HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Ordinance No. 054T
ORDINANCE NO. 5t/,
SERIES OF 2011
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 57
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER MCCASLIN
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, RELATING TO SEWER
CONNECTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEM FEES
WHEREAS, 31-35-402 C.R.S. authorizes any municipality to operate and maintain sewer
facilities within and outside of the municipality; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Home Rule Charter Sections 121, 122 and 125, require City
Council to set sewer services by Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the sewer connection fees were last reviewed in 1983; and
WHEREAS, Red Oak Consulting was asked to complete a study to update the City's
connection and collection system fees which may be based on the current value of the sewer
plant and system, the operating cost of the sewer plant and system or the replacement cost of the
City's sewer plant and system; and
WHEREAS , the Englewood Water and Sewer Board determined that the replacement cost
was the preferred basis for the calculation of connection and collection system fees because it
most accurately reflected the value of the system; and
WHEREAS, the Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended this proposed fee
schedule at its May 10, 2011 meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending
Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 8, of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows:
12-2-8: Sewer '.fap Connection and Collection Fees.
A: A sewer taj3 connection permit for a single-family, residential, and/or commercial and/or an
industrial user shall remain in effect until terminated by the City.
Ih At the time of filing the application, sewer taj3 connection fees shall be paid in accordance
with the following scheduleg: ·
Water Meter Sine
%" or less
l"
lW'
2"
3"
Se,,ver Tap
$ 1,400.00
$ 2,333.00
$ 4,667 .00
$ 7,467 .00
$14,932 .00
1
9 bi
4"
6"
g11
10"
$ 23,332 .00
$ 46,667.00
$ 74,667.00
$107,332.00
For multi family units, and mobile home courts, the total tap fee shall not be less than one
thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400 .00) per dwelling unit. For hotels and motels, the tap
fee shall be seventy five percent (75%) of the tap fee as set forth in this section. If the fee
detennined by the v,zat er meter size from the above schedule is greater than the fee
detennined by the minimum cl-iarge of one thousand,four hundred dollars ($1,400.00) per
unit, then the greater fee , as detennined by meter size, shall prevail.
G,. 1. At the time of filing an application for a sewer~ connection permit, sewer~
connection fees for the following properties shall be increased by the addition of a
collection system surcharge to the sewer~ connection fees established by subsection A
ef this section according to the established surcharge schedule:
-1-:-a . Properties within the City which are not in an established sanitation district.
±-7 b . Properties outside the City which are tributary to the Northeast Englewood Relief
Sewer System which are not exempted by agreement from sewer~ connection
surcharge
The established s ev,rer tap fee surcharge i s :
')later Meter Size £ewer
¾!.!.
+"
~
~"
J."
4"
6"
-&"
~
Tap Fee
$~
~
1,667.00
2,667.00
5,333.00
g,333.00
16,667 .00
26,667 .00
3g,333 _00
SINGLE USE SEWER CONNECTION AND COLLECTION SURCHARGE FEES
Water Meter Size Sewer +ap Connection Fee Collection Surcharge Fee
¾" or less $ 1,400.00 $ 1,200.00
1" $ 2,333 .00 $ 2,000.00
l ½" $ 4,667 .00 $ 4,000.00
2" $ 7,467.00 $ 6 ,400 .00
3" $ 14 ,932.00 $12 ,8 00.00
4" $23 ,332.00 $20 ,000.00
6" $46,667.00 $48 ,000.00
8 " $74,66 7.00 $
10" $107 ,33 2.00 $
2
For multi family units, and mobile home oburts, the total tap foe shall not be less than one
thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400 .00) per d1.velling unit. For hotels and motels, the tap
foe shall be seventy five peroent (75%) of the tap foe as set forth in this seotion. If the foe
detemiined by the 1,vater meter si:z;e from the above sohedule is greater than the foe
determined by the minimum oharge of one thousand four hundred dollru.'s ($1,400.00) per
unit, then the greater foe, as deteffil±ned by meter si:z;e, shall pre>,'ail.
MULTI-FAMILY AND MOBILE HOME DEYEI,OPMENT SEWER SYSTEM
CONNECTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEM SURCHARGE FEES
The sewer connection and collection system surcharge fees for Multi-Family Residential
properties consists of the ITTeater of:
l) The sum of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee based on the number
of dwelling units.
Or
~ The meter sized based connection fee.
Base Fee
Dwelling Unit Fee
(per dwelling unit)
First 12 units
Next 22 units
Over 34 units
Connection Fee
$ 845.00
$ 185 .00
$ 150.00
$ 85.00
Collection System Surcharge
$ 720.00
$ 160.00
$ 125.00
$ 75 .50
For multi family units, mobile home oourts and other multiple dwelling units, the sewer tap foe
suroharge shall not be less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) per dwelling unit. For hotels and
motels, the tap connecti fee shall be sevent -five ercent 75% of the · fee as
set forth in this section.
Mixed Use Residential and Commercial Sanitary Sewer Connection and
Collection System Surcharge Fees
Mixed use Residential and Commercial Sewer Connection and Collection system fees consist of
the greater of:
l) The sum of a base fee per connection, plus the per residential dwelling unit fee, plus a per
commercial fixture unit fee based on the number of fixture units.
OR
~ The meter sized based connection fee.
3
MULTI FAMILY SEWER CONNECTION FEES
Base Fee
Dwelling Unit Fee
(per dwelling unit)
First 12 units
Next 22 units
Over 34 units
Connection fee
$845.00
$185.00
$150.00
$ 85.00
Collection system fee
$720.00
$160.00
$125.00
$ 75.00
COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SEWER CONNECTION FEES
First 125 fixture units
Next 250 fixture units
Over 375 fixture units
Connection fee
$27.00
$11.00
$ 9.00
Collection system fee
$23 .00
$10.00
$ 7 .00
l-Properties that connect to the Big Dry Creek interceptor system shall pay a sewer tap
connection surcharge fee in the sum of tm=ee-one-hundred dollars ($300.00)($100.00)
per single-family residential equivalent tap connection in addition to all other charges.
~ C. The actual cost of any sewer main extension shall be recorded in the utilities office.
Where such cost has not been paid, it shall be added to the plant assessment fee to arrive
at a total amount due. New sewer extension costs shall include the actual cost of
construction plus ten percent (10%) to defray costs of engineering. The total costs shall
be assessed in proportion to the front footage of the property served.
&-D. Where a proposed tap connection will serve property for which a previous assessment
has been paid, the previous tap com1ection fee shall be credited against the current tap
com1ection fee in calculating the balance of the fee due .
~ E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the rates or terms contained in the
connector's agreements heretofore existing between the City of Englewood and
sanitation districts.
G . ;E . No tap connection shall be made to the POTW without payment of the tap connection
fees. Failure to pay fees before tapping to the POTW shall result in tap connection fees
being doubled. Any fee or charge not paid shall constitute a lien on the subject property
and be collected like taxes.
Section 2. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, deterrnines, and declares that this
Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is
promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary
for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and
welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the
proper legislative object sought to be obtained.
4
Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part ofthis Ordinance or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of
competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder
of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or
conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such
inconsistency or conflict.
Section 5. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of
the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify,
or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which
shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as
still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits,
proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well
as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered,
entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions.
Section 6. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and
every violation of this Ordinance.
Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 19th day of September, 2011.
Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 23 rd day of
September, 2011.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 21st day of
September, 2011 for thirty (30) days.
