HomeMy WebLinkAboutProposalProposed City of Meridian
Vllater and Sewer
Assessment Fee Update &
System ®evelopment Fee Proposal
Introduction
A, General
B. History & Status
C. Enterprise Fund Financial Planning Goals
II, Proposed Wastewater Fees
A. Treatment
B. Collection
C. Trunk Fee
III. Proposed Water Fees
A. Assessment
B. System Development
IV. Reimbursement Agreements
A. General
B. Boise City Methods
C. Proposed Reimbursement Program
D. Transition Problems
V. 20-Year Cash Flow Projections
A. General
B. Wastewater
C. Water
D. Sewer Trunk Fund
VII. Comparisons
VI. Recommendations
r ~
l~ ~~ ~ ,n,
U ~ ~
APPENDICES
1 Fee Summary
2 Enterprise Fund Balance
-~~.es~ o~~C e Ino~
3A 20-Year Enterprise Fund Balance with Existing Fee Structure
36 20-Year Enterprise Fund Balance with Proposed Fee Structure Lv~ t~~~ y~_
4A Sewer Trunk 20-Year CIP
46 Sewer Trunk Fund 20-Year Projection
5A SewerTrunk Buildout Cost Projection & Development Fee Calculation
5B Wastewater Treatment & Collection 20-Year CIP
5C Wastewater Charge Summary
5D Treatment Cost & Depreciation History
5E Collection System (City &Developer-provided) Cost & Deprecation History
6A Water System 20-Year CIP
6B Water Fee Calculation Summary
6C Water System Cost & Depreciation History
6D Water System Development Fee Calculation
WWTP 20-Year Capacity Projection
Boise City Ordinance & Example Reimbursement Agreement
',~ ~ ~^~ ~ r r--,
~~' "_ a u=,~ ~r-'
Proposed City of Meridian
Water and Sewer
Assessment and System Development Fee Update
Introduction
A.General. This paper proposes an update to the fees traditionally called
Assessment (a.k.a. Connection, °Hook-Up° or Equity Buy-In) Fees charged to each
new connection to the municipal water or wastewater system. Also included are
proposals for new water and sewer trunk System Development Fees and a
reimbursement system to replace the Latecomer Fee system that has been used in
Meridian.
B.History and Status of Fees. The City of Meridian water and wastewater
Assessment Fees were last updated in October of 1996. Since that time significant
improverr~nts have been made to the water and wastewater infrastructure allowing
the City to grow at an annual average of 9°k or 36°~ total in those 6 years
(according to residential building permit data).
Current water and wastewater assessment fees are shown in Tables 1 and 2
Table 1.Current Water Assessment Fees
Portion of Assessment Fee
Distribution & Supply, City-
constructed $540
Distribution, Developer-constructed $164
Total: $704
r--
~, ~'~ '~
~' _' J
1996 WWTP Capacity:
2.8 mgd
or,
26,000 population
equivalent
2002 WWTP Capacity:
Approx. 5.5 mgd
or,
55,000 population
equivalent
Cost to 8uddout Existing
WWTP: $f0 to $15 M
Cost to Build Parallel
WWTP: $24 M
Potential Phosphorus
Removal Capital Costs:
$4 to $ti Million
Avg Weq Construction
Cost: $470.000
Table 2. Current Wastewater Assessment Fees
Portion of Assessment Fee
Wastewater Treatment $908
Collection, City-constructed $294
Collection, Developer-constructed $378
Total: $1580
Avg. Well 'Density': 1 well
per square mile
Total Water Supply
Capacity: 26 mgd
The City has constructed nearly $12 million of water and sewer improvements since 1996 to meet growth. Another
$20 to $25 million in water supply, storage and distribution and wastewater collection and treatment will be needed to
meet the forecasted 2020 population demand.
C. Enterprise Fund Financial Planning Goals. The goals of the current enterprise fund planning are:
• Provide safe, reliable and environmentally responsible services to ratepayers with costs based on long-
term economic analysis.
• Provide adequate funds for replacement of existing facilities as they reach end of useful life.
• Provide adequate reserve for operation and maintenance.
• Provide adequate emergency funds for repairs to water or wastewater systems.
• Provide funds to expand and improve facilities to meet growth demand without incurring debt,
• Provide adequate revenue to allow City to extend system in effort to guide growth.
h:\enterprise\augustlproposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc
To achieve these goals, connection fees must accurately reflect the expected needs of the water and wastewater
systems.
User rates, which were recently updated, are based on a °cash needs° revenue requirements. Revenue generated
by user fees covers operation and maintenance expenses, debt service requirements (of which there is none for
Meridian), facility replacement and repair, and administration. User fees do not fund facility expansions or extensions
for new development but will contribute towards construction projects that: 1) improve overall system quality, 2)
improve overall system reliability or 3) meet increasingly strict federal or state regulations.
New users that consume system capacity should provide revenue to expand and extend systems. This will be
accomplished by imposing Assessment and System Development fees on new connections. In general, Assessment
Fees cover a new connection's proportionate share of the costs of the existing 8-inch lateral water and sewer system.
System Development Fees will provide funds to reimburse private development and the City for construction of sewer
and water trunks.
,~
PROPOSED WASTEWATER FEES , "
A. General. The Assessment Fee is intended to assess new connections to the system their proportionate share of
the capital costs of the existing treatment and sewer trunk system. Their share is based upon the replacement cost
of the system, less depreciation, divided by the overall capacity of the system. This type of fee has been charged to
all new connections for at least the last 17 years.
The °System Development Fee °has not been implemented. It would serve to expand or extend the system and, in
the case of water and sewer trunk extensions by developers, provide funds for reimbursement in lieu of the
traditional Latecomer Agreements.
B. Treatment. The proposed wastewater treatment assessment fee would decrease
from $907 to $736 per ERU. The reason for this decline is that the capacity of the
system has increased and we are beginning to see some economy of scale as a
result of our capital projects. The calculation for this fee is summarized in Appendix
5C and detailed calculations are in Appendix 5D.
The proposed wastewater treatment assessment fee represents a 23% decrease from
the previous fee.
C. Collection System. The proposed collection system Assessment Fee consists of two
components:
1) existing City-funded non-trunk assessment, or "buy-in", charge
2) 50% of developer provided sewer assessment, or °buy-in", charge
Projected Cost of AJI
Sewer, 10" and greater in
Impact Area: $29 mrNion
Number of Addrtonal
ERU's Projected: 46,500
Addrtona/ Equivalent
Population:
121,000
Sewer Master Plan Area
Buildout
ERU's: 59, 400
Population: 154, 000
The City funded trunk °buy-in° charge is intended to collect funds from new customers, proportionate to their share of
the cost of 8-inch lines and temporaryfinterim lift stations constructed by the City. Again, the proportionate share is
based on the replacement value of the facilities (less depreciation) divided by capacity. See Appendix 5C for the
calculation summary and Appendix 5E for specific calculations.
The second part of the Assessment Fee is intended to collect 50% of the replacement cost, less depreciation, of all
8-inch sewer constructed by private developers. Although depreciation is calculated and funded annually by user
fees, that depreciation is based on original sewer construction costs that did not, for the most part, include new
street construction. Actual, current-day replacement costs would be significantly higher since streets and potentially
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc
curb and gutter, sidewalks and storm water drainage facilities must be replaced. It is estimated these non-pipe line
related costs are approximately 50°~ of any repair or replacement project.
The proposed wastewater Assessment Fee would increase from $1580 to $1701 per ERU. Breakdown of the
proposed assessment fee is shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Proposed vs. Current Wastewater Assessment & Svstem Development FP.Ps
Proposed
Assessment Fee Current
Assessment Fee
°~ Chan e
Treatment $736 $908 -23°~
Collection, Ci -constructed $304 $294 35%
Collection, Developer-
constructed $568 $378 50%
Assessment Fee Subtotal: $1608 $1580 2%
S stem Development Fee $815 0 -
Total Wastewater
Connection Fee per ERU: $2423 $1580 53%
~~ ~ ;
L1 v~, ~, ~ ~ ~~
~/
The proposed collection System Development Fee (informally called a Trunk Fee) would serve two purposes: 1)
provide reimbursement to developers, in lieu of latecomer agreements, who construct sewer trunks and interceptors
and 2) provide reimbursement for City construction of sewer trunks and interceptors (sewer greater than 8°).
The System Development Fee is based on the total projected cost of constructing all remaining trunks and
interceptors (greater than 8°) throughout the City of Meridian sewer master planning area (See Appendix 4C). Also
included in this fee is an added 5% to administer a proposed Sewer Trunk Fund. The System Development Fee will
allow the City to recoup costs for trunk projects in the areas in which it decides to encourage growth. It also
eliminates the Latecomer Agreements in their current form. Individual reimbursement agreements would still be
completed with each developer constructing off-site sewer trunk, but those agreements would be completed prior to
construction and subject to City approval of costs claimed.
The specific methods of the reimbursement agreements will be addressed in a later section.
III. PROPOSED WATER FEES
A. Assessment Fee. As with the °equity buy-in° fee for the wastewater collection system, the water Assessment Fee
consists of two components:
1) existing City-funded distribution, supply and storage assessment, or °buy-in°, charge
2) 50°~ ofdeveloper-provided distribution assessment, or °buy-in°, charge
The proposed water Assessment Fee would increase from $704 to $1,052 per ERU. Breakdown of the proposed
assessment fee is shown in Table 4.
B.System Development Fee. The proposed System Development Fee does not exist in the current fee structure.
The water System Development Fee is intended to provide funds to the City or reimburse developers (in lieu of
latecomer agreements) for construction of 12-inch and larger water lines. This charge is based upon the standard
policy of constructing 12-inch water main in all section line roads and along all mid-section lines. One implication of
this fee structure is that no latecomer or reimbursements would be made for construction of water lines smaller than
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc
12-inch diameter unless it is an off-site extension. Table 4 above shows the proposed System Development Fee for
water. It includes a 10°~ program administration mark up. See Appendix 6D for detailed calculations.
Table 4. Proposed vs. Current Water Assessment Fee
Proposed Current
Assessment Assessment
Fee Fee °~ Change
Distribution & Supply, City- $558 $540 3%
constructed
Distribution, Developer- $494 $164 201 °~
constructed
Assessment Fee Subtotal: $1052 $704 49°k
S stem Development Fee $330 0 -
Total Water Connection $1382 $704 96°~
Fee per ERU:
IV. REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS
l~ a "~ c' ~~ ~ 1S'{~
iJ ~l
A. General. Adoption of the fees proposed in this analysis would represent a substantial change from the way fees
have been developed and implemented. The most challenging change would be the replacement of the 'latecomer
agreement' with `reimbursement agreements.'
The total fees for a new connection to the wastewater or water system may appear significantly higher than those
existing but they are close to the amount that is currently being charged at building permit application in many cases.
Portions of the sewer and water trunk charges will be reimbursed to developers who have installed sewer trunks and
interceptors or water trunks. Currently, many building permits have latecomer fees added to the standard water and
sewer assessments. This proposed reimbursement system would simply lump those fees Latecomer-type fees in
with the overall water and wastewater System Development Fee amount.
B. Boise CiN Methods. Boise City provides for a trunk connection fee (BCC 8-11-03A). It is defined as:
The fee charged at time of connection ... to recover the incremental over-sizing cost of trunk lines, to recover
50% of (the) cost of lateral lines, 50% of the Sewer Rating Section casts and to provide for the necessary cash
flow to fund pipeline extensions. The fee charged is based upon the estimated amount of flow generated by
the properly being served in terms of (single fatuity dwelling equivalent).
The Boise City Code (BCC) may allow the developer to be reimbursed if:
1) the developer constructs sewer off-site which provides service to other property,
2) the gravity sewer within the developer's project is required to be larger than 8° diameter,
3) the extension includes a permanent lift station, or
4) the extension includes a temporary lift station that the City requires to be sized to accommodate other
property.
BCC 8-11-05.09 requires a written agreement with the developer, not to exceed 10 years, to provide for
reimbursement of the proportionate costs of sewer benefiting adjacent or other property. The ordinance goes on to
state that reimbursement will be in one or more of the following forms:
1) offset against assessment fees paid by developer
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc 4
2) offset against inspection fees
3) offset against trunk connection fees paid by developer
4) reimbursement of trunk connection or assessment fees received by the City as others connect to the sewer
downstream of the original developer's property
5) same as 4) above, except property u s~ tream.
The amount of reimbursement for off-site gravity sewer extensions is based upon "reasonable bid prices received"
and may include "reasonable engineering and easement acquisition costs approved by the City." I understand this
section to mean that Boise City individually evaluates such off-site extensions to determine the amount of
reimbursement owed the developer the same as Meridian Public Works is doing. The difference is that Boise City
reimburse in one of the five ways listed above (methods #4 and #5 would continue to require the on-going
bookkeeping presently taking place with the latecomer agreements).
A sample agreement provided to us by John Tenson, PE, Boise Assistant City Engineer, is similar to Meridian's
latecomer agreements except that: , ~ ~ __
1) the agreement is completed ~ to construction " ~ ~'
2) reimbursement, or "share of costs", is specifically listed
3) Boise City refunds trunk connection fees collected at the time of building permit issuance to individual
builders, on a quarterly basis, until the full reimbursement amount is paid or the term of the agreement
expires, whichever is first.
Meridian's latecomers agreements also become null and void after 10 years, regardless of whether the developer
has been fully reimbursed.
The primary benefit of this type of system is that project-specific reimbursement amounts per acre or per lot do not
have to be calculated. Only the overall reimbursement amount is specific to each development. The amount
collected at building permit does not change. The second benefit to the developer is that a portion of the
reimbursement comes directly from hisJher own development. Consequently, it is in their best interests to ensure
their project is successful.
In Boise the developer, prior to construction, solicits bids on the sewer work and submits those costs, along with
engineering and easement acquisition costs, to the Public Works Department. The City may enter into a
reimbursement agreement with specific reimbursement percentages, depending upon size and depth of the sewer
installed by the developer, listed in the sewer ordinance. Table 5 lists Boise's and our proposed reimbursement
schedules (Meridian Public Works in italics):
t adie 5. un-site sewer ri sane Kei moursemenr rercen ta e
10" 12" 15" 18" 21" 24" 27" 30" 36" 42"
12'-13'
13'-14' 11.8
17.9 14. 21.7
26.6 18.2 ~' S
37.1 22.9 ~' 9
47.4 30.8 ~' 3
55.1 41.3 59.8
61.1 46. 64.9
65.9 53.4 68.6
69.5 60.3 78.8
79.2 68.6 82.7
83.0 75.9
14'-15'
15'-16' 23.9
29.4 19.4 31.4
35.9 22.9 40'6
44.0 27 49.9
52.4 34.1 56'9
58.8 43.8 62.5
63.9 48.1 66.9
68.0 55.0 70.3
71.2 61.4 79.6
80.0 69.3 83'2
83.5 76.3
16'-17'
17'-18' 34.5
39.2 31.6 40'2
44.1 34.1 47.3
50.4 31.2 54.7
57.0 42. 60'6
62.3 50.0 65.3
66.6 53.4 69.1
70.2 59.1 72.1
73.0 64.5 80.5
80.9 71.3 83.8
84.1 77.5
1$'-19'
19'-20' 43.6
45.6
34. 47.8
49.6
37.2 53.3
54.7
40. 59.3
60.3
44.9 64.0
64.9
51.8 68 0
68.7
55.0 71.3
71.8
50.3 73.9
74.3
65.4 81.3
81.6
71.9 84 4
84.6
77.9
0'-21'
0'-22' 47.7
49.6 37.9 51.3
53.0 40. 56.2
57.6 42. 61.4
62.5 47.1 65.7
66.6 53.4 69.3
70.0 56.5 72.4
73.0 61,4 74.8
75.3 66.3 81.8
82.1 72.4 84.8
84.9 78.2
2'-23' 51.6 40. 54.7 42.6 58.9 44.9 63.6 49.1 67.4 55.0 70.7 57.8 73.5 62.5 75.7 67.1 82.3 73.0 85.1 78.6
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc
3'-24' 53.4 56.4 60.3 64.7 68.3 71.4 74.1 76.2 82.6 85.3
4'-25' 55.2 57.9 61.6 65.7 69.2 72.1 74.7 76.7 82.8 85.5
5'-26 57.0 59.5 62.9 66.7 70.0 72.8 75.2 77.2 83.1 85.7
6'-27' 58.7 61.0 64.2 67.8 70.8 73.5 75.8 77.7 83.4 85.9
7'-28' 60.3 43.2 62.4 44.9 65.4 47.1 68.8 50.9 71.6 56.5 74.2 59.1 76.4 63.5 78.1 67.9 83.6 73.5 86.1 78.9
8'-29' 61.8 63.8 66.6 69.7 72.4 74.8 76.9 78.6 83.9 86.3
9'-30' 63.3 65.2 67.7 70.7 73.2 75.5 77.5 79.1 84.2 86.5
30' 64.8 66.5 68.8 71.6 74.0 76.1 79.0 79.6 84.4 86.7
Nofe: the proposed Meridian percentages shown in ifalics are based upon estimated construction costs
only..
Note that this reimbursement schedule is for on-site, over-sized, over-depth sewer only, As mentioned previously,
off-site sewer extensions are not subject to these percentages and reimbursement agreements are individually
prepared for each project (BCC 8-11-05.08.C.1).
The off-site reimbursement would be based on the proportionate cost of the improvements serving the developer's
property compared to the overall benefit area. A copy of Boise City's sample reimbursement agreement is
contained in Appendix 7. --
A. Proposed Reimbursement Program. Key points:
• Costs for on-site, over-sized and over-depth sewer would be reimbursed to the developer at predetermined
percentages such as shown in Table 5. Reimbursements would come from System Development Fees
collected from the building permits within the developer's project and developments upstream that
eventually connect to the system.
• Costs for off-site over-sized sewer would be reimbursed to the developer in accordance with any
reimbursement agreement entered into by the City. Reimbursement amounts would be based on the costs
of the extension, less the cost of providing 8-inch sewer, apportioned over the benefited area of the
extension.
• The City would add 5% to all wastewater System Development Fees collected for administration of the
program. Additionally, the City would retain 50% of the remaining fee amount in a separate Sewer Trunk
Fund for trunk extensions, permanent lift stations and the planning and design thereof.
