7 utility in demonstrating the value of infrastructure capacity made available to the new customer. The Capacity Fee Study specifically focuses on the pro-rate share new customers should pay: 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 dual rational nexus test. The second prong of the dual rational nexus test is that there must be a rational nexus between the expenditures ofthe funds collected and the benefits accruing to the payor ofthe 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 the fees collected is the responsibility of the City and is not addressed in this Capacity Fee Study. Cost Savings and Benefits. Capacity Fees provide a revenue source for replacement and upgrade of existing infrastructure as new customers are added to the system and the 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 0&M budget, avoid unnecessary costly emergency repairs and minimize community health and safety concerns due to critical water and wastewater equipment failures. Accuracy of Revenue Predictions. We have performed our analyses using the data and information obtained; we have relied upon such 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 the 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 that are required for the use of these new customers. 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 for inflation). It's not fair to existing ratepayers and it is 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 community. Dealing with Growth & Infrastructure Decay. Communities must maintain adequate levels of service for public facilities and anticipate and prepare for growth. Some older or aging 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 soure/reatmenvstorage capacity analysis reports by a professional engineer documenting projected flows. If the operating capacity of 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 of 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 500,000 gpd Source Water Purchased from Bay County Utilities Maximum Month Daily Demand - 448,613 GPD for past 2 years I 11 I - 400,000 gpd A - - 1 1 V 300,000 gpd M - - - - Monthly Average Demand Average Daily Demand = 336,050 GPD for past 2 years 200,000 gpd Max, Month Demand Linear (Monthi Average Demand) 100,000 gpd Jan-21 Jul-21 Jan-22 Jul-22 Jan-23 Jul-23 Jan-24 Figure 1 N Historic Water Demands (GPD denotes Gallons per Day) The amount of water used by the customers on the system is provided below, see Figure 1 for flow records: City Population. 4,010 (based on data.census.gov 2020) Equivalent Residential Connections (ERC). 2,279 Average Daily Demand (ADD) for past 2 years 336,050 gpd (233 gpm) Maximum Daily Demand (MDD) for past 2 years. 448,613 gpd (311 gpm) Total Permitted Plant Capacity (MDD). N/A = Purchased water from Bay County FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 9 Percentage of total water treatment plant capacity used N/A Water used per Equivalent Residential Connection (ADD / ERC). 147 gpd The City of Parker is a distribution only system that purchases water from Bay County Water System, PWS ID 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 0.300 MGD Wastewater Flow Treated by Bay County Utilities Average Daily Flow = 0.223 MGD (past2y years) 0.250 MGD X 4 y 0.200MGD Annual Average Daily Flow = 0.221 MGD (past 2 years) 0.150MGD Average Daly Flow Annual Average Daly Flow (AADF) Linear (Average Daly Flow) 0.100MGD Dec-21 May-22 Nov-22 May-23 Nov-23 Figure 2 2 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 2 for flow records: City Population. 4,010 (based on data.census.gov- 2020) Equivalent Residential Connections. .2136 Monthly Average Daily Flow per DMRS (for past 2 years). 0.223 MGD (155 gpm) FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 10 Permitted Plant Capacity (Monthly Average Day Flow) 0.7189 MGD (500 gpm) Percentage of wastewater treatment plant used.. 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 MGD fort 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 industry 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 oft treatment residuals. Wastewater facilities include sewage collection, pumping (lift stations), transmission, treatment, disposal of treated effluent, and disposal of biosolids. Funding Utilities. 