3-HAL - Mount Olympus - Wasterwater IFFP - July 2021.pdf

Wastewater Impact Fee Facility Plan

(HAL Project No.: 429.01.100)

FINAL REPORT

JULY 2021

Mount Olympus Improvement District i Impact Fee Facility Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. i LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................ii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1-1 PURPOSE ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1-1

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

MASTER PLAN ................................................................................................................... 1-1

CHAPTER 2 - LEVELS OF SERVICE .................................................................................... 2-1 LEVELS OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................ 2-1

DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 2-1

CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING AND EXCESS CAPACITY ............................................................. 3-2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 3-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 3-2 TREATMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3-3

Existing Treatment Facilities ............................................................................................ 3-3 Existing Treatment Upgrades ........................................................................................... 3-5

CHAPTER 4 - FUTURE FACILITIES ...................................................................................... 4-1 NEW DEVELOPMENT DEMAND ........................................................................................ 4-1 GROWTH FACILITIES ........................................................................................................ 4-1

CHAPTER 5 - CAPITAL FACILITY FUNDING OPTIONS ...................................................... 5-1 FUNDING OPTIONS ........................................................................................................... 5-1

General Obligation Bonds ................................................................................................ 5-1 Revenue Bonds ............................................................................................................... 5-1 State/Federal Grants and Loans ...................................................................................... 5-1 Impact Fees ..................................................................................................................... 5-2 Interfund Loans ................................................................................................................ 5-2

LIST OF TABLES

NO. TITLE PAGE

2-1 Level of Service (LOS) for Existing and Future Conditions ...........................................2-1 3-1 Comparison of Available and Required Water Source ..................................................3-1 3-2 Comparison of Available and Required Storage ...........................................................3-1 3-3 Distribution Projects with Capacity for Future Growth ...................................................3-2 4-1 Growth Related Projects ...............................................................................................4-1

Mount Olympus Improvement District ii Impact Fee Facility Plan

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Successful completion of this study was made possible by the cooperation and assistance of many individuals, including the Board of Trustees, the General Manager, Staff, and the Hansen, Allen & Luce project team as shown below. We sincerely appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by these individuals.

Board of Trustees

Ami Anderson Neff, Chair

Giles Demke C. Kim Blair

General Manager

Kerry S. Eppich

District Staff

Dean Ayala, P.E.

Todd Perry, Superintendent

Hansen, Allen & Luce Project Team

Gordon Jones, P.E. (Principal in Charge) Benjamin D. Miner, P.E. (Project Manager)

Jacob Nielsen, P.E. (Staff Engineer)

Mount Olympus Improvement District 1-1 Impact Fee Facility Plan

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

The purpose of this wastewater impact fee facilities plan (IFFP) is to determine the public facilities required to serve wastewater needs resulting from new development and to fulfill other requirements of the Utah Impact Fees Act {11-36a U.C.A.}. This IFFP establishes criteria, levels of service, available capacity of the existing wastewater collection and treatment systems, improvements needed to support growth, facilities estimated costs and funding options for new projects.

BACKGROUND

Mount Olympus Improvement District (District) has a wastewater collection system that serves a population of approximately 104,000 with a service area that covers all or a portion of the following cities and Districts: Cottonwood Improvement City, Granger-Hunter Improvement District, Kearns Improvement District, Murray City, South Salt Lake City and Taylorsville-Bennion Improvement District. The District collects approximately 14 million gallons of wastewater per day on average and maintains over 366 miles of wastewater collection pipelines.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM

MASTER PLAN

This impact fee facilities plan is based on the capital improvements plan included in the Mount Olympus Improvement District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan by Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. 2021. This master plan includes the technical analysis, calculations, methodology, findings, results and recommendations which are the basis of the capital facilities plan (CFP).

The CFP projects are the basis of the impact fee calculation.

Mount Olympus Improvement District 2-1 IFFP

CHAPTER 2 - LEVELS OF SERVICE

LEVELS OF SERVICE

Levels of service (LOS) and water system criteria have been determined for the Mount Olympus Improvement District based on a review of measured flows. The levels of service are hereby established for existing and future development. The levels of service are provided for each equivalent residential unit (ERU) as defined in the master plan. The term ERU and RE (residential equivalent) are equivalent terms. The levels of service are provided in Table 2-1.