• The City would add 5°~ to all water System Development Fees collected for administration of the program.
The City would additionally retain 25% of the remaining fee amount in a separate Water Trunk Fund as
reimbursement for extensions it has made or is making. The percentage retained is reduced as a way of
encouraging developers to provide water main extensions instead of the City.
• Water Trunk construction by developers will be reimbursed 100% of section-line road water line costs.
Internal over-sizing would be reimbursed at the d'rfferential cost of providing 12-inch water line versus the
costs for 8-inch water. Costs for 10-inch water mains within subdivisions would not be reimbursed under
this proposal.
Based upon the System Development Faes proposed and a projected 800 single family residential building permits
per year, nearly $50,000 would be generated to administer the program. This would likely afford the program one
full-time employee.
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc 6
B.Transition Problems. The major obstacle in converting the traditional latecomer agreement system to the proposed
Reimbursement Program is how to treat the existing latecomer agreements. Over twenty latecomer agreements
exist with an outstanding balance of approximately $1,810,000'. The highest latecomer fee currently charged is
over $700 for reimbursement for the Ashford Greens Lift Station and related improvements. Ten agreements have a
balance of less than $25,000 with five of those under $10,000 (Finance Department, through 6130102).
Continuation of the existing system while trying to implement the proposed system would make accounting difficult
and cause confusion to the development community. Significant staff time would be required in addition to the
possibility of another person to administer the program. Potential options are:
Continue of the existing latecomer agreements charge only the System Development Fees proposed herein
to the building permits. Continue quarterly reimbursement to the original developers with existing latecomer
agreements. Collect System Development Fees from the building permits within the developer's project and
be reimburse that developer (as opposed to the present system in which builders within the developer's
project are not charged the latecomer fee).
Propose a 75% (or some other negotiable percentage) buyout of the outstanding balance of the existing
latecomer agreerr~nts and start over with all new developments subject to the new system.
Continue with the existing system only.
No reimbursement system, or combination of systems, is universally simple or equitable. In fact, simplicity and equity
are inversely proportionally; i.e. the simpler the system is, the less precise it is. Conversely, if we attempt to very
precisely determine the exact reimbursement percentages of every development, adjust fees based on different
service areas, and tie portions of every fee charged to several different layers of development, a small department
would have to be formed to administer the program (which would drive up costs for funding it). The system in this
proposal is an attempt to balance fairness with simplicity. - -- ,
VI. 20-Year Cash Flow Projections
A. General. It may appear that the enterprise fund is large and that the City can afford to build several sewer and water
trunk lines, but significant commitments must be made to keep up with both wastewater treatment and water supply
and storage capacity. To date, the City has been responsible for providing these portions of the infrastructure while
the development community, in general, provides the collection and distribution extensions.
The 20-year cash flow projections contained in Appendices 3A and 3B include increasing contributions to a "sinking"
fund. This fund would be built up to provide for repair and replacement of the facilities as they reach the end of their
useful life. The WWTP, put on line in 1979, has a life of 30 years. Although some of the facilities will continue to
operate beyond 2009, certain components have already become obsolete even with superb maintenance (digester
covers, clarifier mechanisms, various pumps, electrical systems).
The 20-year cash flow projections list both sinking fund and CIP fund running balances. It is important to note that
the CIP expenditures listed in the worksheet do not include replacement and repair costs.
B. Wastewater. The existing treatment facility will reach its hydraulic and spatial limit (built out) in about five years, at a
current day cost of $10 to $15 million. It will provide a peak monthly capacity of 9 mgd, or a population equivalent of
about 90,000. Based on current population projections the existing built out plant will be sufficient until around 2017
to 2020.
` The G.L.Voigt and Silverstone latecomer agreements would add over $1 million to this balance.
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc 7
Eventually, a parallel, wrap-around treatment facility will be needed to serve the ultimate buildout population. The
land owned by the City upon which the WWTP sits will provide adequate space for the additional facility. We
estimate the additional treatment facility to serve the additional 60,000 population equivalent will cost approximately
$24 million (6mgd @ $4/gal/day treated for phased isolation ditch-nutrient removal technology, Water Pollution
Control Federation Journal, Vol. 59, No.9). This figure is in current dollars which, assuming annual inflation at 2.5%,
equates to nearly $40 million in twenty years.
The 20-year cash flow projection worksheet based on the 20-year CIP's for both water and sewer is contained in
/Appendix 3A based upon the fees proposed in this study. Obviously, substantial funds will need to be generated to
~y /" be able to fund the future facility with little or no reliance on loans or bonds.
~~~~-5~~
I ~,J~ The cash flow projection in Appendix 3B is based upon no change, other than annual inflationary adjustments, to the
j existing wastewater and water fees. It is evident from the worksheet that substantial funds would have to be
borrowed (at least $~rlficu) to construct the second treatment facility without adjustments to the fees.
C. Water. Water supply and storage facilities are placed in service incrementally. A specific amount of population
growth necessitates addition of a certain number of wells. Consequently, the Water CIP is based upon providing a
number of wells proportionate to the projected population. A few other factors determine the need for a well such as
the area of growth, which pressure zone the growth occurs in and development density, but those cannot be
determined until the development occurs. .. -
it
The cash flow projections in Appendix 3 include the water supply, storage and distribution systems. It is evident that
substantial funds must also be committed to the development of the water system.
D. Sewer Trunk Fund. A preliminary examination of the proposed Trunk Fund was completed and is shown in Appendix
4B? 5F. As mentioned Section V, Reimbursement Agreements, the proposed Trunk Fund would provide the City
with funds to design and construct sewer trunk extensions and provide reimbursement funds to developers instead of
piecemeal latecomer fee collection.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to project the amount or timing of reimbursements to developers for sewer trunks they
will install. The cash flow projection simply assumes a starting balance of $375,000. It is also assumes the City
constructs the Black Cat Lift Station and the portion of the Black Cat Trunk north of I-84. The worksheet also
assumes beginning developer reimbursements of $100,000 per year increasing at a rate of 20% per year until the
amount of reimbursement is 50% of the annual System Development Fee revenue received.
There is significant risk to the City that it could over-commit the amount owed to developers through the accumulation
of Reimbursement Agreements. If the City enters into a multitude of Reimbursement Agreements for trunks built
throughout the area of impact, there will not be enough revenue to cover the reimbursement obligations. That is why
this proposal and a revised ordinance to follow will require that any Reimbursement Agreement be a discretionary
option of the City and not a requirement.
Even with the proposed System Development Fee, the worksheet shows a deficit of nearly $5 million in 2007. This
assumes construction of the Black Cat Trunk in that year. Not until Y2020 would the fund come near being on the
positive side of the ledger.
VII. COMPARISONS
It is difficult to compare the fees proposed in this report with those of other municipalities because each includes
different components. The following table lists related fees for several nearby or similarly sized cities.
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc 8
Table 6. Comparisons to Other Cities -Wastewater
2 Boise Nam a Lewiston C'DA Meridian
reatment $1,530 $455 $871 $736
ollection -Assessment $1,540 (4)$1,720 $425 $1422 $965
ollection -Capital Charge or
ystem Development
$830
$1,055
(6)$789
Total Wastewater Fee: $3,900 $3,230 $1,296 $1,422 $2,490
ther Potential Charge (3)$500 (5)$300 Various Extg.
Latecomers
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
VIII
AIf figures based upon single family residential building permit, <8001 s.f. lot.
Boise City Ordinance Section 8-11, Repealed and Replaced 12/15/98.
Southwest Interceptor fee applied to one specific, albeit very large, service area.
"Area Fee° of $0.215/sf up to 125' lot depth. Example based an 80' x 100' residential lot.
"Regional Lift Station, Lines and Interceptor Fee'
Trunk System Development fee discussed herein.
D~
Table 7. Comparisons to Other Cities -Water
Lewiston Nam a C'DA Meridian
uppl Assessment 3
$1
709 $370 1
050
istribution Assessment (
)
,
$185 $
, $1,052
apital Charge or System
evelopment (2)$900 $330
Total WatsrFee: $1,709 $1,455 $1,050 $1,382
ther Potential Charge
(1) All figures based upon single family residential building permit, <8001 s.f. lot,'/° meter.
(2)Based on standard residential lot with 80 feet frontage.
(3)From 1998.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Public Works Department recommends that the fee system described in this report be adopted by the City
Council pending legal and finance department review. Public Works also offers the following recommendations:
a) Review of this analysis by several representatives of the development community.
b) Revision to the Sewer and Water ordinances to allow implementation of the proposed fee system.
c) Establishment of separate sewer and water trunk accounts. These accounts would be used solely for trunk
sewer or water main extensions or reimbursement to developer's who install such facilities.
It should be noted that the establishment of separate trunk sewer and water main accounts would not preclude the
City from building trunk sewer or water main with other funds. The City should still be able to use funds from the
main enterprise fund to construct water or sewer facilities that increase the reliability of system, replace or repair
facilities or provide better overall service to the rate payers.
h:\enterprise\august\proposed fee update.8-5-02.cut.doc 9
APPENDIX 1
WASTEWATER
Treatment: $
Collection-City Projects: $
Collection-Subd's.: $
Subtotal: $
System Development Fee
'Collection: $
Subtotal: $
TOTAL FEES: $
Previous Fee:
Percentlncrease:
WATER
Assessment Fee
Distribution & Supply-City Projects: $
Distribution-Subd.'s: $
System Development Fee
°Distribution Sys. Development Fee:
Subtotal: $
TOTAL FEES: $
Previous Fee:
Percent Increase:
Updated Fees (1)Updated Fees
U ing Extg. C c. Using New Calc.
rent Fees ethodolo Methodolog
908 $ 736 $ 736
294 $ 304 $ 304
378 $ 1137 $ 568
1, 580 $ 2,177 $ 1, 609
- $ - $ 815 Total w/o
- $ - $ 815 Sys. Dev. Fee % Increase
$ 1 609 1.8%
1,580 $ 2, 7 $ 2,424
$ 1,5 $ 1,580
N/A 38 53%
J',~ ~ ~
; n
~
.
~
_. U,~ ., i~
,
c,
,_,
~~~
L
Updated Fees (1)Updated Fees ~' "
'..~
ent Fees in Ext .Cal . Usin New Calc.
540 $ 58 $ 558
164 $ 89 $ 494
704 $ 1546 $ 1,052
Total w/o
0 0 $ 330 Sys. Dev. Fee % Increase
- $ - $ 330 $ 1,052 49%
704 $ 1, 6 $ 1,382
$ 7 $ 704
N/A 120° 96%
City Comparison of Wastewater Treatment & Collection System Fees
8/92002 FEE SUMMARY.3-6-02 Fee Summary
APPENDIX 2
~1~rz
Enterprise Find Balance
1. Replacement Cost (un~epreclated) as of 8/1/02
WWTP
Collection System -Developer Provided $20,233,073
$21,388,180 Water Supply/Stor. -City Constnx;te $7,829,754
Distribution -Developer Provided $21
787
241
Collection System - Cily Constructed $7 911 768 ,
,
Distribution City Constructed $4 864 588
Subtotal. $49,533.021 $34,481,584
Oparation 8 Maintenance Equipment
Wastewater Department $944.458 Water Department $1
077
644
Pubik: Works/MUBS (50%) $0 ,
,
Public Works/MUBS (50%) $0
subtotal: $944,45e $1,077,644
Total Replacement Cost:
550,477,478
535,559,227 TOTAL
686,036,706
2. Accumulated Depreciatlon (per Accounting Dept)
I^+~^fTP $4,406,793 Water Su
PPy~tor• -CItY Consb'uctE $1,096,517
Collection System -Developer Provided $2,292,639 Distribution -Developer Provided $2,210
252
Collection System - Cor~nicted $1 243 129 ,
Distribution -City Constructed $556 329
Subtotal: $7,942.560 ~,gp,097
Operation & Maintenance Equipment
.Sewer Department $491,370 Water Department $270
407
Public Works/MUBS (50%) ,
Public Works/MUBS (50°6) $0
Subtotal. $491,370 $270,407
Total Accumulated Depreciation: 68,433,930 54,133,504 $12
567
434
Acc. Depr as % of Replacement Cost: 17°~ 12% ,
,
15°~
3. Determine Beginning Balance
Beginning Balance, 7/1/02: $28,000,000 (estimate of cash, investments)
FY'02 Projected Revenue: $10.490.000
FY 02 Expense: $14,969,304
Use of Fund Balance: X4,479,304
Entprs. Funds Cany-0ver from FY'02: ~3,2(~,g4g
Projected Fund Balance FY'02: 520,254,050
4. Determine logical split between water b sewer fund balance
W.W. Assessment Fee, curcent: $1,580 69%
Water Assessment Fee, curcent: $704 31 °b
$2,284
W.W. Assessment Fee, pre-1996: $1,370 73°,6
Water Assessment Fee, pre-1996: $500 27%
$1,870
W.W. Replacement Cost, Total: $50,477,478 ~,
Water Replacement Cost, Total (estimated): $35 558 227 41 %
$l~,036,706
Note: since assessment foes and depreciation revenues collected through user fees for both water & wastewater have been
comingled there ~ no way to easiy track how much of balance bekuigs to either department. However, wastewater seems
to have spent more on capital projects over fast four years than water. Use the foikruving ASSUMPTION:
Assume split:
w.w.: so.oo%
W.W. Fund Balance: $12,152,430
Water: 40.00%
Water Fund Balance: $8,101,620
Summary/8/6/Z002 Summary brad_MAe~rise{fee summary~FEE SUMMARY.36-02
APPENDIX 2
Page 2 of 2
5. Determine furM balance requk~cd to adequately serve as sinking fund
for future replacement.
wastewater Water
Fund Balance, 10N/98 (from above): 512,152,430 :8,101,620
Minimum Operating Reserve, days: 1130 180
Annual Operation F_xpense (FY'02): 33,330,000
32,715,000
Minimum OperatingReserve,c~h: $1,642,192 $1,338,904
Bond Retirement Reserve: $0 $0
Minimum Capital Reserve (assume): $1,000,000 $1,000,000
% of Accumulated Depr. To Establish
Sinking Fund (assume): 50% 5096
Axumulated Depreciation: 38,433,930 34,133,504
•Beginning Value of Sinking Fund: 34,216,965 $2,066 752
BEGINNING CIP FUND BALANCE: 35,283,273 ~~~ 96,4
` Will requin; acceleration of depreciation collected through user fees to fully fund sinking fund
-, -__.~ _
,_
-_ _, ._ _ '
_.
Summery/8I8R002 Summery brad_wlenEerprlseVee summarylFEE 3UMMARY.3-8.02
aW ~~
Q V
a
d
Q ~~
_~
~_
__~
~~
$8~'
88$
~_~_$_
~~~~
~~~ ~
a~
OL IL
~~o
8
~. c
acg~
d
s $ ~a~
LL g
C
N 8 g
~~~~ ~ uLL.
0 ~ 5 ~ + '
C ~
O ~ ~ ~ °s
a
w
w g;
~ ~~~~ ~ ~.
8 m ,
a~ ~~8
3~ ~ ~~
o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;
~ ~ ~
A
~~
C ~ ~ i
~ ~~~~~~~
w~Et $:
g
~~ ~a~€
2
a IL
8 7 ~ ~
88a
~~~
~ e~
< <~ ~3
LLs ~ ~~~
a : ~ ~;
~~
..g ~~
~~ ~~~ ~
~~ b N C N~
~ 0~ iD 01 ~D I D~ ~~ ~
+fM
~ $ A
V1 B ~ xm '
11~ y ~ {
9 ~y n ~ ~~~~ ~~ sn~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~
(
~
~~
~
~
~
~~ gg
R~ ~{ggg
iG~~~ nQ
Xi~ O~
~idt~ N19
SdR v
R lpOA
RR' O01R$
RidR
~ R R
m ~
~ ~
~
~
~ ~
~ ~ e m ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
L q
qq
0 ~p
y
~~ V
$
~"" qg
" p_
p
0
~
OO OI /p
oF~
~l9
~
~
~ _
m
~O Np
Np
A oo
f O ~
p~pp
N ~Ol
P1
N N'
N ~ ~ ~
y
N ~ m'~
~
~~
~ ~ gpp g8
OMO ~
~~ (
~~ ~ •~pn
OIV g
~1
~ ~n 8
01 O
a ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ p ~~ ~~
o
s ~ ~ n ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ' ~ ~~
K
6
g yY
M
~~
~
~ ~~
~'
~
~
~~r
~~
~ ~~~o ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ o~~
~ /
~
f~~
~y ~
Ip
y 1O p(y
iV ~
~ lp cD V N
~ n n
O
~- N N
-o
t
U Q OD tD
orn n
N a0 n n V .-
oo
t
0 n (
u~~
N
~ O ~ LL~'1 O
nnf
w I O ~
o o~n
t QQ
~ ~
C
j
~ aQ
Ol ~
~ pp
11pp 0
~ N OI u~'1 O ~
yp
N f
Q~l N r tl
pp
~ i(J p
< O p
.~- < fN
D 1n0 1~0
~
N p
~
p
W ~ wn~ r~in v i oFn ~w ~''N NM
~ M ~ ~
~y
N f~ ~
~ O N~~ ~1D /O f ~O ~r
- ~ O~ ~ N~ PI~ `
~ NN N W ~ ! W ~p ~
~~ ~ ~~~ m ~~~a ~ ° ~~~ ~ $~ ~~~ N~e
~ ~ N Yi M' N ' N~ ~ M N' ~yy
N
' ~N 1~1 O ~~ 1^ pf aD ~® mm W ~D 1D 1ND ~0 1pb~ ~D®
w i OI ~Y ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~
M Z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~tt~~ ~~ $~~
~ ~ ~~ ~~ e
w N ~ y
Y
P
(V f
fV I~
M O ~
Ol Pl ~
P! 0 fV b
Pl f 11
~ r D ~ l9 10 A
O ~O ID b O ~
10 O Pl f ~O
O m m (O
O 10 ~
m m O ~
n n IF • tl S
n A z
~ ~ m ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
~~3 ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~~ ~
~
~ ~:tl
~ H N m
(V 1+1 ~
p
10 Y ~ {
y
N~ ~ ~
p
IO ~~ o
o
n r A A
~
pA
r ID n
~ Ol Ol ~Ol m gg gn
RRR~
ld O ~N
RidR t7
R V b
RSZ mrm
RRR O
~R
a
i
9
_~
.~
E~
_F
_~
i
~~
;~
1
~.
