2016/12/22 City Council Resolution 2016-112RESOLUTION NO. 2016-112
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
ESTABLISHING AND SETTING A SCHEDULE FOR WATER CAPACITY CHARGES
UNDER THE MITIGATION FEE ACT
WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of Rohnert Park requires that new
development pay its proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements made
necessary by that new development; and
WHEREAS, the City's existing water supply, including its groundwater well field and
its Sonoma County Water Agency supply, provide capacity that benefits new development;
and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Reports approved for the specific plan areas and
planned development areas within the City require the construction of water storage tanks to
mitigate the impacts of new development; and
WHEREAS, the City's existing water fee programs, including its "Per Acre Fee" program
and its "Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee," were last updated in 1998 and require an update;
and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A which is attached to this Resolution is a financial analysis that
provides documentation of the costs of the water supply and storage infrastructure and an
allocation of those costs to all benefitting parties including new development within the City;
and
WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing before the City Council on this adoption of the
Water Capacity Charge schedule was published twice in the newspaper for at least ten (10)
days pursuant to Government Code Section 6062(a) and was mailed to interested persons
who requested the information fourteen (14) days in advance;
WHEREAS, the analysis in Exhibit A was made available for public review for at least
fourteen (14) days prior to the public hearing on this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2016 the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park
conducted a duly noticed public hearing to receive and consider public comments on the
staff report and presentation regarding the establishment of the Water Capacity Charge
Schedule and the analysis included in Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert
Park that it does hereby authorize and approve:
1. Findings. The City Council hereby finds and determines as follows:
A. Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference complies
with California Government Code Section 66013 by establishing the facilities and
infrastructure it describes provide benefit to the persons and property being
charged.
B. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to fund water supply
and storage systems and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
C. After considering the specific infrastructure systems and cost estimates identified in
Exhibit A, the City Council approves such descriptions and cost estimates, and finds
them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing the Water Capacity Charge.
D. The infrastructure systems and upgrades and charge methodology identified in
Exhibit A are consistent with the City's General Plan, including recent updates to the
General Plan, because it implements the General Plan policy that requires that new
development pay its proportionate share of the cost of capital improvements made
necessary by that new development.
E. The Water Capacity Charge is categorically exempt from environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 15061(b) (3).
The intent of the Water Capacity Charge is to provide one means of mitigating
potential environmental impacts which have been identified in environmental
analyses of other planning efforts, including the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report.
2. Establishment of Fee; Schedule. The Water Capacity Charge for various parcels within
the City is hereby established and set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference. The parcels all have identical land use in the City's
General Plan including recent updates to the General Plan. In the future, the General Plan
Land Use Framework should be consulted as necessary to support accurate determination
of fees.
3. Use of Fee. The funds generated by the imposition of the Water Capacity Charge shall be
solely used: (a) for the purposes described in Exhibit A; (b) for reimbursing the City for
the development's fair share of those costs already incurred by the City as a result of the
development; or (c) for reimbursing developers who funded infrastructure in the Water
Capacity Charge program beyond that needed to mitigate the impacts of the developers'
project or projects. The Water Capacity Charges shall be deposited, accounted for, and
expended in accordance with Government Code Section 66006 and all other applicable
provisions of law.
4. Automatic Increase. The Water Capacity Charges shall automatically increase on July 1
in each year hereafter in accordance with any increases in the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area in the twelve months from April
1 of the fiscal year preceding said July 1 and March 30 of the fiscal year ending on such
July 1.
5. Fee Review. Annually, as part of the budget process, the City Manager shall review the
estimated cost of the water supply and storage facilities, the continued need for these
facilities and the reasonable relationship between such need and the impacts of the
various types of development pending or anticipated and for which this fee is charged.
The City Manager shall report his or her findings to the City Council at a noticed public
meeting and recommend any adjustment to this fee or other action as may be needed.
6. Repeal of Previous Fees. Upon the effective date of this Resolution, Resolution 98-22
which established the City's "Per Acre Fee" and Resolution 98-26, which established the
2
2016-112
City's "Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee", are repealed and staff is directed to
transfer any revenue in these fee funds to the Water Capacity Charge fund.
7. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to
attack, review, set aside, void or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days of
the date of adoption of this resolution.
8. Severability. If any provision or clause, or paragraph of this resolution or the imposition
of the Water Capacity Charge for any project within the City or the application thereof to
any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other
provisions of this resolution or other fees levied by this resolution which can be given
effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees, and to this end the provisions
of the resolution are declared to be severable.
9. Administration. The Water Capacity Charge program shall be administered in
accordance with procedures outlined in Section 3.28 of the Rohnert Park Municipal
Code, except that the Water Capacity Charges shall be deposited in a dedicated account
and shall not be comingled with the Public Facilities Fee Fund. The Finance Director is
hereby authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to effectuate the
administration of the Water Capacity Charge Fund.
10. Further Actions. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute
documents pertaining to this Resolution and the Water Capacity Charge program for and
on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park.
11. Effective Date. Pursuant to Government Code 60017, this Resolution shall take effect
sixty (60) days after its adoption.
12. Recitals. The recitals to this Resolution are true and correct and material to the
adoption of this Resolution.
DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2016.
ATTEST:
r
nne Buergler, City Clerk
Attachments: Exhibit A and Exhibit B
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
Gina B o e ayor
AHANOTU: • CALLINAN: k^ STAFFORD: A I f MACKENZIE: *4 e BELFORTE: Au e
AYES: ( ) NOES: ( p ) ABSENT: ( 0 ) ABSTAIN: ( C> )
3
2016-112
RESOLUTION EXHIBIT A
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
October 2016
City Of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Contents
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................._.........................1
ES.1 Introduction and Purpose....................................................................................1
ES.2 Structure of the Analysis......................................................................................1
ES.3 Land Uses Included in the Analysis.....................................................................2
ESA Capital Facilities Included in the Analysis............................................................2
ES.5 Summary of Benefit Analysis for the Capital Facilities ......................................... 4
ES.6 Allocation of Capacity Charges............................................................................5
ES.7 Summary of Cost -Allocation and Capacity Charges............................................6
ES.8 Approval Process and Annual Updates.............................................................11
1. Authority and Methodology..............................................................................12
1.1 Authority...........................................................................................................12
1.2 Methodology.....................................................................................................12
IncrementalCost Method ............... ......... ___ ....... ,...................................... ................... ................ 13
SystemBuy -In Method .................... .............. .................................. ............. .................. ................. 13
Combined Method — Future System Buy-In....................................................................................13
Land Uses & Basis of Cost Estimates......................................................................15
1.3 Introduction.......................................................................................................15
1.4 Existing and General Plan Proposed Land Uses.. ........ ............................... . 15
1.5 Adjustments for Paid Fees................................................................................17
Sonoma Mountain village Payments..............................................................................................18
Stadium Lands, Wilfred Dowdell and University District Payments................................................20
1.6 Growth Management and Absorption Rates.....................................................20
1.7 Basis of Cost Estimates....................................................................................21
1.8 Land Acquisition, Rights -of -Way and Environmental Mitigation Costs ............... 22
2. Water System Facilities...................................................................................23
2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 23
2.2 Water Facilities Description...............................................................................23
GroundwaterSupply.......................................................................................................................24
RecycledWater Supply ............ ............... ......,...............,,........... ........................... ......................... 25
October 2016
City Of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Sonoma County Water Agency Supply.............................................................. .............................
26
Capital Improvements for Water Supply .......................... .............. ......... .......... .............. ............
29
Capital Improvements for Common Transmission Facilities..........................................................30
Capital Improvements for Transmission and Storage Facilities on the Petaluma Aqueduct
and Russian River — Cotati Intertie................................................................................30
Summary of Improvements to Agency System ..... .... —,............ ......................................................30
WaterDistribution System..........................................................................................,:...........,......31
Summary of Water System Improvements and Costs................................:....................................32
2.3 Method for Allocating Costs.............................................................................32
Conservationin the UWMP.............................................................................................................34
Accounting for Conservation in the Capacity Charge Program.......................................................35
IrrigationAccounts ............................ ............... .......... .................................... ...— ...........................
37
Accounting for Water Recycling ........ .... —._....... ................. ......... ................................................ .,37
Water Demand Factors for the Capacity Charge Program.............................................................38
2.4 Fee Component Calculations............................................................................40
GroundwaterSupply.......................................................................................................................40
Sonoma County Water Agency Supply .......................... ............. .......,................ ...........................
41
Distribution System Improvements................................................................................................
45
2.5 Summary ..........................................................................................................46
2.6 Administrative Allowance...................................................................................47
2.7 Government Code Section 66013 Findings for Water System
Improvements...................................................................................................
48
Definitionof Benefit..........................................................................................................................48
Facilities that Provide Benefit ...... ,............................ ............................................................_..__.....48
Cost of the Facilities that Provide Benefit ................................ .................... ...................................
49
List of Tables
Table 1 — Summary Cost Estimate and Allocation .................... ....... ........... ......... _................
3
Table 2 — Water Use Factors for New and Existing Development........................................6
Table 3 — Proposed Water Capacity Charge Components...................................................7
Table 4 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Infill (2016-17) ..........................................7
Table 5 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Northeast SPA (2016-17) ........................8
Table 6 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for University District SPA (2016-17) ..........
..8
Table 7 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Southeast SPA (2016-17) .......................9
Table 8 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Sonoma Mountain Village PD
(2016-17).......................................................................................................9
October 2016
City Of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 9 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Northwest SPA (2016-17) .....................10
Table 10 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Wilfred Dowdell SPA (2016-17) .........,10
Table 11 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Stadium Lands PD (2016-17) ..............11
Table 12 — Land Uses in the Water Capacity Charge Program..........................................17
Table 13 — Sonoma Mountain Village — Summary of Paid and Unpaid Water
Charges.......................................................................................................19
Table 14 - Value of Groundwater Infrastructure Assets......................................................25
Table 15 — Water Supply Allocations to Agency Contractors and Customers ....................27
Table 16 — Contractor and Customer Share of Agency Capital Project Improvements......
29
Table 17 — Summary of Agency's Planned Capital Projects...............................................31
Table 18 — Summary of Water Storage Tank Improvements..............................................32
Table 19 — Summary of Water System Improvement Components....................................32
Table 20 - Summary of Water Demand Factors from Various Plans..................................33
Table 21 — New Development Conservation Measures and Cal Green References ..........
35
Table 22 — Estimated Water Conservation Savings from New Development
Measures3 and 7........................................................................................36
Table 23 — Water Use Factors with Conservation...............................................................37
Table 24 - Water Demand Factors.......................................................................................38
Table 25 - Nonresidential Land Uses — Employee Allocations............................................39
Table 26 — Water Demand Factors for New and Existing Development .............................40
Table 27 — Water Demand Factors by SPA and PD...........................................................40
Table 28 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Groundwater Supply ..........................41
Table 29 — City Share of Agency Capital Projects Plan......................................................42
Table 30 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Agency's Funded Water System
Improvements..........................................................................................
....43
Table 31 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Agency's Comment Transmission
SystemImprovements.................................................................................44
Table 32 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Agency's Pipeline and Storage
Improvements..............................................................................................45
Table 33 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Storage Tanks....................................46
Table 34 — Summary of Water Capacity Charge Components...........................................46
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Specific Plan and Planned Development Areas .................................. ....... ---- 16
Figure 2.2: Sonoma Mountain Village .......................................... ,......... .......................... ...19
Appendix A: Water Tank Cost Estimate Backup
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Executive Summary
ES.1 Introduction and Purpose
In July of 2000, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park (City) adopted a General Plan which
outlined projected growth and land use patterns and identified major infrastructure systems that
the City would need to support these land use patterns. The General Plan also included policies
requiring new development to pay its "fair share" of required improvements. To implement these
policies, the City established and currently administers a Mitigation Fee Program in accordance
with California Government Code Section 66000 et. seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act, hereinafter the
Act).
In 2004, the City of Rohnert Park (City) adopted its Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) which
outlined a comprehensive program for managing the cost of constructing a number of
infrastructure improvements that will support new development. The PFFP was updated in 2006
in order to reflect some land use changes and updated project costs. In 2006, the City also
adopted its Sewer Capacity Charge Program which provided a system for the City to collect
capacity charges to support expansions to the wastewater treatment and disposal and water
recycling facilities, operated by the Santa Rosa Subregional System and serving the City.
In 2011, the City updated and consolidated the PFFP and Sewer Capacity Charge programs
into a single fee program that covered all anticipated infrastructure improvements required to
serve new development, with the exce tion of potable water supply and story e. This Water
Capacity Charge Analysis supports the adoption of Water Capacity Charges to cover the costs
of providing water supply and storage for new development.
ES.2 Structure of the Analysis
This Executive Summary presents a summary overview of the Water Capacity Charge Analysis
including:
• the new land uses that will be subject to the charge;
• the capital improvements that will be required to support those land uses;
• the benefits provided by these improvements to new development;
• the methodology used to allocate the cost of capital projects; and
• a summary of the proposed Water Capacity Charges.
The Executive Summary also describes the procedures required to adopt and update the
charges.
Chapter 1 provides a more in-depth discussion of the authority under which the City develops,
adopts, and updates its capacity charge program and a discussion of the fee calculation
methodology that will be applied.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the land uses subject to the capacity charge, including
changes that have occurred since the adoption of the General Plan. It also presents an
overview of the cost estimating assumptions that are used throughout this analysis.
Chapter 3 presents:
• detailed descriptions and cost estimates for the capital facilities included in the Water
Capacity Charge;
• a detailed description of the cost allocation factors;
• a detailed description of the fee calculations; and
• the findings, required by the Act, for the Water Capacity Charge.
This Water Capacity Charge Analysis has been structured to parallel the construction of the
PFFP. This organization is intended to support the City's efforts to administer both charge
programs and to provide the City with the option of combining the PFFP and Water Capacity
Charge programs at a future date.
ES.3 Land Uses Included in the Analysis
This analysis is based on the buildout projections of the City's General Plan and its
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Population and water demand projections utilized in this
analysis are based upon the General Plan's planning horizon, with modifications as necessary
to reflect additional, project specific work.
The General Plan describes potential development within six designated specific plan areas
(SPAs): the Northwest SPA, the Wilfred Dowdell SPA, the Northeast SPA, the University District
SPA, the Southeast SPA and the Canon Manor SPA. All of the SPAs, except Canon Manor, will
receive water from the City. As a result all SPA land uses, except Canon Manor, are included in
this analysis. The City is also anticipating infill development in two planned development areas
(PDs), and a designated Priority Development Area (PDA). New infill in the Stadium Lands PD,
Sonoma Mountain Village PD and intensified land uses in the Central Rohnert Park PDA will
receive water from the City. These land uses are also included in the analysis.
ESA Capital Facilities Included in the Analysis
This analysis includes facilities that provide for potable water supply and storage and which are
available to serve new development. The facilities included in the analysis have been developed
by reviewing:
the City's General Plan, which conceptually described significant infrastructure
improvements;
• Specific Plans and Planned Development Plans, which provide more refined analyses of
the capital improvements necessary to support planned development;
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
3
• The capital improvement projections developed by the City's wholesale water supplier,
Sonoma County Water Agency (Agency), portions of which will benefit planned growth in
the City; and
• The City's 2010 and 2015 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs), which describes
the City's overall water supply strategy.
As described in more detail in Chapter 3, the PFFP Program already includes fee components
to support planned improvements to the City's water transmission system and recycled water
system, so these improvements are not included in the Water Capacity Charge Program. The
Water Capacity Charges will support the potable water supply and storage systems.
Table 1 lists the improvements included in this analysis, their cost estimates and the percentage
allocated to new development. Generally, new development has a relatively modest share of the
water supply facilities. The groundwater supply benefits new development in the City, but also
benefits existing development in the City, so costs are shared between new and existing
development in the City. In addition to benefitting new and existing development in the City, the
Agency supply benefits a number of other entities that are also the Agency's customers. As a
result, costs are shared throughout the Agency's service area, reducing the percentage that is
allocated specifically to new development in the City. The new water tanks are specifically
required of a number of the Specific Plan and Planned Development Areas and do not benefit
any other water users, hence all costs for the water tanks are allocated only to new
development in the City. Chapter 3 provides a detailed discussion of the allocation factors and
calculations used to arrive at the "fair share" values.