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 gap 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 Capacity Fees. It is just too easy to neglect existing facilities and run them into the ground instead of being proactive in their 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 $4 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 City of Parker 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 a 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 be followed by commission discussion. This activity typically takes about 60 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, 9ml Michael Chase, P.E. Florida Rural Water Association ORIDA RAL ATER ASSONTIoN FRWA Capacity Fee Study City of Parker Page 12 Water & Wastewater Capacity Fee Report FRWAI Member: Gity of Parker Address: 1001 W Park Street Panama City, FL 32404 Telephone: (850) 871-5599 Contact: Tony Summerlin E-mail: summetinedyopaner.com County: Bay City Population: 4,010 Connections: Water: 2,004 Wastewater: 1,879 Facility ID: 1030520 FacilityID: FL0167959 Capacity: N/A Capacily: 718,900 gpd ADF 0.336 MGD ADF 0.223 MGD MDF 0.449 MGD MMF 0.258 MGD February 18, 2025 Version: FINAL NSE - Preparedb by: Michael Chase, P.E. No. 56768 Raymond Digitallysigned! MichaelChase byF Raymond * * Michael Chase Date:: 2025.02.171 16:34:26. -05'00' Florida Rural Water Association STATE OF 2970 Wellington Circle FLORIDP. LARIIA RAL Tallahassee, Florida 32309-6885 ONAL NIKI AssoiNroy Phone: 850-668-2746 Michael Chase, P.E. FL PE# 56768 Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle," Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 2,004 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 PWS: 1030520 Water Capacity Fee Recommendations Water Capacity Fee Calculation Where: Total Treatment Capacity= 845,765 gpd Max Day Demand from MORS past 2 years: - 448,613 gpd Percentage of WTP used = 53.0% Average Daily Demand from MORS past 2 years 336,050 gpd Category Remaining Useful Life Replacement Value Wells $0 N/A $0 Water Treatment $0 N/A $0 Elevated Storage Tanks $0 N/A $0 Distribution System $6,849,317 52% $13,238,125 Less Water Utility Debt ($58,000) ($58,000) Totals $6,791,317 52% $13,180,125 Cost per Gallon $8.03/gal $15.58/gal Equivalent Residential Water Connection (ERC) Calculation Where: Remaining Useful Replacement Life Basis Value Basis System' Value ($) = $6,791,317 $13,180,125 Max Daily Demand based on MORS past 2 years = 448,613 gpd 448,613 gpd ERCs: = 2,279 2,279 see ERC calculation worksheet Max Daily Demand / Connection - 197 gpd/ERC 197 gpd/ERC Avg Daily Demand/ / Connection: = 147 gpd/ERC 147 gpd/ERC ERC Costs - System Value ($)x MDD / ERC Total Treatment Capacity gpd (Max Day) ERC Costs - $6,791,317 197 gpd/ERC $1,580.64/ERC Remaining Useful Life Basis 845,765 gpd Use $1,580/ ERC ERC Costs - $13,180,125 197 gpd/ERC $3,067.59/E ERC Replacement Value Basis 845,765 gpd Use $3,070/E ERC Remaining Equivalent Residential Water Connections Available Where: Max Daily Demand / ERC: - 197 gpd/ERC 2,279 - ERCs Total Treatment Capacity (Max Day) - 845,765 gpd Max Day Demand - 448,613 gpd 397,152 gpd WTP Capacity Remaining (MDF) Percentage of WTP used: - 53.0% 47.0% = WTP Capacity Remaining 2,018 - ERCs Remaining Nole: 1. Approximate Useful Value based oni industrys slandards, consislent with FRWA Deparatment ofE Environmental! Protection Asset Management Plan. 2. Ulility debt for capitale expendituresi ist taken out because repaymento ofd debty willl be paid byr new users inrates Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 1,879 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 GMS: FL0167959 Wastewater Capacity Fee Recommendations Wastewater Capacity Fee Calculation Where: Total Treatment Capacity - 718,900 gpd Monthly Average Day Flow MADF from DMRS = 0.223 MGD for past 24 months Percentage of WWTF used - 31.1% Category Remaining Useful Life Replacement Value WWTP $2,261,229 30% $7,631,649 Lift Stations $2,265,000 43% $5,300,000 Force Main $2,024,761 74% $2,725,313 Gravity Sewers & Manholes $13,173,000 49% $26,998,000 Less Wastewater Utility Debt ($332,862) ($332,862) Totals $19,391,128 46% $42,322,100 Cost per Gallon $26.97/gal $58.87/gal Equivalent Residential Wastewater Connection (ERC) Calculation Remaining Where: Useful Life Replacement Value Basis Basis System Value ($): = $19,391,128 $42,322,100 MADF from DMRS = 0.223 MGD 0.223 MGD ERCS = 2,136 2,136 see ERC calculation worksheet Average Day Flow, / Connection - 105 gpd/ERC 