Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
Item 9CCITY OF
SOUTHLAKI=
MEMORANDUM
(August 18, 2015)
To: Shana Yelverton, City Manager
From: Robert H. Price, P.E., Director of Public Works
Item 9C
Subject: Consider an order setting a public hearing for October 6, 2015,
to discuss and review proposed updates to Land Use
Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees for
water, wastewater and roadway improvements
Action
Requested: Consider an order setting a public hearing for October 6, 2015, to
discuss and review proposed updates to Land Use Assumptions,
Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees for water, wastewater
and roadway improvements.
Background
Information: An impact fee is a charge on new development to pay for the
construction or expansion of off -site capital improvements that are
necessitated by and benefit the new development.
Impact fees must meet the "rational nexus" and "rough
proportionality" tests. First, there must be a reasonable connection
between the "need" for additional facilities and new development.
Second, it must be shown that the fee payer will "benefit" in some
way from the fee. And third, calculation of the fee must be based on
a proportionate "fair share" formula.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code (LGC) allows
cities to charge impact fees for water, wastewater and roadway
capital improvements. Southlake has charged water and
wastewater impact fees since 1990 and roadway impact fees since
1996. One of the provisions of this chapter calls for periodic
updates of the related studies adopting the impact fees. City staff
has been working with Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare and
update the impact fee report. A copy of the impact fee report is
included with this memo for your review. A detailed discussion of
the impact fee study findings will be discussed at the October 6 City
Council meeting.
One of the required provisions of this chapter of the Local
Government Code calls for the City Council to set a date for a
public hearing to discuss the impact fee study a minimum of 30
days prior to the actual public hearing. This item sets the public
hearing for October 6, 2015.
Financial
Considerations: Funding for the impact fee study and adoption process will come
from the respective roadway, water and wastewater impact fee
funds.
Strategic Link: The impact fee study update links with the City's strategy map
relative to the focus area of performance management and service
delivery by adhering to providing high quality services through
sustainable business practice.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: In accordance with Texas Local Government Code, the study will
be reviewed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (aka
Planning and Zoning Commission) and written comments will be
furnished to the City Council on the proposed impact fees five days
before the day of public hearing.
The impact fee study report will also be made available to the
public after the notice referenced above appears in the paper.
Legal Review: The ordinance will be reviewed by the City Attorney's office
Alternatives: The City Council may establish the public hearing on October 6,
2015 or propose a different date.
Supporting
Documents: 2015 Impact Fee Study Report including:
A. Land Use Assumption Report
B. Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Plans
C. Roadway Capital Improvements Plans
Staff
Recommendation: Approve an order setting a public hearing for October 6, 2015, to
discuss and review proposed updates to Land Use Assumptions,
Capital Improvement Plans and Impact Fees for water, wastewater
and roadway improvements
Staff Contact: Robert H. Price, P.E., Public Works Director
Cheryl Taylor, P.E., City Engineer
Om Gharty-Chhetri, P.E., Civil Engineer
AUGUST 2015
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND
KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCATES, INC.
Water, Wastewater & Roadway
2015 Impact Fee Update Draft
its
Kimley>>> Horn
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY (---)F
SOUTHLAKE
Prepared by:
Kimley)))Horn
Texas Registration Number 928
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 950
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.335.6511
August 2015
© Kimley-Horn and Associates, hic., 2015
061237016
0000OF
000���
off°DSO °
ono ova
p JOHN R. ATKINS
°°°°°°° °-
0 0 � d
T Oq'C�ENs�O°°�<v -
F d
N �d� oo`
8.3'Zn�s
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................................i
1.1 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................I
1.2 Introduction...................................................................................................................4
A. Land Use Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 6
B. Evaluation of the Current Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Plans and Development of the
Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan .............................................................................................. 6
C. Impact Fee Analysis and Report ......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Water.............................................................................................................................7
A. Design Criteria................................................................................................................................... 7
1. Water Lines................................................................................................................................ 7
2. Storage Tanks............................................................................................................................. 7
3. Pump Stations............................................................................................................................. 8
B. Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan .............................................................................................. 9
C. Water Impact Fee Calculation.......................................................................................................... 12
1.4 Wastewater..................................................................................................................16
A. Design Criteria.................................................................................................................................
16
1. Sewer Lines..............................................................................................................................
16
B. Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan ............................................................................................
16
C. Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation..................................................................................................
19
List of Figures
1.1 Water Impact Fee CIP...................................................................................................................................
11
1.2 Wastewater Impact Fee CIP...........................................................................................................................
18
List of Tables
1.1
Maximum Assessable Water and Wastewater Impact Fee for Commonly Used Meters ................................... 3
1.2
Population and Employment 10-Year Projection.............................................................................................
6
1.3
Water Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Costs.......................................................................................
9
1.4
Water Service Unit Consumption Calculation...............................................................................................
12
1.5
Water 10-year Additional Service Units Calculation.....................................................................................
13
1.6
Water 10-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown................................................................................................
14
1.7
Water Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters.............................................................
15
1.8
Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Costs............................................................................
17
1.9
Wastewater Service Unit Consumption Calculation......................................................................................
19
1.10
Wastewater 10-year Additional Service Units Calculation............................................................................
20
1.11
Wastewater 10-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown.......................................................................................
21
1.12
Wastewater Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters .....................................................
22
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update i August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley,)Morn
1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was performed to update the City of Southlake's Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees. Water and Wastewater system analysis and their associated master plans
are important tools for facilitating orderly growth of the systems and for providing
adequate facilities that promote economic development. The implementation of an
impact fee is a way to shift a portion of the burden of paying for new facilities onto new
development.
Water
Elements of the water system, including storage facilities, pumping facilities, and the
distribution network itself, were evaluated against industry standards as outlined in the
Design Criteria section of this report. Information related to the growth of the City was
provided by the Land Use Assumptions.
Water system improvements necessary to serve 10-year (2025) needs were evaluated.
Typically, infrastructure improvements are sized beyond the 10-year requirements;
however, Texas' impact fee law (Chapter 395) only allows recovery of costs to serve the
10-year planning period. The City of Southlake's Impact Fee Capital Improvements
Plan costs total $20,618,812. After debt service costs are added and the 50% reduction
calculation is complete, $13,092,945.50 is recoverable through impact fees serving the
10-year system needs.
Wastewater
Elements of the wastewater system that include the collection network were evaluated
against industry standards as outlined in the Design Criteria section of this report.
Information related to the growth was the same as with water.
Wastewater system improvements necessary to serve 10-year (2025) needs were
evaluated. Typically, infrastructure improvements are sized beyond the 10-year
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 1 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
requirements; however, Texas' impact fee law (Chapter 395) only allows recovery of
costs to serve the 10-year planning period. The City of Southlake's Impact Fee Capital
Improvements Plan costs total $4,960,833. After debt service costs are added and the
50% reduction calculation is complete, $3,373,366.50 is recoverable through impact fees
serving the 10-year system needs.
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
The impact fee law defines a service unit as follows, "Service Unit means a standardized
measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on
historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual
unit of development is located during the previous 10 years." Therefore, the City of
Southlake defines a service unit as unit of development that consumes the amount of
water requiring a standard 1-inch water meter. For a development that requires a
different size meter, a service unit equivalent is established at a multiplier based on its
capacity with respect to the 1-inch meter. The equivalency factor and associated impact
fee by meter size is shown in Table 1.1.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 2 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Table 1.1 Maximum Assessable Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
for Commonly Used Meters
Maximum
Maximum
Maximum
Meter
Continuous
Operating
Service Unit
Assessable Fee
Assessable Fee
Size*
Capacity
Equivalent
Water
Wastewater
(GPM)*
3/4"
15
0.6
4,309
1,074
1"
25
1.0
7,182
1,790
1 1/2"
50
2.0
14,364
3,580
2"
80
3.2
22,982
5,728
3"
160
6.4
45,965
11,456
4"
250
10
71,820
17,900
6"
500
20
143,640
35,800
V
800
32
229,824
57,280
1V
1,150
46
330,372
82,340
*Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (AWWA) C-700-09 and C-702-10.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 3 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The City of Southlake retained the services of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the
purpose of updating the impact fees for water and wastewater system improvements
required to serve new development. These fees were last updated in 2008 in accordance
with Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code (impact fees).
The purpose of this report is to satisfy the requirements of the law and provide the City
with an updated impact fee capital improvements plan and associated impact fees.
For convenience and reference, the following is excerpted from Chapter 395.014 of the
code:
• The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital
improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan
must contain specific enumeration of the following items:
(1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and
the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to
meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or
regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional
engineer licensed to perform such professional engineering services in this
state;
(2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments
for usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be
prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such
professional engineering services in this state;
(3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility
expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development
in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be
prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such
professional engineering services in this state;
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 4 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
(4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital
improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table
establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including
but not limited to residential, commercial, and industrial;
(5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to
new development within the service area based on the approved land use
assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted
engineering or planning criteria;
(6) the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required
by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
10 years; and
(7) a plan for awarding:
(A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues
generated by new service unit during the program period that is used for
the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are
included in the capital improvements plan; or
(B) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total project cost of
implementing the capital improvements plan.
The impact fee study includes information from the 2012 Water System Master Plan and
Wastewater System Master Plan completed by Neel Schaffer. Because of the length of
time since the master plan updates, we also interviewed Southlake staff to identify any
changes that may have occurred regarding the proposed water and wastewater capital
improvement plans identified in the master plans. The impact fees are based on the
recommended capital improvements and the current growth projections.
The study process was comprised of four tasks:
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 5 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
The land use assumptions used for this report were provided by the City of Southlake.
The development of land use assumptions included the following:
• Establishing impact fee service areas for water and wastewater;
• Collection/determination of population and employment data; and
• Projection of the ten-year population and employment by service area.
A single service area boundary is defined for both water and wastewater facilities. An
illustration of the service areas are shown on Figures 1.1 and 1.2 respectively. The
growth for population and employment for the next ten years is estimated as follows:
Table 1.2 Population and Employment 10-Year Projection
Year
Population
Employments (Square Feet)
Basic
Service
Retail
Total
2015
28,529
632,272
5,698,996
4,092,022
10,423,290
2025
33,339
1,422,688
7,794,256
7,412,803
16,629,747
Growth
4,810
T 790,416
1 2,095,560
1 3,320,781
1 6,206,457
B. EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE IMPACT FEE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
This task involved reviewing the City's capital projects shown in the 2008 impact fee
report, current capital improvement plan and interviews with City staff This
information allows us to develop the impact fee capital improvements plan. The Master
Plan water demand projections and wastewater flow projections were then used to
determine the additional service units.
C. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AND REPORT
This task included calculating the additional service units, service unit equivalents, and
credit reduction. These values were then used to determine the impact fee per service
unit and the maximum assessable impact fee by meter size.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 6 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
1.3 WATER
Development of the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan is based on criteria set forth
in the 2012 Water Master Plan. The Master Plan criteria meets or exceeds the criteria
outlined by Chapter 290 of the Texas Administrative Code (Public Drinking Water) and
the American Water Works Associations (AWWA) requirements for the design and
operation of potable water systems. The following design criteria was utilized when
planning for water infrastructure.
A. DESIGN CRITERIA
1. Water Lines
Water lines are sized to maintain the following pressure requirements at specific
water demand times:
• Peak hour demand with a minimum pressure of 35 psi;
• Peak hour demand with a minimum fire flow requirement of 1,750
gallons per min at a minimum pressure of 20 psi.
2. Storage Tanks
a. Ground Storage
Ground storage serves two functions:
• Equalization for differing feed rates between the water supply and
pumping to the system; and
• Emergency capacity in the event of temporary loss of water supply.
The amount of ground storage is equivalent to 12 hours of maximum day
demand.
b. Elevated Storage
Elevated storage serves three purposes:
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 7 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
• Functionally, elevated storage equalizes the pumping rate to compensate
for daily variations in demand and to maintain a fairly constant pumping
rate (usually referred to as operational storage), or a pumping rate that
conforms to the requirements of the electrical rate structure.
• Provides pressure maintenance and protection against surges created by
instantaneous demand, such as fire flow and main breaks, and
instantaneous change in supply, such as pumps turning on and off
• Maintains a reserve capacity for fire protection and pressure maintenance
in case of power failure to one or more pump stations. Sufficient storage
should be maintained to provide three hours of fire flow demand during a
loss of power to the pump station.
The amount of elevated storage is equivalent to twice the equalization volume.
With equalization volume being defined as 40 percent of the peak hour demand
for three hours.
3. Pump Stations
Pumping capacity should supply the maximum demand with sufficient redundancy
to allow for the largest pump at the pump station to be out of service. This is known
as firm pumping capacity.
Each pump station or pressure plane must have two or more pumps that have a total
capacity of 2.0 gallons per minute per connection, or have a total capacity of at least
1,000 gallons per minute and the ability to meet peak hour demand with the largest
pump out of service, whichever is less. If the system provides elevated storage
capacity of 200 gallons per connection, two service pumps with a minimum
combined capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection are required.
For the master plan and this analysis, the pumping capacity is based on delivering a
firm pumping capacity of 1.25 times the maximum day demand.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 8 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
B. IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The purpose of a water system master plan is to provide the City with a logical strategy
for upgrading and expanding its water distribution system to accommodate future
growth and for addressing existing system deficiencies. The Impact Fee Capital
Improvements plan is developed using projects identified during the master planning
process. State law only allows cost recovery associated with eligible projects in a ten
(10) year planning window from the time of the impact fee study. The following lists
the projects and the eligible recoverable cost.