Table 1 — Summary Cost Estimate and Allocation
Costs Included in New
the Capacity Development %to New
Fee Component Total Costs Charge Program Share Development
Groundwater Supply $ 26,236,600 $ 26,236,600 $ 5,382,942 20.52%
Funded Water Sup2ly Improvements $ 24,604,000 $ 24,604,000 $ 432,612 1.76%
Common Transmission System Im rovements $ 39,977,000' $ 39,977,000 $ 702,916 1.76%
Distribution and Storage Improvements $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 81,542 3.40%
Storage Tanks re uired by development -specific EIRs $ 14,341,000 $ 14,341,000 $ 14,341,000 100.00%
Total Program $ 107,558,6001 $ 107,558,600 1 $ 20,941,013
The cost estimates for each improvement have been developed or updated based on
independent cost estimating efforts and are Class 5 (planning -level) estimates of probable
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
construction cost. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering, International
(AACE) defines a Class 5 cost estimate as follows:
Generally prepared on very limited information, where little more than proposed plan type,
its location, and the capacity are known, and for strategic planning purposes such as but
not limited to market studies, assessment of viability, evaluation of alternate schemes,
project screening, location and evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, long-range
capital planning, etc. Some examples of estimating methods used would include
cost/capacity curves and factors, scale -up factors, and parametric and modeling
techniques.
As provided for by the Act, the City may update the capacity charges as more refined cost
estimates become available.
ES.5 Summary of Benefit Analysis for the Capital Facilities
Government Code 66013 specifically requires that "charges... benefit ... the person or property
being charged". The projects included in this proposed capacity charge program benefit
developing properties because the City will not have adequate, reliable capacity to serve new
development without investments in its water system.
Water supply sufficiency benefits new development because the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requires that new development document the availability of water supplies.
This CEQA requirement has its basis in both legislative mandate (Water Code Section 10910 et.
seq.) and case law (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova).
For new development, a defined program to provide sufficient water supply, which includes a
clear Capital Improvement Program and funding strategy, greatly facilitates both CEQA
compliance and project implementation.
Water supply reliability benefits new development because findings of supply sufficiency must
include an analysis of the ability to manage dry water years and must include a water shortage
contingency plan (Water Code Section 10910 et. seq.). A diverse water supply portfolio provides
enhanced reliability because the City is not dependent upon a single source or water supplier to
meet all needs.
Adequate water storage benefits new development because distribution and storage capacity is
necessary to deliver the water supply to the development and to provide for fire safety.
The City will achieve a reliable, sufficient water supply through investments in groundwater
supply, Agency supply and storage improvements. The specific facilities providing benefit are
described below.
• The City's network of groundwater wells provides up to 2,577 acre-feet annually of water
supply that is available to new and existing development. The City's 2004 Citywide
Water Supply Assessment (WSA) and its 2005, 2010 and 2015 Urban Water
Management Plans (UWMPs) illustrate how the available groundwater supply is used in
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
a conjunctively managed fashion to provide capacity for existing users and planned
growth. The groundwater facilities have largely been constructed and new development
will "buy -in" to the groundwater system that provides benefit.
The Agency's water supply system provides up to 7,500 acre-feet annually of water
supply that is available to new and existing development. The City's 2004 Citywide WSA
and its 2005, 2010 and 2015 UWMPs illustrate how the City uses its contracted supply
from the Agency to provide reliable water service, while maintaining sustainable
pumping of the groundwater basin. The Agency's Capital Projects Plan describes
improvements to its water supply system, its common transmission system and its
distribution and storage system that are necessary to allow it to comply with
environmental regulations and deliver its contracted supply volumes. New development
will pay a portion of the City's share of the Agency's Capital Project costs.
The new water storage tanks provide benefits to various SPAs and PDs which include
emergency and fire supply and compliance with regulations. Each SPA or PD will fund
the cost of the discrete storage improvements required to serve the development in that
specific area.
ES.6 Allocation of Capacity Charges
For capital improvements associated with water capacity, costs are allocated based on relative
water demand. The City's UWMP is its primary planning tool for analyzing and projecting water
demands, including unit demand factors. The water demand factors in this analysis are based
on the 2010 UWMP with adjustments made for required conservation from new development.
The demand factors are different for new and existing development because the City has
established policies and requirements, including the CalGreen Building Code, which require
new development to install more efficient fixtures and irrigation systems than can be required of
existing development. The factors from the 2010 UWMP are used because these demand
factors will allow the City to meet the water conservation targets it adopted under the Water
Conservation Act of 2009. While the more recent 2015 UWMP reviews the City's progress
towards achieving the adopted water use targets, the 2015 UWMP did not change the water use
targets or the water use factors the City uses to project future demand. Chapter 3 provides a
more detailed discussion on projected water demands.
The demand factors used in this analysis are:
• Single Family Dwelling Units (SFRs): 287 gallons per day (gpd) for existing development
and 232.4 gpd for new development;
• Multifamily Dwelling Units (MFRs): 143 gpd for existing development and 118 gpd for
new development;
• Nonresidential employees: 28 gpd per employee for existing development and 22.4 gpd
per employee for new development.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Water use factors are created by multiplying the base unit (SFRs, MFRs or employees) by the
demand factors as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2 — Water Use Factors for New and Existing Development
Because non-residential demands are calculated on a per employee basis, the new employees
projected at buildout are allocated to each SPA, PD and Infill Development based on the total
new non-residential square footage associated with each type of development. Chapter 3
provides additional detail on this methodology and illustrates the calculations.
ES.7 Summary of Cost -Allocation and Capacity Charges
The cost for each capital facility included in the capacity charge program has been allocated to
new development based on benefits received and the demand factor for each land use. This
allocation is described in detail and the calculations are illustrated in Chapter 3. Summarily:
• for the groundwater component, costs are allocated between new and existing
development in the City, because the groundwater supply benefits all land uses in the
City;
• for the Agency supply component, costs are first allocated between the City and other
Agency customers and then allocated between new and existing development in the
City, because this supply benefits regional land uses;
• for the water tanks, costs are allocated to land uses within each specific SPA or PD
because each tank provides specific benefit to a specific SPA or PD.
Table 3 represents the results of the cost allocation calculations and illustrates the portion of the
proposed charge associated with each component of the program.
October 2016
Units
Capacity Factors
d
Water Use Factor
Percent Share
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2.1
1x43x5
Land Use Class
Existing
Planned
Buildout
New
Development
Existing
New
Existing
New
Existing
New
Residential
Single Family Residential units
7.7191
10,343
2,624
287.0
232.4
2,215,3531
609,772
43%
12%
Multi -Family Residential units
8,594
11,483
2,889
143.0
118.0
1,228,942
341,003
24%
7%
Senior Housing (units)
207
209
2
143.0
118.0
29,601
236
1%
0%
Assisted Living (units)
0
135
135
143.0
118.0
15,935
0%
0%
Non -Residential Employees
21,900
25,831
3,931
28.0
22.4
613,200
88,054
12%
2%
Totals
4,087,096
1,055,000
791%
21%
Because non-residential demands are calculated on a per employee basis, the new employees
projected at buildout are allocated to each SPA, PD and Infill Development based on the total
new non-residential square footage associated with each type of development. Chapter 3
provides additional detail on this methodology and illustrates the calculations.
ES.7 Summary of Cost -Allocation and Capacity Charges
The cost for each capital facility included in the capacity charge program has been allocated to
new development based on benefits received and the demand factor for each land use. This
allocation is described in detail and the calculations are illustrated in Chapter 3. Summarily:
• for the groundwater component, costs are allocated between new and existing
development in the City, because the groundwater supply benefits all land uses in the
City;
• for the Agency supply component, costs are first allocated between the City and other
Agency customers and then allocated between new and existing development in the
City, because this supply benefits regional land uses;
• for the water tanks, costs are allocated to land uses within each specific SPA or PD
because each tank provides specific benefit to a specific SPA or PD.
Table 3 represents the results of the cost allocation calculations and illustrates the portion of the
proposed charge associated with each component of the program.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 3 - Proposed Water Capacity Charge Components
Groundwater
Charge
Land Use Class Component
A ency Charge Components
Tank Charge Com onents
Funded
Water
Supply
Common pipelines
Transmission S Storage
System
NE SPA
UD SPA
SE SPA
WD SPA
Stadium
NW SPA Lands
SMV
Residential
Single Family Residential (units}
$ 1,185.69 $ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 1796 $
$ 43.61
$1.497.38
0
$
Multi -Family Residential units}
Single Family Residential units $ 1,185.69
$95.29
$ 154.83 $ 17.96
$ 2,192.67
$3,856.34
$4,574.10
$
$ - $
$5,233.60'
Multi -Family Residential units $ 602.25
$48.40
$ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 1,113.73
$1,958.76
$2,323.34
$
$3,665.57 $
$2,658.32
Senior Housing units $ 602.25
$48.40
$ 78.64 1 $ 9.12
$ 1,113.73
$1,958.76
$2,323.34
$
$3,665.57 $
$2,658.32
Assisted Living units $ 602.25
$48.40
$ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 1,113.73
$1,958.76
$2,323.34
$
$3,665.57 $
$2,658.32
Non -Residential d $ 5.10
$ 0.41
$ 0.61 1 $ 0.08
$ 9.44
$ 16.59
$ 19.68
$
$ 31.05 $
$ 22.52
For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Tables 4 through 11 illustrate the application of the proposed capacity charge components to
the individual SPAs and PDs. The tables also include a 3% administration allowance so that the
City can cover its costs associated with program administration and updates over time. Support
for this "administration allowance" is also included in Chapter 3.
Table 4 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Infill (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $
" For Residential Land Uses the cost }ger unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
Agency Char a Components
Groundwater Funded 1 Common Pipelines
Charge Water Transmission & Tank Charge
Component Supply System Storage Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number of
Units in
SPA
SPA Charge
Land Use
Land Use Class
Residential
Single Family Residential (units}
$ 1,185.69 $ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 1796 $
$ 43.61
$1.497.38
0
$
Multi -Family Residential units}
$ 60225 $ 48.401 $ 78.64 $ 912 $
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
0
$
Senior Housing(units
$ 602.25 $ 48,40 $ 78.64 $ 912 $
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
0
$
Assisted Living(units)
$ 602.25 $ 48.40 $ 7864 $ 9.12 $
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
0
$
Non -Residential ( d)
$ 5.10 $ 0.41 $ 0.67 $ 0.08 $
$ 0.19
$ 6.44
0
$
" For Residential Land Uses the cost }ger unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 5 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Northeast SPA (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $ 3,636,907
` For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Table 6 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for University District SPA (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden S 7,082,948
Groundwater
Charge
Agency Char a Components
Funded Common (Pipelines Tank
Water Transmission' & Charge
pl S stem Stora a Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number
of Units
in SPA
SPA Charge
Land Use
'Land Use Class
Residential
Residential
Sin le Famil Residential units
AComponentSu
$ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 17.96 $ 2.192.67
$ 109.39$
3,75583
920
$ 3,455,364
Multi-Famil Residential units
Multi -Family Residential (units
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12 $ 1,113.73
$ 55.56
$ 1,907.71
200
$ 381,543
Senior Housin units
Senior Housin units
$ 46.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12 $ 1,113 73
$ 55.56
$ 1.90771
0
$
AssistedLivin units)$
602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9121$ 1,113.731
$ 55.561
$ 1,907.71
0
$
Non -Residential pd)
1 $ 5.10F$
0.41$ 0.67 $ 0.081 $ 9.44
$ 047
1 $ 1616
0
$
` For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Table 6 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for University District SPA (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden S 7,082,948
For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per Unit is based on gallons
October 2016
Groundwater
Charge
Component
A enc harge Components
Tank
Charge
Component
3%
Administrative
I Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Numberof
Units in SPA Charge
J SPA Land Use
Land Use Class
Funded Common Pipelines
Water Transmission &
Supply S stem Storage
Residential
Single Family Residential units
$ 1,185.69
$ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 17.96
$ 3,856.34
$ 159.30
$5.469.41
883 $ 4,829,489
Multi -Family Residential (units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 1,958.76
$ 80.92
$2,778.10
762 $ 2,116,912 .
Senior Housin units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 1.958.76
$ 80.92
$2,778.10
0 $
Assisted Living units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 1,958.76
$ 80.92
$2,778.10
0 $
(Non -Residential d
$ 5.10
$ 0.41 $ 0.67 $ 0.08
$ 16.59
$ 0.69
$ 23.54
__58021 $ 136,548
For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per Unit is based on gallons
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 7 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Southeast SPA (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $ 2,710.650
For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Table 8 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Sonoma Mountain Village PD (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $ 3,737,751
Groundwater
Charge
Component
AgencyCharreCom
Funded
Water
Supply
onents
Common Pipelines Tank
Transmission & Charge
System Storage Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
I
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number of
Units in SPA Charge
SPA Land Use
Land Use Class
Residential
Funded Common (Pipelines
Water Transmission &
SuppI System Storage
Residential
Single Family Residential (units)
$ 1,185.69
$ 95.29
$ 154.83 $ 17.96 $
4,574.10
$ 180.84
$6,208.71 1
394 $ 2,446,231
Multi -Family Residential (units)
$ 602.25
$ 48.40
$ 78.64 $ 9.12 $
2.323.34
$ 91.85
$3,153.61
81 $ 255,443
Senior Housing units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40
$ 78.64 $ 9.12 $
2,323.34
$ 91.85
$3,153.61
0 $
Assisted Llvin (units)l
$ 602.25
$ 48.40
$ 78.64 $ 9.12 $
2,323.34
$ 91.85 $3,153.61
0 $
Non -Residential d
$ 5.10
$ 0.41
$ 0.67 $ 0.08 $
19.681
$ 0.78
$ 26.72
336 $ 8,977
For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Table 8 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Sonoma Mountain Village PD (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $ 3,737,751
" For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
Groundwater
Charge
Component
Agency Char a Components
Tank
Charge
Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number
of Units
in PD
PD Charge
Land Use
Land Use Class
Funded Common (Pipelines
Water Transmission &
SuppI System Storage
Residential
Single Family Residential (units
$ 1,185.69
$ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 17.961
$ 5,233.60
$ 200.62
$6,887.99
378
$ 2,603,660
Multi -Family Residential (units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.121
$ 2,658.32
$ 101.90
$3,498.65
275
$ 962,127
Senior Housing units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 2,658.32
$ 101.90
$3,498.65
0
$ -
Assisted Living units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 2,658.32
1 $ _101.90
$3,498.65
0
$
(Non -Residential (pd)
1 $ 5.10
$ 0.41 $ 0.67 $ 0.08
$ 22.521
$ 0.86
$ 29.64
5802
$ 171,964
" For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 9 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Northwest SPA (2016-17)
10
Total Charge Burden $ 2,809,089
" For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Table 10 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Wilfred Dowdell SPA (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $ 64,372
Groundwater
Charge
Com onent
Agency Charge Components
Tank
Charge
I Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number
of Units
in SPA
SPA Charge
Land Use
Land Use Class
Funded Common Pipelines
Water Transmission &
Su I Storage
Residential
__System
Single Family Residential (units'
$ 1,185.69
$ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 17.96
$ -
$ 43.61
$1,497.38
0
$
Multi -Family Residential (units)
$ 602.25
$ 48.401 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 3,665.57
$ 132.12
$4,536.11
398
$ 1,805,370
Senior Housing (units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 3,665.57
$ 132.12
$4,536.11
0
$
Assisted Living (units)
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 3,665.571
$ 132.121
$4,536.11
1 0
$ -
Non -Residential ( d)
$ 5.10
$ 0.41 $ 0.67 $ 0.08
$ 31.05
t $ 1.12
$ 38.431
26118
$ 1,003,719
" For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Table 10 - Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Wilfred Dowdell SPA (2016-17)
Total Charge Burden $ 64,372
' For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR, For Nonresidential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
Groundwater
Charge
Component
Agency Charge Components
Tank Charge
Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number
of Units
in SPA
SPA Charge
Land Use
Land Use Class
Funded Common Pipelines
Water Transmission &
I Supply System Storage
Residential
Single Family Residential (units)
$ 1,185.69
$ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 17.96
$
$ 43.61
$1,497.38
0
$
Multi -Family Residential (units)
$ 602.25
$ 48,401 $ 78.641 $ 9.12
$
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
0
$
Senior Housing (units)
$ 602.25.$
48.40 $ _ 78,64 $ 9.12
$
$ 22.15
$ 760,57
0
$
Assisted Living (units
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$
$ 22.15
$ 760.571
0
$
Non -Residential tl
$ 5.10.$
0.41 $ 0.67 $ 0.08
$
$ 0.19
$ 6.441
9990
$ 64,372
' For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR, For Nonresidential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 11 — Proposed Water Capacity Charges for Stadium Lands PD (2016-17)
11
Total Charge Burden $ 286,951
' For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on gallons
ES.8 Approval Process and Annual Updates
The City Council approves all Water Capacity Charges. The Council renders its decision on the
proposed charges after calling a Public Hearing and considering testimony and evidence
presented at the Public Hearing. The law allows the City to update its capacity charges and
requires annual public accountings for the charges and their use. All annual reporting is made at
a public meeting.