Reintroduced, amended, read in full as amended on first reading on the 3rd day of October,
2011 .
Published by Title as an amended Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on
the 7th day of October, 2011.
Published as an amended Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th
day of October, 2011 for thirty (30) days.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 17th day of October, 2011.
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No.Giseries of 2011, on
the 21 st day of October, 2011.
5
Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 19th day of
October, 2011 for thirty (30) days.
I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is ~ copy of the Ordinance passed on final r ing and published by
title as Ordinance No. ~ Series of 2011.
6
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Dat e Agenda Item
Octobe r 3, 20 11 11 a X
STAFF SOURCE
Subject
A m end e d Ordin ance for Sewe r
Co nn ec ti o n Fee Revis i o n s
INITIATED BY
Utiliti es D epa rtlllent St ewa rt H. Fo nda, Dir·ec tor o f Utiliti es
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Co un c il Bill N o . 5 7 passe d o n f ir st r ea d ing by C ity Co un c il o n Se pt emb er 19, 20 1 1.
RECOMMENDE D ACTION
Th e Utiliti es st aff reco lllm end s Co uncil appr ova l of t h e am end ed Co un c il Bill N o. 57 fo r t h e Or d in an ce fo r
Sewe r Co nn ecti o n Fee Rev isio ns. Th e En gl ewood Wat e r and Sevve r Boa rd reco mm ende d Co un c il approva l
of th e o r·ig in al o rdin an ce at th eir A pril 12, 20 11 177 ee tin g.
BACKGROUND, AN A LYSIS, AND A LTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
Co un c il Bill No. 5 7 was app rove d o n f irst r eadin g Se pt. 1 9, 2 011. St aff subs eq u e ntl y fo und an error of a
se nten ce that should ha ve b ee n deleted. The atta c h e d or-din ance has b ee n am e nd e d t o r efl ect thi s rev isi o n.
The sente nce was d el et ed und er th e section , Multi-Famil y and Mobile Hom e D eve l o pm ent Sew e r Sy st em
Conn ec ti o n and C o ll ecti on Sys t em Sur·c har·ge Fees th at states, "If th e co ll ec tion sys t em surchar ge
es tablish ed by th e wat e r m et er size fr o m th e above sur c h a rge sc hedul e is gr ea t e r th an th e f ee of fi ve
hun d r ed d o llars ($500.0 0) pe r dwe llin g unit, th e gr ea t er fee shall b e ch arge d."
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Rev ised O rdi n an ce
Date
Sep t emb e r 19, 20 11
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item
11 a iii
STAFF SOURCE
Subject
O rd in an ce fo r Sewe r C o nn ectio n
Fee Rev isio n s
INITIATED BY
U tiliti es D e p artm e nt Stewa rt H. Fo nd a, Direct o r of Utiliti es
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
C urren t sewe r co nn ecti o n fees for th e co ll ec ti o n syste m were esta bli she d in 198 1 .
Curren t sewe r co nn ecti o n fees fm t h e Littl et o n/En glewoo d Wastewat e r Tr·ea tm e nt Pl ant we r e es t abli sh e d in
198 1.
T he p roposed r ev isio n s we re p resen t ed to City Co un ci l at t he Ju ne 6, 20 11 Stu dy Sessio n.
RECOMMEND ED ACTION
Th e En glewoo d W ate r an d Sewe r Boa rd , at its Ap ril 12, 20 11 meeti ng, reco lllm e nd ed Co un c il app rova l of
th e p ropose d o rdin ance relatin g t o sewe r co nn ec ti o n and co ll ecti o n syste m f ees .
BAC KGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFI ED
A sewe r t ap co nn ecti o n f ee is a o n e-t i111 e ch arge th at all ows n ew use rs t o pa y fo r th e ir p ro p o r·tion at e sh are
o f ca p ac ity in th e C ity's sewe r co ll ec ti o n syste 111 and was t ewat e r· tr ea tm e nt pl an t. Re d O ak C o n sultin g
rece ntl y co mpl et ed a sewer co nn ection f ee stu dy t o u pda t e th e fees to r·ecog ni ze c u r re nt va lu e o f th e
co ll ec ti o n sys t em an d tr ea tm e nt p lant asse t s.
Th e C ity is ex p e ri e ncin g 111i xe d-u se d ev elo pm ents in its sewe r se rv ice area. Th ese de ve lo pm e nts includ e
177ulti-fa lllil y dw ellin g units and co mm e r·cia l es t abli shm ents th at are se rve d by a co mm o n wa t e r m et er.
Pro p ose d mixed -use co nn ec ti o n fees h ave b ee n d es i gne d t o r·ecogni ze b o th res i de nti al and co mm e rcia l
d ema n ds.
A sin gle fa mil y res i de nti al unit m ea n s a buildin g o r stru ctur e de si gn ed t o be u se d as o nl y o ne r es id e nti al
unit. Res ide nt ial unit m ea ns a roo 111 m gr o up of roo m s w hi ch includ es o r is des ig n ed to includ e k itc h en and
b ath roo m faci lities and in w hi c h o n e o r 111 o re pe rsons cou ld reaso n abl y r esi d e o n a p erm an ent and n o n-
tr·an sie nt b asis. l<itc h en fac iliti es in cl u de any o r all of th e fo ll ow in g: sin k, r·a n ge, st ove, co nve nti o n al ove n o r
111i crowave ove n. Bathr oo m fac ili t i es inclu de any o r all of th e fo ll ow in g: t o il et, bath o r· showe r·. Beca use
t h e ac tu al wat er· m et e r· size de t e r·111in es th e rn ax i111 um poss ib le loa d o n th e sewe r· sys t em, Multifa mil y and
M ixed Use usage sh all be ca lc ul at ed base d on t h e m ax imum poss ib le load w hi c h m ay be g rea t e r th an th e
c urr ent num ber of un it s o r· f ixtures.
Sewe r· co nn ec ti o n f ees d o n o t inclu de t h e cost of m ate ri al o r labo r fo r in sta ll at io n of se rv ice lin es, st u b outs
moth e r in sta ll ati o n s or co nn ec ti ons .
Th e attac h ed study, pr ese nte d t o th e Co un ci l at th e Jun e 6, 20 11 study sess io n, ex pl ain s t h e m eth o do logy
use d t o d eve lo p th e mi xe d u se co n nectio n f ees. Th e W at er and Sewe r· Boa rd is r eco mm e ndin g fees base d
upo n repla ce m e nt cos t.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Th e p ropose d sewe r· co nn ecti o n f ees sc he dul e was pr·ese nted t o Cit )' Co un c il at th e ir Jun e 6, 20 11 stud y
sess io n. It is pro p ose d t o rev ise sevve r co nn ec ti o n fees acco rding to th e r·eco rnm encl ati o n s prese nted in th e
study .
UST OF ATfACHMENTS
Exce rpt fr o m A pril 12, 20 11 Minutes fr o m th e W at e r· & Sewe r Boa r·d m ee tin g
Wa t e r· and Sewe r Co nn ecti o n Fees Stud y
O r·din ance
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
April 12, 2011
The meeting was called to order at 5 :06 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Bums, Clark , Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht, Olson
Higday
Stewaii Fonda, Director of Utilities
1. MD\TUTES OF THE MARCH 8, 2011 MEETING .
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the March 8, 20 11
meeting. Mr. Cassidy noted a correction.
