Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 6E
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE MEMORANDUM (October 06, 2015) To: Shana Yelverton, City Manager From: Robert H. Price, P.E., Director of Public Works Item 6E Subject: Ordinance No. 567-C, 1st Reading, Consider an ordinance revising impact fees on new land development in the city of Southlake, Texas for water, wastewater and roadway facilities necessitated by such new development; adopting revised land use assumptions for the city; adopting revised capital improvements plans for water, wastewater and roadway improvements; providing for the assessment, payment and time of payment of water, wastewater and roadway impact fees; providing for review of water, wastewater and roadway impact fees and the fee schedules; providing for the placement of revenue collected from water, wastewater and roadway impact fees into water and wastewater facilities impact fee accounts and roadway impact fee accounts established for those purposes; providing for offsets and credits; providing for refunds of unexpended funds; providing for use of funds derived from water, wastewater and roadway impact fees; providing that impact fees may be pledged toward payment of bond issues and similar debt instruments; providing that this ordinance shall be cumulative of all ordinances; providing a severability clause; providing for notice of public hearing; and providing an effective date. Action Requested: Consider an ordinance revising impact fees on new land development in the city of Southlake, Texas for water, wastewater and roadway facilities necessitated by such new development; adopting revised land use assumptions for the city; adopting revised capital improvements plans for water, wastewater and roadway improvements; providing for the assessment, payment and time of payment of water, wastewater and roadway impact fees; providing for review of water, wastewater and roadway impact fees and the fee schedules; providing for the placement of revenue collected from water, wastewater and roadway impact fees into water and wastewater facilities impact fee accounts and roadway impact fee accounts established for those purposes; providing for offsets and credits; providing for refunds of unexpended funds; providing for use of funds derived from water, wastewater and roadway impact fees; providing that impact fees may be pledged toward payment of bond issues and similar debt instruments; providing that this ordinance shall be cumulative of all ordinances; providing a severability clause; providing for notice of public hearing; and providing an effective date. 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. City staff has been working with the engineering consultant to prepare and update the impact fee report in accordance with the Local Government Code. According to the LGC, the projected demand for capital improvements required by new service units shall be projected over a period not to exceed 10 years. The impact fee update study projects the 10 year growth as follows: • Population of 4,810. • Residential dwelling units of 1,552. • Employment building area of 6,206,457 square feet The calculated service units equivalents (standardized) are: • 1,823 service units for water. • 1,884 service units for sewer. • 14,758 and 23,203 vehicle miles for north and south service areas, respectively The calculated maximum assessable impact fee per service units for: • Water (1 " meter) is $7,182. • Sewer (1" meter) is $1,790. • Roadway (North service area) is $573/veh-mile. • Roadway (South service area) is $410/veh-mile. In compliance with the requirements of the Local Government Code, the capital improvement advisory committee (CIAC) has reviewed and provided written comments on the land use assumption and capital improvement plans. The committee concurs with the findings in the report. A briefing on the study will be presented during your work session on October 06, 2015. Fee comparison and options will also be presented. 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 has been reviewed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (aka Planning and Zoning Commission) and written comments are furnished to the City Council (included in your packet). The impact fee study report was made available to the public following the required newspaper publication. Legal Review: The ordinance was reviewed by the City Attorney's office Alternatives: 1. Approve the fees as recommended by staff with an effective date of January 1, 2017. 2. Set fees as determined by the City Council with an effective date. Supporting Documents: Draft ordinance No. 657-C CIAC summary comments to Council 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 ordinance No. 657-C adopting fees as recommended by staff, and to be assessed beginning January 1, 2017. Staff Contact: Robert H. Price, P.E., Public Works Director Om Gharty-Chhetri, P.E., Civil Engineer ORDINANCE NO. 657-C AN ORDINANCE REVISING IMPACT FEES ON NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY FACILITIES NECESSITATED BY SUCH NEW DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING REVISED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE CITY; ADOPTING REVISED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT, PAYMENT AND TIME OF PAYMENT OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND THE FEE SCHEDULES; PROVIDING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF REVENUE COLLECTED FROM WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES INTO WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS ESTABLISHED FOR THOSE PURPOSES; PROVIDING FOR OFFSETS AND CREDITS; PROVIDING FOR REFUNDS OF UNEXPENDED FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR USE OF FUNDS DERIVED FROM WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING THAT IMPACT FEES MAY BE PLEDGED TOWARD PAYMENT OF BOND ISSUES AND SIMILAR DEBT INSTRUMENTS; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake is a home rule city acting under its charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Southlake is responsible for and committed to the provision of public facilities and services at levels necessary to cure any existing public service deficiencies in already developed areas; and WHEREAS, such facilities and service levels are provided by the City utilizing funds allocated in capital budgets and capital improvement plans adopted by the City and relying upon the funding sources indicated therein; and Page 1 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) WHEREAS, new residential and nonresidential development causes and imposes increased demands upon City public facilities and services, including water, wastewater and roadway facilities that would not otherwise occur; and WHEREAS, planning and zoning projections indicate that such development will continue and will place ever-increasing demands on the City to provide necessary public facilities; and WHEREAS, the development potential and property values of properties is strongly influenced and encouraged by City policy as expressed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and as implemented via the City's zoning ordinance and map; and WHEREAS, to the extent that such new development places demands upon the public facility infrastructure, the City Council has determined that those demands should be satisfied by shifting the responsibility for financing the provision of such facilities from the public at large to the developments actually creating the demands for them; and WHEREAS, the amount of the impact fee to be imposed shall be determined by the cost of the additional public facilities needed to support such development, which public facilities are identified in a capital improvements plan approved by the City, and WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, hereby finds and declares that impact fees imposed upon new residential and nonresidential development to finance specified major public facilities in designated service areas, the demand for which is created by such development, are in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents, are equitable, and do not impose an unfair burden on such development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted in its charter and Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, the City of Southlake has previously adopted water, wastewater and roadway impact fees to offset the cost of providing these public facilities; and Page 2 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to update its Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan and amend its impact fees in accordance with the provisions of its charter and Chapter 395; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City has complied with said statute in the notice, adoption, promulgation and methodology necessary to adopt and amend its impact fees. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS; SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance. SECTION 2 INTENT This Ordinance is intended to impose water, wastewater and roadway impact fees, as established in this Ordinance, in order to finance public facilities, the demand for which is generated by new development in the designated service area or areas. SECTION 3 AUTHORITY The City is authorized to enact this Ordinance by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, as amended, ("Chapter 395') and by the Southlake City Charter which authorize it to enact or impose impact fees on land within its corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction, or on land owned by persons with whom it has a water or wastewater service contract, as charges or assessments imposed 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 such new development. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not be construed to limit the power of the City to adopt such Page 3 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) ordinance pursuant to any other source of local authority, nor to utilize any other methods or powers otherwise available for accomplishing the purposes set forth herein, either in substitution of or in conjunction with this Ordinance. Guidelines may be developed by resolution or otherwise to implement and administer this Ordinance. SECTION 4 DEFINITIONS As applied in this Ordinance, the following words and terms shall be used: (1) Assessment - The determination of the amount of the maximum impact fee per service unit which can be imposed on new development pursuant to this Ordinance. (2) Building Permit - Written permission issued by the City for the construction, repair, alteration or addition to a structure. (3) Capital Construction Cost of Service - Costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees), interest charges and other finance costs for bonds, notes or other obligations issued to finance capital improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and the fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the Capital Improvements Plan who is not an employee of the City. (4) Capital Improvement - Any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (a) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and (b) roadway facilities. (5) Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) - The advisory committee appointed by the City Council, consisting of at least five members, not less than 40 percent of which shall be representatives of the real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees of the City, and, if impact fees are to be applied within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, including one member representing the extraterritorial jurisdiction; or consisting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, including one regular or ad hoc member who is not an employee of the City and which is representative of the real estate, development, or building industry, and, if impact fees are to be applied within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City, one Page 4 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMINISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) representative of the extraterritorial jurisdiction area; which committee is appointed to regularly review and update the Capital Improvements Plan, file semiannual reports, and advise the City of the need to update impact fees in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 395. (6) Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) - The plan or plans adopted in Section 9 of this Ordinance which identify water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements or facility expansions pursuant to which impact fees may be assessed . The Capital Improvements Plan may be composed of separate Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan and a Roadway Capital Improvements Plan. (7) City - City of Southlake, Texas. (8) City Council (Council) - Governing body of the City of Southlake. (9) Commercial Development - For the purposes of this Ordinance, all development which is neither residential nor industrial. (10) Comprehensive Plan (Master Plan) - The comprehensive long-range plan, adopted by the City Council, which is intended to guide the growth and development of the City which includes analysis, recommendations and proposals for the City regarding such topics as population, economy, housing, transportation, community facilities and land use. (11) Credit - The amount of the reduction of an impact fee for fees, payments or charges for the same type of capital improvements for which the fee has been assessed. (12) Existing Development - All development within a service area which has a water or wastewater tap on the City's water or wastewater system, or which has access to the City's roadway system as of the date of the adoption of this Ordinance. (13) Facility Expansion - The expansion of the capacity of an existing facility which serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement in order that the existing facility may serve new development. Facility expansion does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. (14) Final Plat - The map, drawing or chart meeting the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance on which is provided a subdivider's plan of a subdivision, and which has received final approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council and which is recorded with the office of the County Clerk. (15) Growth -Related Costs - Capital construction costs of service related to providing additional service units to new development, either from excess capacity in existing facilities, from facility expansions or from new capital facilities. Growth -related costs do not include: Page 5 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) (a) Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (b) Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility expansions; (c) Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards; (d) Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (e) Administrative and operating costs of the City; and (f) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except for such payments for growth -related facilities contained in the Capital Improvements Plan. (16) Impact Fees - Fee to be imposed upon new development, calculated based upon the costs of facilities in proportion to development creating the need for such facilities. Impact fees do not include dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; dedication of rights-of-way or easements, or construction or dedication of site -related water distribution or wastewater collection facilities or internal roadways required by other ordinances of the City Code; or lot or acreage fees placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or wastewater mains or lines; or participation fees charged as part of the City 's Neighborhood Sewer Program. (17) Industrial Development - Development which will be assigned to the industrial customer class of the water or wastewater utilities; generally development in which goods are manufactured, or development which is ancillary to such manufacturing activity. (18) Land Use Assumptions - Description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population therein over at least a 10 -year period, adopted by the City, as may be amended from time to time, upon which the Capital Improvements Plan is based. (19) Service Unit Equivalent (SUE) - Basis for establishing equivalency among and within various customer classes and land uses. For water and wastewater uses, a SUE is based upon the relationship of the continuous daily maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a water meter of a given size and type compared to the continuous daily maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a 1" diameter simple water meter, using American Water Works Association C700-09 and C-702-10 standards. The table of equivalencies for water Page 6 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) and wastewater showing the determination of SUE's based on meter size is included in Exhibit D-1. (20) New Development - The subdivision of land; or the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units for water, wastewater or roadway services or requires the purchase of a new water or wastewater tap. New development includes the purchase of a water tap resulting from the conversion of an individual well to the City's water utility and includes the purchase of a wastewater tap resulting from the conversion of an individual septic or other individual waste disposal system to the City's wastewater utility. (21) Offset - The amount of the reduction of an impact fee designed to fairly reflect the vaSUE of system -related facilities, pursuant to miles herein established or administrative guidelines, provided and funded by a developer pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations or requirements. (22) Public Works Director - Public Works Director