Twenty six (26) projects along with the water impact fee study are determined eligible
for recoverable cost through impact fee over the next 10 years. The City of Southlake's
Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan costs total $20,618,812. After debt service costs
are added and the 50% reduction calculation is complete, $13,402,228 is recoverable
through impact fees serving the 10-year system needs. These impact fee capital
improvements are shown in Table 1.3 and illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Table 1.3 Water Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Costs
Project
Number
Project Name
Costs
Existing Water Impact Fee Projects
1
Florance 1.5 MG EST
$2,726,287
2
T.W. King 5.0 MG GST
$2,893,692
Proposed Water Impact Fee Projects
3
Pressure Reducing Valves (MP#1)
$168,000
4
N. Pearson Ln 16" WL(MP#2)
$420,000
5
T.W. King Pump Station Improvements(MP#4)
$4,858,000
6
Pearson Pump Station Improvements(MP#5)
$336,000
7
T.W. King Site 1.5 MG EST(MP#6)
$2,929,000
8
SH 114 12" WL Part 1(MP#7)
$167,000
9
SH 114 12" WL Part 2(MP#9)
$362,000
10
Bank St 8" WL Loop(MP#10)
$45,000
11
Bentwood 8" WL(MP#11)
$56,000
12
Fox Glen Ct 8" WL Loop(MP#12)
$94,000
13
Burney Ln 8" WL(MP#13)
$301,000
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 9 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Project
Number
Project Name
Costs
14
Bob Jones Rd 8" WL Loop (MP414)
$182,000
15
E Highland 12" WL (MP#15)
$552,000
16
Union Church & Pearson Ln 12" WL (MP#16)
$431,000
17
N. Peytonville 12" WL (MP#17)
$309,000
18
Shady Oaks Dr 12" WL (MP#18)
$743,000
19
Randol Mill Ave. 12" WL (MP#19)
$380,000
20
Dove 12" WL (MP#20)
$99,000
21
S. White Chapel 8" WL Loop (MP#22)
$210,000
22
Loch Meadow Ct. 8" WL Loo (MP#23)
$110,000
23
Bob Jones Park 8" WL Loop (MP#24)
$691,000
24
Austin Oaks Dr 8" WL Loop (MP#25)
$569,000
25
SH 114 20" WL Part 3 (MP#26)
$581,000
26
SH 114 12" WL Par 4 (MP#27)
$383,000
27
Water Impact Fee Study (MP#28)
$22,833
Total
$20,618,812
(MP#) — Reference to the Water Master Plan project number.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 10 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Trophy Club
7 w t-L�t
a
aOmni
Ov 23
2 w
( 5
Westlake . Y ..
DOVE 1,20
-� EI
n
0 ON
Capital Improvement PI
13
WkIA
k nd
PS -
Proposed Pump Station
Water Impact Fee Projects
Proposed Pressure Reducing Valves (PF
Fence 1.5 MG EST
/. King 5.0 MG GST
Proposed Elevated Storage Tank (EST)
Proposed Water Line
�d Water Impact Fee Projects
15 E Highland 12" WL (MP#15)
t
Existing Elevated Storage Tank (EST)
ssure Reducing Valves (MP#1)
'earson Ln 16" WL (MP#2)
1s Union Church &Pearson Ln 12" WL (MP#16)
©
Existing Ground Storage Tank (GST)
� King Pump Station Improvements (MP#4) tt N. Peytonville 12" WL (MP#17)
Lakes
irson Pump Station Improvements (MP#5)
1s Shady Oaks Dr 12" WL (MP#18)
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
C. WATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code defines a service unit as follows, "Service
Unit means a standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of
development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning
standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision
in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years."
Therefore, the City of Southlake defines a service unit based on historical water usage
over the past 10 years as compared to the estimated residential units. The residential unit
is the development type that predominately uses a 1-inch meter. The measure of
consumption per service unit is based on a 1-inch meter and the data shown in Table
1.4.
Table 1.4 Water Service Unit Consumption Calculation
Year
Population
Residential
Units
(*31 persons/unit)
Water Usage
Average Day
Demand (NIGD)
Consumption
per Service
Unit (GPD)
2004
24,288
7,835
6.47
826
2005
24,850
8,016
8.06
1,005
2006
25,350
8,177
9.73
1,190
2007
25,700
8,290
6.92
835
2008
26,100
8,419
8.71
1,034
2009
26,650
8,597
7.80
907
2010
26,575
8,573
9.35
1,091
2011
26,842
8,659
10.25
1,184
2012
27,514
8,875
9.85
1,110
2013
1 27,904
9,001
8.73
970
Average Consumption per Service Unit
1,015
* Based on 3.2 persons/unit with 97% occupancy per City of Southlake.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 12 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Based on the City's 10-year growth projections and the resulting water demand
projections, water service will be required for an additional 1,823 service units. The
calculation is as follows:
• A service unit, which is a unit of development that consumes approximately
1,015 gallons per day (GPD), is a typical residential connection that uses a 1-
inch meter. Table 1.5 outlines the future water demand projections and its
relationship to the additional service units projected for the next 10-years.
Table 1.5 Water 10-year Additional Service Units Calculation
Average Day
Service Unit
Service Units
Year
Demand
Demand
MGD
GPD
2015
10.98
1,015
10,817
2025
12.83
1,015
12,640
10-year Additional Service Units
1,823
Impact fee law allows for a credit calculation to credit back the development
community based on the utility revenues or ad valorem taxes that are allocated for
paying a portion of future capital improvements. The intent of this credit is to
prevent the City from double charging development for future capital improvements
via impact fees and utility rates. If the city chooses not the do a financial analysis to
determine the credit value, they are required by law to reduce the recoverable cost by
50 percent. The city has chosen not to calculate the credit value. Therefore, the
maximum recoverable cost for impact fee shown below is 50 percent of the
recoverable cost for impact fee CIP with debt service. The debt service calculation
assumes 75% of the future projects are debt funded at a rate of 4.25%.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 13 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
A breakdown of the 10-year recoverable costs and the associated impact fee per
service unit is as follows:
Table 1.6 Water 10-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown
Recoverable Impact Fee CIP Costs
$20,618,812
Debt Service
$5,567,079
Recoverable Impact Fee CIP Costs w/Debt Service
$26,185,891
50 Percent Reduction
($13,092,945.50)
Maximum Recoverable Cost for Impact Fee
1 $13,092,945.50
Impact fee per service unit =
Impact fee per service unit =
Impact fee per service unit =
10-year recoverable costs
I0-year additional service units
$13,092,945.50
1,823
$7,182
Therefore, the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $7,182.
For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is
established at a multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 1-inch meter. The
maximum impact fee that could be assessed for other meter sizes is based on the
value shown on Table 1.7, Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used
Meters.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 14 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Table 1.7 Water Service Unit Equivalency
Table for Commonly Used Meters
Meter Size
Maximum
Continuous
Operating Capacity
(GPM)
Service Unit
Equivalent
Maximum
Assessable
Fee
Water
($)
3/4"
15
0.6
4,309
V
25
1.0
7,182
1 1/2"
50
2.0
14,364
2"
80
3.2
22,982
3"
160
6.4
45,965
4"
250
10
71,820
6"
500
20
143,640
V
800
32
229,824
IV
1,150
46
330,372
*Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (AWWA) C-700-09 and C-702-10.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 15 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
1.4 WASTEWATER
Development of the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan is based on criteria set forth
in the 2012 Wastewater Master Plan. The Master Plan criteria meets or exceeds the
criteria outlined by Chapter 217 of the Texas Administrative Code (Design Criteria for
Domestic Wastewater Systems). The following design criteria was utilized when
planning for the wastewater infrastructure.
A. DESIGN CRITERIA
1. Sewer Lines
The hydraulic model design criteria for sewer lines was run using a selected 5-year,
1-hour storm event, with the selected hydraulic grade line not exceeding three feet
below the manhole rim of the said sewer line.
B. IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The purpose of a wastewater master plan is to provide the City with a logical strategy for
upgrading and expanding its wastewater collection system to accommodate future
growth and for addressing existing system deficiencies. The impact fee capital
improvements plan is developed using projects identified during the master planning
process. State law only allows cost recovery associated with eligible projects in a ten
(10) year planning window from the time of the impact fee study. The following details
the projects and the eligible recoverable cost.
Ten (10) projects along with the wastewater impact fee study, are determined eligible for
recoverable cost through impact fee over the next 10 years. The City of Southlake's
Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan costs total $4,960,833. After debt service costs
are added and the 50% reduction calculation is complete, $3,373,366.50 is recoverable
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 16 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
through impact fees serving the 10-year system needs. These impact fee capital
improvements are shown in Table 1.8 and illustrated in Figure 1.2.
Table 1.8 Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan Costs
Project
Number
Project Name
Costs
1
Basin N-12 & N-12A Dove Creek 15" Sewer Line (MP#1)
$1,299,000
2
Basin N-13 Emerald Circle 15" & 10" Sewer Line (MP#2)
$381,000
3
Basin N-13 McCrae Trail 12" Sewer Line (MP#3)
$449,000
4
Basin N-18 White Chapel 8" Sewer Line (MP#4)
$378,000
5
Basin N-12A Imperial Ave 8" Sewer Line (MP#6)
$136,000
6
Basin N-12A Dove Creek/Highland 8" Sewer Line (MP#8)
$522,000
7
Basin N-14 Torian/Kimball 8" Sewer Line (MP#9)
$448,000
8
Basin N-14 E. Highland/Kimball 8" Sewer Line (MP#10)
$281,000
9
Basin N-19 Sam School/Crawford Ct. 8" Sewer Line (MP#18)
$574,000
10
Basin N-17 T.W. King 8" Sewer Line (MP#25)
$470,000
11
Wastewater Impact Fee Study
$22,833
Total Cost
$4,960,833
(MP#) — Reference to the Wastewater Master Plan project number.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 17 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Capital Improvement PI
u � /
10 �
Trophy Club
J
W
a
a
U
W
F-
1
Westlake
3
DOVE
O9-J
2
' -o
� 4 _
a 0
U
sy
6
syrr
4
1 8 J
J
5 a
5 �
Sy'f\-L- T
Y
MMM
.egend
'oposed Wastewater Impact Fee Projects
sin N-12 & N-12A Dove Creek 15" Sewer Line (MP#1)
sin N-13 Emerald Circle 15" & 10" Sewer Line (MP#2)
: Wastewater Line
Lakes
NENTAL
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
C. WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code defines a service unit as follows, "Service
Unit means a standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of
development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning
standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision
in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years."
Therefore, the City of Southlake defines a service unit based on historical wastewater
discharge over the past 10 years as compared to the estimated residential units. The
residential unit is the development type that predominately uses a 1-inch meter. The
measure of discharge per service unit is based on a 1-inch meter the data shown in Table
1.9.
Table 1.9 Wastewater Service Unit Consumption Calculation
Year
Population
Residential
Units
(*3.1 persons/unit)
WastewaterFlow
Average Day
Demand MGD
Flow
per Service
Unit (GPD)
2004
24,288
7,835
2.64
337
2005
24,850
8,016
2.40
299
2006
25,350
8,177
2.21
270
2007
25,700
8,290
2.33
281
2008
26,100
8,419
3.27
388
2009
26,650
8,597
2.93
341
2010
26,575
8,573
2.91
339
2011
26,842
8,659
3.09
357
2012
27,514
8,875
3.06
345
2013
27,904
9,001
3.00
333
Average Flow per Service Unit
1 329
* Based on 3.2 persons/unit with 97% occupancy per City of Southlake.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 19 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Based on the City's 10-year growth projections and the resulting wastewater flow
projections, wastewater service will be required for an additional 1,884 service units.
The calculation is as follows:
A service unit, which is a unit of development that discharges approximately 329
gallons per day (GPD), is a typical residential connection that uses a 1-inch
meter. Table 1.10 outlines the future wastewater discharge projections and its
relationship to the additional service units projected for the next 10-years.
Table 1.10 Wastewater 10-year Additional Service Unit Calculation
Year
Average Day
Flow
MGD
Service Unit
Demand
GPD
Service Units
2015
3.29
329
10,000
2025
3.91
329
11,884
10-year Additional Service Units
1,884
Impact fee law allows for a credit calculation to credit back the development
community based on the utility revenues or ad valorem taxes that are allocated for
paying a portion of future capital improvements. The intent of this credit is to
prevent the City from double charging development for future capital improvements
via impact fees and utility rates. If the city chooses not the do a financial analysis to
determine the credit value, they are required by law to reduce the recoverable cost by
50 percent. The city has chosen not to calculate the credit value. Therefore, the
maximum recoverable cost for impact fee shown below is 50 percent of the
recoverable cost for impact fee CIP with debt service. The debt service calculation
assumes 75% of the future projects are debt funded at a rate of 4.25%.
A breakdown of the 10-year recoverable costs and the associated impact fee per
service unit is as follows:
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 20 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Table 1.11 Wastewater 10-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown
Recoverable Impact Fee CIP Costs
$4,960,833
Debt Service
$1,785,900
Recoverable Impact Fee CIP Costs w/Debt Service
$6,746,733
50 Percent Reduction
($3,373,366.50)
Maximum Recoverable Cost for Impact Fee
$3,373,366.50
Impact fee per service unit = 10-year recoverable costs
10-year additional service units
Impact fee per service unit = $3,373,366.50
1,884
Impact fee per service unit = $1,790
Therefore, the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,790.
For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is
established at a multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 1-inch meter. The
maximum impact fee that could be assessed for other meter sizes is based on the
value shown on Table 1.12, Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used
Meters.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 21 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>»Horn
Table 1.12 Wastewater Service Unit Equivalency
Table for Commonly Used Meters
Maximum
Maximum
Meter Size
Continuous
Service Unit
Assessable
Operating Capacity
Equivalent
Fee
(GPM)
Wastewater
N
3/4"
15
0.6
1,074
1"
25
1.0
1,790
1 1/2"
50
2.0
3,580
2"
80
3.2
5,728
Y
160
6.4
11,456
4"
250
10
17,900
6"
500
20
35,800
8"
800
32
57,280
1 V
1,150
46
82,340
*Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (AWWA) C-700-09 and C-702-10.