In a City with a large planned growth element, these annual findings are especially relevant. The
charge calculations and revenue projections are based on planning projections for new
development and budgetary estimates for the capital improvements. As capital improvement
budgets are updated, through the design and construction process, and as land use projections
are updated as development proceeds, it is very important to update the capacity charges to
reflect current costs and growth patterns in order to assure that the program is generating
enough revenue to fund the planned capital facilities, through reasonable allocations across all
land uses.
October 2016
Groundwater
Charge
Component
A encu Char a Components
Tank Charge
Component
3%
Administrative
Allowance
Total
Mitigation
Fee per
Unit
Number
of Units
in PD
PD Charge
Land Use
Land Use Class
Funded ' Common (Pipelines
Water Transmission &
Supply System Stora a
Residential
Single Family Residential (units)
$ 1,185.69
$ 95.29 $ 154.83 $ 17.96
$
$ 43.61
$ 1,497.38
0
$
Multi -Family Residential (units)
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
338
$ 257,073
Senior Housing (units)
$ 602.25
$ 48.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
0
$ -
Assisted Living units
$ 602.25
$ 46.40 $ 78.64 $ 9.12
$ 22.15
$ 760.57
0
$ -
Non -Residential d
$ 5.10
$ 0.41 $ 0.67 $ 0.08
$
$ 0.19
$ 6.44
4637
$ 29,878
' For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on gallons
ES.8 Approval Process and Annual Updates
The City Council approves all Water Capacity Charges. The Council renders its decision on the
proposed charges after calling a Public Hearing and considering testimony and evidence
presented at the Public Hearing. The law allows the City to update its capacity charges and
requires annual public accountings for the charges and their use. All annual reporting is made at
a public meeting.
In a City with a large planned growth element, these annual findings are especially relevant. The
charge calculations and revenue projections are based on planning projections for new
development and budgetary estimates for the capital improvements. As capital improvement
budgets are updated, through the design and construction process, and as land use projections
are updated as development proceeds, it is very important to update the capacity charges to
reflect current costs and growth patterns in order to assure that the program is generating
enough revenue to fund the planned capital facilities, through reasonable allocations across all
land uses.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
1. Authority and Methodology
1.1 Authority
12
In California, an agency's ability to levy capacity charges is governed by California Government
Code Section 66000 et. seq. and specifically described in Section 66013 (the Mitigation Fee
Act, hereinafter the Act). While the Act specifically exempts water and sewer capacity charges
from the nexus findings required for other types of mitigation fees,' it specifically defines a
"capacity charge" and limits that charge to "the estimated reasonable cost of providing the
service for which the ... charge is imposed".
A capacity charge is defined as "a charge for facilities in existence at the time a charge is
imposed or charges for new facilities to be constructed in the future that are of benefit to the
person or property being charged". As with other types of mitigation fees, the Act requires that
capacity charges be deposited in a separate capital facilities fund and that annual accounting be
provided for that fund. The Act also outlines the provisions for establishing or modifying the
capacity charge.
1,2 Methodology
The methodology for calculating capacity charges, including the methodology used to determine
the cost of facilities included in the charge program, must meet the Act's test for
reasonableness. Because of the unique circumstances of individual agencies, there are
numerous methodologies for calculating capacity charges but each is grounded in the basic
principal of reasonable allocation of costs to benefitting entities. Several major publications
regarding mitigation fees and charges for various infrastructure needs are recognized in the
industry including:
• Development Impact Fees, Arthur C. Nelson, 1998
• Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges, Manual M1, American Water Works
Association, 5th Edition, 2000
• Comprehensive Guide to Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing, Second Edition,
George A. Raftelis, 1993
• System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facilities, Arthur
C. Nelson, 1995
These publications describe a number of methodologies but all the methodologies are grounded
in two primary approaches — the incremental cost methodology and the system buy -in
methodology. The two approaches are described below to illustrate the different perspectives. A
method that combines both perspectives is also described.
' Government Code Section 66013(h)
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Incremental Cost Method
13
The incremental cost methodology is commonly used for establishing fees in communities
experiencing considerable new growth. The approach is based on the cost of new or planned
capital facilities. The cost of growth -related facilities is allocated to the new development to be
served by the facilities. Under this approach, new customers pay for the incremental investment
necessary for system expansion. Consequently, new customers pay fully for additional capacity
in new facilities to avoid imposing a burden on existing customers.
System Buy -In Method
The system buy -in method is based on the average investment in the capital facilities by current
customers. Raftelis describes the system buy -in methodology as follows: "Under this approach,
capital recovery charges are based upon the `buy -in' concept that existing users, through
service charges, tax contributions, and other up -front charges, have developed a valuable public
capital facility. The charge to users is designed to recognize the current value of providing the
capacity necessary to serve additional users. The charge is computed by establishing fixed
asset value under a historical or reproduction cost basis and deducting relevant liabilities (long-
term debt, loans, etc.) from this amount. The number of units of service is then divided into this
difference (considered to be the utility's equity) to establish the capital recovery charge."
More simply, the buy -in fee is determined by taking the current value of assets (historical cost
escalated to current dollars and adjusted for depreciation) divided by the current number of
customers (expressed in equivalent residential units). By paying fees calculated on this basis,
new development buys into the existing capital facilities on par with existing development.
Combined Method — Future System Buy -In
This method combines both existing and planned facilities into fee calculations. This is because
new development benefits from surplus capacity in existing facilities, but also requires new
facilities to provide required capacity. The challenge in using a combined approach for fee
calculation is to make certain that new development is not paying for needed capacity in both
existing and new facilities.
One approach that combines both existing and new facilities is the future system buy -in
methodology, which is similar to the system buy -in method described previously, except that it
views and assesses the system at some point in the future. Where the typical system buy -in
approach divides the existing system value by the current number of units of development, the
future buy -in approach considers what the system will be like at some future planning horizon
and divides this by the total number of units of development to be served at that point in time.
This analysis utilizes the future system buy -in method. The future Rohnert Park water supply
and storage system will include a groundwater supply system, an improved Agency supply
system and five new storage tanks, required by the CEQA documents for the various SPAs and
PDs. This analysis describes the existing and future development benefitting from the system,
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
14
the costs associated with the system and the calculations used to allocate the value of these
facilities to the benefitting land uses.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Land Uses & Basis of Cost Estimates
1.3 Introduction
15
This chapter outlines the existing and proposed, residential and nonresidential land uses within
the City and its sphere of influence. The land use classes are used to model the impacts
created by new and existing development in order to provide for a reasonable allocation of
costs.
1.4 Existing and General Plan Proposed Land Uses
The City's 2000 General Plan identified six major SPAs:
• Northeast SPA • Canon Manor SPA
• University District SPA • Wilfred Dowdell SPA
• Southeast SPA • Northwest SPA
These are illustrated on Figure 2.1. The City's General Plan anticipated annexation and
development of all of the SPAs except the Canon Manor SPA. The City provides sewer but not
water service to the Canon Manor SPA so Canon Manor land uses are not included in the water
capacity charge calculations.
To date the University District, Southeast, Northwest and Wilfred Dowdell SPAs have been
approved. The City has also approved three major infill development projects: the Stadium
Lands PD, the Sonoma Mountain Village PD, and Central Rohnert Park PDA. Each of these
planned developments includes enough specificity to allow for the calculation of capacity
charges associated with the proposed land uses. Table 12 below presents the land uses
considered in the Water Capacity Charge Program.
October 2016
Qty of RohnertPmrk
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
li R
Figure .1:
Specific Plan Areas &
Planned Development Areas
October 2016
Sonoma ^--
-' /
l\ Southeast
Mountain
Village
� Specific �
Planned
Plan Area
Development
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 12 — Land Uses in the Water Capacity Charge Program
17
Notes:
1. Units of Land Use Classes in PFFP 2011 which provided original assumptions for water infrastructure needs.
2. New Development, land use Includes all approved SPAS, PDs and the,PDA alonq with. adiustments for prepayments in Sonoma Mountail Village
3. NW SPA Land Use Classes areas shown below are from Table 3-1 of the adopted Northwest Specific Plan.
4. Sonoma Mountain Village Land Use Classes shown are the remaining planned residential units and non-residential area for which the Per Acre Development
Fee was not pre -paid and land -use conversions have occurred as specifically explained in this Report.
5. Additional development potential of residential and non-residential land uses in Central Rohnert Park PDA PlanTable 4.2 (PDA Site Potential and
Requiremenlsj
6 Includes Planned Buildout reduction in square footage of Light Industrial in Sonoma Mountain Village PD due to land use conversion.
1.5 Adjustments for Paid Fees
The City has currently administers two programs that are intended to mitigate for new
development's impacts on water supply. These are known as the "Per Acre Fee Program" and
the "Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee Program". All development within the City's pre -2000
city limits generally paid the Per Acre Fee and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee that was in
effect at the time of their development'. The City's proposed water capacity charges will replace
the Per Acre Fee and the Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee. This replacement will not affect
most of the new development areas which have not yet paid capacity fees. The exceptions are
2 According to the City's records, the first formal resolution adopting per acre fees is Resolution No. 72-148 adopted 11-6-72,
approximately 10 years after incorporation.
October 2016
Specific
Plan Areas, Planned Development, Priority Development Area Infill
Land Use Class
PFFP
2011 Land
Use 1
Planned New
Buildout Develo menl2I
NE
SPA
UD
SPA
SE
SPA
WD
SPA
NW
SPAS
Stadium
Lands
Sonoma
Mountain
Villa e4
Central
Rohnert
Park
PDA5
(Residential
Single Family Residential units
77719
10,343 2,624
920
8831
394
0
0
01
378
Multi -Family Residential units
8,5941
11,483 2,889
200
762
81
0
398
338
275
835
Senior Housin units
2071
209 2
0
0
0
01
0
0
0
0
Assisted Living units
01
135 135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Non -Residential
General Office uare feet
1,028,506
1,302,138 273,632
0
01
0
0
58,400
01
10,0001
205,232
Hotel/Motel(square feetJ
519,4831
664,483 145,000
0
01
0
0
54,000
0
91,0001
0
Retail (square feet
2,148,308
3,738,292 1,589,984
0
175,000
10,000
302,114
458,700
140,000
74,244
429,926
Light Industrial (square feet) a
1,638,472
972,923 347,515
0
0
0
0
218,200
0
0
129,315
HeavyIndustrial (square feet
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Warehouse (square feet
1,589,632
1,589,632 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
'Total Non•Residential
6,924,401
8,267,468 1,343,067
0
175,000
10,000
302,114
789,300
140,000
175,244
764,473
Notes:
1. Units of Land Use Classes in PFFP 2011 which provided original assumptions for water infrastructure needs.
2. New Development, land use Includes all approved SPAS, PDs and the,PDA alonq with. adiustments for prepayments in Sonoma Mountail Village
3. NW SPA Land Use Classes areas shown below are from Table 3-1 of the adopted Northwest Specific Plan.
4. Sonoma Mountain Village Land Use Classes shown are the remaining planned residential units and non-residential area for which the Per Acre Development
Fee was not pre -paid and land -use conversions have occurred as specifically explained in this Report.
5. Additional development potential of residential and non-residential land uses in Central Rohnert Park PDA PlanTable 4.2 (PDA Site Potential and
Requiremenlsj
6 Includes Planned Buildout reduction in square footage of Light Industrial in Sonoma Mountain Village PD due to land use conversion.
1.5 Adjustments for Paid Fees
The City has currently administers two programs that are intended to mitigate for new
development's impacts on water supply. These are known as the "Per Acre Fee Program" and
the "Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee Program". All development within the City's pre -2000
city limits generally paid the Per Acre Fee and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee that was in
effect at the time of their development'. The City's proposed water capacity charges will replace
the Per Acre Fee and the Water/Wastewater Conservation Fee. This replacement will not affect
most of the new development areas which have not yet paid capacity fees. The exceptions are
2 According to the City's records, the first formal resolution adopting per acre fees is Resolution No. 72-148 adopted 11-6-72,
approximately 10 years after incorporation.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
18
Sonoma Mountain Village and Stadium Lands PDs and the Wilfred Dowdell and University
District SPAs where some fees have been paid. These are discussed below.
Sonoma Mountain Village Payments
A review of building permits within the Sonoma Mountain Village PD indicates that the City has
received full payment of Per Acre Fees and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fees for 80 acres
known as the "North Site" within the Sonoma Mountain Village PD some time ago. The revenue
was used by the City to construct improvements the water system. This "North Site" contains
the existing buildings on the site and is located between Valley House Drive and Camino
Colegio, as illustrated on Figure 2.2. The development plan for Sonoma Mountain Village
indicates that the "North Site", which has paid fees, includes development phases 1 A, 1 B and
1 D. The South Site, which has not paid fees, includes phases 1C, 2 and 3. Phases 1A, 1 B and
1 D include 322 single family residences, 719 multi -family residences and 568,535 square feet of
non-residential development. Because the water fees have been paid for this site, they will not
be included in the capacity charge program. Table 13 illustrates the reductions in land use
contributing to the capacity charge program, as a result of pre -paid fees in the Sonoma
Mountain Village PD.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Figure 2.2
Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development
19
pf, Mi%1Y'YALL--1 7111URE POL(C4/Fu&STA1'ix�
kFUTURE SEWER PUMP STATIDN I
TANK R`� 4 CAAIIJ'dU Lai C{rl(Y o a
az
a
�a
3
Q
October 2016
INNOVATION
.�"FICE-
CENTER
LINED
I� •� --
PARKING
; GARAGE
WfGREEN
LOFTS BLDG
_. _ _
ROOF
RAILROADTRACXS -----
_ ___,_l PHASEV
Il
li'l
THEATER
I
OUILOW.�.;'r-
-:--
•41XED USE
WTH
_ _ 4 –
E.EIArL
PARKING
--r
}, VALLEY
GARAGE .
MIXED USE RETAIL
W/GREEN ROOF ;
W.r.
Mmw USE
.—
• -
..':RETAIL
ACS--Y,TAT"ER
SMCIER FIELD
iii
CMC BLDG --.•.-
.. --
—
-
HOTEL
14 PHASE 7
F'HV/iE 1—
i
� I
t
+
— _
- -
Ir I
CHIC BLDG -
- _ ... •-, i -
-,—:..