Mr. Habenicht moved;
Mr. Vliggins seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
A bstain:
Motion canied.
To approve the minutes of the March 8,
2011 meeting, as amended.
Bums, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht
None
Higday
Olson
2 . GUEST: JOHN GALLAGHER, RED OAJ( CONSULTANTS
WATER & SEWER CONNECTION FEES .
Jolm Gallagher of Red Oak Consultants appeared to discuss the reevaluation of the
existing water and sewer tap fees. Red Oak calculated water and sewer co11J1ection fees
using a replacement cost basis. An executive summary was distributed showing the
existing and proposed water and sewer connection fees.
At a prior meeting, the Board approved connection fees for developments that include a
mix of multi-family and commercial uses. Mixed use c01mection fees incorporate the
proposed meter size, number of dwelling units and fixture units served by that meter size.
The Board previously reviewed and approved the changes to the connection fees on the
replacements cost basis. The proposed changes were reviewed because the original study
included c01mection fees based on a 5/8" tap, which Englewood does not change, and to
illustrate to the Board tbe sewer connection charges based on both existing fees and the
new fees as proposed in the study.
Discussion ensued regarding tbe proposed rates. It was noted that single family taps, up
to a four unit tap, would increase. The multi-family taps, from the 15 to 20 unit range and
up, 'Nould decrease.
Mr. Gray requested a comparison of tap fees from surrounding municipalities.
Mr. Clark moved;
Mr. Burns seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion ca1Tied.
To recommend Council approval of the Alternative
Fee Schedule rates for water and sewer and
commercial mixed use connection fees. The Board
also recommended a Council Study Session to study
the Board's recommendation .
Burns, Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
McCaslin, Habenicbt
None
Higday
6149004
City of Englewood
Water and ewer
Connection Fees
May 18, 2011
Report Prepared By.
t: -0
t•,\:i0,:,
·(:
REIJD;::s. K
CONSULTING
Table of Contents
Contents
1 . Executive Summary 1-1
1 .1. lntrDduclion ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Assump li o ns .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3. Proposed Waler Co nn ectio n Fees ................................................................................ 1-1
1.4. Proposed Sewer Coll ection System Connection Fees ................................................. 1-2
1.5. Proposed Wastewa ter Treatment Plant Connection Fees ............ _. .............................. 1-3
1 .6. Pro posed Mixed-Use Con n ection Fees ........................................................................ 1-3
2 . Water Connection Fees 2-1
2 .1 . Methodology .................................................................................................................. 2.1
2.2. Ca lcu lati on Proced ure ................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3. Walef System Va lu e ..................................................................................................... 2-1
2.4. Sys tem Capacity ........................................................................................................... 2-2
2.5 . Fee Calculatlon ............................................................................................................. 2 -3
3. Sewer Collection Svstem Connection Fee 3-1
3.1. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3·1
3.2. Ca lcu lation Procedure ................................................................................................... 3.;
3.3. Sewer Co lle-c ti on Syste m Value .................................................................................... 3 .1
3.4. System Capacity ........................................................................................................... 3·2
3.5. Fee Ca lc ulation ............................................................................................................. 3.3
4. Wastewater Treatment P l ant Connection Fee 4-1
4.1. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2. Calcu lation Proced ur e ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3. Was tewater Treatment Plant Va lue .............................................................................. 4-1
4..4. System Capacity ........................................................................................................... 4-2
-4.5. Fee Calc ulation ............................................................................................................. 4.3
5. M ixed-Use Connection Fees 5-1
5.i. Background ................................................................................................................... 5·1
5.2 . Proposed and Alternative Fees ..................................................................................... 5-1
............................................................... ________________________ _
Ci!y or Englewood. Colorado
2011 Waler and Sewer Connecilon Fee St udy
6 149004
Table of Contents
List of Tab les
Table 1-1 Comparisoo of Existing and Proposed Water Connection Fees .................................. 1-2
Table 1-2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collectlon System Connection Fe-es ... 1-2
Table 1-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewaler Treatment Cormeclion Fees ....... 1-3
Table 2-1 Water System Value ..................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-3
Table 2-3 Development of Water Connection Fee pe r Capacity Unit .......................................... 2-3
Table 2-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Single Family and Nonresidential Water
Connection Fees ........................................................................................................................... 2-4
Table 2-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Multifamily Water Connection Fees ................ 2-4
Table 3-1 Sewer Collection System Value ................................................................................... 3-2
Table 3-2 Sewsr Collectlon System Capacity .............................................................................. 3-3
Table 3-3 Development of Sewer Collection System Connection Fee per Capacity Unit... ......... 3-4
Table 3-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collectloo System Connection Fees ... 3-4
Table 3-5 Comparison of ErJsting and Proposed Multifamily Sewer Collection System
Connection Fees ........................................................................................................................... 3-5
Table 4-1 City Portion of Wastewater Treatment Planl Value ...................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity ......................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-3 Development of Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee per Capacity Unit ...... 4-4
Table 4-4 Comparison of Exis ting and Pro posed Single Family and Nonresidential Wastewater
Treatm en l Plant Connection Fees ................................................................................................ 4-4
Tab le 4-5 CompariSDn of Existing, Proposed and Alternative Multifamily Wastewater
Treatment Plant Connection Fees ................................................................................................ 4-5
Table 5-1 Range of Units SeNed By Meter Size .......................................................................... 5-1
Table 5-2 Comparison of Existing, Proposed and Alternative Multifamily Connection Fees ....... 5-2
Table 5-3 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Commercial Mixed -Use Connection Fees . 5--3
Table 5-4 Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples Propos&d Foos ............................................... 5-4
Table 5-5 Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples Proposed Fees ............................................... 5-4
Table 5-6 Mixed Use Connection Fee Exampias Alternative Fees .............................................. 5-5
Table 5--7 Mixed Use C o nnection Fee Examples Alternative Fees .............................................. 5-5
COl\1SULT ING
City or Englewood. Colorado
20 11 Waler and Sswer Connectio n Fee Study
61491}{}4
1. Executive Summary
i.1. Introduction
The City of Englewood, Colorado (City) provides water and sewer service to 8,400 and
43,000 customer accounts, respectively: About 75% of sewer accoW1ts are located
outs ide the City. The City's water and sewer utilities are funded primarily from rates and
connection fees.
The conne.ction fee is a one-time charge that allows new users to pay for their
proportionate share of capacity in the City's water treatment plant and distribution
system, sewer collection system, and wastewater treatment plant. The City authorized
Red Oak Consulting to update the City's water and sewer connection fees. This report
summarizes study assumptions, procedures, findings and recommendations.
1.2. Assumptions
This coilllection fee study is based on numerous assumptions. Changes in these
assumptions could have a material effect on the study findi11gs. Red Oak made the
following assumptions in this study:
~ The buy-in methodology is the best method to calculate the connection fees
!!ill Capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the requirements of one
capacity unit
~3l Water and sewer mains smaller than 12 inches are contributed by developers
IIi.il Replacement cost of water and sewer mains are based on estimated rebabilitation
cost
D!i Replacement cost of water and wastewater 1reatment plants are based on original
cost trended to current cost using the 20-city Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index
1.3. Proposed Water Connection Fees
ffil Red Oak calc ulat ed water conneccion fees using four standard valuation
approaches : original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and
replacement cost less depreciation.
fB Table 1-1 compares ex is ting and proposed ins id e City water connection fees .
Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each
meter size are the product of the connectio11 fee per capacity unit (3/4-inch meter)
multiplied by the meter capacity ratio.
llW
CONSULTING
City of Englewood, Co lorlldo
2009 Waler and Sewer Co1111ection Fee Stooy
6149004
Meter Existing
Siza Fees
3/4" 1,000
1~ 1,800
1½" 4,000
2" 7 ,200
3" 16 ,000
4" 28 ,800
6" 64,000
Section 1
Execut.rve Summary
Table 1-1
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Water Connection Faes
AWWA Proposed Fe-as
Meter Orlg!na!
Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement
Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost
1 .00 1,570 1,120 4,360
1.67 2,620 1,870 7,270
3.33 . 5,20 0 3,700 14 ,500
5 .33 8,400 6,000 23,30 0
10.67 16 ,700 11 ,900 46,500
16.67 26,200 18,700 72,700
40.00 62,800 44 ,800 174,400
Replac~rnent
Cost Less
Depreciation
3,320
5,530
11,100
17,700
35,400
55,300
132,800
1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees
Im Red Oak calculated sewer collection system connection fees using four standard
valuation approaches: original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement
cost, and replacement cost less depreciation.
[k::! Table 1-2 compares existing and proposed sewer collection system connection
fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 19 82,
Meter Existing
Slze Fees
3/4" 500
1" 833
1½" 1,677
2" 2,667
3" 5,333
4• 8,333
6" 16,667
Tab le 1-2
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Sewer Col l&tion System Connection Fees
AWW A Proposed Fees
Meter Original
Capacity Orlgfnal Cost Less
Ratios Cost Depreciation
1.00 170 70
1 .67 28D 120
3 ,33 600 200
5 .33 900 400
10 .67 1,800 700
16 .67 2,800 1,200
40.00 6,800 2,800
Ci ty ol Englewood . Colorado
20 11 Waler and Sewer Conneciion Fee Study
6149004
Rep I acerruint
Cost
1,200
2,000
4 ,000
6,400
12,80 0
20,000
48,000
Replacement
Cost Less
Depreciation
530
880
1,800
2,800
5,700
8 ,8 00
2 1,200
B
Section 1
Executive Summary
1.5. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees
['."" Red Oak calculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees usjng four
standard valuation approaches: original cost, original cost less depreciation,
replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation.
tZJ Table 1-3 compares existing and proposed wastewater treatment plan t coilJJec tion
fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982.
Mater Existing
Size Fees
3/4M 1,400
1" 2,333
1%" 4,667
2~ 7,467
3" 14,932
4tt 23,332
6" 46,667
Table 1-3
Compar ison of Existing and Proposed
Wastewater Treatment Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Fa-es
Meter Original
Capacity Orlg l nal Cost Less Replacement
Ratios Cost. Depreciation Cost
1.00 890 730 1,140
1.67 1,480 1,220 1,900
3.33 3,000 2,4.00 3,800
5.33 4,700 3 ,900 6,100
10.67 9,500 7,800 12,200
16.67 14,800 12,200 19,000
40 .00 35,600 29,200 45,600
i .6 . Proposed MixedMUse Connection Fees
Replacement
Cost Less
Doprnciation
860
1,430
2,900
4,600
9,200
14,300
34,400
Red Oak developed connection foes for d eve lopmeo1s that include a mix of multifamily
and commercial establishments. Propo sed mixed-use connection fees produce connection
fees designed to approximate the proposed meter size-based connectio □ fees for the
mid.range of the number of dwelling units or fixture units seP.'ed by that meter size.
Section 5 shows the proposed mixed use conneccion fees.
···································•··•·•---···•···············------------------------
C it y of Englewood , Colomdo
2011 Waler and Sewe r ConnBcllon Fee Study
6149004
2. Water Connection Fees
2.1. Methodology
Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation
methods:
fill Equity buy-in
Ifill Incremental cost
~ Hybrid
The equity buy-in method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of existing
facilities. This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity.
The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future
facilities. Tbis method is best suited for utilities tbathave limited unutilized capacity in
and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans.
The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity
of existing and future facilities . This method is appropriate for utilities that have some
unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future ,
Red Oak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the water connection fees. This is
considered an appropriate method to use for the City's water utility since it has ample
capacity in its existing facilities to senie future growth.
2.2. Calculation Procedure
Red Oak calculated water connection fees using the following steps:
.&~ Identify water system assets
[ill: Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods
tthl Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit
.8i Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities
lTJ Calculate connection fee per capacity unit
2.3. Water System Value
Red Oak Consulting calculated the value of the City water system for each of the
following standard valuation approaches:
RE D
CONSU LTll'✓C
City of En.ile1NOOd, Colorado
2009 Waler and SeWef Connection Fee Sludy
6149004
lT~ Original Cost
&'li Original Cost Less Depreciation
!:ill Replacement Cost New
rn Replacement Cost Less Depreciation
Section 2
Water Connect10n Fees
Original cost values are historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original cost
less depreciation values are the book value of the assets. Replacement cost values ase
pres e nt-day estimated costs to JJurchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost less
depreciation takes into consideration physical depreciation and obsolescence of er.is ting
assets .
Origiual cost and original cost l ess depreciation are values based on City asset records.
Replacement cost values for water line assets are based on estimates by line size.
Replacement cost values for all other assets are based on original costs trended to present
day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. Table 2-l compares water system asset values for
the four valuation approaches.
Line
Table 2-1
Water System Value
Original Cost
Less
No. Fi:xo-d Asset Original Cost Depmciation
1 Treatment Plani $ 20,542,812 $15 ,300,384
2 Pumps and Storage 4,396,834 1,586,681
3 Mains 15,089,114 7,995,125
4 General Plant 11,Q~1,5$~ ~.884,4Q1
5 Total System Value $ 51,580,323 $ 34,766,641
2.4. Sys.tern Capacity
Replacement
Replacement Cost Lass
Cost Depreciation
$ 34,600,504 $ 24,284,849
12,927,468 2,856,956
4,526,418 2,451,356
g~, 1 §1 ,229 sz,41~1~6~
$114,315,619 $ B?,006,724
Red Oak assumed the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity
requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-incb meter is commonly used for new single
family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in service.
Capacity L11Uts for all other meter sizes are a product of tbe number of customers for each
meter size and capacity ratios of the respective meter sizes.
The City's water treatment plant peak day capacity is 28 million gallons per day (mgd)
and is sufficient to serve the projected build-out population of the water service area.
Red Oak ass umes the number of capacity units that can be served by the water system is
commensurate with treatment plant capacity.
·····················-------------------------
City of Englewood , Colorcido
2011 Waler and Sewer Connec1iori Fee, Study
6149004
Section 2
Water Connection Fees
Red Oak estimated peak day demand per capacity unit using City billing data and peak
day demand data. The peak day demand per capacity unit of 1,070 gallons per day (gpd)
is the product of 483 gpd average day demand for a 3/4-inch meter and the water
system's peak day to average day demand ratio of 2 .22 .
Tab le 2-2 sbows the calculation of the number of capacity units of the water treabnent
plant. System capacity of 26,200 is the quotient of peak day capacity of the water
treatment plant and peak day demand of on e capacity unit.