105 gpd/ERC ERC Costs - System Value ($) x MADF/ERC Total Treatment Capacity gpd (MADF) ERC Costs - $19,391,128 105 gpd/ERC $2,819.83 / ERC Remaining Useful Life Basis 718,900 gpd Use $2,820 / ERC ERC Costs = $42,322,100 105 gpd/ERC $6,154.42, /E ERC Replacement Value Basis 718,900 gpd Use $6,150/ERC Remaining Equivalent Residential Wastewater Connections Available Where: Monthly ADF / ERC: = 105 gpd/ERC 2,136 : ERCs Total Treatment Capacity - 718,900 gpd Monthly ADF from DMRS 0.223 MGD 0.496 MGD Capacity Remaining Percentage of WWTF used = 31.1% 68.9% 4,741 = ERCs Remaining Note: 1. Approximate Useful Value based oni industry standards, consistent with FRWAI Departmento of Environmental Protection/ Asset Management Plan. 2. Utilily debtf ford capitale expenditures is taken out because repayment of debti will bep paid by newu users in rates. 3. Infrastructure paidb by developers andt turned over the to City, based oni information providedb by Cilys staff, isn not includedi in Replacement Value ork Remaining Useful Life costs Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 2,004 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 PWS: 1030520 Distribution System Piping - Inventory, Condition & Current Value Neglect lines less than 4-inches] from value of water distribution. system Replacement Value at today's cost price per inch-diameter, perf foot: $13.72 Estimated Pipe Dia Length Length Approximate Approx. Value Estimated Useful Pipe Material Useful Life Value Replacement (inches) (feet) (miles) Average Age ($ perf ft) Value Value ($) ($) 4-in DIP,PVC 552-ft 0.10 mi 52-yrs 48% $34.00 /ft $9,009 $18,768 6-in DIP, PVC 98,396-ft 18.64 mi 52-yrs 48% $82.32 /ft $3,922,567 $8,099,959 8-in DIP,PVC 41,953-ft 7.95 mi 42-yrs 58% $109.76 /ft $2,670,715 $4,604,761 10-in DIP,PVC 3,751-ft 0.71 mi 52-yrs 48% $137.20 /ft $247,026 $514,637 Weighted Average 144,652-ft 27.40 mi $91.52 /ft $6,849,317 $13,238,125 Replacement Value at today's cost: $13,238,125 NOTES: 1. Lengths, material and age based on City GIS maps and interviews with Utilities staff. 2.. Approximate Useful Value based on industry: standards, consistent with FRWA Deparatment of Environmental Protection. Asset Management Plan: 100 years. / - - - o 1 I Florida Rural Water Association 2970' Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 2,004 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 PWS: 1030520 Historic Water Flow Data from Bay County Billing Records Monthly Average Max. Month Ratio Total WTP Month Demand ADD (Annual) Demand MDD:AADD Permitted Capacity (MDD) Jan-21 260,774 gpd Feb-21 261,804 gpd Mar-21 319,387 gpd Apr-21 346,333 gpd May-21 349,323 gpd Jun-21 375,700 gpd Purchased 375,700 gpd 1.22 NIA Jul-21 289,581 gpd Source Water Aug-21 362,097 gpd Sep-21 279,567 gpd Oct-21 276,387 gpd Nov-21 275,500 gpd Dec-21 291,742 gpd 307,349 gpd 375,700 gpd Jan-22 277,903 gpd Feb-22 279,964 gpd Mar-22 310,161 gpd Apr-22 294,933 gpd May-22 297,226 gpd Jun-22 411,333 gpd Purchased Jul-22 274,871 gpd 411,333 gpd 1.27 N/A Source Water Aug-22 363,161 gpd Sep-22 366,600 gpd Oct-22 329,000 gpd Nov-22 315,833 gpd Dec-22 357,935 gpd 323,244 gpd 411,333 gpd Jan-23 306,645 gpd Feb-23 365,821 gpd Mar-23 257,839 gpd Apr-23 333,333 gpd May-23 342,968 gpd Jun-23 359,567 gpd Purchased Jul-23 319,935 gpd 448,613 gpd 1.35 N/A Source Water Aug-23 448,613 gpd Sep-23 304,867 gpd Oct-23 330,839 gpd Nov-23 340,433 gpd Dec-23 279,290 gpd 332,513 gpd 448,613 gpd Jan-24 273,000 gpd Feb-24 310,107 gpd Mar-24 317,516 gpd Purchased 439,484 gpd 1.28 N/A Apr-24 339,700 gpd Source Water May-24 439,484 gpd Jun-24 387,833 gpd 344,607 gpd Average Day Demand (GPD) 336,050 gpd Forp past 2 years MDF/ADF 1.33 Forp past 2 years Max Daily Demand (GPD) 448,613 gpd Forp past 2 years ADD MDD TPC 2021 307,349 gpd 375,700 gpd N/A 2022 323,244 gpd 411,333 gpd N/A 2023 332,513 gpd 448,613 gpd N/A 2024 344,607 gpd 439,484 gpd N/A 8 3 3 5 8 31 3 3I 3 & 3 8 8 8 - 8 8 8 8 8 R & 3 & 8 & - I I a - d - a a a - e 3 o 3 a - e - - a LI 3 8 I - - - - - 8 E I 8 - 8 - & 4 8 I I I 8 - € E a € 8 - 8 8 € 8 a : & I 3 3 8 & * 3 3 8 8 S 8 a I a a a I I - I - I 8 9 S 3 8 I 3 I € I 8 8 8 a € 8 3 3 - I - - - 8 I 8 - R 8 a W 8 8 a - & 8 - 8 & E - $ 8 8 8 8 a a 8 8 8 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 d& E a 8 8 I 8 I 8 a 8 : d8 S a & 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 & 8 8 8 8 8 a 