TABLE 2-1

LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS) FOR EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS

In Table 2-1, it may be observed that the level of service is 200 gallons/day/ERU for average daily flow, not including infiltration. If infiltration is included, the existing average daily flow is 263 gallons/day/ERU. If is anticipated that the amount of total infiltration in the system will remain the same. The District currently replaces or lines sewers each year to reduce the amount of infiltration and inflow water in the system. It is also recognized that with modern construction methods and District inspections, the level of infiltration and inflow in areas of new development may be much lower than in older sewers. Based on these two considerations, it is expected that the 200 gallons/day average daily flow value will be appropriate for future flow projections.

DETERMINATION OF EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT

In order to determine the number of equivalent residential units for non-residential development, the District will use the methodology described in Technical Memorandum No. 3 by Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. dated November 15, 2012. This memorandum is hereby incorporated by reference.

In addition to the types of development included in the above referenced technical memorandum, two types of units are defined as follows:

Food Trucks .............................................................................. 0.33 ERUs (3 Food Trucks/ERU) Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) .......................................................................................... 1 ERU

CRITERIA LOS UNITS

Average Daily Flow (without infiltration) 200 gallons/day/ERU

Average Daily Flow (with infiltration) 263 gallons/day/ERU

Mount Olympus Improvement District 3-2 IFFP

CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING AND EXCESS CAPACITY

INTRODUCTION

There is excess capacity in the existing sewers and at the water reclamation facility. This capacity is available to serve future development.

COLLECTION SYSTEM

A hydraulic model of the collection system was prepared to identify the existing deficiencies in the collection system. A project list of these deficiencies is provided in the master plan and provided in Table 3-1 below. The existing deficiency projects are not eligible for funding from impact fees.

Excess capacity that is available for future growth may be included in the impact fee calculation when costs for the existing projects are available.

TABLE 3-1

EXISTING DEFICIENCIES

PROJECT

ID DESCRIPTION COST1

E-1

Remove and upgrade existing 10" and 12" gravity lines to 310 ft of 12" and 1,100 ft of 15" gravity line from A15-53 to A15. Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line and 500 ft of 12" gravity line from A15-16 to A15- 11.

$ 980,000

E-2 Remove and upgrade existing 12" gravity line to 190 ft of 15" gravity line from A27-7 to A27. $ 110,000

E-3 Remove and upgrade existing 8" gravity line to 2,740 ft of 10" gravity line from A42-99 to A42-25 and from A42-209 to A42-253. $1,290,000

E-4 Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line to 1,050 ft of 12" gravity line from A53-5 to A53. $ 530,000

E-5 Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line to 140 ft of 15" gravity line from A70-1 to A70. $ 80,000

E-6 Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line to 390 ft of 15" gravity line from B1 to A77. $ 210,000

E-7 Install 315 ft of parallel 10" gravity line next to existing 18" gravity line from C40A to C40. $ 150,000

E-8 Remove and upgrade existing 8" gravity line to 1,350 ft of 10" gravity line from C46-28 to C46. $ 640,000

E-9 Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line to 4,020 ft of 12" gravity line from L17-63C71 to C56. $1,980,000

E-10 Remove and upgrade existing 8" gravity line to 85 ft of 10" gravity line from C83-7 to C83-6. $ 40,000

E-11 Install 1,160 ft of parallel 18" gravity line next to existing 27" gravity line from I41 to I35. A bore crossing is required at the TRAX crossing. $ 810,000

Mount Olympus Improvement District 3-3 IFFP

ID DESCRIPTION COST1

E-12 Install 960 ft of parallel 15" gravity line next to existing 24" gravity line from I55 to I52A. $ 510,000

E-13 Install 40 ft of parallel 24" inverted siphon next to existing 24" inverted siphon from I59 to I58. $ 30,000

E-14 Remove and upgrade existing 8" gravity line to 1,520 ft of 10" gravity line from F31 to F26A. $ 720,000

E-15 Remove and upgrade existing 12" gravity line to 820 ft of 15" gravity line from H2 to H1. $ 440,000

E-16 Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line to 1,470 ft of 15" gravity line from N137-16 to N137. $ 780,000

TOTAL $9,300,000

1 All costs include 25% for engineering, administrative costs, and contingencies. Costs are shown in 2020 dollars.

There is excess capacity in much of the the District’s collection system to accommodate growth.

In areas without excess capacity that are deficient for existing development, non-impact fee projects have been recommended. In areas of the system that need additional capacity to serve future development, future impact fee eligible projects have been recommended. However, in areas with adequate capacity for future projects, collection capacity will be provided by the existing system.

The District provided a list of projects and the associated construction costs for existing facilities.

It is assumed that the cost proportionality for excess capacity is determined by the ratio of existing units and the predicted number future ERUs. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the costs and identifies the proportionate share of costs for both the existing residents and the future.

TABLE 3-2

EXCESS CAPACITY COST AND EXISTING VS FUTURES COST SHARE

EXISTING

SYSTEM

PROJECT

COSTS

ESTIMATED

EXISTING

ERUS

ESTIMATED

FUTURE

ERUS

EXISTING

DEVELOP COST

SHARE

FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT

COST SHARE

$20,953,282 51,727 72,462 $14,957,501 $5,995,781

TREATMENT

Existing Treatment Facilities

Wastewater treatment service for the District is provided by the Central Valley Water Reclamation Facility (CVWRF). The facility also provides treatment for Cottonwood Improvement City, Granger-Hunter Improvement District, Kearns Improvement District, Murray City, South Salt Lake City and Taylorsville-Bennion Improvement District. The CVWRF has a treatment capacity of 75

Mount Olympus Improvement District 3-4 IFFP million gallons per day. Currently, Mount Olympus owns 23.4% of the facility. Table 3-2 provides the existing and remaining capacity for the treatment facility

TABLE 3-2

EXISTING AND EXCESS TREATMENT CAPACITY

CVWRF

Existing Capacity

(MGD)

Mount Olympus Improvement District

Share (Percent)

Share

(MGD)

Average Daily Flow

(MGD

Unused Share

(MGD)

Future Flow (gal/ERU)

Remaining Capacity (ERUs)

75 23.40 17.55 13.60 3.95 200 19,750

It may be observed in Table 3-2 that excess capacity exists in the CVWRF for additional growth within the Mount Olympus service area. It is estimated that capacity for an additional 19,750 ERUs is available for the District. This is slightly less than the 40-year projected need. The population projection estimates predict that an additional 20,735 ERUs will occur in this time period.

It should be noted that while the current District share of the reclamation facility is 23.4%, there may be an opportunity to obtain more as needed. The percent ownership of the reclamation facility is typically adjusted based on need and based on where growth is occurring. The District should continue to track growth and the share of treatment capacity consumed and should coordinate with CVWRF over time. This will allow re-allotments and expansion of capacity among the member agencies as needed.

Table 3-3 provides a distribution existing treatment capacity costs for existing and future users.

TABLE 3-3

EXCESS TREATMENT CAPACITY COST AND EXISTING VS FUTURES COST SHARE

CAPITAL

COSTS1

ESTIMATED

EXISTING

ERUS

ESTIMATED

FUTURE

ERUS2

EXISTING

DEVELOP COST

SHARE

FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT

COST SHARE

$40,127,843 51,727 71,477 $29,040,012 $11,087,831 1Based on a total capital cost of $171,486,510 for the treatment facility x 0.234 (Mount Olympus share).

2The remaining treatment capacity is for 19,750 ERUs which is less than the predicted number of growth ERUs of 20,735. Therefore, the total District ERUs count is 72,462-(20,735-19,750) =71,477.

Mount Olympus Improvement District 3-5 IFFP

Existing Treatment Upgrades

The CVWRF is currently being upgraded to comply with the new Technology Based Phosphorus Effluent Limitation Rule. This rule limits phosphorus effluent discharge to 1.0 mg/L. The CVWRF equipment was not originally designed to provide this type of treatment. The upgrades necessary to meet the rule required significant capital investment, but do no necessarily increase the capacity of the facility. Therefore, ongoing and future cost related to the update will be shared by both existing and future users.

TABLE 3-4

TREATMENT UPGRADES COSTS AND EXISTING VS FUTURES COST SHARE

CAPITAL

COSTS1

ESTIMATED

EXISTING

ERUS

ESTIMATED

FUTURE

ERUS2

EXISTING

DEVELOP COST

SHARE

FUTURE

DEVELOPMENT

COST SHARE

$80,006,943 51,727 71,477 $57,900,012 $22,106,931 1Based on a total capital cost of $341,910,012 for the treatment facility x 0.234 (Mount Olympus share).

2The remaining treatment capacity is for 19,750 ERUs which is less than the predicted number of growth ERUs of 20,735. Therefore, the total excess capacity ERUs is 72,462-(20,735-19,750) =71,477.

Mount Olympus Improvement District 4-1 IFFP

CHAPTER 4 - FUTURE FACILITIES

NEW DEVELOPMENT DEMAND

In the previous section, excess capacity of the conveyance system and treatment system were discussed. These systems can accommodate significant new growth once the existing deficiencies are remedied. However, additional wastewater collection facilities are necessary in order to have adequate capacity for future growth.

GROWTH FACILITIES

The capital improvements plan included within the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan is the basis for the IFFP projects that are anticipated to be constructed within the next 10 years.

These are included in Table 4-1 below.