Table 2-2
Water Treatment Plant Capacity
Line
No. Description Calculatlon
1 Peak Day Capacity of Water Treatment Plant (GPO) 28,000,000
2 Peak Day Demand of One Capacity Unit (GPO) 1,070
3 Water Sys.tern Capactty (Capacity Units) 26,200
2 .5. Fee Calculation
The proposed water connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system
value and the capacity units of the system. System value is the value of existing assets
les s developer contribution. Red Oak assumed water mains 12-inches and smaller were
contributed by developers . Table 2-3 shows the water connection fee calculation for a
capacity unit.
Table 2--3
Development of Water Connection Fee per Capacity Unit
Original Cost Replacement
Line Lass Replacement Cost Less
No . Fixed Asset Orlglnal Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
1
2
3
4
5
Existing Assets $ 51,580,323 $ 34,766,641 $114,315,619 $ 87,006 ,724
Less Contributions (10,321,094} (5,468.740) (Ql (Ql
System Value $ 41,259 ,229 $ 29,297 ,901 $114,315,619 $ 87,006,724
System Capacity Units 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200
Connection Fee, per $ 1,57 0 $1 ,120 $4,380 $3,320 Capacity Unit
Table 2-4 compares existing and proposed single family and nonresidential water
coru1ection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since l 982. Proposed connection fees
for each meter size are the product of tbe connection fee per capacity \.lillt (3/4-inch
meter) and meter capacity ratio.
----,-· ... -.. ---------.------·-·------------------------
RU-:-·. ' COi ✓SUL'I ll ✓G City ol Englewood. Colorado
2011 Waler and Sewer Connection Fee Sludy
61•l9004
Tabla 2-4
Section 2
Water Connection Fees
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Single Family and Nonresldentlat Water Connection Fees
AWVVA Proposad F!Hls
Meter Original Replacement
Meter Existing Capac tty Original Cost Lass Replacement Cost Less
Slz8 Fees Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
314• 1,00 0 1.00 1,570 1,120 4,360 3,32 0
1" 1,8DO 1.67 2,620 1,870 7,270 5,530
1½" 4,000 3.33 5,200 3,700 14,500 11,10{)
2· 7,200 5.33 8,400 6,000 23,300 17,700
3" 16,000 10.67 16,700 11,900 46,500 35,400
4" 28,800 16.67 26,200 18,700 72,700 55,300
6" 64,000 40.00 62,800 44 ,800 174,400 132,800
Table 2-5 compares ex isting and proposed multifamily water connection fees. Existing
fees have been in effect since 1982 11Dd consist of a $1,000 fee for the first uni( and a
$500 fee per unit for all additional un:its. ProJX)sed multifamily cormection fees use
replacement cost asset values and consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier
dwelling unit fee.
Table 2-5
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Multifamily Water Connection Fees
Existing Proposed
F e<1 Structure Fae Fee
Base Fee
(per connection) $0 $2,620
Dwelling Unit Fee
(per dwelling unit)
First un it $1,000 $580
Next 11 uni(s 500 $580
NEJ)c( 22 unHs 500 450
Over 34 units 5(}0 275
Proposed multifamily fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed
meter size-based connection fee for tbe midrange of tbe number of dwelling units served
by a particular meter size . For example, a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four
multifamily dwelling units. The proposed water corU1ection fee for the midrange of this
meter size (three dwelling units) is $4,360 which ma!cbes the proposed fee for tbe 3/4-
inch meter,
• _·· ii.ED
COt -..!SUITI/\JG
City or Englewood. C olomdo
2011 Waler and Sewer Connection Fee Sludy
6149004
Section 2
Water Connection Fees
Red Oak recommends tl1e City periodically review and adjust its water connection fees to
reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit service
charac teri sties,
nrn -.:,
CONSUL'l'i i\JG
Ctty of Englewood, Colorado
2011 Waler and Sswer Conneclion Fe e Study
6149004
3. Sewer Collection System Connection Fee
3.1. Methodology
Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation
methods :
I~': Equity buy-in
[3 Incremental cost
t8 Hybrid
The equity buy-in method bases com1ection fees on tbe value and capacity of existing
facilities. This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity.
The increment.al cost method bases coJlnection fees on the value and capacity of future
facilities. This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in
and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans.
The hybrid method bases the co@ection fee on th e c ombination of the value and capacity
of existing and future facilities. Trus method is appropriate for utilities that have some
unu.sed capacity in existing facilities aDd capacity expansion planned in tbe near future.
Red Oak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the sewer collect.ion system
connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use since it has ample
capacity in its existing facilities to serve future growth.
3.2. Calculation Procedure
Red Oak calculated sewer collection system connection fees using the following steps:
t8i Identify sewer collection system assets
1:.'1 Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods
tl1.'. Detennine capacity requirements of one c apacity un.it
tu De1ennine number of capacity uni Ls that can be served by existing facilities
C Calculate connection fee per capacity unit
3.3. .Sewer Collection System Value
Red Oak calculated the value of the City sewer collection system for each of the
following standard valuation approaches:
,Z ED
C01'✓Su LTING
C11y of Englewood, Colorado
2009 Waler and Sewer Conn-eclion Fee Study
6149004
Section 3
Sewer Collection System Connection Fee
ffil'i Original Cost
~ Original Cost Less Depreciation
1¥::i Replacement Cost New
fill Replacement Cosi Less Depreciation
Original cost values are the historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original
cost less depreciation is book value of assets. Replacement cost values are present-day
estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets . Replacement cost less
depreciation rakes physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets into
consideration.
Original cost and original cost less depreciation values are based on City asset records .
Replacement cost values for sewer collection main assets are based on estimates by main
size. Replacement cost values for all other assets are based on original costs being
trended to a present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. Table 3-1 compares sewer
collection system as set values for the four valmtion approaches .
Table 3--1
Sewe r Collect ion System Value
Original Cost Replacemen t
Line Less Replacement Cost Less
No. Fixed Asset Origlnal Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
1 Sewer Mains $5,078,528 $2,327,874 $27 ,116,907 $ 9 ,234,583
2 Genera l Plant 1,236,475 38~.~4~ ,.~58,QQ/2 1.~06,~~7
3 Total System Value $6,315,003 $2,717,117 $29,475,515 $ 13,009,236
3.4. System Capacity
Red Oak assumed that the c apacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the
capacity requirements of one capaci ty unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for
new single family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in
service . Capacity units for all other meter sizes are the product of number of customers
for each meter size multiplied by each meter size's respective capacity ratio .
The existing collection system is sufficient to serve projected populat ion at build-out
without any additional expansions . Red Oak assumes the number of capacity units that
c an be served by the sewer's collection sys tem is commensurate with the wastewater
treatment plant capacity to serve those inside city customers.
The City owns 50% (25 mgd) of the Lirtleton/En glewood wastewater treatment plant
capacity . The City's collection system serves only inside City customers and requires
about 25% ( 6.25 mgd) of the City's treatment plant capacity.
I ,~.j
CONS ULTI NG
City of Englewood , Cok>rado
20 1 l W aler and 5-e'-Ne r Cormeciion Fee Study
5149004
Section 3
Sewer Collectlon System Connection Fe e
Red Oak estimated wastewater flow per capacity urut us ing City planning data from the
2 003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Utility P lan and S ite App lic ation Report. Wastewater
flow per c apacity unit of 255 gpd is the product of 85 gal lon s per capita per day for a 3/4-
in ch meter and 3 pers ons per household.
Tab le 3-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units that can be served by the
sewer co ll ectio n system. TI1e system cap acity of 24,500 is th e quotient of the capacity of
the sewer collection system an d the demand of one capacity unlt.
