HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 685RESOLUTION NO. /°~J~
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
FOR WATER TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
AND METHODOLOGY THEREFOR
Recitals
1. The City received a report prepared by the Medford Water
Commission on System Development Charges dated September, 1993,
revised in February, 1994 which included a recommended
methodology for calculating Medford Water Commission's systems
development charges (SDC) for the water treatment and
transmission facilities.
2. The use of SDCs is a way to reduce the future water rate
increases and reduce or avoid reliance on debt to fund needed
improvements to serve growth in the system..
3. The City by this Resolution shall establish the SDC and
methodology for the Medford Water Commission plant expansion as
set forth below.
Now, therefore;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definitions. As used herein, the following
definitions apply:
(a) Connection to Svstem. The actual physical connection
to the water system; or, at the time of issuance of approved
plans, a service connection and meter.
(b) Chance in Usage. A condition wherein the amount of
water to be consumed increases from that originally used in the
determination of the system development charge for connection to
the system and which causes an increase in meter size.
(c) Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU). An ERU is
calculated based on the maximum water consumption from the..
smallest meter size in the system, which is what typically serves
a single-family house.
(d) Commission. The Medford Water Commission (MWC).
(e) Manager. The Manager of the Medford Water Commission.
(f) City. The City of Central Point.
Section 2. Collection and Use of Charge. (a) The City of
Central Point shall collect the SDC when:
(i) There is a connection to the system, or
(ii) When a change in usage occurs as determined by the
City. Such change in usage will be determined by the City upon
issuance of a larger service connection and meter to the. system.
1 - RESOLUTION N0. /~R S (030794)
(b) If the City finds that a change in usage has occurred
in accordance with subsection (a)(ii), the customer will be
required to pay an additional sum equal to the current systems
development charge on a dollars per ERU basis times the increase
in equivalent residential units. In no instance will a refund be
provided if it is found that the change in usage results in a
decrease in the number of equivalent residential units. or service
and meter size.
(c) Charges and interest earned on the charges shall be
used to pay for future water system improvements that are needed
to increase the capacity of the system.
Section 3. Methodoloav. (a) Based on the principles for
the establishment of reimbursement fees and improvement fees, the
methodology for the determination of the SDC shall consist of the
following:
(i) The number of ERUs in the plant shall be
determined by the Commission based on the planning criteria and
capacity of the plant.
(ii) The costs of existing plant and future plant shall
be divided by the number of ERUs for which the plant provides
service to determine a charge on a dollars per ERU basis.
(iii) The charge as determined in subsection (ii) above
will be adjusted by a present value factor to adjust for the
interest earned on funds from the actual date of construction or
planned date of construction.
(iv) The SDC for compliance costs shall be determined
by dividing the estimated cost for compliance for the next six
years by the number of ERUs added in each year.
(a) Based on the methodology as specified in Section 3, the
SDC indicated is $456.08 per ERU. Such charge consists of:
(i) For water treatment plant expansion, $184.68 per
equivalent residential unit (ERU)..
(ii) For water transmission facilities including
pumping stations, $265.36 per ERU.
(iii) For compliance costs, $6.03 per ERU.
Details of these calculations are provided in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. The
calculations meet the methodological requirements for both
reimbursement fees and improvement fees. $316.50 is the
reimbursement fee and $139.58 is the improvement fee including
compliance costa.
Section 5. Schedule of Charges. Based on the September,
1993 report, revised in February, 1994, the City/Commission may
impose a maximum SDC of $486.08 per ERU for water treatment and
transmission facilities that expand the capacity of the entire
2 - RESOLUTION N0. ~$ S (030794)
MWC system. The schedule for the $456.08 per ERU fee at
different water meter sizes is provided in Exhibit "B", attached
hereto and by reference incorporated herein. Charges for
enlarged services shall be the difference between the new meter
and existing meter.
Section 6. For purposes of ORS 310.145, the City hereby
classifies this SDC fee as an "other fee".
Section 7. The SDC established herein shall be effective
July 1, 1994.
Passed by the Council and signed bynme in authentication of
its passage this ~~ day of `' ~rtrlrrl~ 1994.
_~_~~?~
Leon Ellson, Council President
ATTEST:
City Repr~sentafive
Approved by me this ~;~ day of _ ~'1'~] 2ti(l~ 1994..