LL
M
(_ _
~~,'
<<,~~}
1r
v
'~ m
~w
3
,C ~"
p~
C1 y
~ c
~+ ~
N ~
C
Y. o
y
'i ~
o
w v
W
V
C ~
~~
m ~
g~
v ~~
~~~~
~S
h
m~
G
C
~~
C
~0
T
N_
°c
W
F-.
ti
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 o r~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ° ° ° ° ° ° °
o o o o o o o
o Sri o Sri o ui ~n o
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
aaue~ee punk ~e;ol
0
N
O
N
01
O
N
.-
O
N
O
N
~O
r
O
N
O
N
'~t
O
N
M_
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
0
N
O
O
N
0
0
N
O
O
N
0
0
N
O
0
N
O
O
N
ch
0
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
0
0
N
N
V
C
c0
m
C
7
LL
N
.~
N
C
W
N
O
H
U
c
m
m
'~
C
7
a~
}
U
C
W
W
m
C
7
3
a~
`~1
ki
m
~'
L
U
N
O
O
N
01
n
V _~
~ ~/\'~\\~ ~7
~~~~
~J
0
q
0
a
0
~,
v
c
S
~~
~~~
sss
s~6R
~~~~
qS ~_
~~~
8 0
~~
~~~~
~ ~~~
o~~
~ ~~ta
u,
4
a
c ¢ja~ a
C i`~ 3 C
~ ~ p
U ~ gb t
~~ ~~
~~
3~
F
u~
sLL
LL
~~~
~~
F~ `. K ~
b
~~.
~ :.
_ ~
~ s
~:
~~
~n ~
~'
~~ ~~~
e .
~ ~~~
Sg
~~yy 1
K U
La$$ L '~ ~
5 ~.'
~~ ~
s ~a m~~a~ ~~ ~~ ~s ea ~° ~~ ~ag ~~~
5~ ~ ~~ ~~ R~RR ~R R~ RR RR RR R~ t3R RRR
R A
O ~~~ ~ 91~ ~ ~
~ ~o ~~ i ~o~
g
g
~ SS~ g
~ 4 gg ~gg
{
w ' ~ « ~rw
~ ~~ ss~ x~ ~~ s~ ~~ ~e ^~ ~~ ~~s
~~ ~~~~ e~ ~~ ~a ~ ~~ ~s a~3
~a a° °_ ~~
N ~., .,., n..
~ ~ O
~
a p = ~ ~ g ~
$ ~ R
$
OqQ
$ ~A eq
q
TA
O Op
O ~ ~ ' 1
~
tVp _
O~A
y
N ~ e O O O
~~ ~ ~~ v
w e - w~ ~~ i~Fd
3 70 0 7:F $~ ~ a8 $.`a 3oX
p ~ ~~ gs~m n~ ~m _ °'~ gm ~o
F~ ~R ~~~~ ^~ S< ° mm ~~
S ttt ~ ~"
~ ~ "a ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~~ ~a ga ~g ~~m
~ " ~~ ^~m? "A R p
i`s e3 ~$ "s~ ~~ a$~
~s ~ a s
~~: ~~ ~~ g~ ~o ~m s~ ~ =$ ~"s~
~~ u ~ ~ a
a 3o'~ ~n7~i i~i {$ o8 on' .~f3 3a ~S T.~$8
~ ~
~ ~~~ ~~~: n ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ so R= ~~~
: , « ~ L t :Y A
~~ ~~ ~~~o ~~ ~ g~ 8$ :~ ~~ ~~ ~~~
e ~ $ ~ k ~ w A ~ ~~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ X ~ ~ ~
''e eo
~: cc
:. ne
.: nn
~.~e~ ne
riri o
v oa
ao oo
~m oo
e oo oe
~ ~~$~ ~a $: $~ R~ ~- ER R a.
ss °x
~ a~
ri~ m a s~
.;... a°
~n s
o ~s
Y:6 5t:
ee ~$
ee s«
~'. .-. s
Aw $~~
ee
~~o ~a ~~ Y~~~ ~ $ a "s ~ e 3~ ~~3'
IFS n R.'~ n$ :r~ as S i S ~w~'I
1
~~~ ~~ gg
~R gg
~R gg
R ~ ~~ ~ R~ X~33
RRR
- A
m
h
~~
a
-~
0
A
s
d
a
~J
~~ -.~
N
.~
~~ U
~. o~ C
-~
~
E
~ '
3 -
~~ W
~
_
,,
r o
, m
c
`~ ~
~~ ~i
A~
O
~
c
~ `
S~ ~
C
e Oc' w
•~
,
.
~
~ on
~ o`'
~~
e E
0
~
`
~ ~~
~ y
W
~~
~ 0~, x
~e
~ ~ ~
6'
O ~
~
~ ~ ~ oh a~
~ ~ ~ ~
o t~j ~
N ~ m , ff`'
`O `-° ~i
m
~ m ~c' -
v
~ ~
~o ~
~ ~
cn
® o w o~ ~
L L
~_
.y 3 °~ .~
~
~
W ~ ~ ~
~ Fo
~ ` ote
a ~ ~o
ohs
m y ~~
a ~~ W
Op m
o~
X6 ~ ~
6` ~ ~
~~ m ~
6~
~6' c
ii (A
~~
N m
°0 0 0 °o ova o ° ° 3 3
0 0 0 0 0 0, o ~~
0 0 0
0
1
0 0
0
0
~
0
0 0 0
o~ o 0 0 0 0 o T
~ ~ ~
aaue~eg punk ~e~ol
APPENDIX 5A
WASTEWATER TRUNK BUILDOUT COST PROJECTION
HYDRA computer model uses 100% saturation twiklout.
Assume actual twiklout percerriage: 70%
Estimate peraons/ERU: 2.9
North Black Cat 8,110 10401 1151 3587 $916401 $718 750 $1 635,151 $0
N. S h 19 850 13 895 2370 4 791 $4 099,000 none $4 099 000
White Trunk -Main 15 150 10 605 1710 3 657 $1 295 000 $1,295 000
WWTP to While Trunk $408 000 $408,000
White Trunk Is only $983 750 none $983 750
3 . S h E~Qension 7 030 4921 902 1 697 $1 276 000 none $1 276 000
Mile E~dension 3200 2 240 524 772 $298 953 none $298 953
Five Mid Relies - Ph. 1 none $0
Five Mile Relief - Ph. 2 $1 181 000 none $1 161 000
iou,ouo iiu,uirs ii,a~~ ~r,aoa a~a,na,~ a4,r»,o~o as~,a~a,uia au
Ten Mik; Trunk 16,000 16,000 2,185 5,517
Five Mile Trunk 34,060 34,060 4,115 11.745
50,060 50,060 6,300 17,262
Ten Mile Trunk, e~Qg. 14,790 2,185 5,100
Five Mika, e~Rg. 22,330 4,115 7,700
37,120 6,300 12,600
Dfierence: 12,940 4,462
Actual Est.
HYDRA Model Buikkwt Pop HYDRA Area
lout Population Projection: 200,666 160,158 24,123 66,220 =(159,OOOf2.9 persons/ERU)
shoukl be approz: 46 sections 37.7 se ctions
Hated Additional, or future: 163,445 123,016 17,623 42,420
(huiklout minus e>asting)
Gross Cost/ Future ERU: $776.27
P ram Administration 5%: $38.81
Total S em Devel Fee: $815
(1) InGUdes all sewer 10" and larger shown on master plan
(2) InGudes pressure main costs
(3) Inductee ony that portbn upsV~m SiNerstone
892002 Page 1 of 1
HYDRA (2)Perm. Lift Temp. LS
Service Model Actual Est Service Buikbut (1) Est Trunk Station Total Est Est. Cost,
WWTP wwrP fy1p44Atlln 11wvrP
cev+al Cost t.eyel Coats cegml Cost
foeaaws) fo2aoiars) AaKslegtl
Year x 1p00 x 1000 SWOOteI x 1000 SoheAled
2000 5103 51,203 51,203
5300 53,200 53,200 . Clmifier, Screen, 6actricel
5140 5140 5110 W WTP Vehkle
Subsotet
2001 f0
5700 5700 5700
SWOotat 5700
2002 5600 5125 5625 E625 Fleedrrarks on
5100 S80 f480 5480 WAWa1
E75 E19 594 E94 PlerltNPW
E200 S50 5~0 5260 Gr0 Bash) Jig
Srb6otal: E1
1996thras~200 59,503
2003 E100 52.R 5125 E128 SiteB
5250 5260 TL56 Phan ReNskxr
5850 5213 E1,063 E1,089 DAFTI,ortstircYen
5250 S63 5313 5320 Centrafe 8981n
T2f~0 SD 5250 E258 Plmr
~0 513 Sti3 S64 PlentT
SiDOOtak 391
2004 E100 E25 5125 1131
m f0 m f0 3 Removal > E4rrion
5750 5188 5938 E984 3 Removal
E275 ~ E344 5361 FYter N4
E850 5213 $1,083 E7,116 C1erI0erJJ4
5500 5125 5825 5858 JJ2
m m EO EO Derihifitaion Beam ABd : 51.7 mifan furled user fees
Siblotet
71105 SO SO SD SO M
St,500 5375 E7,875 52,016 Bioselee0or Phase 2
5350 E88 5438 5170 BkwerJKi
2008 E4.~0 5113 5563 E819 Filler M6
Sibtolal: 5619
2007 E150 E38 5188 521t Aaneaus
E2fi0 EO 5250 528t Fa Plan
Slblotal: 54112
2008 51,500 5375 E1,875 Q,156 JW
S1Dbtat 158
2009 slao sz5 x125 s147 Irieeelanewm
srnoot~ 6147
2010 510o fz5 5125 5150 ~
s~eloml: s13o
201, E1oo E25 5125 5153 Aisceleneois
s s133
2012 51ao 525 5125 5156 Misodmreous
slsa
2013 5100 TI5 5125 St59 Areas
s~blotal: E158
2o1a slao s25 s1z5 s163 AAisarleneous
s>~o s236 s1,1eB s1.544 garlfierJJ4
smeoml: s17ae
2015 EO E250 f250 E331 E331 Futue Phr6 Prelm. Phari
zo16 m s75o sr5o s99a as9a P~Me Plant
2017 57,000 51,400 58,400 511,130 511,130 4 PhaMCorsbrrcAon .Phase/
2018 57,000 51,400 58,400 E11,130 E11,130 4 PIerACarstructlon,Phesell
2019 EO $fl Eo $0 $Q
2020 m EO EO SO SO
TOTAL: 124,980 18.870 Tod (NrA ~: 518,613 Y~rs 2002-21114
Total (7rdL 5): 5 Years2015-2020
Overa/Tom4 540,098
Told (92 f): ff0,800 Years200'1-2014
Tomf (9Y f): 514,000 Years2015-20'10
OveraQ Total- St{,800
t~rpanslwl ftekled Total Cost 173,819
(1) Assume IfAlatlorl ~ 2.59L
(2) All years in which no major construction is planned a 5100,000 miscellaneous item
is shown to colrer small projects (veh~les, irlstrumerrlation, site, monitoring equipment, etc.)
(3) Ttlese future improvemerds are to meet expected permd limits and should be funded by ALL users
ct system arld nct only new txxlnedions.
(4) Future plant is based on phased isolation ditch technology w/ estimates from 11VPCF Journal
V. 59, No. 9 8 EPA Pub. #832-F-00-013, "Oiddation Ditches" Fad Sheet
150,000 (buildout pop.) x 100 gpcd = 15 mgd twildout flow
(15 rt~d - 9 mgd extg. cap.) x $3/gal ct capacity = 518 million
APPENDIX 58
8/9/2002 CIP Sctledule ci
COLLECTION-Trunk Extensions
Calaclan Sort Coalman 8ya.
Cad1d Cost Lead Cosh c~eael rae
5275 5282
SbEaYt 5404
2000 50
5180 S38 5216 Went NoAh TMk
X12 5274 51,186 5M1. Tk ReFel8ewar-Phase I
SibBoOat 51
toot f0 fo So
2002 51.000 5250 51,250 N4tbTnricCarretrumon ro'
5700 5115 5215 Laoud Qrove W ACFIO
3~bb0Y: Sf
20005rag~ 52.867
2003 51,220 S2M 51,464 51,501 8. F~on
5150 530 5180 5185 OverkM Road wlACHD
5400 5400 5410 BI~cCet
SY6DoW: O!%
2004 56.000 5300 56.300 56,615 Black Cat Cans6udlaf
T50 S15 565 S68 Fnui~ Reed rHACHD nsdile
2005 51,200 5221 51,528 SYS.TkRabtSewer-Phaaell FtanldnRd.loAbertsais
SibEOOet S1
2008 m m 50
2007 50 ffl 50
2008 SO SO 5p
2009 50 SO m
2010 m 50 W
2011 SO 50 m
2012 m m SO
2013 m SO
21114 SO 50 51)
2015 m m SD
2016 m 50 ffl
2017 SO 50 SO
2018 SD SO m
2019 m m 50
2020 f0 m ~
TOTAL: 570,611 11,886 510,306
(1) A88ume Inflation ~ 2.50%
APPENDIX 56
8/9/2002 GP Schedule ci
APPENDIX 5C
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CHARGE CALCULATION WORKSHEET
City Constructed Collection System Buy-In Charge
2002 Cily-Constructed Col~Ction Replacement Cast less Deprec: $5,115,242 %r'~~ ~-~
n
~~
/
Less Outstanding Bond Principal: $0 ,
~
~
~'
Net City-Constructed Collection System Value: $5,115,242 ti1 (/~
lection System Capaaly, ERU's: $16,800 '~'
2 City Constructed Collodion Buy-In Charge: $304
Developer Provided Collection System Replacement Charge
Developer-provided Collection Replacement Cost Less Deprec: $19,095,876
Provide 50% for replacemerrt: $g,547~938
Cdiedion System Capacity, ERU's: $16,800
002 Assessment Charge: $ygg
Subtotal: $873
Previous Cdlection System Charge per ERU: $1373
Perot Change: 3096
ystem Development Fee (New Charge) t-81b
(see Worfcsheet titled 'sewer asset summ 'for separate calculations)
TOTAL COLLECTION SYSTEM CHARGE: $1,688
Wastewater Treatment Plant Assessment Cha e
ViIWfP Replacement Cost less Depreciation: $15,826,280
Less Outstandin Bond Princi $0
Net VJWTP System Value: $15,826,280
P System Capacity, ERU's: (6.0 mgd-0.7 I/I)/8.5 gpcd/2.9 cap/ERU (apprrndmately equal to 56,500 pop. Equiv.)