3 8 8 8 3 3 d8 3 8 8 3 - E a B € a - - € a R I E 3 3 A 8 $ - 8 8 a - S 8 a 3 8 - 8 3 8 8 € : 8 - a 8 8 8 8 a 8 I I - - I - - 8 8 8 - 8 3 E 3 - € E a I I E - I 8 I 8 S 8 I - 3 - - 8 8 S 9 8 3 8 8 8 8 3 I 8 - 3 8 8 8 a a 8 a a 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 a 8 a a 8 8 8 8 3 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 3 I 8 8 a - - 8 a 8 8 I - : a 8 8 a 8 a 8 - 8 € 3 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 E S $ o 8 a 8 E o a I 8 o o 8 o o 8 a I o 8 o I 8 6 I 8 8 8 $ - 8 8 8 8 8 # 8 I 8 8 8 # 8 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 I 8 8 8 1 8 I a 8 8 $ 8 8 I 8 a a 8 8 8 I 8 a 8 8 8 o 8 8 - 8 I a o 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 8 3 a 8 8 8 8 o - I - 8 8 8 8 I 8 a a 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o I 8 8 - I S I E I - I 8 8 a 3 8 8 I 8 8 $ 8 a I E $ a 8 8 8 8 8 # 8 8 8 I a 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 - I : 8 8 8 8 o I 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 # 3 8 8 : a 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 a 8 8 8 # 8 8 8 a a 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 3 8 8 8 8 I S I 8 I 8 I 8 3 8 8 9 8 8 a 8 8 E a I E I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I @ a 8 I 8 8 a 8 a 8 I 8 B 8 8 a a 8 8 8 8 8 a I - I 8 E I 8 S 8 8 8 8 I 8 I 8 I a I 8 I 8 I E 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 : 8 8 8 8 I 8 8 8 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 - 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 8 8 $ 8 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 : 8 8 I 8 # 8 3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 I 8 - 8 8 - : 8 8 8 $ 8 8 I 8 3 8 8 8 8 E a 8 8 - 8 8 E 8 8 a 8 8 E o o P I I o o 8 a 8 - I 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 8 - 8 8 I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a I 8 3 - $ a 8 I o a I o 8 I 8 o 8 8 8 I 8 8 8 $ a 8 I 7 à I 1 1 1 3 7 1 E 1 1 I 1 I - à 3 I 1 5 I S 3 3 1 E 3 7 3 7 1 1 1 3 7 7 3 1 1 5 a 1 1 1 1 I 1 / / - K. / > / Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 1,879 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 GMS: FL0167959 Historic Wastewater Flow Data from Bay County Billing Records Monthly Max Capacity Month Gallons Year Monthly Annual 10.27% oft the Billed Average Average Military Point (Total) WRF-71 MGD Dec-21 31 6,678,100 2021 0.215 MGD 718,900 gpd Jan-22 28 6,586,100 0.212 MGD 718,900 gpd Feb-22 31 7,130,600 0.230 MGD 718,900 gpd Mar-22 30 7,675,100 0.248 MGD 718,900 gpd Apr-22 31 7,595,000 0.245 MGD 718,900 gpd May-22 30 6,458,100 0.208 MGD 718,900 gpd Jun-22 31 7,211,000 0.233 MGD 718,900 gpd Jul-22 31 7,519,100 0.243 MGD 718,900 gpd Aug-22 30 7,859,100 0.254 MGD 718,900 gpd Sep-22 31 7,991,000 0.258 MGD 718,900 gpd Oct-22 30 6,435,100 0.208 MGD 718,900 gpd Nov-22 31 6,148,000 0.198 MGD 0.229 MGD 718,900 gpd Dec-22 31 6,556,100 0.211 MGD 0.229 MGD 718,900 gpd Jan-23 28 6,737,100 2022 0.217 MGD 0.229 MGD 718,900 gpd Feb-23 31 6,162,800 0.199 MGD 0.227 MGD 718,900 gpd Mar-23 30 6,594,100 0.213 MGD 0.224 MGD 718,900 gpd Apr-23 31 6,567,000 0.212 MGD 0.221 MGD 718,900 gpd May-23 30 6,488,100 0.209 MGD 0.221 MGD 718,900 gpd Jun-23 31 6,562,000 0.212 MGD 0.219 MGD 718,900 gpd Jul-23 31 7,592,100 0.245 MGD 0.220 MGD 718,900 gpd Aug-23 30 6,563,100 0.212 MGD 0.216 MGD 718,900 gpd Sep-23 31 6,420,000 0.207 MGD 0.212 MGD 718,900 gpd Oct-23 30 7,120,100 0.230 MGD 0.214 MGD 718,900 gpd Nov-23 31 6,350,000 0.205 MGD 0.214 MGD 718,900 gpd Dec-23 31 7,195,100 0.232 MGD 0.216 MGD 718,900 gpd Jan-24 28 7,743,100 2023 0.250 MGD 0.219 MGD 718,900 gpd Feb-24 31 6,840,900 0.221 MGD 0.221 MGD 718,900 gpd Mar-24 30 7,380,100 0.238 MGD 0.223 MGD 718,900 gpd Apr-24 31 7,467,000 0.241 MGD 0.225 MGD 718,900 gpd Average Daily Flow the Last 2 years = 0.223 MGD Max ADF the Last 2 years = 0.258 MGD Parker Annual Average = 0.225 MGD Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 1,879 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 GMS: FL0167959 Wastewater Lift Stations Estimated Construction Cost Average Useful Life Unit Cost Replacement Age (years) Value Station Duplex Submersible Lift Stations (2-5 Hp) 8 $2,400,000 30 $600,000 $300,000 / ea Duplex Submersible Lift Stations (5-15 Hp) 6 $2,100,000 22 $945,000 $350,000 / ea Duplex Submersible Lift Stations (15-30 Hp) 2 $800,000 4 $720,000 $400,000 /ea Usefull Life Value: $2,265,000 Replacement' Value att today's cost: $5,300,000 1.Age based onk best availablei information from City staff and Cily GIS data input. 