of the City of Southlake, or his designee. (23) Residential Development - A lot developed for use and occupancy as a residence or residences, according to the City's zoning ordinance. (24) Roadway Facility - Improvement for providing roadway service including, but not limited to, pavement, right-of-way, drainage and traffic control devices. Roadway facility excludes roadways which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of the facilities. Roadway facilities also exclude dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of off-site roadways required by valid ordinances of the City of Southlake and necessitated by and attributable to the new development. (25) Roadway Facility Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any existing roadway improvement for the purpose of serving new development, not including the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of the existing roadway facility to serve existing development. (26) Roadway Improvement Plan - Portion of the Capital Improvements Plan, as may be amended from time to time, which identifies the roadway facilities or roadway expansions and their associated costs which are necessitated by and attributable to new development, and for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part through the imposition of roadway impact fees pursuant to this Ordinance. (27) Service Area - An area defined in this Ordinance within the corporate boundaries of the City for roadway facilities or with the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City or other areas served by the City for water and wastewater facilities to be served by the capital improvements or facility expansions specified in the Capital Page 7 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMINISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) Improvements Plan applicable to the service area. The Service Area for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees is set forth in Exhibit A-1. The Service Areas for Roadway Impact Fees are set forth in Exhibit A-2. (28) Service Unit - Standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions. Service units for water and wastewater impact fees are expressed in Service Unit Equivalents (SUE's). Service units for roadway impact fees are expressed in vehicle -miles per development unit. (29) Site -related Facility - Improvement or facility which is for the primary use or benefit of a new development and/or which is for the primary purpose of safe and adequate provision of water or wastewater facilities to serve the new development, and which is not included in the Capital Improvements Plan, and for which the developer or property owner is solely responsible under subdivision and other applicable regulations. (30) System -related Facility - A capital improvement or facility expansion which is designated in the Capital Improvements Plan and which is not a site -related facility. A system -related facility may include a capital improvement which is located offsite, within or on the perimeter of the development site. (31) Tap Purchase - The filing with the City of a written application for a water or wastewater tap and the acceptance of applicable fees by the City. The term "tap purchase" shall not be applicable to a meter purchased for and exclusively dedicated to fire protection. (32) Wastewater Facility - Improvement for providing wastewater service, including, but not limited to, treatment facilities, lift stations, or interceptor mains and necessary land or easements therefor. Wastewater facility excludes wastewater collection lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of the facilities and which are maintained in dedicated funds. Wastewater facilities also exclude dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of on-site wastewater collection facilities required by valid ordinances of the City and necessitated by and attributable to the new development. (33) Wastewater Facility Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any exlstmg wastewater facility for the purpose of serving new development, not including the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing wastewater facility to serve existing development. (34) Wastewater Improvement Plan - Portion of the Capital Improvements Plan, as may be amended from time to time, which identifies the wastewater facilities or wastewater expansions and their associated costs which are necessitated by and attributable to new development, and for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part through the imposition of wastewater impact fees pursuant to this Ordinance. Page 8 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) (35) Water Facility - Improvement for providing water service, including, but not limited to, water supply facilities, treatment facilities, pumping facilities, storage facilities, or transmission mains and necessary land or easements therefor. Water facility excludes water lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of the facilities and which are maintained in dedicated trusts. Water facilities also exclude dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of on-site water distribution facilities required by valid ordinances of the City and necessitated by and attributable to the new development. (36) Water Facility Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any exlstmg water facility for the purpose of serving new development, not including the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing water facility to serve existing development. (37) Water Improvement Plan - Portion of the Capital Improvements Plan, as may be amended from time to time, which identifies the water facilities or water expansions and their associated costs which are necessitated by and attributable to new development, and for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part through the imposition of water impact fees pursuant to this Ordinance. (38) Vehicle -Mile - A unit used to express both supply and demand provided by, and placed on, the roadway system. A combination of the number of vehicles travelling during a given time period and the distance in which these vehicles travel in miles. SECTION 5 APPLICABILITY OF IMPACT FEES A. This Ordinance shall be uniformly applicable to new development which occurs within the corporate limits of the city and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, and other areas served by the City's water and wastewater facilities. 1% B. No new development shall be exempt from the assessment of impact fees as defined in this Ordinance except as provided by state law. The payment of impact fees applicable to a school district shall be subject to the district's consent through a contract between the City and the district. Page 9 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) SECTION 6 IMPACT FEES AS CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL No application for new development shall be approved within the City without assessment of impact fees pursuant to this Ordinance, and no water and wastewater tap shall be issued and no building permit shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the applicable impact fees imposed by and calculated hereunder. SECTION 7 ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA AND ROADWAY SERVICE AREAS A. There is hereby established a Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Service Area as depicted on Exhibit A-1 attached to this Ordinance. B. There are hereby established Roadway Impact Fees Service Areas as depicted on Exhibit A-2 attached to this Ordinance. C. The service areas shall be established consistent with any facility service area defined in the Capital Improvements Plans for each utility or facility. Additions or revisions to the service areas may be approved by the City Council consistent with the procedures set forth in Chapter 395. SECTION 8 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS The Land Use Assumptions used in the development of the impact fees, attached as Exhibit- B to this Ordinance, are hereby adopted.These assumptions may be revised by the City Council according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395. SECTION 9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS A. The Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan attached as Exhibit C-1 to this Ordinance is hereby adopted. Page 10 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) B. The Roadway Capital Improvements Plan attached as Exhibit C-2 to this Ordinance is hereby adopted. C. The Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan and Roadway Capital Improvements Plan may be amended by the City Council from time to time, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395. SECTION 10 SERVICE UNITS A. Service units are established in accordance with generally accepted engineering and planning standards. Service units for water and wastewater impact fees are expressed in Service Unit Equivalents (SUE'S). Service units for roadway impact fees are expressed in vehicle -miles per development unit. B. The City Council may revise the service units designation from time to time according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395. C. Water and Wastewater Service Units. Service units for water and wastewater fees shall be calculated based on Service Unit Equivalents as determined by the size and type of the water meter(s) for the development. The meter types used to calculate the number of SUE'S shall be either simple, compound or turbine meters. 1. The Service Unit Equivalents used for the calculation of water and wastewater impact fees are set forth in the Table of Equivalencies - Water and Wastewater attached as Exhibit D-1 to this Ordinance. 2. If the Public Works Director determines that the water pressure in the City's transmission main is significantly higher or lower than standard pressure such that the size of the water meter is not indicative of actual service demand, the Public Works Director may adjust the number of Page 11 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMINISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) SUE's based on a smaller or larger sized meter which more accurately reflects the flow rate and the system pressure conditions. 3. If a fire demand meter (tap) is purchased for a property, the meter size utilized to calculate the number of SUE's shall be the dimension of the portion of the fire demand meter which reflects the meter size which would be required to provide appropriate residential or business service to the property. This reduced meter size shall then be utilized to calculate the number of SUE's. 4. Upon wastewater tap purchase for residential lots for which no water meter has been purchased, service units shall be calculated based on a V water meter. The calculation of service units for wastewater tap purchases for other uses of lots shall be based on data submitted by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Texas, which is reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. D. Roadway Service Units. Service units for roadway impact fees will be established based upon estimated vehicle -miles of demand generated by the development. Vehicle -miles of demand are determined based upon size and type of development and the service area where the development is located. The vehicle -mile demand factors used for the calculation of roadway impact fees are set forth in the Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table attached as Exhibit D-2 to this Ordinance. E. The Public Works Director or the City Council may approve an alternative calculation of Service Unit Equivalents or vehicle -miles of demand for a particular development based upon an engineering report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such engineering services in the State of Texas which demonstrates that the number of SUE's or vehicle -miles of demand for the development will be different than shown in Exhibits D-1 or D-2. Page 12 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) SECTION 11 IMPACT FEES PER SERVICE UNIT A. Computation, The maximum impact fee per service unit for each service area shall be computed by dividing the growth -related capital construction cost of service in the service area identified in the Capital Improvements Plan for that category of capital improvement, by the total number of projected service units anticipated within the service area which are necessitated by and attributable to new development, based on the Land Use Assumptions for that service area. The maximum water and wastewater impact fee per service unit has been calculated as shown in the Maximum Impact Fee Schedule attached as Exhibit- E to this Ordinance. The maximum roadway impact fee per vehicle -mile which will be assessed for different uses has been calculated for each service area as shown in Exhibit- E. The total impact fee assessed per service unit shall be a combination of the water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. Maximum assessable impact fees in Exhibit -E may be amended by the City Council according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395. B. Collection rate. The amount of impact fees to be collected is set by the City Council based upon equitable policy considerations. The amount of impact fees to be collected is set forth in the Impact Fee Collection Schedule by Service Unit for Water, Wastewater and Roadway attached as Exhibit -F to this Ordinance. 1. The amount of impact fees collected within a development shall be at the rates in effect in Exhibit F on the date that impact fees are assessed on the property. 2. The total impact fees collected per service unit shall be a combination of the water, wastewater and roadway impact fees. Page 13 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) 3. Exhibit- F may be amended by ordinance adopted by the City Council from time to time, provided that the amount of impact fees to be collected shall not exceed the maximum assessable impact fees set forth in Exhibit- E. SECTION 12 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT FEES A. The impact fees adopted by this ordinance shall go into effect on January 1, 2016. The approval of any subdivision of land or of any new development on or after January 1, 2016 shall include as a condition the assessment of the impact fees applicable to such development as set forth in this ordinance. B. Assessment of impact fees for any new development shall be at the time of final plat approval and shall be the impact fee per service unit then in effect, as set forth in Exhibit- E. 1. Where a final plat is approved prior to January 1, 2016, impact fees shall be assessed at the rate in effect on the date of plat approval. 2. For a development which received final plat approval prior to adoption of impact fees by the City, or for which no plat approval is required, impact fees shall be assessed on the effective date of adoption of the impact fees. 3. After a development has been assessed impact fees under this or any prior ordinances, no new impact fee or increase in any impact fee of the same category shall be assessed against that development unless: a. the final plat lapses or expires or a new application for final plat approval is submitted on the property; or b. the number of service units to be developed on the property increases. Page 14 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) 4. For purposes of this section, a final plat shall include a plat showing and a plat revision, but shall not include an amended plat submitted under Section 3.05 of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. SECTION 13 CALCULATION OF IMPACT FEES Following a request for new development, the City shall compute impact fees due for the new development in the following manner: 1. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees a. The number of SUE's shall be determined by the size of the water meter(s) based on the table set forth in Exhibit D-1, or as otherwise determined by the City Council or Public Works Director as provided in Section 10 of this Ordinance. b. SUE's shall be summed for all meters purchased for the development. C. The total number of SUE's shall be multiplied by the impact fee per SUE (1" water meter) set forth in the applicable fee schedule in Exhibit -F. d. Fee credits and offsets shall be subtracted as determined by the process set forth in Section 15 of this Ordinance. 2. Roadway Impact Fees a. The City has been divided into three roadway service areas and for each service area a specific maximum roadway fee has been calculated. Each service area has a different maximum assessed roadway impact fee per vehicle -mile as set forth in Exhibit- E. The same number of vehicle -miles per development unit is used in each service area to calculate the amount of impact fees assessed. Page 15 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) b. For collection purposes, roadway impact fees are calculated based upon equitable considerations applicable to each development unit. The amount of impact fees collected shall not exceed the maximum assessed roadway impact fees per service area. C. Exhibit -F shows the roadway impact fee per development unit used for calculating the amount of impact fee to be collected. d. Fee credits and offsets shall be subtracted as determined by the process set forth in Section 15 of this Ordinance. SECTION 14 COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES A. No water or wastewater tap shall be issued until all impact fees, including roadway impact fees, have been paid to the City except as provided otherwise by agreement. B. Except as provided below, impact fees shall be collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit for new development, or if no building permit is required, at the time of water or wastewater tap purchase. C. Because fire protection is of critical concern to the community as a whole, water demand related solely to fire protection is not subject to collection of an impact fee. However, if the fire protection capacity of the fire demand meter is routinely utilized for regular residential or business purposes as evidenced by the consumption recorded on the City's meter -reading and billing systems, the current owner of the property shall be assessed the current impact fees for the fire protection capacity which has been converted to residential or business use . D. To avoid the use of fire flow volumes for domestic use, the owner of any property for which a fire demand meter is purchased shall be required to execute a restrictive covenant on a form approved by the City Attorney, which shall acknowledge the right of the City to assess such fees to subsequent Page 16 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) owners of the property. This covenant shall be executed prior to the purchase of the fire demand meter and shall be filed in the deed records of the County. E. The City may provide for a different date of fee collection under any of the following circumstances: 1. The City may collect impact fees at the time of platting for any development which will utilize capital improvements which are subject to pro rata reimbursement. 