2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 22 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Prepared by:
Kimley)))Horn
Texas Registration Number 928
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 950
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.335.6511
August 2015
© Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2015
061237016
44
�J%Ffi�EY k. WHITACi�1e
W
1;a��
Kimley»>Horn
Table of Contents
SOUTHLAI<E
13
Tableof Contents......................................................................................................................................... i
2.1 Executive Summary...........................................................................................................I
2.2 Introduction........................................................................................................................3
2.3 Roadway Impact Fee Study Calculation Inputs.............................................................5
A. Land Use Assumptions...............................................................................................5
B. Land Use Assumptions Methodology.........................................................................6
C. Roadway Impact Fee Study Service Areas.................................................................7
D. Land Use Assumptions Summary...............................................................................7
E. Capital Improvement Plan........................................................................................10
2.4 Methodology For Roadway Impact Fees.......................................................................15
A. Service Area..............................................................................................................15
B. Service Units.............................................................................................................15
C. Cost Per Service Unit................................................................................................17
D. Cost of the CIP..........................................................................................................17
1. Review of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing Sheets...........................................18
2. Project Information...............................................................................................19
3. Construction Pay Items.........................................................................................20
4. Construction Component Allowances..................................................................21
5. Summary of Cost and Allowances........................................................................21
E. Summary of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Cost............................................................22
F. Service Unit Calculation...........................................................................................24
2.5 Impact Fee Calculation....................................................................................................29
A. Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Per Service Unit.................................29
B. Plan for Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit.................................................31
C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development.......................................................33
2.6 Sample Calculations.........................................................................................................37
2.7 Conclusion........................................................................................................................38
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................................39
A. Appendix A — Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
B. Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply
C. Appendix C — Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory Service
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update i August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
List of Exhibits
SOUTHLAI<E
91
2.1 Roadway Service Areas.........................................................................................................9
2.2 Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan — Service Area North .............................13
2.3 Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan — Service Area South..............................14
List of Tables
2.1
Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees.................................................................8
2.2
10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area North .............10
2.3
10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan for Service Area South ............
11
2.4
Level of Use for Proposed Facilities.....................................................................................16
2.5
Level of Use for Existing Facilities......................................................................................16
2.6
10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections — Service
Area
North.....................................................................................................................................23
2.7
10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections — Service
Area
South.....................................................................................................................................23
2.8
Transportation Demand Factor Calculations........................................................................27
2.9
10-Year Growth Projections...........................................................................28
2.10
Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Computation ............................................
29-31
2.11
Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee........................................................................32
2.12
Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET)...............................................
35-36
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update ii August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
This study was performed to update the City of Southlake's Roadway Impact Fees.
Transportation system analysis is an important tool for facilitating orderly growth of the
transportation system and for providing adequate facilities that promote economic
development in the City of Southlake. The implementation of an impact fee is a way to
shift a portion of the burden of paying for new facilities onto new development.
The City of Southlake is divided into two (2) service areas for the purposes of the 2015
Roadway Impact Fee Update. These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of
the City of Southlake. Each service area is an individual study area. For each service
area the funds collected must be spent on projects identified in the Roadway Impact Fee
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for that specific service area.
Roadway improvements necessary to serve the 10-year (2015-2025) needs were
evaluated. Typically, infrastructure improvements are sized beyond the 10-year
requirements; however, Texas' impact fee law (Chapter 395) only allows recovery of
costs to serve the 10-year planning period. For example, the projected recoverable cost to
construct the infrastructure needed through 2025 by service area is:
SERVICE AREA:
North
South
COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH
28,391,041
$ 19,047,276
WITH FINANCING
A portion of the remainder can be assessed as the planning window extends beyond 2025
and as the impact fees are updated in the future. As required by Chapter 395, this total
cost is reduced by 50% to account for the credit of the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the
Roadway Impact Fee CIP.
The impact fee law defines a service unit as follows: "Service Unit means a standardized
measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 1 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual
unit of development is located during the previous 10 years."
Therefore, the City of Southlake defines a service unit as the number of vehicle -miles of
travel during the afternoon peak -hour. For each type of development the City of
Southlake utilizes the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) to
determine the number of service units.
Based on the City's 10-year growth projections and the associated demand (consumption)
in terms of vehicle -miles is as follows:
SERVICE AREA:
North
South
TOTAL VEHICLE -MILES OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS
24,758
23,203
Based on the additional service units and the recoverable capital improvements plans, the
City may assess a maximum roadway impact fee per vehicle -mile ([Recoverable Cost of
CIP*50%] / Total Growth) of:
SERVICE AREA:
North
South
MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT
$ 573
$ 410
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update 2 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
2.2 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the procedure Texas cities
must follow in order to create and implement impact fees. Senate Bill 243 (SB 243)
amended Chapter 395 in September 2001, to define an impact fee as "a charge or
assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to
generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility
expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development."
Chapter 395 mandates that impact fees be reviewed and updated at least every five (5)
years. Accordingly, the City of Southlake has developed its Land Use Assumptions and
Roadway Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with which to update the City's Roadway
Impact Fees. The City has retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to provide
professional transportation engineering services for the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee
Update. This report includes details of the impact fee calculation methodology in
accordance with Chapter 395, the applicable Land Use Assumptions, development of the
CIP, and the refinement of the Land Use Equivalency Table.
This report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee:
the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Information
from these two components is used extensively in the remainder of the report. This
report consists of a detailed discussion of the methodology for the computation of impact
fees. This discussion - Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees and Impact Fee
Calculation addresses each of the components of the computation and modifications
required for the study. The components include:
• Service Areas;
• Service Units;
• Cost Per Service Unit;
• Cost of the CIP;
• Service Unit Calculation;
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 3 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kirnley>>> Horn 91
• Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit; and
• Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development.
The report also includes a section concerning the Plan for Awarding the Roadway
Impact Fee Credit. In the case of the City of Southlake, the credit calculation was based
on awarding a 50% credit.
The final section of the report is the Conclusion, which presents the findings of the
update analysis.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 4 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
2.3 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY CALCULATION INPUTS
A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
In order to assess an impact fee, Land Use Assumptions must be developed to provide
the basis for population and employment growth projections within a political
subdivision. As defined by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, these
assumptions include a description of changes in land uses, densities, and population
in the service area. In addition, these assumptions are useful in assisting the City of
Southlake in determining the need and timing of transportation improvements to
serve future development.
Information from the following sources was compiled to complete the land use
assumptions:
• Southlake 2030 (City of Southlake Comprehensive Plan)
• Tarrant County Appraisal District (TAD)
• North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
• City of Southlake staff.
The Land Use Assumptions include the following components:
• Land Use Assumptions Methodology — An overview of the general
methodology used to generate the land use assumptions.
• Roadway Impact Fee Study Service Areas — Explanation of the division of
Southlake into two (2) service areas for transportation facilities.
• Land Use Assumptions Summary — A synopsis of the land use assumptions.
The population and employment estimates and projections were all compiled in
accordance with the following categories:
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 5 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kirnley>>> Horn 91
Units: Number of dwelling units, both single and multi -family.
Population: Number of people, based on person per dwelling unit factors.
Employment: Square feet of building area based on three (3) different
classifications. Each classification has unique trip making characteristics.
Retail: Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that
primarily serve households and whose location choice is oriented toward
the household sector, such as grocery stores and restaurants.
Service: Land use activities which provide personal and professional
services such as government and other professional administrative offices.
Basic: Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those
that are exported outside of the local economy, such as manufacturing,
construction, transportation, wholesale, trade, warehousing, and other
industrial uses.
B. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS METHODOLOGY
The residential and non-residential growth projections formulated in this report were
done using reasonable and generally accepted planning principles. The following
factors were considered in developing these projections:
• Character, type, density, and quantity of existing development;
• Current zoning plans;
• Future Land Use Plan (based on Southlake 2030);
• Historic Growth trends;
• Location of vacant land; and
• Physical holding capacity of Southlake.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 6 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Existing residential and employment estimates were obtained using TAD and DCAD
parcel data and an aerial survey of existing development.
For the remaining undeveloped areas, assumptions based upon the Southlake 2030
Consolidated Future Land Use Plan were used to estimate the ultimate buildout of
residential and employment development. The remaining undeveloped parcels were
assumed to reach build out in the next 10-years.
Research of existing building permits was performed to compare the projected growth
determined by the previously discussed methodology with growth trends in the City
of Southlake over the last ten (10) years. During that period, approximately 1,552
residential units were developed. It was expected that the next ten years of
development would be reasonably close to these estimates.
C. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY SERVICE AREAS
The geographic boundary of the proposed impact fee service areas for transportation
facilities is shown in Exhibit 2.1. The City of Southlake is proposed to be divided
into two (2) service areas for the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. The dividing
line between the service areas is SH 114. In the previous 2008 Roadway Impact Fee
Study there were three (3) services areas. The two (2) service areas south of SH 114
in the 2008 Study were consolidated into one service area in the 2015 update.
D. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY
Table 2.1 summarizes the residential and employment 10-year growth projections.
The anticipated growth over the next ten years is similar to historical growth over the
previous ten years.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 7 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Table 2.1 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees
Dwelling
Employment (Square Feet)
Service Area
Year
Population
Units
Basic
Service
Retail
Total
2015
5,568
1,796
45,599
2,629,991
38,060
2,713,650
2025
7,192
2,320
45,599
3,966,782
1,900,659
5,913,040
A (North of SH 114)
10-Year
1,624
524
0
1,336,791
1,862,599
3,199,390
Growth
2015
22,961
7,407
586,673
3,069,005
4,053,962
7,709,640
2025
26,147
8,435
1,377,089
3,827,474
5,512,144
10,716,707
B (South of SH 114)
10-Year
3,186
1,028
790,416
758,469
1,458,182
3,007,067
Growth
2015
28,529
9,203
632,272
5,698,996
4,092,022
10,423,290
2025
33,339
10,755
1,422,688
7,794,256
7,412,803
16,629,747
Total (Citywide)
10-Year
4,810
1,552
790,416
2,095,260
3,320,781
6,206,457
Growth
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update 8 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
RID MM I
t Roanoke
Trophy Club
Westlake
IGCaINTA
Union Church
Legend
2015 CIP Update
Roadway Impact Fee
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
9
Exhibit 2.1
Service Area Boundaries
East Dove Rd.
v
>
Q
=
Q
o
2
o
U
LL
Z
a
EAll
Y
I
O
Z
0
z
N
o
N
6 West Southlake Blvd.
Q
6
N
0
3
Grapevi
>
o
J
v
>
N
,
O
L West Continental Blvd.
East Continental Blvd.
J
Service Areas Major Roads
N SH 114
CS Local Roads
Colleyville
City Limits
Lakes
Streams M
1
C
Miles
2
Euless
Kimley»>Horn
E. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
The City has identified the City -funded transportation projects needed to accommodate
the projected growth within the City. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees is made up o£
• Recently completed projects with excess capacity available to serve new growth;
• Projects currently under construction; and
• Remaining projects needed to complete the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
The CIP includes arterial and collector facilities. All of the arterial and collector facilities
are part of the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan.
The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees that are proposed for the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee
Update are listed in Tables 2.2 and 2.3, and mapped in Exhibit 2.2 (Service Area
North) and Exhibit 2.3 (Service Area South). The tables show the length of each
project as well as the facility's classification. The CIP was developed in conjunction
with input from City of Southlake staff and represents those projects that will be needed
to accommodate the growth projected from the land use assumptions.
Table 2.2 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area North
Service
Are a
Pro,j #
Impact Fee
Class
Roadway
Limits
N-1
A41)(100)(1/2)
Kirkwood Blvd. (1)
Tyler St. to Stockton Dr.
N-2
A41)(100)
Kirkwood Blvd. (2)
E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd.
N-3
A4D(88)
N White Chapel Blvd. (1)
E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd.
N-4
A41)(88)(1/2)
N White Chapel Blvd. (2)
Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR
N-5
A41)(100)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (3)
Carillon Development to Existing Highland St.
N-6
A4U(88)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (4)
Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave.
N-7
A4D(88)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (5)
N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St.
Z
N-8
A41)(100)(1/2)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (6)
Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way
N-9
A41)100 1/2
E Kirkwood Blvd. 7
935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave.
N-10
A4D(88)
N Kimball Ave.
E. Dove Rd. to SH 114
I-1
Intersection Improvement (WB
and NB right -turn)
N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. to
I-2
Roundabout
N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) to
I-3
Signal Installation
N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. to
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 10 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Table 2.3 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area South
Service
Area
Proj. #
Class
Roadway
Limits
S-1
A41)(130-140)
FM 1938 Phase 2
Rando1Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkwy.
S-2
A4D(88)
N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1
SH 114 to Highland St.
S-3
A4D(88)
N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2
Highland St. to Emerald Blvd.
S-4
A3U(70)
N Pearson Ln.
Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd.
S-5
C2U(60)
Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd.
East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrol Ave.
S-6
C2U(60)
Zena Rucker Rd.
935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr.
S-7
A41)(88)(1/2)
S Carroll Ave. (1)
Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr.
S-8
A41)(88)(1/2)
S Carroll Ave. (2)
120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way
S-9
C2U(60)
Village Center Dr. (1)
700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson
S-10
C2U(60)
Village Center Dr. (2)
S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr.
S-11
A4D(94)
Brumlow Ave.
East Continental Blvd. to 259 North of Southern City Limits
S-12
A3U(70)
W Highland St.
White Chapel Rd. to SH 114
I-4
Roundabout
Continental Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. to
I-5
Roundabout
Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Blvd. to
I-6
Roundabout
N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. to
I-7
1
1 Roundabout
Dove Rd. & Peytonville Ave. to
The various roadway classifications describe the purpose and function of each roadway.
These roadway classifications are based on the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare
Plan. There are twelve (12) primary classifications on the City of Southlake's Master
Thoroughfare Plan that were used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update. These
classifications are:
• Freeway (300' — 500' of ROW)
• A61)
— 130' to 150' Arterial
• A6D
— 124' Arterial
• A5U
— 84' Arterial
• A41)
— 100' Arterial
• A41)
— 94' Arterial
• A41)
— 88'
Arterial
• A2U
— 88'
Arterial
• A3U
— 70'
Arterial
• C2U
- 84'
Collector
• C2U
— 70'
Collector
• C2U
— 60'
Collector
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 11 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Each of the classifications have different vehicular capacities assigned to them (see Table
2.4) based on their roadway characteristics. Arterial thoroughfares are designed to move
more traffic and provide a larger amount of capacity. Arterials provide for travel
between neighborhoods and commercial areas or serve as routes for thru-traffic from
adjacent cities. A collector's primary function is to bring traffic from local streets to
arterial facilities. Collectors are intended to move less traffic and are designed with
lower vehicular capacity than arterial facilities.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 12 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
2015 CIP Update
Roadway Impact Fee
Y
SOUTHLAKE
Trophy Club
a
Exhibit 2.2
Roadway Improvements
Y 3 Service Area North (N)
3 Z
N
Westlake
\ p N-1
O�
O�
DEast Dove
Dove Rd. Rd.