e Leon Ellson,
Council President
3 - RESOLUTION NO. -S (030794)
1980.20O15YSTEM PLANT E%PANSION
CapacityIncreasinq Project Description
CIP a
Date
Original or
Estimated Costs Er•uivalent
Residential
Units IERUI
Dollara per
ERU T994
: Dollars
per ERU'
I. DUFF WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION 115 MGD TO 45 MGDI
1 Roque Intake Pump and Modifications 29-80 1982 5184.269 25.884 5 7.12 51.6.04
2 Dul( High Service Pump 26.79 1981 54,957 25,884 2.12 5.1 I
3 Dull Filters 3.83 1983 572,179 25,884 22.11 46.54
4 Oull Plant Additions - 27.81 1983 300.852 25.8Ba 11.62 24.46
5 Dull Coaqutation Basins 1:990 454,169 25,888 17.55 23.00
6 Another Intake Pump and-High Service Pump 1995 300,000 25,884 11.59 11.59
7 Dulf Ptant Expansion t997 1,500,000 25.884 57.95 57.95
SUBTOTAL 3 3,366,426 ~ 9 184.69
II. ROGUE RIVER TRANSMISSION PROJECTS 115 MGD TO 60 MGDI
1 Crater Lake Transmission Mains 6-80 1981 S 1,670,351 36.826 S 43.02 5103.66
2 Phase I, 36' West Side Transmission Main 5.86 1987 1,564.692 38,826 40.30 64,72
3 Phase II, 36' west Side Transmission Main 79.92 1994 1,235,981 38,826 31.83 31.03
4 Phase III (Stewart to Madronal 1995 210,000 38,826 5.41 5.41
5 Phase lV IRosaanley to Madronal 1998 1,000,000 78,826 25.76 25.76
6 Phase V (Stewart to Columbus) 2001 600,000 38,826 15.45 15.45
SUBTOTAL 36.281,024 9 246.83
III. 'ROGUE TRANSMISSION PUMPING STATION S 115 MGO TO a5 MGDI
1 Conrad Pump Addition 26.87 1989 S 20.917 25,888 S 0.81 51.1 a
2 Rossanley Pump Station. 20.93 1994 300,Otl0 25.884 11.59 11.59
3 'Upgrade Rossanley Pump Station 1998 150,000 25.884 5.80 5.80
SUBTOTAL 5470.917 18.53
TOTAL 450.05
• Assumes Interest Rate @ 7% )average cost of borrowing during this period).
September 1993 -Revised February 1994
Papa • 17
Exhibit "A" - Page 1
Medford Water Commission:
System Development Charge Study
The cost to the Commission for compliance with the Oregon law in
determination of SDCs include the cost of engineering, legal, administrative
and the cost of establishing and conducting review and accounting for
revenues and expenditures. The cost of these items has been very
conservatively estimated for the period 1994 - 1998 in the table below at
slightly more than one percent of anticipated charges after the initial year of
establishment. The costs of collection or costs for instalimeni payments
are not included in these compliance costs. Number of added ERUs
assumes the continuation of recent growth rates and the same distribution
of mater sizes.'
MEDFORD WATER
COMMISSION
Compliance Costs
Year Costs
11994) Addition
ERUs
1994 S7,500 866
1995 55,000 889
1996 S5,000 912
t99J S5,000 ' 935
1998 S5,000 958
TOTAL S27,500 4,560
Compliance Cost. equals S6.03 per ERU IS27,500 divided by 4,5601.
IV. CREDITS OR OFFSETS -
In reviewing the financial practices of the Commission, no credits are
applicable in the SDC calculations because it is intended that the SDCs
would substitute in full for the use of bonds to fund increased capacity in
the system. Capital projects to increase the level of service through higher
standards of water treatment would be paid for through water rates and. not
SDCs. It is not anticipated that any of the identified capital projects to be
funded with SDCs are the type of project that a developer would find
feasible to build as a part of a new development.
September 1993 -Revised February 1994
Page. - 20
Exhibit "A" - Page 2
Medford Water Commission System Development Charge Study
V. SUMMARY OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
Based on the above ca{culations the SDC for the water treatment plant and
transmission facilities will be 5450.05 + S6.03 = 5456.08 per equivalent
residential unit (ERU1. This amount recognizes new development's share as
a portion of the capital cost of the system. It also recognizes the time
value of money for facilities invested while counted on funds collected to
be earning interest until expended on new facilities. The intention of the
SDC would be ro fully fund the needed additions to system capacity,
The SDC would be based on the meter size utilizing American Water Works
Association (AWWA) weighting factors as shown in the table. The SDC
charges presented in this section are based on the design criteria as
developed by existing demands, the actual cost of existing facilities and
generally accepted rate making principles.
The following table outlines the proposed SDC by meter size.
MEDFORD WATER COMMISSION
Proposed SDC Charge
Meter Weighting SDC
iz Factor Fees
5/8 x 3/4" 1 S 456.08
1° 2.33 9 1,062.67
1 X" 5 9 2,280.40
2° 8 S 3,648.64
3° 16 S 7,297.28
4° 25 S 11,402.00
6"° 50 S 22,804.00
8"° 80 S 36,486.40 _~
10°° 116.66 S 53,206.29
Meters larger than four inches (4") may be sized for combined fire and
consumption demands. Applicants whose projects will require these large
meters will. have to pay the SDC based on the actual meter size installed.
The applicant may, one year after completion of the project, ask for a
review of their consumption patterns. If the maximum consumption
demand is less than that which available for the meter size installed, a
reduction in fee to the approximate meter size will be allowed. If the
consumption patterns change for these customers who have qualified for a
reduction in SDC fees, the Commission, City or Water District may require
the payment of additional SDC fees.
September 1993 -Revised February 1994
Exhibit "B"
Page • 21