01 WWTP System Charge per ERU: S73B
TOTAL WASTEWATER CHARGE: ;2,424
Total w/o System Development Fee: $1,609
Previous Fee: $1,580
Percent Irxxease: 1.8%
FEE SUMMARY.august wwtp fee
APPENDIX SD
_ Page 1 of 1
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COST & DEPRECIATION
Current Year: 2002
CurrentENR-CCI: 6500 (Spring'02)
Replacement
Replacement Cost less
AssetTypelD Year Description Life Cast AaDeprAmt ERN-CCI Cost AeLDeprec. AnnDepr
SEWER DEPT. Per Acct9
Vastewater Treatment
60-Bldg-WWTPCC 1980 BLDG-SEWER PLANT 600 $3,683,131 $3,145,113 3,237 $7,395,845 $4,250,733 $73,663
60-Bldg-WaterCC 1980 BLDG -OUTFACE PLANT (CC) 600 $582,380 $497,596 3,237 $1,189,518 $691,922 $11,848
60-Bldg-WaterCC 1980 BLDG -BOISE RNER OUTFALL 600 $750 $630 3237 $1 508 $876 $15
60-Bldg-WWTP 1981 BLDG -SEWER PLANT ADD 600 $11 877 $9 881 3535 $21 839 $11 958 $238
60-Bldg-WWTP 1982 BLDG-SEWER PLANT ADD 600 $6,780 $5,328 3,825 $11,522 $6,194 $136
60-Pumps 1988 PUMP- PUMP AND HOUSE 120 $177,536 $177,536 4,519 $255,363 $77,827 $0
60-Imprv-WWTP 1991 Improve -install Carrier Gas Furnace 120 $2,954 $2,360 4,835 $3,971 $1,611 $295
60-Bldg-WWTP 1992 BLDG -New Building Q WWTP 1992 360 $23,931 $7,979 4,985 $31,204 $23,225 $798
60-Imprv-WWTP 1992 Improve -Influent Upgrade (~ WWTP 360 $152,600 $40,696 4,985 $196,977 $158,281 $5,087
60-Imprv-W WTP 1992 Improve -Fuel Containment Tank 240 $896 $315 4,985 $1,168 $854 $45
60-Bldg-W WTP 1993 BLl7G -Smile Creek Measurement StrucU 600 $38.941 S70 7a-l 5 Ito sett Say ~i7 R7d 4770
60-Imprv-WWTP 1993 Improve -Concrete Discharge Tra 800 $2,304 $288 5,210 $2,874 $2,586 $46
60-Imprv-WWTP 1993 Improve -Phone System 4-2 lines 240 $2,545 $783 5,210 $3,175 $2,392 $127
60-Bldg-WWTP 1994 BLDG - W Facility ~ WWTP 240 $181,413 $42,329 5,406 $218,044 $175,715 $9,071
60-Imprv-WWTP 1994 Improve -Natural Gas Line 360 $10,395 $1,822 5,408 $12,494 $10,672 $347
60-Equip-W WTP 1994 Equip - W Equipment 240 $132 512 $33 130 5408 $159 269 $126 140 $6626
60-Imprv-WWTP 1995 Improve -Gas Valve ~ WWTP 180 $2,654 $782 5,471 $3,153 $2,371 $177
60-Imprv-WWTP 1995 Improve - Baler/Digester Rehab 360 $247,023 $32,250 5,471 $293,484 $261,234 $8,234
60-Imprv-WWTP 1996 Improve-Tertiary Fitter 360 $311,465 $35,472 5,620 $360,235 $324,763 $10,382
60-Equip-WWTP 1996 Equip -Sludge Digester Mixer 120 $67,971 $19,825 5,620 $78,614 $58,789 $6,797
60-Bldg-WWTP 1997 BLDG - WATER HEATER FOR PLANT 120 $671 $274 5,825 $749 $474 $67
60-Bldg-WWTP 1997 BLDG -ALUMINUM BAR GRATING 360 $1,838 $383 5,825 $2,051 $1,668 561
60-Bldg-WWTP 1997 BLDG - W COVER 360 $1 413 $288 5825 $1 577 $1 289 $47
60-Imprv-WVVTP 1997 Improve -Sprinkler Hand Lines 240 $1,434 $144 5,825 $1,600 $1,458 $72
60-Imprv-WWTP 1997 Improve-Sprinkler Field System 240 $10,995 $1,100 5,825 $12,269 $11,169 $550
60-Imprv-WWTP 1997 Improve -Sprinkler Field System 240 $2,380 $238 5,825 $2,656 $2.418 $119
60-Equip-W WTP 1997 Equip - Flowmeters 2 Spading 120 $8 000 $2 000 5 625 $8 927 $6 927 $800
60-Pumps 1997 PUMP -SKIMMER PUMP (PUMPHOUSE 120 $1 250 $281 5 825 $1 395 $1 114 $125
60-Lrft 1997 PUMP -PUMP MTR, CENTER TURBINE 120 $3,333 $889 5,825 $3,719 $2,830 $333
60-Lift 1997 PUMP -PUMP MTRSOUTH TURBINE (I 120 $2,727 $727 5,825 $3,043 $2,316 $273
60-LiR 1997 PUMP -PUMP MTR-NORTH TURBINE(F 120 $1,487 $397 5,825 51.659 $1,263 $149
80-Pumps 1997 Pump -PUMP MTR (REBUILD) 120 $3,032 $808 .5,825 $3,383 $2,575 $303
60-Bldg-WWTP 1998 BLDG-Clarifier(~WWTP 360 $1,603,525 $178,169 5,920 $1,760,627 $1,582,458 $53,451
60-Bldg-WWTP 1998 BLDG -Control Building ~ WWTP 360 $13,650 $1,479 5,920 $14,987 $13,508 $455
60-Bldg-WWTP 1998 BLDG -Remade) Admin to Control Bldg 360 $14,422 $1,562 5,920 $15,835 $14,273 $481
60-Bldg-WVl/TP 1998 BLDG - WWTP Admin Bldg 360 $332,252 $35,994 5,920 $364,804 $328,810 $11,075
60-Bldg-WWTP 1998 Improve -Alum Tubing for Railing ~ WVb 240 $10,259 $1,453 5,920 $11,264 $9,811 $513
60-Bldg-WWTP 1998 Improve - Road ~ Elktrom 8 Gull Cove 240 $1,500 $213 5,920 $1,647 $1,434 $75
60-Imprv-WWTP 1998 Improve -Electrical project ~ WWTP 240 $29,585 $1 479 5 920 $32 483 $31 004 $1 479
60-Bldg-WWTP 1999 Improve -Drain Ditch Project 240 $15,425 $1,928 6,060 $16.545 $14,617 $771
60-Bldg-WWTP 1999 Improve -Handrail 8 Gate ~ WWTP 240 $5,398 $652 6,060 $5,790 $5,138 $270
60-Imprv-WWTP 199,9 Improve - Rotomat Concrete Pad 240 $1 545 $58 6060 $1 657 $1 599 $77
60-CIP-WWTP 2000 CIP - WWTP Lab Construction FY00 360 $13,000 $0 6,221 $13,583 513,583 $433
60-Bldg-WWTP 2000 WWTP Garage Construction FY00 360 $140,457 $7 023 6,221 $146 756 $139 733 $4 682
60-Bldg-WWTP 2001 WWTPAerationBasin 360 $2,027,336 $61,946 6,342 $2,077,844 $2,015,897 $67,578
60-Bldg-WWTP 2001 WWTPDewateringProject 360 $1,503,479 $4,176 6,342 $1,540,936 $1,536,759 $50,116
60-Bldg-WWTP 2001 WWTP Tpad/Clanfier 360 $3,322,268 $9,229 6,342 $3,405.036 $3,395,808 $110,742
60-Bldg-WWTP 2001 WVVTPGeneratorty3 120 $201,826 $1,682 6,342 $206,854 $205,172 $20,183
60-CIP-WWTP 2001 2001 WWTP Lab construction costs 360 $67,359 $0 6,342 $69,037 $69,037 $2,245
60-CIP-WWTP 2001 2001 WWTPCiryWaterProjectcosts 600 $77,115 $0 6,342 579,036 $79,036 $1,542
60-CIP-WWTP 2001 2001 WWTPNon-potable water project 360 $7,033 $0 6,342 $7,208 $7,208 $234
WASTEWATER TREATMENT TOTAL: $15,178,067 $4,408,793 $20,233,073 $15,826,280 $140,556
8/6/2002 seweriiwwtp assets FEE SUMMARY.3-8-02
APPENDIX SE
Collection System
Current Year. 2002
Current ENR-CCI: 6500 (Spring'02)
3UBDIVISION3 (Includes a118" lines)
Fiscal Original Cow ENR- Replacenent Useful Cumulative Replacement Cost
Year Ca pital Assets CCI (a) Cost Life Depreciation Less Deprecation
1973 $ 119,464 1895 $ 409,771 50 $ 67,471 $ 342,300
1976 $ 13,406 2401 $ 36,293 50 $ 6,834 $ 29,458
1978 $ 259,347 2776 $ 607,261 50 $ 120,876 $ 486,385
1979 $ 374,615 3003 $ 810,855 50 $ 166,777 $ 644,078
1980 $ 97,841 3237 $ 196,468 50 $ 37,278 $ 159,189
1981 $ 125,251 3536 $ 230,306 50 $ 52,236 $ 178,070
1982 $ 119,260 3825 $ 202,664 50 $ 47,729 $ 154,935
1983 $ 82.063 4066 $ 131,188 50 $ 31,196 $ 99,992
1984 $ 126,694 4146 $ 198,628 50 $ 45,112 $ 153,516
1985 $ 399,191 4195 $ 618,532 50 $ 135,727 $ 482,804
1986 $ 50,913 4295 $ 77,051 50 $ 16,070 $ 60,981
1987 $ 216,469 4406 $ 319,348 50 $ 63,952 $ 255,396
1988 $ 131,954 4519 $ 189,799 50 $ 35,026 $ 154,773
1989 $ 83,045 4616 $ 116,965 50 $ 16,932 $ 97,033
1990 $ 826,722 4732 $ 1,135,607 50 $ 195,630 $ 939,977
1991 $ 333,757 4835 $ 448,691 50 $ 72,801 $ 375,889
1992 $ 1,583,551 4985 $ 2,064,811 50 $ 316,219 $ 1,748,592
1993 $ 369,220 5210 5 460,639 50 $ 59,698 $ 400,941
1994 $ 1,415,693 5408 $ 1,701,554 50 $ 203,947 $ 1,497,608
1995 $ 740,536 5471 $ 876,618 50 $ so,796 $ 789,022
1996 $ 612,558 5620 $ ,,055,450 so $ 64,144 $ 961.305
1997 $ 1,749,302 5826 $ 1,651,676 so $ 139,820 $ 1,811,856
1998 $ 2,098,656 5920 $ 2,304,267 so $ 135,205 $ 2,1ss,o62
1999 $ 1,770,876 solo $ 1,899.454 so $ 77,114 $ 1,822.340
2000 $ 1,980.906 622, $ 2,oss,74s so $ so,oos $ 2.019.737
200, $ ,,240,436 6342 $ 1,27,,336 50 $ 1,,039 $ 1,2so,3o1
$ 17,221,725 $ 21,388,180 $ 2,292,639 $ 19,095,541
CITY PROJECTS
Fiscal Original Cost ENR- Replacmer>< Useful Cumulative Replacement Cost
Year Capital Assets CCI (a) Cost Life Depreciation Less Depreciation
1978 $ 272,792 27/6 $ 638,742 50 $ 110,029 $ 528,713
1979 $ 2,309,310 3003 $ 4,998,506 50 $ 1,002,215 $ 3,996,292
1980 $ 1,916 3237 $ 3,847 50 $ 722 $ 3,125
196, 3535 $ - so $ -
1987 4406 $ - so $ -
1990 a732 $ - so $
1661 4835 $ - so $ -
1992 4x75 $ - 50 $ -
1993 5210 $ - 50 $ -
1994 5406 $ - 50 $ -
1995 sa71 $ - 50 $ -
sss $ 7x7,182 ss2o $ 92z,oo8 so $ 86,863 $ 836,1 ~
,x97 $ - 5626 $ - 50 $ -
1998 $ 3oa,24s 5867 $ 337.075 50 $ 35,182 $ 301.894
1999 $ 170,410 solo $ 182,783 so $ 7,876 $ 174,606
2000 $ - 6221 $ - 50 $ -
2001 $ 177,545 6342 $ 181,666 50 $ 1,222 $ 180,747
2002 $ 646,837 6500 $ 646,837 50 $ - $ 646,837
$ 4,s6o,242 $ 7,911,768 $ 1,243.126 $ 6,666,636
TOTAL COLLECTION: $ 21,901,968 $ 29,299,948 $ 3,535,767 $ 25,764,180
8/62002 p~ 1 of ~
-= -. _ - APPENDIX SF
- ~ _ - ~~ ' ~ Page 1 of 5
Replacement
Replacementrt Cost less
AssetTypelD Year Description Cost AccDeprAmt ERN~:CI Cost ActDeprec. Annikpr
SEWER DEPT. pgr AcctR
16505 1973 SL -MEADOW VIEW #1 $119,464 $67,471 1,895 $409,771 $342,300 $2,389
16505 1976 SL - NORTHGATE S_UB #3 $13,406 $6,834 2401 $36 293 $29 458 $268
16505 1978 SL -CHERRY LANE VILLAGE #1 $126,622 $59,503 2,776 $296,485 $236,982 $2,532
16505 1978 SL -CHERRY LANE VILLAGE #2 $78,903 $36,557 2,776 $184,751 $148,194 $1,578
16505 1978 SL -GLENFIELD MANOR #1 $53 622 $24 815 2 776 $126 024 $101 209 $1 076
16505 1979 SL -FRANKLIN SQUARE $47,128 $21,216 3,003 $102,009 $80,793 $943
16505 1979 SL - CRESTWOOD ESTATES $25,329 $11,660 3,003 $54,825 $43,165 $507
16505 1979 SL - SUNNYBROOK FARMS #1 $22,170 $9,821 3,003 $47,987 $38,166 $443
16505 1979 SL - SUNNYBROOK FARMS #2 $67,790 $30,043 3,003 $146,732 $116,688 $1,356
16505 1979 SL-GLENFIELD MANOR#2 $61,774 $27,377 3,003 $133,710 $106,333 $1,235
16505 1979 SL -CHERRY LANE EXT $99,857 $44,267 3,003 $216,141 $171,873 $1,997
16505 1979 SL -RYAN PLACE $11,956 $5,278 3,003 $25,879 $20,800 $239
16505 1979 SL -GLENFIELD MANOR EXT $38 611 $17,114 3 003 $83 574 $66 460 $772
16505 1980 SL-TERROR SUBDIVISION $4,250 $1,813 3,237 $8,534 $6,721 $85
16505 1980 SL -MERIDIAN PARK ADD $54,529 $24,001 3,237 $109,496 $85,495 $1,091
16505 1980 SL -MERIDIAN MEADOW #6 $25,958 $6,228 3,237 $52,124 $45,896 $519
16505 1980 SL -HUNTER ESTATES $13 104 $5 236 3 237 $26 313 $21 077 $262
16505 1981 SL -MERIDIAN PARK #1 $52,584 $21,740 3,535 $96,689 $74,949 $1,052
16505 1981 SL -MEADOW VIEW #2 $71,450 $30,009 3,535 $131,379 $101,370 $1,429
16505 1981 SL -CUSTOM BUILDERS $1,217 $487 3 535 $2,238 $1 751 $24
16505 1982 SL -MERIDIAN IND PARK NW $525 $230 3,625 $892 $663 $11
16505 1982 SL -LOCUST GROVE IND PARK $67,000 $26,800 3,825 $113,856 $87,056 $1,340
16505 1982 SL -MERIDIAN MANOR ti3 $51 735 $20 699 3 825 $87 916 $67 217 $1 035
16505 1983 SL -MERIDIAN PHOE #1 $54,528 $20,728 4,066 $87,170 $66,442 $1,091
16505 1983 SL_- SETTLERS VILLAGE NW $27,535 $10,468 4 066 $44 018 $33 550 $551
16505 1984 SL-MERIDIAN PLACE PHI $52,996 $19,080 4,146 $83,086 $64,006 $1,060
16505 1984 SL - W LAWN SUB PHASE I $18,698 $6,732 4,146 $29,314 $22,582 $374
16505 1984 SL - SUNNYBROOK #3 $30,000 $10,6D0 4,146 $47,033 $36,233 $600
16505 1984 SL -THE LAKE ~ CHERRY LANE $25,000 $8 500 4 146 $39 194 $30 694 $500
16505 1985 SL - SUNNYBROOK #4 $29,058 $9,877 4,195 $45,024 $35,147 $581
16505 1965 SL -TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS P~ $370,133 $125,850 4 195 $573,508 $447 658 $7 403
16505 1988 SL-THE WILLOWS $9,929 $3,183 4,295 $15,026 $11,644 $199
16505 1986 SL -MERIDIAN PARK $29,405 $9,408 4,295 $44,501 $35,093 $588
16505 1986 SL -MERIDIAN MANOR #4 $11,579 $3,479 4,295 $17 524 $14 045 $232
16505 1987 SL -THE LAKE @ CHERRY LANE f!2 $26,462 $7,936 4,406 $39,038 $31,103 $529
16505 1987 SL -FREEWAY EXT $177,791 $53,339 4,406 $262,288 $208,949 $3,556
16505 1987 SL -FULLER PROJECT $12,216 $2,677 4,406 $18 022 $15 345 $244
16505 1988 SL - CARLTON AND EAST 1ST $17,149 $4,802 4,519 $24,667 $19,865 $343
16505 1988 SL -MERIDIAN MANOR #5 $18,805 $5,264 4,519 $27,049 $21,784 $376
16505 1988 SL -MERIDIAN GREENS $96,000 $24,960 4,519 $138,084 $113,124 $1 920
16505 1989 SL - CRESTWOOD #4 $83,045 $19,932 4,615 $116,965 $97,033 $1 661
16505 1990 SL - 10 MILE RD $84,001 $20,160 4,732 $115,386 $95,226 $1,680
16505 1990 SL - 10 MILE SEWER $385,687 $92,567 4,732 $529,790 $437,223 $7,714
16505 1990 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW $51,871 $12,445 4,732 $71,251 $58,806 $1,037
16505 1990 SL -CHERRY LN VILLAGE $56,024 $12,321 4,732 $76,956 $64,635 $1,120
16505 1990 SL-CI.ARINDAFOUR $43,160 $10,357 4,732 $59,286 $48,929 $863
16505 1990 SL-CRESTWOOD#5 $9,375 $2,255 4,732 $12,878 510,623 $168
16505 1990 SL - DUNTEN PLACE $33,854 $7,447 4,732 $46,503 $39,056 $677
16505 1990 SL -GEM PARK SUB $21,000 $5,040 4,732 $28,846 $23,806 $420
16505 1990 SL -GLENFIELD #3 $19,865 $4,765 4,732 $27,287 $22,522 $397
16505 1990 SL-GLENFIELD#4 $23,273 $5,116 4,732 $31,968 $26,852 $465
16505 1990 SL -GOLF VIEW EST $40,266 $9,667 4,732 $55,338 $45,671 $806
16505 1990 SL -MERIDIAN GREENS #3 $33,120 $7,945 4,732 $45,495 $37,549 $662
16505 1990 SL- CRESTWOOD $25,206 $5,544 4,732 $34,624 $29,079 $504
16505 1991 SL-LANDING#1 $55,783 $12,275 4,835 $74,993 $62,718 $1,116
16505 1991 SL -GLENFIELD #5 $14,860 $3,268 4,835 $19,977 $16,710 $297
16505 1991 SL -GLENFIELD #6 $15,620 $3,433 4,835 $20,999 $17,566 $312
16505 1991 SL - DUNTEN PL #2 $26,696 $5,874 4,835 $35,889 $30,015 $534
16505 1991 SL -MISTY MEADOW #2 $22,172 $4,874 4,835 $29,807 $24,933 $443