N-3
N-2 L-�-�—
f Gra evine
T N-4 �•
_—r
O V
3q, Z
5r �2
IL O G N-5
S-2
Z 5-12
ao I N 7 N 8 N-10
M
W Highland St. N-s
/ E Highland St.
-8
LL /
1
N0 r
S Y O FKirkko
d
/ S 3 d oyBi�a,
o
t a'
Z ur /
r
N-10
7 N
O L%
H Z
AL
S-1
1 West Southlake BNd_ S-5 East South Id
Blvd.
ur
3
6
West Continental Blvd. East Continental Blvd.
i 5-11
Legend
3
Impact Fee Eligible Projects — Local Roads
f
D
Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes
Other Transportation Projects Streams
OProject Number ' 100 Year Flooplain
OIntersection Projects Q City Limits
0 0.5
Miles
1
d LL a)
V Cl) O O
Q Q N O fn
V W r I
�Q 1�
o
N 0 0 (J)
O
'•9w!N N
S Kimball Ave.
z
z
O a
m
N °
O
v o
c
A `
9
IrL
x 4
Y
W
O
p
r
O grumlow Ave
O
O
NO
Z
m
'aAtl IIOJJBO N z
'aAtl Ilo1190 N
w
w 'a^tl Ilo��e� g
c
w
w
.c
0
z
9
z
Ul
O
N
N
W
m
W
Od
`�K�O
�� o
c
s
2Oi r O1
x
z z
O 0
O
Oa�\�a
,a smep APp4S
.6
O'
y
m
>
m
O
O
C
°
r'any
all!nuo;Rad N
y
c
Y SE66 Wd
m
N Ow
-any OillAUO;Rad S
'PAIS Slnpd
c
a u
L
c c
w
0
LL
Ow
c
•u-I UOSIpad S
L0
(1)
0
C
0
'S
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
2.4 METHODOLOGY FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES
A. SERVICE AREA
The service areas used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update are shown in the
previously referenced Exhibit 2.1. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code
specifies that "the service areas are limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of
the political subdivision and shall not exceed six (6) miles." Based on the guidance in
Chapter 395 and examination of the City of Southlake, two roadway service areas were
deemed appropriate. These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City
of Southlake. Service Area North is located north of SH 114 and Service Area South is
located south of SH 114. Both service areas are approximately four (4) miles in
diameter.
B. SERVICE UNITS
The "service unit" is a measure of consumption or use of the roadway facilities by new
development. In other words, it is the measure of supply and demand for roads in the
City. For transportation purposes, the service unit is defined as a vehicle -mile. On the
supply side, this is a lane -mile of an arterial street. On the demand side, this is a vehicle -
trip of one -mile in length. The application of this unit as an estimate of either supply or
demand is based on travel during the afternoon peak hour of traffic. This time period is
commonly used as the basis for transportation planning and the estimation of trips created
by new development.
Another aspect of the service unit is the service volume that is provided (supplied) by a
lane -mile of roadway facility. This number, also referred to as capacity, is a function of
the facility type, facility configuration, number of lanes, and level of service.
The hourly service volumes used in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update are based
upon Thoroughfare Capacity Criteria published by the North Central Texas Council of
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 15 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
SOUTHLAI<E
19
Governments (NCTCOG), but have been adjusted to the City of Southlake's Master
Thoroughfare Plan. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 show the service volumes utilized in this report.
Table 2.4 Level of Use for Proposed Facilities
(used in Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply)
Roadway Type
(MTP Classifications)
Median Configuration
Hourly Vehicle -Mile
Capacity per Lane -Mile of
Roadway Facility
A41) —130' to 140' Arterial
Divided
725
A41) —100' Arterial
Divided
725
A41) — 94' Arterial
Divided
725
A41) — 88' Arterial
Divided
725
A4U — 88' Arterial
Undivided
650
A3U — 70' Arterial
Undivided
650
C2U — 60' Collector
Undivided
525
Table 2.5 Level of Use for Existing Facilities
(used in Appendix C — Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory)
Roadway
Type
Description
Hourly Vehicle -Mile
Capacity per Lane -Mile
of Roadway Facility
2U-C
Two lane undivided collector
525
2U-A
Two lane undivided arterial
525
3U-C
Three lane undivided (TWLTL) collector
650
3U-A
Three lane undivided (TWLTL) arterial
650
4U-C
Four lane undivided collector
650
4U-A
Four lane undivided arterial
725
4D-C
Four lane divided collector
725
4D-A
Four lane divided arterial
725
5U-A
Five lanes undivided arterial
725
6D-A
Six lane divided arterial
725
7U-A
Seven lane undivided arterial
725
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 16 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kirnley>>> Horn 91
C. COST PER SERVICE UNIT
A fundamental step in the impact fee process is to establish the cost for each service unit.
In the case of the roadway impact fee, this is the cost for each vehicle -mile of travel.
This cost per service unit is the cost to construct a roadway (lane -mile) needed to
accommodate a vehicle -mile of travel at a level of service corresponding to the City's
standards. The cost per service unit is calculated for each service area based on a specific
list of projects within that service area.
The second component of the cost per service unit is the number of service units in each
service area. This number is the measure of the growth in transportation demand that is
projected to occur in the ten-year period. Chapter 395 requires that Impact Fees be
assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur in the city limits within the next ten
years, a concept that will be covered in a later section of this report (Section 2.3.E). As
noted earlier, the units of demand are vehicle -miles of travel.
D. COST OF THE CIP
All of the project costs for an arterial system are eligible to be included in the 2015
Roadway Impact Fee Update. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code
specifies that the allowable costs are "...including and limited to the:
1. Construction contract price;
2. Surveying and engineering fees;
3. Land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's
fees, and expert witness fees; and
4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or
financial consultant preparing or updating the Capital Improvement Plan who is not
an employee of the political subdivision."
The engineer's opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the CIP is based, in part,
on the calculation of a unit cost of construction. This means that a cost per linear foot of
roadway is calculated based on an average price for the various components of roadway
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 17 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kirnley>>> Horn
construction. This allows the probable cost to be determined by the type of facility being
constructed, the number of lanes, and the length of the project. The costs for location -
specific items such as bridges, highway ramps, drainage structures, and any other special
components are added to each project as appropriate.
1. Review of Roadway Impact Fee CIP Costing Sheets
The following section provides an overview of the costing sheets specifically developed
for each Roadway Impact Fee project. The costing sheet contains the following four
elements:
• Project Information;
• Construction Pay Items;
• Construction Component Allowances; and
• Summary of Costs and Allowances
The 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update incorporates two different versions of the costing
sheets. The first type of costing is used to summarize the costing of roadway projects that
had been previously constructed or estimates have been determined in past CIP Budgets
or in the Kirkwood Boulevard Alignment Study. The second version of costing sheets
consists of projects that possess no previous costing estimates. Costing sheets that
summarize the known cost of projects include the first two elements listed above (Project
Information and Construction Pay Items) as the costing sheets with no previous estimates
contain all four of the elements.
A sample costing sheet is provided below with the location of the four sections
highlighted.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 18 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 1I8I2015I
Project Information: Description: Project No. N-2
Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (2) This project consists of the construction of a new
Limits: E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. four -lane divided arterial.
Project Information Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 2,295
Service Area(s): N
Construction Pay Items
Construction Component
Allowances
Summary of Costs
and Allowances
Roadway
No.
Construction Cost Projection
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
108
Unclassified Street Excavation
16,830
cy
$ 10.00
$ 168,300
208
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy)
13,770
sy
$ 6.00
$ 82,620
308
8" Concrete Pavement
12,750
sy
$ 46.00
$ 586,500
323
4" Topsoil
10,455
sy
$ 2.50
$ 26,138
508
5' Concrete Sidewalk
22,950
sf
$ 4.50
$ 103,275
608
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
1,217
sy
$ 52.00
$ 63,286
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,030,119
Major Construction Component Allowancee*:
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$ -
>f Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$ 30,904
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$ 360,542
Illumination
6%
$ 61,807
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
>f Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$ 30,904
>f Sewer
MinorAdjustments
2%
$ 20,602
Establish Turf/Erosion Contro 1
2%
$ 20,602
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$ 41,205
Miscellaneous:
$0
$ -
-Allowances based on %of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal Allowance Subtotal:
$ 566,565
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$ 1,596,684
Construction Contingency: 15%
$ 239,503
Mobilization 5%
$ 79,834
Prep ROW 3%
$ 47,901
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$ 1,964,000
Impact Fee Project Cost Summary
Item Description
Notes:
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction:
-
$ 1,964,000
Engineering/Survey/Testing:
20%
$ 392,800
Previous City contribution
Other
ROW/Easement Acquisition:
Assumed $5 per square foot
$5
$ 1,147,500
Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:
$ 3,505,000
2. Project Information
In order to correctly estimate the cost of a roadway project, several attributes are first
identified:
• Project Number —Identifies which Service Area the project is in with a corresponding
number. The corresponding number does not represent any prioritizations and is used
only to identify projects. For example, Project N-2 is in Service Area North and is
the 2nd project on the list.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 19 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
• Name —A unique identifier for each project. In some cases, multiple projects occur
on the same roadway. In this situation, the names of these projects are designated a
number, such as "1" or "2," in order to distinguish them. For example, in Service
Area North, two projects are located along N. White Chapel Blvd. The northern most
project was designated the name "N. White Chapel Blvd. (1)", and the project
immediately south was designated the name "N. White Chapel Blvd (2)."
• Limits — Represents the beginning and ending location for each project.
• Impact Fee Class — The costing class to be used in the analysis. The impact fee class
provides the functional classification, width and number of lanes attributed to each
roadway project. The construction costs are variable, calculated based on the twelve
classification categories outlined in the City of Southlake's Master Thoroughfare
Plan. These twelve classes are listed in Section 2.3.E and the impact fee classes
assigned to the IF projects can be seen in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3. For example,
A41)(100) signifies a 4 lane, divided arterial that is 100 feet in width. An A41)(100)
Impact Fee Class means the entire roadway is to be constructed. Additional
classifications are utilized in cases where a portion of the facility currently exists and
the road is only to be widened. The following notation is used for these projects:
o "(1/2)" for facilities where half the facility still needs to be constructed;
• Ultimate Class — Corresponds to the functional classification on the City of
Southlake's Master Thoroughfare Plan.
• Length (ft.) — The distance measured in feet that is used to cost out the project.
• Service Area(s) — Represents the service area where the project is located.
• Description —Used to describe the project type assumed in the costing such as a
widening or reconstruction.
3. Construction Pay Items
A typical roadway project consists of a number of costs, including the following: planning,
survey, design engineering, permitting, right -of way acquisition, and construction and
inspection. While the construction cost component of a project may actually consist of
approximately 100 various pay items, a simplified approach was used for developing the
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 20 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
conceptual level project costs. The table below summarizes the pay items for concrete
roads.
11 Concrete Pay Items 11
• Unclassified street excavation
• Lime Stabilization
• Concrete pavement and curb
• Topsoil
• Concrete Sidewalk
• Turn lanes and median openings
4. Construction Component Allowances
A percentage of the paving construction cost is allotted for various major construction
component allowances, as appropriate. These allowances include traffic control,
pavement markings and signage, roadway drainage, illumination, minor water and sewer
adjustments, landscaping and irrigation. These allowance percentages are also based on
historical data.
In addition, lump sum dollar allowances are provided for special drainage structures,
railroad crossings, and intersection improvements where needs are anticipated. The
paving and allowance subtotal is given a fifteen percent (15%) construction contingency,
five percent (5%) mobilizations, and three (3%) preparation of right-of-way to determine
the construction cost total.
5. Summary of Cost and Allowances
To determine the total Impact Fee Project Cost, twenty percent (20%) of the construction
cost total is added for engineering, surveying, and testing.
An allotment for ROW/easement acquisition was calculated for each project individually
based on an assumption of $5 per square foot of ROW land value.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 21 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Funding contributions for roadway projects from private and public entities other than the
City of Southlake have been subtracted from the corresponding City projects.
The Impact Fee Project Cost Total is the Construction Cost Total plus engineering,
surveying, and testing; plus ROW/easement acquisition; and minus roadway funding
contributions from other entities.
E. SUMMARY OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP COST
Tables 2.6 and 2.7 are the 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP project lists for each
service area with planning level project costs. Individual project cost worksheets can be
seen in Appendix A, Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections. It should be noted that
these tables reflect only conceptual -level opinions or assumptions regarding the portions
of future project costs that are recoverable through impact fees. Actual project costs are
likely to change with time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that
cannot be predicted.
The 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP establishes the list of projects for which Impact Fees
may be utilized. Essentially, it establishes a list of projects for which an impact fee
funding program can be established. Projects not included in the Roadway Impact Fee
CIP are not eligible to receive impact fee funding. The 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP is
different from a City's construction CIP, which provides a short-term list of projects that
the City is committed to building. The 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP for Impact Fees is
simply an inventory of future projects needed to serve future development. The cost
projections utilized in this study should not be utilized for the City's construction CIP.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 22 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Table 2.6 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections -
Service Area North
Service
Proj. #
Class
Roadway
Limits
Length
Total Project
Area
(mi)
Cost
N-1
A41)(100)(1/2)
Kirkwood Blvd. (1)
Tyler St. to Stockton Dr.
0.40
$ 1,300,000
N-2
A41)(100)
Kirkwood Blvd. (2)
E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd.
0.43
$ 3,504,300
N-3
A4D(88)
N White Chapel Blvd. (1)
E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd.
0.34
$ 1,850,000
N-4
A41)(88)(1/2)
N White Chapel Blvd. (2)
Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR
0.23
$ 1,050,000
N-5
A41)(100)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (3)
Carillon Development to Existing Highland St.
0.42
$ 5,699,000
N-6
A4U(88)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (4)
Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave.
0.16
$ 822,000
N-7
A4D(88)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (5)
N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St.
0.16
$ 1,159,000
Z
N-8
A41)(100)(1/2)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (6)
Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way
0.33
$ 2,625,000
N-9
A41)(100)(1/2)
E Kirkwood Blvd. (7)
935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave.