2.Approximate Useful Value ofexistingl lifts stations basedo on industry standards, consistent withF FRWA Deparatment of Environmental Protection Asset Management Plan: 40 years. Minimum useful life - 10%. 3. Cost based on similar construction in Florida and engineer estimate. Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 1,879 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 GMS: FL0167959 Year built: Bid in September 1997, SRF Close-Out 2005, Parker Owns 10.27% Estimated WWTF Construction Costs Parker's! Share Average Capacity Original $/gallon Age Useful Life Construction Cost (years) Mechanically cleaned bars screens, forcedy vortex grit removal device and one vortex cyclone/screw conveyor grit clasifier/dewatering Replacement device, a! 5-Stage Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)) Wastewater value estimated Treatment System; two anaerobic basins (0.26 MG, each), twoi first anoxic basins (1.01 MG, each), two aeration basins (2.70 MG, each), 0.719 MGD $3,276,250 using ENR 19 30% two second anoxic basins (0.51 MG, each), and two reaeration basins Construction (0.10 MG, each), two secondary clarifiers (12,272 SF, each), three Cost Index 2024 filters (1,040SF, each). Replacement Value at today's cost: $7,631,649 Useful Life Value at today's cost: $2,261,229 Notes: 1.WWTPI replacement cost based on Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index Annual Average 2.Approximale Useful Value basedo oni industy slandards, consistenty with FRWA Deparatment of Environmental Protection Asset Management Plan andF Florida Public Service Commission Average Service Life Guidelines, F.A.C. 25-30.140: 27y years. Florida Rural Water Association Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 1,879 City: Panama City, FL 32404 GMS: FL0167959 Wastewater Transmission System - Inventory, Condition & Current Value Includes Wastewater Force Main Replacement Value at today's cost price per inch-diameter, perj foot: $13.72 Estimated Pipe Dia Length Length Approximate Approx. Value Estimated Useful Replacement Pipe Material Useful Life Value (inches) (feet) (miles) Average Age ($ per ft) Value Value ($) ($) Wastewater Force Main 4-in PVC 10,185-ft 1.93 mi 27-yrs 55% $54.88 /ft $307,424 $558,953 6-in PVC 1,106-ft 0.21 mi 5-yrs 92% $82.32 /ft $83,459 $91,046 8-in PVC 9,838-ft 1.86 mi 12-yrs 80% $109.76 /ft $863,855 $1,079,819 10-in PVC 3,687-ft 0.70 mi 19-yrs 68% $137.20. /ft $345,669 $505,856 12-in PVC 2,974-ft 0.56 mi 8-yrs 87% $164.64/ft $424,354 $489,639 27,790-ft 5.26 mi Useful Life Value: $2,024,761 $2,725,313 Replacement Value at today's cost: $2,725,313 NOTES: 1.Age, material, diameter and lengths ofp pipelines based on GIS data and interviews with operations staff. 2.Approximate Useful Value of existing force main based oni industry. standards, consistent with FRWA Deparatment of Environmental Protection. Asset Management. Plan: 60 years. 3. Cost based ons similar construction in Florida ande engineer estimate 4. Share of system cost is forf force main 4-inches and larger for sewage transmission, collection: system force mains required for connections (3-inches and smaller) are not included Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 1,879 City: Panama City, FL 32404 GMS: FL0167959 Wastewater Collection System - Inventory, Condition & Current Value Replacement Value att today's cost price peri inch-diameter) per foot: $17.31 Estimated Estimated Approx. PVC Pipe Length Length Average Age Useful Value Useful Life Replacement Material (feet) (miles) (years) (1) (3) ($ perf ft) Value Value Value ($) ($) 8-in PVC, Clay, DIP 143,426-ft 27.16 mi 40-yrs 60% $138.48 /ft $11,916,979 $19,861,632 10-in PVC 138-ft 0.03 mi 41-yrs 59% $173.10 /ft $14,094 $23,888 12-in PVC 1,817-ft 0.34 mi 41-yrs 59% $207.72 /ft $222,682 $377,427 16-in PVC, Clay 337-ft 0.06 mi 41-yrs 59% $276.96 /ft $55,068 $93,336 18-in DIP,Clay 1,157-ft 0.22 mi 41-yrs 59% $311.58 /ft $212,694 $360,498 143,426-ft 27.16 mi Rounded $11,917,000 $20,716,781 Replacement Value at today's cost: $20,717,000 Manholes Estimated Estimated Approx. Avg Est Age Value Useful Life Category Material Quantity Useful Replacement (years) (1) (3) ($ per unit) Value Value Value ($) ($) Manholes Concrete 579 40-yrs 20% $10,847 $1,256,122 $6,280,610 $1,256,000 $6,280,610 Replacement Value at today's cost: $6,281,000 NOTES: 1.Age of pipelines are based on interviews with Utilities stoff and available GIS data. 2. Pipe Diameter based oni interviews with Utility staffo and available GIS data. 3. Approximate Usefull Value ofe existing piping and manholes based on industry: standards, consistent with FRWA Department of6 Environmental Protection Asset Management: Plan: 100) years gravity sewers, 50) years manholes. 