16505 1991 SL -CENTRAL VALLEY #2 $48,552 $10,681 4,835 $65,272 $54,590 $971
165D5 1991 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW #2 $24,628 $5,422 4,835 $33,106 $27,685 $493
16505 1991 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW #1 $21,445 $4,719 4,835 $28,830 $24,111 $429
16505 1991 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW #5 $33,805 $7,436 4,835 $45,446 $36,010 $676
16505 1991 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW #6 $12,786 $2,815 4,835 $17,189 $14,374 $256
16505 1991 SL -MISTY MEADOWS #1 $26,210 $5,765 4,835 $35,236 $29,471 $524
16505 1991 SL - MERRYWOOD #1 $31,202 $6,240 4,835 $41,947 $35,70? $624
16505 1992 SL-SUNBURST#1 $53,649 $10,730 4,985 $69,954 $59,224 $1,073
16505 1992 SL -HAVEN COVE #1 $58,671 $11,242 4,985 $76,502 $65,260 $1,173
16505 1992 SL - T LANDING #2 $34,479 $6,899 4,965 $44,958 $38,059 $690
16505 1992 SL - T LANDING #3 $28,060 $5,611 4,985 $36,588 $30,977 $561
16505 1992 SL-TRACT SUB#1 $95,330 $19,069 4,985 $124,302 $105,233 $1,907
16505 1992 SL - KEARNEY PL #1 $26,723 $5,341 4,985 $34,844 $29,503 $534
8/6/2002 sewer&wwtp assets FEE SUMMARY.3-6-02
APPENDIX 5F
Page 2 of 5
Replacement
Replacement Cost less
AssetTypelD Y~r Descriptlon Cost AccOeprAmt ERN-CCI Cost ActDeprec. Annl)epr
SEWER DEPT. per Aectg
16505 1992 SL -MIRAGE MEADOWS $41,198 $8,240 4,985 $53,719 $45,479 $824
16505 1992 SL -GLENFIELD #4 PHASE2 $4,863 $971 4,985 $6,341 $5,370 $97
16505 1992 SL-GLENFIELD#7 $19,553 $3,910 4,985 $25,495 $21,585 $391
16505 1992 SL -GLENFIELD #8 $18,460 $3,691 4,985 $24,070 $20,380 $369
16505 1992 SL -GLENFIELD #9 $36,876 $7,379 4,985 $48,083 $40,704 $738
16505 1992 SL -GEM PARK #2 $27,907 $5,580 4,985 $36,388 $30,808 $558
16505 1992 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW #4 $4,278 $859 4,985 $5,578 $4,719 $86
16505 1992 SL -CHATEAU MEADOW #6 $33,549 $6,710 4,985 $43,745 $37,035 $671
16505 1992 SL -CRYSTAL SRPINGS #1 $24,220 $4,841 4,985 $31,581 $26,740 $484
16505 1992 SL -CRYSTAL SPRINGS #2 $29,000 $5,800 4,985 $37,813 $32,013 $580
16505 1992 SL -HON-DAIRY GUEON $34,370 $6,871 4,985 $44,815 $37,944 $687
16505 1992 SL -MEADOWS GREENS #2 $135,223 $27,041 4,985 $176,319 $149,277 $2,704
16505 1992 SL -SUNBURST #2 $22,683 $4,539 4,985 $29,577 $25,038 $454
16505 1992 SL - SUNBURST tt3 $21,702 $4,340 4,985 $28,297 $23,957 $434
16505 1992 SL - DEERFIELD SUB $18,362 $3,669 4,985 $23,942 $20,274 $367
18505 1992 SL -MERIDIAN MANOR #7 $43,250 $8,650 4,985 $56,394 $47,744 $865
16505 1992 SL -CHERRY LN #3 B & C $56,663 $11,331 4,985 $73,884 $62,553 $1,133
16505 1992 SL - WATERBURY PARK #1 $23,250 $4,650 4,985 $30,316 $25,666 $465
16505 1992 SL -VINEYARDS #1 $57,878 $11,579 4,985 $75,468 $63,889 $1,158
16505 1992 SL -ONE SUB #3 $37,000 $7,400 4,985 $48,245 $40,845 $740
16505 1992 SL -TRACT SUB #2 $39,004 $7,800 4,985 $50,858 $43,058 $780
16505 1992 SL - KEARNEY PLACE #2 $26,343 $5,270 4,985 $34,349 $29,079 $527
16505 1992 SL -CANDLELIGHT SUB #1 $36,967 $7,391 4,985 $48,202 $40,811 $739
16505 1992 SL -MERIDIAN PLACE #3 $46,150 $9,230 4,985 $60,176 $50,946 $923
16505 1992 SL - MERRYWOOD #2 $23,531 $4,709 4,985 $30,682 $25,973 $471
16505 1992 SL - SO. SLOUGH LINE $249,735 $49,949 4,985 $325,632 $275,683 $4,995
16505 1992 SL - N. MERIDIAN ROAD $171,226 $34,249 4,985 $223,264 $189,015 $3,425
16505 1992 SL -ADD 10 MILE SEWER $3,398 $680 4,985 $4,431 $3,751 $68
16505 1993 SL -HAVEN COVE #2 $55,876 $9,502 5,210 $69,711 $60,209 $1,118
16505 1993 SL -VINEYARD #3 $36,884 $6,026 5,210 $46,017 $39,990 $738
16505 1993 SL - PARKWOOD MEADOW #2 $19,617 $3,170 5,210 $24,474 $21,304 $392
16505 1993 SL - PARKWOOD MEADOWS #1 $51,238 $8,284 5,210 $63,925 $55,640 $1,025
16505 1993 SL -LANDING SU8 #5 $29,822 $4,819 5,210 $37,206 $32,387 $596
16505 1993 SL -LOCUST GROVE S LINE EM $22,089 $3,535 5,210 $27,558 $24,023 $442
16505 1993 SL -HUNTER GLEN APTS $16,114 $2,577 5,210 $20,104 $17,527 $322
16505 1993 SL-TRACT SUB #3 $45,079 $7,139 5,210 $56,241 $49,102 $902
16505 1993 SL - SUNNYBROOK #5 $34,438 $5,453 5,210 $42,965 $37,512 $689
16505 1993 SL -LANDING #6 $35,671 $5,646 5,210 $44,503 $38,857 $713
16505 1993 SL - KEARNEY PLACE #3 $22 392 $3 547 5 210 $27 936 $24 390 $448
16505 1994 SL -CHERRY LANE tt4 $27,732 $4,300 5,408 $33,332 $29,032 $555
16505 1994 SL-CANDLELIGHT#2 $43,407 $6,727 5,408 $52,172 $45,444 $868
16505 1994 SL -FIELDSTONE MEADOWS #1 $58,207 $9,021 5,408 $69,960 $60,939 $1,164
16505 1994 SL -VINEYARDS tl4 $36,024 $5,581 5,408 $43,298 $37,717 $720
16505 1994 SL-WATERBURY#2 $27,632 $4,192 5,408 $33,212 $29,020 $553
16505 1994 SL -FIELDSTONE MEADOWS #2 $32,289 $4,790 5,408 $38,809 $34,019 $646
16505 1994 SL -SPORTSMAN POINTS #3 $51,279 $7,608 5,408 $61,633 $54,026 $1,026
16505 1994 SL - MIER MANOR ff8 $34,945 $5,184 5,408 $42,001 $36,818 $699
16505 1994 SL - WINGATE #1 $19,030 $2,793 5,408 $22,873 $20,080 $381
16505 1994 SL - SADDI-E VIEW #1 $77,350 $11,345 5,408 $92,969 $81,624 $1,547
16505 1994 SL -HAVEN COVE #3 $55,821 $8,165 5,408 $67,093 $58,907 $1,116
16505 1994 SL - SUMMERFIELD #1 $177,287 $25,707 5,408 $213,085 $187,378 $3,546
16505 1994 SL -CROSSROADS #1 $90,678 $12,999 5,408 $108,988 $95,989 $1,814
16505 1994 SL -TRACT SUB #4 $126,809 $17,964 5,408 $152,415 $134,451 $2,536
16505 1994 SL - S SLOUGH LINE $207,561 $29,404 5,408 $249,472 $220,069 $4,151
18505 1994 SL - FENWAY #2 $33,934 $4,809 5,408 $40,786 $35,977 $679
16505 1994 SL -SPORTSMAN POINTS #4 $69,050 $9,552 5,408 $82,993 $73,441 $1,381
16505 1994 SL -VINEYARDS #5 $44,528 $6,161 5,408 $53,519 $47,359 $891
16505 1994 SL - FOTHERGILL POINTS #1 $80,000 $10,933 5,408 $96,154 $85,221 $1,600
16505 1994 SL-CANDLELIGHT #3 $44,540 $6,087 5,408 $53,534 $47,446 $891
16505 1994 SL - FENWAY PARK #3 $10,583 $1,447 5,408 $12,720 $11,273 $212
16505 1994 SL -CROSSROADS #2 $38,206 $5,221 5,408 $45,921 $40,699 $764
16505 1994 SL -MANHOLES $28,801 $3,936 5,408 $34,617 $30,681 $576
16505 1995 SL - WATERBURY #4 $22,503 $2,962 5,471 $26,735 $23,773 $450
16505 1995 SL -MERIDIAN ST $69,706 $9,177 5,471 $82,816 $73,639 $1,394
16505 1995 SL -CHERRY LANE $4,537 $590 5,471 $5,390 $4,800 $91
16505 1995 SL -PIEDMONT $24,060 $3,087 5,471 $28,585 $25,499 $481
16505 1995 SL - DANBURY FAIR #3 $38,054 $4,883 5,471 $45,211 $40,328 $761
16505 1995 SL - DANBURY#4 $59,286 $7,510 5,471 $70,437 $62,927 $1,186
16505 1995 SL -LOCUST GROVE STUBS $5,600 $691 5,471 $6,653 $5,962 $112
16505 1995 SL -HAVEN COVE #4 $45,704 $5,636 5,471 $54,300 $48,664 $914
16505 1995 SL -FIELDSTONE #3 $54,376 $6,527 5,471 $64,603 $58,077 $1,088
16505 1995 SL - FOTHERGILL POINTS #2 $85,501 $10,260 5,471 $101,582 $91,322 $1,710
8/6/2002 sewer8wwtp assets FEE SUMMARY.3-6-02
APPENDIX 5F
Page 3 of 5
Replacement
AssetTypelD
SEWER DEPT. Year
Descrlptlon
Cost
AccDeprAmt
ERN~CI Replacement
Cost Cost less
ActDeprec.
Annl)epr
r
16505
16505 1995
1995 SL-TRACT#SA $31,361 $3,763 5,471 $37,259 $33,497 $627
18505
1995 SL - LAKE ~ CHERRY LANE #3
SL-NAVARRO $95,100 $11,412 5,471 $112,987 $101,575 $1,902
16505
1995
SL -BEDFORD PLACE #1 $41,366
$99,248 $4,963
$11
745 5,471
5
471 $49,146
$117
915 $44,183
$106
17 $827
16505
1995
SL -CANNA LILLY
$16,794 ,
$1,988 ,
5,471 ,
$19
953 ,
0
$17
965 $1,985
$336
16505 1995 SL -SUMMERFIELD #2 $47 340 $5 602 5 471 ,
$56 244 ,
$50 641 $947
16505
16505 1996 SL - AVEST PLAZA $39,428 $4,207 5,620 $45,602 $41
395 $769
16505 1996
1996 SL -CHAMBERLAIN #1
SL-DANBURY #5 $54,271 $5,788 5,620 $62,769 ,
$56,981 $1,085
16505
1996
SL -DANBURY #7 $38,091
$102,567 $4,190
$10,256 5,620
5
620 $44,055
$118
627 $39,865
$108
371 $762
$2
051
16505 1996 SL -FIELDSTONE #4 $40,303 $4,164 ,
5,620 ,
$46
614 ,
$42
450 ,
$806
16507 1996 SL -FIELDSTONE #5 SUB $52,199 $5,046 5,620 ,
$60,373 ,
$55
327 $1
044
16507 1996 SL -FIELDSTONE MEADOWS #4 $40,303 $4,030 5,620 $46,614 ,
$42
584 ,
$806
16505 1996 SL -HAVEN COVE #5 $44,785 $4,628 5,620 $51,798 ,
$47
169 $896
16505 1996 SL -HAVEN COVE #G $6,815 $704 5,620 $7,882 ,
$7
178 $136
16505
16505 1996 SL - LA PLAYA $62,938 $6,818 5,620 $72,793 ,
$65,975 $1,259
1996 SL -LANDING SEWER LIFT STATION $6,898 $678 5,620 $7,978 $7
300 $138
16505 1996 SL -LOS ALAMITOS #2A $97,450 $10,232 5,620 $112,709 ,
$102
477 $1
949
16505 1996 SL -MANHOLE ON BROADWAY AND 3 $9,175 $887 5,620 $10,612 ,
$9
725 ,
$184
16505 1996 SL- MER. BUSINESS PARK #2 $59,363 $6,332 5,620 $68,658 ,
$62
326 $1
187
16505 1996 SL -MIDTOWN SQUARE $46,500 $5,038 5,620 $53,781 ,
$48
743 ,
$930
16505 1996 SL-SALMON RAPIDS#1 $92,500 $9,250 5,620 $106,984 ,
$97
734 $1
850
16505 1996 SL -SALMON RAPIDS #2 $89,500 $8,950 5,620 $103,514 ,
$94
564 ,
$1
790
16505 1996 SL -TRACT #56 $29 472 $2 946 5 620 $34 087 ,
$31 141 ,
$589
16505 1997 SL-CARTLTONSTREETSEWERLINE $9,196 $705 5,825 $10,262 $9
557 $184
16507 1997 SL - FOTHERGILL POINTS SUB #3 $22,285 $1,968 5,825 $24,867 ,
$22
899 $446
16507 1997 SL - RAILSIDE PARK SUB $37,197 $3,162 5,825 $41,507 ,
$38
346 $744
16507 1997 SL -SUMMERFIELD #2 SUB $47,340 $4,024 5,825 $52,826 ,
$48
801 $947
16507 1997 SL -SUMMERFIELD SUB #3B $31,599 $2,633 5,825 $35,261 ,
$32
628 $632
16507 1997 SL-CHAMBERLAINEESTATES#1 $58,777 $4,703 5,825 $65,588 ,
$60
885 $1
176
16507 1997 SL-CHAMBERLAINEESTATES#2 $54,271 $4,342 5,825 $60,560 ,
$56,218 ,
$1
085
16507 1997 SL - CHAPPARRAL ELEM SCHOOL $6,944 $556 5,825 $7,749 $7
193 ,
$139
16507 1997 SL -CROSSROADS sY3 $40,788 $3,263 5,825 $45,515 ,
$42
251 $816
16507 1997 SL -CROSSROADS #4 $31,908 $2,552 5,825 $35,605 ,
$33
053 $638
16507 1997 SL -DANBURY FAIR #7 $102,567 $8,205 5,825 $114,452 ,
$106
247 $2
051
16507 1997 SL -DOVE MEADOWS #2 $47,000 $3,760 5,825 $52,446 ,
$48
686 ,
$940
16507 1997 SL - ENGLEWOOD CREEK #1 $59,626 $4,771 5,825 $66,535 ,
$61,765 $1
193
16507 1997 SL -FINCH CREEK PH 2 $37,619 $3,009 5,825 $41,978 $38
969 ,
$752
16507 1997 SL -FIRELIGHT ESTATES $30,074 $2,405 5,825 $33,559 ,
$31
154 $601
16507 1997 SL -HAVEN COVE #58 $33,606 $2,688 5,825 $37,500 ,
$34
812 $672
16507 1997 SL - KENTFIELD MANOR #2 $30,395 $2,432 5,825 $33,917 ,
$31
485 $608
16507 1997 SL -LANDINGS #9 $69,067 $5,525 5,825 $77,070 ,
$71,545 $1
381
16507 1997 SL -LOS ALAMITOS #28 $6,000 $480 5,825 $6,695 $6
215 ,
$120
16507 1997 SL -MERIDIAN GREENS #3 $37,197 $2,976 5,825 $41,507 ,
$38
532 $744
16507 1997 SL -MORNING GLORY #2 $52,153 $4,172 5,825 $58,196 ,
$54,024 $1
043
16507 1997 SL-RAVINHILL#1 $55,734 $4,459 5,825 $62,192 $57
733 ,
$1
115
16507 1997 SL -SALMON RAPIDS t13 $71,748 $5,740 5,825 $80,062 ,
$74,322 ,
$1
435
16507 1997 SL-SPORTSMANPOINTE #5 $52,112 $4,169 5,825 $58,151 $53,982 ,
$1
042
16507 1997 SL -SPORTSMAN POINTS #6 $26,877 $2,151 5,825 $29,992 $27
841 ,
$538
16507 1997 SL - STRATFORD PLAZA #1 $10,761 $861 5,825 $12,008 ,
$11
147 $215
16507 1997 SL-SUMMERFIELDlf3A $74,906 $5,992 5,825 $83,586 ,
$77,594 $1
498
16507 1997 SL-TUTHILL#2 $59,603 $4,768 5,825 $66,510 $61,742 ,
$1
192
16507 1997 SL - WATERBURY PARK #5 $57,065 $4,565 5,825 $63,678 $59,113 ,
$1
141
16507 1997 SL - WHITESTONE #1 $178,025 $14,243 5,825 $198,655 $184,412 ,
$3
561
16507 1997 SL - WINGATE PLACE #2 $60,800 $4,864 5,825 $67,845 $62,981 ,
$1
216
16507 1997 SL -LOS ALAMITOS #3 $88,700 $6,948 5,825 $98,979 $92,031 ,
$1
774
16507 1997 SL -BEDFORD PLACE #3 $36,627 $2,870 5,825 $40,871 $38,002 ,
$733
16507 1997 SL-CROSSROADS #5 $33,191 $2,544 5,825 $37,037 $34,493 $664
16507 1997 SL -TUMBLE CREEK #1 $97 544 $7 316 5 825 $108 847 $101 532 $1 951
16505 1998 SL -WASHINGTON AND 2ND SEWERL $4,798 $352 5,920 $5,268 $4,916 $96
16507 1998 SL -ASHFORD GREENS #2 $133,818 $9,813 5,920 $146,929 $137,115 $2
676
16507 1998 SL -BEDFORD PLACE #4 $35,679 $2,141 5,920 $39,175 $37,034 ,
$714
16507 1998 SL -Central Valley Corp Park #6 Sewerli $64,847 $3,891 5,920 $71,201 $67,310 $1
297
16507 1998 SL -CROSSROADS tt6 $36,019 $2,281 5,920 $39,548 $37,267 ,
$720
16507 1998 SL-Crossroads #7Sewerlines $61,603 $3,491 5,920 $67,638 $64,148 $1,232
16507 1998 SL -Englewood Creek #2 Sewerlines $63,113 $3,787 5,920 $69,295 $65,510 $1
262
16507 1998 SL -GRANITE CREEK $32,986 $2,254 5,920 $36,218 $33,964 ,
$660
16507 1998 SL -Haven Cove #7 Sewerlines $42,316 $2,539 5,920 $46,462 $43,923 $846
16507 1998 SL - LAKE ~ CHERRY LANE !75 $247,200 $18,128 5,920 $271,419 $253,291 $4,944
16507 1998 SL - LAKE ~ CHERRY LANE #6 $51,200 $3,584 5,920 $56,216 $52,632 $1,024
16507 1998 SL - Lake~Cherry Lane #4, Ptdt1 sewer) $66,000 $3,960 5,920 $72,466 $68,506 $1
320
16507 1998 SL - Lske~Cherry Lane #7 sewerlines $50,400 $3,024 5,920 $55,338 $52,314 ,
$1,008
8/6/2002 sewer8wwtp assets FEE SUMMARY.3-6-02
APPEWDIX 5F
Page 4 of 5
Replacemerrt
Replacement Cost less
AssetTypelD Year Description Cost AccDeprAmt ERN-CCI Cost Act.Deprec. AnnDepr
SEWER DEPT. per Acctg
16507 1998 SL - MEDIMONT $96,099 $6,727 5,920 $105,514 $98,787 $1,922