0.29
$ 861,600
N-10
A4D(88)
N Kimball Ave.
E. Dove Rd. to SH 114
1.18
$ 10,383,832
I-1
IntersectionImprovement(WB and NB right-
N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. to
$ 300,000
I-2
Roundabout
N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) to
$ 1250,000
I-3
Signal Installation
N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. to
$ 200,000
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal
$ 31,004,732
$ 15,167
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Cost Per Service Area
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA NORTH (1S)
$ 31,019,899
Table 2.7 10-Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections -
Service Area South
Service
Proj. #
Class
Roadway
Limits
Length
Total Project
Area
(w)
Cost
S-1
A41)(130-140)
FM 1938 Phase 2
Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkwy.
1.56
$ 3,465,000
S-2
A4D(88)
N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1
SH 114 to Highland St.
0.33
$ 5,452,128
S-3
A4D(88)
N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2
Highland St. to Emerald Blvd.
0.81
$ 5,537,858
S-4
A31J(70)
N Pearson Ln.
Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd.
1.00
$ 4,778,300
S-5
C21J(60)
Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd.
East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrot Ave.
0.35
$ 662,118
S-6
C21J(60)
Zena Rucker Rd.
935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr.
0.19
$ 1,026,000
S-7
A41)(88)(1/2)
S Carroll Ave. (1)
Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr.
0.14
$ 200,000
S-8
A41)(88)(1/2)
S Carroll Ave. (2)
120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way
0.09
$ 331,960
s
5
S-9
C21J(60)
Village Center Dr. (1)
700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway
0.44
$ 2,476,675
5-10
C21J(60)
Village Center Dr. (2)
S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr.
0.33
$ 1,684,500
5-11
A4D(94)
Brumbw Ave.
East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits
0.76
$ 4,904,625
5-12
A31J(70)
W Highland St.
White Chapel Rd. to SH 114
0.60
$ 2,615,700
I-4
Roundabout
Continental Blvd. & Peytorwille Ave. to
$ 1,660,000
I-5
Roundabout
Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Blvd. to
$ 1,500,000
I-6
Roundabout
N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. to
$ 1,500,000
I-7
Roundabout
Dove Rd. & Peytonville Ave. to
$ 2,410,000
Service Area Project Cost Subtotal
$ 40,204,864
$ 15,167
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Cost Per Service Area
Total Cost in SERVICE AREA SOUTH (S)
$ 40,220,031
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 23 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kirnley>>> Horn 91
F. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION
The basic service unit for the computation of the City of Southlake's roadway impact fees
is the vehicle -mile of travel during the afternoon peak hour. To determine the cost per
service unit, it is necessary to project the growth in vehicle -miles of travel for the service
area for the ten-year study period.
The growth in vehicle -miles from 2015 to 2025 is based upon projected changes in
residential and non-residential growth for the period. In order to determine this growth,
baseline estimates of population, basic square feet, service square feet, and retail square
feet for 2015 were made along with projections for each of these demographic statistics
through 2025. The Land Use Assumptions (see Table 2.1) details the growth estimates
used for the impact fee determination.
The residential and non-residential statistics in the Land Use Assumptions provide the
"independent variables" that are used to calculate the existing (2015) and projected
(2025) transportation service units used to establish the roadway impact fee maximum
rates within each service area. The roadway demand service units (vehicle -miles) for
each service area are the sum of the vehicle -miles "generated" by each category of land
use in the service area.
For the purpose of impact fees, all developed and developable land is categorized as
either residential or non-residential. For residential land uses, the existing and projected
population is converted to dwelling units. The number of dwelling units in each service
area is multiplied by a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle -miles of
travel that occur during the afternoon peak hour. This factor computes the average
amount of demand caused by the residential land uses in the service area. The
transportation demand factor is discussed in more detail below.
For non-residential land uses, the process is similar. The Land Use Assumptions provide
the existing and projected amount of building square footages for three (3) categories of
non-residential land uses — basic, service, and retail. These categories correspond to an
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 24 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS).
Building square footage is the most common independent variable for the estimation of
non-residential trips in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation
Manual, 9' Edition. This independent variable is more appropriate than the number of
employees because building square footage is tied more closely to trip generation and is
known at the time of application for any development or development modification that
would require the assessment of an impact fee.
The existing and projected land use assumptions for the dwelling units and the square
footage of basic, service, and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected increase
in vehicle -miles of travel. As noted earlier, a transportation demand factor is applied to
these values and then summed to calculate the total peak -hour vehicle -miles of demand
for each service area.
The transportation demand factors are aggregate rates derived from two sources — the
ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9' Edition, and the regional Origin -Destination Travel
Survey performed by the NCTCOG and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS).
The ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9' Edition, provides the number of trips that are
produced or attracted to the land use for each dwelling unit, square foot of building, or
other corresponding unit. For the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted to
account for the fact that a percentage of retail trips are made by people who would
otherwise be traveling past that particular establishment anyway, such as a trip between
work and home. These trips are called pass -by trips, and since the travel demand is
accounted for in the land use calculations relative to the primary trip, it is necessary to
discount the retail rate to avoid double counting trips.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 25 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
The next component of the transportation demand factor accounts for the length of each
trip. The average trip length for each category is based on the region -wide travel
characteristics survey conducted by the NCTCOG and the NHTS.
The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following
equation:
Variables:
TDF = l * (I —Pb) * Lmax
where... Lmax = min(L * OD or SAL)
TDF = Transportation Demand Factor;
T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit);
Pb = Pass -By Discount (% of trips);
Lmax = Maximum Trip Length (miles);
L = Average Trip Length (miles);
OD = Origin -Destination Reduction (50%); and
SAL = Max Service Area Trip Length (see Table 2.8).
For land uses which are characterized by longer average trip lengths (primarily residential
uses), the maximum trip length has been limited to four (4) miles based on the maximum
trip length within each service area. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code
allows for a service area of six (6) miles; however the service area within the City of
Southlake is approximated to be a four (4) mile distance.
The adjustment made to the average trip length (L) statistic in the computation of the
maximum trip length (Lmax) is the origin -destination reduction (OD). This adjustment is
made because the roadway impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of
the trip. For example, the impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to
work within the City of Southlake to both residential and non-residential land uses. To
avoid counting these trips as both residential and non-residential trips, a 50% origin-
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 26 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
destination (OD) reduction factor is applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length is
assessed to each land use.
Table 2.8 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential
land uses and the three (3) non-residential land uses. The values utilized for all variables
shown in the Transportation Demand Factor equation are also shown in the table.
Table 2.8 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations
Variable
Residential
Basic
Service
Retail
(General Light
(General Office)
(Shopping
Industrial)
Center
T
1.00
0.97
1.49
3.71
Pb
0%
0%
0%
34%
T with Pb)1.00
0.97
1.49
2.45
L
(miles)
17.21
10.02
10.92
6.43
SAL
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
Lmax *
(miles)
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.22
TDF
4.00
3.88
5.96
7.89
Lmax is less than 4 miles for retail land uses; therefore this lower trip length is used
for calculating the TDF for retail land uses
The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors
are presented in the 10-Year Growth Projections in Table 2.9. This table shows the total
vehicle -miles by service area for the years 2015-2025. These estimates and projections
lead to the Vehicle Miles of Travel for 2015-2025.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 27 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
J o
F-
U W=g
m
~
[yJ J
i �
N N
�
�
N
W
F-
_(OO
h
J
.O
J
C
J
a
O_(n
(C'
NIll
lL
.Q
[1=J
i
'IT
N
O
C
J
N
W
Q
N
F
w
U
r� O
co
�_
W
0-�
` I� V
N
m
(n
rn
W
S
U
D
00
O
O
2
z
m
(1)
(h
o
s
U
(6
�
J
a
d)
iz
N
o
W
M
o
LL
W
V
LL
�
a)N
rn t
�p
h
C
LO
rn m
W
C.)N
O
cn
,O
U
H
:
Q
w
; J
o
o
rh
m
W
J
0) W.0
p O a)�..
�
a
~
L
�-
� LL N
LL
W
W V
04
Q
_ -O N N
[
W
M
E
O i N 7
D
U
cy
(0
Q
E (] -
U C N C U-
N
' (00
V
M�
N
(6 0
w Q t
(`")
N
�O s N Q J O[
Z
04
J
`p LL U1 (6 N
rl
O
H N N iD
WO
(O
N
LCLO
-O c: J -O (D O
N
O
Z
m
O
d)
O
t
E ,Q -(on C_
_ t
E
Z
0
O p O_
O
O s O O co
c N
�p O
W•
CU
r N• N O U
(n
J in
(0
�
U
n m U � ,
O-
N
O NE
04
C U E .N _
a N€ V
(O
�O„
O
N O
O
p
'o
LL
W
J
Z
'
=
16
LL
OO 00
W
a
EL
U
w
Z
z
Z (n
W
N r
00
N
W
LL J
co
M
O
W
U- 0
W 2
N
N
N
J
C
LL
N
W W
W
�
y
J
5
W
z (n
:°
U g W
z
(n
o
w°d
0
N
(n
> (n
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update
28
a)
co
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
2.5 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
A. MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT
This section presents the maximum assessable roadway impact fee rate calculated for
each service area. The maximum assessable roadway impact fee is the sum of the
eligible 2015 Impact Fee CIP costs for the service area divided by the growth in travel
attributable to new development projected to occur within the 10-year period. A majority
of the components of this calculation have been described and presented in previous
sections of this report. The purpose of this section is to document the computation for
each service area and to demonstrate that the guidelines provided by Chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code have been addressed. Table 2.10 illustrates the
computation of the maximum assessable impact fee computed for each service area.
Each row in the table is numbered to simplify explanation of the calculation.
Table 2.10 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Computation
Line
Title
Description
The total number of vehicle -miles added to the service
Total Vehicle -Miles
area based on the capacity, length, and number of lanes
1
of Capacity Added
in each project. (from Appendix B — CIP Service Units
by the CIP
of Sup 1
Each project identified in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP will add a certain
amount of capacity to the City's roadway network based on its length and
classification. This line displays the total amount added within the service area.
Total Vehicle -Miles A measure of the amount of traffic currently using the
2 of Existing roadway facilities upon which capacity is being added.
Demand from Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply)
A number of facilities identified in the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP have traffic
currently utilizing a portion of their existing capacity. This line displays the total
amount of capacity along these facilities currently being used by existing traffic.
Total Vehicle -Miles Number of vehicle -miles of travel that are not
3 of Existing accommodated by the existing roadway system. (from
Deficiencies Appendix C — Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory)
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 29 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
In order to ensure that existing deficiencies on the City's roadway network are not
recoverable through impact fees, this line is based on the entire roadway network
within the service area. Any roadway within the service area that is deficient — even
those not identified on the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP — will have these additional
trips removed from the calculation.
Net Amount of A measurement of the amount of vehicle -miles added by
4 Vehicle -Miles of the CIP that will not be utilized by existing demand.
Capacity Added Line 1 — Line 2 — Line 3
Total Cost of the The total cost of the projects within the service area
5 CIP within the (from Table 2.6/Table 2.7 - 10-Year Roadway Capital
Service Area Improvement Plan with Conceptual Level Cost
Pro' ections
This line simply identifies the total cost of all of the projects identified in the service
area.
Cost of Net The total CIP cost (Line 5) prorated by the ratio of Net
6 Capacity Supplied Capacity Added (Line 4) to Total Capacity Added (Line
1). [(Line 4 / Line 1 Line 5 ]
Using the ratio of vehicle -miles added by the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP
available to serve future growth to the total vehicle -miles added, the total cost of the
2015 Impact Fee CIP is reduced to the amount available for future growth (i.e.,
excluding existing usage and deficiencies).
Cost to Meet The difference between the Total Cost of the CIP (Line
7 Existing Needs and 5) and the Cost of the Net Capacity supplied (Line 6).
Usage Line 5 — Line 6
This line is provided for information purposes only — it is to present the portion of the
total cost of the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP that is required to meet existing
demand.
Total Vehicle -Miles Based upon the growth projection provided in the Land
8 of New Demand Use Assumptions (see Section 2.3), an estimate of the
over Ten Years number of new vehicle -miles within the service area
over the next ten years. from Table 2.9
This line presents the amount of growth (in vehicle -miles) projected to occur within
each service area over the next ten years.
9 Percent of The result of dividing Total Vehicle -Miles of New
Capacity Added Demand (Line 8) by the Net Amount of Capacity Added
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 30 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Attributable to New (Line 4), limited to 100% (Line 10). This calculation is
Growth required by Chapter 395 to ensure capacity added is
10 Chapter 395 Check attributable to new growth.
In order to ensure that the vehicle -miles added by the 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP
do not exceed the amount needed to accommodate growth beyond the ten-year
window, a comparison of the two values is performed. If the amount of vehicle -miles
added by the Roadway Impact Fee CIP exceeds the growth projected to occur in the
next ten years, the Roadway Impact Fee CIP cost is reduced accordingly.
Cost of Capacity The result of multiplying the Cost of Net Capacity
11 Added Attributable Added (Line 6) by the Percent of Capacity Added
to New Growth Attributable to New Growth, limited to 100% Line 10).—
The value of the total 2015 Roadway Impact Fee CIP project costs (excluding
financial costs) that may be recovered through impact fees. This line is determined
considering the limitations to impact fees required by the Texas legislature.
B. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the Capital Improvement Plan
for Roadway Impact Fees to contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the
impact fee credit. Section 395.014 of the Code states:
"(7) A plan for awarding:
(A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues
generated by new service units during the program period that is used
for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that
are included in the capital improvements plan; or
(B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected
cost of implementing the Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement
Program..."
The following table summarizes the portions of Table 2.10 that utilize this credit
calculation, based on awarding a 50 percent credit.
Line
Title
Description
Cost of Capacity Added
Assume 50% of future projects to be funded through debt at a rate of
12
Attributable to New
4.25%.
Growth with Financing
13
Credit
A credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost, as per section
395.014 of the Texas Local Government Code.