Table 3-2
S ewer Collect!on System Capacity
Line
No. Description Calculation
1 Capac ity of Wastewater Treatment Plant Serving City
Sewer Coll ec tion System (gpd) 6,250,000
2 Wastewater F lo w per Capacity Uni! (gpd) 255
3 Sewer Co ll ectlon Sy ste m Capacity (C apac i t y Units) 24,500
3 .5. Fee Calculation
11,e proposed sewer collection syste m connection fee for a capacity unit is the qu otient of
tbe total sys tem value and the capacity units oftbe system. System vaJue is the value of
existing assets less developer contribution. Red Oak assumed sewer mains 12-inches and
smaller were contri buted by developers. Table 3-3 shows th e sewer collection system
connection fee calculation for a capacity u.n.it.
City or Englewood, Colorado
2011 Wa l e r and Sewer Conneciio n Fee Study
6149004
Section 3
Sewer Collection System Connection Fee
Table ~3
Development of Sewer Collection System Connection Fae per Capacity Unit
Original Cost Replacement
Line Less Replacement Cost Less
No. Fixed Asset Orlglnal Cost Depreciation Cost Deprecl.atlon
1 Existing Assets $ 6,315,003 $ 2,717,117 $ 29,475,51 5 $ 13,0rn:l,236
2 Less Developer
12,250,594) 1828,732) /Ol (0) Contributions
3 System Value $ 4,06-4,409 $ 1,788,385 $ 29,475,51 5 $ 13,009,236
4 System Capacity
24,500 24,500 24,500 24,500 Units
5 Connection Fee, $ 170 $ 70 $1,200 $ 530 per Capacity Unit
Table 3-4 compares existing and proposed single family and non.residential sewer
collection system connection fees . Existing fees bave been in effect since 19 82 .
Proposed connection fees for eacb meter size are the product of the connection fee per
ca pacity unit (3/4-inch meter) and meter capacity ratios.
Meter Existing
Size Fees
3/4" 500
1" 833
1½.· 1,677
2" 2,667
3" 5,333
4" 8,333
6" 16,667
Table 3-4
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Sewer Collection System Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Fees
Meter Original
Capacity Original Cost Lass Replacement
Ratios Cost Doprecintion Cost
1.00 170 70 1,200
1,67 28D 120 2,000
3.33 600 200 4,000
5.33 900 400 6,400
10.67 1,800 700 12,800
16.67 2,800 1,200 20,000
40 .00 6,800 2,8 00 48,000
Replacement
Cost Less
Depreciation
530
880
1,800
2,800
5,700
8 ,BDO
21,200
Tab]e 3-5 compares existing and proposed multifamily sewer collection system
connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since l 982 and are $5 00 per unit.
Proposed multifamily connection fees use replacement cost asset values and consist of a
base fee per connection and a three -tier dwelling unit fee.
C ity of Englewood , Colorado
2011 Water and Sewer Connect ion f=?e Study
5149004 EJ
Section 3
Sewer Collection System Connection Fee
Table 3-5
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Multifamily Sewer Collection System Connection Fees
Existing Proposed
Foo Structure Fee Fee
Base Fee
(per connection) $0 $720
DwejJlng !Jolt E!.2!.2
(per dwe/1/ng unit)
First 12 units 500 i60
Next 22 units 500 125
Over 34 units 500 75
Proposed multifamily fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed
meter size-based connection fee for the midrange of the number of dwelling units served
by a particular meter size. For example, a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four
multifamily dwelling units. The proposed fee for the midrange of this meter size (three
dwelling units) is $1,200 wb.icb matches the proposed sewer collection system connection
fee for the 3/4-inch meter.
Red Oak recommends the City per:iodically review and adjust its sewer collection system
connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit
service cbaracteristics.
City ol Englewood. Co lorarlo
2011 Waler and Sewer ConneciiO/\ Fee Sludy
6149004
4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee
4.1. Methodology
Com1ection fees are usually based on one of the follow--ing industry-standard evaluation
methods:
E. Equity buy-in
ETu1 Incremental cost
fffi Hybrid
The equity buy-in method bases the connection fee on the value and capacity of existing
facilities. This metho<l is besi suited for existing facilities with excess capacity.
·ne increment.al cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future
facilities. This metho<l is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity i.n
and have prepared detailed. growth-related capital project plans.
The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity
of existing and future facilities. This methD<l is appropriate for utilities that have some
unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future.
Red OaJc used the equity buy-in methoo to calculate the wastewater treatment plant
connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use si.nce there is ample
capacity in existing facilities to serve future growth .
4.2. Calculation Procedure
Red Oak calculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees using the following steps:
fill ldentify wastewater treatment plant assets
~ Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods
!rt¥. Detenni.ne capacity requirements of one capacity unit
rTui Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities
WE Calculate connection fee per capacity un.it
4.3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Value
Red Oak calculated the value of the City wastewater treatment plant assets for each of the
fol lowing standard valuation approaches:
K[[)
CONSULTING
City of Engiev..uod, Colorado
2009 Water snd Sewer Connecllon Fee Study
6149004
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee
Ei'.1 Original Cost
ro Original Cost Less Depreciation
tm Replacement Cost New
rm Replacement Cost Less Depreciation
Origillill cost values are the historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original
cost less depreciation values are the book value of assets . Replacement cost values are
the present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost
less depreciation talces into considerationphysiCBl depreciation and obsolescence of
ex isting assets,
Original cost and original cost less depreciation values are based on City asset records.
Replacement cos1 values are based on original costs trended to _present day value using
the 20-City ENR-CCI. The City owns 50% of the Littleton/Englewood (UE) wastewater
tr eatment plant capacity. Table 4-1 compares the City portion of wastewater treatment
plant asset values for the four valuation approaches .
Table 4-1
City Portion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Value
Original Cost Replacement
Line Lass Replacemont Cost Less
No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
1 UEWWTP $ 43,629,042 $ 19,745,680 $ 87,829,825 $ 32,658,581
2 UEWWTP
Expansion (26,500,000 55,500,000 56 ,§0D,OOO 58,500,000
3 Subtotal $100,129 ,042 $ 76,245,680 $ 144,329,825 $89,158,581
4 LessWWTP
Replacement ($11 ,871,2D9) ($1 1,8 71,209) ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209)
5 Less Grants (9,209,268) tn1,ooo) (~8,9{]2,051} (72j ,000)
6 Total Value $ 79,048,565 $ 8-3 ,653,471 $ 103,556,565 $ 76,566,372
4.4. System Capacity
Red Oak assumed tbe capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity
requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is comrnoo.ly used for new single
family residential coilJJ.ectors and represents the majority of water meters in service.
Capacity units for all other meter sizes are the product of number of customers for each
meter size and each meter size's respective capacity ratio.
The wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient to serve projected popu[ation at
build-out without any additiona[ expansions. The City owns 50% (25 mgd) of the
Littleton/Englewood wastewater treatment plant capacity.
· .• -·. RED 1•• ·
· -· COi·~SULTING
Cfly of Englewood, Colorooo
2011 Waler aoo Sewer Con=t!on Fae Sludy
6149004
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee
Red Oak estimated wastewater flow per capacity unit using City planning data from tbe
2003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Utility Plan and Site Application Report. Tbe
wastewater flow per capacity unit of 255 gpd is the product of 85 gallons per capita per
day for a 3/4-incb meter and 3 persons per household.