1
PHASE IA
-
® PHASE IH—-
)-- _11__—_
a,__
PHASEIC
PC•3E
51.IRSTA71i;+AI
PHASE 1 d
i
PHASE 2
� I
i rf
NOT APART
NOT APART
•... i
PHASE 3
I :?.i�
Q0
FA ST RA
' L,
cm
IL RD RD AVENUE
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analvsis
20
Table 13 — Sonoma Mountain Village — Summary of Paid and Unpaid Water Charges
Prepaid Usesl Land Uses Impacting
in Phases 1A,1Water Supply
Land Use Class Sonoma Mountain Village PD Land Use by Proiect Phase 113and 1D(Phases 1C, 2 and 3
Source: Sonoma Mountain Village Project DER Table 2-2 and Figure 2-7 (PBS&J August 2009)
Stadium Lands, Wilfred Dowdell and University District Payments
Since late 2013, Per Acre and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fees were paid for development
projects within the Wilfred Dowdell and University District SPAs and Stadium Lands PD. The
revenue from these fees has not yet been expended. The City has reviewed these payments in
light of the proposed Water Capacity Charges and concluded that the payments received are
generally equivalent to the fees that would be due under the proposed Water Capacity Charge
Program. Therefore, in order to simplify the calculations and avoid disparity within these
development areas, Water Capacity Charges have been calculated assuming that all the land
uses within the Stadium Lands PD and the Wilfred Dowdell and University District SPA will pay
the new Water Capacity Charges. The City will transfer revenue received from Per Acre Fees
and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fees to the Water Capacity Charge Program and use this
existing fee revenue to construct improvements contemplated by the Water Capacity Charge
Program. This will preserve equity between property within these developing areas and allow
necessary water system improvements to be constructed.
1.6 Growth Management and Absorption Rates
The City has an adopted Growth Management Ordinance that is intended to provide for orderly
build out of residential development over the 20 -year planning horizon contemplated by the
General Plan. In its simplest form, the Growth Management Ordinance has the effect of limiting
the number of residential building permits issued to 225 per year. There are exceptions for
affordable housing and provisions to carry over building permits (i.e., if 50 are issued in one
3 Chapter 17.66 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
October 2016
1A
1B
1C I
1D 2 1
3 Total
Residential
Single Family Residential units
1671
94
11
61 153
214 700
322
378
Multi -Family Residential (units)
_ 4611
225
275
33
994
719
275
Senior Housing (units)
Assisted I -Nn (units)
Non -Residential
General Office square feet)
285,978
10,000 130_,000
425,978
415,978
10,000
Hotel/Motel (square feet
91,000
91,000
91,000
Retail(square feet)
149,224
1,667
35,910
1,666 36,667
1,667 226,801
152,557
74,244
Light Industrial(square feet)-
Hea Industrial(square feet)
Warehouse (square feet
Total Non -Residential
435,202
1,667
136,910
131,666 36,667
1,667 743,7791
568,535 1
175,244
Source: Sonoma Mountain Village Project DER Table 2-2 and Figure 2-7 (PBS&J August 2009)
Stadium Lands, Wilfred Dowdell and University District Payments
Since late 2013, Per Acre and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fees were paid for development
projects within the Wilfred Dowdell and University District SPAs and Stadium Lands PD. The
revenue from these fees has not yet been expended. The City has reviewed these payments in
light of the proposed Water Capacity Charges and concluded that the payments received are
generally equivalent to the fees that would be due under the proposed Water Capacity Charge
Program. Therefore, in order to simplify the calculations and avoid disparity within these
development areas, Water Capacity Charges have been calculated assuming that all the land
uses within the Stadium Lands PD and the Wilfred Dowdell and University District SPA will pay
the new Water Capacity Charges. The City will transfer revenue received from Per Acre Fees
and Water/Wastewater Conservation Fees to the Water Capacity Charge Program and use this
existing fee revenue to construct improvements contemplated by the Water Capacity Charge
Program. This will preserve equity between property within these developing areas and allow
necessary water system improvements to be constructed.
1.6 Growth Management and Absorption Rates
The City has an adopted Growth Management Ordinance that is intended to provide for orderly
build out of residential development over the 20 -year planning horizon contemplated by the
General Plan. In its simplest form, the Growth Management Ordinance has the effect of limiting
the number of residential building permits issued to 225 per year. There are exceptions for
affordable housing and provisions to carry over building permits (i.e., if 50 are issued in one
3 Chapter 17.66 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
21
year, 400 may be issued the following year, providing a 2 -year average of 225 per year).
Because the Growth Management Ordinance clearly sets forth the residential development
pattern, this analysis does not include an analysis of probable development patterns.
1.7 Basis of Cost Estimates
Capital facility needs and costs were gathered from a range of sources including:
• City of Rohnert Park General Plan
• Environmental Impact Reports (El Rs) for the
o University District SPA (May 2006)
o Stadium Lands PD (February 2008)
o Northeast SPA (May 2008)
o Wilfred Dowdell SPA (September 2008)
o Southeast SPA (July 2009)
o Sonoma Mountain Village PD (August 2009)
o Northwest SPA (June 2014)
• City of Rohnert Park 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
• City of Rohnert Park 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
• City of Rohnert Park Asset Valuation for Municipal Wells
• City of Rohnert Park Water Model Study (Brelje & Race, 2004)
• Sonoma County Water Agency Capital Projects Plan — FY 2012-13 through FY 2016-17.
The facilities included in this analysis are primarily in the planning stages. Cost estimates have
been developed by reviewing the proposed design criteria, reviewing available local
construction cost information for similar facilities, and utilizing standard estimating guidance
such as the RS Means Construction Cost Data. Cost estimates are Class 5 (planning -level)
estimates of probable construction cost as defined by the Association for the Advancement of
Cost Engineering, International (AACE) as follows:
Generally prepared on very limited information, where little more than proposed
plan type, its location, and the capacity are known, and for strategic planning
purposes such as but not limited to market studies, assessment of viability,
evaluation of alternate schemes, project screening, location and evaluation of
resource needs and budgeting, long-range capital planning, etc. Some examples
of estimating methods used would include cost/capacity curves and factors, scale-
up factors, and parametric and modeling techniques.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
22
These costs are indexed to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR CCI)
for the San Francisco Bay Area which is 10897.59 (August 2014). The costs for the well
infrastructure is indexed to 11555.15 (July 2016 ENR CCI).
1,8 Land Acquisition, Rights -of -Way and Environmental Mitigation Costs
In general, the Water Capacity Charge Program assumes that rights-of-way will be dedicated in
accordance with the City's General Plan Policy, when the right-of-way is within the City. For the
Agency's projects, the capacity charge program assumes that right-of-way costs are included in
the Agency's cost estimates. The capacity charge program also assumes that environmental
mitigation costs for wetlands and other sensitive habitats are covered in the costs estimates for
the proposed improvement projects.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
2. Water System Facilities
2.1 Introduction
The City's General Plan has four major goals related to water supply. These are:
23
• PF -E Provide sufficient quantities of water for Rohnert Park residents and businesses,
while ensuring that safe groundwater yield is not exceeded.
• PF -F Utilize purchased water supplies... and reduce reliance on groundwater drawn
from municipal wells, except for emergency use.4
• PF -G Continue to encourage water conservation through use of reclaimed water and
reduction of water consumption and discharge, for both existing and new development.
• PF -H Ensure that groundwater withdrawal does not exceed safe yield .5
These goals are supported by 15 policies that relate to the groundwater supply system, the
water that the City purchases from the Agency, the recycled water system, the water distribution
system and overall conservation practices. While the City has adequate capacity to serve its
existing population, investments in the existing groundwater system, expansions to the Agency
and recycled water systems, and expansions to the distribution system are necessary to comply
with the General Plan policies and assure that the water supply system is reliable under a range
of hydrologic and emergency conditions.
This chapter provides narrative description and cost estimates for the proposed water supply
and storage facilities as they are currently understood. Because some of the proposed facilities
are still subject to review under CEQA, the descriptions included in this analysis are intended to
present the basis of the cost estimates, not to commit the City or the Agency to a particular
construction strategy.
2,2 Water Facilities Description
The City has three sources of water supply: local groundwater, recycled water and supply it
purchases from the Agency. The City also maintains its own retail distribution system including,
4.5 million gallons of storage capacity and seven booster pump stations that deliver water to two
pressure zones. The City uses a conjunctive use strategy to balance its water supply portfolio
and assure reliable delivery of water to all users. Under normal conditions the City uses
primarily its Agency supply and recycled water supply, with groundwater used to meet peak
demands or to provide reliability in the event of unanticipated circumstances. When the Agency
supply is constrained by drought or regulatory requirements, the City has the ability to use more
groundwater and reduce its demand on the Agency's system.
4 The General Plan predicted that the groundwater well system would be dedicated to "backup and emergency use" in the Year
2010, based upon the Agency's estimates for completing improvements to its water diversion and transmission system. The City
now estimates that these improvements will not be completed until after 2020, but undertaking and funding these improvements is
necessary to comply with existing General Plan Goal PF -F. As a result, the City currently uses a conjunctive use water
management strategy, drawing on its Agency and recycled water supplies before utilizing groundwater.
5 The City's UWMP includes a detailed analysis of the groundwater supply supporting a planned use of 2,577 AFY of groundwater
and illustrating consistency with General Plan Goal PF -H.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Groundwater Supply
24
The City has developed a total of 42 groundwater wells, 29 of which are currently active. One
additional well is classified as a standby well that can be used in emergencies for up to five
consecutive days but not more than 15 days in a year. The active wells have a total rated
production capacity of 8.3 mgd. All of the City's wells are located in the Santa Rosa Valley
Groundwater Basin. The City conducted extensive work during its 2004 Citywide Water Supply
Assessment in order to document that its well field has a long term, sustainable production rate
of 2,577 acre-feet per year (AFY). The City supported the Groundwater Management Plan
recently adopted by the Sonoma County Water Agency's Board of Directors and is working with
other agencies in the Santa Rosa Plain to comply with the Groundwater Sustainability Act of
2014. While the City's annual demand on its well field varies from year to year, the groundwater
supply is available for the benefit of new and existing development.
As part of its ongoing risk management activities, the City developed an estimate of the value of
its groundwater infrastructure in 2007, including all well infrastructure, buildings, tanks and
ancillary facilities. These values have been brought forward to 2016 values to represent the
infrastructure investment available for new and existing users, and is shown in Table 14.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 14 - Value of Groundwater Infrastructure Assets
Facility
Well 2
Well 4/Tank 1
Well 5
Well 6
Well 7
Well 8&8A
Well 9/Tank 2
Well 10
Well 11
Well 12
Well 13
Well 14
Well 15
Well 16
Well 17
Well 18
Well 19
Well 20
Well 21
Well 22
Well 24/Tank 7
Well 26/Tank 4
Well 27/Tank 5
Well 29
Well 30
Well 31
Well 33
Well 34
Well 35
Well 37
Well 39
Well 40
Well 41
Well 42
Totals
Appraised
Value 2007)
$ 1,020.100
$ 464,400
$ 904,200
$ 816,560
$ 1,052,300
$ 1,762,800
$ 1,000,800
$ 1,087,800
$ 884,600
$ 798,400
$ 581,900
$ 1,903,900
$ 2,067,300
$ 2,164,200
$ 609,000
$ 687,600
$ 559,080
$ 608,600
$ 580.900
$ 505,900
$ 1,003,600
$ 938,100
$ 1,375,500
$ 673,400
$ 391,900
$ 686,900
$ 750,900
$ 819,200
$ 690,900
$ 347,190
$ 489,233
$ 547,180
$ 909,600
$ 494,600
$ 30,178, 543
Depreciation*
(2007-2016)
$ 836,482
$ 380,808
$ 741,444
$ 669,579
$ 862.886
$ 1,445,496
$ 820,656
$ 891,996
$ 725,372
$ 654,688
$ 477,158
$ 1,561,198
$ 1,695,186
$ 1,774,644
$ 499,380
$ 563,832
$ 458,446
$ 499,052
$ 476,338
$ 414,838
$ 822,952
$ 769,242
$ 1,127,910
$ 552,188
$ 321,358
$ 563,258
$ 615,738
$ 671,744
$ 566,538
$ 284,696
$ 401,171
$ 448,688
$ 745,872
$ 405,572
$ 24,746,405
Inflation Adjustment
Value (2016)
886,854
403,740
786,093
709,900
914,848
1,532,541
870,075
945,711
769,053
694,112
505,892
1,655,211
1,797,267
1,881,510
529,452
597,785
486,052
529,104
505,022
439,819
872,509
815,564
1,195, 831
585,440
340,710
597,176
652,817
712,195
600,654
301,840
425,329
475.707
790,787
429,995
6.236.593
Well infrastructure asset value remaining I $ 26,236,593
* Assumes a 50 -year facility life
Recycled Water Supply
25
The City hosts an urban recycled water system that supplies irrigation water for parks and
school grounds south of Golf Course Drive, the North and South Rohnert Park Municipal Golf
courses, and various commercial and industrial sites. Current recycled water use averages
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
26
approximately 1,000 AFY6. Recycled water is supplied by the City of Santa Rosa Subregional
System (Subregional System), of which the City is a member. Recycled water is delivered
through a low-pressure and high pressure distribution system. The Subregional System's
Incremental Recycled Water Program (IRWP) Master Plan and EIR includes an expansion of
the recycled water system (including pumping and distribution facilities) that will allow it to
deliver up to 1,300 AFY of recycled water supply to the City.
The City's plan for managing the costs of expanding the recycled water system is included in
the 2011 PFFP. Costs for the recycled water system are not included in this analysis.
Sonoma County Water Agency Supply
The Agency is the primary provider of potable water to eight water contractors, including the
cities of Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Sonoma, Rohnert Park, and Cotati, the Town of Windsor, and
the Valley of the Moon, and North Marin Water Districts. The Agency also provides surplus
water, by agreement, to other customers including Cal American Water Company's Larkfield
system, the Forestville, Kenwood and Lawndale Water Districts, the Penngrove Water
Company, Marin Municipal Water District and small, non -surplus customers consisting of the
County of Sonoma, State of California and Santa Rosa Junior College. The Restructured
Agreement for Water Supply (2006) defines the business agreement between the Agency, its
prime contractors and its customers. Table 15 illustrates the annual water supply allocation, by
contractor and customer, defined in that agreement.
6 See Table 5-5, City of Rohnert Park, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 15 — Water Supply Allocations to Agency Contractors and Customers
Annual Amount
During Fiscal Year
% of Total
Prime Contractors (1) 1 1
Santa Rosa
29,100
33.24%
North Marin
14,100
16.11%
_
Petaluma
13,400
15.31%
Rohnert Park
7,500
8.57%
Cotati
1,520
1.74%
Valley of the Moonl
31200
3.66%
_
Sonoma
3,000
3.43%
Windsorl
5,6201
6.42%
Other Customers 2
Larkfield (Cal Am)
700
0.80%
Forestville Water District
500
0.57%
Kenwood Water District
12
0.01%
Lawndale Water District
86
0.10%
Penn rove Water Company
278
0.32%
Marin Municipal Water District
8,500
9.71%
Small Non -Surplus Customers
16
0.02%
Total
87,532
100.00%
(1) From the Restructured Water Supply Agreement (2006)
(2) From the Agency's 2010 UWMP Table 3-2
27
The Agency's primary source of supply is from the underflow of the Russian River. In order to
facilitate year-round underflow, Russian River water is stored behind Warm Springs Dam for
later release from Lake Sonoma and behind Coyote Dam for later release from Lake
Mendocino. These dams are federal projects under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Agency is the local sponsor and partners with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for the water supply portion of the reservoir projects. The Agency owns and operates the water
supply pools at both Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino. The water supply pool of Lake
Sonoma is 212,000 acre-feet and Lake Mendocino is 111,000 acre-feet.
The Agency also owns and operates three groundwater supply wells located in the Santa Rosa
Valley Groundwater Basin, which provide emergency supply.
The Agency uses about 14 miles of the natural channel of Dry Creek and about 8 miles of the
natural channel of the Russian River to convey water from Lake Sonoma to six radial collector
wells at its Wohler and Mirabel production facilities. An important method used to increase
production capacity during peak demand months involves raising an inflatable dam on the
Russian River near Mirabel that allows for operation of five infiltration ponds that increase the
area of infiltration along the Russian River.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis 28
A system of aqueducts, booster pumps and tanks then distribute the water to the various water
contractors and other system customers. The major pipelines that comprise the transmission
system are known as the Santa Rosa Aqueduct, the Sonoma Aqueduct, the Petaluma
Aqueduct, and the Russian River to Cotati Intertie. The Water Agency owns the northern portion
of the North Marin Aqueduct that extends from the terminus of the Petaluma Aqueduct to the
Kastania Booster Station, located near the border of Marin County with Sonoma County. The
remainder of the North Marin Aqueduct is owned and maintained by the North Marin Water
District, which transfers water to the District's service area. The City's water supply comes
through the Petaluma Aqueduct and the Russian River to Cotati Intertie, which serve the cities
of Rohnert Park, Cotati, and Petaluma, the North Marin Water District and Marin Municipal
Water District. The Water Agency's major storage facilities are located at Ralphine (36 MG),
Cotati (36 MG), Kawana Springs (20 MG), Kastania (12 MG), Sonoma (10 MG), Eldridge (8.0
MG), and Annadel (5.5 MG).