Maximum Assessable
Found by dividing the Recoverable Cost of the CIP attributable to
14
Fee Per Service Unit
growth (Line 12) by the Total Vehicle -Miles of New Demand Over
Ten Years (Line 8). (Line 12 / Line 8)
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 31 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
Table 2.11 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
SERVICE AREA:
North (N)
South (S)
TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITYADDED BYTHE CIP
1
(FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP
11,385
14,194
SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)
TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTINGDEMAND
2
(FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP
2,324
5,439
SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)
TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES
3
(FROM EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES
0
3,290
INVENTORY, APPENDIX C)
4
NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITYADDED
9,061
5 465
'
(LINE 1- LINE 2 - LINE 3)
5
TOTAL COST OF THE CIP WITHIN SERVICE AREA
$
31,019,899
$
40,220,031
(FROM TABLES 2.6 and 2.7)
6
COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED
$
24,687,862
$
15,485,590
(LINE 4 / LINE 1) * (LINE 5)
7
COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE
$
6,332,037
$
24,734,441
(LINE 5 - LINE 6)
8
TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS
24,758
23,203
(FROMTABLE2.9 and Land Use Assumptions)
PERCENT OF CAPACITYADDED
9
ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH
273.2%
424.5%
(LINE 8 / LINE 4)
10
IF LINE 8 > LINE 4, REDUCE LINE 9 TO 100%,
100.0%
100.0%
OTHERW ISE NO CHANCE
11
COST OF CAPACITYADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH
$
24,687,862
$
15,485590
(LINE 6 * LINE 10)'
COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH WITH
12
FINANCING
$
28,391,041
$
19,047,276
(LINE 6 * LINE 10)
13
CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES (50% OF LINE 12)
$
14,195,521
$
9,523,638
14
MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI)
$
573
$
410
(LINE 13 / LINE 8)
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update 32 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kirnley>>> Horn 91
C. SERVICE UNIT DEMAND PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
The roadway impact fee is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate by the number
of service units projected for the proposed development. For this purpose, the City
utilizes the Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET), presented in Table
2.12. This table lists the predominant land uses that may occur within the City of
Southlake. For each land use, the development unit that defines the development's
magnitude with respect to transportation demand is shown. Although every possible use
cannot be anticipated, the majority of uses are found in this table. If the exact use is not
listed, one similar in trip -making characteristics can serve as a reasonable proxy. The
individual land uses are grouped into categories, such as residential, office, commercial,
industrial, and institutional.
The trip rate presented for each land use is a fundamental component of the LUVMET.
The trip rate is the average number of trips generated during the afternoon peak hour by
each land use per development unit. The next column, if applicable to the land use,
presents the number of trips to and from certain land uses reduced by pass -by trips, as
previously discussed.
The source of the trip generation and pass -by statistics is the ITE Trip Generation
Manual, 91 Edition, the latest edition for trip generation data. This manual utilizes trip
generation studies for a variety of land uses throughout the United States, and is the
standard used by traffic engineers and transportation planners for traffic impact analysis,
site design, and transportation planning.
To convert vehicle trips to vehicle -miles, it is necessary to multiply trips by trip length.
The adjusted trip length values are based on the Regional Origin -Destination Travel
Survey performed by the NCTCOG and the NHTS. The other adjustment to trip length is
the 50% origin -destination reduction to avoid double counting of trips. At this stage,
another important aspect of the state law is applied — the limit on transportation service
unit demand. If the adjusted trip length is above the maximum trip length allowed within
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 33 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
the service area, the maximum trip length used for calculation is reduced to the
corresponding value. This reduction, as discussed previously, limits the maximum trip
length to the approximate size of the service areas.
The remaining column in the LU VMET shows the vehicle -miles per development unit.
This number is the product of the trip rate and the maximum trip length. This number,
previously referred to as the Transportation Demand Factor, is used in the impact fee
estimate to compute the number of service units consumed by each land use application.
The number of service units is multiplied by the impact fee rate (established by City
ordinance) in order to determine the impact fee for a development.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 34 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Table 2.12 Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET)
Max Trip
Veh-Mi
TTELand
Trip Gen
Pass -by
Pass -by
Trip
NCTCOG
Adj.
A.I. Trip
Length
PerDev-
LandUseCategory
Development Unit
Rate
Trip Length
For
Length
Use Code
(PM)
Rate
Source
Rate
(mi)
O-D
(mi)
(mi)
Unit
PORT AND TERMINAL
Track Terminal
030
Acre
6.55
6.55
10.02
50%
5.01
4.00
26.20
PnDLSTRIAL
General Light Industrial
110
1,000 SF GFA
0.97
0.97
10.02
50%
5.01
4.00
3.88
General Heavy Industrial
120
1,000 SF GFA
0.68
0.68
10.02
50%
5.01
4.00
2.72
Industrial Park
130
1,000 SF GFA
0.85
0.85
10.02
50%
5.01
4.00
3.40
Warehousing
150
11000 SF GFA
0.32
0.32
10.83
50%
5.42
4.00
1.28
Mini -Warehouse
151
1,000 SF GFA
026
026
10.83
50%
5.42
4.00
1.04
RESIDENTIAL.
Single -Family Detached Housing
210
Dwelling Unit
1.00
1.00
17.21
50%
8.61
4.00
4.00
ApartmenUMulti-fsnuly
220
Dwelling Unit
0.62
0.62
17.21
50%
8.61
4.00
2.48
Residential Condominium/Townhome
230
Dwelling Unit
0.52
0.52
17.21
50%
8.61
4.00
2.08
Senior Adult Housing -Detached
251
Dwelling Unit
027
027
17.21
50%
8.61
4.00
1.08
Senior Adult Housing -Attached
252
Dwelling Unit
025
025
17.21
50%
8.61
4.00
1.00
Ass isted Living
254
Beds
022
022
17.21
50%
8.61
4.00
0.88
LODGING
Hotel
310
Room
0.60
0.60
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
1.93
Motel/ Other Lodging Facilities
320
Room
0.47
0.47
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
1.51
RECREATIONAL
Goff Driving Range
432
Tee
125
125
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
4.03
GoffCourae
430
Acre
0.30
0.30
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
0.97
Recreational Community Center
495
1,000 SF GFA
2.74
2.74
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
8.82
Ice Skating Rink
465
1,000 SF GFA
2.36
2.36
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
7.60
Miniature Golf Course
431
Hole
0.33
0.33
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
1.06
MultiplexMovie Theater
445
Screens
13.64
13.64
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
43.92
Racquet / Tennis Club
491
Court
3.35
3.35
6A3
50%
3.22
3.22
10.79
INSTTTUIIONAL
0.00
ICburch
560
1,000 SF GFA
0.55
0.55
420
50%
2.10
2.10
1.16
I IDay Cue Center
565
1,000 SF GFA
12.34
44%
B
6.91
420
50%
2.10
2.10
14.51
I IPnmary/Middle School(1-8)
522
Students
0.16
0.16
420
50%
2.10
2.10
0.34
I IHigh School (9-12)
530
Students
0.13
0.13
420
50%
2.10
2.10
027
Junior / Community College
540
Students
0.12
0.12
420
50%
2.10
2.10
025
University / College
550
Students
0.17
0.17
420
50%
2.10
2.10
0.36
MEDICAL
Clinic
630
1,000 SF GFA
5.18
5.18
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
19.58
Hospital
610
1,000 SF GFA
0.93
0.93
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
3.52
Nursing Home
620
Beds
022
022
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
0.83
Animal Hos ita]Netem Clinic
640
1,000 SF GFA
4.72
30%
B
3.30
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
12.47
OFFICE
Corporate Headquarters Building
714
1,000 SF GFA
IAA
1.41
10.92
50%
5.46
4.00
5.64
General Office Building
710
1,000 SF GFA
1.49
1.49
10.92
50%
5.46
4.00
5.96
Medical -Dental Office Building
720
1,000 SF GFA
3.57
3.57
10.92
50%
5.46
4.00
14.28
Single Tenant Office Building
715
1,000 SF GFA
1.74
1.74
10.92
50%
5.46
4.00
6.96
Office Park
750
1,000 SF GFA
I A8
1.48
10.92
50%
5.46
4.00
5.92
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 35 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
Table 2.12 (Cont'd) Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET)
Max Trip
Veh-Mi
TTELand
Trip Gen
Pass -by
Pass -by
Trip
NCTCOG
Adj.
A.I. Trip
Length
PerDev-
LaudUseCategory
Development Unit
Rate
Trip Length
For
Length
Use Code
(PM)
Rate
Source
Rate
(mi)
O-D
(mi)
(mi)
Unit
COMMERCIAL
Automobile Related
Automobile Care Center
942
1,000 SF Dec. GLA
3.11
40%
B
1.87
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
6.02
Automobile Pats Sales
843
1,000 SF GFA
5.98
43%
A
3.41
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
10.98
Gasoline/Service Station
944
Vehicle Fueling Position
13.87
42%
A
8.04
120
50%
0.60
0.60
4.82
Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market
945
Vehicle Fueling Position
13.51
56%
B
5.94
120
50%
0.60
0.60
3.56
Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market and Car Wash
946
Vehicle Fueling Position
13.86
56%
A
6.10
120
50%
0.60
0.60
3.66
New and Used Cm Sales
841
1,000 SF GFA
2.62
20%
B
2.10
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
6.76
Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop
941
Servicing Positions
5.19
40%
B
3.11
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
10.01
Self -Service Cm Wash
947
Stall
5.54
40%
B
3.32
120
50%
0.60
0.60
1.99
Tire Store
848
1,000 SF GFA
4.15
28%
A
2.99
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
9.63
Dining
Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Thou Window
934
1,000 SF GFA
32.65
50%
A
16.33
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
39.19
Fast Food Restaurant without Drive -Thou Window
933
11000 SF GFA
26.15
50%
B
13.08
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
31.39
High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant
932
1,000 SF GFA
9.85
43%
A
5.61
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
13.46
Sit Down Restaurant
931
1,000 SF GFA
7.49
44%
A
4.19
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
10.06
Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive -Thou Window
937
1,000 SF GFA
42.80
70%
A
12.84
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
30.82
Other Retail
Free -Standing Retail Store
815
1,000 SF GFA
4.98
30%
C
3.49
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
11.24
Nursery (Crarden Center)
817
1,000 SF GFA
6.94
30%
B
4.86
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
15.65
Home Improvement Superstore
862
1,000 SF GFA
2.33
48%
A
121
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
3.90
Pharmacy/Drugstore
881
1,000 SF GFA
9.91
49%
A
5.05
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
16.26
Shopping Center
820
1,000 SF GLA
3.71
34%
A
2.45
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
7.89
Supermarket
850
1,000 SF GFA
9.48
36%
A
6.07
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
19.55
Toy/Children's Superstore
864
1,000 SF GFA
4.99
30%
B
3.49
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
11.24
Department Store
875
1,000 SF GFA
1 1.87
1 30%
B
1.31
6.43
1 50%
3.22
3.22
1 422
SERVICES
Walk -In Bank
911
1,000 SF GFA
12.13
40%
B
728
339
50%
1.70
1.70
12.38
Drive -In Bank
912
Drive-in Lanes
33.24
47%
A
17.62
339
50%
1.70
1.70
29.95
Hair Salon
918
1,000 SF GLA
1.45
30%
B
1.02
3.39
50%
1.70
1.70
1.73
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 36 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
2.6 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
The following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable roadway impact fee
calculations.
Example 1:
• Development Type - One (1) Unit of Single -Family Housing in Service Area North
Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps — Example 1
Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Develop
Step
From Table 2.12 [Land Use Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table]
Development Type: 1 Dwelling Unit of Single -Family Detached Housing
Number of Development Units: 1 Dwelling Unit
Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 4.00
Step
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit
2
From Table 2.11, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit]
Maximum Fee for Ci of Southlake (Service Area North): $573 / vehicle -mile
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee
Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit
Step
3
Impact Fee = 1 * 4.00 * $573
MUaximum Assessable Impact Fee = $2,292
Example 2:
• Development Type — 125,000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service
Area South
Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps — Example 2
Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit
Ste
From Table 2.12 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table]
Development Type: 125,000 square feet of Home Improvement Superstore
Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area
Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 3.90
Step
Deter 'ne Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit
From Table 2.11, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit]
Maximum Fee for Cityof Southlake (Service Area South): $410 /vehicle -mile
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee
Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit
Step
3
Impact Fee = 125 * 3.90 * $410
Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $199,875
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 37 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
2.7 CONCLUSION8
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
The City of Southlake has established a process to implement the assessment and collection of
roadway impact fees through the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is consistent with
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
This report establishes the maximum allowable roadway impact fee that could be assessed by the
City of Southlake. The maximum assessable roadway impact fee calculated in this report is $573
for Service Area North and $410 for Service Area South (from Table 2.10):
This document serves as a guide to the assessment of roadway impact fees pertaining to future
development and the City's need for roadway improvements to accommodate that growth.
Following the public hearing process, the City Council may establish an amount to be assessed
(if any) up to the maximum established within this report and update the Roadway Impact Fee
Ordinance accordingly.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that the data and methodology used in this update are appropriate
and consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Furthermore, the Land
Use Assumptions and the proposed Capital Improvement Plan are appropriately incorporated
into the process.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 38 August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
Kimley»>Horn
APPENDICES
A. Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
B. CIP Service Unit Supply
C. Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update 39 April 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY 'OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>>> Horn 9
A. APPENDIX A - CONCEPTUAL LEVEL PROJECT COST PROJECTIONS
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
o
�+
Ui
CD
O
CD
co
CD
O
CD
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CO
Cl)
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
Cl)
f�
-
0
O
V
O
O
E
N
O
LLB--
C
O
O
O
�
�
:5 .o
O
CO
O
LLB
LLB
00
LLB
O
O
CO
N
00
LLB
N
CO
CO
00
00
CO
O
Lf)
LLB
N
O
N
O
O
C
t 0_
V
L6
--
LLB
N
O
I
m
d
M
rn U
0
U
� a)
ILI
2
� >
J
J
Q
~
0
O =
T
E
>�
_0
0
U
CL .�
U n Q
01
>
coN
j
��
'5
0
m
_
w a) CIL
CIL
a
70
a)
in
ai
o
0>
C m �-
m Q
O
s
m
m
LM �<
<
0
m
°°
U
>
>
=
-0
_
N
C
O
++
0
V
O
C
O
(6
V
W
Y
0
aa)i
D .S
O
0
s
.�
U
IL
--
�
a) w
"J U
WZ=0000Z(n
�
0
06
�>
(n
Z
Y
U7
c606
m
D o
o
a
J
=
Q
w
o
— U
>M
�,
i� U
>
>
Q
Y
o-
N
0/
U)
oO
ZiR
O
I
m
U
wo
�
LL
o
>
(DO
_j
C
ca
(D_
O
Z
LL (B J
m
(D�
a)
Q
m
�'
CY
-0
0
=
—
-0
—
Q N
y--i
.-.
cn
a)
>
a)
>
0
O
C
o
c
Oz
C
a)
a)
>
-05
U Z
N E L) ....
O
0
O
0
Zi
=
.—
LD
(6
U
LL
O
0
p .N
N O
i
>
Lu
L.Li
Y
�'
U
x
W
Z=
0)
c�
o)
LU
o 0
O U }t
L L
o T
U
,C Q O O
(� E
_
cu
� t
-0
E E
(Da.+
L
>
(�
V
In
CO
j
O
N
,
�%
N
m
m
�����
Q
a)
=�oo
'o
>
>
�
�
mmmmm;
x�
�o
m
m
-0-0-0-0�Q
Cm
0 •�
o
o
a)
a)
00000
-0-
O
M
m
O
�
O��
�
�
�
a) c
(D
_0
N
w �
L
Y
Y
ZIZI
W
W
W
W
I W
I Z
I=
(n
.o
w
O
E
_CIL
C N
0
�
�
N
N
N
N
;
o U
� �
C�
00
00
00
00
00
O
o N
OCIL
00
O
O
in n
f/>
0
0
ao
0
D
D
D
Q
.9
O C D
Q
0
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
D
O
Q
m
U
Q
Q
Q
Q
N
LL
LL
=
O_
X
_~ Q�
EiR
Y
W
Q L
5
N
L'�
V
In
c0
00
Ern
(D
IA
N
CoH
7 6 0
(n
I
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
F 0
O
In
=
o�
zU 0
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (1)
Limits: Tyler St. to Stockton Dr.
Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)(1/2)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 2,100
Service Area(s): N
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the widening of an existing
two-lane concrete facility to a four -lane divided
arterial. This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP
with an anticipated City contribution of $1,300,000.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (2) This project consists of the construction of a new
Limits: E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. four -lane divided arterial.
Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 2,295
Service Area(s): N
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
108
Unclassified Street Excavation
16,830
cy
$ 10.00
$
168,300
208
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
13,770
sy
$ 6.00
$
82,620
308
8" Concrete Pavement
12,750
sy
$ 46.00
$
586,500
323
4" Topsoil
10,455
sy
$ 2.50
$
26,138
508
5' Concrete Sidewalk
22,950
sf
$ 4.50
$
103,275
608
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
1,217
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
1 $
63,286
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
7,030,119
MWConstructRIFIRPRWInt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
30,904
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
360,542
Illumination
6%
$
61,807
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
30,904
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
20,602
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
20,602
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
41,205
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
566,565
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
1,596,684
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
239,503
Mobilization
5%
$
79,834
Prep ROW
3%
$
47,901
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
1,964,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: N White Chapel Blvd. (1)
Limits: E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd.
Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 1,800
Service Area(s): N
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the reconstruction of an
existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four -lane
divided arterial. This projects is included in the FY
2015 CIP with an anticipated City contribution of
$1,850,000.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: N White Chapel Blvd. (2) This project consists of the construction of the two
Limits: Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR southbound lanes to complete a four -lane divided
Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2) arterial. The two northbound lanes are assumed to
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial be developer built based on an existing agreement.
Length (If): 1,205 This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an
Service Area(s): N anticipated Citv contribution of $1,050,000.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (3)
Limits: Carillon Development to Existing Highland St.
Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 2,240
Service Area(s): N
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the construction
of a new four -lane divided arterial.
Based on the Kirkwood Boulevard
Alignment Study (August 2014), the
estimated cost was $5,000,000 for
construction, engineering, survey, and
testing.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update updated: 8/3/2015
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Project Information: Description: Project No. N-6
Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) This project consists of the reconstruction of an
Limits: Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane
Impact Fee Class: A4U(88) undivided arterial. Based on the Kirkwood
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Undivided Arterial Boulevard Alignment Study (August 2014), the
Length (If): 840 estimated cost was $750,000 for construction,
engineering, survey, and testing.
Service Area(s): N
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (5)
Limits: N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St.
Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 840
Service Area(s): N
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the reconstruction of an
existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane
divided arterial. Based on the Kirkwood Boulevard
Alignment Study (August 2014), the estimated cost
was $1,000,000 for construction, engineering,
survey, and testing.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (6)
Limits: Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way
Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)(1/2)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 1,730
Service Area(s): N
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the widening an
existing two-lane concrete facility into a
four -lane divided arterial. Based on the
Kirkwood Boulevard Alignment Study
(August 2014), the estimated cost was
$800,000 for construction, engineering,
survey, and testing. Note this project
includes the previous City cost of the
existing northern two lanes and the
Highland St. & Kirkland Blvd.
intersection project.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) This project consists of the widening an
Limits: 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave. existing two-lane concrete facility into a
Impact Fee Class: A4D(100)(1/2) four -lane divided arterial.
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 1,540
Service Area(s): N
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
104
Unclassified Street Excavation
6,844
cy
$ 10.00
$
68,444
204
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
4,620
sy
$ 6.00
$
27,720
304
8" Concrete Pavement
4,278
sy
$ 46.00
$
196,778
319
4" Topsoil
4,534
sy
$ 2.50
$
11,336
504
5' Concrete Sidewalk
7,700
sf
$ 4.50
$
34,650
604
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
720
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
$
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
3t63145
MWConstrucx19FF@9PRWnt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
11,290
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
131,721
Illumination
6%
$
22,581
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
11,290
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
7,527
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
7,527
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
15,054
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
206,989
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
583,334
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
87,500
Mobilization
5%
$
29,167
Prep ROW
3%
$
17,500
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
718,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name:
N Kimball Ave.
Limits:
E. Dove Rd. to SH 114
Impact Fee Class:
A4D(88)
Ultimate Class:
4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If):
6,225
Service Area(s):
N
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consisted of the reconstruction of an
existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane
divided arterial.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
O
m
m
O
OO
O
O
O
LO
O
LO
O
O
O
O
O
-e
+'
Vi
O
N
LO
O
0
0
(O
I-
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
to
O
O
LO
N
OO
r-
(M
00
N
C
(O
C
O
C�
(O
(O
Lr
V
(O
V
I�
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
tb
qN
N
U
(D
LO
Cl)
I-
(D
N
O
Cl)
I-
00
O
(D
O
O
O
r
++
V
V
to
�
(.0
O_
N
co
V
(.0
0-)(fl
(D
tn_
to
V
N
(�
m
to
to
'IT
N-
V
N
-
N
6
6
0
d
•O
`.0
w
�
U
to
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
ER
�
L
°
J
to
H
3
J
s=
>.
a�
E
°�
>
OI
m
m
j
N
>
U
o
Q
a�
a�
O
>
M
_0
m
°)o
°
:E
>
QQ
-0
Z
mQ
o
p
.>
N
Q
m
U
Z
C
)
U°9
�)
U
o
0
0
5Eo
Zo
=
mo
>
N
W
n
0
m
m
4%
a
LL LL �_
a
J
>
o
ob
a
-
m
N
-p
a o
U '
>
5
m
Q
Q o
m
m
�
m
U�
Q E a
o
Y
o
N
N
=
N
C
a w
cu O
V
N
(0
=
-p
O
U
0 N
pl
2
a�
o
m
U
Z
N°
c
LL�
m
o
of
m
O O
m
Y
m
of
O
Oj
C
L
70 a
=
Un
o
t
o
Y
>
Q
c
Q
C C
0 w
o
o w
>
v
-0
c
N
U
o
co
io
O
U
U
�0/
LL (B J
�
L
N
w
(0
��
E
U
N
w
m=
o
m
Lo
c
O
N
O
CD
Y
Un
!E
w
=0 d
of
U)
=
LL
W
rn
N
0
W>
o
r t1
�
Q N N
A
N E c
—
N
E
Q�
E
O 0
N
N
-°
OLD.
O ��
L
a_
L
a_
Y
++
U
N
d
>
>
Q
2
(B
i�--� �6 O
'0
N
m
m
(0
a
> m
E
Q
L
N
C�
N
a
cB c
0
a
N
Cl
Cl
C
N
(u
U
w
U
t
m
m
t
t
06
ae
>>
c
c>�
�
Z3�
°
L
U
U
00
U
Q
Q
N
N
Q
N
0
4-
--
U
U
o
o a
M
U
a"'
f
a"'
Q'
O
O
°
N
-O
(0
-O
(0
-O
(0
-O
r a
O
t
t
N
U
N
(0
(0
N
(0
N
(0
O
N
m
0
c
U
U
=_
—_
LL
Z
Z
Z
H
N
U
U>>
m
Q°
U
m w
r°
a
N
N
N
y
(�
C7
(fl
(fl
�_
w N
iy+
U
M
2
0
0
D
OO
OO
Q%
'ITV
m
N
N
N
N
V
M
E
y
LL
�
Q
Q
Q
U
U
�
'
U
U
Q
Q
o
Q
Q
Q
>
a w
0
o w
° o
L
ao
ao
0
o .o
Q
ti
M
U
U
Q
O
O
M
Q
N
> °-
O
Co
Co
Z
U
U
U
U
Z
U
U
i
0
N
L6
L6
O
m
m
Ci
m
CL
N
m
V
to
(fl
OO
O
O
N
L
V
(fl
H
0I
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
F Q
i
Or
zF-
o .w
N (�
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: FM 1938 Phase 2 This project consists of the reconstruction of an
Limits: Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkw)existing two-lane asphalt facility to a four -lane
Impact Fee Class: A4D(130-140) divided arterial. This projects is included in the FY
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial 2015 CIP with an anticipated City contribution of
Length (If): 8,235 $3,465,000.
Service Area(s): S
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1
Limits: SH 114 to Highland St.
Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 1,745
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consisted of the reconstruction of an
existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane
divided arterial.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the
determination of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name:
N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2
Limits:
Highland St. to Emerald Blvd.
Impact Fee Class:
A4D(88)
Ultimate Class:
4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If):
4,300
Service Area(s):
S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consisted of the reconstruction of an
existing two-lane asphalt facility into a four -lane
divided arterial.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: N Pearson Ln. This project consists of the reconstruction of an
Limits: Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd. existing two-lane asphalt facility into a new three -
Impact Fee Class: A3U(70) lane arterial.
Ultimate Class: 3-Lane Arterial
Length (If): 5,300
Service Area(s): S
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
103
Unclassified Street Excavation
23,556
cy
$ 10.00
$
235,556
203
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
22,967
sy
$ 6.00
$
137,800
303
8" Concrete Pavement
21,789
sy
$ 46.00
$
1,002,289
318
4" Topsoil
13,544
sy
$ 2.50
$
33,861
503
5' Concrete Sidewalk
53,000
sf
$ 4.50
$
238,500
603
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
669
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
1 $
34,798
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
7,6204,8
MWConstructRIFIRPRWInt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
50,484
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
588,981
Illumination
6%
$
100,968
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
50,484
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
33,656
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
33,656
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
67,312
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
925,542
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
2,608,345
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
391,252
Mobilization
5%
$
130,417
Prep ROW
3%
$
78,250
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
3,209,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. This project consisted of the construction of two
Limits: East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrol Ave. collector facilities. This City contributed $663,000
Impact Fee Class: C21J(60) to the construction of these facilities.
Ultimate Class: 2-Lane Collector
Length (If): 1,850
Service Area(s): S
Impact• -Cost Summary
Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost
CityContribution to Construction Cost: City contributions: Caroll Median & Drive -lane _ $ 662,118
Improvements ($237,538), Zena Rucker &
Engineering/Survey/Testing Decel Ln. Construction ($44,097), Tower Blvd.
Other & Decel Ln. Construction ($262,144), Tower
ROW/Easement Acquisition: Blvd. Signal ($118,339).
Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 662,118
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: Zena Rucker Rd.
Limits: 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr
Impact Fee Class: C2U(60)
Ultimate Class: 2-Lane Collector
Length (If): 1,020
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the construction
of a new two-lane collector.
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
101
Unclassified Street Excavation
4,533
cy
$ 10.00
$
45,333
201
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
4,420
sy
$ 6.00
$
26,520
301
8" Concrete Pavement
4,193
sy
$ 46.00
$
192,893
316
4" Topsoil
1,473
sy
$ 2.50
$
3,683
501
5' Concrete Sidewalk
10,200
sf
$ 4.50
$
45,900
601
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
1 0
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
$
-
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
314, 330
MWConstrucx19FF@9PRWnt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
9,430
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
110,016
Illumination
6%
$
18,860
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
9,430
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
6,287
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
6,287
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
12,573
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
172,882
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
487,212
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
73,082
Mobilization
5%
$
24,361
Prep ROW
3%
$
14,616
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
600,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
Name: S Carroll Ave. (2) This project consists of the
Limits: 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way widening of an existing two -
Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2) lane facility into a four -lane
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial divided arterial.
Length (If): 500
Service Area(s): S
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
106
Unclassified Street Excavation
2,222
cy
$ 10.00
$
22,222
206
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
1,500
sy
$ 6.00
$
9,000
306
8" Concrete Pavement
1,389
sy
$ 46.00
$
63,889
321
4" Topsoil
1,194
sy
$ 2.50
$
2,986
506
5' Concrete Sidewalk
2,500
sf
$ 4.50
$
11,250
604
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
234
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
$
12,
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
71,415
MWConstructIFFIRPRWnt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
3,645
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
42,523
Illumination
6%
$
7,290
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
3,645
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
2,430
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
2,430
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
4,860
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
66,822
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
188,318
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
28,248
Mobilization
5%
$
9,416
Prep ROW
3%
$
5,650
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
232,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: Village Center Dr. (1)
Limits: 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway
Impact Fee Class: C2U(60)
Ultimate Class: 2-Lane Collector
Length (If): 2,340
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the
construction of a new two-lane
collector. Note that $124,675
was included for the City's
contribution to George Dawson
Driveway.