4. Cost based on similar construction in Florida and engineer estimate. 5. Share ofs system cost is for gravity sewers greater than 4-inches, collection. system gravity sewers 4-inches and: smaller requiredfor connections are not included Florida Rural Water Association 2970 Wellington Circle, Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Date: 18-Feb-25 Member: City of Parker Version: FINAL Contact: Tony Summerlin Conn: 2,004 Address: Panama City, FL 32404 PWS 1030520 Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC) Worksheet WATER ERCS Water Meter Breakdown by Size Type Quantity Size ERC Factor Total ERCS Residential 1,893 3/4" or 5/8" 1 1893 Residential 4 1" 2.5 10 Residential 0 1-1/2" 5 0 Residential 4 2" 8 32 Nonresidential 69 3/4" or 5/8" 1 69 Nonresidential 16 1" 3 48 Nonresidential 3 1-1/2" 5 15 Nonresidential 14 2" 8 112 Nonresidential 1 4" 100 100 Total 2,004 2279 Ratio ERCs / Service Connection: 1.14 2279 Water ERCs WASTEWATER ERCS Type Quantity Size ERC Factor Total ERCs Residential 1,781 3/4" or 5/8" 1 1781 Residential 4 1" 2.5 10 Residential 0 1-1/2" 5 0 Residential 4 2" 8 32 Nonresidential 60 3/4" or 5/8" 1 60 Nonresidential 14 1" 3 42 Nonresidential 3 1-1/2" 5 15 Nonresidential 12 2" 8 96 Nonresidential 1 4" 100 100 Total 1,879 2136 Ratio ERCs / Service Connection: 1.14 2136 Wastewater ERCs Source:. 1/5/2024 and 3/14/2024, Assistant City Cerk and Public Works Director - - ORDINANCE NO. 2025-425 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PARKER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PARKER (ORDINANCE NO. 2010-349, AS AMENDED) ; AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 82 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO UTILIITY SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING A MECHANISM FOR THE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER'S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR THE LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION AND REPEALER CLAUSES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RECITATION OF FACTS WHEREAS, the water and sewer impact fees ordained below are based on a study using the most recent and localized data available that has been done within 4 years of this Ordinance and such study is adopted by the City within twelve (12) months of the initiation of the new impact fee study. WHEREAS, the City provides for accounting and reporting of impact fees collections and expenditures and accounts for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fees in separate accounting funds. WHEREAS, administrative charges of the City are limited for the collection of impact fees to the actual costs. WHEREAS, notice of the imposition of amended impact fees was and is provided at least ninety (90) days before the effective date of this Ordinance imposing increased impact fees. WHEREAS, the City does not require the collection of impact fees prior to the date of issuance of the building permit for the property that is subject to the fees. WHEREAS, the impact fees levied by the City are proportional and reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the need for additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated by the new residential or commercial construction. WHEREAS, the impact fees are proportional and reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the expenditures of 2025-425 1 04/15/2025 the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the new residential or nonresidential construction. WHEREAS, the City specifically earmarks impact fees collected for use in acquiring, constructing, or improving capital facilities to benefit new users and any other matters allowed by Florida law. WHEREAS, the revenues generated by the impact fees are not used, in whole or in part, to pay existing debt or for previously approved projects unless the expenditure