16507 1998 SL -Meridian Greens #3 8It4 seweriines $35,700 $2,083 5,920 $39,198 $37,115 $714
16507 1998 SL -MERIDIAN GREENS UNIT 3 PH VI $30,631 $2,246 5,920 $33,832 $31,386 $613
16507 1998 SL -Packard Subdivision #1 offsite $182,357 $10,637 5,920 $200,223 $189,586 $3,647
16507 1998 SL -Packard Subdivision #1 seweriines $60,052 $3,503 5,920 $65,935 $62,432 $1,201
16507 1998 SL -Raven Hill #2 $28,432 $1,659 5,920 $31,218 $29,559 $569
16507 1998 SL -SALMON RAPIDS Ito $89,600 $6,123 5,920 $98,378 $92,255 $1,792
16505 1998 SL - Seweriine @ Locust Grove $5,497 $312 5,920 $6,036 $5,724 $110
16505 1998 SL - Seaverline Extension $3,252 $195 5,920 $3,571 $3,376 565
16507 1998 SL -Sherbrooke Hollows #1 $242,095 $14,122 5,920 $265,814 $251,692 $4,842
16507 1998 SL -SPORTSMAN POINTS #7 $39,179 $2,677 5,920 $43,017 $40,341 $784
16507 1998 SL-SUMMERFIELD#5 $21,641 $1,587 5,920 $23,761 $22,174 $433
16507 1998 SL - TRAUTNER BUSINESS PARK $83,000 $6,087 5,920 $91,132 $85,045 $1,660
16507 1998 SL-Tumble Creek#2 $69,000 $4,140 5,920 $75,760 $71,620 $1,380
16507 1998 SL - TURNBERRY #1 $168,664 $10,120 5,920 $185,189 $175,069 $3,373
16507 1998 SL - WHITESTONE $53,477 $3,744 5,920 $58,716 $54,973 $1,070
16505 1999 SL - 5 Mile Griffin Sewerline Extension $10,283 $463 6,060 $11,030 $10,567 $206
16507 1999 SL -Devlin Place Sewerlines $59,220 $3,257 6,060 $63,520 $60,263 $1,184
16505 1999 SL - Drainage ~ Lake at Cherry Lane $1,350 $70 6,060 $1,448 $1,378 527
16507 1999 SL - Econo-Lube Subdivision SewEriines $28,420 $1,516 6,060 $30,483 $28,968 $568
16507 1999 SL - Golfview Seweriines $49,390 $2,140 6,060 $52,976 $50,836 $988
16507 1999 SL -Haven Cove #8 Sewerlines $24,047 $1,122 6,060 $25,793 $24,671 $481
16507 1999 SL -Home Depot Severiine $2,800 $154 6,060 $3,003 $2,649 $56
16507 1999 SL -Honor Park #3 Ph#1 sewertines $12,191 $589 6,060 $13,076 $12,487 $244
16507 1999 SL -Landing #10 seweriines $36,182 $1,628 6,060 $38,809 $37,181 $724
16507 1999 SL -Sterling Creek $36,623 $1,831 8,060 $39,282 $37,451 $732
16507 1999 SL -Tel-Pac seweriines $3,600 $198 6,060 $3,861 $3,663 572
16507 1999 SL-Thousand Springs#1 $95,990 $4,160 6,060 $102,960 $98,800 $1,920
16507 1999 SL-Thunder Creek $58,645 $2,737 6,060 $62,903 $60,166 $1,173
16507 1999 SL-Turtle Creek#1 $110,267 $4,594 6,060 $118,273 $113,679 $2,205
16507 1999 SL - VanAuker-Eaggle Road Sewer $585,000 $27,300 6,060 $627,475 $600,175 $11,700
16507 1999 SL - Whitestone Estates $11,980 $559 6,060 $12,850 $12,291 $240
16507 1999 SL -Ashford Greens #3 $43,191 $1,728 6,060 $46,326 $44,599 $864
16507 1999 SL - Chevron ~ Eagle Road $6,535 $261 6,060 $7,009 $6,748 $131
16507 1999 SL -Dakota Ridge #1 $34,503 $1,380 6,060 $37,008 $35,628 $690
16507 1999 SL -Family Center $59,900 $2,396 6,060 $64,249 $61,853 51,198
16507 1999 SL -Sherbrooke Hollows #2 $49,195 $1,968 6,060 $52,767 $50,799 $984
16507 1999 SL-SherbrookeHolkrvvs#3 $57,599 $2,304 6,060 $61,781 $59,477 $1,152
16507 1999 SL -Tumble Creek #3 $49,000 $1,960 6,060 $52,558 $50,598 $980
16507 1999 SL - Whdestone Estates #3 $17,028 $681 6,060 $18,264 $17,583 $341
16507 1999 SL - RC Willey $28,046 $1,122 6,060 $30,082 $28,961 $561
16507 1999 SL -Cherry Lane Village #5 Ph.6 $45,776 $1,678 6,060 $49,100 $47,421 $916
16507 1999 SL -Thousand Springs #2 $63,800 $2,339 6,060 $68,432 566,093 $1,276
16507 1999 SL - Lake~Cherry Lane #5 Phase B $164,800 $6,043 6,060 $176,766 $170,723 53,296
16507 1999 SL -Central Drive Extension to Jabil $25 515 $936 6 060 $27 368 $26 432 $510
16505 2000 SL -Five Mile Sewer Ext~l84 8 Overianc $22,467 $749 6,221 $23,475 $22,726 $449
16505 2000 SL - Seweriine Extension ~ WWTP in 2C 547,080 $1,020 6,221 $49,192 $48,172 $942
16505 2000 SL - Sewerline Rehab ~ Plaza $70,998 $1,302 6,221 $74,182 $72,880 $1,420
16507 2000 SL -Thousand Springs Village $96,425 $3,375 6,221 $100,749 $97,375 $1,929
16507 2000 SL -Thousand Springs #4 $14,430 $505 6,221 $15,077 $14,572 $289
16507 2000 SL -Holiday Inn Express - Offsite $23,174 $811 6,221 524,213 $23,402 $463
16507 2000 SL -Meridian RiverValley Oifsite Packar $24,960 $874 6,221 $26,079 $25,206 $499
16507 2000 SL -Brenda EstatesRhe Villas $37,455 $1,249 6,221 $39,135 $37,886 $749
16507 2000 SL -Dakota Ridge #2 $34,561 $1,152 6,221 $36,111 $34,959 $691
16507 2000 SL -Packard #2 $13,710 $457 6,221 $14,325 $13,868 $274
16507 2000 SL -Parkway Plaza $111,481 $3,716 6,221 $116,481 $112,765 $2,230
16507 2000 SL -Landing #11 $35,686 $1,190 6,221 $37,286 $36,097 $714
16507 2000 SL - Medimont #2 $18,604 $558 6,221 $19,439 $18,881 $372
16507 2000 SL - DeeJay aka Murdoch $90,799 $2,724 6,221 $94,871 $92,147 $1,816
16507 2000 SL -Haven Cove #10 $7,910 $237 6,221 $8,265 58,027 $158
16507 2000 SL -Haven Cove tt9 $29,508 $885 6,221 530,831 $29,946 $590
16507 2000 SL -Meridian Charter High School $2,460 $74 6,221 52,570 $2,497 549
16507 2000 SL -Haven Cove #10 -Pine St Extension $31,169 $935 6,221 $32,567 $31,632 $623
16507 2000 SL -Thousand Springs tt5 $97,945 $2,775 8,221 5102,338 $99,563 $1,959
16507 2000 SL -Packard tI3 536,832 $982 6,221 538,483 $37,501 5737
16507 2000 SL -Maws Addition #3 510,415 5278 6,221 510,982 $10,604 $208
16507 2000 SL -LDS Church ~ Black Cat Rd $20,800 $520 6,221 $21,733 $21,213 $416
16507 2000 SL -Sherbrooke Holk~wa #4 $41,306 $1,033 6,221 543,158 $42,125 $826
16507 2000 SL -Interstate Battery ~ Franklin $9,050 $226 6,221 $9,456 $9,230 5181
16507 2000 SL -LDS Church ~ Locust Grove $3,261 $76 6,221 53,407 $3,331 $65
16507 2000 SL -Oakbrook Plaza $27,494 $642 6,221 $28,727 528,085 $550
16507 2000 SL -Meridian Lewi58Clark Middle School $11,994 $260 6,221 $12,532 $12,272 $240
8/6/2002 sewer&ww[p assets FEE SUMMARY.3-6-02
APPENDIX 5F
Page 5 of 5
Replacement
AssetTypelD
SEWER
Year
Descrlptlon
Cost
AccDeprAmt
ERN~:CI Replacement
Cost Cost less
AcLDeprec
AnnDepr
DEPT. Per ~~ .
16507 2000 SL -Meridian Peregrine Elementary $15,472 $335 6,221 $16,166 $15
831 $309
16507 2000 SL - Whdestone Estates #4 $27,553 $597 6,221 $28,789 ,
$28
192 $551
16507 2000 CC -Sue's Subdivision $30,251 $605 6,221 $31,608 ,
$31
003 $605
16507 2000 CC -Vienna Woods Subd $231,689 $4,634 6,221 $242,080 ,
$237
446 $4
634
16507 2000 CG MidValley Business Park #1 $16,970 $339 6,221 $17,731 ,
$17
392 ,
$339
16507 2000 CC Oliason Park Subdndsion $40,894 $818 6,221 $42,728 ,
$41
910 $818
16507 2000 CC -Turtle Creek Subd $96,757 $1,935 6,221 $101,097 ,
$99
161 $1
935
16507 2000 CG Thousand Springs $97,945 $1,959 6,221 $102,338 ,
$100
379 ,
$1
959
16507 2000 CC Hartford Estates Subdivision $85,874 $1,574 6,221 $89,725 ,
$88
151 ,
$1
717
16507 2000 CC -Vienna Woods #1 Subd $60,792 $1,115 6,221 $63,516 ,
$62
404 ,
$1
216
16507 2000 CC -Vienna Woods #2 Subd $60,387 $1,107 6,221 $63,095 ,
$61
988 ,
$1
208
16507 2000 CC St Lukes Road Ext $13,350 $245 6,221 $13
949 ,
$13
704 ,
$267
16507 2000 SL -Thousand Springs #3 $125,040 $4,376 6,221 ,
$130,648 ,
$126
271 $2
501
16507 2000 CC -Tumble Creek Subd #4 $51,030 $851 6,221 $53,319 ,
$52
468 ,
$1
021
16507 2000 CC- Golf View Subdivision No 5 $32,540 $542 6,221 $33,999 ,
$33
457 ,
$651
16507 2000 SL- Ashford Greens i'J:4 $22 388 $373 6 221 $23 392 ,
$23 019 $448
16505 2001 Sewerline - sews installed ~ Ten Mile $57,750 $385 6,342 $59,189 $58
804 $1
155
16507 2001 CC -Butte Fence $6,832 $57 6,342 $7,002 ,
$6
945 ,
$137
16507 2001 CC - Creekside Arbour Apts Phase 2 $62,000 $930 6,342 $63,545 ,
$62
615 $1
240
16507
16507 2001 CC -Edinburgh Place $80,502 $537 6,342 $82,508 ,
$61,971 ,
$1,610
2001 CC -Honor Park Subdivision No 3A $42,501 $213 6,342 $43,560 $43
347 $850
16507 2001 CC -Penn Station Apartmerrts $18,258 $61 6,342 $18,713 ,
$18
652 $365
16507 2001 CC -Resolution Subdivision $78,018 $52D 6,342 $79,962 ,
$79
442 $1
560
16507 2001 CC-ScottsdaleSutrvision $18,489 $92 6,342 $18,950 ,
$18
857 ,
$370
16507 2001 CC -Snorting Bull Subd Phase #1 loops- $304,137 $4,562 6,342 $311,714 ,
$307
151 $6
083
16507 2001 CC - Tarawood $33,055 $165 6,342 $33,879 ,
$33,714 ,
$661
16507 2001 CC -The Lakes @ Cherry Lane #9 Subd $24,949 $208 6,342 $25,571 $25
363 $499
16507 2001 CC -Tremont Subd- North $93,358 $622 6,342 $95,684 ,
$95
061 $1
867
16507 2001 CC -Tumble Creek Sub #5 8 6 $86,880 $290 6,342 $89,044 ,
$88
755 ,
$1
736
16507 2001 CC-TumberrySubd#2 $75,170 $1,002 6,342 $77,042 ,
$76
040 ,
$1
503
16507 2001 CC -Vienna Woods #3 $54,022 $180 6,342 $55,368 ,
$55
188 ,
$1
080
16507 2001 CC -Vienna Woods #4 $32,714 $55 6,342 $33,529 ,
$33
474 ,
$654
16507 2001 CC -Wesley Sub sewerlines $28,856 $192 6,342 $29,575 ,
$29,383 $577
16507 2001 CC -Wilkins Ranch $92,360 $462 6,342 $94,660 $94
199 $1
847
16507 2001 CC -Woodhaven Subd $50,585 $506 6,342 $51,845 ,
$51,339 ,
$1,012
$17,221,725 $2,292,639 $21,388,515 $19,095,876 $344,435
City -Collection System
60-Imprv-WW CC 1978 Improve -Sewer Rehab (grant) $272,792 $110,029 2,776 $638,742 $528
713 $5
456
60Sewlines CC 1979 SL -SEWER LINES-GRANT $2,309,310 $1,002,215 3,003 $4,998,506 ,
$3,996,292 ,
$46
186
60-Imprv-VWV CC 1980 Improve -Sewer Rehab $1,916 $722 3,237 $3,847 $3
125 ,
538
60-Sewerlines 1996 SL -FIVE MILE DRAIN $739,692 $80,134 5,620 $855,516 ,
$775
382 $14
794
60Seweriines 1996 SL -GREGORY SEWER LIFT STATION $57,490 $5,749 5,620 $66,492 ,
$60,743 ,
$2
875
60-Lift 1998 Pump -ASHFORD GREENS LIFT STATI $300,997 $35,117 5,867 $333,472 $298
355 ,
$30
100
60-Sewerlines 1998 SL - Sewerline E~Qension $3,252 $65 5,867 $3,603 ,
$3
538 ,
$65
60-Lift 1999 Pump -Replace Lift Pump $9,602 $640 6,060 $10,299 ,
$9
659 5960
60-Seweriines 1999 SL - FranMin Road Sewerline $160,808 $7,236 6,060 $172,484 ,
$165,247 $3
216
60Sewerlines 2001 SL - Sewerline ~ WWTP Plant $122,170 $1;222 6,342 $125,213 $123,992 ,
$2
443
60~IP-WWTP 2001 CIP -Five Mile Sewer Trunk Relief $55,376 $0 6,342 $56,755 $56
755 ,
51
108
60-CIP-WWTP 2002 CIP - Whde Drain Sewer Trunk $43,732 $0 6,500 $43,732 ,
$43
732 ,
$875
60-CIP-WWTP 2002 CIP - 2001 Sewerline White Drain Trunk $4,350 $0 6,500 $4,350 ,
$4
350 $87
60-CIP-WWTP 2002 CIP - 2001 Sewerline improvementQLoci $5,711 $0 6,500 $5,711 ,
$5
711 $114
60-CIP-WWTP 2002 CIP - 2001 Sewerline Five Mile Relief $530,767 $0 6,500 $530,767 ,
$530
767 $10
615
60-CIP-WWTP 2002 2001 South Slough Sewer Trunkline ESQ $62,278 $0 6,500 $62,278 ,
$62,278 ,
$1,246
$4,680,242 $1,243,129 $89,294 $7,911,768 $6,668,639 $120,177
8/6/2002 sewer8wwtp assets FEE SUMMARY.3-6-02
~ ~'
APPENDI~6'
WATER r~nam wateri~s.
vllaBer Legal coe4s cegoal coE4
Ceplwcost (voaoters- AdJusled(1)
v~ ~m.wvrei v ~ mn Total r 1000 3dredled Ymrvaertrads
2000 5400 5400 Watortrra Ph 2
5200 5200 Fu9le Wets Rased Water
545 59 Ya/ We116Oenerator
Stbtolat S~b1oE~t 5834
2001 5400 S80 5492 We121 Wd No. B
5200 5200 Model
E400 EBO 5480 We122 Eleer
SSOp Waterlrle dose
aabroml: seeoay: s11T2
2002 5800 5160 E7,008 Welc 23 8 24 McM®arr, 10WIe to Locust Grove
51,500 5~0 51,890 WateAna dose
sbtoDit Sbtoat eee
200011ia~ 2002: 54,JZ4
2003 5200 540 5240 5246 tAlsuleneaus
5400 E80 5460 5492 We125
5400 SBO 5480 5492 We128
SILtoOel: SrL4otat s1
2004 5400 580 5480 5604 We128
5500 f100 f600 5630 Waterline
blbbfal: smtoml: s1134
2ao5 520o sw sz4o r25a Miaoetareas
swmlal: SUAOml s25e
2008 51,500 5300 51,800 51,980 Reservotr #3 saWr orF34. Wet 27
m
550o sloo seed wader Llne Loop Cberres
srcooml: sbtotal: e4o
zam s4ao seo 54eo 554o wei zs
SbONaI: SDtolal: ss4a
zoo6 Szoo s4o sz4o m6 w6eceteneors
ssoo 51ao seoo s~o water Ltrre loop cioares
acroml: anm~ml: saes
zoos s4oo seo s46o a56a Nlet29
s~mml: srbtotM: 6364
201o s4oo Seo S4ao s576 wet 30
s5oo 510o ssoo sizo water Line Loop Gosrres
sleloml: s1
2011 5350 570 5420 X15 Mlsce~leaus
5lbtotal: SeOo~l: f613
2012 5200 540 5240 5300 Mlsoelmream
f500 5100 560D 5780 Water Llne Loop Clostres
Srbtotal: Srbt~k 51080
2(113 5400 580 5480 5612 We131
SLtotat 5812
2(114 5200 540 5240 5312 Mlscelerborez
moo sled seoo neo water Line Loop aoares
sctoml: semml: st oe2
2015 5200 540 5240 5318 Misoelerea~s
SuMoteL 51DtoGil: 5318
2016 5400 580 (4811 5648 We132
5500 5100 5600 5810 Water lJne Loop goares
9rbtolat StLlotak f1
2017 5200 540 5240 5330 Mlsoetarrears
Slbtofal: Siro4otat 5330
2078 5200 540 5240 5338 Mfaoelanflaus
s5oo Stoo seed E64o water Lena Loop closrres
srtAOml: s~toml 1,78
zols s4oo s6o s46o s6e4 wet 33
s suototel SBe4
zozo szao 54o sz4o sue M6taaslerreous
s5oo 51ao shoo se7o watarlo,e l:~res
sbtotel: s~toml: st e
TOTAL• fib,28b f3~77D Total: ff7,i11
(1) Assume inflation ~ z.5x
(2) All years in which rlo major rxrlsUuction is planned a $200,000 miscellaneous Rem
is shown to cover small capital ei~. (telemetry, hydrarrts, chemical equipment, etc. )
(3) The well construction sdledule is based on maintaining a ratio of apprwbmately 1 well
to every 1000 to 1200 IJZU,C92 whiCtl is the current ratio.