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
101
Unclassified Street Excavation
10,400
cy
$ 10.00
$
104,000
201
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
10,140
sy
$ 6.00
$
60,840
301
8" Concrete Pavement
9,620
sy
$ 46.00
$
442,520
316
4" Topsoil
3,380
sy
$ 2.50
$
8,450
501
5' Concrete Sidewalk
23,400
sf
$ 4.50
$
105,300
601
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
1 0
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
$
-
L-
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
71,17101
MWConstrucx19FF@9PRWnt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
21,633
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
252,389
Illumination
6%
$
43,267
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
21,633
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
14,422
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
14,422
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
28,844
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
396,611
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
1,117,721
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
167,658
Mobilization
5%
$
55,886
Prep ROW
3%
$
33,532
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
1,375,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: S Carroll Ave. (1)
Limits: Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr
Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2)
Ultimate Class: 4-1-ane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 720
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of driveway modifications to
the Shops of Southlake and a traffic signal at the
intersection of S. Carroll Ave. & Zena Rucker Rd.
This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an
anticipated City contribution of $200,000.
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for
any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake.
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained within the Subdivision Ordinance or the determination
of the City Engineer for a specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: Village Center Dr. (2)
Limits: S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr
Impact Fee Class: C2U(60)
Ultimate Class: 2-Lane Collector
Length (If): 1,735
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the construction of a new
two-lane collector.
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
101
Unclassified Street Excavation
7,711
cy
$ 10.00
$
77,111
201
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
7,518
sy
$ 6.00
$
45,110
301
8" Concrete Pavement
7,133
sy
$ 46.00
$
328,108
316
4" Topsoil
2,506
sy
$ 2.50
$
6,265
501
5' Concrete Sidewalk
17,350
sf
$ 4.50
$
78,075
601
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
1 0
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
$
-
L-
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
74,67691
MWConstructRIFIRPRWInt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
16,040
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
187,134
Illumination
6%
$
32,080
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
16,040
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
10,693
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
10,693
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
21,387
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
294,068
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
828,737
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
124,311
Mobilization
5%
$
41,437
Prep ROW
3%
$
24,862
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
1,020,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
r-Ir'11jeut .-
Name: Brumlow Ave.
Limits: East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits
Impact Fee Class: A4D(94)
Ultimate Class: 4-Lane Divided Arterial
Length (If): 4,035
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the
reconstruction of an existing
two-lane asphalt facility into a
four -lane divided arterial.
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
109
Unclassified Street Excavation
17,933
cy
$ 10.00
$
179,333
209
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
24,210
sy
$ 6.00
$
145,260
309
8" Concrete Pavement
23,313
sy
$ 46.00
$
1,072,413
324
4" Topsoil
15,692
sy
$ 2.50
$
39,229
509
5' Concrete Sidewalk
40,350
sf
$ 4.50
$
181,575
609
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
2,140
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
1 $
111,268
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
9,079
7,721
MWConstruictIFFIRPRWrit
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
51,872
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
605,178
Illumination
6%
$
103,745
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
51,872
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
34,582
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
34,582
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
69,163
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
950,993
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
2,680,072
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
402,011
Mobilization
5%
$
134,004
Prep ROW
3%
$
80,402
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
3,297,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
City of Southlake
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection
Name: W Highland St.
Limits: White Chapel Rd. to SH 114
Impact Fee Class: A3U(70)
Ultimate Class: 3-Lane Arterial
Length (If): 3,165
Service Area(s): S
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
updated: 8/3/2015
This project consists of the reconstruction of an
existing two-lane asphalt facility into a three -lane
arterial.
Roadway
Construction Cost Projection
No.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
103
Unclassified Street Excavation
14,067
cy
$ 10.00
$
140,667
203
6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @
27#/sy)
13,715
sy
$ 6.00
$
82,290
303
8" Concrete Pavement
13,012
sy
$ 46.00
$
598,537
318
4" Topsoil
8,088
sy
$ 2.50
$
20,221
503
5' Concrete Sidewalk
31,650
sf
$ 4.50
$
142,425
603
ITurn Lanes and Median Openings
400
1 sy
1 $ 52.00
1 $
20,780
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal:
$
1,004'919
MWConstructRIFIRPRWInt
Allowances':
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Traffic Control
None Anticipated
0%
$
-
Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts
Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties
3%
$
30,148
Roadway Drainage
Standard Internal System
35%
$
351,722
Illumination
6%
$
60,295
Special Drainage Structures
None Anticipated
0%
Water
Minor Adjustments
3%
$
30,148
Sewer
Minor Adjustments
2%
$
20,098
Establish Turf/Erosion Control
2%
$
20,098
Basic Landscaping and Irrigation
4%
$
40,197
Miscellaneous:
$0
$
-
-Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtota I Allowance Subtotal:
$
552,706
Paving and Allowance Subtotal:
$
1,557,625
Construction Contingency:
15%
$
233,644
Mobilization
5%
$
77,881
Prep ROW
3%
$
46,729
Construction Cost TOTAL:
$
1,916,000
NOTE: The planning level cost projections listed in this appendix have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used
for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake
The planning level cost projections shall not supersede the City's design standards contained or the determination of the City Engineer for a
specific project.
2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections
Kimley»>Horn
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
91
B. APPENDIX B - CIP SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update
City of Southlake, Texas
August 2015
k
CL
D
k�
E 2
cn
/2
4
o
w M
L
k /
, m
2 a.
�
§OOOOOOOOONOOON
--------------
(G\----
--
-
-
-
kC)
�
--------------
m($#:�w==w,m,©
mmwwcmN
M<,:g
\
e$
; -
#k<TooNR=ww;,R
102M
"
©©`©3
}
,a-T<M
(\@)
mg=,�=,m
ET�
±l,�wwwww,wwww
000000000m
%AFL
/))
§ °;;°
z32my
ee
e
(
[
/
®
®®
G
bb
%zza
§
7
7
77
z
w
00/000
/00
/\
-
-
°`
m
aj7ƒ
T
/
) )a
[
_
\a§{)§{\
)
-
A§3(zEj:
-
§{}/2\
)z)//\ƒ
r:a®m*m\j
2OUR
-)\)of
of
/)j/\j
{
C)
_jj\){C)
/oe(a32zg6222
zaE
j
__??mmmmm
)
\\//)))))z
„
++zzzzz
e
&
_--
ate+
R
Q
D
d
d
LL
O
(3 >,
Q a
E Q
3
W
3 O
� a+
O C
LO 0
r
O >
N W
fA
d a
Y U
R
s
3
O
N
O
ate+
A
O m
m O
m O
O O
m O
m 0
0 0
O O V
U
W
o�
mr�
�o
orn
min
mr
o0
0o ro
V V
m r
m O
N M
V m
W m
m m
m V N
a O
v
J U
Q
F
O
-----------------
co > _
UQ yS
a >
u��
N
mm
mo
rnr�
vm
�m
A
OD
WQ
U
0
Q ofm
rnv2
v
m
W O2iY
m.
oin
OO
oo
> F w a
0
a
m
W Y O
> a F
W
N
M N
M N
V M
N r
SU S
Q OfN
W a Y W
a
m m
N
r r
m o
N m
r m
m m
N N
m m
m m
N N
r r
m m
N N
m m
m o
N m
r m
> ¢ a
U
W
Yof
Q 7
v o
m
v
v v
m
m
W O
a S 0
z
W O
�
a
w
m—
0
0 0�
�
O O
V O
a
Q
Q Q
U U
U U
Q Q
Q
Q
Q Q
U
W
Z
Q
V V
V N
N N
V V
N N
V N
S
U�
mr�mor���ovr�rm
W
3
m
>
>
E
_
0
m
C
m
00
o
A
U
L
Y
3
,
0
0
U
-O
o
F
a
m
F
Q o
Z
(�
O
o
coa
J
-
O
D O
0
>
Q C
Y
N
A Y
N
a
Z
L 0
1O Z
ai
'>
ma
N
S
0
SQa%
dN
i
n-N-
(
O
-0)'Q
-6co
o a
mLU
0
>
o m
o ()
m o
x3 x3
m 10
a
o o
o�>()
y
o
o
o
-0-a-o-5.
••�
>>
n0
co
0.
0
0 Q
co co
L a
o
a
5
0 m
�()
()s
oU
v
0
m m�W
a�
S.�o
mrmi
d�
o Y
m y
o 0
0
m
a' U)
S LL
W rn
N
r (n
W �j
U U
Z 0
0
N
N
�
a
-a
a
a
Q
m a
Q a
0 0
0 0
a CO
CO o
Q Q
Q?
3 m
m m
m m
QU
mm n
n
N
o
U U
a a
a a
m m
S
0 0
0 0
U
U Z
U U
m`
Of Of
Of Of
LL m
m
N
() U)
Z
Z
o
F
J
�
F
"
'�
N
M V
m m
r m
W
V m
m r 0
o
cn cn
cn cn
cn cn
cn cn
cn cn
cn cn
— —
— — m
N
CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE
Kimley>>> Horn Q1
C. APPENDIX C - EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES INVENTORY SERVICE
2015 Roadway hupact Fee Update August 2015
City of Southlake, Texas
U
m
ow 2
w U M1 -
W O
m
m n M M M M
Z
m
2C N m Q r m a
a Z ry Zzz a Z ry
Nry a m ry M ry ry ry m
Y
y
yy y1
W
m r a ry ----- m --- ry ------ - a Z M Z Z Z a Z M ......
Z
m
Z� Z Z Z- Z
Q 2 Q
tmo ry
y2j W Y O
o ¢ a ¢ ¢ ¢ m ¢ tmo
OO a M M ry a ry ry m ry ry ry r M ry m M a m '^ Z m Z Z Z Z
Z
m
2C `om
Za Za Za
Za
Za m
a
2 LL
aaM ummum�umr
ry
.0
m 1 ~
W m a m a a a m a m
m a in M a a M r a m m ry into m M ry m ry M m ry ry a ry r n Z u�i Z Z Z uri Z m
Z
m
0
...............................................................
91;
-rmrrmrmmmmrrrrrrmrmrmrmmmrmmmrmrmmrrrmmrmrmmmmrmrrrrrmN
Z54
m
o00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
m
mzmzzz�zm
�
aammmorrrr mrrrmamNNN.�o N.. ..�N���
NNNNN
a i�w
�amaaamam
z
rcm
aaaaaaa0000aaaaaaoaoaaaaooaaaaaa a a a a a a a o a o a a a o a a o o o o o o o o a a a a a oo
5
____------_ _-_______________-----__
aaaavaaUUUUz zUZU¢aaaUUaaaaa^'aaaa¢as Ua Uaa UUaaUUUUUUUUz zUU
`a a `a `a `a `a a
W"
ay y y yay a a a y y y y y y y a y a ay y a a a a a a a a a a a ay y y y a a a a a a ay y y a u= ay a y y y y y y_
twimmo
Low
2
mE
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 « o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o N o 0 0 o 0 0 o « o 0 0 0 0
x
z
O
_ 3
E -
0 3 _
`^
-,Ztulz - m O 5 >
--
m V _ w v-
3° U 3 ¢" 3 w 3 N 3 o w �,u I3°° 3 w m 13 0
c
u
- 3
3
N
3
_ >_ 3$
E.E
_ _
a 3 w v 3 E o - I- ry - E ry 3 0
3- - - -- °W
- a - _t aa
-?3otoof-a vaa
_ _ u a m o 'o
- -
3 3 z 3 m 3 m -LL° 3°
�
3 3
m m 5j
p u u > j>>>
E° - oho __ v3333= �y.E v33E� 50�=_=_=z«8,°,°,°,°,° c
0
v0
>33333333 °N'
N
W
m
2
G
W x
Z Z . �I-Z
.
= Y
x u a >m
W O
G m
v a
v�
y a
m
m a
v�
v
_
U K 2
Z
m
Z
Z M
m Z
ry
v Z
M
I
N
I
I""
Z Z
M
N
N
Y
U
Z
m
mm
ry ao
via
Qv�
rQ
r
ra
r
as
o
O
$T gZ = Q
N
f Zm
vmiZ
Z'O
�Z
n
rvZ
ZZ
m
cli
W w Y O
> oar
m
z
�a�
maar
�a
m
maw
�aam
wWa = r
�z
rn
m
d Y O
> war
m
V
rna
ar
�a
r�
ma
v�
�
as
m
z
`�z
zv
mrz
M
zz
rmi
m
2 =
Q K
Y
>aaa�N
U
m r
Z
W
Z V Q
> W
K
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
W Q
N
m2 m
G�
I a
m
Q a
—
a N
N a
m
Q a
m
s
a a
--
m mW
Y K
Q 0 JO
a a=>NNNzz
m
N
m
z
N_
U
W W
a U
_
W W
U a
_ _
W v
a a
_ _
W W
a a
_ _
W W
a a
_
v v
U a
_ _
W W
a a
_ _
W
a a
_ _
W W W
a a
_ _
W W
a a
W W
a a
W W
8888
W W
_
W W
a 88888
W W
W W
F W
U a
0
Q U+
0
a
»
Y Y
0 0
Y Y
0
a a
y-
0
U
..........
U U
+t Q
U U
U a
a a
Q U
a Q
U a
N Z
X Q
W J
N
m�
m
F
N Z
N
wJ
ry
m
z
x
z E
w '
z
w
3
3
-
o
m
E m
-
3
-
-wl
Y
uzm
g�
-
o
-v
ll
m
s�
�
N
o
y
v
v
o
o 6
o 3
o o
--
Y -,
-_
LL E
E N
LL
Y
ti
0 00
ti
-
u
3 3
rc
E
m
3
E o
Er
- °
o
w
3
to
to
zo
om
3 3
0
3
o
-
3
ti
3 o
o
'
ff v
'
v o
moati
3
rc
o
o o
o o
o o
=
u u
u u
u m
m m
m
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
v_-
o
o o 0
0-
Y
Y Y
l°'o
Y
0
Sw
wo�Y----
3w