TABLE 4-1. GROWTH RELATED PROJECTS

ID DESCRIPTION COST1

F-1 Install 1,000 ft of 48" gravity line from A8 to A3. A bore crossing is required at the I-15 crossing. $2,520,000

F-2 Install 2,425 ft of parallel 18" gravity line next to existing 42" gravity line from A14 to A8. $1,400,000

F-3 Install 130 ft of parallel 18" gravity line next to existing 27" gravity line from C1C to A38. $ 80,000

F-4 Remove and upgrade existing 8" gravity line to 2,310 ft of 10" gravity line from A53-52 to A53-33. Remove and upgrade existing 10" gravity line to 460 ft of 12" gravity line from A53-9 to A53-5.

$3,570,000

TOTAL $7,570,000

1 All costs include 25% for engineering, administrative costs, and contingencies. Costs are shown in 2020 dollars.

2 Project requested by District to provide redundancy. This project is associated with capital facilities maintenance.

Mount Olympus Improvement District 5-1 IFFP

CHAPTER 5 - CAPITAL FACILITY FUNDING OPTIONS

FUNDING OPTIONS

Funding options for the recommended projects, in addition to user fees, could include the following: general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, State/Federal grants and loans, inter-fund loans and impact fees. In reality, the District may need to consider a combination of these funding options. The following discussion describes each of these options.

With respect to user fees, it is recommended that the District evaluate rates periodically. Rates could potentially be sufficient to cover the full cost of treatment and system maintenance so that it is not necessary to subsidize the system with other funding sources.

General Obligation Bonds

This form of debt enables the District to issue general obligation bonds for capital improvements and replacement. General Obligation (GO) bonds are debt instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the District, which would be secured by an unconditional pledge of the District to levy assessments, charges or ad valorem taxes necessary to retire the bonds. GO bonds are the often the lowest-cost form of debt financing available to local governments and can be combined with other revenue sources to form a dual security through the District’s revenue generating authority. These bonds are supported by the District as a whole, so the amount of debt issued for the water system is limited to a fixed percentage of the real market value for taxable property within the District.

Revenue Bonds

This form of debt financing is also available to the District for utility related capital improvements.

Revenue bonds are not backed by the District as a whole, but constitute a lien against the service charge revenues of a utility. Revenue bonds present a greater risk to the investor than do GO bonds, since repayment of debt depends on an adequate revenue stream, legally defensible rate structure and sound fiscal management by the issuing jurisdiction. Due to this increased risk, revenue bonds generally require a higher interest rate than GO bonds. This type of debt also has very specific coverage requirements in the form of a reserve fund specifying an amount, usually expressed in terms of average or maximum debt service due in any future year. This debt service is required to be held as a cash reserve for annual debt service payment to the benefit of bondholders. Typically, voter approval is not required when issuing revenue bonds.

State/Federal Grants and Loans

Historically, local governments have experienced significant infrastructure funding support from state and federal government agencies in the form of block grants, direct grants in aid, interagency

Mount Olympus Improvement District 5-2 IFFP loans, and general revenue sharing. State and federal grants and loans may be investigated as possible funding sources for needed system improvements.

Impact Fees

Impact fees can be applied to facilities according to the Utah Impact Fees Act (IFA). The IFA is intended to provide a framework for establishing new development assessments. The fundamental objective of the IFA is the imposition of development costs associated with providing or expanding infrastructure to meet the system needs created by new development.

Interfund Loans

Loans between District funds can be considered as a method of financing capital improvement projects.

Mount Olympus Improvement District Impact Fee Development Plan Wastewater Collection System July 2021

Lay Person Summary

Mount Olympus Improvement District (District) has updated the Impact Fee Facility Plan (IFFP).

This plan provides a basis for the collection of impact fees necessary to build future infrastructure to meet the needs for additional growth and development.

Infrastructure improvement projects needed within the next 10 years were recommended by the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan which was prepared by the engineering firm Hansen, Allen & Luce, Inc. in 2021. An opinion of probable construction cost was assigned to each improvement project. The number of new people to move within the District’s service area was estimated annually for the next 40 years. An estimate of the additional wastewater flow being added to the collection system was prepared based on the population estimates. The total cost of improvement projects was divided among the expected development units. This creates a dollar amount proportionate to the added effects that new development adds to the existing collection system.

When developers propose a new development, they are required to show how much new flow they could add to the collection system. The developers are then charged the proportionate fee to cover the impact of their new development.

The development and collection of impact fees provides a fiscally responsible and sustainable approach to cover the cost of wastewater improvement projects by those responsible for the growth.