Table 4-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units that can be served by the
wastewater treatment plant. System capacity of 98,000 is the quotient of the capacity of
the was1ewater treatment plant and the demand of one capacity unit.
Table 4-2
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity
Llne
No. Description Calculation
1 Capacity (City portion) of Wastewater Treatment Plant(gpd) 25,000,000
2 Wastewater Flaw per Capacity Unit (gpd) 255
3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Capacity Un Its ) 98,000
4.5. Fee Calculation
The proposed wastewater treatment plant connection fee for a capacity unit is the
quotient of the total system value and capacity units of the system. Financing costs are
included i.n the total system value and are equal to the net present value of growth-related
interest payments related to the 2004 CWRPDA loan. Table 4-3 shows -the wastewater
treatment plant connection fee calculation for a capacity unit.
,·. RED ;···
CONSULnNG
City of Ereyewood. Colorado
2011 Waler and Sewer Connecl!ofl Fee Study
6149004 B
Line
No.
1
2
3
4
5
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee
Table 4--3
Development of Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection
Fee per Capacity Unit
Original Cost Replacement
Less Replacement Cost Less
Description Original Cost DepraclaHon Cost Depreciation
Total WWTP Value $ 79,048,565 $ 63,653,47 1 $103,556,565 $76,566,372
NPV of Existing
Debt Service 8,084,272 ~,084,272 6,084,;U~ ~,QM,n2
Intere st Payments
Total System Value $87,132,837 $71,737,743 $111,640,837 $ 84,650,644
Existing System
Capacity -Capacity 98,000 98,000 98,000 96,000
Units
Connection Fe-e, $ 890 $ 730 $ 1,140 $ 860 per Capacity Unit
Table 4-4 compares ex isting and proposed singl e family and nonresidential wastewater
treatment plant connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed
connection fees for each meter size are tbe product of the connection fee per capacity unit
(3/4-inch meter) and ibe meter capacity ratio. Since the proposed fees are less than
existing fees, consideration should be given to continuing the existing wastewater
treatment plant connection fees at this time.
Mat8r
Siz..e
3/4"
1 n
1½."
2"
311
4"
6"
Table 4-4
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
S!ngle Family and Nonresidential
Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Feos
Motar Original
Existlng Capacity Original Cost Less Rep lacement
F0as Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost
1,400 1.00 890 730 1.140
2,333 1.67 1,480 1,220 1,900
4,667 3.33 3,000 2,400 3,800
7,467 5.33 4,700 3,900 6,100
,4,932 i0.67 9,500 7,800 12,200
23,332 16.67 14,800 12,200 19,000
46,667 40.00 35 ,600 29 ,200 45,600
Replacement
Cost Le s s
D~preciation
860
1.430
2,900
4,600
9,200
14 ,300
34,400
·······•· .. ···· .................................................................... _______________________ _
·, REG ··
CONSULTING
City of Englewood, Colorado
2011 Waler and Sewer ConnecHon Fee Study
6149004
. ' ' . \
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee
Proposed multifamily wastewater treatment p lant connection fees use replacement cost
asset valu es and consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee.
Proposed fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed meter size-
based connection fee for the midrange of the number of dwelling units served by a
particular meter size. For example, a 3/4--inch meter can serve two to four multifamily
dwelling units . The proposed wastewater treatment plant fee for the midrange of this
meter size (three dwelling units) is $1,140 which matches the proposed sewer collection
system connection fee for the 3/4-inch meter.
Red Oak also developed alternative multifamily wastewater treatment plant connection
fees based on existing meter size-based fees. Alternative fees consist of a base fee per
connection and a tllree-tier dwelling urut fee. The alternative fees produce connection
fees designed to approximate the existing meter size-based connection fee for the
midrange of the number of dwelling units served by a particular meter size. For example,
a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four multifamily dwelling units. The alternative
wastewater treatment plant fee for the midrange ofthis meter size (three dwelling units)
is $1,400 which matches the existing wastewater treatment plant connection fee for the
3/4-inch meter.
Table 4 -5 compares existing, proposed. and alternative multifamily wastewater treatment
plant connection fees. Exis1ing fees have been in effect since 1982 and are $1,400 per
unit. Both the proposed and alternative multifamily connection fees consist of a base fee
per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee based on the number of dwelling units.
Table 4--5
Comparison of Existing, Proposed and Alternative
Mu ltifamily Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee s
Proposed Alternative
Fae Structure Exlstln-g F0i) FMl•l Foo (bl
Base fi;Je
(par connection) $0 $690 $84-5
Dwe ll ing Untl F~si
(per dwelling unit)
First 12 units $1,400 $150 $185
Next 22 units 1,400 120 150
Over 34 units 1,400 70 85
(a) Consistent with proposed meter size-based connection fees.
(b) Consistent Wilh existing meter size-based connection fees.
Red Oak recommends the City periodically review and adjust its wastewater treatment
plant connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity
unit service characteristics.
•. ltrn
CONSU LTJ /\.IG
City of Englewood, Colorado
2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee S\udy
6149004
5. Mixed-Use Connection Fees
5.1. Background
Mixed-use developments have multiple intended purposes within a single structure and
typically include a combination of multifamily residential and commercial customers.
Although the City presently has few mixed-use customers, future growth in this type of
development is li.kely,
The City's current mixed-use connection fee structure is based on meter size, which may
not equitably assess new mixed-use co1rnectors for their capacity requirements. Table 5-
1 illustrates the ranges of multifamily dwelling units a11d commercial fixture units for
each meter size which could produce a wide variety in capacity requirements within a
given meter size.
Table 5-1
Range of Units Served By Meter S!2e
Mu!ttfamily Number of
Meter Sb:e Dwelling Uni ts Fixture Units
3/4" 2 lo 4 0 ln 50
1. 5 to 12 51 lo 125
1½" 13to34 126 to 375
2" 35 lo 63 376 lo 700
3• 64 to 203 701 lo 2 ,225
4" 204 to 455 2,226 to 5,000
The mix.ed-use fees will equitably tailor the connection fee to the individual requirements
of each new connector by using the combination of the number of multifamily dwelling
units aod commercial fixture units to represent the capacity required by mixed-use
customers.
5.2. Proposed and Alternative Fees
Proposed.mixed-use fees use replacement cost asset values and produce connection fees
tbat are in the midrange of the proposed meter size-based connection fees . Alternative
mixed-use fees use replacement cost asset vaJues and produce wastewater treatment
com1ection fees that are in tbe midrange of the existing meter size-based wastewater
treatment connection fees (Existing meter size-based wastewater treatment connection
RED
CONSULTING
City of Englewood, Colorado
2009 Waler and Sewer Conneciion Fee Sludy
6149004
. ' I
• l
Section 5
Mixed Use Connection Fees
fees are greater than proposed meter size-based wastewater treatment connection fees).
The proposed and alternative mixed-use connection fees consist of three components:
~ Base fee per connection
0li Multifamily fee based on number of dwelling units
!i!.i! Commercial fee based on the number of fixture units
Table 5-2 compares existing, proposed and alternative multifamily connection fees.
Existing fees include a unit fee based on the number of dwelling units. Proposed and
alternative fees consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee
based on the number of dwelling units.
Tabfe 5-2
Comparison of Ex ist! ng, Proposed and Alternative
Multifamily Connection Fees
Sewer Wastewater
Fee Structure Water Collection Treatment
Existing Faes
Qw~lriQg \.!nit Fee
(per dwelling unit)
First unn. $1,000 $500 $1,400
Each Additional unit 500 500 1,400
Proposed Fees
Base Fee
(per connection) $2,620 $720 $690
Dwelling Unit Fee
(per dwelling untt)
First 12 units $580 $160 $150
Next 22 units 450 125 120
Over 34 units 275 75 70
Altamatlve fees
Base Fee
(per connection) $2,620 $720 $845
Dweli!og \,lnil F~~
(per dwelling unit)
First 12 units $580 $150 $i85
Next 22 units 450 125 '150
Over 34 units 275 75 85
Total
$2,900
2,400
$4,030
$890
695
420
$4,185
$925
725
435
·····-·········--·-···················-··•·-------------------------
RED , '
CONSULl"INu
Clly of Engiewood , Colorado
2011 Wa(er and Sewer Connection Foo Siudy
8149004
Section 5
Mixed Use Connectlon Fees
Table 5-3 shows proposed and alternative commercial mixed-use connection fees that
consist of a three-tier fixture unit fee.
Table 5-3
Comparison of Proposed and Alternative
Commercial Mixed-Use Connection Fe-es
Sewer Wastewatar
Fs-e Structure Water Collection Treatment
per fixture unit per fixture unit per fixture unit
PrcpDsed Fe-es
First 125 fixture units $83 $23 $22
l✓e>,:t 250 fixture units 35 10 9
Over 375 fixtur e units 26 7 7
Alternative Fees
First 125 fi x ture units $63 $23 $27
Next 250 fix-tu re unH:s 35 10 11
Over 375 fixture unlt-s 26 7 9
Total
per fixture unit
$128
54
40
$'133
56
42
Proposed and alternative mixed-use connection fees are the greater of the following:
Dxl Sum of calculated mixed-use multifamily and commercial connection fees or
rs Meter size based connection fee
[lc;l;),l ·,.;.
COi ✓ SU ffl I\J G
CttyofEr,glewood, Cokxado
2011 Water and Sewer Conneclloo Fee Study
8149004
•• J
, I ,\
'
Section 5
Mixed Use Co nnection Fees
Tables 5-4 and 5-5 shows examples of the proposed mixed-use connection fee calculation
for typical small, medium, and large connectors . Table 5-4 shows the detailed
calculations for multifami ly and comm ercial mixed-use fees, and Table 5-5 summarizes
the total fee amount. In all cases the sum of calculated mixed-use multifamily and
commercial connection fees is greater than the meter size based connection fee .
Mi xed-
Use Meter
Customer Slze
.?.1::,lcl 11.:::i b.: c~ 1t
Medium
'(j;-~\,;a•;::::.1·:
Mixed-
Use Meter
Customer Size
Mixed-
Table 5--4
Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples
Proposed Fees
MultlfamUy
Dwelling
Units
Mixed-Use M uttlfaml ly Fee
Base
Charge
First 12
Dvvelllrig
Units
$890
per unit
Next 22
Dwelllng
Units
$695
per unit
Over 34
Dwetllng
U nits
$420
per unit
Total
$ 4,030 $ 10,680 $ 5,560 $ $ 20,270
::·.'sU/4 :a3:o:}::.: $ ••'I o';g·act t r $ ::\s }9'o:i: /i :]·a; 92ct j ::;t <icr};:ro·-·
M lxoo-Use Commercial Fee
Com.me.rclal · First 125 Next 250 Over 375
Fhcture Base Fixture Fixture Dwelling
.Units Charge Units Units Units Total
$128 $54 $40
per unit per unit per unit
$ 16,000 $ 4,050 $ $ 20,050
;,t :'16 ,oooI<. :·I :·1s'.50 0:d :' ${.9;o6o;t J't$;f ie;soo
Table 5-5
Mixed-Use Connection Foo Examples
Proposed Fees
Mulilfaml!y Commercial
Use Meter Mixed-Use Mixed-Use
Total
Mixoo-Usa
Fee
Calculate-cl
Metar Size
FEH:l
Proposed
Mixed-Use
Foo Customer S!z.e
Medium 2"
F&e Fee
$(I'. ,r:~13-9 5 . ::$J/s:12a.tfr: :::~,i•;:!?,?.)..2 ~: :1!I ::J::1:~x~/i i.I :\ •. ~}~;7:1gt:
$ 20,270 $ 20 ,050 $ 40,320 $ 35,800 $ 40,320
$'" 40)}20 ~ $ .. · 38,500 $ 79,420 $ 71,500 :; '$ 79,420
City of Englewood, Colorado
2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study
6149004
Section 5
Mixed Use Connection Fees
Tabl es 5-6 and 5-7 shows examples of the alternative mixed-use connection fee
calculation for typical small, mediwn, and Large connectors. Table 5-6 shows the detai led
calcu lations for multifamily and commercial mixed-use fees, and Table 5-7 summarizes
the total fee amow1t. In all cases the sum of calculated mixed-use multifamily and
commercial connection fees is greater than the meter size based connection fee.
Mlxed
Use
Customer
Small
Medium
··LaFge \
Mixed
Meter
Size
Use Metar
Customer $lze
sm.ai.L :. .·
Medium
· /tiir9e'r· .
Table 5-6
Mixed Use Connection Fee Examples
Alternative Foes
MultlfamHy
Dwel!ln-g
Units
Commerdal
Fixture
Untts
Mixed Use Mu.ltlfarnlly Fee
Base
Charge
First 12 Next 22
Dwelllng Dwelling
Units Units
$925 $725
per uni/ per unit
Over 34
Dwelling
Units
$435
per uni/
Total
·$;;:3,,!9.0 ,. .$.:('' • $, 7,885
4,185 $11,100 $ 5,800 $21,085
· :$:,;:;::·~r:1·as t 1i{f 1Y)oo :r. rs;:1s:gso :P.• ·$ · 11 ;310 >> i . 42;5'ii:i ·
Mi)(ed Use Gommarcial Fee
Base
Charge
First 125
Fixture
Untts
$133
per unit
Noxt 250
Fixture
Units
$56
per uni/
Over 375
Dwelling
Units
$42
per unit
Total
'i{~f'i ?•~?O}·; ·:••$ 5,320 I
$ 16,625 $ 4 ,200 $ $ 20,825
$'1&;6zs <;•·r\4.o60 .: !$ g;:ii§CJ:::.·· ••$ 40,015
Table 5-7
Milrnd Use Connection Fee Examples
Alternative Fees
M!xed Multifamily Commercial Total Calculated Proposed
Us.e Mater Mixed Usa Mixed Use Mixed Use
, Customer Size Fee Fee Fee
< :?.rn_a!V L;. h\A~_{· \$::::·:::!,~~}/\ .'.J ::{'?.l.~3(:-· $ 13,205
Medium 2" $ 21,085 $ 20,825 $ 41,910
s;:,:-• Large:.:: · 3" ::: : s::/42)545 · i : 4o,o7s $ 82,620
City of Er;g~v.ood. Colorado RF.D
COhJSULi',Nli 2011 Waler and Sewe,-Connec!Jon Feo Study
6149004
· Mater Size Mfxed Use
Fee Fee
$ 11,170 $'.E13,2os.· •
•• ....... M .. OHOOo -•..
$ 35,800 $ 41 ,91 0
$ 71,500 t ··--.82,620
I •