The Agency is responsible for the planning, environmental review, design, and construction of
capital improvement projects that support its water supply and transmission system and allow it
to deliver the water necessary to meet its contractors' and customers' current and planned
demands. In order to execute this responsibility, the Agency has developed a Capital Projects
Plan. The Capital Projects Plan addresses improvements to the water supply and transmission
system, as well as improvements to other Agency infrastructure, including flood control and
sanitation facilities. The improvements include the work necessary to provide a reliable water
supply including compliance with increasing environmental regulations and compliance with the
Russian River Watershed Biological Opinion which was issued by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service in September 2008.
The Agency's Capital Projects Plan is organized to present investments in water supply, which
benefit all contractors and customers, and transmission system improvements, which uniquely
benefit different customers and contractors, depending on which portions of the system they
use. The transmission system improvements are further broken down to reflect "common
improvements" and improvements to unique portions of the pipeline and storage system. The
City will have a share in water supply improvements, common transmission system
improvements and pipeline and storage improvements related to the Petaluma Aqueduct and
the Russian River to Cotati Intertie. Table 16 illustrates the percentage shares in the various
types of improvements, based on each contractor's and customer's share of the water supply.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
29
Table 16 - Contractor and Customer Share of Agency Capital Project Improvements
Agency
Annual Amount
During Fiscal Year
(AF
%Share of
Total Water
Supply
%Share of Water
Supply & Common
Transmission
Improvements
%Share of Russian
River Intertie &
Petaluma Aqueduct
Improvements
Prime Contractors (1
Santa Rosa
29,100
33.24%
33.24%
North Marin
14,100
16.11%
16.11%
31.13%
Petaluma
13,400
15.31%
15.31%
29.58%
Rohnert Park
7,500
8.57%
8.57%
16.56%
Cotati
1,520
1.74%
1.74%
3.36%
Valley of the Moon
3,200
3.66%
3.66%
Sonoma
3,000
3.43%
3.43%
Windsor
5,620
6.42%
6.42%'
Other Customers 2
Larkfield (Cal Am)
700
0.80%
0.80%'
Forestville Water District
500
0.57%
0.57%
Kenwood Water District
12
0.01%''
0.01%
Lawndale Water District
861
0.10%
0.10%
Penn rove Water Company
278
0.32%
0.32%
0.61%
Marin Municipal Water Districtl
8,500
9.71%
9.71%
18.76%
Small Non -Su lus Customersi
16
0.02%
0.02%
Total 1
87,532
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
(1) From the Restructured Water Supply Agreement (2006)
(2) From the Agency's 2010 UWMP Table 3-2
Capital Improvements for Water Supply
The projects that the Agency describes in its "water supply" category include activities that allow
it to maintain and expand its water storage and diversion system in accordance with legal and
environmental regulations. The Agency's Capital Projects Plan includes:
• Two phases of habitat enhancement on Dry Creek, intended to comply with the
Biological Opinion and allow continued use of the Dry Creek channel for moving water to
the Wohler and Mirabel production facilities;
• A fish passage project on Wallace Creek, a tributary of Dry Creek, intended to comply
with the Biological Opinion and allow continued use of the Dry Creek channel for moving
water to the Wohler and Mirabel production facilities; and
• A Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline, which may be necessary to comply with the Biological
Opinion, if habitat enhancement efforts are not successful.
The Capital Projects Plan fully funds the two phases of the habitat enhancement project and the
fish passage projects. It also includes initial investments in the bypass pipeline. However,
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge An
30
because the bypass pipeline project may not be needed, if the habitat enhancement and fish
passage projects are successful, the Agency has not included the full construction cost of the
Dry Creek Pipeline in the "funded" portion of its Capital Projects Plan. Current system
customers are not currently paying for this improvement because it may not be necessary.
Capital Improvements for Common Transmission Facilities
The projects that the Agency describes in its "common facilities" for the transmission system
allow it to maintain and expand the portions of the transmission system that are necessary to
serve all contractors and customers. These include:
• Six projects to mitigate potential hazards from seismic activity and liquefaction;
• A project to upgrade the disinfection system at its collector wells;
• A new storage tank near Forestville;
• Replacement of the fish screen at the Mirabel production facilities to comply with the
Biological Opinion;
• Surge protection improvements at the Mirabel production facilities; and
• Meter replacement throughout the transmission system.
These projects are fully funded.
Capital Improvements for Transmission and Storage Facilities on the Petaluma Aqueduct
and Russian River — Cotati Intertie
The projects that the Agency describes in its "transmission and storage facilities" include a
range of projects in different areas of its aqueduct system. Two projects, both for cathodic
protection, are included for the Petaluma Aqueduct and the Russian River to Cotati Intertie.
These projects are fully funded.
Summary of Improvements to Agency System
Table 17 presents a summary of the Agency's planned capital projects, including their
beneficiaries and costs.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 17 — Summary of Agency's Planned Capital Projects
31
Project Name Benefits
Supply
Transmission System Funded
Total
Funded
Future Unfunded
Common
Facilities
Storage & Pipeline
Facilities
'Water Supply Projects
Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Mile 1
All
$ 8,650,000
$ 8,650,000
Wallace Creek Fish Passage
All
$ 304,000
$ 304,000
Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Miles 2 &3
All
$ 15,400,000
$ 15,400,000
Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline
All
$ 250,000
$ 142,180,000
$ 142,430,000
Common Transmission System Projects
AirValves Replacement and Upgrade
All
$ 1,000,0001
$ 1,000,000
Liquefaction Mitigation
All
$ 6,401,0001
$ 6,401,000
Collector 6 Chlorine Solution Lines
All
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
Collector 6 Liquefaction Mitigation
All
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,000,000
Forestville Storage Tank
All
$ 800,000
$ 800,000
Multi-purpose Facility at Westside Road &Wohler
Bridge
All
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
Rupture Protection
All
$ 2,619,000
$ 2,619,000
Fish Screen Replacement
All
$ 7,154,000
$ 7,154,000
Surge Control System at the Mirabel Production
Facilities
All
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,000,000
RDS Liquefaction Mitigationli
All
$ 5,000,000
$ 5,000,000
Seismic Hazard Mitigation atthe MarkWestCreek
Crossing
All
$ 4,046,000
$ 4,046,000
Seismic Hazard Mitigation atthe Russian River
Crossing
All
$ 4,007,000
$ 4,007,000
System wide Meter Replacements
All
$ 1,250,000
$ 1,250,000
Storage & Pipeline Projects
Petaluma Aqueduct Cathodic Protection
Petaluma Aqueduct &
Russian River- Cotati
Intertie
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
Russian River Cotati Intertie Cathodic Protection
Petaluma Aqueduct &
Russian River- Cotati
Intertie
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
Totals
1 $ 24,604,000
$ 142,180,000
$ 39,977,000
$ 2,400,000
1 $ 209,161,000
Water Distribution System
Potable water from the Agency's transmission system and City wells is delivered to customers
through the retail distribution system, which includes pipelines, pumping and storage facilities. In
order to meet the needs of planned development, the City identified improvements to its retail
pipeline system and included those costs in its 2011 PFFP. Because of this, retail pipeline
improvement costs are not included in this analysis. In addition to improvements to the retail
pipeline system, the City has also identified the need for water storage improvements to serve
new development (the City has adequate storage to serve existing development). These include
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis 32
individual tanks and pumping systems which were not included in the PFFP. Table 18 presents
a summary of these facilities. Additional detail is included in Appendix A.
Table 18 — Summary of Water Storage Tank Improvements
Development Area
Tank Size
(gallon)
Total Cost
Cost per
gallon
Cost Included in
Ci 's Program
Total Cost
Northeast Specific Plan
630,000
$
3.56
$
2,240,000
Southeast Specific Plan
360,000
$
5.55
$
1,997,000
Northwest Specific Plan Area
640,000
$
3.55
$
2,270,000
University District Specific Plan
833,000
$
6.00
$
4,994,000
Wilfred Dowdell Specific Plan Area
245,000
$
5.55
$
-
Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development
970,000
$
2.93
$
2,840,000
Stadium Area Planned Development
318,000
$
4.87
$
-
Total
$
14,341,000
Summary of Water System Improvements and Costs
Table 19 summarizes the costs for various water system components and their percentage of
the total program cost. By far the largest single cost component is the Agency's future bypass
pipeline which is unfunded, because it may not need to be constructed (see discussion in
Section 3.2). Because this future project may not be needed to serve either new or existing
development, these costs are not included in the capacity charge program.
Table 19 — Summary of Water System Improvement Components
Improvement
Total Cost
%of Total
Costs
Cost Included in
Ci 's Program
Well Field Infrastucture
$
26,236,593
10.5%
$
26,236,593
Agency Water Supply - Funded
$
24,604,000
9.9%
$
24,604,000
Agency Water Supply - Unfunded Future Pipeline)
$
142,180,000
56.9%
$
-
A encu Transmission System - Common
$
39.977,000
16.0%
$
39,977,000
Agency Transmission System - Pipelines & Storage
$
2,400,000
1.0%,
$
2,400,000
Local Water Tanks
$
14,341,000
5.7%
$
14,341,000
Totals
$
249, 738, 593
100.0%
$
107, 558, 593
2.3 Method for Allocating Costs
For capital improvements associated with water capacity, costs are allocated based on relative
water demand. The City's UWMP is its primary planning tool for analyzing and projecting water
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
33
demands, including unit demand factors. Due to the requirements of California's Water Code
Section 10910 et. seq., there is a strong linkage between the City's UWMP, any Water Supply
Assessments (WSAs) prepared to support or augment the UWMP, and the environmental
evaluations for new development projects. The City has been diligent in its implementation of
these requirements and has prepared the following water supply planning documents:
• 2004 Citywide Water Supply Assessment
• 2005 Urban Water Management Plan
• 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.'
These documents have been used to support various plans and environmental documents
prepared by each of the SPAs and PDs. As a result, there are a number of unit demand factors
that have been published for new development proposals, which are summarized in Table 20.
Table 20 - Summary of Water Demand Factors from Various Plans
Planninn Document
Water Demand Factors
" 95 gallons per capita per day total use multiplied by average household size of 3.06 persons. 59% of usage is indoor usage.
" 70 gallons per capita per day total use multiplied by average household size of 2.04 persons 78% of usage is indoor UangE.
Table 20 illustrates that, with the exception of the Sonoma Mountain Village PD, the baseline
unit demand factors included in the 2010 UWMP are generally lower than the unit demands
presented in earlier planning documents. This reflects the City's efforts to increase water
conservation, which has reduced overall water demand in the period between 2004 and 2010.
Sonoma Mountain Village's Water Plan generally includes lower unit water demand values.
Sonoma Mountain Village developed detailed calculations on its water conservation strategy
within its Water Plan and committed to implementing these strategies as part of its development
Due to the provisions of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan was actually adopted
in June of 2011.
October 2016
SFR
MFR
CII
Source
(gpd/unit)d/unit
2010 UWMP*
287
143
**
28 d/employee
2010 UWMP Water Demand Analysis and Water
Conservation Update (UWMP Appendix B) -
Figure 5 Baseline demands before conservation
2004/05 WSA/UWMP
282-351
155
1950 d/acre
2004 WSA Tables 4-1 and 4-2 dated 1/2004
Northeast SPA
287
143
NA
NESPA calculations by applicant dated 2/12/12
University District SPA
282-351
155
1950 d/acre
UD Draft and Final EIRs rely on 2004 WSA
Southeast SPA
285-360
160
1950 d/acre
SESPA Draft EIR dated 12/2005
Wilfred Dowdell SPA
1950 d/acre
Relies on 2004 WSA
Northwest SPA
160
50-125 d/tsf
Dahlin Group submittal on behalf of applicant
dated 5/06/08
Stadium Lands PD
160
1950 a dlacre
Stadium Lands Final EIR 10/2007
Sonoma Mountain Village PD
154-253
152
30-140 d/tsf
Sonoma Mountain Village Water Plan (2009) -
Table F. Includes green building standards and
offsets from rainwater, graywater and recycled
water
" 95 gallons per capita per day total use multiplied by average household size of 3.06 persons. 59% of usage is indoor usage.
" 70 gallons per capita per day total use multiplied by average household size of 2.04 persons 78% of usage is indoor UangE.
Table 20 illustrates that, with the exception of the Sonoma Mountain Village PD, the baseline
unit demand factors included in the 2010 UWMP are generally lower than the unit demands
presented in earlier planning documents. This reflects the City's efforts to increase water
conservation, which has reduced overall water demand in the period between 2004 and 2010.
Sonoma Mountain Village's Water Plan generally includes lower unit water demand values.
Sonoma Mountain Village developed detailed calculations on its water conservation strategy
within its Water Plan and committed to implementing these strategies as part of its development
Due to the provisions of the Water Conservation Act of 2009, the City's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan was actually adopted
in June of 2011.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
34
approvals. As such, the Sonoma Mountain Village PD demands cannot be compared to those of
other developments until the effects of conservation are fully taken into account.
Conservation in the UWMP
The City's 2010 UWMP conformed to the requirements of the Water Conservation Act of 2009,
and presented its baseline water demands, its water conservation targets for 2015 and 2020
and its plan for achieving these targets through the implementation of various water
conservation measures. Within its 2010 UWMP, the City calculated its required water
conservation targets using both an individual and a regional methodology. The individual
methodology resulted in a 2015 interim target of 140 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and 2020
final target of 119 gpcd. The regional methodology resulted in a 2015 interim target of 142 gpcd
and a 2020 final target of 129 gpcd. In adopting its 2010 UWMP, the City elected to use the
regional methodology for the purposes of complying with the reporting requirements of the
Water Conservation Act of 2009.6
As indicated in Table 20, the average per capita water demands documented in the City's 2010
UWMP are currently below the adopted targets. This indicates that the City will be able to meet
or exceed its adopted targets if it can maintain its current level of water conservation
performance. Currently, the City is implementing a water conservation program based on six
best management practices (BMPs) targeted at existing customers. These include:
• BMP 1 - Residential Water Surveys — Interior and Outdoor
• BMP 2 - Plumbing Retrofit Kits
• BMP 5a - Large Landscape Water Budgets
• BMP 6 - Washer Rebates
• BMP 7 - Residential Public Education
• BMP 9 - Commercial Water Audits.
Appendix B of the 2010 UWMP (the Maddaus Report) included an analysis of six different future
water conservation programs in order to allow the City to evaluate options for maintaining
conservation performance. Within its 2010 UWMP, the City used the conservation savings
projected from a program called "Tier 1 + New Development" to demonstrate that it would meet
or exceed its water use targets. The "Tier 1 + New Development" program includes continuation
of the City's existing program, addition of BMP 14 - Single and Multifamily Toilet Replacement
and eight measures focused exclusively on new development. The New Development
Measures are:
• ND 1 — Irrigation System Rain Sensor Requirement
• ND 2 — Smart Irrigation Controller Requirement
• ND 3 — High Efficiency Toilet Requirement
• ND 4 — High Efficiency Dishwasher Requirement
6 City of Rohnert Park Resolution 2011-48 adopted June 14, 2011
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
• ND 5 — High Efficiency Washing Machine Requirement
• ND 6 —Hot Water on Demand Requirement
• ND 7 — High Efficiency Faucet and Showerhead Requirement
• ND 8 — Landscape and Irrigation Requirements
35
The "Tier 1 + New Development" program's blend of measures, targeted at both new and
existing development, is particularly effective for the City because it has significant planned
development potential within its service area. The 2010 UWMP estimates that with full
implementation of the "Tier 1 + New Development" program, the 2015 and 2020 water use will
be 102 gpcd, which is significantly below the City's adopted targets of 140 and 129 gpcd,
respectively. This indicates that City could expect to meet its targets even if it did not fully
implement all aspects of the "Tier 1 + New Development" program.
