Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
0657-B
IOFFICIAL RECORD ORDINANCE NO. 657-B 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 PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; 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 Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 1 of 37 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 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; Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 2 of 37 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 facilities; and 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, (AChapter 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 Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 3 of 37 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 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, attorneys 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 4 of 37 (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 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 a 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 5 of 37 (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: (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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 6 of 37 (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) Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) - Basis for establishing equivalency among and within various customer classes and land uses. For water and wastewater uses, a LUE 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 -C703 standards. The table of equivalencies for water and wastewater showing the determination of LUE'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 value of system -related facilities, pursuant to rules 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 7 of 37 (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 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 Living Unit Equivalents (LUE=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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 8 of 37 (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 existing 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. (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 existing 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 9 of 37 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. 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. 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 10 of 37 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. 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 Living Unit Equivalents (LUE=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 Living Unit Equivalents as determined by the size of the water meter(s) for the development. The meter types used to calculate the number of LUE's shall be either simple, compound or turbine meters. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 11 of 37 1. The Living 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 LUE'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 LUE's shall be the dimension of the portion of the fire demand meter which reflects the meter size which would be required to provide residential or business service to the property. This reduced meter size shall then be utilized to calculate the number of LUE'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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 12 of 37 E. The Public Works Director or the City Council may approve an alternative calculation of Living 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 LUE=s or vehicle -miles of demand for the development will be different than shown in Exhibits D-1 or D-2. 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 the 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 13 of 37 I . 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. 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 October 1, 2008. The approval of any subdivision of land or of any new development on or after October 1, 2008 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 October 1, 2008, 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 Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 14 of 37 increases. b. the number of service units to be developed on the property 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 LUE'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. development. b. LUE's shall be summed for all meters purchased for the C. The total number of LUE=s shall be multiplied by the impact fee per LUE (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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 15 of 37 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 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 16 of 37 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 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. 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 17 of 37 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 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 18 of 37 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 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 Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 19 of 37 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 5. Administrative and operating costs of the City. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 20 of 37 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. 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 21 of 37 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 ten percent (10%). The refund to the record owner or governmental entity shall be calculated by multiplying such difference by the number of service Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 22 of 37 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. 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 LUE differential of the two meter sizes and the per-LUE 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 23 of 37 SECTION 20 UPDATES TO PLAN AND REVISION OF FEES 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 24 of 37 C. The City Council may adopt procedural rules for the Advisory Committee to follow in carrying out it duties. 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 25 of 37 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. Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 26 of 37 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, and 657-A 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 PUBLICATION The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed Ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 27 of 37 public hearing thereon at least ten (10) days before the second reading of this Ordinance, and if this Ordinance provides for the imposition of any penalty, fine or forfeiture for any violation of any of its provisions, then the City Secretary shall additionally publish this Ordinance in the official City newspaper one time within ten days after passage of this Ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 29 This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. 2008. PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS IT DAY OF APRIL, MAYOR ATTEST: /u CITY SECRETAI PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRET EFFECTIVE: APPROVED/AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: 14A, . 9, City Attorney r • e y`p` • ,mss •®••••••e®•' ,a B/I1U011 °°°° Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 28 of 37 EXHIBIT A-1 Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Service Area Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 29 of 37 EXHIBIT A-2 Roadway Impact Fees Service Areas Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 30 of 37 EXHIBIT B Land Use Assumptions Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 31 of 37 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 2006 SOUTH LAKE 2025 Flaanigig Today for a Better Tomorrow LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS REPORT BASED ON THE 200$ FUTURE LAND USE PLAN NOVEMBER 2006 APPROVED BY THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CIAO) ON NOVEMBER 9, 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Land Use Assumptions Report is a key effort in evaluating the amount of capital infrastructure required to support future development in the city and financing of that infrastructure through impact fees. The Land Use Assumptions Report projects future population and employment which impacts the amount of infrastructure (roads, water, and sewer) required to serve new development. This report is divided into five (5) major sections. The first section provides an introduction to the report. The next section provides a background on the Southlake 2025 Plan, the city's 2005 Comprehensive Master Plan which is the basis for this Land Use Assumptions Report. The third section provides a baseline analysis to establish current population and employment estimates while the fourth section analyzes the future development potential for both residential and commercial land uses. The fourth section describes the methodology used and provides the results of the analysis in terms of future population and employment projections. The last section provides conclusions on 10 -year and build -out proj ections. 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 1 Approved by CIRC on November 9, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Southlake 2025 Plan 3. Baseline Analysis a. Population Trends b. Employment Trends 4. Analysis of Future Development Potential a. Identifying Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties b. Assumptions c. Methodology d. Population Estimates e. Employment Estimates 5. Summary 6. Appendices and Maps 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report ii Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Report The purpose of the Land Use Assumptions Report is to project the amount of and location of expected population and employment growth expected upon ultimate build -out and more particularly over the next ten years. This report is a basis for determining the costs associated with providing infrastructure to new development via impact fees. Impact fees are charges on new development to help fund the costs of designing, acquiring land, and constructing major capital improvements necessary to serve new growth. Chapter 3951 of the Texas Local Government Code (LGC) requires a local government, before the assessment of impact fees, to adopt a land use assumptions report and its associated Capital Improvements Program. Impact fees in Texas are limited to funding of water, wastewater, and roadway infrastructure only. Chapter 395 governs the financing of capital infrastructure using impact fees. The LCG § 395.001 (5) defines Land Use Assumptions as follows: ""Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 10 -year period." Any revisions to the impact fees as a result of the projections in the Land Use Assumptions Report only impacts future development. Revised fees cannot be applied to development that has already been assessed nor used for maintenance and operation of existing facilities. Therefore, the Land Use Assumptions Report first describes a baseline condition, including current population and employment levels, then projects expected increases in these levels based on the type, location, quantity, and timing of development in various future land uses in the community. The Land Use Assumptions Report is prepared in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The last update occurred in 1999 and was adopted in February 2000. 1 Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code may be found at: http://tlo2.tic.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/LG/content/pdf/Ig.012.00.000395.00.pdf 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 1.2 Data Sources Used Various local, regional, and national sources were used in the preparation of this Land Use Assumptions Report. They include: City of Southlake (www.ciiyofsouthlake.com) • Planning Department (Southlake 2025 Plan and development information) • Building Inspections (building permits data) • Economic Development (Commercial Properties Summary) North Central Texas Council of Governments (www.nctcog org) • Demographic and employment data U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov) 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 2 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 2. SOUTHLAKE 2025 PLAN The Southlake 2025 Plan is the city's comprehensive plan, which forms the blueprint for the physical development of the city for the next 20 years. It is a statement of community values and establishes a vision for the long-term growth and development of the city. The Southlake 2025 Plan process began in October 2003 and was undertaken in two phases. Phase I was adopted in March 2004 and established a vision as well as goals and objectives for developing all the comprehensive plan elements of the city. Phase II began in July 2004 and included development of Area Plans for 9 planning areas. Following the Area Plans, the Consolidated Plans for each comprehensive plan component were developed. Phase II included the adoption of the Consolidated Land Use Plan in August 2005 and concluded in September 2005 with the adoption of the Southlake Pathways Plan and the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan. Two components of the Southlake 2025 Plan are of particular importance to the Land Use Assumptions Report: (1) the 2005 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) and (2) the Consolidated Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan (MMTP). The Consolidated Future Land Use Plan is Southlake's vision for future development that serves as a guide for land use decisions. It also serves as a foundation for Southlake's zoning and subdivision regulations. The plan is a policy document that allocates the general location, concentration, and intensity of future development within the city by land use categories. As such, the plan is instrumental in projecting population and employment for undeveloped and underdeveloped properties (defined in Section 4.1) in the city. State Highway 114, a major regional transportation corridor with the most potential for future development due to the location of the largest concentration of vacant land in the city. In response to the community's commitment to economic and environmental sustainability, the 2005 Land Use Plan provides more development flexibility than previously offered in earlier Land Use Plans through the introduction of optional land use designations. However, this flexibility necessitates additional analysis for projecting employment and population for undeveloped and underdeveloped properties with an optional land use designation. The Consolidated Mobility and Master Thoroughfare Plan (MMTP) serves as a guide to the city's future transportation network. 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 3 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 3. ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE 3.1 Population Trends The most generally accepted estimate of the population of local Dallas/Fort Worth municipalities is generated by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) for January 1 of each calendar year. Beginning with the total count of the most recent Census (2000 in this case), the NCTCOG demographic personnel provide current year January 1 estimates by examining building permits and occupancy reports submitted by the respective cities' building departments through December 31 of the prior year. The most recent NCTCOG estimate for Southlake is 25,350 for January 1, 2006. Figure 1 below shows Southlake's population history from 1960 to January 1, 2006: 30,000 25,000 20,000 e 0 15,000 G O 0. 10,000 5,000 0 Figure I Southlake's Population Growth Trend 1960 - 2006 2006: 25,350 1960: 1.023 ,},0. �6 ,b4 qo ati qa q6 q� O ", " �, `q 1q ,q 1q 1q 1q 1q 1q ,yo° ,�O 20 ,ti0 Year Source: NCTCOG To establish the most up-to-date population baseline, city staff reviewed building permit data from January to September 2006 to estimate a current population of 25,654 as of October 1, 2006. Images of typical new residential developments in the city 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 4 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 3.2 Employment Trends Employment estimates were made based upon nonresidential land uses in the city. Commercial square footage information was gathered from a variety of sources including, but not limited to building permits, Tarrant Appraisal District, and the city's Economic Development Department. Table 3 below summarizes the commercial square footage data and the corresponding employment estimate by type of commercial land use for 2000 and 2006. The gross square feet per employee assumption is based on industry and regional3 standards, and has been verified locally by city staff. Table 1 Emplovment Estimates: 2000 - 2006 * Assumes a 95% occupancy rate The phenomenal 116% increase in employment from 2000 to 2006 can be directly attributed to the exponential growth in retail and office development in the city. For a representative list of some of the major commercial developments constructed or approved since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was prepared, please see Appendix A. Images of recently developed retail and office development that has contributed to increased employment in the city. z Nelson, Arthur, 2004. Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land -Use and Facility Needs 3 North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2006 at http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/2040Forecast/2005_Emp_Methodology.pdf 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 5 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 Gross Square Commercial Estimated Commercial Estimated Land Use Feet per Sq. Footage in Employment in Square Footage Employment Employee 2000 2000* in 2006 in 2006* Office 322 479,465 1,415 2,082,964 6,145 Ind. / Flex 700 1,514,837 2,056 1,559,900 2,117 Retail 380 1,306,413 3,266 2,458,901 6,147 Other 700 154,160 209 435,642 591 Totals 3,454,875 6,946 6,537,407 15,001 * Assumes a 95% occupancy rate The phenomenal 116% increase in employment from 2000 to 2006 can be directly attributed to the exponential growth in retail and office development in the city. For a representative list of some of the major commercial developments constructed or approved since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was prepared, please see Appendix A. Images of recently developed retail and office development that has contributed to increased employment in the city. z Nelson, Arthur, 2004. Planner's Estimating Guide: Projecting Land -Use and Facility Needs 3 North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2006 at http://www.nctcog.org/ris/demographics/2040Forecast/2005_Emp_Methodology.pdf 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 5 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 4. ANALYSIS OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Understanding the development potential of all undeveloped properties in the city is critical for projecting population and employment estimates. The analysis of future development potential was undertaken using the following steps. The first task was to identify all undeveloped properties and classify them according to their status in the development continuum. Next, development potential for all undeveloped properties was then based upon the 2005 Future Land Use Plan. Development time frames were then assigned to future development based on the status of the site to estimate the population and employment for 2017 and for the ultimate build- out of the city. 4.1 Identifying Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties In order to project future development, an accurate assessment of undeveloped and underdeveloped properties must be made. The following section outlines the methodology used for establishing the development status of properties in Southlake as of October 16, 2006. To begin, undeveloped and underdeveloped properties were defined by the following categories: 1. Pipeline — Properties that have pending or recently approved development applications with the city as of October 16, 2006. 2. Undeveloped; No Zoning —Properties that do not have any buildings suitable for occupancy and have "AG" Agricultural District zoning. These properties may be completely vacant or have a barn or other accessory structure. 3. Underdeveloped — Properties that are currently occupied but that are expected to be redeveloped due to the value of the building in relation to the value of the property, the age of the building, and/or adjacency to other development or vacant property. 