2. The City may defer collection of impact fees to a later date where service for which the fee is assessed will not be available within a reasonable period of time. 3. The City may, at its sole discretion, enter into agreements to establish a different date of fee collection than those provided in this Section. SECTION 15 OFFSETS AND CREDITS AGAINST IMPACT FEES A. The City may offset the present value of any system -related facilities, pursuant to rules established in this section, which have been dedicated to and have been received by the City, including the value of capital improvements constructed pursuant to an agreement with the City, against the value of the impact fee due for that category of capital improvement. B. The City may credit impact, perimeter roadway, pro rata, acreage or lot fees which have been paid pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 330, 493, 494, 510, 657, 657-A, 657-B or other City ordinances against the value of impact fees due for that category of capital improvement, subject to guidelines established by the City. C. All offsets and credits against impact fees shall be subject to the following limitations and shall be granted based on this Ordinance and additional standards promulgated by the City, which may be adopted as administrative guidelines. Page 17 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) 1. No offset or credit shall be given for the dedication or construction of site -related facilities unless the facilities are oversized pursuant to an agreement with the City. 2. The unit costs used to calculate the offsets shall not exceed those assumed for the capital improvements included in the Capital Improvements Plan for the category of facility within the service area for which the impact fee is imposed. 3. If an offset or credit applicable to a plat has not been exhausted within ten (10) years from the date of plat filing or within such period as may be otherwise designated by contract, such offset or credit shall expire. 4. The City will not reimburse the property owner or developer for an offset or credit when no impact fees for the new development can be collected pursuant to this Ordinance or for any value exceeding the total impact fees due for the development for that category of capital improvement, unless otherwise agreed to by the City. D. An applicant for new development must apply for an offset or credit against impact fees due for the development either at or before the time of fee payment, unless the City agrees to a different time. The applicant shall file a petition for offsets or credits with the City on a form provided for such purpose. The contents of the petition shall be established by administrative guidelines. The City must provide the applicant, in writing, with a decision on the offset or credit request, including the reasons for the decision. The decision shall specify the maximum value of the offset or credit which may be applied against an impact fee, which value and the date of the determination shall be associated with the plat for the new development. E. The available offset or credit associated with the plat shall be applied against an impact fee in the following manner: 1. Such offset or credit shall be prorated equally among all service units, as calculated Page 18 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) in Section 10 and remain applicable to such service units, to be applied at time of filing and acceptance of an application for a building permit or tap purchase, as appropriate, against impact fees due. 2. If the total number of service units used by the City in the original offset or credit calculation described in Paragraph (1) is eventually exceeded by the number of total service units realized by the actual development, the City may, at its sole discretion, collect the full impact fee exclusive of any associated offset or credits for the excess service units. F. At its sole discretion, the City may authorize alternative credits or offsets upon petition by the owner in accordance with guidelines promulgated by the City. SECTION 16 ESTABLISHMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS A. The City shall establish separate interest-bearing accounts, in a bank authorized to receive deposits of City funds, for each major category of capital facility for which an impact fee is imposed pursuant to this Ordinance. B. Interest earned by each account shall be credited to that account and shall be used solely for the purposes specified for funds authorized in Section 17. C. The City shall establish adequate financial and accounting controls to ensure that impact fees disbursed from the account are utilized solely for the purposes authorized in Section 17. Disbursement of funds shall be authorized by the City at such times as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this Ordinance; provided, however, that any fee paid shall be expended within a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed ten (10) years from the date the fee is deposited into the account. D. The City shall maintain and keep adequate financial records for each such account, which shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, which shall account for all monies received, and which shall ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account shall be used solely and Page 19 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) exclusively for the provision of uses specified in the Capital Improvements Plan as system -related capital projects. The City Finance Department shall also maintain such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are appropriately made under the provision in Section 19 of this Ordinance, and such other information as may be necessary for the proper implementation of this Ordinance. SECTION 17 USE OF PROCEEDS OF IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS A. The impact fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance may be used to finance or to recoup capital construction costs of service. Impact fees may also be used to pay the principal sum and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance such capital improvements or facilities expansions. B. Impact fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall not be used to pay for any of the following expenses: 1. Construction, acquisition or expansion of capital improvements or assets other than those identified for the appropriate facility in the Capital Improvements Plan; 2. Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facilities expansions; 3. Upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; 4. Upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; provided however, that impact fees may be used to pay the costs of upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements in order to meet the need for new capital improvements generated by new development; or Page 20 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) 5. Administrative and operating costs of the City. SECTION 18 APPEALS A. The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the following decisions of the Public Works Director to the City Council: 1. The applicability of an impact fee to the development; 2. The calculation of applicable service units attributable to the development; 3. The value of the impact fee due; 4. The availability or the value of an offset or credit; 5. The application of an offset or credit against an impact fee due; 6. The amount of the refund due under Section 19, if any. B. An appeal to the City Council must be filed by the applicant with the City Secretary within thirty (30) days following the Public Works Director's decision. The City Council shall hear the appeal within 30 days of receipt by the City Secretary. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the applicant at least seven (7) days prior to the hearing. C. At the hearing, the City Council shall consider all relevant evidence and shall allow testimony from the applicant, city personnel and other interested persons relevant to the appeal. The hearing may be continued from time to time. D. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the fee is not applicable or that the determination of service units or the value of the fee or of the offset or credit was not calculated according to the applicable impact fee schedule or the guidelines established in this Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an engineering report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such engineering services in the State of Texas, which demonstrates that the applicant's burden has been met. Page 21 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) E. Following the hearing, the City Council shall consider all evidence and determine whether the appeal should be granted (in whole or in part) or denied. F. If the appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient security satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount equal to the original determination of the impact fee due, the development application or tap purchase or building permit issuance may be processed while the appeal is pending. SECTION 19 REFUNDS A. Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Ordinance which has not been expended within ten (10) years from the date of payment, shall be refunded, upon application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid, or, if the impact fee was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity, together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Section 302.002, Texas Finance Code, or any successor statute. B. If a refund is due pursuant to subsection (A), the City shall pro -rate the same by dividing the difference between the amount of expenditures and the amount of the fees collected by the total number of service units assumed within the service area for the period to determine the refund due per service unit. The refund to the record owner or governmental entity shall be calculated by multiplying the refund due per service unit by the number of service units for the development for which the fee was paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount. C. Upon completion of all the capital improvements or facilities expansions identified in the Capital Improvements Plan upon which the fee was based, the City shall recalculate the maximum impact fee per service unit using the actual costs for the improvements or expansions. If the maximum impact fee per service unit based on actual cost is less than the impact fee per service unit paid, the City shall refund the difference, if such difference exceeds the impact fee paid by more than Page 22 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMSTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) ten percent (10%). The refund to the record owner or governmental entity shall be calculated by multiplying such difference by the number of service units for the development for which the fee was paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount. D. Upon the request of an owner of the property on which a water or wastewater impact fee has been paid, the City shall refund such fees if - 1 . £ 1. Existing service is available and service is denied; or 2. Service was not available when the fee was collected and the City has failed to commence construction of facilities to provide service within two years of fee payment; or 3. Service was not available when the fee was collected and has not subsequently been made available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of fee payment. E. The City shall refund an appropriate proportion of water impact fee payments in the event that a previously purchased water meter is replaced with a smaller meter, based on the SUE differential of the two meter sizes and the per -SUE fee at the time of the original fee payment, less an administrative charge set forth in City guidelines. F. Petition for refunds shall be submitted to the Public Works Director on a form provided by the City for such purpose. Within one month of the date of receipt of a petition for refund, the Public Works Director must provide the petitioner, in writing, with a decision on the refund request, including the reasons for the decision. If a refund is due to the petitioner, the Public Works Director shall notify the Finance Director and request that a refund payment be made to the petitioner. The petitioner may appeal the determination to the Council, as set forth in Section 18. SECTION 20 UPDATES TO PLAN AND REVISION OF FEES Page 23 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) The City shall review the Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan for water, wastewater and roadway facilities at least every five years, the first five year period to commence from the date of adoption of the Capital Improvements Plan referenced herein. The City Council shall accordingly then make a determination of whether changes to the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or impact fees are needed and shall, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 395, either update the fees or make a determination that no update is necessary. SECTION 21 FUNCTIONS OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE A. The functions of the Advisory Committee are those set forth in Chapter 395 and shall include the following: 1. Advise and assist the City in adopting Land Use Assumptions; 2. Review the Capital Improvements Plan regarding water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements and file written comments thereon; 3. Monitor and evaluate implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan; 4. Advise the City of the need to update or revise the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and impact fees; and 5. File a semiannual report evaluating the progress of the City in achieving the Capital Improvements Plan and identifying any problems in implementing the plan or administering the impact fees. B. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee any professional reports prepared in the development or implementation of the Capital Improvements Plan. C. The City Council may adopt procedural rules for the Advisory Committee to follow in carrying out its duties. Page 24 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) SECTION 22 AGREEMENT FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS The City Council may authorize the owner of a new development to construct or finance some of the public improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. In the case of such approval, the property owner must enter into an agreement with the City prior to collection of impact fees. The agreement shall be on a form approved by the City, and shall establish the estimated cost of the improvements, the schedule for initiation and completion of the improvements, a requirement that the improvements shall be completed to City standards, and any other terms and conditions the City deems necessary. The Public Works Director shall review the improvement plan, verify costs and time schedules, determine if the improvements are contained in the Capital Improvements Plan, and determine the method and timing of reimbursing the owner for construction costs from impact fee or other revenues. SECTION 23 USE OF OTHER FINANCING MECHANISMS The City may finance water, wastewater, and roadway capital improvements or facilities expansions designated in the Capital Improvements Plan through the issuance of bonds, through the formation of public improvement districts or other assessment districts, or through any other authorized mechanism, in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law, in addition to the use of impact fees. Except as herein otherwise provided, the assessment and collection of an impact fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or assessment which is lawfully imposed on and due against the property. Page 25 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) SECTION 24 IMPACT FEES AS ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATION A. Impact fees established by this Ordinance are additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other requirements imposed by the City on the development of land or the issuance of building permits or the sale of water or wastewater taps or the issuance of certificates of occupancy, including but not limited to pass-through fees charged by the City of Fort Worth for water or wastewater connections. Such fees are intended to be consistent with and to further the policies of City's Comprehensive Plan, Capital Improvement Plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other City policies, ordinances and resolutions by which the City seeks to ensure the provision of adequate public facilities in conjunction with the development of land. B. This Ordinance shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density of development, design, and improvement standards and requirements, or any other aspect of the development of land or provision of public improvements subject to the zoning and subdivision regulations or other regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all such development. SECTION 25 RELIEF PROCEDURES A. Any person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land upon which an impact fee has been paid may petition the City Council to determine whether any duty required by this Ordinance has not been performed within the time so prescribed . The petition shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the unperformed duty and request that the act be performed within sixty (60) days of the request. If the City Council determines that the duty is required pursuant to the ordinance and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within sixty (60) days of the date of the request and to continue until completion. Page 26 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) B. The City Council may grant a variance or waiver from any requirement of this Ordinance, upon written request by a developer or owner of property subject to the Ordinance, following a public hearing, upon finding that a strict application of such requirement would, when regarded as a whole, result in confiscation of the property. SECTION 26 CUMULATIVE CLAUSE This Ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this Ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed.Ordinance Nos. 330, 493, 494, 510, 657, 657-A and 657-B are specifically saved from repeal and shall remain in effect to the extent they provide for the charging of a fee not replaced by this Ordinance or other duly adopted ordinances of the City. SECTION 27 SEVERABILITY CLAUSE It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 28 NOTICE OF HEARING The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to post this Ordinance in its entirety Page 27 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMSTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) on the City website together with a notice setting out the time and place for a public hearing thereon and for its consideration by the City Council at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this Ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. 