Accounting for Conservation in the Capacity Charge Program
The City has not adopted a "new development ordinance", which would specifically impose all
the New Development measures modeled in the Maddaus Report on developers. Within its
2010 UWMP, the City indicated that its plan for implementing the New Development measures
is based on its use of the Cal Green Building Code. The City has adopted the Cal Green
Building Code and it became effective January 1, 2011.9 There is significant overlap between
the New Development measures modeled in the Maddaus Report and the Cal Green Code.
This overlap is presented in Table 21, which illustrates that the City will be able to achieve New
Development Measures 2, 3 ,7, and 8 through Cal Green but it may need additional authority to
impose New Development Measure 1, 4 ,5 and 6. In order to appropriately account for the
conservation savings that are likely to be experienced given the City's existing authority, water
conservation savings for new development are projected based on the implementation of New
Development Measures 2, 3, 7 and 8.
Table 21 — New Development Conservation Measures and Cal Green References
ND Measure
Cal Green
Requirement*
Cal Green Checklist Source
ND 1 Irrigation Rain Sensor Requirement
No
ND 2 Smart Irrigation Controller Requirement
Yes
4.304.1, 5.304.3
ND 3 High Efficiency Toilet Requirement
Yes
4.303.1, 4.303.3, 5.303.2, 5.303.3
ND 4 High Efficiency Dishwasher Requirement
No
ND 5 High Efficiency Washing Machine Requirement
No
ND 6 Hot Water on Demand Requirement
No
ND 7 High Efficiency Faucet & Showerhead Requirement
Yes
4.303.1, A4.303.1,5.303.2, 5.303.6
ND 8 Landscape & Irrigation Requirements
I Yes
14.304.1, A4.303.1, 5.303.1
* These measures are mandatory per the City's Cal Green checklists.
The Maddaus Report indicates that the expected water conservation savings from ND 2 Smart
Irrigation Controllers is 15% and the expected water conservation savings from ND 8
Landscape and Irrigation Requirements is 10% bringing total outdoor savings to 25%. The
efficacy of water conservation savings from ND 3 High Efficiency Toilets and ND 7 High
9 2010 UWMP Section 3.4
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis 36
Efficiency Faucets and Showerheads can be estimated using the methodology outlined in the
Cal Green Code, which is presented in Table 22.
Table 22 - Estimated Water Conservation Savings from New Development Measures 3
and 7
Baseline Water Use Cal Green Worksheet WS -1
Base Use
Rate*
Units
Duration
Units
Dail Uses
Occupancy"
Total Use
d
SFR Indoor Use
Toilet
1.6gallons/flush
1
flushes
3
3.06
14.7
_
Shower
2.5gallons/minute
8
minutes
1
3.06
61.2
Bathroom Sink
2.2gallons/minute
0.25
minutes
3
3.061
5.0
Kitchen Sink
2.2gallons/minute
4
minutes
1
3.06
269
Total Targeted SFR Indoor Uses
107.8
MFR Indoor Use
Toilet
1.6gallons/flush
1
flushes
3
2.04
9.8
Shower
2.5
allonslminute
8
minutes
1
2.04
40.8
Bathroom Sink
2.2gallons/minute
0.25
minutes
3
2.041
3.4.
Kitchen Sink_
2.2gallons/minute
4
minutes
1
2.041
18.0
Total Targeted MFR Indoor Uses
72.0
Reduced Water Use Cal Green Worksheet WS
-2
Efficiency
Rate***
Units
Duration
Units
Daily Uses
Occupancy*
Total Use
d
SFR Indoor Use
Toilet
1.28
allonslflush
1
flushes
3
3.06
11.8
Shower
2.0
allonslminute
8
minutes
11
3.06
49.0
Bathroom Sink
1.5
allons/minute
0.25
minutes
3
3.06
3.4
Kitchen Sink
1.5
gallons/minutel
4
minutes
1
3.06
18.4
Total Targeted SFR Indoor Uses
82.8
MFR Indoor Use
Toilet
1.28
qallons/flush
1
flushes
3
2.04
7.8
Shower
2.0gallons/minute
8
minutes
1
204
32.6
Bathroom Sink
1.5gallons/minute
0._25
minutes
3'
2.04
2.3
Kitchen Sink
1.5gallons/minute
4
minutes
1
2.04
12.2
Total Tar eted MFR Indoor Uses
54.9
Total Projected Savings Baseline -Reduced Water Use
Baseline Reduced Total Savings
pd gpd gpd
SFR Indoor 107.8 82.6 25.2
MFR Indoor 72.0 54.9 17.1
'Indoor Base Use Rates are EPA standards set by 1992 or 2005 Act
** Cal Green requires that occupancy be counted as 2 persons for the 1st bedroom and 1 person for each additional bedroom. This
initial analysis is based on City's average population for type of unit Project specific calculations requires use of Cal Green
occucancies
*** Efficiency Rate is based on USEPA Energy Star Standards
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
37
The water use factors, including conservation, are developed by applying the anticipated
conservation savings to the baseline water use documented in the City's 2010 UWMP. This
calculation is illustrated in Table 23.
Table 23 — Water Use Factors with Conservation
1
UWMP Water Use Factors
Total Indoor Outdoor
SFR
287.0 169.3 117.7
MFR
143.0 111.5 31.5
2
New Development
Indoor Conservation Savings Table 24
SFR
25.2 25.20.0
MFR
17.1 17.1
0.0
3
New Development
Outdoor Conservation Savings Maddaus
SFR
1
29.41
0.01
29.4
MFR
1
7.91
0.01
7.9
4
New Development
Water Use Factors (1 - 2+3
SFR 1
232.41 144.11 88.3
MFR I
1 18. 01 94.41 23.6
This calculation illustrates that with the application of the new development conservation
measures, new residential development can be expected to produce demands ranging from
approximately 118 to 234 gallons per day which is similar to the range of performance
specifically articulated in Sonoma Mountain Village's Water Plan and indicates that a single
water use factor is appropriate for the capacity charge program.
Irrigation Accounts
The City requires separate irrigation meters on large irrigation accounts. These irrigation
accounts are in addition to residential and commercial, industrial and institutional (CII) accounts,
and typically serve parks, schools and landscaped common spaces. While the irrigation
accounts contribute to the overall water demand, including water demand in new developments,
the irrigated areas typically serve to meet conditions of development and would not exist in the
absence of new residential and non-residential development.
Because new irrigated areas, and the attendant new water demand, exist to support the new
residential and non-residential development, not as an independent development feature, these
accounts are not assigned demand factors for the purpose of calculating capacity charges.
Accounting for Water Recycling
As described above, the City hosts an urban recycled water system that was installed in the
1990s. Recycled water is used for irrigation of large non-residential landscapes including parks
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
38
and school grounds, various commercial and industrial sites, and the Foxtail Golf Course.
Recycled water use offsets historic demands on the City's potable water system. Both the
Stadium Lands PD and the Sonoma Mountain Village PD are connected to the recycled water
system.
Within its 2005 and 2010 UWMPs, the City anticipated that an additional 300 acre-feet per year
of recycled water could be used for urban irrigation, primarily for new landscaping, parks and
common areas. As described above, this type of use is supportive of new development and no
special demand factor or "credit" is assigned when recycled water is used to replace potable
water in an irrigation account.
Development of the expanded recycled water supply requires significant coordination with the
Santa Rosa Subregional System, which produces the recycled water, and a significant capital
expenditure. The timing of this expansion project is not certain. As a result potable water may
be used for some period of time to service new irrigation accounts, which is another reason that
a special "credit" is not given for expanded recycled water system.
Water Demand Factors for the Capacity Charge Program
The water demand factors for the capacity charge program are calculated as follows.
Water Demand factors are established based on the 2010 UWMP with adjustments
made for planned conservation. Residential conservation has been calculated based on
the implementation of planned conservation measures. Nonresidential conservation is
estimated to result in a 20% savings from the base demand because of the requirements
of the Water Conservation Act of 2009. These factors are presented in Table 24.
Table 24 - Water Demand Factors
Land Use Category
Unit
Base
Demand
Demand with
Conservation
Savings
Source of Conservation Savings
d
(pd
Single Family Residential
EA
287.0
232.4
2010 UWMP with New Development Conservation Measures
Multi -Family Residential
EA 1
143.0
118.0
2010 UWMP with New De\elo ment Conservation Measures
Nonresidential Use
I Employeel
28.0
22.4
12010 UWMP with assumed 20% savings
2. Because non-residential demands are calculated on a per employee basis, the new
employees projected in the General Plan are allocated to each SPA, PD and Infill
Development based on the total new non-residential square footage associated with
each. This calculation is illustrated in Table 25.
As a matter of comparison, the 2011 PFFP predicts a total of 27,308 new employees
(based on a ratio of approximately 3 employees per 1,000 square feet). The water
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
39
capacity charges will be based on 25,831 new employees. This reduction is a result of
the reduced land uses in the Northwest SPA.
Table 25 - Nonresidential Land Uses — Employee Allocations
Notes:
1. From PFF 2011 Land Use Classes. This "2011 Base" Square Footage of Nonresidential Land Uses is used
with the "2011 Base" number of Employees Associated with New Development to extrapolate employee ratio to
non-residential new development.
2. From Table 15 - Water Capacity Charge Land Use. Includes adjustments to NW SPA and SMV PD due to
land use conversions as described in this report.
3. 2011 Base includes the 700,000 square feet that exist in the Sonoma Mountain Village PD
4. Includes infill outside of the Stadium Lands PD, Sonoma Mountain Village PD, and Central Rohnert Park
PDA.
3. Because cost allocations will be based on demand, which is indicative of infrastructure
impacts, the water demand factors presented in Table 24 are applied to new and
existing land uses. This is illustrated in Table 26. Table 27 provides additional
breakdown for each SPA and PD.
October 2016
Nonresidential Land Uses Square
Footage
Planned New
2011 Base Buildout 2 Development
Employees Associated with New
Development
Planned New
2011 Base Buildout Development
Citywide Totals
6,806.30.3_
8,267,468
1,461,165
21,900 25,831 3,931
NE SPA
-
UD SPA
175, 000
175,000
259
SE SPA
10,000
10,000
15
WD SPA
302,114
302,114
446
_
NW SPA
-
789,300
789,300
1,166
Stadium Lands
-
140,000
140,000
207
Sonoma Mountain Village 3
700,000
175,244
175,244
259
Central Rohnert Park PDA
-
764,473
764,473
1,130
Subtotal SPAs and PDs
700,000
2,356,131
2,356,131
3,482
Other Infill 4
303,874
303,874
449
Totalsi
2,660,005
2,660,005
3,931
Notes:
1. From PFF 2011 Land Use Classes. This "2011 Base" Square Footage of Nonresidential Land Uses is used
with the "2011 Base" number of Employees Associated with New Development to extrapolate employee ratio to
non-residential new development.
2. From Table 15 - Water Capacity Charge Land Use. Includes adjustments to NW SPA and SMV PD due to
land use conversions as described in this report.
3. 2011 Base includes the 700,000 square feet that exist in the Sonoma Mountain Village PD
4. Includes infill outside of the Stadium Lands PD, Sonoma Mountain Village PD, and Central Rohnert Park
PDA.
3. Because cost allocations will be based on demand, which is indicative of infrastructure
impacts, the water demand factors presented in Table 24 are applied to new and
existing land uses. This is illustrated in Table 26. Table 27 provides additional
breakdown for each SPA and PD.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 26 - Water Demand Factors for New and Existing Development
Table 27 - Water Demand Factors by SPA and PD
(Land Use Class
Demand
Factor
Units
UD SPA
Capacity Factors'
d
Water Use Factor
Percent Share
Land Use Class
Existing
Planned
Buildout
New
Development
Existing
New
Existing
New
Existing
New
Residential
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Family Residential units
7,719
10,343
2,624
287.0
232.41
2,215,353
609,772
43%
12%
-Single
Multi -Family Residential units
8,594
11,483
2,889
143.0
118.0
1,228,942
341,003
24%
7%
Senior Housing (units)
207
209
2
143.0
118.0
29,601
236
1%
0%
Assisted Living (units►
0
135
135
143.0
118.0
-
15,935
0%
0%
Non -Residential Employees
21,900
25,831
3,931
28.0
22.4
613,200
88,054
12%
2%
Totals
Tot 11
237,399
F
101,456
4,087.096
1,055.000
79%
21%
Table 27 - Water Demand Factors by SPA and PD
(Land Use Class
Demand
Factor
NE SPA
UD SPA
SE SPA
WD SPA
NW SPA
Stadium Lands
SMV
Central Rohnert
Park
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Single Family Residential (Units,
232.4
920
213,792
883
205,194
394
91,559
-
378 87,841
Multi Family Residential Units"
118.0
200
23,607
762
89,943
81
9,561
398
46,918
338
39,896
275',' 32,460
835
98,559
Nonresidential (Employees)
22.4
-
•
259
5,802
15
336
446
9,990
1,166
26,118
201
4,637
259 5,802
1,130
25,312
Tot 11
237,399
300,9381
101,456
9,990
13,096
44,533
126,102
123,811,
2.4 Fee Component Calculations
The cost of water system improvements in the capacity charge program is approximately $110
million excluding the unfunded portion of the proposed Dry Creek Pipeline Project in the
Agency's Capital Projects Plan. This section describes the fee component calculation for the
various capital projects, in the Program. These calculations have been performed for each
component because the land uses that benefit vary by component.
Groundwater Supply
The groundwater supply component consists of buy -in to the existing network that benefits all
City customers. This water supply source provides an important element of reliability for both
existing and future customers. Table 28 presents the calculation of the groundwater charge
component.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge AnalysiE;
41
Table 28 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Groundwater Supply
Total Cost $26,236,593
New Development Share $ 5,382,942
Cost per gpd $ 5.10
For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Sonoma County Water Agency Supply
The Agency supply component consists of the City's share of improvements to the water supply,
common water transmission and pipeline and storage systems as described in the Agency's
Capital Projects Plan. This water supply source provides an important element of reliability for
both existing and future customers. There are two steps to calculating the charge component
associated with the Agency supply. The first step is to calculate the City's share of the planned
capital costs based on its share of the Agency's average annual deliveries, using the
information presented in Table 16. Table 29 illustrates the application of the City's share to each
element of the Agency's program.
October 2016
Units
Capacity
Factors ( pd)
Water Use Factor
Percent Share
Cost per
Land Use
Cost Share Unit"
_
Land Use Class
Existing Planned New
Buildout Development
Existing New
Existing
New
Existing
New
Existing New
New
Residential
Single Family Residential units
7,719
10,343
2,624
287,0 232.4
2,215,353
609,772
43%
12%
$11,303,428 $3,111,247 $
1,185.69
Multi -Family Residential (units)
8,594
11,483
2,889
143.0 118.0
1,228,942
341,003
24%
7% $ 6,270,449 $1,739,905 $
602.25
Senior Housin units
207
209
2
143.0 118.0
29,601
236
1%
0% $ 151,034 $ 1,205 $
602.25
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
143.0 118.0
15,935
0%
0%
$ • $ 81,304 $
602.25
Non -Residential Employees
21.900
25.831
3.931
28.0 22.4
613,200
88,054
12%
2%
$ 3,128,739 $ 449,281 $
5.10
Totals
1 4,087,096
t 1,055,000
79%
21%
$20,853,650 $5,382,942
For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
Sonoma County Water Agency Supply
The Agency supply component consists of the City's share of improvements to the water supply,
common water transmission and pipeline and storage systems as described in the Agency's
Capital Projects Plan. This water supply source provides an important element of reliability for
both existing and future customers. There are two steps to calculating the charge component
associated with the Agency supply. The first step is to calculate the City's share of the planned
capital costs based on its share of the Agency's average annual deliveries, using the
information presented in Table 16. Table 29 illustrates the application of the City's share to each
element of the Agency's program.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Table 29 — City Share of Agency Capital Projects Plan
42
Project Name
Benefits
Supply
Transmission System
(Funded)
Total
City Percent
Share
Ci Cost Share
Funded
Common
Facilities
Storage &
Pipeline
From Table 18
Water Supply Projects
Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Mile 1
All
$ 8,650,00011
$ 8,650,000
8,57%
$ 741,305
Wallace Creek Fish Passage
All
$ 304,000
$ 304,000
8.57%1
$ 26,053
Dry Creek Habitat Enhancement Miles 2 &3
All
$ 15,400,000
$ 15,400,000
8.57%
$ 1,319,780
Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline
All
$ 250,000
$ 250,000
8.57%
$ 21.425
Subtotal Funded Water Supply Projects
$ 24,604,000
$ 2,108,563
Common Transmission System Projects
Air Valves Replacement and Upgrade
All
$ 1,000,000
$ 1,000,000
8.57%
$ 85,700
Liquefaction Mitigation
All
$ 6,401,000
$ 6,401,000
8.57%
$ 548,566
Collector Chlorine Solution Lines
All
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
8.57%
$ 42,850
Collector 6 Liquefaction Mitigation
All
$ 3,000,000
$ 39000,000
6.57%
$ 257,100
Forestville Storage Tank
All
$ 800,000
$ 800,000
8.57%
$ 68,560
Multi-purpose Facility atWestside Road & Wohler
Bride
All
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
8.57%
$ 102,840
Rupture Protection
All
$ 2,619,000
$ 2,619,000
8.57%
$ 224,448
Fish Screen Replacement
All
$ 7,154,000
$ 7,154,000
8.57%
$ 613,098
Surge Control System at the Mirabel Production
Facilities
All
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,000,000
8.57%
$ 257,100
RDS Liquefaction Mitigation
All
$ 5,000,0001
$ 5,000,000
8.57%
$ 428,500
Seismic Hazard Mitigation at the Mark West Creek
Crossing
All
$ 4,046,000
$ 49046,000
8.57%
$ 346,742.