4. Unbuilt Residential Lots/Tracts — Properties that are vacant but have residential zoning, either in a large subdivision or as a single lot. 5. Undeveloped Nonresidential — Properties that are vacant but have nonresidential zoning (SP -1, SP -2, C-2, C-3, NR -PUD, 0-1, etc). For the purposes of this report, "undeveloped and underdeveloped properties" refers to all properties described in categories 1 through 5 above, unless otherwise specified. Next, an initial undeveloped/underdeveloped parcel layer was created in GIS using the stormwater utility billing database, which links water meters with parcels, as a foundation. The layer was created using the assumption that if a parcel does not have a water meter, then it is undeveloped or underdeveloped. Staff then reviewed aerial photography and the city's 2006 parcel layer, which is based on filed plats for platted properties and 2005 Tarrant County Appraisal District property boundaries for unplatted properties. Based on a parcel by parcel review of the aerial photography and the city's 2006 parcel layer, properties were added and deleted to the undeveloped/underdeveloped parcel layer as 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 6 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 needed. During this parcel by parcel review, staff considered the age of buildings, adjacency to other development(s), and staff knowledge of recent development activity in the city. To check for parcels that may have been missed using the stormwater utility billing database, underdeveloped and undeveloped properties were also identified based on a ratio of improvement value to total property value. Properties that had a ratio of 0.50 or less were considered to be undeveloped or underdeveloped. These properties were further evaluated and properties owned by the Corps of Engineers, home owner associations, and the City of Southlake were removed. Properties owned by school districts were also removed, unless the property was undeveloped. Next, properties in the undeveloped and underdeveloped parcel layer were compared to the 2005 Future Land Use Map to determine the land use designations for the respective parcels. The following figure (Figure 2) compares the acreage of undeveloped and developed land by underlying land use designation for 8 of the major land use designations. 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 7 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 2 Percentage of Developed and Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Areas by Land Use Designation 0�N4¢ -,K�4 O`�1c�G 4� v°�'� `J Solid Color = Undeveloped Hca Striped Color = Developed To further analyze the development potential for the undeveloped and underdeveloped properties, parcels with an Industrial, Office Commercial, Public/Semi-Public, Regional Retail, or Retail Commercial land use designation were classified as commercial. Parcels with a Low Density Residential or Medium Density Residential land use designation were classified as residential. Since the Land Use Plan recommends a 15% residential component in the Mixed Use and Town Center land use designations, 15% of the parcels designated Mixed Use and Town Center were classified residential and the other 85% were classified commercial. 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 8 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 Undeveloped/ Underdeveloped Commercial, 1,332 Acres, 9.5% Undeveloped/ Underdeveloped Residential, 2,013 Acres, 14% Figure 3 Distribution of Land by Development Status Floodplain, Corps of Engineers, P 7Z7 A-- c coi eloped Acres, 16 Acres, 65% Figure 3 above shows the acreages of developed land, undeveloped commercial land, undeveloped residential land, Corps of Engineers property, and properties in the floodplain. The chart does not include Lake Grapevine, which is approximately 317 acres. Approximately 3345 acres are considered undeveloped or underdeveloped in the city with 2,013 acres in residential designations and 1,332 acres in commercial designations. Figures 4 and 5 show the acreages and percentages of the various land use designations that make up the undeveloped commercial properties and the undeveloped residential properties. Figure 4 Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Commercial Properties by Land Use Retail Commercial, 110.1 Acres, 8% Town Center*, Industrial, Region 7.7 A Public/Semi-Public, 5, Acres, 4% Office Commercial, 221.4 Acres, 17% Mixed Use*, )7.7 Acres, 52% *Assumes an 85% commercial component for Town Center and Mixed Use land use designations. 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 9 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 Medium Density Residential, 696.6 Acres. 35 Figure 5 Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Residential Properties by Land Use Mixed Use* Town Center*, 123.1 Acres, 6% 9.8 Acres, 0.005 Residential, 1183.1 Acres, 59% *Assumes a 15% residential component for Town Center and Mixed Use land use designations. As described previously, properties in the undeveloped and underdeveloped parcel layer were further classified as follows: 1. Pipeline — Properties that have pending or recently approved development applications with the city as of October 16, 2006. 2. Undeveloped; No Zoning — Properties that do not have any buildings suitable for occupancy and have "AG" Agricultural District zoning. These properties may be completely vacant or have a barn or other accessory structure. 3. Underdeveloped — Properties that are currently occupied but that are expected to be redeveloped due to the value of the building in relation to the value of the property, the age of the building, and/or adjacency to other development or vacant property. 4. Unbuilt Residential Lots/Tracts — Properties that are vacant but have residential zoning, either in a large subdivision or as a single lot. 5. Undeveloped Nonresidential — Properties that are vacant but have nonresidential zoning (SP -1, SP -2, C-2, C-3, NR -PUD, 0-1, etc). The following Figure 6 shows the distribution of the undeveloped and underdeveloped parcel layer classifications described above by underlying land use designation (see Appendix C for a map showing the geographic distribution of undeveloped and underdeveloped properties based on land use designations). 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 10 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 y d 600 500 400 300 200 100 Figure 6 Undeveloped/Underdeveloped Land Classification (in acres) by Underlying Land Use Designation 0 �I � Medium Industrial Mixed Use Office PubGc/Semi- Regional Retail i Low Density '� Town Center Density Commercial Public Retail Commercial Residential Residential ■ 1 17.9 192.2 24.2 0.7 7.7 18.7 31.7 237.3 122.1 2 1 0 197.3 85.3 0.4 1 0.0 14.4 0.0 219.7 235.9 ■ 3 28.3 -- 97.9 55.7 36.7 0.0 27.8 27.8 338.1 189.2 o4 1.0 2.7 0.8 ----- 7.0 - 0.0 3.3 0.0 386.6 119.6 ® 5 136.0 330.6 55.4 10.3 0.0 45.9 -- - 30.8 1.4 29.8 NO Total', 184.2 820.8 221.4 55.1 7.7 110.1 90.3 1183.1 696.6 4.2 Study Assumptions Any estimates of population and employment based on future development are inherently riddled with several assumptions. Common assumptions include: • Development potential of properties in the pipeline are based on entitlements (requested and/or approved) • Undeveloped residential properties will be developed with densities based on the adopted 2005 Land Use Plan, including both underlying and optional designations • Development of undeveloped properties will occur at a rate of 90% for both residential and non-residential properties • Underdeveloped properties have a relatively lower chance of redevelopment into residential uses, ranging from 60% to 80% depending on the land use designations 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 11 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 • Development horizons assume build -out based on current status of the property (whether the property is zoned or platted) • Non -residentially zoned properties may be developed under the optional land use categories based on the land use mix recommended (see the 2005 Consolidated Land Use Plan) • Household size will gradually decline due to recently approved projects geared toward empty nesters (such as Watermere and the Brownstones) and due to national demographic trends • Household size for residential uses in the optional land use categories are lower than underlying land use categories (based on census data) • Employee per square foot assumptions are based on national, regional, and local input • Floor Area Ratio assumptions for commercial development are based on industry and regional standards, with local verification • Baseline estimates for both population and employment are based on NCTCOG, building permit data, and economic development department data • Staff assumed 90% build -out of commercially undeveloped parcels due to market saturation • Areas with a land use designation of Floodplain, Corps of Engineers, and Public Parks/Open Space were excluded from the analyses described in this report 4.3 Population Estimates To estimate future population, staff reviewed pending and recently approved residential development applications ("pipeline" properties) to determine the number of dwelling units approved or proposed for each development. Staff also examined properties classified as "undeveloped residential" to determine the number of dwelling units that could be developed with the current zoning. Next, staff compared the properties classified as "undeveloped; no zoning" and "underdeveloped" with the Future Land Use Plan. Those properties that had a land use designation with a residential component were assigned an appropriate residential density to determine the number of dwelling units that could be developed based on the land use designation. Finally, staff evaluated the residential potential for properties designated as "undeveloped nonresidential". Development time frames were then assigned to future development based on the status of the site. In addition, for all other properties designated as "undeveloped" or "underdeveloped", staff analyzed and separated the residential development potential based upon both the underlying land use designations and the optional land use designations. This resulted in two population projections: one based on the underlying land use designations and one based on the optional land use designations. The final population projection is an average of the two projections and is shown in the following figure: 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 12 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 0 20,000 G O 15,000 10,000 5,000 Figure 7 Southlake's Population Projection 1960-2025 Year 4.4 Employment Estimates The most common methodology to obtain employment estimates is to evaluate the amount of potential commercial square feet at build -out and apply an employee per gross square foot ratio to the projected build -out commercial area. In following that general methodology, staff first reviewed pending and recently approved commercial development applications ("pipeline" properties) to determine the square footage approved or proposed by land use (retail, office, industrial, and other) for each development. Next staff extracted properties with non-residential land use designations that were classified as "undeveloped, no zoning" to calculate the commercial development potential. The specific distribution of retail, office, and other land uses in each Land Use category were based on the corresponding land use mix tables in the adopted 2005 Consolidated Future Land Use Plan. An estimated floor area ratio was then applied to the resulting net retail and office acres to determine the approximate square footage of each category of commercial use. Finally, office, retail, and industrial employment numbers were determined by applying an employee per gross square foot ratio. Development time frames were then assigned to future development based on the status of the site. The above methodology was used separately on properties with only underlying designations and properties with both underlying and optional designations. This resulted in two employment projections: one based on the underlying land use designations and one based on the optional land use designations. The final employment projection is an average of the two projections and is shown in the following figure: 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 13 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 45000 40000 35000 30000 '— -- 25000 20000 '- 15000 10000 _ -- 1990: 5000 31450 0 Figure 8 Employment Estimates 1990-2025 2017: 1990 1995 2000 2006 2010 2015 2020 2025 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 14 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 5. SUMMARY The data used to compile these land use assumptions were taken from various sources, including the 2005 Consolidated Land Use Plan, the Economic Development Department's Commercial Properties Summary, building permit data, North Central Texas Council of Governments demographic and employment data, and the U.S. Census Bureau. From these sources, base data for population, employment, and development status of the city was assessed. As a result, staff has estimated that the city is approximately 65% developed and 23.5% undeveloped or underdeveloped. The remaining 11.5% of the city is located in the floodplain or Corps of Engineers boundary. The following table shows the 2006 baseline data, 2017 estimates, and build -out estimates for population and employment: Table 2 2006 Estimate Growth 2017 Estimate Build -Out (2025) Increment Estimate Population 25,654 6,270 31,924 34,188 Employment 15,001 15,946 30,947 38,355 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 15 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 6. APPENDICES AND MAPS Appendix A: Major New Residential Developments Appendix B: Major New Non -Residential Developments Appendix C: Maps 1. Future Land Use Plan Map 2. Development Status of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties 3. Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Commercial Properties 4. Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Residential Properties Appendix D: Roadway Service Area Map Appendix E: Population and Employment Estimates by Roadway Service Areas 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report 16 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 APPENDIX A The following table is a representative list of major new residential developments approved since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was compiled in late 1999. The table includes residential subdivisions with 20 or more residential lots that have final plat approval as of October 2006. Major Residential Developments Approved or Built Since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report Name Zoning Location Total Residential Lots Watermere Retirement S -P-2 2809 W. Southlake Blvd. 237* Community Estes Park R -PUD South of Dove Road between Carroll Avenue 177 and White Chapel Boulevard. Clariden Ranch SF1A Between T.W. King and N. White Chapel 113 Blvd.; south of W. Bob Jones Rd. Johnson Place Estates R -PUD 2440 Johnson Road and 430 Randol Mill 59 Avenue. Triple C Ranch SF -IA East side of N. Carroll Avenue, approximately 58 500 feet south of East Dove Rd. The Cliffs at Clariden R -PUD The west side of 3800 block of N. White Chapel 56 Ranch Blvd. and the east side of 3900 block of T.W. King Road. Tuscan Ridge MH Northeast corner of Randol Mill Avenue and 56 Morgan Road. Kirkwood Hollow Phase R -PUD Northeast corner of W. Dove Rd. and Kirkwood 49 III Blvd. Siena Addition SF -20A North side of Union Church Rd., approximately 43 800 feet west of Davis Blvd. Southlake Town Square DT East of the intersection of Main Street and 42 Brownstones Central Avenue and north of the intersection of Summit Avenue and E. Southlake Boulevard. Westwyck Hills R -PUD The 1300 and 1500 block of Randol Mill 40 Avenue. Palomar Estates R -PUD East side of Randol Mill Avenue and the north 33 side of Gifford Court. Saddleback Ride SF -IA 330 — 360 West Bob Jones Road. 32 Oak Pointe R -PUD West side of Ridgecrest Drive, approximately 30 1200 feet north of East Dove St. The Reserve of Southlake SF -IA The west side of Sunshine Lane, approximately 24 2269 feet north of E. Highland Street. Stratfort Parc SF -20A West side of South White Chapel Boulevard, 23 approximately 600 feet south of West Southlake Boulevard. Sandlin Manor SF -20A The 400 block W. Chapel Downs Drive. 21 *Representative of the number of dwelling units. This number excludes 90 personal care/nursing units. 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report A-1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 APPENDIX B The following table is a representative list of major new non-residential developments approved since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report was compiled in late 1999. The table provides a brief description of developments that are over 50,000 square feet in building area. Major Non -Residential Developments Approved or Built Since the 1999 Land Use Assumptions Report Name Major Tenants Location Total Square Feet Solana Sabre West S.H. 114 at Kirkwood 1,005,000 Verizon Cedar Ridge Regions Bank North side of S.H. 114 at Carroll 167,000 Keller Williams Avenue. Southlake Town Harkins Theatres On the east side of Carroll Avenue 579,000* Square Expansion Hilton Hotel between Southlake Boulevard and the Barnes & Noble S.H. 114 Frontage Road. Southlake Corners Circuit City On the west side of Kimball Avenue 110,800 Staples between the S.H. 114 Frontage Road and East Southlake Boulevard. Wyndham Plaza Costco Between East Southlake Boulevard and 349,000 24 Hour Fitness S.H. 114 Frontage Road at Nolen Drive Gateway Plaza Kohl's Southwest corner of East Southlake 357,000 Old Navy Boulevard and S.H. 114 Frontage Road. T.J. Maxx Office Max Michael's Bed Bath & Beyond Harris Methodist N/A 1545 East Southlake Boulevard. 87,500 Southlake Lowe's Shopping Lowe's On the east side of Kimball Avenue 171,996 Center between the S.H. 114 Frontage Road and East Southlake Boulevard. Shafer Plaza Shoe Pavilion Southeast corner of East Southlake 52,548 Boulevard and Nolen. Cornerstone Plaza Shops of Southlake Central Market Southeast corner of Carroll Avenue and 228,700 (Under Construction) DSW Shoes Southlake Boulevard. Pier One Jellico Square Sprouts Northwest corner of W. Southlake 72,860 (Construction Boulevard and Randol Mill Avenue. Pending) Total 3,181,404 *Excludes 410,000 s.f. constructed during Phase I. Includes Phases 1I and III and the Grand Avenue District 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report B-1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 APPENDIX C -MAPS 2006 Land Use Assumptions Report B-1 Approved by CIAC on November 9, 2006 a City of Southlake Development Status of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Properties Legend Land Use Status 1. Pipeline - 2. Undeveloped; No Zoning _= 3. Underdeveloped 0 4. Unbuilt Residential Lotsrrracts i 1 5. Undeveloped Nonresidential 3 Grapevine Lake t8JI0N CHURCH DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. W -J --M I M r 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles SOUTHLAKE 2025 • Department of Planning Geographic Information Systems Date Created: 11/01/06 City of Southlake Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Commercial Properties with Land Use Designations Legend Grapevine Lake S O U T H L A K E Optional Land Use 2025 ® EC -1 '' +I �. :-IN< -. CO NT mm,_z nm^ • a EC -2 EDEC -R ;a ® T -t r— T ? _ € � Underlying Land Use Industrial r� - Mixed Use Commercial F wOffice Public/Semi-Public y ^� ,, 41 i Regional Retail _ Retail Commercial - Town Center 1 = N I DOu — DRENCE RD DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles Department of Planning Geographic Information Systems Date Created: 11/01/06 x UNIONCHURCH '' +I �. :-IN< -. CO NT mm,_z nm^ DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles Department of Planning Geographic Information Systems Date Created: 11/01/06 City of Southlake Distribution of Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Residential Properties with Land Use Designations Legend Grapevine Lake Optional Land Use RC ® T-1 T-2 Underlying Land Use Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential SOUTHLAKE ,- 2025 HIGHLAND ST - y �t^ ! —s--^- - N� -r HIGHLAND ST - y �t^ DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is Department of Planning given or implied as to the accuracy o 0.2e o.s t 1.5 Geographic Information Systems of said data. Miles Date Created: 11/01/06 I' _ �WNION CHURCH 3 CGNIINEN3A&V9` �yj t- _ i� DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is Department of Planning given or implied as to the accuracy o 0.2e o.s t 1.5 Geographic Information Systems of said data. Miles Date Created: 11/01/06 Roadway Service Areas (RSA) DISCLAIMER This data has been compiled for the City of Southlake. Various official and unofficial sources were used to gather this information. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy of this data, however, no guarantee is given or implied as to the accuracy of said data. 1 inch equals 0.85 miles �A Department of Planning Geographic Information Systems W 00 � 01 00 M N 001 DO ti ! 00 a j 'r~ a - ON I�--------- o � O M I i �i00 N W)i ISI moi^ -+ISO o �i N O'M�M -•+I O cl �� loci ii I I N I �I��I�I i I ISI i I NI [\ 00I ce ''� I I 01 MI O i ~jI i� 1-t1N1N1 Iinii. --; loci i0i O Uil`IknI-,t i It`i O e9l a I A OM O � Q Q„ u N N I j •--� •--� M -- \O O "" I irq OIr,!w1c, �Ikni t`I Ibi =i i i i Mi tc C r- � C= N i kn NI N a i oajQi i l I i i;C� O I I\OI00�0! � it�Et�iol I�f'i Ihl Ibl i0 � IMjl�l�ni iN o i i Irl jNI q o�oNi a I o ! Ni Nil i Qj I W OI yiC� 00: t:iN? VIOIMI00; �IMi�/'ii0i kn 00 M N N oo IMI I01I l� M tn � 00 00 a j 'r~ a - ON o � O M � I aoi A d o i i�Io�Ni ISI O'M�M -•+I O cl �� loci ii I I N I �I��I�I i I ISI L I NI [\ 00I ce ''� I Ml= ,o I •� NIM r� 01 MI O I KININ I'mI ~jI i� 1-t1N1N1 Iinii. --; loci i0i O Uil`IknI-,t i It`i O a I A OM O � Q„ u N N I j •--� •--� M -- \O O 0 i ikn I TIM Oi t`I y i.. �• i OII�IN NI �t r" NiMi '� C i CC12 a i oajQi i l I i i;C� EXHIBIT C-1 Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 32 of 37 N ro fu fu +j -F-� ro U C "O tU 4-) . LL Q1 L L- ° a_ '?O OL O a N W • 4J — p L n O „ V w Ln tA ° c o E m ,� wl (a.�; c �- O t QCJE o V cn fa J ° fQ (V to v� Q O -O fo O c 4-5 O W c •- V '�'' `- {� :vim i w O -� r u o O " .ice 0 '� w Q tA �> fu N N W 4-j Ct!'1 U c � fu CNCCLZ O .�..� rr1 4-jCl. 0- C: aN ON C� tA � E w fu LA tA fu v° a� t 4 0 cn v m Q E N o > -N -0 LL +-' VI 4J ttA :3 ,w fu ra ru C:_ U .0 ° wcn o0 :3 E ra 4-J ul� — — ra — v E v � v :3 41 tA to :3 4-J ra O >_' FU � cn 41 6 0 U v w ca c yam.. � �- � � .� � � •� � E N � tA o�- v s_ o V Lri u ura N LA o Tj4-`0"Q-0Q 0 O I- ca 0 -0 N cn V ,a) N •2 LA -0 Ccn : sfa _ 0 t 3: U 4-J — C_ (L) *--'-0 E 4W fu• N =4-'M"L3 tU m LA o (v 11 LA ru ro tA cu flu C:LA u = -�v L E _ .r CL : rO LA 4-j o o tA '> -4-J f LA tA N� E c O E � ;� 4-jE s_ c .o O = N EO — -p Q :3 O I— > F- s_ _1 Q CT 41 �.o Aft ON - am ANN T COCni Co N Z� T Fe, . ID) cw ,' �, 00 Q 1 Lfv Ln lqr VI Ci 00 0 Zb€ i"i-q- {!'f M. cif l' i �Eka \ Y co -00 rl lot 0, 41 �Y k f a` Ft3 d � s3S A \ "E \ CLO � r ¢ W ''.. '' y mc Q LXX l0 0 -,10,O N' Ql N 0 O O N n„ 00 00 Ln N Oo N C> o Ol N O O C3 N ,, 00 00 Oo flo Ln C3 m 00 Ln LLJ r LLI u� un � u�: ui Lr)Ln rn 0 r --t 00''cry 00 N t-1 e -I ui a .j Uj W GC LU Q 'C -; W LL LLJLL _ Co - N t.0 Q O Q D Q"/"' N Lm D o D O Cly m m ch Ln Irl Ln m IN Ln N tp D O Q w � N N Ln © _ "C� C3" cn c Ln Ln 00 c --i ri a -f r[ r -f "' r -i 00 "ra uj "An _ (D (D, 1 ! C Q CO ".. allow ," ,_... Ln N r-4 OCA" - Gp" ; U ff1 _ rq Ca m r-( cn ,.jr-! .;".0 Gfi N N C N ?- Lu' U Cly. � LL- LC. y.... " CL CL. EL W CIC 0] GC r,W" m .: . CC LU W W W' N. Cl ,Ln D 'Q 1 00 C) Q- �► iii h Ln v -1� 01 c ' Lrv. M In qp Ln ^ 00" ,Ct. "S qt _fit" 'r-,. Ln "c:; Lo (N Q O CA i` toCQ © , ' r q �► m t Lfi N Ln ri CQ CT1 ' , lqr rn N MO W_ N . �, d' W z cc o. -Ln Q to LD Ch cj r-4 J, �"LJ W.t uj _ J Lit''Z; 7`..y...�` Z;uj uj ED U_ (- d. W lu W ''he > M CG a * ti, 0,, W [ --1 LU .. Z °C 0 Q LLL LL1 F- F- #" } - 3G : E--'' >- }' 0 w CL LU LU CL LHcr.CL LU t'`J, m -M Ln un Ln r` © qt r*4 m o w c-! Ln K+ LM Ln r-f " tD C14 o Zn 00 n .o :t3. r` r% m a mI;tet4j).00.It rn a 4 t)w N `tD ct .00 lqr N vv .. cry- 00-00 t c ° rn m 0 00 0At '00 P.- 4-. in .... WLU cn uj w cc .. ,. = F p p :in _ OCUil w W Ne Z Z tu�, m `�. �: , _... t�G w, sr� � '-CL- w:Z _.. Z t3. z W>- '0 'w r... w uj" t.1C O w taC 0 a� V h--- u' F- €3 xom.-. Uj N w wr LLw LLIt�G w LU w >=t Q, Q) F—' �'zza W O' "o O N r- Ln m LLn h cn 000 N r- p 'gr -Ln Ln Ln. Ln o Q Ott Cn r', Q C� O m to tT h o0 o0 �' � Cp' er7 d' m Ln d; W � Ln �r oo � ct; r- o c='i Ln ccs vi C3 U) co (D d. Q m Ln 'd` Ln tCl rr c r` qr cn d' N Ln r` m rq w Ln o Ln r -t Ln to OD Ln CO' m Nm 00 N h �' w O N Cr ri' e -I r-1 0) M P. N N (n 00 e -I V-1 cvry, ih ih V) in An C3 I O p d . �"`' cn Ln r- t N rq 0 t- mt" p, ri 00 Ln Q, o cri CA CO «o r-%' oo w m cn m C) rq Ln m e -i r• O` ,inn d` N Zo M a W rn' cri cn,. �t o m Ln er Lnr-r� Co D to vCo N r�+ tocovter Ln m ri -LnNn A e^i', 00 (�'. d' 00' o 4Q rq ri ih ih tri in vt to ir> ilt v7 ir> to i!? ih in' il} in v> _W O 'N OO W �`'` ' � " 0�0 N ' O N 00 � >n 00 � ` � t21 i3 N: Q to cn, r-1 r -t N al 00 M v 00 m 1 GTS p mw Ln CCS rn Ln r, rl-� 00 cn © N ri CO i ri O CA Cp m .00 n 00 d- r r-1 N W-1ri m 00 m N 'mr,Nq orncr"'" HmLnLno0m:.-t H r•1 r•f ri 00 CCS r-1 H ri . GN7, rN-1 W irt irt tn irt v} tn. ih ih trl• trt• iri. trt- in. in. trt• '� "ih vs- tn< LU Ln FLU v, uj Q D Vt Z w LU W d LL 0 a LLI i .LU 0 0 ui V H F -H ww Q -�ca Op =QO H C1C F- t7C -moi H OC _ r 1 N m Cr Ln lEl r� "{n _ Q E- Z W r-1 N r M I d i Ln r W I to ©' °' iB to ,LAI to t%S I " tlt N Z Q Z Z `Z Z .'Z Z'' I^' Qi L f6 cu LA � ft3 E E •L O Ln N CU >, ro C O N fts O +j � L un L +-► �' -&-' O M „p >, 4-+ •v C: : O �_ aj L, c a� W a — v •- tv -E its m N O O a) -cE o ., ,F ,r- co ra w a1 Q3 ar ^Ln +' �� °� o Ln +j O - OJ 'a>C j cn pj "� '� o bD .0 �� � 4j � � m 0 �' 0 IA N L) L- 0 � N -p ?. W `A -p ca a} L � W °- 4 ° Qi s- 4-' u tA L L o a S n r�'°V E Vo FF- h- E o w m c E Q E° o ,il 1. v 1u` 7.1 <; d ;� . 0 0 0 O o 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 2n,‘-'1 N C C C C C C C C l0 LD 00 W O O N N C 'g-4 LO 00 00 O O N 01 LD LO o0 W o0 O O O N O M 1D LD CO LO l0 LD (C lD Ql Ql N N LD ( Cl Cl N N Ln 07 00 N N Ln 00 00 ci 7 C C C 00 a0 CO ci kl .-1 (N .-i N (N N N N N N m m m m CO C C C C C C Ln N iiiiiiuuiuioiiuiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiuiiiui O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m M M C C C C Ln Ln Ln W t� 00 Cl O .-i N C Ln t0 h CO O (N N N CO C LD LO fN 00 Cl Cl O N O .--I .- e- I .-i I .- k.-1i N N I -I re-I N N N N N N N N M 00 M M CC fi LU JiiflhlHiIUiI o 0 0 0 C MN N NM mN 00 11U 2 O O CO W ( C C O L O t0 N CO C CO O (N C i0 co O N C LO LO N O to O U. O O l0 00 C M N C N <0 C .-1 Cl l0 C 00 LD M O f� C N Cl lD M (N M 00 0l lD LD h CO O m w (C •• Ol to O l0 N h M Cl • N Cl l0 M Cl LD M Cl LD M • LO O C 00 h V N N .--I ci N N N N M C C Ln Ln LD LD 00 03 Cl O O ci N N M C • to t0 LO l0 h M (N e-I .-i (N r1 .-i (N .-i .-I .-i r-1 (N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C C (C t0 LD t0 (C 00 coco 0 0 (N C LD 00 00 O N N N CO C) m M m m m C C C C C C V C O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000000000000000 O CO Ol O (N M (C LD 00 00 O m Ln h 00 0l m CO M 01 Ul e-1 Lo N Ol .r e'i (C E 01 01 N N co Ln Ln O N C h Cl .-101 In EN 0l .-I O CO l0 C N O Cl CO CO h h h (C LD Ln N (C C O l0 N Cl Ln (N h m N N NI N M M m M M C Ln ul LD h 00 01 01 O e-I N co C Ln (C h CO co O ei .'i N N m C C Ln ""I e--. r1 e-I e-i e-i .-i .--I t-N .--I e-I N C.J. N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o O O O O o 0 0 o O o O o O o OCIOCDCDCDOOO O VlO LO t--. N CO h Cl C .--I N V1 l0 LD h 0 C O 1N CO O Cl Cl O M h N co EN h C No 0 0 1N • N C O C CO M h N h M 0l Ln (N O (C N Ol Ln N CO N Ln O lD co Cl (C N 00 to .--4 M C tto(C O 00 O NC LL . ..-I Ln O C at m 00 N h N h on N C h O N Ln h O N Ln h O M Ln W e-i .-i N N N M m C Ln Ln Ln lD (C LO h h h iN CO co 00 co Cl Cl Cl Cl O O O O O ci 7_,, eH W e-1 N .-i (N (N ri (N 2 Q O Zu W C O LO LD LO LD LD lD........(C LID 111E lD........(C 0 Ln W CO W CO 07 co M W M M v1 h o0 m m o0 00 00 0o Lo om 11111111111 Ly ul Ln Ln Ln1LnCC m � o IIII w .c-togt,st,Tao*a" r '. ` "d 1.«.-1.1...,-::' v. �7i.,, `a . -i ,"i,'''3 r "r; s� i s 3 a � N 0- fQ O a--� (B ate-+ N 0 Q1 C U O d.) � E LV b.0 L -� v CU 0 ..c ',", a) CU +� -� >. E - n3 o — ..'iii..,) � v, c I . c +; (V s_ 4- .�. c .- -� O -a CU M QJ aJ QJ Q1 L i V1 aJ -+-' -a D C1 • 5 u . N 4_, VI N QJ • r6 0-- X o I— 0 a vvii -0 v1 U s- ra > - CU CU -+—' N o CU C Q J hID rBD +) JD CU v rII O O Q qD +�, '> X E _c •Q , O QJ a) L o . . r3 c O 100 (A O > N +� >` p O C iii u ro aJ = o L rII —0 L •� O O '> p aJ a ro L D • v w CIO p f1:1 L N— 'MD 0 -O E c 1:10 U1 -0 L - --.1 -1_, D O V L aJ QJ 'Fs CU Q r6 -N d, V +, QJ J X QJ >vl LJ N aJ Lr "O_ L I . > 1 O 0" ..6— N ,� O — L _ O aJ N a1 0 Cl. L N z � c O b..0 +-) H :,_, N L .' >, � D b1).- 4- — liot � � � 00 00 � . 0 00 0 0 � 0 0 � � � � • o o Ln ao 0 0 0 0o LD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 M In tD II m 01 0 O o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M h tD a> to 00 N .-1 LD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LD m 00 in m O W co ri o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M N N N Ni .4 0...„., O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 Ln 01 .-1 00 .4 C) m LD W LA TTT"' h �n o .-i v o m rn oa (N �n o "�"; O CI O N m 00 00 0 in. LO Ln N C OO h O o a1 a' o LU CO 0 LD O l0 N Ct 00 00 m O m O O ri ri m N N al .-1 L.n LD O O o al 00 co N- LU LC) Ln Ln 4 a m r ri o a 00 N . oo LO .-4 o m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N ri ri ri ri 0 0 0 LU 0 in C) O CO cC DO la N LD O O LO N C) C) O CO N .-t CO N LII CT O CO Ln .-1 co m CO l0 Ct m in LO LU LD I0 • .01..01. V1 LD N !+� .-1 C) h o tO a1 C7 .-1 C) .4 O O 01 co I` •• IN al h LD LD N LD .. LD N 00 O .):1-.):1- ."'I 00 N O Ln M co . co in O LO 01 N ct N O LO 01 m CO m LO 00 m ID CO .:r LD 03 .-I .7 h CO O <--ILD CO o .-i .-1 N N N m M m cr. C Ln to .ill • LD LD LO h h N. CO CO" 00 00 Cl 01 01 01 O 1-4 g V N ctN CN7 N NCN N(N N NCt N N N-- N N N N CNt N.-t N N VN N- N N N N N N NO O O O O C) O7 O o 0 C) ,:j. C) C7O 0OC :Jr . C) o O C) O C) C70 O O O O C) C) O O C) O o i. 0h- re-:.1 .h hI rhi ;I h1 .hH rhi .h h Nh h r'-z' N-1 v-h1 N hri h N- N hi RI Nh .h-I ri .i RI h h(N rih E1 .h h •i— LD LO LO LD LD l0 LD O LD LD LD LD LO LD LO id L0 • ID LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LO LD l0 WI, LD LD LD LD LD LD ri ri ri (N r-1 c-I ri (N ri ri ri so, ri (N ri ri (N ri ri ID, ri ri (N ri ri (N ri r1 ri ri rIL .H ri .-1 r-1 2 • CO0 O O O O LO o O0 O,C=,' O 0O0 O O O O.-O OO 0 0 0 00 0 00 NJ J M 01 ri O V O h V h ri m ri N N 'c7 N P. o Ill O 'EDI h r-I O h 00 Ln V ri O h h Ct O 01 m m a1 Ct N N Ln 01 o N 00 01 In ri h m 01 O LO N h m 01 17r:CD LD • LD M O 00 to N a1 00 o• CD h h LD LD LD in Lr1 -4 V f1') m in N .-i ri ri a W W O o O o O O O O O O O O 0 O O 1.4 C) C) O O O O O O o O 0 C) O O C) O o M Ct 00 LD N Ct O o O LD CO O N 00 Ct LO LD O LD LO N G CO O CO LD LD o N in W W -J Lri a1 N. tri h N N m .-1 LO O 00 al h N in .--I CO O O Ln 01 N h (N M O in O r-1 h .i LL .-1 N 0 CO O Ln LD a1 01 01 O 00 M .-I LnLO N C O ct O O V N h (N Nin 01 O N CO r'1 O 01 00 CO h LD Ill .0. m N <-1 N N N • • .-1 O CO IN Ln ct N C) LD ri 01 LD m O OO Ln N 0 Lri. Ln V Q V C V 4 Ct 4 d' 4 4 4 • • C 4 in M Co M m m N N .-i ri (N .4 I O O O O O LOD OD O O O O O dO' O O •A O O O O O O O O O Ot O LO O O O O 0O0 OVO Ln Ln 4 00 N ri 4 LO Ln LD o CY N 4 O 01 h M o m N (N N N LD N O a1 m N LD N 4- a) O co h LD in 0 4 4- h (N M m LD h - • m M t- ri N h 00 N NCO cr C) 01 in N ,i CO m .-1 '-1 h ri LO .-I LD .--I LD .-1 LD M I- .-I Ln 01 • N LD C) Ln a1 M h N LD o Ln CO C) M LD 01 .4 ct I. N N m m Cf V Ln Ln LO LD h h co CO co • O O .N 1ri ri N (NT M M C7 4 Ct to Lf1 Ln Ln LO LO LO ri ri (N r-1 ri ri ,--i .-i .--4ri ri ri .-i N rN ri r-I (N ri om,,,- <.. „... �.. ....':..,._... .'x.. . :; w :. ...... .... ... .... ,.._ nri IIIHhIi __M .-i Ot O h r - • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d 0 Ol h N rV CO Ol m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WOO N .i O Ol h00000000000 h m O •i. iliMill d d d M m r i �' o o o 0 0 0° 3° o 0 0 0 0 0 o N 00 .i _1 ul N Ol h .i 00 U Od, Cl Om 00 O O0 _ Ol O Lfl M .i h ul Ol GONI L!1 O N h d al 00 h O M M O Q1 V' CO IN O Ln Olh 00 Ol O a Cl co co h O 00 N O N N O N N N N N M N • N •• Ni N • N e--1 .-i .i IIIIIIII . e-1 d 00 O M N l0 Ui tO O O Ln o d O M O M h h ul e-1 O N. O ,-' Ol alhWho0 OlInOInNO L!1 CO f- O M u> Ol .1 d h 01 h O M m t!1 LO lD lO UD CO 00 CO CO Ci O 0., J Dl Ol 111 al nr,m Ln lD lD 1111111111111111 d d 4.0-1 h h In lfl.-1 e-/ .•i N al LD Ln H N 11 ] O .-1ul O O LO 00h M Ol :ii O Old d lN N.i Ol O 0 t.OCa dOl h h Ln D a W IlIllhllIll Odl I IF oN d uhF O .Oi 0 W CO • W O � �d d d O O 00 d O Ol Z h{ CO N M 00 Ol ul 00 ul - O M d N N J O CO N LD W LD l0 ill tf1 - N CO O • CO d- 0 O d . . M d -. d dr : . d d d dl- - . - . M N N C O O - N d d h O d co d - M CI CO d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in h to d .-i h co .i co 00000 0 0 0 0 Ol d LI') N COto al al CO LD N W • N O M h N. N M co N. e� d m CO M in N d N LD M ul .i LID l0 d O O r~ O O O O e-i in N CR ul N • in CO .-� M • N LID in O in O Ui O CI h O Ui N M M d ul ul Ln l0 LO • CO 00 • Ol O O .'i .i N N M d d V e-1 ll .i .-i .-f e-1 e-I ei V I W W ro W O LLJ co i I— CI) dJ D E -Q +-+ }, O l/1 ., ('(1 a) ro - c E c O Ln - — d- 1 L V1 ��- (u Cl) aJ O QJ — M U (II 4J V1 vi a) j CU L/1 -C C ft3 In 5- (B 0•� QJ _'+ -N _ O (13 t- +-, D n 4-' O QJ = L E Lil vl O _� QJ L +-+ bi0-O to O _1 S] Q + -1--, v' + .. U LIII L l/1 Q _ \ 0 L L/1 N - L 0 .O O O.. C > 0 + Q � .4:2 _E D (o > 4O +-, OU 1-- (B = 0 U lJ < Cl- 0.0 Vl QV C Lfl 0 0 N 4--+ 4 \ N I- o LA 4- >1 tQ - O ;-+ a_+ to u u u� E O L -- fa m 4J m V s C: ra 0. E +� 0 .— ;, i _u X W-� O 'u o .� tA v a 0 furou�,�0 (VMS 0 u •—, Q1 4- ra L O_ O_ m _0 QJ 0CL 4-J x E E 0 In =3 } tA C:u -N > O to ; a N E- a L �'� � otA • x �,c w C: 4-J LA a 3 Ec�o� C � 0 0 0 tA O� ,� N 04-- 0 •— - w N - N 'T3 �-' U tA tA E 75 TO 4,J , V to ru c6 � O 0 0- 0 = N W w 0 v •— fu 4-J 41 fo aj I— 0 N F— mE— • 4-J • V -0 0 1. -;-+ 0 +J 0 0 "Ir- N' ON ,.. f�.i� ,LL z o _ W cc LLj LU �c o � � � w z z H -- W � z Q o z = m W W °° LU > w > cn � z __j� � j u Q +_ � o - > 0 a w 0 0 � w 0 zLL > W W a Q z o J z o a _ u a a U z w W o W Q J o _ cc O W cc o a cc Q ~ LL < W z Q w Q cn z (n > J � w o "-'LLJ � o O LLJZ o z o a w w m (n O F- °J° CL LU z n z Q ICL C z o o > o V 0 o W �- a u z z a o �, W a W F- a Q 0 LU Li W Uj o C V) o u u a o 0 Uj w- m aU w �LU V _ Q w L w 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N Q ra N .� O ra dJi3 Q -CQ V- 4% r — +-j 41 41 1 *.. Q—rafu V a m 0 co Q a N c E ro 0 ,v a C � O LLMr�r a-� a) -- •— ._ '� E Vl oom V •� C ra CL•— E On 0 +j err/fir• t — Q — ` -0 Lij a� sZ V L 0 r Q uQON - �O d1 m 0 E o s O a--+ ; cn � 0-0 OJ C: bb o .� ' f1' L ru �, ., +J fud1 N OSo � -0 L Q- IA 4a 0t11 p L- -C " , d +' L (Ij 4J W LA 0- ra Qefa J +-+ ra o cn `� O bo .. m .f. N m v v bO t-0 r 4 ,,j b�0 .� � ._ • +j . tt3 • V0 s"C ra C to r4 rQ QJ N O � .0 .0 •V"a O vai Q1 w � ra _0iJ © N s- O ofloL O- C: vii P. C:'v u Q O W f .C: :e •c C: N N J O +j ru O c ra VlLA U �, U .0ra �� o� a �� E-� �^ a 4--� -C: N> -a a L ro -N -a s- ai 'O u cn O .,,QJ_u >+ V A O E W 6 a OJ rn fu L ra C: Lai 0- v V ��t�naa ' im pro Ln o W -C v cu a •— o O +; 4-1 C C —CC O a m L fu c V- f� t/1 '' -C U Qj a W L aj ro b,,�y .- o .E C: ru Ln Ln 41 �r- O V) W p� u0 E u CL L+- 4-J +-+ � u .F, u : ru 0 a O m � .O a CL L a CL N CL •� .� .— +-1 a.., x . :3 raO -7 M O N O `^ a Cr -0 ra to fU 4-J N Q} a W a L a u 4J _ QJ u •44 0 • .c • • ra • can : ra to 0 V 0 ' 4-1 EXHIBIT C-2 Roadway Capital Improvements Plan Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 33 of 37 Wit ityofSouth I a ke...... .d _ a Roadway"Im-pactFeeUpdate k December 6, 2007 s a x p s< a r e+ a 3 , . Prepared By: Kimley-Horn and Associates', Inc. v Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Prepared by: 1/ I Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 950 Fort Worth, TX 76102 817.335.6511 December 6, 2007 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2007 061237000 C❑ Kirnley-Horn � and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents CITY OF SOUTHLAKI TEXAS Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 IIRoadway Impact Fee Calculation Inputs..................................................................................... 2 A. Impact Fee Service Areas........................................................................................................................ 2 B. Land Use Assumptions............................................................................................................................ 2 C. Capital Improvements Plan ...................................................................................................................... 2 IIIMethodology For Roadway Impact Fees..................................................................................... 5 A. Service Units........................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Cost Per Service Unit.............................................................................................................................. 5 C. Cost of the CIP........................................................................................................................................ 6 D. Service Unit Calculation.......................................................................................................................... 8 IVImpact Fee Calculation..............................................................................................................12 A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit................................................................................ 12 B. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit............................................................................... 13 C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development..................................................................................... 15 VSample Calculations...................................................................................................................17 VIConclusion..................................................................................................................................19 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................... 20 A. Opinion of Project Cost Worksheets B. CIP Service Units of Supply C. Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update i December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. List of Exhibits CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS 1 Capital Improvements Plan for Roadway Impact Fees....................................................................... 4 List of Tables 1 Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees............................................................................. 2 2 Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees......................................................................... 3 3 Level of Use Table............................................................................................................................5 4 Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions .............. 7 5 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations.................................................................................... 10 6 Ten Year Growth Projections.......................................................................................................... 11 7 Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee.................................................................................... 14 8 Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET).................................................................. 16 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 11 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. I INTRODUCTION 13 CITE' OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS 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 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 initiated a review of its Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees. The City has retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., to provide professional transportation engineering services for the update of their Roadway Impact Fees. This report includes the update of the impact fee calculation methodology in accordance with SB 243 and the adopted revisions to the Land Use Assumptions and the roadway Capital Improvements Plan. This report introduces and references two of the basic inputs to the Roadway Impact Fee: the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements 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 update. The components include: • Service Areas • Service Units • Cost Per Service Unit • Cost of the CIP • Service Unit Calculation • Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit • 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 Roadway Impact Fees, this involves the calculation of the credit for the use of ad valorem taxes to fund the Impact Fee CIP. This plan, prepared by Mclain Decision Support Systems and upon which we relied, details the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit the City of Southlake may apply under Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The final section of the report is the Conclusion, which presents the findings of the update analysis. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 1 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas Kirnley-Horn CITY Of and Associates, Inc. SOUTHLAKE TEXAS II ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CALCULATION INPUTS A. IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREAS The three (3) service areas used in the 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update are shown in Exhibit 1. These service areas cover the entire corporate boundary of the City of Southlake. SB 243 amended Chapter 395 to define a service area as "an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six (6) miles." An inspection of the previous service area structure indicates the reduction in the number of service areas from eight (8) to three (3) is reasonable based on the new six (6) mile limit. B. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS The land use assumptions upon which we relied are presented in a separate report titled Land Use Assumptions Report (LUA), prepared by The City of Southlake, and dated November 2006. Table 1 presents the land use assumptions (by service area) contained in the LUA report utilized in the roadway impact fee calculation. Table 1. Land Use Assumptions for Roadway Impact Fees ServiceI Year Population I Units I I Employment (Square Feet) Basic Service I Retail F Total Area 2007 ........_........._....._....._................_....................._.'...._....._........_..........._........................... 3,376 1,042 477,282 .............. ........._....'_..._...._........_._.........._........_._........'.. 617,310 ..................... 650,180 1,714,164 A 2017 4 620 _ 1 426 - 477 282 -- .... 950 874 ..... .... ........_............_..'_...................... 849 060 .._............_......._..'_....._.._....._.. 2 277 836 Build Out 4,984 1,538 477,282 1,117,295 950,380 2,544,957 2007 .._..... ........................ .-.............. .... 11,775 ............ _...._._................... _._......... 3,634 .... ......._........... _........ 343,086 ......._............. ....... ....._............. _....... 444,391 ....._....... _.......... _..... _._........ ......... 467,780 1,255,257 B 2017 ........._ .................... ...... ............ ............. 13,677 _........_............_.................. 4,221 ........... _........_....... ..........._.. 467,154 ........ .................. .........._._.........._._....._._........_....._._........_.......... 1,454,830 ............................ _........ _..... _..... 907,060 ... .... ........ ...... ..._......._....._........................_....._._............_.._....._.. .._....... ...... .._..... _....... _..... ... ...... ... 2,829,044 Build Out 14,820 4,440 495,006 1,943,985 1,094,400 3,533,391 2007 10,500 3,240 _.. ..... ..................._........................_...._......... 893,796 ..... ........_._....._._......................_........_....._....._....._....._......._....................................._......._....._.._....._.. 15156,644 1,217,900 3,268,340 C 2017 ..... ................ ........ .............. 13,627 ................ .... .................... ............................................ 4,206 2,018,004 ............... ................ ............... ......... 2,964,532 ........ ......... ......... ...... ............_......... 2,571,840 7,554,376 Build Out 145820 4,574]L_2,384,511 3,9165128 ........... .._............................ ...... 3,170,720 ........... .................._..I.. ........ .._......... 9,471,359 C. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The City has identified the City -funded transportation projects needed to accommodate the projected growth within the City. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for Roadway Impact Fees is a list of these projects. The CIP includes arterial and major collector class roadway facilities. All of the arterial and collector facilities are part of the currently adopted Master Thoroughfare Plan. It should be noted that the Capital Improvement Plan includes a listing of both proposed capacity improvement projects and recently completed projects with excess capacity to serve new growth. The CIP for Roadway Impact Fees that is proposed for the Impact Fee Update is listed in Table 2 and mapped in Exhibit 1. The table shows the length of each project as well as the facility's 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 2 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CITY Of SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Master Thoroughfare Plan 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 in the Land Use Assumptions Report. Table 2. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees Se Area Proj. # Class Roadway Limits Length In Service Area A-1 A41)(100)(1/2) Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. 0.40 100% A-2 A41)(88) West Dove Rd. (2) SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. 0.22 100% A-3 A41)(88) West Dove Rd. (3) Kirkwood Blvd to White Chapel Blvd. 0.22 100% A-4, C-16 A41)(88) East Dove Rd. (1) White Chapel Blvd. to Dove Creek 1.40 50% A A-5 A41)(100) Kirkwood Blvd (2) West Dove Rd. to North White Chapel Blvd. 0.46 100% A-6, C-17 A4D(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (1) East Dove Rd. to SH 114 0.50 50% I-3 Intersection W. Dove Rd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 50% I-4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 25% I-6 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 75% I-8 Intersection Carroll Ave. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 50% B-1 A3U North Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to FM 1709 1.00 1 100% B-2 C2U Watermce Dr. FM 1709 to Union Church Rd. 0.21 100% B-3 A61) Randol Mill Ave (FM 193 8) Northern city limits to FM 1709 1.97 100% B-4 C2U Durham Ln. Shady Oaks Dr. to South White Chapel Blvd. 0.50 100% B B-5, C-1 S A41)(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (2) SH 114 to FM 1709 1.36 50% B-6 A4D(88) West Dove Rd. (1) W. City Limits to SH 114 0.64 100% I-3 Intersection W. Dove Rd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 50% I4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 25% I-5 Intersection Peytonville and White Chapel at FM 1709 (complete) n/a 100% I-7 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Continental Blvd. (Roundabout) n/a 50% C-1 A41)(88) East Dove Rd. (2) Dove Creek to N. Kimball Ave. 0.84 100% C-2 A41)(100) North Carroll Ave (1) SH 114 to FM 1709 0.62 100% C-3 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd (3) North White Chapel Blvd, to East Highland St. 1.36 100% C4 A41)(100) Kirkwood Blvd (4) East Highland to North Kimball Ave. 1.36 100% C-5 A41)(100) Aventerra Connector SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. 0.29 100% C-6 A41)(100) Grace Ln. SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. 0.22 100% C-7 A3U East Highland St. (1) North White Chapel Blvd to SH 114 0.61 100% C-8 A3U East Highland St. (2) SH 114 to future Kirkwood Blvd. (575' east of North Carroll Ave.) 0.47 100% C-9 C2U Zena Rucker Rd. Byron Nelson Pkwy. to South Carroll Ave. 0.36 100% C-10 A41)(88) South Carroll Ave (1) 10 15'south of East Southlake Blvd. to Westmont Dr. 0.43 100% C-11 A41)(88)(1/2) South Carroll Ave (2) Westmont Dr. to 290' north of Breeze Wy. 0.10 100% C-12 A41)(88) Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' north of southern city limits 0.71 100% C C-13 C2U South Village Center Dr. 705' south of East Southlake Blvd. to N. Nolan Dr. 0.80 100% C-14 A41)(88) North Kimball Ave. Dove Rd. to 360' north of SH 114 westbound frontage road 1.08 100% C-15 A41)(88) South Kimball Ave FM 1709 to SH 26 1.43 100% A-4, C-16 A4D(88) East Dove Rd. (1) White Chapel Blvd. to Dove Creek 1.40 50% A-6, C-17 A41)(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (1) East Dove Rd. to SH 114 0.50 50% B-5, C-18 A41)(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (2) SH 114 to FM 1709 1.36 50% I-1 Intersection Brumlow Ave. at SH 26 (complete) n/a 100% I-2 Intersection Carroll Ave. at FM 1709 (complete) n/a 100% I-4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 50% I-6 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 25% I-7 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Continental Blvd. (Roundabout) n/a 50% I-8 Intersection Carroll Ave. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 50% I-9 Intersection Continental Blvd. at Byron Nelson Pkwy. (Roundabout) n/a 100% 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 3 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas Keller 1 .� r c Unon-Church-Rd, Colleyville 00or"I Grapevie Hills 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles � C � Legend /N/ Impact Fee Eligible Facilities Other Thoroughfare Facilities CIntersection Improvements Service Areas Streams Lakes Local Roads Keller 1 .� r c Unon-Church-Rd, Colleyville 00or"I Grapevie Hills 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles � C � ❑ ❑ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 0,€y Of SQUITHLAKE TEXAS III METHODOLOGY FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES A. SERVICE UNITS The "service unit" is a measure of consumption or use of the capital 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 or a collector 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 Roadway Impact Fee Update are based upon Thoroughfare Capacity Criteria published by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Table 3 shows the service volumes as a function of the facility type. Table 3. Level of Use Table Facility Type Median Configuration Hourly Vehicle -Mile Capacity per Lane -Mile of Roadway Facility Arterial Divided 725 Undivided 650 Collector Undivided 525 B. 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 are assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur within the next ten years, a concept that will be covered in a later section of this report. As noted earlier, the units of demand are vehicle -miles of travel. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 5 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C. COST OF THE CIP CITY Of SQUTHLAKE TEXAS The costs that may be included in the cost per service unit are all of the implementation costs for the Impact Fee Update, as well as project costs for thoroughfare system elements within the Capital Improvements Plan. 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 improvements 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 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 cost for location specific items such as bridges, traffic signals, drainage structures, and any other special components are added to each project as appropriate. In addition, based on discussions with City of Southlake staff, state and county highway projects in which the City will contribute a portion of the total project cost have been included in the CIP as lump sum costs. Table 4 is the CIP project list for each service area with planning level probable project costs. Detailed cost projections and methodology used for each individual project can be seen in Appendix A, Opinion of Project Cost Worksheets. 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 costs of construction are likely to change with time and are dependent on market and economic conditions that cannot be precisely predicted at this time. This 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. This is different from a City's construction CIP, which provides a list of projects for which the City is committed to building. The cost projections utilized in this update should not be utilized for the City's building program or construction CIP. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 6 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ITT OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Table 4. Capital Improvement Plan for Roadway Impact Fees with Conceptual Level Cost Opinions Service Area Prol' # Class Roadway Limib Length (.d) / In Arm Are Total Project Cost Cost in Service Arm 4,560,000 A-1 A41)(100)(1/2) Krkwaod Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. 0.40 100% s 1,284,000 $ 1,284,000 727,000 A-2 A41)(88) West Dove Rd. (2) SH 114 w Kirkwood Blvd 0.22 100% $ 369,677 S 369,677 1,070,000 A-3 A41)(88) West Dove Rd (3) Kirkwood Blvd. to White Chapel Blvd 0.22 100% $ 1,302,000 S 1,302,000 1,705,000 A-4, C-16 A41)(88) East Dove Rd. (1) White Chapel Blvd. to Dove Creek 1.40 50% s 878019000 s 4,400,500 3,264,500 A-5 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (2) West Dove Rd to North White Chapel Blvd. 0.46 100% S 2,778,000 S 2,778,000 4,013,000 A-6, C-17 A4D(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (1) East Dove Rd. to SH 114 0.50 50% S 3,204,000 S 1,602,000 A 1-3 Intersection W. Dove Rd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 50% S 192,496 $ 96,248 216,620 I-4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete)n/a at FM 1709 (complete) 25 % S 866,478 $ 216,620 3,878,948 I-6 Intersection Whhe Chapel Blvd. st Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 71% S 750,000 s 562,500 375,000 1-8 Intersection Carroll Ave. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 50% 1 $ 800,000 $ 400,000 318,000 C-12 A41)(88) Service Area Project Cost Subtotal S 25 % Fina ndng S Roadwa Impact Fee Stud Cost Per Service Area) S 13,011,545 3 52 886 9,600 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA A 5 1b,274,BJ1 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA R b 24,892,494 B -I I A3U North Pearson Ln Florence Rd. to FM 1709 1.00 100% 1 S 4,560,000 S 4,560,000 B-2 OU Watcmem Dr. FM 1709 to Union Church Rd. 0.21 100% S 727,000 S 727,000 B-3 A6D Randol Mill Ave. (FM 1938) Northem city Omits to FM 1709 1.97 100% s 1,070,000 S 1,070,000 B-4 C2U Durham Ln. Shady Oaks Dr. to South White Chapel Blvd. 0.50 100% s 1,705,000 S 1,705,000 B-5, C-18 A4D(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (2) SH 114 to FM 1709 1.36 50% S 6,529,000 S 3,264,500 B-6 A4D(88) West Dove Rd (1) W. City Limits to SH 114 0.64 100% S 4,013,000 $ 4,013,000 B 1-3 Intersection W. Dave Rd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 50% S 192,496 S 96,248 I-4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 25% S 866,478 $ 216,620 I-5 Intersection Peytmville and White Chapel at FM 1709 (complete) n/a 100% S 3,878,948 S 3,878,948 I-7 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Continental Blvd. (Roundabout) n/a 1 50% S 750,000 S 375,000 C-11 A413(88)(12) South Carroll Ave. (2) Service Area Projed Cost Subtotal S 25% Financing $ Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost (Per Service Area) S 19,906,316 4,976,579 9,600 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA R b 24,892,494 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA C S 90,459,212 Note: These costs projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 7 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas A4D(88) East Dove Rd. (2) Dove Creek to N. Kinball Ave. 0.84 100% s 6,079,000 S 6,079,000 A4D(100) North Carroll Ave. (1) SH 114 to FM 1709 0.62 100% S 2,971,129 $ 2,971,129 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (3) North White Chapel Blvd. to East Highland St. 1.36 100% $ 9,472,000 $ 9,472,000 A4D(l00) Krkwood Blvd (4) East Highland m North Kimball Ave. 1.36 100% s 8,560,000 $ 8,560,000 rC1 A4D(100) .4veriterra Connector SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd 0.29 100% $ 1,749,000 S 1,749,000 A4D(100) Grace Ln. SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd 0.22 100% $ 1,291,000 S 1,291,000 A3U East Highland St. (1) North White Chpd Blvd. to SH 114 0.61 100°/ S 2,708,000 $ 2,708,000 A3U East Highland St. (2) SH 114 m future Kirkwood Blvd. (575'east of North Carroll Ave.) 0.47 100% S 1,930,000 $ 1,930,000 C-9 C2U Zona Rucker Rd Byron Nelson Pkwy. to South Carroll Ave. 0.36 1 100% S 1,056,000 $ 1,056,000 C-10 A413(88) South Carroll Ave. (1) 101 5'south of East Southlake Blvd. to Westmont Dr. 0.43 100% S 2,551,000 $ 2,551,000 C-11 A413(88)(12) South Carroll Ave. (2) Westmout Dr. to 290' north of R -re Wy. 0.10 100% $ 318,000 $ 318,000 C-12 A41)(88) Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' tarot of southern city limits 0.71 100% S 4,459,000 $ 4,459,000 C-13 C2U South Village Center Dr. 705' south of East Southlake Blvd to N. Nolan Dr. 0.80 100% S 2,561,000 S 2,561,000 C-14 A4D(88) North Kir bail Ave. Dove Rd. to 360' north of SH 114 westbound frontage road 1.08 100% $ 5,128,000 S 5,128,000 C C-15 A4D(88) South Kimball Ave. FM 1709 to SH 26 143 100% S 7,886,135 S 7,886,135 A-0, C-16 A4D(88) Eaa Dove Rd. (1) White Chapel Blvd. to Dove Creek 1.40 50% s 8,801,000 $ 4,400,500 A-6, C-17 A4D(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (1) East Dove Rd. to SH 114 0.50 50% S 3,204,000 S 1,602,000 3-5, C-18 A4D(88) North White Chapel Blvd. (2) SH 114 to FM 1709 1.36 50% S 6,529,000 S 3,264,500 I-1 Intersection Brumlow Ave. at SH 26 (complete) Na 100% S 1,269,258 $ 1,269,258 1-2 Intersection Carroll Ave. at FM 1709 (complete) n/a 100% $ 958,429 S 958,429 1-4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete) n/a 50% s 866,478 S 433,239 1-6 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Dove Rd. (Roundahout) n/a 25% $ 750,000 S 187,500 I-7 IntersectionWhhe Chapel Blvd. at Continental Blvd (Roundabout) n/a 50% s 750,000 S 375,000 I-8 Intersection CartoO Ave. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) n/a 50% S 800,000 $ 400,000 I-9 Intersection Continental Blvd at Byron Nelson Pkwy. (Roundabout) n/a 100% S 750,000 $ 750,000 Service Area Project Cost Subtotal S 25% Financing S Roadway Impact Fee Study Cost (Per Service Area) S 72,359,690 19,089,922 9,600 Total Cost in SERVICE AREA C S 90,459,212 Note: These costs projections have been developed for Impact Fee calculations only and should not be used for any future Capital Improvement Planning within the City of Southlake. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 7 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas �❑ Kimley-Hom CITY Of and Associates, Inc. SOUTHLAKE TEXAS D. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION The basic service unit for the computation of Southlake's transportation 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 period. The growth in vehicle miles from 2007 to 2017 is based upon projected changes in population and employment for the period. In order to determine this growth, estimates of population, basic employment, service employment, and retail employment for 2007 were made, along with projections for each of these demographic statistics through 2017. The Land Use Assumptions section of this report details the growth estimates used for impact fee determination. The population and employment statistics in the Land Use Assumptions provides the "independent variables" that are used to calculate the existing (2007) and projected (2017) 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 purposes 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 provides existing and projected number of building square footages for three (3) categories of employment — basic, service, and retail. These categories correspond to an aggregation of other specific land use categories based on the Standard Industrial Classification Code. 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, 7`h Edition. This statistic 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 (e.g. increase in density or change in land use) 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, 7rh Edition and the latest Regional Origin -Destination Travel Survey performed by NCTCOG. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7`h 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 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 8 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 13 CITY f SOUTHLAME TEXAS 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. 