8/912002 CIP Schedule cip8~castlflowprojeCtion
APPENDIX 66
Page 1 of 1
ATER FEE CALCULATION SUMMARY
°~Q
S ~
Water Supply Replaoernent Cost less Depreci~on: 5 4,042,562
less Bond Pri 1: i -
Plet Water Supply System Value: i
star Supply System Capacity, ERU's:
002 Water Supply System Charge per ERU: S 2~
Water Storage Replacement Cost less Depreciation: S 2,880,675
Ouls~rrdi Bond Princi S
Net Water Storage System Value: i 2,690,675
star Storage Capacity, ERlls:
Water Storage Charge per ERU: S 136
Distribution Replacement Cost less Depreciation: S 4.308.280
Less Outstand' Bond Prinei I: 3
Net Dist+fbtuion System Vahre: i
afar Distribution System Capacity, ERlls:
Water Distribution (CilyCorrstnrcted)Chsrge per ERU: S 21 B
Total City4;onstructed Assessment per ERU: f ti68
Fee
002 Developer-provided Distribution Replacement Cost less Deprec i 19,576,9t~
hovide 50% for replacement: S 9,708,495
lection System Capa~cily, ERU's: S 19,800
002 Assessment charge: S ass
Subtotal: S 1,062
Previous Cdlection System Charge per ERU: E 673
Percent Change: 56%
Fee
(see file titled'brad wlenterpriseMarater for calarlations) S 330
TOTAL WATER CHARGE: S 1,382
Total w/o System De~rebpment Fee: E 1,052
Previous Fee: 5 704
Pe rcent Increase: 49.4%
FEE SUMAAARY.august weber fee
APPENDIX 6C
~1of1
Water System Cost 8 Depreciation
Current Year. 2002
Current ENR-CCI: 6500
SUBDMSIONS
Fiscal Original Cost ENR- Replaement CumulaWe Replacement Cost
vwar r.,.~t-A1 A~asats rrl rA~ r..,~t rb.,.n,~w„~ I ~. r,e.,.e.a~:...,
1973 $61,044 1895 $209,386 $34,290 $175,096
1976 $12,880 2401 $34,869 $6,577 $28,282
1978 $328,238 2776 $770,910 $153,726 $617,184
1976 $308.455 3003 $667,ss2 $137,965 $529,s8s
1980 $79,083 3237 $158,761 $33,892 $124,869
.1981 $161,321 3535 $296,630 $66,880 $229,750
1982 $209,007 3825 $355,175 $83,600 $271,575
1983 $94,028 4066 $150,317 $35,738 $114,579
1984 $114,100 4146 $178,883 $40,776 $138,107
1985 $323,996 4195 $502,020 $110,160 $391,860
1986 $51,643 4295 $78,156 $16,331 $81,825
1987 $48,464 4406 $71,497 $13,270 $58,227
1988 $157,768 4519 $226,930 $42,257 $184,673
1889 $43,250 4615 $60,915 $10,380 $50,536
1990 $411,454 4732 $565,184 $96,413 $468,771
1991 $403,515 4835 $542,471 $87,159 $455,312
1992 $1,315,352 4985 $1,715,103 $262,645 $1,452,458
1993 $479,730 5210 $598,512 $77,442 $521,070
1994 $1,504,693 5408 $1,808,525 $217,132 $1,591,394
1985 $854,248 5471 $1,014,917 $105,464 $809,453
1996 $1,415,858 5620 $1,637,558 $148,054 $1,489,504
1997 $2,081,742 5825 $2,322,974 $166,230 $2,156,744
1998 $1,991,581 5920 $2,186,702 $128,718 $2,057,985
1999 $1,786,441 6053 $1,896,888 $72,382 $1,824,496
2000 $2,078,741 6221 $2,171,969 $51,876 $2,120,093
2001 $1,528,449 6342 $1,568,528 $10,886 $1,555,641
2002
~ 1 ! ,OLO,IA.)
CITY PROJECTS
Fiscal Original Cost ENR-
Year CaoiNal A4gefs CCI (al
yLl,IOa,wL yL,LIU,L,L yly,Dly,l01
Replacment Cumulative Replacement Cost
Cost r]aorareation 1 e.~c¢ rlanrwr3arinn
-~~~ ~~
iJ 1 i ~~' ' '~ ~_~ `~
~~ - if f
1977 $848,712 2576 $2,141,548 $408,961 $1,732,587 Tank, distribtution
1983 $46,570 4066 $74,448 $14,903 $59,544
1987 $115,950 4406 $171,057 $30,147 $140,910 88 water extensions
1988 $0 4519 $0 $0 $0
1990 50 4732 EO $0 $0 Ten Mile Rd. Extension
1991 $0 4835 $0 $0 $0 We11512
1992 $136,766 4985 $178,331 $21,880 $156,450 We11511 Fence, Wtr De t. Bld
1993 $3,420 5210 $4,267 $425 $3,841 Press Zone Chk VN Stat.
1994 $0 5408 50 $0 $0 Telem S ,Well 14/15, Mer. Greens Bstr Stat 2
1995 $3,406 5471 $4,047 $1,092 $2,955 Well No. 12 Rehab
1996 $16,404 5620 $18,973 $2,773 $16,200 Well No. 16
1997 $179,247 5825 $200,018 $16,940 $183,078 Linder Road Water Extension
1998 $52,887 5920 $58,069 $3,297 $54,772 Well No. 17
1999 $514,222 6060 $551,558 $22,298 $529,260 Well 19, 18, Ustick Reservoir
2000 $1,354,748 6221 $1,415,506 $33.452 $1,382,055 We11520, Ustick Reservoir
2ao1 $45,631 6342 $46,766 $1so $46,so7 We11521
X3,37 /,liti3
TOTAL DISTF $21,144,026
y4,tit4,~tftS ~55ti,3L',t ~4,3Utf,lbU
$26,654,021 $2,766,580 $23,887,440
8/6/2002 water asset summ. FEE SUMMARY.3$02
APPENDIX 6D
Page 1 of 1
WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE CALCULATION
12" Section Line Water Main Cost Estimate
Use: 5300 LF (1/4 mile)
Without
Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Surface Repair
12" PVC 5300 $24.00 $127,200 $127,200
Surface Repair 5300 $9.00 $47,700 $0
12' Gate Valve 7 $1,200.00 $8,400 $8,400
12' Tee 2 $750.00 $1,500 $1,500
Blowoff 1 $1,000.00 $1,000 $1,000
Connect to Main 1 250 $250 $250
Subto~i: $186,050 $138,350
Miscellaneous 15% $27,908 $20,753
Mob/PermifsJBonds 7% $13,024 $9,685
Subtotal: $40,931 $30,437
Construction Sulrtotal: 5226,981 $188,787
Engineering/Slaking 0.15 $34,047 $25,318
Total: $261,028 __$194106
Overall Unit Cost: $49 $37
Area Benefitied by Section Line Water Main
Area = 640 ac / 4 = 0.2500 sq. mi.
= 160 acres
x 2 sides of line = 320 acres
Water Trunk Length, Section Street = 5300 LF
Section Line Water Trunk
Total Trunk Cost
Length, R Cost Area, Ac per Acre
5300 $261,028 320 $815.71
Net Development Density: 2.5 ERUlacre
Water Trunk CosVERU for seUion-line mains: $326 per ERU
Internal (mid-section line) water trunks
Total water trunk length, east-west: 5,300 lineal feet
Total water trunk length, north-south: 5,300 lineal feet
Total Water Trunk Length: 10,600 lineal feet
'Meandering" Factor: 1
Actual Estimated Total Length: 11,6 lineal feet
-: ~ -
~i - ~ ~;`1
hem Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
8" PVC 11,660 $17.00 $198,220
'SuAace Repair 11,660 $0.00 $0
8" Gate Valve (1 per 400 30 $800.00 $24,000
8' Tee (1 per 400 30 $700.00 $21,000
Bkrivoff (1 per 114 m) 9 $1,000.00 $9,000
Conned to Main (1 per 800 15 $250 $3,750
Subtotal: $255,970
Miscellaneous 15% $38,398
Mob/Permita/Bonds 7% $17,918
Subtotal: $56,313
Constructbn Subtotal: $312,283
Engineertng/Staking 0.15 $46,843
Total: $359126
Overa118" Unit Cost: $30,80 per lineal foot
Overal112° Unit Cost $36.62 per lineal foot
Over size Cost: $5.82 per lineal foot
'Surface repair nd normally included in costs for internal water line since streets are
being constructed for subdivision.
Over-size Cost per square mile: $67,905
No. of ERU/sq. mi.: 1,600
Over-size Cost per ERU: $42.44
Water Trunk CostlERU for section-line mains, from above: $326 per ERU
Subtotal: $369
Program Admin ~ 10%: $37
Water S stem Develo ment Fee: 5406
version 2 water
ti
X_
Z
W
d
Q
r
.~
a
e~
U
3
0
..~
V
d
.~
O
L
a
a
I.LL
T
~U
Q
cv
U
U
X
W
A
U
CO
Q.
CC
U
3
0
LL
U
N
O
a`
°o °o °o o °o °o, °o
O CO co 'a' N ~ ~.
r
Boise Municipal Code
E. Ownership Transferred and Maintenance Assumed by City
Upon City issuance of a certificate of final completion, the City shall
assume ownership and maintenance of the public sewer. However the
developer shall be responsible for correcting any defects that shall be
found or occur within the warranty period.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-05.07 Financing Sewers
The costs of constructing sewer trunk and lateral lines shall be financed and paid
for as follows:
A. From the Sewage Works Fund created by this Chapter and as authorized
by the Council; or
B. By the creation of a local improvement district as provided by Chapter
17, Title 50, Idaho Code; or
C. By the property owners specially benefitted by the construction of the
trunk and lateral sewer, or
D. By a combination of A, B, and C as in the judgement of the City Council
may be fair and equitable in consideration of the benefits accruing to the
property owners within the area in which the sewer trunk and lateral
lines will be constructed, as well as the financial condition of the City
and the property owners in the area.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-05.08 Extensions and Reimbursement Percentages
A. Construction
A user may, with prior approval of the City, finance and construct an
extension to the sewer system, if the extension is designed and
constructed in accordance with City standards.
B. Reimbursement
1. The user may be reimbursed, as outlined below, for the
proportionate cost of the sewer benefitting adjacent or other
property by entering into a written agreement with the City if
any of the following apply:
a. The extension is located outside the user's property
(offsite) and provides sewer service to adjacent or other
property;
b. The extension is within the user's property (onsite) and
is a gravity sewer larger than eight (8") in diameter;
c. The eight inch (8") diameter gravity sewer within the
user's property (onsite) is required by Public Works to
Page 18 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
be deeper than twelve (12) feet to serve upstream
properties.
d. The extension is a penmanent lift station and/or force
main; or
e. The extension is a temporary lift station and/or force
main .which the City has required to be oversized in
order to accommodate an area larger than the
developer's property.
2. To be eligible for reimbursement, the user must, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer, do the following:
a. Design the sewer facilities in accordance with the City
master sewer plan and receive City approval of the
sewer construction plans and specifications;
b. Construct sewers in accordance with the City approved
plans and specifications;
c. Receive three (3) bids for the sewer construction and
select the lowest responsive bid as determined in a
public bid opening; and
d. Receive preliminary plat approval from City Council for
the development being served by the sewer.
C. Amount of Reimbursement
L Offsite Gravity Extensions
The amount of reimbursement owed to the user for offsite sewer
extensions shall be based upon actual construction costs and may
also include reasonable engineering and easement acquisition
costs approved by the City.
2. Onsite Gravity Extensions
The amount of reimbursement owed to the user of onsite
"oversizing or overdepth" line extensions shall be determined by
multiplying the percentages listed below in tables, by the actual
construction costs for the various pipe sizes and depths required
for the project. Engineering costs for onsite oversizing and
overdepth sewer construction are not eligible for reimbursement.
a. Onsite Sewer Pipeline Reimbursement Percentage
Pipe Size (inches)
Page 19 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
Pipe
Depth
(FTC 8 l0 12 l5 18 2l 24 27 30 36 42
12 or
less 0% 11.8% 21.7% 33.5% 44.9% 53.3% 59.8% 64.9% 68.6% 78.8% 82.7%
l3 6.l% 17.9% 26.6% 37.1% 47.4% 55.1% 6Ll% 65.9% 69.5% 79.2% 83.0%
14 12.1% 23.9% 31.4% 40.6% 49.9% 56.9% 62.5% 66.9% 70.3% 79.6% 83.2%
l5 17.6% 29.4% 35.9% 44.0% 52.4% 58.8% 63.9% 68.0% 71.2% 80.0% 83.5%
lb 22J% 34.5% 402% 47.3% 54.7% 60.6% 65.3% 69.1% 72.1% 80.5% 83.8%
17 27.4% 39.2% 44.1% 50.4% 57.0% 623% 66.6% 702% 73.0% 80.9% 84.1%
18 3 L8% 43.6°/u 47.8% 53.3% 593% 64.0% 68.0% 713% 73.9% 81.3% 84.4%
l9 33.8% 45.6% 49.6% 54.7% 60.3% 64.9% 68.7% 71.8% 743% 81.6% 84.6%
20 35.9% 47.7% 51.3% 56.2% 61.4% 65.7% 69.3% 72.4% 74.8% 8L8% 84.8%
21 37.3% 49.6% 53.0% 57.6% 62.5% 66.6% 70.0% 73.0% 753% 82.1% 84.9%
22 39.8% 51.6% 54.7% 58.9% 63.6% 67.4% 70.7% 73.5% 75.7% 82.3% 85.1%
23 4L6% 53.4% 56.4% 603% 64.7% 68.3% 71.4% 74.1% 76.2% 82.6% 85.3%
~4 43.4% 55.2% 57.9% 6L6% 65.7% 69.2% 72.1% 74.7% 76.7% 82.8% 85.5%
25 452% 57.0% 59.5% 62.9% 66.7% 70.0% 72.8% 752% 772°/u 83.1% 85.7%
26 46.9% 58.7% 61.0% 642% 67.8% 70.8% 73.5% 75.8% 77.7% 83.4% 85.9%
~7 48.5% 603% 62.4% 65.4% 68.$% 71.6% 742% 76.4% 78.1% 83.6% 86.1%
28 50.0% 6L8% 63.8% 66.6% 69.7% 72.4% 74.8% 76.9% 78.6°/ 83.9% 863%
29 51.5% 63.3% 65.2% 67.7% 70.7% 73.2% 75.5% 77.5% 79.1% 842% 86.5%
30 53.0°/ 64.8°/ 665° 688°0 71.6% 74.0° 7.1° 79.0°/ 79.6% 84.4° 86.7%
Onsite Sewer Manhole Reimbursement Percentage
Pipe Size (inches)
Pipe Depth 8 10 12 l5 l8 2l 24 27 30 36 42
(FTC
l2 or less 0% 1.9% 4.7% 10.5% 15.7% 22.7% 28.7% 43.0% 46.9% 59.2% 63.7%
13 7.6% 9.5% L2.0% 17.4% 222% 28.7% 34.2% 47.4% S1.0% 62.3% 66.5%
14 I4.0°,/0 ! 5.9°./o t 8.3°,/0 23.3% 27.7°,/0 ~ 33.9°,/0 38.9°,/0 5 L2% 54.5°,% 55.0°,% 68.9°,%
Page 20 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
15 19.6% 21.5% 23.7% 28.4% 32.6% 38.2% 42.9% 54.4% 57.5% 67.4% 7I.0%
16 24.5% 26.4% 28.5% 32.9% 36.8% 42.0% 46.5% 57.3% 60.2% 69.4% 72.8%
17 28.9% 30.8% 32.7% 36.8% 40.5% 45.5% 49.7% 59.8% 62.5% 71.2% 74.4%
18 32.7% 34.6% 36.4% 40.4% 43.8% 48.5% 52.4% 62.0% 64.6% 72.8% 75.8%
l9 36.2% 38.1% 39.8% 43.5% 46.8% Sl_2% 55.0% 64.0% 66.4% 74.2% 77.1%
20 39.3% 41.2% 42.8% 46.3% 49.4% 53.6% 57.2% 65.8% 68.1% 75.5 % 78.2%
21 42.1% 44.0% 45.5% 48.9% 51.8% 55.8% 54.2% 67.4% 69.6% 76.7% 793%
22 44.6% 46.5% 48.0% 51.2% 54.0% 57.9% 61.1% 68.9% 71.0% 77.7% 80.2%
23 46.9% 48.8% 50.3% 53.3% 56.0% 59.7% 62.8% 70.3% 72.3% 78.7% 81.1%
24 49.1% 51.0% 52.3% 55.3% 57.9% 61.4% 64.3% 71.5% 73.4% 79.6% 81.9%
25 51.0% 52.9% 54.2% 57.1% 59.5% 62.9% 65.8% 72.6% 74.5% 80.4% 82.6%
26 52.8% 54.7% 56.0% 58.7% 61.1% 64.3% 67.1% 73.7% 75.5°/ 8L2% 83.2%
27 54.5% 56.4% 57.6% 60.2% 62.5% 65.7% 68.3% 74.7% 76.4% 81.9% 83.9%
28 56.1% 58.0% 59.1% 61.7% 63.9% 66.9% 69.4% 75.6% 77.2% 82.5% 84.4%
29 57.5% 59.4% 60.6% 63.0% 65.1% 68.0% 70.5% 76.4% 78.0% 83.1% 85.0%
30 58.9% 60.8% 61.9% 64.2% 66.3% 69.1% 71.5% 77.2% 78.$% 83.7% 85.5%
Permanent Lift Station Extensions
The amount of reimbursement owed for the construction of a
permanent lift station and/or force main shall be based upon
actual construction costs and may also include reasonable
engineering and landscaping costs approved by the City.