2015. 2015. SECTION 29 EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, EFFECTIVE: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY Page 28 N:\00 -New N Drive\ADMMISTRATION-PW DEPT\Impact Fees\2015 Study\Ordinance\Ordinance 657 -C -Oct 6 meeting.docx (09/15/15) Exhibit A-1 2015 CIP Update Water and Wastewater Impact Fee CITY OF Ma hall C ek SOUTHLAICE Roanoke Exhibit A-1 Service Area Boundaries Trophy Club Westlake East Dove Rd. 6 .0 Florence Rd. Johnson Rd. West Southlake Blvd. 6 o Grapevine > East Continental Blvd. -I- Union Church West Continental Blvd. Legend Service Area Service Area Major Roads SH 114 Local Roads Colleyville City Limits ZZZI— Lakes Streams Miles P Euless Exhibit A-2 Roanoke V m \ 3 r Trophy Club m N� Y U 1/ 3 3i z Westlake a> Z J O West Southlake Blvd. Union Church a> RI T - a > N O West Continental Blvd. East Dove Rd. U Z z `n o_ D a' U East Continental Blvd. 1 C Miles 2015 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Exhibit A-2 Service Area Boundaries Q E Z m —� 1 3 Grapevine m I r 2 Euless Legend Service Areas � Major Roads N �Ni SH 114 V S Local Roads ` Colleyville City Limits V Lakes 0 Streams East Dove Rd. U Z z `n o_ D a' U East Continental Blvd. 1 C Miles 2015 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee CITY OF SOUTHLAKE Exhibit A-2 Service Area Boundaries Q E Z m —� 1 3 Grapevine m I r 2 Euless Exhibit -B SOUCITY OF THLAI<E Kimley»>Horn Q1 EXHIBIT B A. WATER/WASTEWATER 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. 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 4,810 790,416 1 2,095,560 1 3,320,78L_L 6,206,457 B. ROADWAY 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) 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Exhibit -B CITY OF 54UT1--[LAKE KIf11i 1ey0Horn Q1 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: 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, 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Exhibit -B Kimley»>Horn construction, transportation, wholesale, trade, industrial uses. CITY OF SOUTHLA« Q1 warehousing, and other C. ROADWAY 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. 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. 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Exhibit -B CITY OF 54UT1--[LAKE Kim1ey0Horn Q) D. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE STUDY SERVICE AREAS The geographic boundary of the proposed impact fee service areas for transportation facilities is shown in Exhibit A-2. 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. 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. Table 2.1 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Dwelling Employment (Square Feet) Service Area Year Population Basic Service Retail Total Units 2015 51568 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 Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Trophy Club Westlake Exhibit C-1 fU W IL a x U 2w ©PS DOVE '20 2015 Southlake Impact Fee Update SOUTHLAKE Exhibit C-1 Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan 13 17 3 3 11 Legend Proposed Pump Station _ Existing Water Impact Fee Projects Proposed Pressure Reducing Valves (PRV) O Florence 1.5 MG EST Proposed Elevated Storage Tank O2 T.W. King 5.0 MG GST Proposed Water Line Proposed Water Impact Fee Projects Existing Elevated Storage Tank O Pressure Reducing Valves (MP#1) 15 E Highland 12" WL (MP#15) O N. Pearson Ln 16" WL (MP#2) 1s Union Church & Pearson Ln 12" WL (MP#16) Os T.W. King Pump Station Improvements (MP#4) 17 N. Peytonville 12" WL (MP#17) Os Pearson Pump Station Improvements (MP#5) 1a Shady Oaks Dr 12" WL (MP#18) O T.W. King 1.5 MG EST (MP#6) 1s Randol Mill Ave 12" WL (MP#19) O SH 114 12" WL Part 1 (MP#7) 20 Dove 12" WL (MP#20) Os SH 114 12" WL Part 2 (MP#9) 21 S White Chapel 8" WL Loop (MP#22) 10 Bank St 8" WL Loop (MP#10) 22 Loch Meadow Ct 8" WL Loop (MP#23) 11 Bentwood 8" WL (MP#11) 23 Bob Jones Park 8" WL Loop (MP#24) 12 Fox Glen Ct 8" WL Loop (MP#12) 2a Austin Oaks Dr 8" WL Loop (MP#25) 13 Burney Ln 8" WL (MP#13) 25 SH 114 20" WL Part 3 (MP#26) 14 Bob Jones Rd 8" WL Loop (MP#14) 2s SH 114 12" WL Part 4 (MP#27) 8 CONTINENTAL 10 PS Proposed Pump Station _ Proposed Pressure Reducing Valves (PRV) Proposed Elevated Storage Tank (EST) Proposed Water Line Existing Elevated Storage Tank (EST) © Existing Ground Storage Tank (GST) Lakes Streams Local Roads Service Area Boundary (City Limits) (MP#) - Water Master Plan Project Number 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Trophy Club Exhibit 3 N. J Westlake i I y I \/ Dove Rd. East Dove Rd. N3 . N-2 w a Gri Q O v f4 1 — o U F ° a Z T L G N-5 a g-2 z s -1z N-7 N.q M W Highland St. N- - — / s E Highland St. t " 3 O S a. N-8 N-9 a x Y 0 l F kirkWO s -s °a a y / r O` N-10 L o U Co Z S-1 West Southlake Blvd. s -s East Southlake Blvd. s-10 s_s s 7 s-9 a Q o o D a U � S-8 West Continental Blvd. East Continental Blvd. i s -n Legend 3 0 Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads D Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes ~1 Other Transportation Projects Streams 2015 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee SOUTHLAKE Exhibit C-2 Roadway Improvements Service Area North (N) OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain U 0.5 1 Orth • Intersection Projects City Limits Miles Legend � Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes r Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects Q City Limits W G \ � 3 J) f m Colleyville 0 0.5 1 Miles It f°o a "' 2015 CIP Update Westlake �`o Roadway Impact Fee East Dove Rd. _ CITY OF SOUTFIL.AKE Dove Rd. N3 N-2 m Q p oExhibit C-2 o m Z Roadway Improvements a S-2 N5 Service Area South (S) S-1 M �' LL _ -- W Highland St. / N.s N-7 N-8 E Highland St. Y Z-` 4 N-$ N.9 S Y 0 'a S-3 EKirkko ai Dy Bwa � Florence Rd. a a N / o N -,o S-4 0 y m U Z S-1 / Johnson Rd. West Southlake Blvd.` s- East Southlake Blvd. S-10 S ' Q SS S7 S9 3 � � Q w c m 0 d D mfD A a U O d IL N N rn Union Church East Continental Blvd. West Continental Blvd. 1 Legend � Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes r Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects Q City Limits W G \ � 3 J) f m Colleyville 0 0.5 1 Miles Exhibit D-1 Water and Wastewater Service Unit Equivalency Meter Size Maximum Continuous Operating Capacity (GPM) * Service Unit Equivalent (SUE) 3/4" 15 0.6 1" 25 1.0 1 1/25' 50 2.0 2" 80 3.2 3" 160 6.4 4" 250 10 6" 500 20 8" 800 32 10" 1,150 46 *Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (AWWA) C-700-09 and C-702-10. Exhibit D-2 Land Use Category ITE Land Use Code Development Unit Trip Gen Rate (PM) Pass -by Rate Pass -by Source Trip Rate NCTCOG Trip Length (Ini) Adj. For O -D Adj. Trip Length (Ini) Max Trip Length (Ini) Veh-Mi Per Dev- Unit PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal 030 Acre 6.55 6.55 10.02 50% 5.01 4.00 26.20 INDUSTRIAL 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 1,000 SF GFA 0.32 0.32 10.83 50% 5.42 4.00 1.28 Mini -Warehouse 151 1,000 SF GFA 0.26 0.26 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 Apartment/Multi-family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.62 17.21 501/. 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 0.27 0.27 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 1.08 Senior Adult Housing -Attached 252 Dwelling Unit 0.25 0.25 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 1.00 Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.22 0.22 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 0.88 LODGING Hotel 310 Room 0.60 0.60 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 1.93 Motel / Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 1.51 RECREATIONAL GolfDriving Range 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.03 Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 0.97 Recreational Community Center 495 1,000 SF GFA 2.74 2.74 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 8.82 Ice Skating Rink 465 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 2.36 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 7.60 Miniature Golf Course 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 1.06 Multiplex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 43.92 Racquet / Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.35 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 10.79 INSTITUTIONAL 0.00 Church 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.55 0.55 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 1.16 Day Care Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 12.34 44% B 6.91 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 14.51 Prim /Middle School (1-.8) 522 Students 0.16 0.16 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.34 School 9-12) 530 Students 0.13 0.13 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.27 -High Junior / Community College 540 Students 0.12 0.12 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.25 University /College 550 Students 0.17 0.17 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.36 MEDICAL Clinic 630 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 5.18 7.55 500/6 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 0.22 0.22 7.55 50% 3.78 3.78 0.83 Animal Hospital/Veterinary Hospital/VeterinaryClinic 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 1.41 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 1.48 1.48 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 5.92 COMMERCIAL Automobile Related Automobile Care Center 942 1,000 SF Occ. GLA 3.11 40% B 1.87 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 6.02 Automobile Parts 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 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 4.82 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market 945 Vehicle Fueling Position 13.51 56% B 5.94 1.20 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 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 3.66 New and Used Car 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 Car Wash 947 Stall 5.54 40% B 3.32 1.20 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 -Thur 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-Thru Window 933 1,000 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 -Thin 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 Nurse (Garden 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 1.21 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 Center 820 1,000 SF GLA 3.71 34% A 2.45 6.43 500/, 3.22 3.22 7.89 -Shopping Sup emarket 850 1,000 SF GFA 9.48 36% A 6.07 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 19.55 To /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 1.87 30% B 1.31 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.22 SERVICES Walk -In Bank 911 1,000 SF GFA 12.13 40% B 7.28 3.39 50% 1.70 1.70 12.38 Drive -In Bank 912 Drive-in Lanes 33.24 47% A 17.62 3.39 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 Exhibit -E Maximum Assessable Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Meter Size* Maximum Assessable Fee Water Maximum Assessable Fee Wastewater 3/4" 4,309 1,074 1" 7,182 1,790 11/2" 14,364 3,580 2" 22,982 5,728 3" 45,965 11,456 4" 71,820 17,900 6" 143,640 35,800 8" 229,824 57,280 10" 330,372 82,340 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee Service Area Maximum Assessable Fee Per Vehicle -Mile ($) North (N) 573 South (S) 410 Exhibit -F To be completed by the staff after the City Council establishes the rates. September 3, 2015 Dear City Council: Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Of The City of Southlake Written Comments on the Impact Fee Process Submitted To the City Council Introduction These comments are provided to comply with Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, which outlines the process and procedures necessary to initiate and update impact fees in Texas. As background, the City Council appointed the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) to fulfill the role and duties of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC), as allowed by law, since there is at least one representative of the real estate, development, or building industry who is not an employee or official of the City. Our charge included the legal duties of the CIRC: The advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: • Advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions; • Review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; • Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; • File semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and • Advise the political subdivision of the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. For the sake of brevity in this report, the council has been or will be furnished with the Water, Wastewater, and Roadway 2015 Impact Fee Update which contains the land use assumptions and capital improvements plans to be reviewed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. We will not attempt to restate the details of these reports or the full conversations and issues discussed in our meetings. Instead, our comments will be regarding our observations of the process. We relied heavily on the expertise of the City staff and consultants engaged to conduct these studies in compliance with state law. However, we individually and collectively made inquiries of the Study Team and provided advice that was incorporated into the final reports. The particular highlights of our advisory duties are contained in these written comments being sent to you in advance of a public hearing on the impact fee process and results. Southlake, Texas - CIAC Comments to City Council - September 3, 2015 - FINAL - Page 1 of 4 Observations and Advice Land Use Assumptions The land use assumptions (LUA) have been updated from the previous study. The land use assumptions were based on the City's Future Land Use Plan and corresponds to historic growth patterns. We concur that these assumptions appear to be reasonable. Water and Wastewater CIP • The 10 -year recoverable Water and Wastewater Impact Fee CIP was presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. The 10 -year recoverable Impact Fee CIP was $13,092,045.40 for water and $3,373,366.50 for wastewater. Roadway Capital Improvements Plan • The 10 -year recoverable Roadway Impact CIP was presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. The 10 -year recoverable Impact Fee CIP was $14,195,521 for Service Area North and $9.523,630 for Service Area South. Equivalency Tables The Equivalency tables are based on the relationship of the capital requirements of a Service Unit, a common measure placing all land use categories on an equal or equivalent basis. A Water and Wastewater Service Unit has been established to be a Single Family Living Unit Equivalent (SFLUE) or a one -inch water meter. A Roadway Service Unit is defined as a Vehicle -Mile (VM) of travel during the peak afternoon and evening (PM) hours generated by various land use categories. A single-family residential household generates 4.00 VM in the revised Roadway Equivalency table, a slight decrease from 4.04 VM in the previous study. • The Water and Wastewater equivalency tables are based on the water meter size. These tables are rooted in engineering standards for the measured capacity of each meter size in relationship to a Single Family Living Unit Equivalent (SFLUE). The Roadway equivalency tables are based on