was or is reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new residential or nonresidential construction. WHEREAS, the demonstrated-need study for the City justifying an increase of the impact fees in excess of those authorized in Subparagraphs (6) (b), (6) (c), (6) (d), or (6) (e) of Section 163.31801, F.S. has been completed within twelve (12) months before the adoption of the increases of the impact fees herein and expressly demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phase-in limitations. WHEREAS, the City has held not less than two publicly noticed vorkshops/meetings dedicated to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phase-in limitations set forth in Section 163.31801 (6), F.S. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PARKER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 82-68 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Parker, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 82-68. Monthly water rate and impact fee. (a) Water rates. The charges for water service, with no minimum water consumption included, are currently set forth below but shall be adjusted as set forth herein and altered by action of the council. The charges shall be subject to the applicable taxes. In the first and final month of service during which a customer will be initiating or terminating service, the regular monthly base rate shall be pro-rated for the number of days that the city's water service is available. Meters are read in thousands only for 2025-425 2 04/15/2025 billing purposes. Residential. Base monthly charge Single-family units . $ 36.50 Multifamily units (also includes bulk customers) on a per-unit basis . $36.50 Volumetric charge Per 1,000 gallons for all water consumed $6.50 10% utility surcharge on water only customers Commercial or industrial. Base monthly charge Charge for each individual unit $36.50 Volumetric charge Per 1,000 gallons for all water consumed . $6.50 Hydrants. Base monthly charge Charge for each individual hydrant . $9.59 Volumetric charge Per 1,000 gallons for all water consumed . $6.13 (b) Basis for rates. The water rates set forth in this section are determined in accordance with the current rates charged by the county to the city. If the county increases the rates charged to the city from those currently charged, the rates set forth herein shall be automatically increased by the same amount on a er-tnousand-gallon basis as implemented by the county in its 2025-425 3 04/15/2025 wholesale water rate in order to recover the total cost incurred by the city of the rate increase implemented by the county's wholesale rate. All rates including base rates shall be subject to an inflationary adjustment of three percent effective on October 1 of each year hereafter and shall be applied to each customer's water bill beginning with the first bill issued after October 1 of each year. Such inflationary adjustment shall be in addition to any other rate adjustment which may be approved by the city. The city council may change, alter or amend any or all fees and charges relating to water use, including but not limited to fees, deposits, base rates and impact fees by subsequent ordinance, resolution or action. (c) Fire sprinkler system rate charge: (1) The rate charge for establishments relating to a fire sprinkler system connected to a four-inch city water line shall be $6.25 per month. (2) The rate charge for establishments relating to a fire sprinkler system connected to a six-inch city water line shall be $10.50 per month. (3) In addition to the amounts set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above, each customer shall pay the amount of $1.00 per month for each sprinkler head permitted or installed. (4) The monthly rate charge for establishments connected to the county water system shall be equal to whatever charge the county levies upon the city for such service. (5) The monthly rate charge set forth in this subsection (c) shall be payable to the department upon billing as reflected on the customer's monthly water bill from the city. (d) Impact fees. (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to connect or permit any other person to connect any fixture or piping to the water system of the city, or to any private water system 2025-425 4 04/15/2025 which is already connected to the water system of the city, without first