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 NCTCOG. The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following equation: TDF=T*(1—Pb)*L. where... Lmax = min(L * OD or 4) Variables: 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), and OD = Origin -Destination Reduction (50%) The maximum trip length was 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 diameter of six (6) miles; however, the service areas within Southlake are more closely approximated by a four (4) mile diameter. The adjustment made to the average trip length statistic in the computation of the maximum trip length is the origin -destination reduction. This adjustment is made because the roadway impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For example, impact fee methodology will account for a trip from home to work within Southlake to both residential and non-residential land uses. To avoid counting these trips as both residential and non-residential trips, a 50% origin -destination (OD) reduction factor is applied. Therefore, only half of the trip length is assessed to each land use. Table 5 shows the derivation of the Transportation Demand Factor for the residential land uses and the three (3) non-residential land use categories for all service areas. The values utilized for all variables shown in the transportation demand factor equation are also shown in the table. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 9 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Table 5. Transportation Demand Factor Calculations Variable Residential Basic Service Retail T 1.01 0.98 1.49 5.06 Pb 0% 0% 0% 30% L 17.21 10.02 10.92 6.43 Lm. * 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.22 TDF 4.04 3.92 5.96 11.38 * L,. is less than 4 miles for retail land uses; therefore this lower trip length is used for calculating the TDF for non-residential land uses The application of the demographic projections and the transportation demand factors are presented in the 10 -Year Growth Projections in Table 6. This table shows the total vehicle miles by service area for the years 2007 and 2017, along with the build -out projections. These estimates and projections lead to the Vehicle Miles of Travel for 2007, 2017, and for build out. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 10 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas KmeyHm and Asso,caL%|cn. Znn7Roadway Impact Fee use City es Texas 13 Cl x of SOUTHLAKE TEXAS 5: t2 2 2 ] LL, Lu 2 § ;&($k CL C k ) § )$ § ! o n« <M of . 2 @ ` } - Znn7Roadway Impact Fee use City es Texas 13 Cl x of SOUTHLAKE TEXAS December ¢2r ;�+K7\k 2 ]§%�,,, 13 k ) ! o n« . 2 } - 2 � !I December ¢2r ❑Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. IV IMPACT FEE CALCULATION C1 TY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS A. MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT This section presents the maximum assessable impact fee rate calculated for each service area. The maximum assessable impact fee is the allowable cost of the CIP for Roadway Impact Fees 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 7 illustrates the computation of the maximum assessable impact fee computed for both Service Areas 1 and 2. Each row in the table is numbered to simplify explanation of the calculation. Line Title Description Total Vehicle -Miles of The total number of vehicle -miles added to the service area based on 1 Capacity Added by the the capacity, length, and number of lanes in each project (from CIP Appendix B — CIP Units of Supply) Total Vehicle -Miles of A measure of the amount of traffic currently using the roadway 2 Existing Demand facilities upon which capacity is being added. (from Appendix B — CIP Units of Supply) Total Vehicle -Miles of Number of vehicle -miles of travel that are not accommodated by the 3 Existing Deficiencies existing roadway system (from Appendix C — Existing Facilities Inventory) Net Amount of Vehicle- A measurement of the amount of vehicle -miles added by the CIP that 4 Miles of Capacity will not be utilized by existing demand (Line 1— Line 2 — Line 3) Added Total Cost of the CIP The total cost of the projects within each service area (from Table 4: 5 within the Service Area 10 -Year Capital Improvements Plan with Conceptual Level Costs Opinions) Cost of Net Capacity The total CIP cost (Line 5) prorated by the ratio of Net Capacity 6 Supplied Added (Line 4) to Total Capacity Added (Line 1). [(Line 4 / Line 1) (Line 5)] Cost to Meet Existing The difference between the Total Cost of the CIP (Line 5) and the 7 Needs and Usage Cost of the Net Capacity supplied (Line 6). Provided for information purposes only. (Line 5 — Line 6) Total Vehicle -Miles of Based upon the growth projections provided in the Land Use 8 New Demand over Ten Assumptions, an estimate of the number of new vehicle -miles within Years the service area over the next ten years. (from Table 6) Percent of Capacity Based upon the growth projections provided in the Land Use 9 Added Attributable to Assumptions, an estimate of the percentage of the capacity added that New Growth can be attributed to growth in the next ten years. (from Table 6) Cost of the CIP and The result of multiplying the Cost of Net Capacity Added (Line 6) by 10 Financing Attributable the Percent of Capacity Added Attributable to New Growth, limited to to New Growth 100% (Line 9). 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 12 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ITV C)F SOUTHLAKE TEXAS B. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires the Capital Improvements 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 capital improvements plan..." The City of Southlake has determined that the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit shall be 50% of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvement plan. Therefore, the Pre -Credit Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (Line 11) is reduced by the Credit for Ad Valorem Taxes (Line 12) to obtain the Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit (Line 13). Line Title Pre -Credit Maximum —Description Found by dividing the Cost of the CIP and Financing Attributable to 11 Fee Per Service Unit New Growth (Line 10) by the Total Vehicle -Miles of New Demand Over Ten Years (Line 8). (Line 10 / Line 8) Credit for Ad Valorem A credit for the portion of ad valorem taxes projected to be generated 12 Taxes by the new service units, as per Section 395.014 of the Local Government Code. 13 Maximum Assessable Found by subtracting the credit for ad valorem taxes from the pre - Fee Per Service Unit credit maximum fee per service unit. (Line 11 + Line 12) 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 13 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associ&s, Inc. Table 7. Maximum Assessable Roadway Impact Fee CITY of SOUTHLAKE TEXAS 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 14 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas SERVICE AREA: A B C 1 TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE CTP 6,525 14,443 29,389 (FROM CTP UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) 2 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND 207 2,278 5,470 (FROM CIP UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B) 3 TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEFICIENCIES 0 0 0 (FROM EXISTING FACILITIES INVENTORY, APPENDIX C) 4 NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED 6,318 12,165 23,919 (LINE 1 - LINE 2 - LINE 3) 5 TOTAL COST OF THE CIP WITHIN SERVICE AREA $ 16,274,031 $ 24,892,494 $ 90,459,212 (FROM TABLE 4) 6 COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED ■ $ 15,756,878 $ 20,965,968 $ 73,621,730 (LINE 4 / LINE 1) (LINE 5) 7 COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE $ 517,153 $ 3,926,526 $ 16,837,482 (LINE 5 - LINE 6) 8 TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS 5,809 13,880 34,492 (FROM TABLE 6 and Land Use Assumptions) 9 PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH 65.85/o a 58.07% 57.60% (FROM TABLE 6 and Land Use Assumptions) 10 COST OF CIP AND FINANCING ADDED ATTRIBUTABLE TO TEN- $ 10,375,904 $ 12,174,938 $ 42,406,116 YEAR GROWTH (LINE 6' LINE 9) 11 PRE -CREDIT MAX FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) $ 1,786 $ 877 $ 1,229 (LINE 10 / LINE 8) 12 CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES $ (893) $ (439) $ (615) 131 MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) $ 893 $ 438 $ 614 (LINE 11 + LINE 12) 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 14 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. C. SERVICE UNIT DEMAND PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS 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 8. 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 rates 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, 7th Edition, the latest edition of the definitive source 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 North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). 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 four (4) miles, the maximum trip length used for calculation is reduced to four (4) miles. 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 15 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 1Y OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Table 8. Land Use / Vehicle -Mile F.nuivalenry TAMP (T.1TV1%4F.T) Land Use Category ITE Land Use Code Development P Unit Tri Gen P Rate (PM) Pass -by y Rate Pass -by y Source Tri P Rate NCTCOG Trip Length (-I) Adj. Adj. Trip Max Trip For Length Length O -D (mi) (mi) Veh-Mi Per Dev-Unit ORT 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 0.98 0.98 10.02 50-1. 5.01 4.00 3.92 General Hea 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 0.86 0.86 10.02 50% 5.01 4.00 3.44 Warehousing 150 1,000 SF GFA 0.59 0.59 10.83 50% 5.42 4.00 2.36 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 1.01 1.01 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 4.04 A artmeat/Multi-famil 220 Dwellin Unit 0.62 0.62 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 2.48 Residential Condominium/Townhome 230Dwelling Unit 0.52 0.52 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 2.08 Mobile Home Park 240 Dwelling Unit 0.59 0.59 17.21 50 % 8.61 4.00 2.36 Assisted Living 254 Dwelling Unit 0.22 0.22 1 17.21 50% 8.61 4.00 0.88 LODGING Hotel 310 Room 0.59 0.59 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 1.90 Motel / Other Lodging Facilities 320 Room 0.47 0.47 6.43 50 % 3.22 3.22 1.51 RECREATIONAL Driving Range 432 Tee 1.25 1.25 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 4.02 Golf Course 430 Acre 0.30 0.30 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 0.96 Health/Rec. Clubs and Facilities 495 1,000 SF GFA 1.64 1.64 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 5.27 Ice Rink 465 1,000 SF GFA 2.36 2.36 6.43 -36/ 312 312 7.59 Miniature Golf 431 Hole 0.33 0.33 6.43 50% 3.22 312 1.06 Multiplex Movie Theater 445 Screens 13.64 13.64W4.20MA_o 50% 3.22 3.22 43.85 Racquet /Tennis Club 491 Court 3.35 3.3550% 3.22 3.22 10.77 INSTITUTIONAL Church 560 1,000 SF GFA 0.66 0.6650 % 2.10 2.10 1.39 Da Care Center 565 1,000 SF GFA 13.18 13.1850 % 2.10 2.10 27.68 P /Middle School (1-8) 522 Students 0.15 0.1550% 2.10 2.10 0.32 Hi School (9-12) 530 Smdmts 0.14 0.14 50% 2.10 2.10 0.29 Jr / Community College 540 Students 0.12 0.1250% 2.10 2.10 0.25 University/College 550 Students 0.21 01150°/a 2.10 2.10 0.44 DICALClinic 630 1,000 SF GFA 5.18 5.1850% 3.78 3.78 19.55 Ho ital 610 Beds 1.30 1.3050% 3.78 3.78 4.91 Nursing Home 620 Beds 0.22 0.2250 % 3.78 3.78 0.83 OFFICE Corporate Headquarters Building 714 1,000 SF GFA 1.40 1.40 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 5.60 General Office Building710 1,000 SF GFA 1.49 1.49 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 5.96 MedicalMenW Office 720 1,000 SF GFA 3.72 3.72 10.92 50 % 5.46 4.00 14.88 Sia le Tenant Office Building715 1,000 SF GFA 1.73 1.73 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 6.92 Office/Business Park 750 1,000 SF GFA 1.50 1.50 10.92 50% 5.46 4.00 6.00 COMMERCIAL Automobile Related Automobile Cue Center 942 1,000 SF GFA 3.38 40% B 2.03 6.4350 % 312 3.22 6.53 Automobile Parts Sales 843 1,000 SF GFA 5.98 43% A 3.41 6.43 50% 3.22 1 3.22 10.96 Gasoline/Service Station 944 Fuelin Position -13 86 42% A 8.04 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 4.82 Gasoline/Service Station w/ Conv Market 945 Fueling Position 13.38 56% B 5.89 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 3.53 Service Station w/ Conv Market and Car Wash 946 FuelingPosition 13.33 56% A 5.87 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 3.52 New and Used Car Sales 841 1,000 SF GFA 2.64 20% B 2.11 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 6.78 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Center 941 Service Position 5.19 40% B 3.11 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 10.00 Self -Service Car Wash 947 Stall 5.54 40% B 3.32 1.20 50% 0.60 0.60 1.99 Tire Stare 848 1,000 SF GFA 5.03 28% A 3.62 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 11.64 Dining Fast Food Restaurant with Drive -Thur 934 1,000 SF GFA 34.64 50% A 17.32 4.79 50% 2.40 2.40 41.48 Fast Food Restaurant without Drive -Thur 933 1,000 SF GFA 26.15 50% B 13.08 4.79 50% 2.40 2.40 31.33 High Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant 932 1,000 SF GFA 10.92 43% A 612 4.79 50 % 2.40 2.40 14.90 Sit Down Restaurant 931 1,000 SF GFA 7.49 44°/, A 4.19 4.79 1 50% 2.40 2.40 10.04 Other Retail Free -Standing Retail Store 815 1,000 SF GFA 5.06 30% C 3.54 6.43 50% 3.22 3.22 11.38 Garden Center (Nursery) Home improvement Superstore 817 862 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 3.80 2.45 30% 30% B B 2.66 1.72 6.43 6.43 50 % 50 % 3.22 3.22 3.22 312 8.55 5.53 Pharma /Drugstore Shopping Center 881 820 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 8.62 3.75 49°/a 34% A A 4.40 2.48 6.43 6.43 50% 50% 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 14.15 7.97 Supermarket /Children's Superstore 850 864 1,000 SF GFA 1,000 SF GFA 10.45 4.99 36% 30% A B 6.69 3.49 6.43 6.43 50% 50 % 3.22 3.22 __l 3.22 22 21.51 11.22 Vi Video Rental Store 896 1,000 SF GFA 13.60 5u% B 6.80 6.43 __30% 3.22 3.22 _721.86 SERVICES Bank Walk-in Bank Drive In 911 912 1,000 SF GFA 1 000 SF GFA 33.15 45.74 40% 47% B A 19.89 24.24 1 3.39 -30% 3.39 50% 1.70 1.70 1 1.70 1.70 1 33.71 41.09 nay m oouren or naray aster: A: October 199817E Trip Geoaatiw handbook B: Estimated by Kimky-Hurn based an 1TE rata fm sirmlu ategmia C: In rate adjwted upward by KHA based an logical relationship bother mt garia 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 16 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 13 CITY O SOUTHLAKE TEXAS V SAMPLE CALCULATIONS The following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable roadway impact fee calculations. Example 1: One(1) Unit of Single -Family Housing in Service Area A Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit Step From Table 8 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] 1 Development Type: 1 Dwelling Unit of Single -Family Detached Housing Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area Number of Development Units: 1 Dwelling Unit Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 5.53 Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 4.04 Step Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit 2 From Table 7, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit] Service Area B: $438 Service Area A: $893 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 3 Impact Fee = 1 * 4.04 * $893 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $302,767.50 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee $3,607.72 Example 2: 125,000 Square Foot Home Improvement Superstore in Service Area B Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit Step From Table 8 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] 1 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: 5.53 Step Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit 2 From Table 7, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit] Service Area B: $438 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 * 5.53 * $438 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $302,767.50 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update 17 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 19 ITT OF SOUTHLAKE. TEXAS Example 3: 100,000 Square Foot General Office Building in Service Area C Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit Step From Table 8 [Land Use — Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table] 1 Development Type: 100,000 square feet of General Office Building Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 5.96 Step Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit 2 From Table 7, Line 13 [Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit] Service Area C: $614 Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Impact Fee = # of Development Units * Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit * Max. Fee Per Service Unit Step 3 Impact Fee = 100 * 5.96 * $614 Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = $365,944 2UU7 Roadway Impact Fee Update 18 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ i irnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. VI CONCLUSION 13 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS The City of Southlake has established a process to implement the assessment and collection of roadway impact fees through the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. This report establishes the maximum allowable roadway impact fee that could be assessed by the City of Southlake within each Service Area. The maximum assessable calculated in this report are as follows (from Table 7): SERVICE AREA: A I B C 13 MAX ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT ($ PER VEH-MI) (LINE 11 + LINE 12) $ 893 $ 438$ 614 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 Improvements Plan are appropriately incorporated into the process. 2UU"/ Roadway Impact Fee Update 19 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. APPENDICES A. OPINION OF PROJECT COST WORKSHEETS B. CIP SERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY C. EXISTING ROADWAY FACILITIES INVENTORY rr x OF SOUTHLAME TEXAS ,ZUU i Koadway Impact Fee Update 20 December 6, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 19 c -ry OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Appendix A — Opinion of Project Cost Worksheets 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas December 6, 2007 City of Southlake - 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Capital Improvement Plan for Transportation Impact Fees Appendix A - Summary of Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Roadway/intersection Improvements _ Class Project Limits Cost A-1 A4D 100 1/2) Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. $ 1,284,000 A-2 A4D(88) West Dove Rd. 2) SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. $ 369,677 A-3 A4D 88 West Dove Rd. (3) Kirkwood Blvd. to White Chapel Blvd. $ 1,302,000 A-4, C-16 A4D 88 East Dove Rd. 1 White Chapel Blvd. to Dove Creek $ 8,801,000- A-5 A4D 100 Kirkwood Blvd. 2) West Dove Rd. to North White Chapel Blvd. $ 2,778,000 A-6, C-17 A4D(88) North White Chapel Blvd. 1 East Dove Rd. to SH 114 $ 3,204,000 B-1 A3U North Pearson Ln. Florence Rd. to FM 1709 $ 4,560,000 B-2 C21J Watermere Dr. FM 1709 to Union Church Rd. $ 727,000 B-3 A6D Randol Mill Ave. FM 1938 Northern cit limits to FM 1709 $ 1,070,000 B-4 C21-11 DurhamLn. Shady Oaks Dr. to South White Chapel Blvd. $ 1,705,000 B-5, C-18 A4D 88 North White Chapel Blvd. (2) SH 114 to FM 1709 $ 6,529,000 B-6 A4D 88 West Dove Rd. 1 W. City Limits to SH 114 $ 4,013,000 C-1 A4D 88 East Dove Rd. 2 Dove Creek to N. Kimball Ave. $ 6,079,000 C-2 A4D 100 North Carroll Ave. 1 SH 114 to FM 1709 $ 2,971,129 C-3 A4D(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (3) North White Chapel Blvd. to East Highland St. $ 9,472,000 C-4 A41)(100) Kirkwood Blvd. (4) East Highland to North Kimball Ave. $ 8,560,000 C-5 A4D 100 Aventerra Connector SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. $ 1,749,000 C-6 A4D(100) Grace Ln. SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. $ 1,291,000 C-7 A3U East Highland St. (1) North White Chapel Blvd. to SH 114 $ 2,708,000 C-8 A3U East Highland St. 2 SH 114 to future Kirkwood Blvd. 575' east of North Carroll Ave. $ 1,930,000 C-9 C2U Zena Rucker Rd. Bron Nelson Pkwy. to South Carroll Ave. $ 1,056,000 C-10 A4D 88 South Carroll Ave. 1) 1015' south of East Southlake Blvd. to Westmont Dr. $ 2,551,000 C-11 A41)(88)(1/2) South Carroll Ave. 2) Westmont Dr. to 290' north of Breeze W . $ 318,000 C-12 A4D 88 Brumlow Ave. East Continental Blvd. to 250' north of southern city limits $ 4,459,000 C-13 C21J South Village Center Dr. 705' south of East Southlake Blvd. to N. Nolan Dr. $ 2,561,000 C-14 A4D 88 North Kimball Ave. Dove Rd. to 360' north of SH 114 westbound fronto a road $ 5,128,000 C-15 A4D 88 South Kimball Ave. FM 1709 to SH 26 $ 7,886,135 1-1 Intersection Brumlow Ave. at SH 26 (complete) $ 1,269,258 1-2 Intersection Carroll Ave. at FM 1709 (complete)$ 958,429 1-3 Intersection W. Dove Rd. at SH 114 (complete) $ 192,496 1-4 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at SH 114 (complete) $ 866,478 1-5 Intersection Pevtonville and White Chapel at FM 1709 (complete) $ 3,878,948 1-6 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Dove Rd. (Roundabout) $ 750,000 1-7 Intersection White Chapel Blvd. at Continental Blvd. (Roundabout) $ 750,000 1-8 Intersection Carroll Ave. at Dove Rd. Roundabout) $ 800,000 1-9 Intersection Continental Blvd. lat Byron Nelson Pk (Roundabout) $ 750,000 TOTAL $ 105,277,550 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information: Project No. A-1 Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (1) Limits: Tyler St. to Stockton Dr. Costing Class: A4D(100)(1/2) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 2,105 Service Area(s): A Description: This project consists of the construction of an additional two -lanes to complete a four - 4,327 lane divided principal arterial. Roadway Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: No. Item Description I Quantity Unit I Unit Price Mobilization Item Cost 104 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,327 cy $ 10.00 $ 43,269 204 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 6,549 sy $ 5.00 $ 32,744 304 8" Concrete Pavement 6,081 sy $ 36.00 $ 218,920 404 4" Topsoil 2,807 sy $ 5.00 $ 14,033 504 5' Concrete Sidewalk 10,525 sf $ 5.00 $ 52,625 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 1,522 1 sy 1 $ 41.00 $ 62,391 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 423,984 Item Description" Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 21,199 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 63,598 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 21,199 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 148,394 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 21,199 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 21,199 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 8,480 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 25,439 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ Allowance Subtotal: $ 330,707 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 754,691 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 188,673 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 944,000 Impact NOTE: Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 944,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 188,800 Mobilization 6% $ 56,640 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 94,400 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,28-4,00-0- ,284,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update updated: 11/30/2007 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Project Information: Project No. A-2 Name: West Dove Rd. (2) Limits: SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. Costing Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 1,185 Service Area(s): A Description: This project consists of the City's contribution to the widening of West Dove. The project cost is based on a development agreement with Verizon. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information: Project No. A-3 Name: West Dove Rd. (3) Limits: Kirkwood Blvd. to White Chapel Blvd. Costing Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 1,150 Service Area(s): A Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a 107 four -lane divided principal arterial. Roadway Notes: I Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 957,000 No. Item Description 20% Quantity Unit Unit Price 6% Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 10% 4,664 cy $ 10.00 $ 46,639 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 7,156 sy $ 5.00 $ 35,778 307 8" Concrete Pavement 6,644 sy $ 36.00 $ 239,200 407 4" Topsoil 3,322 Sy $ 5.00 $ 16,611 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 11,500 sf $ 5.00 $ 57,500 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 831 s $ 41.00 1 $ 34,086 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 429,813 A Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 21,491 Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 64,472 Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 21,491 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 150,435 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 21,491 Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 21,491 Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 8,596 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 25,789 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 335,254 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 765,068 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 191,267 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 957,000 Impact Item Description Notes: I Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 957,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 191,400 Mobilization 6% $ 57,420 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 95,700 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,302,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information: Project No. A-4, C-16 Name: East Dove Rd. (1) Limits: White Chapel Blvd. to Dove Creek Costing Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 7,405 Service Area(s): A, C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a 207 four -lane divided principal arterial. Roadway No. Item Description I Quantity Unit Unit Price Construction: Engineering/Surveyfresting: Mobilization ROW/Easement Acquisition: Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 30,031 cy $ 10.00 $ 300,314 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 46,076 sy $ 5.00 $ 230,378 307 8" Concrete Pavement 42,784 sy $ 36.00 $ 1,540,240 407 4" Topsoil 21,392 sy $ 5.00 $ 106,961 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 74,050 sf $ 5.00 $ 370,250 601 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 5,353 s $ 41.00 1 $ 219,481 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 2,767,624 ILE Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 138,381 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 415,144 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 138,381 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 968,668 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 138,381 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 138,381 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 55,352 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 166,057 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 250,000 Other: $0 $ _ Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,408,747 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 5,176,371 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 1,294,093 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 6,471,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: Engineering/Surveyfresting: Mobilization ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment - 20% 6% 10% S 6,471,000 $ 11294,200 $ 388,260 $ 647,100 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 8,801,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information: Project No. A-5 Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (2) Limits: West Dove Rd. to North White Chapel Blvd. Costing Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (lf): 2,455 Service Area(s): A Description: This project consists of the construction of a new four -lane divided principal arterial. Roadway I Allowance I Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,903,000 No. Item Description I Quantity Unit Unit Price 6% Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,956 cy $ 10.00 $ 99,564 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 14" 27#/sy) 15,276 sy $ 5.00 $ 76,378 308 8" Concrete Pavement 14,184 sy $ 36.00 $ 510,640 408 Topsoil 10,366 sy $ 5.00 $ 51,828 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 24,550 sf $ 5.00 $ 122,750 601 Turn Lanes and Median Openings 1,775 s $ 41.00 1 $ 72,765 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 933,925 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 46,696 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 46,696 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 326,874 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 46,696 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 46,696 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 18,678 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 56,035 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 588,373 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,522,297 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 380,574 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,903,000 Impact Item Description Notes: I Allowance I Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,903,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 380,600 Mobilization 6% $ 114,180 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 380,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,778,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 'Project Information: Project No. A. Name: North White Chapel Blvd. (1) Limits: East Dove Rd. to SH 114 Costing Class: A41)(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 2,645 (excludes 580' at SH 114) Service Area(s): A, C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane roadway into a four -lane Mobilization divided principal arterial. Impact Fee Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Roadway Item Cost Construction: - $ 2,356,000 No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Mobilization Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 10,727 cy $ 10.00 $ 107,269 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 16,458 sy $ 5.00 $ 82,289 307 8" Concrete Pavement 15,282 sy $ 36.00 $ 550,160 407 4" Topsoil 7,641 sy $ 5.00 $ 38,206 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 26,450 sf $ 5.00 $ 132,250 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 1,912 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ 78,397 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 988,571 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 49,429 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 148,286 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 49,429 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 346,000 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 49,429 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 49,429 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 19,771 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 59,314 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 896,085 Paving and AllowaMTOTAL: $ 1,884,656 Construction Contingency:$ 471,164 Construction C$ 2,35 -6,00 -0 - Impact Fee Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 2,356,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 471,200 Mobilization 6% $ 141,360 ROW/Easement Acquisition: existing Alignment 10% $ 235,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 3,204,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information: Project No. B-1 Name: North Pearson Ln. Limits: Florence Rd. to FM 1709 Costing Class: A3U Ultimate Class: Minor Arterial Length (If): 5,305 Service Area(s): B Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane roadway into a three -lane undivided minor arterial. Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Roadway Construction: - $ 3,353,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 670,600 No. Item Description $ 201,180 Quantity Unit I Unit Price I Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation 11,199 cy $ 10.00 $ 111,994 203 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 22,399 sy $ 5.00 $ 111,994 303 8" Concrete Pavement 22,399 sy $ 36.00 $ 806,360 403 4" Topsoil 14,147 sy $ 5.00 $ 70,733 503 5' Concrete Sidewalk 53,050 sf $ 5.00 $ 265,250 601 1Turn Lanes and Median Openings 0 1 s $ 41.00 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,366,332 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 68,317 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 204,950 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 68,317 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 478,216 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 68,317 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 68,317 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 27,327 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 81,980 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 250,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,315,739 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,682,071 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 670,518 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 3,353,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance 1 Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,353,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 670,600 Mobilization 6% $ 201,180 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 335,300 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,560,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information. Project No. B-2 Name: Watermere Dr. Limits: FM 1709 to Union Church Rd. Costing Class: C2U Ultimate Class: Collector Length (if): 1,100 Service Area(s): B Description: This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane divided collector (south section). This project also includes the City's contribution to the construction of 1,650 LF of a new two-lane undivided collector (north section) by a developer. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Roadway 1 Item Cost Construction: - $ 498,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description 6% Quantity 1 Unit 1 Unit Price 20% Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 1,711 cy $ 10.00 $ 17,111 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 3,422 sy $ 5.00 $ 17,111 301 6" Concrete Pavement 3,422 Sy $ 30.00 $ 102,667 401 4" Topsoil 2,689 sy $ 5.00 $ 13,444 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 11,000 sf $ 5.00 $ 55,000 601 JTum Lanes and Median Openings 0 1 s $ 41.00 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 205,333 . Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 10,267 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 10,267 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 71,867 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 10,267 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 10,267 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 4,107 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 12,320 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - J Other: City Contribution to North Section $62,954 $ 62,954 Allowance Subtotal: $ 192,314 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 397,648 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 99,412 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 498,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance 1 Item Cost Construction: - $ 498,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 99,600 Mobilization 6% $ 29,880 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 99,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 727,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update updated: 11/30/2007 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Impact Impact Fee Project Cost TOTA7.1 $ 1,070,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Project No. B-3 i Project Information: Name: Randol Mill Ave. (FM 1938) Limits: Northern city limits to FM 1709 Impact Fee Class: A6D Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 10,390 Service Area(s): B Description: This project consists of the City's contribution to the widening of Randol Mill Ave., including $410,000 for ROW and utilities and $660,000 for the FM 1709 intersection. Impact Impact Fee Project Cost TOTA7.1 $ 1,070,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections B-4 Project Information: Project No. Name: Durham Ln. Limits: Shady Oaks Dr. to South White Chapel Blvd. Impact Fee Class: C2U Ultimate Class: Collector Length (If): 2,660 Service Area(s): B Description: This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane undivided collector. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance 1 Item Cost Construction: - Roadway Engineering/Survey/Testing: Mobilization 20% 6% $ 233,600 $ 70,080 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 233,600 No. Item Description Quantity Unit 1 Unit Price I tem Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,138 cy $ 10.00 $ 41,378 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 8,276 sy $ 5.00 $ 41,378 301 6" Concrete Pavement 8,276 sy $ 30.00 $ 248,267 401 4" Topsoil 6,502 sy $ 5.00 $ 32,511 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 26,600 sf $ 5.00 $ 133,000 601 lTum Lanes and Median Openings 1 0 1 s $ 41.00 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 496,533 . Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 24,827 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 24,827 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 173,787 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 24,827 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 24,827 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 9,931 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 29,792 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 437,816 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 934,349 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 233,587 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,168,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance 1 Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,168,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: Mobilization 20% 6% $ 233,600 $ 70,080 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 233,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,705,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections B-5, C-18 Project Information: Project No. Name: North White Chapel Blvd. (2) Limits: SH 114 to FM 1709 Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 7,165 Service Area(s): B, C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a Quantity four -lane divided principal arterial. This project will include a contribution from Tarrant Unit Price County. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Roadway Construction: - $ 6,271,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 1,254,200 No. Item Description 376,260 Quantity Unit Unit Price Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (minus Tarrant County):J Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 29,058 cy $ 10.00 $ 290,581 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 44,582 Sy $ 5.00 $ 222,911 307 8" Concrete Pavement 41,398 Sy $ 36.00 $ 1,490,320 407 4" Topsoil 20,699 Sy $ 5.00 $ 103,494 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 71,650 sf $ 5.00 $ 358,250 601 lTum Lanes and Median Openings 1 5,180 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ 212,368 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 2,677,924 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 133,896 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 401,689 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 133,896 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 937,273 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 133,896 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 133,896 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 53,558 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 160,675 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 250,000 Other: Tarrant County Contribution -$2,000,000 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,338,781 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 5,016,704 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 1,254,176 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 6,271,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 6,271,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 1,254,200 Mobilization 6% $ 376,260 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 627,100 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (minus Tarrant County):J $ 6,529,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11130/2007 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections B-6 Project Information: Project No. Name: West Dove Rd. (1) Limits: W. City Limits to SH 114 Impact Fee Class: A41)(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 3,360 Service Area(s): B Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Roadway Item Cost Construction: - $ 2,951,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: No. Item Description Mobilization Quantity Unit Unit Price ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation $ 4,013,000 13,627 cy $ 10.00 $ 136,267 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 20,907 sy $ 5.00 $ 104,533 307 8" Concrete Pavement 19,413 sy $ 36.00 $ 698,880 407 4" Topsoil 9,707 sy $ 5.00 $ 48,533 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 33,600 sf $ 5.00 $ 168,000 601 lTum Lanes and Median Openings 1 2,429 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ 99,589 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,255,802 Item Descriptions Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 62,790 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 188,370 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 62,790 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 439,531 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 62,790 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 62,790 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 25,116 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 75,348 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,104,526 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,360,328 Construction Contingency:25% $ 590,082 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 2,951,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 2,951,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 590,200 Mobilization 6% $ 177,060 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 295,100 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,013,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections C-1 Project Information: Project No. Name: East Dove Rd. (2) Limits: Dove Creek to N. Kimball Ave. Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 4,435 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a 107 four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway AllowanceItem Cost Construction: - $ 4,470,000 No. Item Description Quantity Unit 1 Unit Price I 6% Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 17,986 cy $ 10.00 $ 179,864 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 27,596 sy $ 5.00 $ 137,978 307 8" Concrete Pavement 25,624 sy $ 36.00 $ 922,480 407 4" Topsoil 12,812 sy $ 5.00 $ 64,061 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 44,350 sf $ 5.00 $ 221,750 601 lTum Lanes and Median Openings 3,206 1 s $ 41.00 $ 131,452 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,657,584 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 82,879 Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 248,638 Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 82,879 Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 580,155 Special Drainage Structures Crosses Dove Creek $500,000 $ 500,000 J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 82,879 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 82,879 4 Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 33,152 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 99,455 4 Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,917,916 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 3,575,500 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 893,875 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 4,470,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: AllowanceItem Cost Construction: - $ 4,470,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 894,000 Mobilization 6% $ 268,200 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 447,000 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 6,079,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update updated: 11/30/2007 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:1 $ 2,971,129 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections C-2 Project Information: Project No. Name: North Carroll Ave. (1) Limits: SH 114 to FM 1709 Costing Class: A41)(1 00) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 3,270 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consisted of the widening of North Carroll Avenue to a four -lane divided facility. This project cost is based on several previously completed City projects (504- 999-5993.73, 7000-99-5993.73, 031103-0001, and 04R03-0001). Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:1 $ 2,971,129 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (3) Limits: North White Chapel Blvd. to East Highland St. Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 7,160 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the construction of a new four -lane divided principal arterial. Roadway Item Description No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 29,038 cy $ 10.00 $ 290,378 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 44,551 sy $ 5.00 $ 222,756 308 8" Concrete Pavement 41,369 sy $ 36.00 $ 1,489,280 408 4" Topsoil 30,231 sy $ 5.00 $ 151,156 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 71,600 sf $ 5.00 $ 358,000 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 5,176 sy I $ 41.00 1 $ 212,219 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 2,723,788 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 136,189 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 136,189 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 953,326 J Special Drainage Structures Crosses Buffalo Creek and Minor Stream $500,000 $ 500,000 J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 136,189 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 136,189 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 54,476 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 163,427 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 250,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,465,987 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 5,189,775 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 1,297,444 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 6,488,000 Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: Engineering/Survey/Testing: Mobilization ROW/Easement Acquisition: - 20% 6% New Roadway Alignment 20% $ $ $ $ 6,488,000 1,297,600 389,280 1,297,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: 1 $ 9,472,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: Kirkwood Blvd. (4) Limits: East Highland to North Kimball Ave. Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (if): 7,160 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the construction of a new four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 5,863,000 No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price 6% Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 29,038 cy $ 10.00 $ 290,378 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 44,551 sy $ 5.00 $ 222,756 308 8" Concrete Pavement 41,369 sy $ 36.00 $ 1,489,280 408 4" Topsoil 30,231 sy $ 5.00 $ 151,156 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 71,600 sf $ 5.00 $ 358,000 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 5,176 1 s $ 41.00 $ 212,219 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 2,723,788 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 136,189 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 136,189 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 953,326 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 136,189 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 136,189 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 54,476 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 163,427 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 250,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,965,987 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 4,689,775 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 1,172,444 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 5,863,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 5,863,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 1,172,600 Mobilization 6% $ 351,780 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 1,172,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 8,560,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Project Information: Project No. C-5 Name: Aventerra Connector Limits: SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 1,545 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the construction of a new four -lane divided principal arterial Unclassified Street Excavation (connects to SH 114 between North White Chapel Blvd. and North Carroll Avenue). NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description - Quantity Unit Unit Price 1,198,000 Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 239,600 6,266 cy $ 10.00 $ 62,658 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 9,613 sy $ 5.00 $ 48,067 308 8" Concrete Pavement 1,749,000 8,927 sy $ 36.00 $ 321,360 408 4" Topsoil 6,523 sy $ 5.00 $ 32,617 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 15,450 sf $ 5.00 $ 77,250 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 1,117 1 s $ 41.00 $ 45,793 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 587,745 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 29,387 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 29,387 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 205,711 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 29,387 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 29,387 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 11,755 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 35,265 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 370,279 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 958,024 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 239,506 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,1989000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,198,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 239,600 Mobilization 6% $ 71,880 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 239,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,749,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: Grace Ln. Limits: SH 114 to Kirkwood Blvd. Impact Fee Class: A4D(100) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 1,140 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the construction of a new four -lane divided principal arterial No. (connects to SH 114 between North Carroll Avenue and North Kimball Avenue). NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of South lake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price 176,800 Item Cost 108 Unclassified Street Excavation 4,623 cy $ 10.00 $ 46,233 208 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 7,093 sy $ 5.00 $ 35,467 308 8" Concrete Pavement 6,587 sy $ 36.00 $ 237,120 408 4" Topsoil 4,813 sy $ 5.00 $ 24,067 508 5' Concrete Sidewalk 11,400 sf $ 5.00 $ 57,000 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 824 1 s $ 41.00 $ 33,789 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 433,676 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 21,684 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 21,684 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal system 35% $ 151,787 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 21,684 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 21,684 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 8,674 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 26,021 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 273,216 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 706,892 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 176,723 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 884,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of South lake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 884,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 176,800 Mobilization 6% $ 53,040 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 176,800 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,291,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of South lake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: East Highland St. (1) Limits: North White Chapel Blvd. to SH 114 Impact Fee Class: A3U Ultimate Class: Minor Arterial Length (If): 3,200 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a Quantity Unit three -lane undivided minor arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,991,000 No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price 6% Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,756 cy $ 10.00 $ 67,556 203 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 13,511 sy $ 5.00 $ 67,556 303 8" Concrete Pavement 13,511 sy $ 36.00 $ 486,400 403 4" Topsoil 8,533 sy $ 5.00 $ 42,667 503 5' Concrete Sidewalk 32,000 sf $ 5.00 $ 160,000 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 0 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 824,178 Item Description Notes Item Cost Prep ROW 735% $ 41,209 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control $ 123,627 J Pavement Markings/Markers $ 41,209 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System $ 288,462 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 41,209 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 41,209 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 16,484 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 49,451 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 767,859 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,592,036 Construction Contingency:25% $ 398,009 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,991,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,991,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 398,200 Mobilization 6% $ 119,460 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 199,100 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,708,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project I nformation: Project No. C-8 Name: East Highland St. (2) Limits: SH 114 to future Kirkwood Blvd. (575' east of North Carroll Ave.) Impact Fee Class: A3U Ultimate Class: Minor Arterial Length (If): 2,475 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a three -lane undivided minor arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Roadway Construction: - $ 1,419,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 283,800 Mobilization No. Item Description ROW/Easement Acquisition: Quantity Unit Unit Price $ 1,930,000 Item Cost 103 Unclassified Street Excavation 5,225 cy $ 10.00 $ 52,250 203 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 10,450 sy $ 5.00 $ 52,250 303 8" Concrete Pavement 10,450 sy $ 36.00 $ 376,200 403 4" Topsoil 6,600 sy $ 5.00 $ 33,000 503 5' Concrete Sidewalk 24,750 sf $ 5.00 $ 123,750 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 0 s $ 41.00 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 637,450 " Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 31,873 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 95,618 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 31,873 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 223,108 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 31,873 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 31,873 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 12,749 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 38,247 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 497,211 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,134,661 Construction Contingency:EE 25% $ 283,665 Construction CAL: $ 1,419,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,419,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 283,800 Mobilization 6% $ 85,140 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 141,900 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 1,930,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Impact C-9 Project Information: Project No. Name: Zena Rucker Rd. Limits: Byron Nelson Pkwy. to South Carroll Ave. Impact Fee Class: C2U Ultimate Class: Collector Length (If): 1,900 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane undivided collector. Impact Notes: Roadway Item Cost Item Description Construction: Engineering/Survey/Testing: Mobilization ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment - 20% 6% 20% No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 2,956 cy $ 10.00 $ 29,556 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 5,911 sy $ 5.00 $ 29,556 301 6" Concrete Pavement 5,911 sy $ 30.00 $ 177,333 401 4" Topsoil 4,644 sy $ 5.00 $ 23,222 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 19,000 sf $ 5.00 $ 95,000 601 1Tum Lanes and Median Openings 0 s $ 41.00 $ - Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 354,667 Item Descriptions Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 17,733 Traffic Control None Anticipated 0% $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 17,733 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 124,133 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 17,733 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 17,733 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 7,093 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 21,280 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 223,440 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 578,107 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 144,527 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 723,000 Impact Notes: Allowance Item Cost Item Description Construction: Engineering/Survey/Testing: Mobilization ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment - 20% 6% 20% $ 723,000 $ 144,600 $ 43,380 $ 144,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:J $ 1,056,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: South Carroll Ave. (1) Limits: 101 5'south of East Southlake Blvd. to Westmont Dr. Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 2,255 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane roadway into a four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,876,000 No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price 6% Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 9,145 cy $ 10.00 $ 91,453 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 14,031 sy $ 5.00 $ 70,156 307 8" Concrete Pavement 13,029 sy $ 36.00 $ 469,040 407 4" Topsoil 6,514 sy $ 5.00 $ 32,572 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 22,550 sf $ 5.00 $ 112,750 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 1,630 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ 66,837 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 842,808 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 42,140 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 126,421 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 42,140 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 294,983 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 42,140 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 42,140 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 16,856 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 50,568 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 657,390 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,500,198 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 375,049 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,876,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,876,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 375,200 Mobilization 6% $ 112,560 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 187,600 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,551,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southiake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Project Information: Project No. C-1 I Name: South Carroll Ave. (2) Limits: Westmont Dr. to 290' north of Breeze Wy. Impact Fee Class: A40(88)(1/2) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 520 (excludes 490' at La Paloma Ct.) Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane roadway into a four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Item Cost Item Cost No. Item Description 106 Unclassified Street Excavation Engineering/Survey/Testing: 1,054 cy $ 10.00 $ 10,544 206 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 1,618 sy $ 5.00 $ 8,089 306 8" Concrete Pavement $ 1,502 sy $ 36.00 $ 54,080 406 4" Topsoil 751 sy $ 5.00 $ 3,756 506 5' Concrete Sidewalk 2,600 sf $ 5.00 $ 13,000 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 376 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ 15,413 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 104,881 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 5,244 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 15,732 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 5,244 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System 35% $ 36,709 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 5,244 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 5,244 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 2,098 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 6,293 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 81,808 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 186,689 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 46,672 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 234,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 234,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 46,800 Mobilization 6% $ 14,040 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 23,400 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 318,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections C-1 2 Project Information: Project No. Name: Brumlow Ave. Limits: East Continental Blvd. to 250' north of southern city limits Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 3,755 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a Unit Price four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Roadway Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,279,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description Quantity I Unit Unit Price 10% Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 15,229 cy $ 10.00 $ 152,286 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 23,364 sy $ 5.00 $ 116,822 307 8" Concrete Pavement 21,696 sy $ 36.00 $ 781,040 407 4" Topsoil 10,848 sy $ 5.00 $ 54,239 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 37,550 sf $ 5.00 $ 187,750 601 Turn Lanes and Median Openings L 2,715 s $ 41.00 $ 111,297 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 1,403,434 Item Description Notes Item Cost Prep ROW 735% $ 70,172 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control $ 210,515 J Pavement Markings/Markers $ 70,172 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System $ 491,202 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 70,172 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 70,172 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 28,069 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 84,206 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,219,678 Paving and Allowance Subtotal. $ 2,623,112 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 655,778 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 3,279,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 3,279,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 655,800 Mobilization 6% $ 196,740 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 327,900 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 4,459,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: South Village Center Dr. Limits: 705' south of East Southlake Blvd. to N. Nolan Dr. Impact Fee Class: C2U Ultimate Class: Collector Length (If): 4,200 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the construction of a new two-lane undivided collector. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Roadway Item Description Notes: Allowance No. Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price 1,754,000 Item Cost 101 Unclassified Street Excavation 6,533 cy $ 10.00 $ 65,333 201 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 13,067 sy $ 5.00 $ 65,333 301 6" Concrete Pavement 13,067 sy $ 30.00 $ 392,000 401 4" Topsoil 10,267 sy $ 5.00 $ 51,333 501 5' Concrete Sidewalk 42,000 sf $ 5.00 $ 210,000 601 lTum Lanes and Median Openings 1 0 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 784,000 Item Description Notes Item Cost Prep ROW 735% $ 39,200 Traffic Control None Anticipated $ - J Pavement Markings/Markers $ 39,200 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal System $ 274,400 Special Drainage Structures None Anticipated 0% $ - J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 39,200 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 39,200 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 15,680 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 47,040 J Traffic Signalization Assume Signal per Half Mile $125,000 $ 125,000 Other: $0 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 618,920 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 1,402,920 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 350,730 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 1,754,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 1,754,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 350,800 Mobilization 6% $ 105,240 ROW/Easement Acquisition: New Roadway Alignment 20% $ 350,800 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL: $ 2,561,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. updated: 11/30/2007 Name: North Kimball Ave. Limits: Dove Rd. to 360' north of SH 114 westbound frontage road Impact Fee Class: A4D(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 5,700 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the widening of an existing two-lane undivided roadway into a No. four -lane divided principal arterial. NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Roadway Item Cost Construction: - $ 5,241,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% No. Item Description 6% Quantity Unit Unit Price 10% Item Cost 107 Unclassified Street Excavation 23,117 cy $ 10.00 $ 231,167 207 6" Lime Stabilization (with Lime @ 27#/sy) 35,467 sy $ 5.00 $ 177,333 307 8" Concrete Pavement 32,933 sy $ 36.00 $ 1,185,600 407 4" Topsoil 16,467 sy $ 5.00 $ 82,333 507 5' Concrete Sidewalk 57,000 sf $ 5.00 $ 285,000 601 Tum Lanes and Median Openings 41121 1 s $ 41.00 1 $ 168,946 Paving Construction Cost Subtotal: $ 2,130,379 Item Description Notes Allowance Item Cost Prep ROW 5% $ 106,519 J Traffic Control Construction Phase Traffic Control 15% $ 319,557 J Pavement Markings/Markers 5% $ 106,519 J Roadway Drainage Standard Internal system 35% $ 745,633 J Special Drainage Structures One Major Cross Culvert Anticipated $400k $ 400,000 J Water Minor Adjustments 5% $ 106,519 J Sewer Minor Adjustments 5% $ 106,519 J Landscaping (Basic) Sodding and Erosion Control 2% $ 42,608 J Illumination Standard Ilumination System 6% $ 127,823 Traffic Signalization None Anticipated $0 $ - Other: Grapevine Contribution (Shady to Dove) $2,000,000 $ - Allowance Subtotal: $ 2,061,696 Paving and Allowance Subtotal: $ 4,192,075 Construction Contingency: 25% $ 1,048,019 Construction Cost TOTAL: $ 5,241,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Impact Item Description Notes: Allowance Item Cost Construction: - $ 5,241,000 Engineering/Survey/Testing: 20% $ 1,048,200 Mobilization 6% $ 314,460 ROW/Easement Acquisition: Existing Alignment 10% $ 524,100 Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL (minus Grapevine contribution):1 $ 5,128,000 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections City of Southlake Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update updated: 11/30/2007 Conceptual Level Project Cost Projection Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:J $ 7,886,1351 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections Project Infor mation: Project No. C-1 5 Name: South Kimball Ave. Limits: FM 1709 to SH 26 Costing Class: A413(88) Ultimate Class: Principal Arterial Length (If): 7,530 Service Area(s): C Description: This project consists of the City's contribution to the widening of S. Kimball Ave. to a four -lane divided facility. This project cost is based on several City projects (504-999- 5994.73, 03R02-0001, 031102-0002, 503-999-5993.46, and 504-999-5993.25). Impact Fee Project Cost TOTAL:J $ 7,886,1351 NOTE: These 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. 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update City of Southlake, Texas Appendix A - Conceptual Level Project Cost Projections ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. iT°Y' OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Appendix B — CIP Service Units of Supply 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update November 30, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas U a U U w j ` Om W Www aZ� a I Jim a rr 00 rU op0y U r U rw U m ao ❑ H Oy U 0 r0 xaaw « m d viF � V W U > Y W U d > ❑ � Q Z K x 0 3 �Fax� x O Y u m n E > � d j iaxr J d 2 Q m x d W ] Y O a d' J 2 Q Y K W > > U d d Ym wa N R W Y K � wp❑ x0 > Q U z W -r° i 0 w U ULL_ Qm o ❑❑❑.oON L°'a 'aaa ❑a'Q - W Q m Z 5 x r_ Zi o222m z w0 wr H E m U mU.m ❑ ❑ z 3a'. zmx .... NON a❑.a❑❑❑u"iumiRn w m--- 3 9 m: E E ¢ d W m m Q c___ m�❑ m ti z ? w c 2 m m�3 m U ❑ a0 p U m = ❑❑❑.m ❑UU.O - l0 z LLU n N m m m V ❑ m r� N n n Um O 2.1f Y m QaQ q,,a m --m 0 m:9 YcE� m A UU oa W Www Jim a op0y U r U ao ❑ H Oy xaaw W U > �Fax� x O Y n j J d 2 Q x d W ] Y O a > Ym R W > Q U W Q m d'W w0� ax0 z w0 wr U u .... NON a❑.a❑❑❑u"iumiRn w m--- _o d W Q Q c___ Z 5 ti z ? w c 2 m m�3 m U - LLU n N m m m m m m:9 YcE� •r-� v •'-UtSnN� c U m�z°mx3m- - m m aUa 3 R 'A z m 3 m ❑ "mm>m m E a o o cm m a K t� o u v — W- z � K 33 Y Z 303 m mmm - m N W U1: pl: .1 81: 1. 1. 1 ............ 1. 1. 1. ........... o o l w V m m wm aza a i rU r a W cicim Q or m a0 . z U n N a O -N r y uwyx O m u i0axo e E w O w Y > ❑ a r y O w m z Qa Y K > U d a W K � W Q YKf w0� ax0 > z o `. LLa Its s U Z g z� - 22 w' E m'z'm ma. _ 9:m r na 2 U @ i m m m2 U Z R LLU _ U y m LL o u - vci - ❑Nci Sl mrm-mopN�N>c"> O U O m ❑ m z W Sx Z rcm� aa' Q mQ c m Q''. QaU d'pmQQa na ate' e'?o�Eym mAm=� O U 3 3 `m.O x S Y UU ? j Y O U L 2 u U U m m E U Z Y Y a., Z Z 41Q o � o opov o,o 000 p.d000 ❑ ❑ Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 13 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE TEXAS Appendix C — Existing Facilities Inventory 2007 Roadway Impact Fee Update November 30, 2007 City of Southlake, Texas GI R a 7 d m LL V w C CL m E > Ty m ca 3= m ca O LL Q' m N ; O O R N O d 01 Y C l0 N L K � W O N O T Ly, O W z wN _ F W IF N U Y W W LL 6 > W )O N ~ � hN V m xmm W -MNmO�NtO W NZ y J W �YOmmNmam"''v N a t2 Iny IoM > o a F >yal- ri F K J y 2 Q > Q a y U W U Q rc mo � 0 0 rc W Q N a o 0 0 n m o o 0 0 he J 6 W 00cm'iMm V �n moN�<m w a 0»�7 Q Q Q Q U�Ip U UIQ UO�7�0� ¢ Q U U U Q Q yW W g ❑>>> Q Q Q Q 710 U UIQ D 0 U `¢ 7>> U U U Q 7 Q = E I GII.G. Z W ... J o 0 0 0 o O N o _ J O H m �mm m n m a U o p x> w V Um o fO MME r3cioomIlyg`oC., t y m'I 0 Y Z 0 Z S m X F N t I W f= W i w LL m m m m m !D d l--� 0 x K m e m o in M E m U x 2 022 L 'C o 0 ZZ L m' 0'2 .N N y - Hin 1-ZZo C 3 m L w W m E m Q a 6 Q ~O O Q ¢ > m m man L c m � m N Da aaaaC U it o - O O O >> p p c c -a Y c a a d m 0 mm�Q;3. 3 3 3 t t 3 W W 12 YY Y Y m m Z Z Z m a d R C CL D Gf G! LL r A C CL c T N 3= U. 0 CD m N O fx .1c C l0 � K 3 W O T 0 W z 2 x W W Y S O W d d > W O y �y U S m m �n N I � O'm N— O Q N �n N O •- �1 r o o m N m Q A m r O N XY W d N Q O N N m voi N^ Q N Q CNI o00 V o N M 0 N Q m O N Q W U > p � N 'i 14 I... __ p I Y J N N > y d f M Y W d Y W d n r N h N �p t0 > a d U W U a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w a N I — — _ N A N N 00; 1 d W= 7 UI M W m SIM M M V N O V W d 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 p p p 7 7 7 7 7 7 p p 7 7 7 7 7 7 N 0 0 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 N ¢ N N n r r r r ml ml Q N N N N N Q Q N N ((yy U¢ Q Q a Q Q a¢ N N a¢ N N U U N U QaaQU¢au��U¢aaaaaUaU N N N N N p 7 N 7 N xg w acNiL)0<alaalas<L)iL)Qa Zoo x p E O w J cic c o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 x W J N '66 O O O r m O N w- vQ1 t7 N O O Q m .- O m o O— O N V N pp m O� O M N t0 ^ N O N tm0 N N O cliN N. O V Om O 1� O M a000 b N N W m N p - In o E2 m 'a '� - m En_ 12, ai ti ff m m E - �¢>¢>¢> c'd r 412 ;r=m m U o 0 o N m r°q c n --ins ��.. mLs ._ .. 33¢���°ninm3$3in3�mm3�3N3v°i�z°�i�3iiUw 3�inom°m f I o o d m a m a m m I$ m > m' 2 E. -- m m� m= — v o o " o` - N N 3 5 m a' m DSD ¢= c x m cN m d a T s malt m rO m o o c> ^'om o o m N �r°na r � ma0o m o U m mN mama i m m m m m m mUQ m 3 r E m m r FMHzo¢�NONomzo,,3 z 3: CNi `wl,3in3rn Lm w3�zov°� Y 3 o0 iii�gm LL LL LL 0 0 LL LL m m a� 9 � a D p Q -c -aa 2&Z ��•-• ¢>¢>aaa a>a>¢a mmmtt m m m m mm - d m .o mmlLLLT o .m O O m m 'O 10 f0=0 L L L N N L a Q 0 0 o 0 0 o N N N U U U C as in c D_dada0000po=o00333333L m y m m m m v m `o o, o oin vr .. z z LL ° 3333 m xmczzm N 0 c 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 0 0 N U) n0 f%1 0 0 z z 0 0 z z w w33 d {0 a CL m d LL C Co. G c T N 10 3= CcLL0 T {6 ti 3 O ON NO -" c to LX�W O U) O T 0 N W 2 Z R 2 W X V d W W > o I u XyYyxj 1 �21. irn�rn ! .12 �2 mcNINP ;z 2 -N m'�nm -O m� r N W U > 2 Q w �Yp din m a m no _ m�N N N in r > J¢ x m N m m N m m N r n O m O m N 1 0 m O V °� am F dr 2 2 QxK W 1 Y W > < a a u � � N N N umi W R' QYQ a J NON rOo¢>a Ya¢a 11 Oj 6 WnWaZyOx xWE _ _ 0'N> >n ?❑ »Q7a o¢0 aQ »QN NUi Q>a O`>i > g a <a¢asa aN W N oo vi os0.- Z. J o o00 000 00 000 00 000 O 10 000 x t- W J noo -mO a 0 o�n Nd�m _m �o HON o o N o�m o 0 o�n O U Z w 6 yN mama U d > m m Q> m >> m m m a E a S y m 3=" mo=¢>iQ> o¢>9cN yW"i LLm..NWa¢a m .oma m-m>a¢< N; p �rLDa�m U E Ym E 3 p` c c- m m L o = 5 d£ a`oc`o c yo1d .�� i -m>a LEL�yam E OY a mY pU:nS�N wu�� N cU C oZUY �� oY C''yL W O oUY '2 « r m t C c N H .. r �. o i o O j t S- m m -..... 0 2 � R m >> N li U W N Z J Z N ti 2 m_ W W N W y uO. N W N' m N Z N A W N Y n N W h W U m N N Q U 0 m Z > mm cmm m N m3a m U a m¢ ai n m P.N m D> 3 m ��Q'v o m °Y' E m x W c LLm`cxi�aQ co �a.E c jai'. m �> M - 3 `-° m g o m 3 m m m 5 a o o m m o m m O W O M o�U 03 VrYy n2 N o CV N ZUY2 O C'.y y v N U Z o o o H m o° a m m o W N LL U W 5; « Z Z � Z N W 2`c W m- m W m 3 W x m N W io 0 V � o M v N W W N m N 2 m'W W N Y cm's N W > C 9 C a Ili p r 00 Q p mmmmaomm a d m d m m m Iv -� 2 222 ' 6 d m ai > m - W t t t t r r 3 3 3 m m m ui ui ui m <¢ m d u m m m m a i i m Q> ¢> ¢>'I¢' < c v U U U p U U c d n a a a Q> ¢' ¢' ¢> ¢> Q> Q> ¢> IU m m m x x¢¢ o odd `m m m LL « yd. 0 0 0 ❑ttttmm 0 0 o m o Q> m - S S« S Y mEEEEELE a Eaoc of o,r 3333 L`' L L>> 33 O O m o m m oo-y m v Z 22,U P Qt>>> c) U U U U L) j c) U o'S O O o o Y Y Y YYYY 2ZUU O m ZZZZZNtn m W W m W W W W mmm22Zf%1 (ANNNNN p m`N W W W W N ZZ222(%1 in ZZ��i N r E m m o s o N U EXHIBIT D-1 Table of Equivalencies - Water and Wastewater Meter Size Type LUE's 1" Simple 1.0 2" Compound 3.2 2" Turbine 4.0 4" Compound 10.0 4" Turbine 16.8 6" Compound 20.0 6" Turbine 36.8 8" Turbine 1 64.0 Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 34 of 37 EXHIBIT D-2 Land UseNehicle-Mile Equivalency Table Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 35 of 37 Vsb.hillhr L=WVwC'mtVwy Dwdopmaott`tdt IieY�l>9I1 PORT ANL1 TFAMUNAL TMtckTawhiml Acre 2620 OUNI'MAL I` 1ttISlti I auasFiA 3,9 ... (3ennai F6cavy iu:�cattial. I7 -F UFA 1"". Indta.tcis<I Fxta 1.t 06 SF GFA 3- i3Ota4 SF UFA i3d ?Min?rtin Wrtil a>m I,W SF UFA 1,0, S' Ie Fat 7x detttrh td FiauiA� A+ Hitt Cttit 4,04 t1lulti tamiM i7tlie �' A� . RoiduaW Cmxdomitsaxm lowfdixm [hvcllirt tech 2,Ott _...i6 _... Moban Hoetc Park [iwt4lin t AxaiWrd L` ' Ciweibxt trait t! 88 WKING Hotel... Rom 1,00 Void 1 O&w Lodgiflm F critics Rom 1.31 YCRLATIONA.L Ttt _ 4,02 GWtCOkrW Arae 6446 13tadtb.Ttec. Cb** alul F iEit 1.difl6 SF GFA S27 ice Riot 1.0MSFGFA : 71" i4eniattuatwY' F&ABe I,46 lkSu�11#ovoe°i6eattr 5rtetae 43.E katccpm t Tecans C*k M cow ". 14" INMT � .__i.W SF OFA 1,3 Csvc Canter I,W) SF UFA 2'.68 Meddk Srhewl a 1 8i 5otdmts 0,32 II' Schcd ra1�12) Smdentx U. 3r r G gall _ 5ltuitstt� 4.25 unnwpity? Calbow, tudrnts.... 0,44 iF.MCAL Oink i, .'W UFA 19M ' 1a ttor Bade 0,83 FI�1CP, C cHa 9ar4d Ikw!w'UFA x:40 ix&MMI t)tiitt i�ulidiugI SF txFA 5.96 kltdir#dY3tetatf3flite I,4pSFGFA 44,88 Si to Tumt Otrwr Buildim 1.0W SF UFA 6.92 47tY us Park... I.OW SF GFA 6,00 COAMIERCIAL AtumMe Related Aw.4mbiir E,'aae Card w 1.000 SF 4FA6-51 Autm tkikFatis?Iales LOWSFfiFA —10% t+k% (34"tittC Savirc Swim . F!�dRlt l404it1�t 432 _ C"Wha5awkV St3do" wy c4xw Market Futlt itrait'U SI vire Station W � Corer rilmrket attl Cat Walt Nbdin Powat Neuw and Uwd Cat $Ain IOW SF Ui?' Lubrka kn Vehicle Cemex Sc -keFos Iiswsa ice Cr Wad, stopTneStme 1, ASF UF Mom Frt Food $comwattt with Drm-Thu LOW IF GFA 41.42 pad paat! Roomxate w*lww DOTC-'t'hm � I.OW SF UFA � 1,13 Hh'thottaver d-Utr�J �cdauterrt aa�AS �T �sFA Ii OM1 _ Sit (lawn Rzaww r? 1.000 SF eFA 14104 Odw MAMA Fi+ra-S17Wtd aitt811 acre ,w.�, ) SL~ CinA v., v.. F ..._« .I..q Garden cemw kN ? I.QW SP UFA IM5 Harte Improvemms S e I,4Ait1 SF UFA 5.53 PhwMaryDrWoom I,CxAo SF rjFA 1 .15 Sh' Ce�tet I,OW SF GFA 7.9' I AOa1 SF ("FA. 21,51 ViAm Row Stotc w ! tkxA l G A «t, rw W 'GRVICI Bests 4{PPa�.1n JJOW SF GFA 3j..1 ® $aeric Mrive lu"I LOW SF GPA j� 41_are Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 35 of 37 EXHIBIT E Maximum Impact Fee Schedule Item Maximum Fee Water Impact Fee per LUE (1" Meter) $ 2,258.60 Wastewater Impact Fee per LUE (1" Water Meter) $ 1,240.58 Roadway Impact Fee per Vehicle -Mile Service Area A $ 893.00 Service Area B $ 438.00 Service Area C $ 648.33 Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 36 of 37 EXHIBIT F Impact Fee Collection Schedule By Service Unit For Water, Wastewater and Roadway Southlake, Texas - Ordinance 657-B - Approved April 15, 2008 - Page 37 of 37 INVOICE Preview Star-Telegram Customer ID: CIT57 400 W.7TH STREET Invoice Number: 296290281 FORT WORTH,TX 76102 (817)390-7761 Invoice Date: 4/20/2008 Federal Tax ID 22-3148254 Terms: Net due in 21 days \ -`7 Due Date: 4/30/2008 Bill To: f.:,_,l'' _. ?Pr PO Number: no po CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 1400 MAIN ST Order Number: 29629028 STE 440 J Sales Rep: 073 SOUTHLAKE, TX 76092-7604 Description: CITY OF SOUTHLA Attn Attn:ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Publication Dates: 4/18/2008 -4/20/2008 Description Location Col Depth Linage MU Rate Amount CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ORDINANCE NO 13580 1 98 98 LINE $0.42 $82.88 Sales Discount ($8.50) RECEIVED $5.00 Misc Fee Net Amount: $79.38 OFFICE OF CI Y SECRETARY • .; ii°., CNfiISTYL.liOLIAND MY COMMISSION EXPIRES +:'.•;.�9}:�•.4°! July 31,2008 1 -fir THE STATE OF TEXAS County of Tarrant Before me,a Notary Public in and for said County and State,this day personally appeared Deborah Baylor,Bid and Legal Coordinator for the Star- Telegram,published by the Star-Telegram, Inc.at Fort Worth,in Tarrant County,Texas;and who,after being duly sworn,did depose and say that the attached clipping of an advertisement was published in th ove named paper on the listed dates:BIDS&LEGAL DEPT. STAR TELEGRAM (817)390-7501 11110 Signed % % SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME,THIS Tuesday April ::. LA‘.11k 4, Notary Publi Thank You For Your Payment Remit To: Star-Telegram Customer ID: CIT57 P.O. BOX 901051 Customer Name: CITY OF SOUTHLAKE FORT WORTH, TX 76101-2051 Invoice Number: 296290281 Invoice Amount: $79.38 PO Number: no po Amount Enclosed: $ I CITY OF SOUTHLAKE ORDINANCE NO. 657-B AN ORDINANCE RE- VISING IMPACT FEES ON NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEX- AS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY FACILI- TIES NECESSITAT- ED BY SUCH NEW DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING REVISED LAND USE AS- SUMPTIONS FOR THE CITY; ADOPT- ING REVISED CAPI- TAL IMPROVE- MENTS PLANS FOR WATER, WASTE- WATER AND ROADWAY IM- PROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT, PAYMENT AND TIME OF PAYMENT OF WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF WATER, WASTE- WATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND THE FEE SCHEDULES; PRO- VIDING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF REVENUE COL- LECTED FROM WA- TER, WASTEWA- TER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES INTO WATER AND WASTEWATER FA- CILITIES IMPACT FEE ACCOUNTS AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEE AC- COUNTS ESTAB- LISHED FOR THOSE PURPOSES; PRO- VIDING FOR OFF- SETS AND CREDITS; PROVIDING FOR REFUNDS OF UN- EXPENDED FUNDS; PROVIDING FOR USE OF FUNDS DE- RIVED FROM WA- TER, WASTEWA- TER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING THAT IMPACT FEES MAY BE PLEDGED TO- WARD PAYMENT OF BOND ISSUES AND SIMILAR DEBT INSTRUMENTS; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMU- LATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PRO- VIDING A SEVER- ABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EF- FECTIVE DATE. PASSED AND AP- PROVED THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2008, DURING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. MAYOR: Andy Wambsganss ATTEST: Lori Payne, City Secretary