a professional standard produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). This manual has been revised since the last study was conducted, so there was a need to reflect minor changes in the roadway equivalency tables. The Study Team and the CIRC acknowledged the resulting product was fair and equitable and better represented the land use categories for Southlake. We concur with the Roadway equivalency table as presented in the final report that has been provided to the Council. Southlake, Texas - CIAC Comments to City Council - September 3, 2015 - FINAL - Page 2 of 4 Financing / Study Costs • The Water, Wastewater and Roadway CIP included eligible costs for the financing and study components of the CIP. The addition of financing costs is based on a model used in previous studies that matches a theoretical stream of impact fee revenues over a ten-year period with expenditures for debt service over a 20 - year period. The net result is influenced by interest rates as well as the amount of the total CIP that is being financed, ranging between 15% and 36% of the cost of the capital. • There is a small component of the eligible costs that include the impact fee study updates. These costs, as well as the financing cost assumptions, have been included in accordance to previous studies and appear to be reasonable. Maximum, Equilibrium and Collected Impact Fees • Our orientation by the Study Team included an explanation of two levels of impact fees: Maximum, and Collected Impact Fees. Our comments will address these two. Maximum Impact Fees are those developed in accordance with the statutory requirements imposed on governments developing and charging impact fees. The Maximum Impact Fee that can be charged is the result of dividing the cost of the capacity projected to be absorbed over a ten-year period (the numerator) by the Service Units projected to be added during that same ten-year period (the denominator). The Service Units have to be based on the LUA report. The task of the CIAC is to review the methodology used to arrive at the numerator and denominator, which we have done. The calculation then becomes legal arithmetic. The result is not ours to change unless we have found a reason to advise a change in the methodology and assumptions used to derive the numerator and denominator. We concur with the calculated Maximum Impact Fee. It is required that these fees be published in advance of a public hearing for water, wastewater and each of the two roadway service areas. • The Collected Impact Fee is that amount, when said and done, is the check that has to be written by the builder when paid to the City. The City's current collection fees are as follows: o Water Collected Impact Fee - $2,085.39 per SFLUE (1" Meter) o Wastewater Collected Impact Fee - $1,240.47 per SFLUE. o Roadway Collected Impact Fee - $1,720.02 per SF Residential Unit We were also informed that every municipal wholesale water customer served by the City of Fort Worth has to pay a fee for treatment plant and transmission facilities (aka a "wholesale system access fee") for each new retail water customer that connects to the City water system. That means that irrespective of the Collected Impact Fee level the Council sets, there is currently a Fort Worth pass-through fee of $1,173 (for a 1" meter) and there is potential for continued increases in the future. This fee will add to the financial burden of the new growth yet will only be a pass-thru and of no benefit to the City of Southlake. Our purpose for mentioning it is to serve as a reminder and as information made part of our orientation Lastly, it is clear to the CIAC that there is no legal obligation to recommend a Collected Impact Fee level. We therefore concluded that the CIAC should not offer a specific recommendation, leaving that policy decision up to the City Council. It is apparent to us that we would want a considerable amount of information in order to provide a recommendation, if requested to do so by the City Council. If the decision is market based, then area surveys and a working knowledge of the tolerable limits of the local developer community are factors that the Council needs little or no assistance other than what the staff might provide. It does strike us that there is a fee level that, when approached or surpassed, has a bearing on real estate and development costs, even in a reasonably affluent community such as Southlake. We believe that if a decision by us is to be made regarding the Collected Fee level, that we would require a considerable amount of time and study to Southlake, Texas - CIAC Comments to City Council - September 3, 2015 - FINAL - Page 3 of 4 understand the elasticity of the economic influence of impact fees in Southlake as well as other cost factors that might shape a policy decision such as this. Conclusion • We believe as the Capital Advisory Committee that there are no perceived inequities with respect to developing and implementing the Capital Improvement Plan. • We believe we have fulfilled our charge by thoroughly exploring the underlying assumptions and factors that went into the development of the Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plans and other technical and financial issues. • We believe that the LUA, CII' and resulting calculated Maximum Impact Fees were developed fairly and equitably with a balance for what is defensible to both the developer community and our residences and businesses in Southlake. • We therefore, file these written comments as a part of the final stage of this public process as the Council hears from us as their Advisory Committee, from the Study Team as the authors of the reports and as any member of the public comes forward to voice an opinion. It is our understanding that these technical reports will be available to the public at least 30 days in advance of the public hearing. We conclude that this has been an open process, since all of our meetings have been posted and available to any member of the public. And for the record, the minutes of all our meetings have been supplied to you as part of the documentation for this process. Submitted By: air, Capital Improe4 ments Advisory Committee APPROVED BY a majority vote of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee taken on the 30D of be , xiS . Southlake, Texas - CIAC Comments to City Council - September 3, 2015 - FINAL - Page 4 of 4 A" i I fell, al $. g 4 e T,. -FY C3F SJOUTHLAKE Water, Wastewater & Roadway li32015 Impact Fee Update Draft AUGUST 2015 FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY: THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE AND KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCATES, INC. C14 Y Q1 TEXAS SOUTHLAKE•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 ° opo oma p JOHN R. ATKINS °- 0 0 � d T- F d N g.3'Zn�s Kimley>»Horn Table of Contents CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 19 Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................................i 1.1 Executive Summary.......................................................................................................1 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)>)Horn 91 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 I August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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, $3,373,366.50 is recoverable through impact fees serving the 10 -year system needs. Water and Wastewater Impact Fees The impact fee law defines a service unit as follows, "Service Unit means a standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years." Therefore, the City of Southlake defines a service unit as unit of development that consumes the amount of water requiring a standard 1 -inch water meter. For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is established at a multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 1 -inch meter. The equivalency factor and associated impact fee by meter size is shown in Table 1.1. 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 2 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Table 1.1 Maximum Assessable Water and Wastewater Impact Fee for Commonlv Used Meters *Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (AWWA) C-700-09 and C-702-10. 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 3 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Maximum Maximum Maximum Meter Continuous Service Unit Assessable Fee Assessable Fee Size* Operating Equivalent Water Wastewater Capacity (S) ($) (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 8" 800 32 229,824 57,280 10" 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 Kimley»>Horn 1.2 INTRODUCTION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 (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; (S) 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 Kimley»>Horn A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Kimley»>Horn 1.3 WATER CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 • 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 Kimley»>Horn B. IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Fox Glen Ct 8" WL Loop(MP#12) $94,000 E12 Burney Ln 8" WL(MP#13) $301,000 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 9 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Project Number Project Name Costs 14 Bob Jones Rd 8" WL Loop (MP#14) $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) $2101000 22 Loch Meadow Ct. 8" WL Loo (MP423) $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 O Westlake V19 17 3 DOVE 'x.20 2015 Southlake Impact Fee Update SOUTHLAKE Figure 1.1 Water Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan 13 3 UJ 21 rW 1—_ 11 Legend Proposed Pump Station _ Existing Water Impact Fee Projects Proposed Pressure Reducing Valves (PRV) O Florence 1.5 MG EST Proposed Elevated Storage Tank O2 T.W. King 5.0 MG GST Proposed Water Line Proposed Water Impact Fee Projects Existing Elevated Storage Tank O Pressure Reducing Valves (MP#1) 15 E Highland 12" WL (MP#15) O N. Pearson Ln 16" WL (MP#2) 1s Union Church & Pearson Ln 12" WL (MP#16) Os T.W. King Pump Station Improvements (MP#4) 17 N. Peytonville 12" WL (MP#17) Os Pearson Pump Station Improvements (MP#5) 1a Shady Oaks Dr 12" WL (MP#18) O T.W. King 1.5 MG EST (MP#6) 1s Randol Mill Ave 12" WL (MP#19) O SH 114 12" WL Part 1 (MP#7) 20 Dove 12" WL (MP#20) Os SH 114 12" WL Part 2 (MP#9) 21 S White Chapel 8" WL Loop (MP#22) 10 Bank St 8" WL Loop (MP#10) 22 Loch Meadow Ct 8" WL Loop (MP#23) 11 Bentwood 8" WL (MP#11) 23 Bob Jones Park 8" WL Loop (MP#24) 12 Fox Glen Ct 8" WL Loop (MP#12) 2a Austin Oaks Dr 8" WL Loop (MP#25) 13 Burney Ln 8" WL (MP#13) 25 SH 114 20" WL Part 3 (MP#26) 14 Bob Jones Rd 8" WL Loop (MP#14) 2s SH 114 12" WL Part 4 (MP#27) 8 CONTINENTAL 10 PS Proposed Pump Station _ Proposed Pressure Reducing Valves (PRV) Proposed Elevated Storage Tank (EST) Proposed Water Line Existing Elevated Storage Tank (EST) © Existing Ground Storage Tank (GST) Lakes Streams Local Roads Service Area Boundary (City Limits) (MP#) - Water Master Plan Project Number 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Kimley»>Horn C. WATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 (*3.1 persons/unit) Water Usage Average Day Demand (MGD) 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 81419 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 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 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 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 10 -year additional service units $13,092,945.50 1,823 $7,182 Therefore, the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $7,182. For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is established at a multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 1 -inch meter. The maximum impact fee that could be assessed for other meter sizes is based on the value shown on Table 1.7, Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters. 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update 14 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley»>Horn Table 1.7 Water Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 Meter Size Maximum Continuous Operating Capacity (GPM) * Service Unit Equivalent Maximum Assessable Fee Water ($) 3/4" 15 0.6 4,309 1,, 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 8" 800 32 229,824 10" 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 Kimley»>Horn 1.4 WASTEWATER CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Trophy Club Westlake co Q _C Legend Proposed Wastewater Impact Fee Projects OBasin N-12 & N -12A Dove Creek 15" Sewer Line (MP#1) (2)Basin N-13 Emerald Circle 15" & 10" Sewer Line (MP#2) OBasin N-13 McCrae Trail 12" Sewer Line (MP#3) OBasin N-18 White Chapel 8" Sewer Line (MP#4) ( Basin N-1 2A Imperial Ave 8" Sewer Line (MP#6) (i)Basin N -12A Dove Creek/Highland 8" Sewer Line (MP#8) ( Basin N-14 Torian/Kimball 8" Sewer Line (MP#9) Os Basin N-14 E. Highland/Kimball 8" Sewer Line (MP#10) Os Basin N-19 Sam School/Crawford Ct 8" Sewer Line (MP#18) �o Basin N-17 T.W. King 8" Sewer Line (M P#25) J W CL Q x U LU x G -0- FLU = �2 3� 2015 Southlake Impact Fee Update SOUTHLAKE Figure 1.2 Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan V 1 6 Wastewater Line Lakes Roads Service Area Boundary (City Limit) (MP#) - Wastewater Master Plan Project Number J Il kJ U O Q -U ] C, CONTINENTAL Grapevine 0 2,500 5,000 Feet Kimley»>Horn C. WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Kimley»>Horn CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 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 Kimley»>Horn Table 1.12 Wastewater Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonlv Used Meters CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 91 *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 Maximum Maximum Meter Size Service Unit Assessable Continuous Equivalent Fee Operating Capacity (GPM) Wastewater M 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 3" 160 6.4 11,456 4" 250 10 17,900 6" 500 20 35,800 8" 800 32 57,280 10" 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 � J%FfREY R. WHITACi�Ie Kimley»>Horn Table of Contents SOUTHLAKE 19 Tableof Contents......................................................................................................................................... i 2.1 Executive Summary...........................................................................................................1 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 R1 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 ............ 1 l 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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) o£ SERVICE AREA: North South MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT $ 573 $ 410 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 2 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>>)Horn 2.2 INTRODUCTION CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>) Horn UQ1 • 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE Kirnley>)) Worn UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 Table 2.1 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 8 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas 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 A (North of SH 114) 2025 7,192 2,320 45,599 3,966,782 1,900,659 5,913,040 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 B (South of SH 114) 2025 26,147 8,435 1,377,089 3,827,474 5,512,144 10,716,707 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 7,794,256 Total (Citywide) 2025 33,339 10,755 1,422,688 7,412,803 16,629,747 6,206,457 10 -Year 4,810 1,552 790,416 2,095,260 3,320,781 Growth 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 8 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas J 2015 CIP Update / Roadway Impact Fee SOUTHLAKE Mar hall ek Roanoke 9 Exhibit 2.1 Service Area Boundaries Y �V 3 Trophy Club 1 �a Y U z Westlake East Dove Rd. r� m o � U T Z a z a' S � s � Z Y t7 Z Florence Rd. in c D Johnson Rd. 6 West Southlake Blvd. Q� Keller a 3 Grapevine Q m U _ T N D a y o" ^,_ r Union Church West Continental Blvd. East Continental Blvd. Legend Service Areas Major Roads N SH 114 S Local Roads Colleyville City Limits Lakes 0 1 2 Streams Miles Euless Kimley>>>Horn E. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 of: • 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 Area Proj. # Impact Fee Class Roadway Limits N-1 A4D 100 1/2 Kirkwood Blvd 1 Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. N-2 A4D 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 A4D88)_(l a2 N White Chapel Blvd. 2 Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR N-5 A4D 100 E Kirkwood Blvd. 3 Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. FS N-6 A4U 88 E Kirkwood Blvd.(4)__Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. y N-7 A4D(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. 