paying the applicable impact fee to the city. An impact fee shall not be required solely in connection with an irrigation meter. (2) The current impact fee for one equivalent residential connection (including irrigation) shall be $3,070.00. The impact fee for one equivalent residential connection (including irrigation) may be altered or amended by subsequent ordinance or resolution. (3) The current impact fee for nonresidential customers shall be a multiplier factor of the number of equivalent residential connections based upon the table set forth below multiplied by the then existing impact fee. Diameter of Equivalent Pipe Residential Connection 5/8" or 3/4" 1.0 1" 2.5 1 1/2" 5.0 2" 8.0 3" 16.0 4" 25.0 (4) Impact fees shall be payable at such time as a permit from the city for water connection is obtained. No water connection permit shall be issued until such fees are paid in full. In the event a building is located outside the boundaries of the city, such fee shall be due at the time water tap and sewer connection fees are paid. No service shall be provided until such fees are paid. (5) The foregoing impact fee may be changed in the future by the city by subsequent ordinance, resolution, or motion of the council. (e) Water reserve fund. All monies received from water impact fees imposed hereunder shall be deposited and held together with interest thereon in a separate reserve fund hereby created and shall be expended from that fund only for the purpose of extending or oversizing, separating or constructing additions to the production or holding facilities, treatment plant, or 2025-425 5 04/15/2025 distribution system, including new taps and meters, or for any other lawful purpose. Section 2. Section 82-372 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Parker, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 82-372. Amount of fee. (a) The current impact fee for one equivalent residential sewer connection shall be $6,150.00. (b) The current impact fee for nonresidential customers shall be a multiplier factor of the number of equivalent residential connections (ERCs) based upon the table set forth below multiplied by the then existing impact fee. Diameter of ERC Pipe 5/8" or 3/4" 1.0 1" 2.5 1 1/2" 5.0 2" 8.0 3" 16.0 4' I 25.0 (c) Impact fees shall be payable at such time as a permit from the city for sewer or sewer connection is obtained. No sewer or sewer connection permit shall be issued until such fees are paid in full. In the event a building is located outside the boundaries of the city, such fee shall be due at the time water tap and sewer connection fees are paid. No service shall be provided until such fees are paid. (d) The impact fees set forth herein may be changed in the future by the city by subsequent ordinance, resolution, or motion of the council. Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, word or provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or 2025-425 6 04/15/2025 unconstitutional by any court of competent urisdiction, 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 4. Scrivener's Errors. The City Attorney may correct any scrivener's errors found in this Ordinance, without public hearing, by filing a corrected copy of the Ordinance with the Clerk. A scrivener's error may not include an amendment that changes the intent or meaning of the Ordinance. Section 5. Ordinance to be Liberally Construed. This ordinance shall be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purposes hereof which are deemed not to adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. Section 6. Codification. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of the City. The sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section, 1 "article," or other appropriate word. Section 7. Repeal of Conflicting Codes, Ordinances, and 2025-425 7 04/15/2025 Resolutions. All codes, ordinances and resolutions or parts of codes, ordinances and resolutions or portions thereof of the City of Parker, in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the 91st day following passage of this Ordinance. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Meeting of the City Council of the City of Parker, Florida as of the day of / 2025. CITY OF PARKER Andrew Kelly, Mayor ATTEST: Ingrid Bundy, City Clerk Examined and approved by me, this day of 2025. Andrew Kelly, Mayor 2025-425 8 04/15/2025