Seismic Hazard Mitigation atthe Russian River
Crossing
All
$ 4,007,000
$ 4,007,000
8.57%
$ 343,400
Syslemwide Meter Replacemonls
All
$ 1,250,000
$ 1,250,000
8.57%
$ 107,125
Subtotal Common Transmission System Projects
$ 39,977,000
$ 3,426,029
Storage & Pipeline Projects
Petaluma Aqueduct Cathodic Protection
Petaluma
Aqueduct
& Russian
River-
Cotati
Intertie
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
16.56%
$ 198,720
Russian River Cotati Intertie Cathodic Protection
Petaluma
Aqueduct
& Russian
River-
Cotati
Intertie
$ 1,200,000
$ 1,200,000
16.56%
$ 198,720
Subtotal Storage and Pipeline Projects
$ 2,400,000
1
1$ 397,440
Totals
$ 14,604,000
$ 39,977,000
$ 2,400,000
$ 66,981,000
1
J$ 5,932,032
Unfunded Agency Projects are not included in the Capacity Charge Prograns
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis 43
The second step is to allocate the City's share of the Agency supply costs over new and existing
development. This calculation is illustrated in Tables 30 through 32 which develop the cost
allocation for each of the three subcomponents of the Agency's proposed supply improvements.
Table 30 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Agency's Funded Water System
Improvements
Total Cost $ 2,108,563
New Development Share $ 432,612
Cost pergpd $ 0,41
For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
Units
Capacity Factors
d
Water Use Factor
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost per
Land Use
Unit`
(Land Use Class
Existing
Planned New
Planned
Development
Existing
New
Existing
New
Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Residential
Single FamilyResidential (units)
7,719
10,343
2,624
287,0
232.4
2,215,353
609,772
43%
12%
$ 908,425 $
250,042
$ 95.29
Multi-FamilyResidential units
8,594
11,463
2,889
143.0
118.0
1.228,942
341,003
24%
7%
$ 503,939 $
139,831
$ 48.40
Senior Housing(units)
207
209
2
143.0
118.0
29,601
236
1%
0%
$ 12,138 $
97
$ 48.40
Assisted Living(units
0
135
135
143.0
118.0
15,935
0%
0%
$ - $
6.534
$ 48.40
Non -Residential Employees
21.900
25,831
3.931
28.0
22_.4
613,200
88,054
12%
2%
$ 251,448 $
36,108
$ 0.41
'Totals
4.087.096
1.055,000
79%
21%1$
1.675.9511 $
432,612
For Residential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Usesthe cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
44
Table 31 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Agency's Common Transmission
System Improvements
Total Cost $ 3,426,029
New Development. Share $ 702,916
Cost per gpd $ 0.67
For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR, For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons.
October 2016
Units
Capacity Factors
(g d)
Water Use Factor
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost per
Land Use
Unit"
Land Use Class
Existing Planned
Buildout
New
Development
Existing New
Existing New
(Existing
New
Existing
New
New
Residential
Single Family Residential (units)
7,719 10,343
2,624
287.0 232.4
2,215,353 609,772
43%
12%
$ 1,476,025
$ 406,273
$ 154.83
Multi-FamilyResidential (units)
8,594 11,483
2,889
143.0 118.0
1.228,942 341.003
24%
7%
$ 818,808
$ 227.200
$ 78.64
Senior Housing(units
207 209
2
143.0 118.0
29,601 236
1%
0%
$ 19,722
$ 157
$ 78.64
Assisted Living(units)
0 135
135
143.0 118.0
- 15,935
0%
0%
$ -
$ 10,617
$ 78.64
INon-Residential Employees
21,900 25.831
3,931
28.0 22.4
613,200 88,054
12%
2%
$ 408,557
$ 58,668
$ 0.67
'Totals
4,087,0961 1,055.000
79%
21%
$ 2,723,113
$ 702,916
For Residential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on an SFR or MFR, For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
45
Table 32 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Agency's Pipeline and Storage
Improvements
Total Cost S 397,440
New Development Share $ 81.542
Cog per gpd $ 0.09
Distribution System Improvements
The distribution system improvements include five new storage tanks that will serve the various
new developments. These are discrete improvements that only benefit new development and
the costs are properly apportioned each SPA or PD. Table 33 illustrates this allocation.
October 2016
Units
Capacity Factors
d)
Water Use Factor
Percent Share
Cost Share
Cost per
Land Use
Unit*
Land Use Class
Existing
Planned New
Plann d (Development
Existing
New
Existing
New
(Existing
New
Existing
New
New
(Residential
Single Family Residential (unitsl
7,719
10,343
2,624
287.0
232,4
2,215.353
609.772
43%
12%
$
171,228 $
47,130
$ 17.96
Multi -Family Residential units
8,594
11,483
2,889
143.0
118.0
1,228,942
341,003
24%
7%
$
94,9871 $
26,357
$ _ 9.12
Senior Housing (units)
207
209
2
143.0
118.0
29,601
236
1%
0%
$
2,288 $
18
$ 9.12
Assisted Living units
0
135
135
143.0
118.0
15.935
0%
0%
$
- $
1,232
$ 9.12
Non -Residential Employees 1
21,9001
25,831
3,931
28.0
22.4
613.200
88,054
12%
2%
$
47,395 $
6,806
$ 0.08
Totals I
I
1
4,087,096
1,055,000
79%
21%
$
315,898 $
81,542
' For Residential Land Usesthe costoer unit is based on an SFR or MFR.
For Nonresidential Land Usesthe costoer unit
is based on nallons,
Distribution System Improvements
The distribution system improvements include five new storage tanks that will serve the various
new developments. These are discrete improvements that only benefit new development and
the costs are properly apportioned each SPA or PD. Table 33 illustrates this allocation.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge An
Table 33 — Water Capacity Charge Component for Storage Tanks
Norlhe a st Tank $ 2,240,000
Unlverslty District Tank $ 4,994,000
Southeast Tank $ 1,997,000
Wilfred Dowdell Tank $
46
NMhwesl Tank $ 2,270,000
Stadlum Lands Tank c
Sonoma Mountain Village Tank $2,840,000
Land Use Class
Demand
Factor
NE SPA
UD SPA
SE SPA
WD SPA
NW SPA
Stadium Lands
SMV
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Total
Demand
Units Factor
Units
Total
Demand
Factor
Single Family Residential Units
232
920
213,792883
205,194
394 91,559
$2,658,32
Senior Housing units $
602.25
3781
87,841
Multi Family Residential Units"
118
200
23,607
762 89,943
81 9.561
78.64 $ 9.12 $ 1,113.73 $1,958.76 $2,323,34 $
398 46,978
338 39,896
2751
32,460
Nonresidential Em Io ees
22
-
$ 31.05
259 5,802
15 336
446 9,990
1,166 26.118
207 4,637
2591
5,802
Totals
237,399
300,938
101,456
9,990_
73,096
44,533
126,102
Tank Component by Land Use Class
Single Family Residential Units
$ 2.192.67
$ 3,856.34
$4,574.10
$ 5,233.60
Multi Family Residential Units"
$ 1,113.73
$ 1,958.761
1 $2.323.341
$3,665.57
$
$ 2,658.32
Nonresidential gallon
1 $ 9.44
$ 16.591
1 $ 19.68
$
$ 31.05
$
$ 22.52
2.5 Summary
Table 34 summarizes the allocated capacity charges for each of the components in the capacity charge
program.
Table 34 — Summary of Water Capacity Charge Components
(Land Use Class
Groundwater
Charge
Component
Agency Char a Components Tank Charge Components
Funded Common Pipelines
Water Transmission & NE SPA UD SPA SE SPA WD SPA NW SPA
Su I System Storage
Stadium
Lands
SMV
(Residential
Single Family Residential units $
1,185.69
$ 95.29 $
154.83 $ 17.96 $ 2,192.67 $3,856.34 $4,574.10 $
$ •
$
$5,233,60
Multi -Family Residential units $
602.25
$ 48.40 $
78,64 $ 9.12 $ 1,113.73 $1,958.76 $2,323.34 $ -
$3,665.57
$
$2,658,32
Senior Housing units $
602.25
$ 48.40 $
78.64 $ 9.12 $ 1,113,73 $1,958.76 $2,323.34 $
$3,665.57
$
$2,658.32
Assisted Living units $
60225
$ 48.40 $
78.64 $ 9.12 $ 1,113.73 $1,958.76 $2,323,34 $
$3,665.57
$
$2,658.32
Non -Residential (pd) $
5.10
$ 0.411 $
0.671 $ 0.081 $ 9.44 $ 16.59 $ 19.68 $
$ 31.05
$
$ 22.52
For Residential Land Uses the cost -pe r unit is based on an SFR or MFR. For Nonresidential Land Uses the cost per unit is based on gallons
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
47
2.6 Administrative Allowance
The City actively administers the capacity charge program. Administrative activities include:
• Annual accounting and reporting as required by Act
• Updating participating land uses based on development plans
• Updating program costs based on capital plans and construction activities
• Updating water use factors
• Updating the Water Capacity Charge Analysis and establishing new charges to reflect
changes in costs, land use and or water use.
Active administration of the program provides a benefit to new development by ensuring that the
charges are consistent, predictable, equitable and based on current understanding of costs and
land uses. Because administrative activity can vary from time to time, the City uses an
administrative allowance in order to budget for these activities. The City's allowance of 3% is
based on the 2005 AACE International Transactions10. These transactions document that the
"Program Management" costs for a wide range of water and wastewater programs, undertaken
over the 30 year period from 1973 to 2002, ran from a low of 1.5% to a high 9.7% with a
historical average of 3.2%.11 The City's allowance is slightly lower than the documented
historical range for this type of cost.
10 AACE is the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering
11 "Controlling Non -Construction Costs", Tables 2 and 3. Peter R. Bredeheoft Jr. 2005 AACE International Transactions.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Anaiysrs
48
2.7 Government Code Section 66013 Findings for Water System Improvements
While the Water Capacity Charges are not subject to the same nexus requirements as other
Mitigation Fees, Government Code Section 66013 (GC 66013) outlines several standards that
must be met in order for fees to be established. This section summarizes how the City's
proposed Water Capacity Charges meet these standards.
Definition of Benefit
GC 66013 specifically requires that "charges... benefit ... the person or property being charged".
The projects included in this proposed program benefit developing properties because the City
will not have adequate, reliable capacity to service new development without investments in its
water system.
Water supply sufficiency benefits new development because the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) requires that new development document the availability of water supplies.
This CEQA requirement has its basis in both legislative mandate (Water Code Section 10910 et.
seq.) and case law (Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova).
For new development, a defined program to provide sufficient water supply, which includes a
clear Capital Improvement Program and funding strategy greatly facilitates both CEQA
compliance and project implementation.
Water supply reliability benefits new development because findings of supply sufficiency must
include an analysis of the ability to manage dry water years and must include a water shortage
contingency plan (Water Code Section 10910 et. seq.). A diverse water supply portfolio provides
enhanced reliability because the City is not dependent upon a single source or water supplier to
meet all needs.
Adequate storage system capacity benefits new development because distribution and storage
capacity is necessary to deliver the water supply to the development and to provide for fire
safety.
Facilities that Provide Benefit
The City will achieve a reliable, sufficient water supply through investments in groundwater
supply, Agency supply and distribution improvements. The specific facilities providing benefit
are described below.
The City's network of groundwater wells provides up to 2,577 acre-feet annually of water
supply that is available to new and existing development. The City's 2004 Citywide WSA
and 2005 and 2010 UWMPs illustrate how the available groundwater supply is used in a
conjunctively managed fashion to provide capacity for existing users and planned
growth. These facilities have largely been constructed and new development will "buy -in"
to the groundwater system that provides benefit.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
49
The Agency's water supply system provides up to 7,500 acre-feet annual of water supply
that is available to new and existing development. The City's 2004 Citywide WSA and
2005 and 2010 UWMPs illustrate how the City uses its contracted supply from the
Agency to provide reliable water service, while maintaining sustainable pumping of the
groundwater basin. The Agency's Capital Projects Plan describes improvements to its
water supply system, its common transmission system and its distribution and storage
system that are necessary to allow it to comply with environmental regulations and
deliver its contracted supply volumes. New development will pay a portion of the City's
share of the Agency's Capital Project costs, based on the demands created by new
development.
• The new water storage tanks provide benefits to each SPA or PD which include
emergency and fire supply and compliance with regulations. Each SPA or PD will fund
the cost of the discrete storage improvements required to serve the development.
Cost of the Facilities that Provide Benefit
GC 66013 specifically limits capacity charges to "the estimated reasonable cost of providing the
service for which the ... charge is imposed". The cost estimates included in this Capacity Charge
Analysis are supported by the City's valuation of its groundwater network, the Agency's Capital
Projects Plan and the requirements of development specific EIRs.
In each case, improvement costs have been allocated based on water use projections. When
the facilities benefit existing users, this share has been calculated and removed from the costs
allocated to new development.
This Analysis includes adjustments to avoid duplication with the City's Public Facilities Fee
Program. Specifically, recycled water improvements and in -city water distribution system
improvements, which have been included in the 2011 PFFP, are not included in this Analysis.
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
Appendix A
Water Tank Cost Estimate Backup
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
October 2016
Northeast Specific Plan
Project Description, Notes
Tank Size (gal) 1 630,000
--------------•--------------._.._.-- ---. _.
;0.4 -acre site; 13 ft above grade;
;8 ft below grade; 80 -ft diameter
ITEM
ITEM
QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
20%
CONTINGENCY'
TOTAL COST
NO.
NO.
COST
ITEM COST'
25%
MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
Surface Casts:
Surface Costs:
1
Nbbilization
10 %
$1,410,000
$ 141,000
$
63,000
$ 200,000
2
Sitework
1 LS
$ 227,000
$ 267,900
$
121,000
$ 390,000
3
Water Storage Tank
1 EA
$ 476,000
$ 561,700
$
253,000
$ 810,000
4
Pump Station
1 EA
$ 270,999
$ 319,800
$
144,000
$ 460,000
5
Electrical / I&C
11 LS
$ 221,000
$ 260,800
$
117,000 1
$ 380,000
771-
Total Costs $
2,240,000
The cost of Contractor's Bonds, Insurance, Overhead, and Profit (18%) is included in iters 2-5
Cost per gallon (construction)
Cost per gallon (complete)
$ 2.46
$ 3.56
October 2016
Northwest Preliminary Specific Plan
Project Description, Notes:
Tank Size (gal)
640,000
ITEM
ITEM
QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
20%
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST
NO.
COST
ITEM COST
25%
MANAGEMENT
Surface Costs:
1
Ivlobilization
10 %
$1,424,000
$ 142,400
$
64,000
$ 210,000
2
Sitework
1 LS
$ 231,000
$ 272,600
$
123,000
$ 400,000
3
Water Storage Tank 1 EA
$ 480,000
$ 566,400
$
255,000
$ 820,000
4
Pump Station
1 EA
$ 270,999
$ 319,800
$
144,000
$ 460,000
5
I7eclrical / I&C
1 LS
$ 225,000
$ 265,500
$
119,000
$ 380,000
771-
Total Costs
$ 2,270,000
The cost of Contractor's Bonds, Insurance, Overhead, and Profit (18%) is included in items 2-5
Cost per gallon (construction)
Cost per gallon (complete)
$ 2.45
$ 3.55
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacitv Charqe Ana
October 2016
University District Specific Plan
Tank Size (gal)
Project Description,
833,000
ITEM
ITEM
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
10% CONTINOMCY
TOTAL COST
NO.
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST '
NO.
COST
ITEM COST
25% MANAGEMENT
Surface Costs:
ITEM COST'
0%
MANAGEMENT
Surface Costs_
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$ 95,000
$ 95,000
$ 33,000
$ 128,000
2
Sitework
1
LS
$ 1,850,000
$ 1,850,000
$ 648,000
$ 2,498,000
3
Water Storage Tank
1
EA
$ 1,484,000
$ 1,484,000
$ 519,000
$ 2,003,000
4
Pump Station
0
EA
$ -
$ -
$ .
$ -
5
Dectrical/I&C
1
LS
I $ 270,0001
$ 270,000
$ 95,000
1 $ 365,000
EA
$
390,000
$ 390,000
$
20,000
Total Costs $
+3.994,000
' Fallow s bond estimate prepared by McKay & Somps- 08/2015 w ith adjustments for inflation
Cost per gallon (construction)
Cost per gallon (complete)
$ 4.44
$ 6.00
October 2016
Southeast Specific Plan
Project Description, Notes
Tank Size (gal)
360,000
ITEM
ITEM
QUANTITY1
UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
5%
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COST '
NO.
COST
ITEM COST'
0%
MANAGEMENT
Surface Costs_
1
Mobilization
1
LS
$
30,000
$ 30,000
$
2,000
$ 32,000
2
Sitew ork
1
LS
$
358,000
$ 358,000
$
18,000
$ 376,000
3
Water Storage Tank
1
EA
$
810,000
$ 810,000
$
41,000
$ 851,000
4
Purnip Station
1
EA
$
390,000
$ 390,000
$
20,000
$ 410,000
5
Bectrical / I&C
1
LS
$
312,000
$ 312,000
$
16,000
$ 328,000
Total Costs
$ 1,997,000
" Follows Bond Estimate Prepared by CAW Design Consultants - 05/10/2016
Cost per gallon (construction)
Cost per gallon (complete)
$ 5.28
$ 5.55
October 2016
City of Rohnert Park
Water Capacity Charge Analysis
October 2016
Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development Tank Size (gal) 970,000
Project Description, Notes: T an k shall be a welded steel tank
,conform Ing to AWWA D100-05
: WEL Dm CARBON STEEL TANKS
s FOR WATER STORAGE Tank s hall
;be entirely above ground.
ITEM
ITEM QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT
TOTAL
200/6 CONTINGENCY' TOTAL COST
NO,
COST
ITEM COST'
25% MANAGEMENT
Surface Costs.:
1
Mobilization 10
%
$1,784,000
$ 178,400
$ 80,000 $ 260,000
2
Sltework 1
LS
$ 350,000
$ 413,000
$ 186,000 $ 600,000
3
Water Storage Tank 1
EA
$ 550,000
$ 649,000
$ 292,000 $ 940,000
4
Pump Station 1
EA
$ 270,999
$ 319,800
$ 144,000 $ 460,000
5
Electrical / I&C 1
LS
1 $ 341,000
$ 402,400
$ 161,000 $ 580,000
Total Costs $ 2,840,000
The cost of Contractor's Bonds, Insurance, Overhead, and Profit (18%) is included in items 2-5
Cost per gallon (construction) $ 2.02
Cost per gallon (complete) $ 2.93
October 2016
C
A C
m
m
LL)
C0
Lo
CO
Ln
o v v E
0000
m
OOi
0)
m c c
O
I
�t
It
00
> - W
Ea>
69
ER
64
�
o v
c a
0
rn
Z
CO
Cl)
Cl)
O N
Cfl
n
n
n
N
C
E9
Ln
Ln
LQ
J E
C O.
(D
O
CD
O
lfl
E o
Z
69
69
64
a >
Q
Q
Q
Q
p a
Z
Z
Z
Z
c7
r
r
�
17
A
a0M
LO
M
M
a
O
m
co
co
LQ
LC)
LO
Ln
L
Z
CO
Cl)
Cl)
O N
Cfl
69
ERI
69
Z La
E9
W C
3 �
Q O
Q
Q
Q
Q
p a
Z
Z
Z
Z
=
f-
O
O
O
. a
U
Ln
N
N
N
r
m
a0M
LO
M
M
a
O
Ln
LC)
LO
o
�
�
L
CO
CO
Cl)
Cl)
O v
Cfl
H4
69
69
rn a
rn
E9
w
c
N !�
CA,
00
00
00
p a
CO,
LO
LO
LC)
=
f-
O
O
O
N •�
Ln
N
N
N
vy
69
69
w
CR
> CL
•c CO
69
69
69
W
Z9
k
c
00
m
IL
L`O
o
0
0
d U
ti
(7)
m
CY)
0 aL
Z a
CR
69
69
69
M
LO
LO
LO
o
09
69
6e
E9
w
c
W
r-
n
M
LO
LO
LC)
=
f-
O
O
O
p
O
CO
O
Cfl
O
69
69
69
W
Z9
k
c
ATTACHMENT
to City Council Item
October 14, 2016
wo
Dear Property Owner and/or Development Community Representative,
The City of Rohnert Park is committed to keeping property owners and stakeholders
°in the development community informed about proposed changes that may affect
future projects. To this end, City staff is holding an informational meeting:
Building Fee Updates and Water Capacity Charge Program
City Council Monday, October 24, 2016, 2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue
Gina Belforie
Mayor
The specific topics to be covered include the following:
Jake Mackenzie
Fees related to the adoption of 2016 California Building Standards Code. The
Vice Mayor
City is considering the adoption of the 2016 California Building Standards Code
Amy 0. Ahanotu
("Building Code"), amended to reflect local conditions, and also amending Ch. 15 of
Joseph T. Callinan
the Rohnert Park Municipal Code. The implementation of the updated Building Code
Pam Stafford
will require City staff to provide compliance services, and in turn, new fees to recover
Councilmembers
costs associated with these services. The proposed fees are related to work without
permits, change of occupancy and use, water meter permits, and expired permits and
Karen W. Murphy
corrections. (See Attachment A, Building Fee Schedule — New/Revised Fees.)
Darrin Jenkins
Water Capacity Charge fee program. The City currently administers two fee
City Manager
programs to fund improvements to its water system. These are the "Per Acre Fee"
program, currently set at $17,715 per undeveloped acre and the "Water/Wastewater
Don Schwartz
Conservation Fee" program, currently set at $325 per new residential unit or $1,625
Assistant City Manager
per non-residential acre. In addition, developers within the City's Specific Plan and
Michelle Marchetta Kenyon
Planned Development Areas have also been conditioned to construct new water
City Attorney
storage tanks. The City proposes replacing these fee programs with a new Water
Capacity Charge program developed to cover the specific water supply and water
Karen W. Murphy
storage tank facilities needed for new development. (See Attachment A, Water
Assistant City Attorney
Capacity Charges, Tables 1 & 2 for the proposed fees.) The City has made a
comparative analysis of the current and proposed programs and, in general, the new
JoAnne Buergler
charges will result in slightly lower costs for the development community than the
City clerk
current system. (See Attachment B.)
Betsy Howze
Finance Director
The City Council is scheduled to consider and adopt the updated Building Code and
associated fees, as well as the Water Capacity Charge program and repeal of the old
Brian Masterson
fees, at a public hearing held at 6:00 pm on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at City Hall,
Director of Public Safety
130 Avram Avenue in Rohnert Park.
John McArthur
Director of Public Works and
We encourage you to attend our October 24'h informational meeting so we may
Community Services
provide you answers to any questions you may have prior to the November 8th public
hearing. You are also welcome to contact me directly to discuss the programs. I can
Mary Grace Pawson
be reached at (707) 588-2234.
Director of Development Services
Victoria Perrault
Sincerely,
Human Resources Director
1 `1
Mary Grace Pawson, PE
Director of Development Services — City of Rohnert Park
mpawson0mcitv.org
(707) 588-2234
130 Avram Avenue ♦ Rohnert Park CA ♦ 94928 ♦ (707) 588-2226 ♦ Fax (707) 792-1876
www.rpcity.org
all
F -
z
W
U
LQ
r
Q
r
7 V C
N EOD
r
a1
O
W
7
c
w
(6
N
O O
O
O
y 0 0
O
O
O O
LO
O
Q. (&
ffl
69
QIL
C ❑
O
O
y
Cu
W
O U)
m a)
O
N
ar U
C Co
V
C
M
E
Q
U
U
o..fo O
�
V C
a
V
a
pc N
OU
46
.m
r c
N t
O U
y�
C N O
O) o
2 N
7 Q
m Q
m
U
7 V C
N EOD
r
W
O
W
c
w
(6
A= m y
CO
A)
M
M
Eo > a
69
G9
(&
E,9
C ❑
O
c
Cu
W
CL
1—
N
a)
M
t0
l0
U
c ac
a
t
(6
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
Eco
61>69
O
69K3
�a ❑
f%1
a)
+�
O O
C
O O
_W
O O
o o
O
(D
O
7
N
3 v
N
Lo
EA 6q
V)
fA 69
y
C
69
69
69
O
fCL
m
�o
V
W
C N
w
t
N
C
m
�
LO
�
C
U
L)
y
•'
v
O
Qu
d (6
CD
m
E
ao
O 0.y.
a
U
�fo0
d
69
E
m0
—3IM
64
O
CL
c p
)
3
y m—
m a
a)—
ri
LO
+r�Q
o�Q
o
w
O
0 •�
3:
7 V C
N EOD
r
W
O
W
c C.
w
A= m y
CO
M
M
M
Eo > a
69
G9
(&
E,9
C ❑
O
W
N
1—
N
N
a
M
t0
l0
l0
c ac
a
t
O
O
O
m
O
O
O
O
Eco
61>69
� m �
CL
69K3
�a ❑
f%1
C
Cl?00
r-
(D
(D
3 v
-
Lo
V
V)
oa
69
69
69
Ei?
fCL
C
m
�
LO
�
I--
O
o
O
Qu
a)
CD
(DD
(DD
�.
69
69
69
r d
64
CL
m a
eo
o
ri
LO
m
LO
ri
LO
w
0 •�
M
Cl)
M
U) a
Efl
w
Efl
Efl
Efl
N
y
d
LLL
v
o
0
0
.h
�
01.
00
a0
00
❑ IL
(0u
C
t
r
ti
ti
of
M
EU5
N
(4
N
y (D
09
GPI
69
y
d
CL69
C.
W
D
r
00
d
G
A
ma
Lo
o
o
o
IC
H
L C
ti
Q)
67.
W
r
C'5
0
Z CL
69
69
6s
en
U)
M
I
Ll
if
L
2
I-
O
O
O
`o
m
O
(0
c0
o
6~9
6r9
69
w
c
M
lx�
ll�
if
p
O
(D
CO
(0
N r
fii
cfl
69
LU
y3
C
N
a1
a)
LL
r
C
d
Vl
c
0
z
N
al
c
H
C
m
ma
LU
U
z O
d c
oa 6q
❑ u
it CL
a
y U
UI
N
c r
A �
m a N
L
u 69
0
u
fA n
U
LpC
N A M
O N
0
Y � Efl
•N U
> n
c N
C
N �o
�a —
w U Efl
L
0
0
Z a
2 O
o Efl
�o
w
C
x cD
O �
O
W
c
m
N
VT
N
N
O
v
v
u.
N
M
V1
cn
M
n
M
N
VT
O O VI
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 N 0 N O N
P O
1,
N
OM O rJ
, i
O �
O 0 w
0
n
01
O
M V
L'iO N
l0D
l0D
Ol .�-I N
.M -I O
N N N 00
rl O
N
1,
1, 00
n M
Cl) M l0 N
W
n
n
C
.--I' c -I
,--I'
QO1
rl N
V,
M
N
VT in
V} VT Vi i/T
El) EA V? V!
V) V}
V?
V}
O O O
O O O O OO
0 CD O
O O H
O O o
. m O ui
'
ui C:5m
LO LI) m M
00
00
m
M n N
, l O
E
M
n M
I� M
rl N
M M t❑ M
c-1 N
w
w
w
t0
00
N
7
�
m
V1
V} VP
N 14 VT V!
EA fit V? in
1.4 VT
in
.VT.
O
O
Oo Ln
L, n
L6� p
LO Oui O
V1 O
V1
O
N
M r-
0
O
CL
c
V1
^ O
.--� M
M
M N
EYj N
t0
V1
00
N
z
CL
❑
a
V1 q^
V) VT in VT
Efi Efl VT VF
VT u}
V!
V}
N
^ O .y
O O ^
O O O O^ O 'i
N
N
N
C3
O
V
O O
L6 N
O
O
M
N -4 DoN
L6 N
N
C'.,
H
n �M,
M co t0 C�
c
0
r
m
a
3
m
m
� of
VT V} VT V1•
69 Ki V? Vf
v! V?
V}
V)
Q
00 O O
00 n
O 00
O O
011 00
m00 00 O t0/1
Ln O
N
N
O Vi r"L
M I�
M L6 � n ui f\
01 O
CP
t0
CL
00 ri
n
M M
r,
O
_
d
14
tR tD
t00 OM1
Z
Ln
Qj
❑.
W
V1
V1
VT VT
VF Vf V1 i/i
t{i Eli V} VF
VT V?
I4^
VF
O O V1
M N On
M O N O 0 0 V1
O O
op
00
OfN11
00 n
0 0^ 0
O
p
N -1 N
O
N
O .Ni
N N LrsN Lr;
R
V
MO
Q
Cl) Cl)
N
00
Ln
1, N
,moi'
00 c
060
O
.-I V1
V1 V
O
N
N
Vt u*
V� Vr V*
E� Efl Vt V�
V*
4^
C)
ON O O
ON
O(5 0
C N
'
(5 0 0
N O
N
O
V) Ln �^^I
M N O
N 6 O V) O,
O
N
CT
-i ZL6
cto
N n Nm
M t0 to00
V
N
M
Qa
r,00
M
N N
V
00
V1
,--� M
N
W
M
z
VT VI
VT
tl3 V} VF
Vf N
44
VF
N v 01
6
a ate+ C H C u O)
6 'C
,+ C Y C `1 U m
C
u Q LL
� C u Q,
'41
C C u Q
am+ m
00 Q Y
rn v v
00 v v v C
rn v v v o
7 7 v C
a` v v o
m H
3 v
Q E
LL O. LL O. d rd
t0i a TO a N d N
`1
vpi
a°1i a
vpi
ami a°1i c w m
v v w w Z
w
LL O
LL LL LL C
LL LL LL Ol
N U
Y
m W
m O
C
y
LL m
v U
awl
0
C
0 CO N
U
C
Y O
C N
N
O1
`
o
to m
m
U
E
- z 3
N z m
E t�
a
00
CL
c
4i
IL
�
u a
s A
v
d
Om
M
m
ba
y
m
w w
m
Q of
3 +'
t` m
CL
m
m
m
Q
Vf
e
m �
u
am.
F
Y
C
U
_
43v+
+
u
m
E
m
Y
as
CL
f0
0
3to
LL
U
C
OJ
w
v
m m
'�
z
aW
3
m
m
v
E
N
m
Y
O
vY
W
~
W
N
VT
N
N
O
v
v
u.
N
M
V1
cn
M
n
M
N
VT