5 N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St. 2 N-8 A4D 100 1/2 E Kirkwood Blvd. 6 HlyJ land St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way N-9 A4D 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. & H' nd 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 Table 2.3 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Service Area South Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits • A5U S-1 A4D 130-140 FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkwy. — 94' Arterial S-2 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 to Highland St. • C2U — S-3 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 H' nd 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 5-10 C2U 60 Village Center Dr. 2 S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr. 5-11 A4D 94 Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits S-12 A3U 70 W Highland St. White Chapel Rd. to SH 114 I-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Pe onville Ave. to 1-5 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Blvd. to 1-6 Roundabout N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. to 1-7 Roundabout Dove Rd. & Peytonviffe 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 • A61) — 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 Trophy Club Westlake Dove Rd. ai Q West Southlake Blvd VL - East Dove Rd. N3 �4 O O O� 1P L O• S-2 5.12 W Highland St. v Q U Z 2015 CIP Update Roadway Impact Fee SOUTHLAKE 9 Exhibit 2.2 Roadway Improvements Service Area North (N) �,U �HighlandSt. N-8 West Continental Blvd. East Continental Blvd. Legend 3 0 Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads f Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects Q City Limits 0 0.5 1 Miles lake Blvd. ET tE.st)South 3 West Continental Blvd. East Continental Blvd. Legend 3 0 Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads f Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects Q City Limits 0 0.5 1 Miles Legend Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects City Limits \ W C 3 f m 1 Colleyville 0 0.5 1 Miles 0 "-1 2015 CIP Update Westlake �`a Roadway Impact Fee East Dove Rd. CITY OI SOUTHLAKE Dove Rd. N3 N2 � rn a' _ fo Exhibit 2.3 o 11 Z Roadway Improvements a s-2 ° N5 Service Area South (S) z s-1 z W Highland St. N-6 / N-7 N-6 N-10 E Highland St. s L Y z a y N -s Uye7yd, > 1 Florence Rd. a a r N / ;? N-10 0 N N U S-4 z S-1 Johnson Rd. West Southlake Blvd. ` s-5 East Southlake Blvd. s-10 S Q d S 6 S-7 5 9 „ 3 c = � > o T o D O i d IL m p N i g -g N to Union Church West Continental Blvd. t East Continental Blvd. Legend Impact Fee Eligible Projects Local Roads Impact Fee Eligible Completed Projects Lakes Other Transportation Projects Streams OProject Number 100 Year Flooplain • Intersection Projects City Limits \ W C 3 f m 1 Colleyville 0 0.5 1 Miles Kimley>>>Horn CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 o 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 t SOUTHLAKE Kimley>)) Horn UQ1 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. A 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 t SOUTHLAKE Kimley>)) Horn UQ1 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 Project Information Construction Pay Items Construction Component Allowances Summary of Costs and Allowances ( -)I SOUT'HLAKE 13 City of Southlake Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update updated: 1/8/2015 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection 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 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 1,217 sy $ 52.00 $ 63,286 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,030,119 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control NoneAntupated 0% $ - v� Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facifties F 3% $ 30,904 �l Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 360,542 v� Illumination 6% $ 61,807 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% v� Water MnorAdpstments 3% $ 30,904 vl Sewer MnorAdjustments 2% $ 20,602 Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 20,602 v 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 Mobilizationj 5% $ 79,834 Prep ROW 3% $ 47,901 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,964,000 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 Impact 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: 1 $ 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 • 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 Areas) — 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 ( SOUTHLAKE UQ1 Table 2.6 10 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections - Service Area North Service Area Prol. # Class Roadway Limits Length (mi) Total Project Cost N-1 A41)(100)(1/2) Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. 0.40 $ 1,300,000 N-2 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (2) E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. 0.43 $ 3,504,300 N-3 A41)(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 A413(100) E Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. 0.42 1 $ 5,699,000 N-6 A4U(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. 0.16 $ 822,000 N-7 A41)(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 r 0 N-9 A41)(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave. 0.29 $ 861,600 J)° N-10 A41)(88) N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. to SH 114 1.18 $ 10,383,832 v I-1 A4D(94) Intersection Improvernenn) (WB and NB right- N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. to 0.76 $ 300,000 I-2 A3U(70) Roundabout N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) to 0.60 $ 1,250,000 I-3 Signal Installation N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. to $ 200,000 I-5 Roundabout Service Area Project Cost Subtotal 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Cost Per Service Area $ 31,004,732 $ 15,167 $ 1,500,000 I-6 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA NORTH (N) $ 31,019,899 Table 2.710 -Year Roadway Impact Fee CIP with Conceptual Level Cost Projections - Service Area South Service Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length (11d) Total Project 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 A3U(70) N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd. 1.00 $ 4,778,300 S-5 C2U(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 A4D(88)(1/2) S Carroll Ave. (2) 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way 0.09 $ 331,960 r 0 S-9 C2U(60) Village Center Dr. (1) 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway 0.44 $ 2,476,675 J)° S-10 C21J(60) Village Center Dr. (2) S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr. 0.33 $ 1,684,500 v 5-11 A4D(94) Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits 0.76 $ 4,904,625 S-12 A3U(70) W Highland St. White Chapel Rd. to SH 114 0.60 $ 2,615,700 I-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Peytonville 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 2015 Roadway InVact Fee Update Cost Per Service Area $ 40,204,864 $ 15,167 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA SOUTH (S) $ 40,220,031 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 23 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas CITY t SOUTHLAKE Kimley>)) Horn UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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, 91h Edition, and the regional Origin -Destination Travel Survey performed by the NCTCOG and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS). The ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9th 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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=T*(I—Ph)*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 ( -) SOUT'HLAKE 9 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 17.21 10.02 10.92 6.43 (miles) SAL 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 Lmax � (miles) 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.22 TDF 1 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 il 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 Kim|ey)) Horn ] rn 2 o \ § § § q � \ 04 / a 7 � / o § = W § w -- 2 % ; § a § 2 § § Iq - \ � o � W K o LU \ z CO � § _)� % kLLIzn 0 2 w m ¥ / � § @ 2 ° \ � LU U. � § \ ° \ \ §= W \ % o § = W § G C zLLI. % (d § 2 22 § \ o � W K o \ \ z CO § / / kLLIzn 2 � SOUTH AKE 13 205Roadway Impact weuae a August 2015 City 3k Texas Zj § S g 2 = to § \ % (d § 2 22 \ � q � \ ) § a kLLIzn 2 � § \ §k� 3§ R§ ¢ \ CO 04Cj L 2 7 - LL � w LO) n ) R w ) SOUTH AKE 13 205Roadway Impact weuae a August 2015 City 3k Texas § § I 2 22 \ � q � kLLIzn §k� SOUTH AKE 13 205Roadway Impact weuae a August 2015 City 3k Texas Kimley>>)Horn 2.5 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 Supply) 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 Invento 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 29 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>>>Horn CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 Projections 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 d Added t Total Capacity Added (Line [(ine 4 )( e )l 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 32 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas SERVICE AREA: North (N) South (S) TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CIP 1 (FROM ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP 11,385 14,194 SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND 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 I - 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 EXISTINGNEEDS 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 andLandUse 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% OTHERWISE NO CHANGE 11 COST OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH $ 24,687,862 $ 15,485,590 (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 Impact Fee Update 32 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas CITY t SOUTHLAKE Kimley>>) Horn UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 LUVMET 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 Table 2.12 Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) Land Use Category ITE Land Use Code Dewlopment Unit Trip Gen Pass -by Rate (PRate Pass -by Source Trip Rate NCTCOG Trip Length (tni ) Adj. For O -D Adj. Trip Max Trip Veh-Mi Length Per Derma Length (mi) (rtd) Unit PORT AND TERMINAL Truck Terminal 030 Acre 6.55 6.55 10.02 50% 5.01 4.00 26.20 EVDUSTRIAL General Li ht Industrial 110 1,000 SF GEA 0.97 0.97 10.02 50% 5.01 4.00 3.88 General Heavy Industrial 120 1,000 SF OFA 0.68 0.68 10.02 501/1 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 1,000 SF GFA 0.32 0.32 10.83 501/1 5.42 4.00 1.28 Mini -Warehouse 151 1,000 SF GFA 0.26 0.26 10.83 50% 5.42 4.00 1.04 RESIDENTIAL Single-Farrily Detached Housing 210 Dwelling Unit 1.00 1.00 17.21 501/0 8.61 4.00 4.00 Aparmicrt/Multi-family 220 Dwelling Unit 0.62 0.62 17.21 501/0 8.61 4.00 2.48 Residential Condominimn/Townhome 230 Dwelling Unit 0.52 1 0.52 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 2.08 Senior Adult Housing -Detached 251 Dwelling Unit 0.27 0.27 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 1.08 Senior Adult Housing -Attached 252 Dwellin Unit 0.25 0.25 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 1.00 Assisted LiOng 254 Beds 0.22 0.22 17.21 501/0 8.61 4.00 0.88 LODGING Hotel 310 Room 0.60 0.60 6.43 50% 322 3.22 1.93 Motel/Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 6.43 501/0 3.22 3.22 1.51 RECREATIONAL GolfDriving Range 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.03 Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 6.43 501/0 3.22 3.22 0.97 Recreational Comantinity, Center 495 1,000 SF GFA 2.74 2.74 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 8.82 Ice Skating Rink 465 1,000 SF CFA 2.36 2.36 6.43 501/0 3.22 3.22 7.60 Miniature GolfCourse 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 6.43 501/0 3.22 3.22 1.06 Muhi lex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64 6.43 5011. 3.22 3.22 43.92 Racquet / Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.35 6.43 501/0 3.22 3.22 10.79 INSTITUFIONAL 0.00 Church 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.55 0.55 4.20 501/1 2.10 2.10 1.16 Day Can Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 12.34 440/. B 6.91 4.20 501/0 2.10 2.10 14.51 Prima /Middle School (1-8) 522 Students 0.16 0.16 4.20 50% 2.10 2.10 0.34 High School 9-12 530 Students 0.13 0.13 4.20 501/0 2.10 2.10 0.27 Junior/ Comatunity College 540 Students 0.12 0.12 4.20 501/0 2.10 2.10 0.25 University / College 550 Students 0.17 0.17 4.20 5011. 2.10 2.10 0.36 MEDICAL Clinic 630 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 5.18 7.55 501/0 3.78 3.78 19.58 Hospital 610 1,000 SF GFA 0.93 0.93 7.55 501/0 3.78 3.78 3.52 Nursing Home 620 Beds 0.22 0.22 7.55 501/0 3.78 3.78 0.83 AnimalHospital/Vetermary Clinic 640 1,000 SF GFA 4.72 30% B 3.30 7.55 501/0 3.78 3.78 12.47 OFFICE Corporate Headquarters Building 714 1,000 SF GFA 1.41 1.41 10.92 501/0 5.46 4.00 5.64 General Office Building 710 1,,000 SF GFA 1.49 1.49 10.92 501/0 5.46 4.00 5.96 Medical -Dental Office BuildingSF 720 1000 GFA 3.57 3.57 10.92 501/o 5.46 4.00 14.28 Single Tenant Office Building 715 1,000 SF GFA 1.74 1.74 10.92 501/0 5.46 4.00 6.96 Office Park 750 1,000 SF GFA 1.48 1.48 10.92 501/0 5.46 4.00 5.92 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 35 August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>>>Horn CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 Table 2.12 (Cont'd) Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) LandUseCategory ITF.land Use Code Dewlopment Unit Trip Gen Pass Rate (P -by Rate Pass -by Source Trip Rate NCTCOG Trip Length mi ) Adj. For O -D Adj. Trip Max Trip Veh-Mi Length Per Dev- Length ) (rail Unit mi COMMIERC1AL Automobile Related Automobile Care Center 942 1 1,000 SF Occ. GLA 3.11 40% 1 B 1.87 1 6.43 50% 1 3.22 1 3.22 6.02 Automobile Parts Sales 843 1,000 SF GFA 43% A 3.41 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 10.98 Gasoline/Service Station 944 Vehicle FuelingPosition 42% A 8.04 1.20 500/. 0.60 0.60 4.82 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market 945 Vehicle FuelingPosition 56% B 5.94 1.20 500/. Q60 0.60 3.56 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market and Car Wash 946 Vehicle FuelingPosition N2.62 56% A 6.10 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 3.66 New and Used Car Sales 841 1,000 SF GFA 20% B 2.10 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 6.76 ick Lubrication Vehicle Sho 941 Servicin Positions 40% B 3.11 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 10.01 Self -Service Car Wash 947 Stall 400/ B 3.32 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 1.99 Tae Store 848 1,000 SF GFA 28% A 2.99 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 9.63 Dining Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru Window 934 1,000 SF GFA 32.65 Soo/ A 16.33 4.79 501/6 2.40 2.40 39.19 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive-Thru Window 933 1,000 SF GFA 26.15 500/0 B 13.08 4.79 50% 2.40 2.40 31.39 High Turnover Sit -Down Restaumnt 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-Thm 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 5001. 3.22 3.22 11.24 Nurse Carden Center) 817 1,000 SF GFA 6.94 30% B 4.86 6.43 50% 1 3.22 3.22 15.65 Home ItTrovement Superstore 862 1,000 SF GFA 2.33 48% A 1.21 6.43 50010 3.22 3.22 3.90 Phanrac /Drustore 881 1,000 SF GFA 9.91 49% A 5.05 6.43 5001. 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 Su enuarket 850 1,000 SF GFA 9.48 36% A 6.07 6.43 50010 3.22 3.22 19.55 To /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 1.87 30% B 1.31 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.22 SERVICES Walk -In Bank 911 1,000 SF GFA 12.13 40% B 7.28 3.39 1 50% 1.70 1.70 12.38 Drive -In Bank 912 Drive-in Lanes 33.24 47% A 1 17.62 3.39 1 500/. 1.70 1.70 29.95 Hair Salon 918 1,000 SF GLA 1.45 30% B 1 1.02 3.39 1 5001. 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 Development Unit Step From Table 2.12 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] I 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 City of Southlake Service Area North): $573 / vehicle -mile Determine Maximum Assessable 1!21gact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 Impact Fee = 1 * 4.00 * $573 LW,L Maximum 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 Step From Table 2.12 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] I 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 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit Step 2 From Table 2. 11, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit] Maximum Fee for City of 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 CONCLUSIONS CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQ1 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update 39 April 2015 City of Southlake, Texas Kimley>>)Horn CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQl A. APPENDIX A - CONCEPTUAL LEVEL PROJECT COST PROJECTIONS 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas City of Southlake - 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Summary of Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Roadway Improvements - Service Area North (N) # IF Classification Project From Limits To Project Cost N-1 A4D(100)(1/2) Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. Stockton Dr. $ 1,300,000 N-2 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (2) E. Dove Rd. N White Chapel Blvd. $ 3,504,300 N-3 A4D(88) N White Chapel Blvd. (1) E. Dove Rd. Kirkwood Blvd. $ 1,850,000 N-4 A4D(88)(1/2) N White Chapel Blvd. (2) Kirkwood Blvd. SH 114 WBFR $ 1,050,000 N-5 A4D 100 E Kirkwood Blvd. 3 Carillon Development Existing Highland St. $ 5,699,000 N-6 A4U(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Existing Highland St. N. Carroll Ave. $ 822,000 N-7 A4D(88) E Kirkwood Blvd. 5 N. Carroll Ave. Highland St. $ 1,159,000 N-8 A4D(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. (6) Highland St. 835 Feet West of Blessed Way $ 2,625,000 N-9 A4D(100)(1/2) E Kirkwood Blvd. 7 935 Feet East of Blessed Way N Kimball Ave. $ 861,600 N-10 A4D(88) N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. ISH 114 $ 10,383,832 Intersection Improvements 1-1 Intersection Improvement WB and NB right -turn) N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. $ 300,000 1-2 Roundabout N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) $ 1,250,000 1-3 Signal Installation N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. $ 200,000 TOTALI $ 31,004,732 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 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: 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. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 980,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 320,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 16,830 13,770 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 168,300 82,620 208 308 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot $5 12,750 sy $ 46.00 $ 586,500 323 4" Topsoil 10,455 sy $ 2.50 $ 26,138 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 22,950 1,217 sf $ 4.50 $ 103,275 608 ITurn Lanes and Median Openings 1 sy 1 $ 52.00 $ 63,286 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,030,119 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 30,904 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 360,542 �I Illumination 6% $ 61,807 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 30,904 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 20,602 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 20,602 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 41,205 Miscellaneous: 1 $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 Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,964,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 392,800 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $5 $ 1,147,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 3,504,300 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. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 1,480,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 370,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 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 Name: N White Chapel Blvd. (2) Limits: Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR Impact Fee Class: A4D(88)(1/2) Ultimate Class: 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Length (If): 1,205 Service Area(s): N Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 8/3/2015 This project consists of the construction of the two southbound lanes to complete a four -lane divided arterial. The two northbound lanes are assumed to be developer built based on an existing agreement. This projects is included in the FY 2015 CIP with an anticiaated Citv contribution of $1.050.000. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 800,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 250,000 Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 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. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 1,750,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other Standard Bridge Construction and Design $ 3,250,000 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 699,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 5,699,000 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 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 750,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 72,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 822,000 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. (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. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 1,000,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other ROW/Easement Acquisition: Assumed $5 per square foot $ 159,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,159,000 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. (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. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost:- $ 800,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing Other Cost of original two lanes $ 1,825,000 ROW/Easement Acquisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,625,000 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: 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 104 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 6,844 4,620 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 68,444 27,720 204 304 8" Concrete Pavement No ROW Acquisition Costs included 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 $ 37,416 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 376,345 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 11,290 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 131,721 �I Illumination 6% $ 22,581 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 11,290 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 7,527 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 7,527 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 15,054 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 718,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 143,600 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: No ROW Acquisition Costs included $ - Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 861,600 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. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 8,191,709 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 1,180,306 Other $1,204,000 from the City of Grapevine $ (1,204,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: $ 2,215,816 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 10,383,832 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 Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Summary of Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Roadway Improvements - Service Area South (S) # 2007 # IF Class Project Limits From To Project Cost S-1 B-3 A4D 130-140 FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol Mill Bend West Southlake Pkwy. $ 3,465,000 S-2 B-5, C-18 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 Highland St. $ 5,452,128 S-3 B-5, C-18 A4D 88 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Highland St. Emerald Blvd. $ 5,537,858 S-4 B-1 A3U 70 N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. West Southlake Blvd. $ 4,778,300 S-5 N/A C2U 60 Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. East Southlake Blvd. S. Carrol Ave. $ 662,118 S-6 C-9 C2U 60 Zena Rucker Rd. 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. Tower Dr. $ 1,026,000 S-7 C-10 A4D 88 1/2 S Carroll Ave. 1 Zena Rucker Rd. Westmont Dr. $ 200,000 S-8 C-11 A4D 88 1/2 S Carroll Ave. 2 120 ft. South of Versailles 290 ft. North of Breeze Way $ 331,960 S-9 C-13 C2U 60 Village Center Dr. 1 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. George Dawson Driveway $ 2,476,675 S-10 N/A C2U 60 Village Center Dr. 2 S Kimball Ave. S Nolen Dr. $ 1,684,500 S-11 C-12 A4D 94 Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. 250' North of Southern City Limits $ 4,904,625 S-12 C-7 I A3U(70) JW Highland St. JWhite Chapel Rd. ISH 114 $ 2,615,700 Intersection Improvements 1-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 1,660,000 1-5 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Blvd. $ 1,500,000 1-6 Roundabout N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. $ 1,500,000 1-7 Roundabout Dove Rd. & Peytonville Ave. $ 2,410,000 TOTALI $ 40,204,864 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 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: 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 Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 2,760,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 1,115,000 Other $660,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund $ (660,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: $ 250,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 3,465,000 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: 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. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 7,077,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 537,065 Other $1,414,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund / $1,225,000 Utility Fund $ (2,639,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: 1 $ 477,063 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 5,452,128 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. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 7,077,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 622,795 Other $1,414,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund / $1,225,000 Utility Fund $ (2,639,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: 1 $ 477,063 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 5,537,858 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 23,556 22,967 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 235,556 137,800 203 303 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 $ 34,798 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,682,804 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 50,484 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 588,981 �I Illumination 6% $ 100,968 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 50,484 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 33,656 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 33,656 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 67,312 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,209,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 641,800 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 927,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,778,300 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: C2U(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 Cit Contribution to Construction Cost: City contributions: Caroll Median & Drive -lane _ City Improvements ($237,538), Zena Rucker & $ 662,118 Engineering/Survey/Testing Decel Ln. Construction ($44,097), Tower Blvd. Other & Decel Ln. Construction ($262,144), Tower Blvd. Signal ($118,339). ROW/Easement Acquisition: 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 4,533 4,420 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 45,333 26,520 201 301 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 9,430 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 110,016 �I Illumination 6% $ 18,860 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 9,430 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 6,287 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 6,287 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 12,573 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 600,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 120,000 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 306,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,026,000 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 106 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 2,222 1,500 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 22,222 9,000 206 306 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 $ 12,148 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 121,495 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 3,645 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 42,523 �I Illumination 6% $ 7,290 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 3,645 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 2,430 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 2,430 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 4,860 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 232,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 46,400 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 53,560 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 331,960 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: Village Center Dr. (1) This project consists of the Limits: 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway construction of a new two-lane Impact Fee Class: C2U(60) collector. Note that $124,675 Ultimate Class: 2 -Lane Collector was included for the City's Length (If): 2,340 contribution to George Dawson Service Area(s): S Driveway. Roadway Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 10,400 10,140 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 104,000 60,840 201 301 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 721,110 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 21,633 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 252,389 �I Illumination 6% $ 43,267 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 21,633 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 14,422 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 14,422 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 28,844 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,375,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 275,000 Previous City contribution Other Roadway Adjacent to George Dawson $ 124,675 ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 702,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,476,675 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 -Lane 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. Impact Fee Project• Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost City Contribution to Construction Cost: - $ 338,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing $ 50,000 Other $188,000 Roadway Impact Fee Fund $ (188,000) ROW/Easement Acquisition: Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 7,711 7,518 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 77,111 45,110 201 301 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 534,669 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 16,040 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 187,134 �I Illumination 6% $ 32,080 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 16,040 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 10,693 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 10,693 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 21,387 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,020,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 204,000 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 460,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,684,500 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: 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 109 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 17,933 24,210 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 179,333 145,260 209 309 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 $ 111,268 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,729,079 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 51,872 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 605,178 �I Illumination 6% $ 103,745 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 51,872 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 34,582 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 34,582 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 69,163 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,297,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 659,400 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 948,225 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,904,625 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 Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 20% Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 14,067 13,715 cy sy $ 10.00 $ 6.00 $ $ 140,667 82,290 203 303 8" Concrete Pavement lAssumed $5 per square foot 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 $ 20,780 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,004,919 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - �l Pavement Markings/Signs/Posts Includes Striping/Signs for Bicycle Facilties 3% $ 30,148 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 351,722 �I Illumination 6% $ 60,295 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% �l Water Minor Adjustments 3% $ 30,148 Sewer Minor Adjustments 2% $ 20,098 �l Establish Turf/Erosion Control 2% $ 20,098 Basic Landscaping and Irrigation 4% $ 40,197 Miscellaneous: 1 $0 $ - -Allowances based on % of Paving Construction Cost Subtotal 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 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,916,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 383,200 Previous City contribution Other ROW /Easement Ac uisition: lAssumed $5 per square foot $ 316,500 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,615,700 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 t SOUTHLAKE UQl B. APPENDIX B - CIP SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas City of Southlake - 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update CIP Service Units of Supply Service Area North Project ID # ROADWAY LIMITS LENGTH (MI) LANES IMPACT FEE CLASSIFICATION PEAK HOUR VOLUME VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL VEH-MI TOTAL DEMAND PK -HR EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI TOTAL PROJECT COST N-1 Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. 0.40 4 A4D(100)(1/2) 552 725 1153 220 933 $ 1,300,000 N-2 Kirkwood Blvd. (2) E. Dove Rd. to N White Chapel Blvd. 0.43 4 A413(100) 0 725 1261 0 1261 $ 3,504,300 N-3 N White Chapel Blvd. (1) E. Dove Rd. to Kirkwood Blvd. 0.34 4 A4D(88) 447 725 989 152 837 $ 1,850,000 N-4 N White Chapel Blvd. (2) Kirkwood Blvd. to SH 114 WBFR 0.23 4 A4D(88)(1/2) 447 725 662 102 560 $ 1,050,000 N-5 E Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Carillon Development to Existing Highland St. 0.42 4 A4D(100) 0 725 1230 0 1,230 $ 5,699,000 N-6 E Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Existing Highland St. to N. Carroll Ave. 0.16 4 A4U(88) 545 650 414 87 327 $ 822,000 N-7 E Kirkwood Blvd. (5) N. Carroll Ave. to Highland St. 0.16 4 A4D(88) 545 725 461 87 374 $ 1,159,000 N-8 E Kirkwood Blvd. (6) Highland St. to 835 Feet West of Blessed Way 0.33 4 A4D(100)(1/2) 370 725 950 121 829 $ 2,625,000 N-9 E Kirkwood Blvd. (7) 935 Feet East of Blessed Way to N Kimball Ave. 0.29 4 A4D(100)(1/2) 281 725 846 82 764 $ 861,600 N-10 N Kimball Ave. E. Dove Rd. to SH 114 1.18 4 A4D(88) 1,249 725 3419 1,473 1,946 $ 10,383,832 I-1 N. White Chapel Blvd. & E. Dove Rd. to $ 300,000 I-2 N. Carroll Ave. & Highland St. (Kirkwood Blvd.) to $ 1,250,000 I -3N. Kimball Ave. & Kirkwood Blvd. to $ 200,000 SUBTOTAL 11,385 2,324 9,061 $ 31,004,732 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Cost Per Service Area $ 15,167 TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA N $31,019,899 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix B - Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Units of Suppy City of Southlake - 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update CIP Service Units of Supply Service Area South 8/3/2015 Project ID # ROADWAY LIMITS LENGTH (MI) LANES IMPACT FEE CLASSIFICATION PEAK HOUR VOLUME VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL VEH-MI TOTAL DEMAND PK -HR EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI TOTAL PROJECT COST S-1 FM 1938 Phase 2 Randol Mill Bend to West Southlake Pkwy. 1.56 4 A4D(130-140) 1,244 725 4523 1,940 2,583 $ 3,465,000 S-2 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 1 SH 114 to Highland St. 0.33 4 A4D(88) 1,160 725 958 383 575 $ 5,452,128 S-3 N White Chapel Blvd. Phase 2 Highland St. to Emerald Blvd. 0.81 4 A4D(88) 1,245 725 2362 1014 1348 $ 5,537,858 S-4 N Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to West Southlake Blvd. 1.00 2 A3U(70) 514 650 1305 516 789 $ 4,778,300 S-5 Tower Dr. & Zena Rucker Rd. East Southlake Blvd. to S. Carrol Ave. 0.35 2 C2U(60) 0 525 368 0 368 $ 662,118 S-6 Zena Rucker Rd. 