Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 9C
CITY 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