4. Temporary Lift Station Oversizing
The amount of reimbursement owed for installation of an
oversized temporary lift station and/or force main shall be
determined by estimating the cost of constructing a lift station
and force main to serve only the development, subtracted from
the actual construction costs incurred by the developer.
Engineering costs for the design of the lift station and/or force
main are not eligible for reimbursement.
(6030, Amended, OI/30/2001; 5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-05.09 Developer Agreements and Methods of Reimbursement
A written agreement, not to exceed ten (l0) years, shall be prepared which provides for
reimbursement of the user's proportionate costs of sewer benefitting adjacent or other
property. Depending on the reimbursement amount owed to the user and the amount of
potential reimbursement credit, the agreement will include one or more of the following
reimbursement items in the order listed below, up to the reimbursement amount:
Page 2l of 52
Boise Municipal Code
A. The equivalent assessment fees owed or paid by the user as required under
subsection 8-11-06.03(D);
B. The inspection fees owed or paid by the user as required under subsection 8-11-
06.05(A);
C. The trunk connection fees paid by the user as required by subsection 8- l 1-
06.03(A);
D. Reimbursement of trunk connection fees and equivalent, assessment fees
received by the City as others connect to the sewer from an area, downstream of
the user's property, mutually agreed upon by the City and the user; and
E. Reimbursement of trunk connection fees and equivalent assessment fees,
received by the City, as others connect to the sewer from an area, upstream of the
user's property, mutually agreed upon by the City and the user.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-05.10 Sewer Easement Acquisition Policies
In order to provide for a uniform and equitable treatment of property owners of
lands subject to Boise City sewer easement acquisition, and to adequately protect
the best interests of Boise City, the following policies are adopted as procedural
guides to be followed in sewer easement acquisition:
A. Define and map the proposed easement acquisition;
B. Research ownership or obtain a preliminary title policy for the property
to be included in the easement;
C. Provide each owner of property within the proposed easement a written
notice of the City's intent to acquire such easement;
D. Obtain an "opinion of value" or "appraisal" for the property proposed for
easement acquisition;
E. Offer the dollar amount stated in the "opinion of value" or "appraised
value" to the property owner for purposes of acquisition if the "opinion
of value" or "appraised value" is acceptable to the City;
F. Conduct good faith negotiations with the property owner if the value
offered is rejected; and
G. Obtain a final settlement of the easement acquisition purchase or proceed
with condemnation action if appropriate.
(6030, Amended, 01/30/2001; 5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-05.11 Lift Stations
A. Designation of Lift Stations
Page 22 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
The Public Works Department shall designate a lift station as either
temporary or permanent, consistent with the Master Sewer Plan, at the
time such station is placed into service. The Public Works Commission
may, upon request when special circumstances exist, change the
designation of a lift station.
B. Installation of Temporary Lift Stations
Temporary lift stations may only be installed if the installation is in
accordance with public policy and approved by the Public Works
Department. The party installing the temporary lift station shall be
responsible for all construction costs and shall ensure that the temporary
lift station is completed in accordance with the requirements of the
Department. Ownership, maintenance and operation of the temporary
lift station shall transfer to Boise City at the time the temporary lift
station is accepted as operational by the Department.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15!1998)
Section 8-11-05.12 Food Disposal Units
A. Policy
It is the declared policy of the City to discourage and prevent discharge
of food wastes into the sanitary sewer system when such food wastes
could be disposed of in another manner. Where disposal of food wastes,
particularly by commercial and institutional users of the system is
allowed, the method and manner of such disposal shall be as required in
the subsequent portions of this Section.
B. Connection of Food Disposal Units
Domestic and commercial food waste disposal units shall be connected
and trapped separately from any other fixture or compartment, except
that a continuous waste with a flow directing partition will be acceptable
for domestic units. All units may have either automatic or hand-operated
water supply controls; however, domestic units shall be provided with an
approved inlet cover having waterway passages for use during grinding
operations.
C. 1~1o Discharge through a Grease Interceptor
No waste from a food waste grinder shall be discharged into or through a
grease interceptor.
D. Commercial Grinders
Commercial type food grinders shall be provided with not less than a two
inch (2") waste line. Each waste line shall be trapped and vented as
provided in the Plumbing Code.
E. Food Waste Grinder Requirements
All food waste grinder equipment shall be designed to meet the
following requirements:
Particle size: 100 percent shall pass a No. 2 screen (2-mesh);
Page 23 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
2. 95 percent shall pass a No. 4 screen (4-mesh);
3. Fibers shall not exceed two and one-half inches (2 1/2") in
length;
4. Vegetable stems shall not exceed one inch (l ") in length, and
leaf sections shall not exceed one-half inch (l/2") in the largest
dimension;
Equipment must be self scouring with no fouling surfaces to
cause objectionable odors, freed from electrical or mechanical
hazards, and of durable construction;
6. Such food waste grinders shall be installed under and in direct
connection with a sink or other approved receptacle, supplied
with water and discharged through a trap to a sanitary sewer
system.
F. Installation Requirements for Commercial Grinders
Waste grinders and their installation in restaurants, institutions, food
processing or storage plants, and similar operations shall meet the
requirements of this Ordinance, as well as the Plumbing Code of Boise
City. An installation will be permitted only upon the fording of the
Department of Public Works that other methods of disposal are not
feasible and that the City sewer system can properly handle the waste.
G. Food Waste Disposal Units Must Comply
The installation, operation, and maintenance of any equipment or method
to be used for food waste disposal units shall comply with all the
provisions of this Ordinance and the regulations of the Building,
Housing, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Fire Prevention
Ordinances of Boise City, and if there is any conflict between the
provisions of this Ordinance and the applicable Building, Housing,
Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing and Fire Prevention codes and
ordinances of the City, such codes and ordinances shall prevail over the
provision of this Ordinance.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-05.13 Grease Traps
Every building, structure, or premise used or occupied by any sewer user where
any commercial or industrial operations are conducted or permitted which result
in the discharge into the sewer system of any products, waste products or other
substances, matter or liquid in the manner and to the extent prohibited in this
Chapter shall be equipped with an adequate and suitable grease trap, filter or
other interception device installed in such a manner that the products, waste
products, or other substances, material or liquids herein set forth will not flow
into or be discharged into the sanitary sewer system. The grease trap, filter or
other interceptor shall be adequately maintained and efficiently operated by such
Page 24 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
sewer user.
(5877, Repealed& Replaced, l2/lS/1998)
Section 8-11-06 FEE AUTHORITY; CREDITS
(5877, Added, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-06.01 Annual Review for Fees
The fees imposed by this ordinance shall be reviewed annually and revised
periodically as required.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-06.02 When Connection Fees Are Due
Unless otherwise specified, the connection fees imposed by subsection 8-11-
06.03 must be paid prior to initiation of sewer service, change in use of a
property already connected to sewer, or any increase in the discharge levels of
flow.
(5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-06.03 Capital Fees
A. Trunk Connection Fees
A trunk connection fee shall be imposed upon every person initiating
sewer service, changing use of a property already connected to sewer, or
increasing the discharge levels of flow. The fee shall be based on values
typical of the discharger category, unless otherwise addressed by
separate contract.
Fees for a change in use or an increase in discharge levels are calculated
on an incremental basis as described in subsection 8-l 1-06.03(G).
B. Treatment Connection Fees
A treatment connection fee shall be imposed upon every person initiating
sewer service, changing use of a property already connected to sewer, or
increasing the discharge levels of flow, BOD, or TSS. The fee shall be
based upon flow, BOD, and TSS values typical of the discharger
category, unless otherwise addressed by separate contract. Fees for a
change in use or an increase in discharge levels are calculated on an
incremental basis as described in subsection 8-11-06.03(G).
A treatment plant connection fee using a fee structure that includes
ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-I~ as a component may be charged if the City
determines, after reviewing the relationship between actual or anticipated
BOD and ammonia-nitrogen (1VH3-l~ discharges, that an atypical
discharge is or will be occurring. An atypical discharge will be
evaluated against the treatment system design and operating parameters.
(A rate system that includes ammonia-nitrogen will have a lower BOD
rate than a rate system that does not include ammonia-nitrogen.)
C. Southwest Interceptor Fees
An interceptor connection fee shall be imposed upon every person
Page 25 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
residing in that area within the Boise Area of Impact known as the
Southwest Community Planning Area who is initiating sewer service,
changing use of a property already connected to sewer, or increasing the
discharge levels of flow. This fee is imposed on persons in the
Southwest Community Planning Area in recognition of the unique
requirements and impact this area has on the Boise City Sewer system.
This fee shall be based upon flow values typical of the discharger
category, unless otherwise addressed by separate contract. Fees for a
change in use or an increase in discharge levels are calculated on an
incremental basis as described in subsection 8-11-06.03(G).
D. Equivalent Assessment Fees
Any person initiating sewer service with the Boise City Sewer system
who has not otherwise paid for, or contributed proportionately toward,
the costs and expenses of constructing a sewer adjacent to or passing
through the property, whether that be by the City, a local improvement
district, or a private developer, and who subsequently desires to connect
to the sewer system, shall be required to pay an additional connection
(equivalent assessment) fee computed as follows, unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Commission:
For lots up to 86,000 square feet in area, the fee shall be
calculated on the basis of the area of the lot;
For single family flag lots whose area within 125 feet of the
assessable frontage is less than 6,000 square feet, or lots with no
assessable frontage, a minimum equivalent assessment will be
calculated based on a lot of less than 6,000 square feet.
3. For lots greater than 86,000 square feet in area, the fee shall be
calculated on the basis of the area of the lot fronting the sewer
within 125 feet of the frontage. However, in no case shall the
assessment be less than that for a lot of 86,000 square feet in
area;
For single family lots in excess of 86,000 square feet in area, the
frontage for the property shall only be assessed on the side of the
property for which the sewer service is being provided. For all
other uses the assessed frontage shall be calculated on each side
of the lot in which sewer is &onring the property, unless
otherwise waived by the Public Works Commission. However,
in no case shall the assessment be less than that for a lot of
43,560 squaze feet in area;
Large lots which can legally be further subdivided in the future,
and which are not fully utilized by the existing development, will
only be charged for the improved area and/or logical boundary
of future subdivision/development, with a minimum equivalent
assessment fee equal for a lot of 43,560 square feet;
Page 26 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
6. The equivalent assessment fee may be adjusted to reflect the
benefit received by large, open space lots which have a low
impact on the sewer system or other criteria as determined by the
Public Works Commission. When the equivalent assessment
fees for these properties create undue hardship, or fees for such
properties are inequitable in the consideration of the Public
Works Commission, the equivalent assessment fee shall be
calculated on single family dwelling equivalents. The fee for
properties complying with all the above criteria shall be
calculated by multiplying the number of single family dwelling
equivalents (SFDE's), based on fixture unit count, by the
equivalent assessment amount for a lot of 43,560 square feet.
The total equivalent assessment shall not be less than the
assessment for a lot of 86,000 square feet.
The applicant may not avoid payment of this fee by requesting
connection to another sewer if, in the opinion of the Public Works
Department, the proposed service line is best capable of being connected
to the sewer which is subject to the assessment.
E. New Development Eight Inch Equivalency
For sewers constructed outside of a public right of way, an eight inch
equivalency fee shall be charged, based upon any or all of the following:
Relevant actual construction, engineering, and inspection costs
for other sewers constructed by the developer within the
development;
The actual construction and engineering, costs of the sewer on
which the assessment is due, updated by Engineering News
Record construction cost index; or
Any other relevant factors that may affect the amount of the
assessment.
This fee shall be in addition to any other applicable assessment fee and
may be reduced by the Public Works Department to reflect additional
costs incurred by the developer to upgrade the sewer to current
standards.
F. Public Service Line Fee
A fee shall be charged for each public service line provided by the City,
based on the size of the service line.
G. Change of Use
Any person changing use of a property already connected to sewer, or
increasing the discharge levels of flow, BOD, or TSS, shall pay trunk,
Page 27 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
treatment, and southwest interceptor fees. These fees will be based on
the difference in flows and waste strengths applicable to the property
change in use, or increased levels of discharge, less the flows and waste
strengths applicable to the most intensive original sewer use at the
property within the past ten (10) years. If for example, a single family
residence served by sewer is demolished and replaced with a restaurant,
the fees will be based on the difference between the typical flows and
waste strengths for a restaurant and typical flows and waste strengths for
a residence.
H. Prepayment of Connection Fees
Any owner of an existing single family residence within Boise City and
the Boise Area of Impact, to which Boise City Sewer system service is
unavailable, may prepay the connection fees required by this Section at
the rates in effect at the time of prepayment, subject to the following
conditions:
The property for which connection fees are being prepaid must
have an existing single family residence constructed on it;
The properly owner will be required to enter into an agreement
with the City of Boise which shall absolve the City of any
requirement to provide sewer service to the property. This
agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Ada County
Recorder;
A reasonable administrative fee shall be paid upon execution of
the prepayment agreement to cover set-up, monitoring, and
recording fees and costs;
The connection fees paid to the City prior to the provision of
wastewater system service shall be paid prior to the date on
which sewer becomes available; and
5. Any connection fees paid to the City prior to the provision of
wastewater system service shall be in cash and shall be non-
refundable. The deferral of connection fees as provided for in
Section 8-11-08 shall not be available to property owners
electing to prepay connection fees.
Sewer Deposit for Future Connection of a New Subdivision
If a wet sewer is not adjacent to a subdivision or development of land in
which the Council has required, as a condition for approving the
subdivision plat or development, construction and installation of a wet-
line sewer served by an interim treatment system in accordance with
detailed plans and specifications receiving prior approval, the subdivider
or developer shall pay a deposit to the Treasurer of Boise City. This
deposit shall be paid prior to the certification of the plat by the City
Engineer, for the future connection of the sewer or interim treatment
Page Z8 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
system to the wet sewer subsequently constructed and installed adjacent
and adjoining the subdivision or development of land. The money so
paid shall be deposited to the Sewage Works Fund to be used for the
purposes provided in subsection 8-11-01.08 of this Ordinance.
J. Temporary Lift Station Upgrade Fee
If the Public Works Department has approved the use of a temporary lift
station to serve a proposed development and if the lift station is
undersized to serve the geographical area which may contribute flow to
the temporary lift station, the City Council may, as a condition of
approving the subdivision or development plat, require the developer to
pay a fee for upgrading of the lift station and/or permanently extending
the sewer to serve the development if it is needed prior to the logical
extension of the gravity sewer. This fee shall be deposited to the Sewage
Works Fund. In the event these funds are not needed for the upgrade of
the lift station, the funds will be returned without interest to the
developer making payment.
(6046, Amended, 04/10/2001; 6030, Amended, Ol/30/2001; 5877, Repealed & Replaced, 12/15/1998)
Section 8-11-06.04 Operation and Maintenance Fees
A. Service Charges and Fees
This provision shall establish a system of periodic service charges and fees for
the purpose of equitably imposing upon all users the costs and expenses of
operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the wastewater system. The
service charges and fees shall be based upon (t) the volume and content of
effluent discharged into the wastewater system of the City, and (2) the costs and
expenses of operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of the wastewater
system, such charges and fees having been determined to be the benefit derived
by each building, structure, or user being charged. The system of periodic
service charges and fees shall consist of the following categories: Facility
Replacement, Operation and Maintenance, and Fixed Charge for Zero Use.
1. Facility Replacement
The purpose of this category is to accumulate a reserve for replacement
of the wastewater system. This reserve shall be based on the total
historical costs for the applicable facilities and equipment.
2. Operation and Maintenance
The purpose of this category is to recover, equitably from all users, the
costs and expenses incurred by the City of Boise in operating and
maintaining the wastewater system.
3. Fixed Charge for Zero Use
The purpose of this category is to equitably apportion among all
customers a portion of those fixed costs which continue to be incurred
whether or not individual customers utilize the wastewater system. Such
costs include, but are not limited to, costs attributable to providing basic
office staff for the administration of the Boise City Sewer system.
Payment of these costs shall be made by all customers, including those
Page 29 of 52
Boise Municipal Code
with zero flow discharge.
B. When Payment is Dae
Service charges and fees imposed pursuant to this Section shall be received by
the City by the due date shown on the invoice or billing statement.
C. Deposits
Deposits are not required for new service unless the user:
1. is rated as a poor credit risk by a reputable credit bureau;
2. has had an overdue bill three (3) times with any utility in the past
four (4) years;
3. has supplied false information at the time of application for service;
or
4. has filed for bankruptcy.
A deposit for residential service shall be equal to three months worth of
estimated charges. A deposit for commercial service shall be equal to two
months worth of estimated charges. The deposit will be refunded or credited
when the user no longer requires service or has paid all bills satisfactorily for
twenty-four (24) consecutive months.
Instead of paying a deposit, user may receive service if someone else signs a
guanintee for his bill. This person, called the "guarantor" must be rated as a
good credit risk by a reputable credit bureau. The guarantor is responsible for an
amount equal to the deposit, but will be released from this obligation after
twenty-four (24) consecutive months of satisfactory payments have been made
by the user.
D. Unmonitored Connections
The monthly sewer service charge or fee for each property owner whose
connection to the wastewater system is unmonitored shall be based upon
the winter water use of such owner or user, plus the fixed charge for zero
use.
E. Monitored- Connections
The monthly service charge or fee for each sewer user whose connection
to the wastewater system is monitored shall be established by the Public
Works Department based upon (i) flow, (2) the concentration of BOD,
(3) the concentration of TSS, (4) other special constituents that may
require treatment, and (5) the fixed charge for zero use, and in
accordance with monitored waste charges, unless otherwise specified by
a separate contract.
If the City determines by reviewing the relationship between actual or
anticipated BOD and ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-l~ discharges that an
Page 30 of 52