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. to Tower Dr. 0.19 2 C2U(60) 0 525 203 0 203 $ 1,026,000 S-7 S Carroll Ave. (1) Zena Rucker Rd. to Westmont Dr. 0.14 4 A4D(88)(1/2) 1,434 725 395 196 199 $ 200,000 S-8 S Carroll Ave. (2) 120 ft. South of Versailles to 290 ft. North of Breeze Way 0.09 4 A4D(88)(1/2) 1,434 725 275 136 139 $ 331,960 S-9 Village Center Dr. (1) 700 ft. South of Southlake Blvd. to George Dawson Driveway 0.44 2 C2U(60) 0 525 465 0 465 $ 2,476,675 S-10 Village Center Dr. (2) S Kimball Ave. to S Nolen Dr. 0.33 2 C2U(60) 0 525 345 0 345 $ 1,684,500 S-11 Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' North of Southern City Limits 0.76 4 A4D(94) 1,456 725 2216 1,113 1,103 $ 4,904,625 S-12 W Highland St. White Chapel Rd. to SH 114 0.60 2 A3U(70) 235 650 779 141 638 $ 2,615,700 1-4 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Peytonville.Ave. to $ 1,660,000 1-5 Roundabout Continental Blvd. & Byron Nelson Blvd. to $ 1,500,000 1-6 Roundabout N. White Chapel Blvd. & Highland St. to $ $ 11500,000 2,410,000 1-7 Roundabout Dove Rd. & Peytonville, Ave. to SUBTOTAL 14,194 5,439 1 8,755 $ 40,204,864 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Cost Per Service Area $ 15,167 TOTAL COST IN SERVICE AREA S $ 40,220,031 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix B - Roadway Impact Fee CIP Service Units of Suppy Kimley>>>Horn CITY t SOUTHLAKE UQl C. APPENDIX C - EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES INVENTORY SERVICE 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update August 2015 City of Southlake, Texas City of Southlake - 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory Service Area S ROADWAY FROM TO LENGTH (k) LENGTH EXIST EXIST (mill LANES LANES NB/EB SB/WB CLASS FUTURE LANES PM PEAK HOUR VOL NB/EB SB/WB % IN SERVICE AREA VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL VEH-MI DEMAND PK -HR TOTAL EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI EXISTING DEFICIENCIES PK -HR VEH-MI NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB Brumlow Ave Byron Nelson Pkwy. East Continental Blvd. 250' North of Southern City Limits 4036 0.76 1 1 2U -A _ Arterial (94') _ Arterial (88') Arterial (88') _ Arterial (88') 4D -A 4D -A 626 223 830 380 100% 100% 525 725 525 725 401 565 401 _ 565 479 87 634 148 -77 478 -233 417 77 233 East Southlake Blvd. Bryson Wy. 2059 0.39 2 2 4D -C Byron Nelson Pkwy. Bryson Wy. Inwood Dr. 1273 0.24 2 2 4U -C 4D -A 223 380 100% 650 650 _ 313 313 54 92 260 222 Byron Nelson Pkwy Inwood Dr. East Continental Blvd. 2436 0.46 2 2 4D -C 413-A 223 380 100% 725 725 669 669 103 175 566 494 Davis Blvd. Dave Rd. Dove Rd. E Continental Blvd. E Continental Blvd. E Continental Blvd. E Continental Blvd. E Southlake Blvd. E Southlake Blvd. E Southlake Blvd. E Southlake Blvd. E Southlake Blvd. E Southlake Blvd. Florence Rd. West Southlake Blvd. Western City Limits N Shady Oaks Dr. White Chapel Blvd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. South Carroll Ave. Crooked Ln, White Chapel Blvd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. SCarroll Ave. S Kimball Ave. Nolen Dr. Commerce St. N Pearson Ln. Southern City Limits N Shady Oaks Dr. SH 114 Byron Nelson Pkwy. South Carroll Ave. Crooked Ln. South Nimbal Ave. Byron Nelson Pkwy. S Carroll Ave. SKimball Ave. Nolen Dr. Commerce St. SH 114 Randol Mill Ave. 4871 0.92 3 3 7U -C _ Arterial (130'-140')_ Arterial (88') Arterial (88') __2U Collector (84') Collector (84') Collector (84') Collector (84') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-14(y) Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-14(y) Arterial (130'-140')_ Collector (60') - 6D -A 2U -A -A 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 6D -A 6D -A 6D -A 6D -A 6D -A 60-A 2U -C 1089 780 917 437 388 342 276 1702 1861 1556 1615 1289 1289 73 1460 325 486 777 632 651 540 2580 2665 2099 1812 1434 1434 146 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1009/ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 725 525 725 525 525 525 650 725 725 725 725 725 725 525 725 2,007 2,007 1,005 1,347 1,002 660 29491 0.54 1 1 2U -A 525 283 283 421 175 -138 108 138 510 0.10 2 2 4D -C 725 140 140 89 47 51 93 4214 4258 3317 1139 2497 2845 5342 1807 1822 1163 5312 0.80 1 1 2U -A 0.81 I 1 2U -A 0.63 1 1 2u -A 0.22 2 2 4U -C 0.47 3 3 7U -C 0.54 3 3 7U -C 1.01 3 3 7U -C 0.34 3 3 7U -C 0.35 3 3 7U -C 0.22 3 3 7U -C 1.01 1 1 2U -A _525 525 419 423 419 423 330 280 1,029 1,172 2,201 744 349 313 215 60 805 1,003 1,574 553 445 284 73 _ 620 70 -201 201 510 110 -86 86 525 650 725 725 725 725 330 280 1,029 1,172 2,201 744 751 479 528 409 116 1,220 1,436 2,124 620 495 316 147 115 221 224 169 626 192 306 195 455 -79 164 -192 -264 77 124_ 256 163 381 79 192 264_ 725 725 525 751 479 528 FM 1938 Northern City Limits Randol Mill Rd. 2207 0.42 2 2 4D -C Arterial (130'-140) 6D -A 315 863 100% 725 725 606 606 132 361 474 245 Johnson Rd. N Pearson Ln. Randonl Mill Ave. 5327 1.01 1 1 2U-ACollector (70') 2U -C 233 233 100% 525 525 530 530 235 235 295 295 N Carroll Ave. SH 114 East Southlake Blvd 3895 0.74 2 2 4D -A Arterial (100') 4D -A 879 1180 100% 725 725 1,070 1,070 648 870 421 199 N Nolen Dr. SH 114 300 Feet South of SH 114 East Southlake Blvd. West Southlake Blvd. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. Corporate Or West Southlake Blvd. Ascot Dr. W Chapel Downs Dr. Emerald Blvd. East Southlake Blvd. 291 1034 5302 6449 5337 472 3111 1149 1777 1058 8234 948 0.06 1 1 3U -C Arterial (84') Arterial (84') Arterial (7(y) Collector (70') Collector (60') Arterial (88') Arterial (94') Arterial (94') Arterial (94') Arterial (94') . Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (88') _ Arterial (88') 5U -A 5U -A 3U -A 2U -C 2U -C 4D -A 4D -A 4D -A 4D -A 4D -A 335 328 267 173 173 293 508 496 496 496 488 735 714 318 437 483 376 376 387 652 749 749 749 756 845 720 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100°0 100% 100% 100% _. 100°0 100% 100% 650 725 525 525 525 725 525 650 525 725 650 725 36 284 527 641 531 130 141 177 291 36 264 527 641 531 130 309 141 177 291 18 64 _ 18 86 485 459 380 35 384 163 252 150 17 18 N Nolen Or. 300 Feet South of SH 114 2 2 SU -C 220 190 N Pearson Ln. NPeytonville Ave. N Peytonville Ave. N Peytonville Ave. N While Chapel Blvd N White Chapel Blvd N White Chapel Blvd NWhite Chapel Blvd - ---_-__ Randol Mill Ave S Carroll Ave. 5 Carroll Ave. Florence Rd. _0.20 1.00 1 1 2U -A 1.22 I 1 2U -A 1.01 1 1 21LA 0.09 2 2 5U -A 0.59 1 1 2U -A 0.22 _ 1 1 3U -A 0.34 1 1 2U -A 0.20 2 2 5U -A 7.56 1 1 2U -A 0.18 2 2 4D -A 525 525 525 725 525309 650 525 725 268 211 175 26 299 108 167 99 259 430 356 103 10 34 10 191 58 42 W Dove Rd. 182 151 95 -75 -22 -75 140 -3fi0 Southridge Lakes Pkwy. Corporate Cir 75 SH 114 Ascot Dr. 22 75 W Chapel Downs Dr. _- --_ Emerald Blvd. 360 19 FM 1938 West _ West Southlake Blvd. - 6D -A 4D -A 4D -A 525 525 __ .. 819 _ 819 761 7,779 East Southlake Blvd. Zena Rucker Rd. 725 725 260 260 132 152 128 109 gena Rucker Rd. Westmont Dr. 2643 0.50 1 1 3U -A 650 650 325 325 357 _ 360 -32 -35 32 35 S Carroll Ave. Westmont Dr. Old Carroll Rd. 932 0.18 1 1 2U -A Arterial (88') _ Arterial (88') 4D -A 714 720 100% 525 525 93 93 126 127 -33 -34 33 34 S Carroll Ave. Old Carroll Rd. E Continental Blvd. 1993 0.38 2 2 4D -C 4N714 720 100% 725 725 547 547 270 272 278 276 S Kimball Ave. SH 114 East Southlake Blvd. 1004 0.19 3 3 6D -C Arterial (124') 60-A 826 992 100% 725 725 414 414 157 189 257 225 S Kimball Ave. East Southlake Blvd. Southern City Limits 7531 1.43 2 2 41)-C _ Arterial (88') 4D -A 585 449 100%_ 725 725 2,068 2,068 834 640 1,234 1,428 S Nolen Dr. East Southlake Blvd. West Southlake Blvd. West Southlake Blvd. _ _ BSO Feet South of West Sc uthlanke Blvd. East Southlake Blvd. Londonberry Terrace Northern City Limits E Dove Rd. N Peytonville Ave. Brazos Dr. East Southlake Blvd. Crooked In 1145 2641 843 4460 1009 7385 1769 10678 2553 1963 0.22 2 2 4U -C _ Arterial (70') _ Collector (70') 3U -A 2U -C 4D -A 2U -C 2U -A 2U -A 2U -A 2U -C 4D -A 40-A 335 262 197 396 336 336 76 248 135 135 N/A 193 N/A N/A N/A 143 N/A 723 1092 1500 1706 1752 1843 723 143 318 252 269 293 604 604 92 251 118 118 N/A 299 100% _ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100°0 100% 100% 650 650 282 282 73 _ 131 31 335 64 470 25 502 65 50 69 126 209 132 200 109 213 264 150 560 189 489 213 137 189_ 196 162 -110 145 554 197 495 S Pearson Ln. S Peytonville Ave. S Peytonville Ave. S White Chapel Blvd S White Chapel Blvd Sam School Rd. Shady Oaks Dr. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. Tower Dr. Union Church Union Church Rd. 0.50 1 1 2l 525 _ 263 263 850 Feet South of West Southlake Blvd. 0.16 2 2 4D -A 0.84 1 1 2U -A 0.19 _ 2 _2 4D -A 1.40 1 1 2U -A 0.34 _ 1 1 2U -A 2.02 1 1 2U -A 0.48 1 1 2U -C 0.37 2 2 4D -C Arterial (88') Collector (70') Arterial (88') Arterial (88') Collector (70') Collector (60') Arterial (88') Arterial (88') 725 525 725 525 525 525 525 725 _525 725 525 725 525 525 525 525 725 232 443 277 734 176 1,062 254 539 232 443 277 734 176 1,062 254 539 43 247 115 845 31 508 57 44 West Continental Blvd. Terrace 110 _Londonberry Southern City Limits W Dove Rd. East Southlake Pkwy.. Brazos Dr. East Southlake Pkwy. Zana Rucker Rd. 895 5307 0.17 1 1 2U -G Collector (60') 2U -C 2U -C 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A S Pearson Ln. Davis Blvd, 1.01 1 1 2U -A Collector (84') 525 _ 525 528 528 194 301 334 227 Village Center Dr. East Southlake Pkwy 700' South of Southlake Pkwy 698 0.13 1 1 2U -C Collector (60') 2U -C N/A N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Village Center Dr. 700'Southof5outhlake Pkwy SKimball Ave. 2339 0.44 0 0 Unbuilt Collector (Sly) 2U -C 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Village Center Dr. S Kimball Ave. S Nolen Dr. 1735 0.33 0 0 Unbuilt Collector (601) 2U -C 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 421 N/A -347 1,157 396 155 297 160 -35 -53 N/A 478 N/A 221 _ 74 -232 -155 -382 -316 22 -34 W Highland St. Shady Oaks Dr. SH 114 Union Church White Chapel Blvd, Davis Blvd. S Peytonville Ave. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. N Shady Oaks Dr. N White Chapel Blvd, 935 Feet East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. S Carroll Ave. _ 5825 2857 9247 5642 3094 1741 3703 2544 935 1974 1.10 1 1 2U -A 0.54 _ 1 1 2U -C 1.75 1 1 2U -A 1.07 3 3 7U -C 0.59 3 3 7U -C 0.33 3 3 7U -C 0.70 3 3 7U -C 0.48 3 3 7U -C 0.18 1 1 2U -C 0.37 0 0 Unbuilt Collector (60') Collector (60') Collector (84') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') Arterial (130'-140') Collector (60') Collector (60') 2U -C 2U -C 2U -C 6D -A 6D -A 6D -A 6D -A 6D -A 2U -C 2U -C 92 N/A 399 2106 2571 2645 2719 2830 399 92 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 525 525_ 525 725_ 725 725 725 725 525 525 _ 525 _ 525 525 725 725 725 725 725 525 525 579 N/A 919 2,324 1,275 717 1,525 1,048 93 0 579 N/A 919 2,324 1,275 717 1,525 1,048 93 0 158 N/A 1,266 1,167 879 101 N/A 699 2,250 1,507 872 1,907 1,364 71 34 Waterman, Dr. _ W Continental Blvd. W Southlake Blvd. W Southlake Blvd. W Southlake Blvd. W Southlake Blvd. W Southlake Blvd. Zen. Rucker Rd. Zana Rucker Rd. West Southlake Pkvry 347 Davis Blvd Western City Limits _ 232 155 382 316 35 53 34 Davis Blvd. S Peytonville Ave. Southridge Lakes Pkwy. N Shady Oaks Dr. Byron Nelson Pkwy. 935' East of Byron Nelson Pkwy. 563 1,229 888 128 53 SUBTOTAL 195.426 37.07 35,803 35,803 27 269 28,619 14,534 7,184 1 638 2,652 71,606 49,888 21,718 1 3,290 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix C - Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory City of Southlake - 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory Service Area N ROADWAY FROM TO LENGTH LENGTH (ft) (mi) EXIST LANES NB/EB SB/WB EXIST CLASS LANES PM PEAK HOUR VOL NB/EB SBIWB %IN SERVICE AREA VEH-MI CAPACITY PK -HR PER LN NB/EB SBIWB VEH-MI SUPPLY PK -HR TOTAL NBIEB SBIWB VEH-MI DEMAND PK -HR TOTAL NBIEB SBJWB EXCESS CAPACITY PK -HR VEH-MI NBIEB SBJWB EXISTING DEFICIENCIES PK -HR VEH-MI NBIEB SB/WB Dove Rd. SH 114 Kirkwood Blvd 1183 0.22 2 2 4D -C Arterial (88') 255 290 100% 725 725 325 325 57 65 268 260 E Highland St. SH 114 Kirkwood Blvd. 515 0.10 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 50 60 100% 525 525 51 51 5 6 46 45 E Highland St. Kirkwood Blvd. N Kimbal Ave. 4339 0.82 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 4 41 100% 525 525 431 431 3 34 428 398 E Kirkwood Blvd. N White Chapel Blvd Southmont Dr 4559 0.86 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 22 14 100% 725 725 1,252 1,252 19 12 1,233 1,240 E Kirkwood Blvd. Southmont Dr Highland St. 22391 0.42 0 01 Unbultj Arterial (100') N/A N/Al 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A E Kirkwood Blvd. Highland St. E Highland St. 1460 0.28 1 11 2U -Al Arterial (88') 255 2901 100% 525 525 145 145 71 80 75 65 E Kirkwood Blvd. E Highland St. 250 Feet East of Grace Ln. 829 0.16 2 21 4D -Cl Arterial (100') 171 1991 100% 725 725 228 228 27 31 201 196 E Kirkwood Blvd. 250 Feet East of Grace Ln. 800 Feet West of Blessed Way 1122 0.21 1 11 4D -C Arterial (100') 147 1091 100% 725 725 154 154 31 23 123 131 E Kirkwood Blvd. 800 Feet West of Blessed Way 800 Feet East of Blessed Way 1768 0.33 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 147 109 100% 725 725 486 486 49 36 1 436 1 449 E Kirkwood Blvd. 800 Feet East of Blessed Way N Kimball Ave. 1543 0.29 1 1 2U -C Arterial (100') 183 98 100% 525 525 153 153 53 29 100 1 125 East Bob Jones Rd North White Chapel Blvd. Homestead Ct. 2336 0.44 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 15 33 100% 525 525 232 232 7 15 226 218 East Dove Rd. Kirkwood Blvd. Eastern City Limits 13032 2.47 1 1 2U -A Arterial (89) 260 241 100% 525 525 1,296 1,296 642 595 654 1 701 Grace Ln. SH 114 600 Feet North of SH 114 616 0.12 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') N/A N/A 100% 725 725 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Grace Ln. 600 Feet North of SH 114 Kirkwood Blvd. 10081 0.19 0 0 Unbuilt Arterial (100') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Kirkwood Blvd. SH 114 T. W. King Rd. 1062 0.20 3 3 6D -C Arterial (100') 230 322 100% 725 725 437 437 46 65 391 373 Kirkwood Blvd. T. W. King Rd. Tyler St. 4436 0.84 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 230 322 100% 725 725 1,218 1,218 193 271 1,025 948 Kirkwood Blvd. Tyler St. Stockton Dr. 2102 0.40 1 111 2U -C Arterial (100) 230 322 100% 525 525 209 209 92 128 117 81 Kirkwood Blvd. Stockton Dr. E Dove Rd. 441 0.08 2 2 4D -C Arterial (100') 230 322 100% 725 725 121 121 19 27 102 94 Kirkwood Blvd. E Dove Rd. N White Chapel Blvd. 2295 0.43 0 0 Unbuilt Arterial (100) N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N Carroll Ave. Burney Ln SH 114 9991 1.89 1 1 2U -A Arterial (100') 345 395 100% 525 525 993 993 653 747 341 246 N Kimball Ave. Dove Kirkwood Blvd. 6440 1.22 1 1 4D -C Arterial (88') 628 384 100% 725 725 884 884 766 468 1 118 416 N Kimball Ave. Kirkwood Blvd. SH 114 2571 0.49 2 2 4D -C Arterial (88') 701 548 100% 725 725 706 706 341 267 365 1 439 N White Chapel Blvd Northern City Limits 300 Feet North of Sam Bass Ridge Rd 405 0.08 1 1 2U -C Collector (70') N/A N/A 100% 1 525 525 N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A N/A N White Chapel Blvd 300 Feet North of Sam Bass Ridge Rd 320 Feet North of King Ranch Rd 3172 0.60 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 23 18 100% 525 525 315 315 14 11 302 305 N White Chapel Blvd 320 Feet North of King Ranch Rd Clariden Ranch Rd 1534 0.29 2 2 3U -A Collector (70') 267 180 100% 650 1 650 283 283 1 78 52 206 231 N White Chapel Blvd Clariden Ranch Rd Dave 7879 1.49 1 11 2U -A Collector (70') 267 180 100% 525 525 783 783 1 398 269 385 515 N White Chapel Blvd Dove SH 114 3428 0.65 1 1 2U -A Arterial (88') 267 180 100% 525 525 341 341 173 117 168 224 T.W. King Rd. Northern City Limits 1200 Feet North of Westpark Cir. 913 0.17 1 1 2U -C Collector (60') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A T.W. King Rd. 1200 Feet North of West Park Cir. Bob Jones Rd. 4121 0.78 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') N/A N/A 100% 525 525 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A T.W. King Rd. Bob Janes Rd. Plaza Dr. 4001 0.76 1 1 2U -A Collector (70') 47 39 100% 525 525 398 398 36 30 362 368 T.W. King Rd. E Plaza Dr. Kirkwood Blvd. 1715 0.32 2 2 4U -C Collector (70') 47 39 100% 650 650 422 422 15 13 407 410 W Bob Jones Rd T.W. King Road North White Chapel Blvd. 3216 0.61 1 1 2U -A Collector (60') 15 15 100% 525 525 320 320 99 311 311 SUBTOTAL 96 271 78 .23 12186 12186 3 7 98 399 3 8,388 1 8,787 1 0 1 0 24,372 7,196 1 17,175 1 0 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix C - Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory