Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
1990-07-17 CC PacketCity of Southlake, Texas
M E M O R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
SUBJECT: Agenda Item Comments and Other Items of Interest
July 17, 1990 City Council Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. Agenda Item No. 4. City Manager's Report. The
departmental reports are in the packet. Please let us
know if you have any questions concerning these.
2. Agenda Item No. 5. Note the Public Appearance by Pat
McCormick, Selwyn School Administrator, requesting
extension of their Special Exception Use Permit.
3. Agenda Item No. 7. First Reading, Impact Fee
Ordinance. The attorneys are still reviewing the
ordinance. There may be a few minor revisions by the
meeting time. Note on page 7-2 (memo from Impact Fee
Advisory Committee) that the recommendation is to
collect $500 for water and $1,000 for wastewater.
4. Agenda Item No. 9. Southlake Hills Developers
Agreement. The issue of the off -site downstream
drainage structure still is to be resolved. Mike will
discuss this next Tuesday.
5. Agenda Item No. 10. Emergency Replacement for HVAC in
City Hall. The AC in the upstairs portion of City
Hall (PD) is beyond proper functioning. It was
probably always undersized for the space, but it has
reached the point where it must be replaced. On any
given afternoon temperatures reach the mid -eighties in
the upstairs portion, which is a less than tolerable
working condition. It is my recommendation that we
replace the unit immediately. The funds would come
from the undesignated fund balance, and be reflected in
the revised budget for FY89-90. This is a proper use
of the fund balance.
The local Government Code exempts emergency
procurements of this type from the competitive bid
requirements. However, we will receive different
quotes in order to show proper stewardship.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Items and Other Items of Interest
July 13, 1990
Page 2
6. Agenda Item No. 12. Engineering for N-3 Line. The
memo from Mike Barnes in your packet explains the plan
staff has developed for the construction of the N-3
line. If after our discussion on the matter you want
us to proceed as planned, we would request a minute
order (motion reflected in the minutes) authorizing our
engineer to proceed with the plans. We will come back
next meeting with an amendment to the engineer's
contract.
7. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion Sign Ordinance. This
agenda will give us a good opportunity to discuss this
item at length. Hopefully, we can get this behind us
by the end of August.
Other Items of Interest
8. Fort Worth Water Contract/Impact Fees. Yesterday
Mike Barnes, Public Works Director, and I met with our
attorneys to discuss what our position should be
concerning the Fort Worth Impact Fees. After reviewing
alternatives, we feel the following would be our best
position: the Fort Worth impact fees are not
applicable to Southlake at this time due to our
existing contract.
Our current contract with Fort Worth, signed in 1987,
has a fifteen (15) year life. Our contract is
different from the contract of other user cities. We
do not have the new "uniform" contract in which Fort
Worth coopted the other customer cities. The uniform
contract has a number of significant differences from
our contract, including a provision for the annual
revision of rates and a provision for payment to Fort
Worth of a system access fee in the event that Fort
Worth adopts a fee for new development within the
jurisdictional limits of Fort Worth.
Concerning the revision of rates, our contract provides
that Fort Worth may revise rates every three (3) years
beginning in 1989-90, our current budget year. This
3-year provision was approved as a revision to our
current contract by City Council in September, 1988.
Prior to the revision, our contract provided that the
commodity charge and rate of use charge could be
adjusted every five (5) years. (This was the only
amendment at the time to the 1987 contract.) I am not
clear as to why Southlake agreed to the revision, other
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Agenda Items and Other Items of Interest
July 13, 1990
Page 3
than the fact that Fort Worth requested the revision in
order to avoid "contractual complications" over rates
proposed by Fort Worth. Fort Worth mentioned in its
correspondence to us that in order to get the lower of
two proposed rates we needed to quickly approve the
then submitted contract revision, but did not mention
that the allowable adjusted rate period had been
decreased from every 5 to every 3 years.
Again, I am not clear as to why we agreed to the
change, but it appears that we had a contract for water
at a specific rate, and we voluntarily agreed to allow
Fort Worth to raise our rates for FY88-89 and FY89-90,
and agreed to another adjustment in three (3) years
rather than five (5) years.
Concerning the issue of the access (impact) fee, our
existing contract has the following language:
17.
System Development Charge
In the event City of City of Fort Worth adopts an
ordinance which will provide for a system
development charge for new development within the
jurisdictional limits of City of Fort Worth, City
of Southlake agrees to enact a similar ordinance.
City of Southlake further agrees that it shall not
impose a lower charge than that contained in the
City of Fort Worth ordinance. It is understood
that this system development charge represents the
proportional cost of additional water facilities
capacity required as a result of new development,
whether located within the jurisdictional limits
of City of Fort Worth or City of Southlake. City
of Southlake's ordinance shall provide that all
monies collected from system development charges
shall be used only for water facility expenses.
It is clear paragraph 17 is an anti -competition
provision. If Fort Worth adopts an impact fee for new
development within its jurisdiction, Southlake will
adopt a similar ordinance for new development in
Southlake. We will have done this by end of August.
We agreed to impose a fee at least equal to Fort
Worth's fee. Our opinion is that this is to ensure to
Fort Worth that Southlake is not in an advantageous
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
C Agenda Items and Other Items of Interest
�r July 13, 1990
Page 3
position vis a vis Fort Worth. (This is obvious
price-fixing.) Nothing in this provision mentions a
requirement for Southlake to pay Fort Worth an
access/impact fee. The new uniform water contract
signed by other customer cities does this.
We have not yet received correspondence from Fort Worth
indicating that we will be charged the new access fee.
Until then, we continue business as usual.
9. Fire Chief Recruiting. To date we have received 16
completed packets (application and questionnaire) from
Fire Chief applicants. Fifty nine packets were
requested. The deadline for applications is July 31.
We have been receiving about 2-3 per day over the last
week and a half. Several of the applicants look very
good on paper. We will begin interviews the last week
of July.
10. Continental Park Estates Sewer. Attached is a copy
of the letter to the CPE property owners. Art
Sorenson, et al, hand delivered the letter to each
residence beginning Monday of this week. Art called
this afternoon and indicated that approximately 90% of
the residences had received a letter. Some were not
home. By this weekend everyone should have received a
letter. We mailed the letter to the absent landlords.
As of this afternoon, three (3) have paid their full
share ($2,078). We have received nine (9) post cards
acknowledging receipt of the letter. Seven (7) of the
nine respondents have indicated they will pay the full
amounts. One indicated he will sign a promissory note,
and one said he cannot pay anything due to loss of
employment.
11. Chimney Hill Subdivision. The Warren Clerk
Development has requested a one year extension on the
approval of the final plat for Chimney Hill. This will
be on the next agenda for your consideration. The
request was not received in time for this agenda.
CEH/kb
OR
Mayor.
Gary Fickes
Mayor Pro Tem:
Betty Springer
Councilmembers:
Richard W. Wilhelm
Jerry Farrier
Sally Hall
W. Ralph Evans
City Manager.
Curtis E Hawk
City Secretary:
Sandra L LeGrand
A
City of Southlake
July 6, 1990
Dear Property Owner:
The City Council in its Tuesday, July 3, regular
meeting accepted the low bid submitted for the
construction of sewer lines in Continental Park
Estates. The bids were most favorable. Before
reviewing the bids, however, I believe it would be
helpful to briefly recap what has taken place to date
concerning this project.
The City Council has discussed this project for several
years, but until an agreement had been reached with the
City of Colleyville the City was not in a position to
pursue the project. This agreement was finally reached
in March.
Early estimates had placed the cost of constructing the
sewer line at approximately $285,600 or $4,080 per
lot. This cost was originally to be borne by the
benefited neighborhood property owners. However,
following a series of meetings with residents of the
neighborhood, the City Council directed the staff to
come up with a cost based upon participation by the
City and other developers in the area. As a result,
the neighborhood share of the cost of constructing the
sewer line was reduced to an estimated $194,000.
In order to further reduce the cost to the
neighborhood, the City Council agreed to pay for 25% of
the neighborhood share if the neighborhood would agree
to voluntarily participate in the project. This would
result in a cost of $145,500 ($194,000 x .75) or $2,078
per lot to the benefited property owner. The total
amount necessary to construct the sewer line was
estimated at $230,000. The difference between the
$230,000 and $145,500 would be borne by the City.
In order to begin the project, the City determined that
it would need to receive most of the benefited property
owners' share in advance due to budgetary constraints
of the City.
667 North Carroll Avenue - Southlake, Texas 76092
(817) 481-5581 - FAX (817) 481-0036
July 6, 1990
Page 2
All of the above costs were estimates. The estimates
included only the cost of the sewer line and repair of
the street where trenches were to be cut. The cost of
reconstructing the streets was not included. The
actual cost could not be determined until competitive
bids were received. After receiving assurances that
the neighborhood wanted to participate in the project,
bids were requested and received by the City Council.
As mentioned above, these were considered last Tuesday.
The City in its bid specifications also requested a
quote on reconstructing the streets in the neighborhood
as part of the same overall project. The City received
a low bid of $249,356 to construct the sewer line and
reconstruct the streets. The City Council accepted
this bid and agreed to pay the approximate $19,000
difference between this and the sewer construction cost
from the City's Street and Road Improvement Fund.
The project is still contingent upon the neighborhood
contribution of a sufficient share of the cost to
enable the City to award the bid. The City emphasized
to the bidder that the project would not be awarded
unless sufficient funds were received from the
benefited property owners. The City has a little more
than 60 days to decide whether or not to award the bids
and begin the project.
The project is suitable for a home improvement loan by
the property owners. Several local financial
institutions have indicated a willingness to make such
a loan available. This would enable the property
owners to obtain money necessary to pay not only the
$2,078 cost per lot to the City, but also the property
owner's cost for putting in the line from the home to
the City's sewer line.
The City Council recognizes that some property owners
may not be able to pay their $2,078 share per lot up
front. To assist these, the City Council has approved
a pay out plan for those who wish to participate in the
project. An explanation of this is attached. I would
like to stress, though, that unless enough money is
received from the benefitted property owners, the
project cannot be accomplished. Also, if the project
has to be rebid at a later date, the reconstruction of
the streets may not be included as part of the project.
July 6, 1990
Page 3
Please note the enclosed self-addressed, stamped post
card. We would appreciate your completing and
returning the postcard in order that we may have some
idea of how to plan.
On behalf of the City Council, I want to thank you for
your patience. We look forward to being able to assist
you in the improvements to your neighborhood.
Please feel free to call Public Works Director Mike
Barnes, or City Manager Curtis Hawk, at City Hall
(481-5581) if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gary Fi es, Mayor
attachment - Pay Out Program
�w
CONTINENTAL PARK ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER COST PAY OUT PROGRAM
Formula For Determining Cost
* Cost of project to benefited property owners
_ $194,000 : 70 lots in neighborhood = $2771 x .90 (amount that
can be assessed under state law) _ $2494 assessment cost.
* Cost of project to be shared by benefited property owners who
voluntarily participate with the City on a 75%-25% basis
$194,000 x .75 (property owner's share) _ $145,500 = 70 lots
in neighborhood = $2,078 voluntary participation cost.
Pay Out Program Steps
Step 1: Benefitted property owner pays City down payment of
$1,079 and signs promissory note to pay remainder in
three installments of $333 each, plus accrued interest
of 10 percent, over the next 18 months.
Step 2: After completing promissory note, property owner signs
Mechanic's And Materialman's Contract to be filed as
lien against property.
Step 3: City will file lien and notice of assessment with County.
Step 4: After $2,078 plus accrued interest is paid by property
owners, note will be fulfilled and lien will become null
and void.
Note: The note and lien amounts will specify an amount of
$2,494 which is the assessment amount mentioned above.
However, both provide that upon payment of $2,078 (plus
interest) the instrument will be considered paid in full.
This is necessary because if the note is not paid the
property will be assessed at the full assessment cost of
$2,494 plus interest and legal fees.
7
I acknowledge that I have received the
notice of the proposed Continental Park
Sewer Improvements.
It is my intention to (check one)
pay the amount in full
sign the promissory note
Name
Address
SENT BY:Butler & Binion : 7— 6-90 ; 13:37 Las Colinas-+ ;# 1
ATTQRN6Y8 AT LAW
A FAmsmomp INc1y0tNe
p"orSSS1011AL COApoAATIOhS
BUTLER 8 B!NION
eats pooRTM dcoNNOR
WILLIAMS SOUARI
CeNTRALTOW¢R
AUITtC Ii00
IKVING.TEXAS 75039
(:t•� s�s•e•eo
•rc�:coplst• ia:+t �se•a•7.
• �y1 1► • e a!�
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO:
NAME: W r
TELECOPY NUMBER: �' w l- 00 ,5
I4o0 IIIIiT INTCA•TAT= SANK 'LAIA
ie00 LOWGIANA
MOUSTON,TaX43 77002
(713) 937-211t
17*7 pCNNSY6VANIA AY9Nw11.N-w•
WA><t MICTOW, D.C.10000
(te02; 4ee-0000
FROM:
BUTLER & BINION TELECOPY NUMBER: J2141 556-8974 _
DATE:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET �
CLIENT/MATTER NUMBER:
sa �:a.s=sa>,.,.�saasssss>•s�==ova�reaxnxs.�:s=ssval:�saees:aap� c==s=s ors=oaa a:
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES INDICATED ABOVE, PLEASE CALL
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT (214) 555-8990.
------------------
coMMENTS:
FIRE DEPARTMENT ...........................4-1
ZONING....................................4-5
PARKS.....................................4-6
STREET....................................4-7
WATER.....................................4-9
FINANCE..................................4-13
BUILDING..................................4-14
COURT.....................................4-17
POLICE DEPARTMENT .........................4-20
DARE...................................4-
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORTS
TO: CITY MANAGER CURTIS HAWK
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1990
RESPONSES THIS YEAR
MONTH TO DATE
STRUCTURE FIRES:
HOUSE
2
5
MOBILE HOME
0
1
OFFICE BUILDING
0
0
RETAIL - RESTAURANT
0
1
FACTORY - INDUSTRY
0
0
GRASS FIRES
3
44
VEHICLE FIRES
0
11
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
4
38
NATURAL GAS LEAK
0
5
GASOLINE SPILL
1
1
MUTUAL AID FOR GRAPEVINE
0
3
MUTUAL AID FOR COLLEYVILLE
0
1
MUTUAL AID FOR KELLER
0
7
MUTUAL AID FOR TROPHY CLUB
0
4
FIRE CALLS IN WESTLAKE
2
7
EMS CALLS IN WESTLAKE
3
10
FALSE ALARMS IN WESTLAKE
2
3
FIRE CALLS IN TARRANT COUNTY
0
0
EMS CALLS IN TARRANT COUNTY
0
0
FALSE ALARMS IN TARRANT COUNTY
0
0
FIRE CALLS IN DENTON COUNTY
0
0
EMS CALLS IN DENTON COUNTY
0
0
FALSE ALARMS IN DENTON COUNTY
0
0
A
FIRE DEPARTMENT
THIS
YEAR
MONTHLY REPORT
MONTH
TO DATE
PAGE 2
AMBULANCE CALLS IN CITY
25
172
Ir
FIRE UNIT ASSIST ON AMBULANCE CALLS
IN
CITY 05
61
FALSE ALARMS IN CITY (FIRE CALLS)
6
36
MISCELLANEOUS CALLS IN CITY (SEE ATTACHMENT) 4
47
TOTAL AMBULANCE CALLS
28
191
TOTAL FIRE CALLS
29
271
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS
57
462
TOTAL FIRE LOSS IN CITY
$002,200
$570,475
TOTAL FIRE LOSS IN WESTLAKE
$0000
$0300
MAN HOURS EXPENDED
ON EMERGENCY CALLS
104
1214
MEETINGS (4 PER MONTH) average
men
(12) 144
840
SPECIAL TRAINING
0
3
TOTAL MAN HOURS EXPENDED
248
2057
SPECIAL REMARKS:
EMS CALLS TO IBM WESTLAKE =
3
FIRE CALLS TO IBM WESTLAKE =
4
FIRE CALLS TO IBM SOUTHLAKE =
0
EMS CALLS TO IBM SOUTHLAKE =
1
RESPECTA4E.I�RE
MITTED,
CHIEFPR.. STEEL
DATE: 07-11-90
AN
01
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
PAGE 3
MISCELLANEOUS CALLS
JUNE 1990
RUN
900248 ARCING ELECTRICAL WIRES AT 101 E 114
900251 CHILD LOCKED IN CAR AT 1407 E DOVE
900252 ASSIST POLICE AT 2829 RAIN FOREST
900253 CHEMICAL BOMB EXPLOSION AT 1208 CROSS TIMBERS DR
�Z-3
SOUTHLAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT
AMBULANCE SERVICE CALLS
JUNE 1990
BAYLOR MEDICAL CENTER GRAPEVINE 11
JOHN PETER SMITH 1
NO TRANSPORT 12
FALSE ALARMS 04
TOTAL AMBULANCE CALLS FOR JUNE 1990 28
ft
ZONING DEPARTMENT FEE REVENUE
For the Month Ending 30 June 1990
Zoning
No. of Cases
Platting
No. of Cases
Board of Adjustment
(Includes Appeal, Special Exception
Use, and Variance Requests)
No. of Cases
Specific Use Permit
No. of Cases
Site Plans
No. of Cases
Misc. Income
(Includes Maps and Ordinance Copies)
No. of Receipts
Total Revenue
Total No. of Receipts
J
�'l
19,990.00
(3)
250.00
(5)
.00
222.50
(12)
$ 20,462.50
(20)
cm
F lCID.�+
.Mmm�••
e�n�
.
p
.Qi 62v
an
M O d
s�•o
_
one
=
o
w
o
O
00
0000
00
i~/�
v+
60
sa cm
o
c
O
00
0000
0000
00
00
y
9rc
p
0000
00
�O
p
DO
0000
00
Z;
p
wrn
O
o
a•�
trs
0
O
00
0000'
o
oo
v
m
t
a N
0
o
00
0000
00
rs
�o
0
C
00
0000
ca
O
V!
y�
r--
0
.••
a �
n..
O
at a
00
0.0�
0
0
00
0000
0o
�C
a�
r
Al,
'Q
a
3 n
C y
C-
Z = 0 -Or1
m�Jr/
V 1
%C m
4O -0 =
0 0
�-! O rm
Z
City of Southlake, Texas
I E M 0 R A N D U M
July 12, 1990
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
Street Department Monthly Report - June 1990
The enclosed report details the Street Department activities
for the month of June 1990.
This report is to be included in the City Council packets
,/f�ort/hjeir July 17, 1990 meeting.
' -< #
MHB/ew
City of Southlake, Texas
I E M O R A N D U M
July 12, 1990
TO: Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
FROM: Ron Morain, Public Works Superintendent
SUBJECT: Street Department Report - June 1990
The street department pothole patched per schedule and blade
layed larger sections of street using 600 tons of asphalt.
Varioussections of street were excavated and repatched using
300 tons of base material.
Six stop signs and 27 street name signs were replaced using
19 posts and related hardware. The department worked on the
sprinkler system at Bicentennial Park, mowed ROW, trimmed
around bridges and repaired culverts damaged by flooding.
Routine maintenance was performed as required.
czel-11-
REM/ew
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
-y/
July 12, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Utility Department Monthly Report - June 1990
Attached is the Utility Department Monthly Report for June
1990.
The report submitted is to be included in the City Council's
packets for the June 17, 1990 meeting.
If there are any questions, please contact me.
APe
MHB/ew
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
July 12, 1990
TO: Michael H. Barnes
FROM: Ron Morain
SUBJECT: Water Department Monthly Report for June 1990.
Water personnel took samples to Fort Worth Health Department for analysis.
We received two samples that were positive. Further sampling resulted in
negative readings and our water for the month was found to be free of
coloform bacteria.
We worked on two water breaks during the month and the remainder of the
time assisted the Street Department in street repairs and mowing of
R.O.W.s.
W/cbk
a a:
UTILITY DEPARTMENT REPORT
GALLONS PUMPED THIS MONTH FROM WELLS 0
PURCHASED FROM FORT WORTH
TOTAL PUKED AND PURCHASED
NEW WATER TAPS INSTALLED
FIRE HYDRANTS INSTALLED
55,434,000
55,434,000
2-3/4" 16-1"
NONE
METER CHANGE OUTS 1
ADDRESSES: 1046 SU** RPLACE
PULLED METERS PER CUSTOMER REQUEST 1
PULLED METERS PER DELINQUENT PAYMENT 0
LOCKED METERS PER CUSTOMER REQUEST 18
LOCKED METERS PER DELINQUENT PAYMENT 4
PROCESSED WORK ORDERS 124
WATER MAIN BREAK REPAIRS PEYTONVILLE/SHADY OAKS
SEWER LINE REPAIRS NONE
FLUSHED WATER LINES PEYTONVILLF/SHADY OAKS
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
MONTHLY REPORT SEND REPORT TO: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF WATER HYGIENE
WATER WORKS OPERATION FOR 1100 WEST 49th STREET
GROUND WATER SUPPLIES AUSTIN. TEXAS 78756-3192
Name of System CITY OF SOUTH AKE County TARRANT
(la) Water System I.D. No. - 7 2 Q nn 7 S Month of .TUNE 19 2L—
Corrosi„
Control
•
,
• -
©
1 1
------- ----
• 1
• 1
-
Q
1 1
:• 1
:' 1
-
©
1 1
1• 1OMIT-me
-
0
1 1
• 1
• 1
-
Q
1 1
•1 1
•1 1
-
m
1 1
• 1
• 1
-�
-
—
1 1
11M 1
11� 1
'
►I:
'
=-
: 1
NOW.",
-
®
1 1
•1 1
•1 1
-
• 1
-
1 1
.•• 1
••• 1
�-
-
No. of Active Water Services (10)- 2,114 Chemical Analysis (11) 11-83
Dates and Results of Distribution Bacteriological Analyses (12) 6 -18 - 90 NEGATIVE
Dates and Results of Raw Unchlorinated Well Water Samples (13) NONE
Reservoirs or Tanks Cleaned (14) 8 - 8 7 Dead Ends Flushed (15) SHADY OAKS/PEYTONVILLE
jeneral Remarks (16)
7
Submitted By (17)
Certificate No. (18) 4SO-31-2306
FQRMNQ)i3 All reports due by the 15th of the following month. 5/88
'�/—/ z:--
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF RATD
REVENUES, EXPENDITURES,
AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE
DUNE 30, I990
Revenues:
Taxes:
Property
Sales
Franchise
Licenses and Permits
Charges for Services
Fines
Interest
Miscellaneous
Total Revenues
Expenditures:
Current:
General Government:
City Sec/Mayor/Council
City Manager's Off
Support Services
Finance
Court
Total Gen. Gov't
Public Safety:
Fire
Police
Building
Total Pub. Safety
Public Works:
FY90 FY90 ENCU11BRANCE TOTAL ACTUAL
YTD ACTUAL ANNUAL BUDGET & ENCUMBERED
$2,064,829 $2,020,530
$242,816 $292,197
$215,016 $214,127
$306,853 $152,130
$15,565 $61,410
$189,287 $259,480
$30,955 $28,000
$153,633 $163,562
-------------------------
$3,218,954 $3,191,426
----------------------------------
$75,288
$61,423
$125,480
$74,753
$1,325
$781
$76,613
$227,999
$135,097
$359,230
$159,007
$1,122
$62,204
$229,121
$82,551
---- ------------------------------
$105,612
$399
$1,615
$135,496
$84,166
$582_-358
---
$824,082
----------------------------------
-------------
$5,242
$587,600
$323,283
$682,790
$406,114
$906,478
$1,942
$6,236
$325,225
$689,026
---$140_-036
$147,915
------------------------------
$2,680
$142,716
1 146 I09
----------------------------------------
$1,460,507
$10,858
------
$1,156,967
Streets
Parks
$240,145
$44,029
$397,325
$66,864
$12,565
$252,710
Public Works
$45,628
$54,080
$2,060
61
$46,089
45
$ ,
Total Public Public Works
$329,802
--------------------
-----------$---
$518,269
$14,686
-------689
-
---$344,488-
$344,488
Total Expenditures
$ 2 058 269
$2,-------
$30,786
-------
$2 089 055
Excess Rev. (Expenditures)
Other Financing
$1,160,685
$388 568
'
Sources (Uses):
Debt Service Transfers
($133,938)
($157,696)
er
$1,026,747
$230,872
$169,834
$169,834
($116,537)
-----------------------------------------------
($61,686)
$1,080,044
$339,020
# Estimated personnel adjustment reserve used not considering
any overtime, which not only effects earnings, but all the
benefits that are tied to those earnings.
Y
r
�1V3rrm>�
7
K C N a Y N C QO
a is19Z0-%--I
Sr A 4 0 Y Y A���Z=rr><OtxxxG9G971�1TTTOAAmp7m>1
AYOYYYICrCYr7�00<caYlorOr7r
1
!7 f107r7Y�r
«'NNrtC00<lfr7 07C7e•7r�Nrrrl7r.-n«-orc�ar�
e�rtrtRY RN �A S-•ROD111 r r O 7 RIC 7 O r I I rr ?-ft-•R
p
C rrtr rtrY
rN rR9
OIC=P-CS07"I nm-•-rN ICICROOICO. mumnov-s 100
A
O
vn
Y1
7 r O A
C colas -so Y Y n ff-.-•=0,1 Rp < ZRY N I•-*Ir.0 20'ln
7N1"WOW
C
rtY
rt
I0770SmcxOr «,DO 7-•RK<OOO.R
7
an
%C 47
rpm rtA W-D Y O. --OR 7 r OZ 1 7 x +S -•C Or O
R
Y
K rtS r Y Or W Y a RA r0 7
Ic
«»
O
rt 7 N xY 7 7 R -•Sr Z ra
-I r -C >t
\
O
•-•K CL r <n IC
O A -• r
C1
0-4
R
-,.r
x A 0-0
f+
VN
r
O
20 N
r Y
rto r a m
r.o
\ V
A N A CL
w
3
O
M
4
•
w
r
w w
N r
•'
O
A w AAA.
wA AAA ANA wAwIV r►+VIVA r w A wrr
SA
AA r
wwNWAWryI 1nPPAVIr+WPAVVrWWAN40r10tnwVI0.04
«rt
Wr r
■-PVVVYINV WPrrrylNOr W.OInrOPrrNONrr�oO
yl
1n0VIPO
Y1NYIrWPVP tfIWrPNOrOVI�tIAOWPVrO00WONN1n
'pY
AAVrrNN
OVWrOOVOAVONNWrWrrVl r�•-PVWVY1ry1rOVIOW
rK
OOO.ONIPN
0100fVWO�+00PNPOWPOrVO�OPrrrNVr.OPNV�+V
7 3
001nPNYIW
rYIOOWPVNOWr�O.OWOWryIOWrrNWVVVYIW�ON►+N
OONVNNO
ONONrO�OVOOOOOPWVI�VOOP�OVOOVWOrVr.OP
07
O.R
A
O
rt
3
�
y
• w
r
IA C)
• A41,
N r
A w AAA. A A.
1 Y
r N
VI
Aw AAw ANA AwAN rr4% r A w Ao••N
-•O'
A v
A O
N
w NNwNryl wrwrw.o
O r
N rt
cor
Nr1l%ONr OVVIrVVfOPrNWOOP1n0 ► Cop.N{Mtn .O
1A
A . AAw•
.O -O.OPVN
w. .
Y O
tlIA03 VIW
N OOPWWW �OW�OP.O.o tnNNrW WO�OVrO1rOPOWOP
<-0
O r
rOO.OVNr
�OwPtnrtnOOAPrr�pVIWNNNPIVNVOrWNVrWVIWW
ICY
CL r
OOPOWr VrO�OrOVr Vr�pVOrrV�OVNPN.OPWrp1V
YK
A N
V Or�Oryl yl
OOOOr�ONPOr+OrrNrrVV10.OVrrVtOrNW.OPVrW
fC
roouorrw
P042%CD o00PWWWrylln N rr
N Y
Or W V%O.O W to Lo%n r In w N
7
N O rt
A
Y o
x C M
Icr
r II
I Ir
X
0 A
%OCDO Nrrro
r NtJ1lTIN rr 1 1 rrNr 1 rrrN I N i r r
C)
3 {� x
O ON07PO
P rvlVrwP VIV1`1`PONOWWV1n VINVWNOJO VIVW�OW
S
amp
O OONV�O
N VVN{nr0 rrPl7�O1 V1PrPOrPON.Orr ONPrNrO
r
�
r > N
7 A
O VPVVIW
O .00.0 VIOP NVO►-rVInNW W.ONVP�O.OrNr�Orr�00
n
I7
X XscXXXxX
XIKXXXX X.X �K X.t?tX?tXXXMit:tXXXXXXXXXXXXX
A
N O
O C
7 7
R
N N
C
A
A A
A A AAAN A Ar
r
8
3
V
N N rrrN r rN
.O
Y
rj A A N
0141. wAw w. A ANA. . . A A A• .
wwNNANrr rWtnAW�•••NP WVOPNAOAAwWAWVIN
.p
-i0
1
K
40 O►W Aw AO
►-1nV✓PrrOArrNrpfrrNAyfNO�O VIPHINOOVrV�Or
O
rV- %nr
ONPV CO Pi 4% wooV W000100-Unw WW O.OV Wr-4 a- 0WP
y
ov+u+nowr.-
rw.r.o►-c.r•.e•%lnW0u0 ,&4% or4"Jaow&a
yr
ocv-r�oosvoPrrorN
Vr00-0
0.4$_voolrVNo
J
r.pr.pOOO
rNu+rOON%OPIlk VPOPODOWvIrrPWrPOrNN0 Ca
ID
NWVIWPP�O
O�IO�WO��OP�O Q�wVOwV�OrrO�rinoowrrWlnP�01n YI
V ONPNNr
PWWrOW WPPONr.pO0D.0OlO�O �00 Woo lnNrr.p .o O.OW
rt
III
A
A A
A A AAall N A Ar
r
r
hi N rrWO
A r
w. A wAA-
AAAAA WNrNrr- A ANwAANA AWN•W.W
V.p
AA
rrrAWAAAP r Vln .Or O)PNrANOIl1VOVrrV�DONWOW
O
.Irr.,v,v,r
.o OotnPrWW rwaorovlvllvrooe.orn,.•rulwvl.loPPr
�
. ..
A..
OY
07rWNNOVI
N rVWVrVrWVlrrWwVPrOPO ONVIrVrOLnVPrV
Y-C
r�OOWOI.pO
.OAOP.-u,rVOOPVWN1nOO�OVr.-rPr.-vINVWWON0�0►+
rFN
P4—NVIVN
VO�DVWPOPVNNn-VrWON�nrPrOrOWOOWrVPW�O
rA
01O�OPOV�O
�OOrNrrr.OW V1WONV1nrODPOP►-1nrNNPOViVPOWN
rt
M
W ONPNNtn
POWOr�OOWrOrVNNNrrN.-W VI►+OO�OONVrOOVO
N
Y
n
r
1 1 1 1 r I 1 1 x
1
N rr I P r rNr Nrrr I rr Nr W I rWr i WrrN n
W WPOOPr ►+ rW VOOPWO�D UIWNVIOWWOOWON1n 1nO�0OOrONV S
rwrcor.ow Cb r.prwrWWW0.01nr01nN007PVr-OPWwOPr�000V 7
oo�nVwrro P VOWInrVVfOWrWWOWO1nCbWOOV1rPrNWOOPWO C)
xxxxxxx xsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx r
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CASH ANALYSIS SUiMMARY
FISCAL YEAR 1989-90
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
Beginning Cash Balance
$104,126
$71,669
92,753
134,499
230,338
Deposits
166,479
313,556
339,510
1,216,484
642,358
Investments
(95,000)
(550,000
(450,000)
Accounts Payable
(101,077)
(187,811)
(121,585)
(375,648)
)
(189,458)
(97,859)
(101,524)
(64,203)
(108,977)
(109,358)
Debt Service
0
-----------------------------
(3,137)
(16,976)
(86,020)
Ending Cash Balance
-$71,669
-------
$92,753
----
$134,499
$230,338--$123,8---
$230,338
$123,880
MAR
APR------
�Y-------
--------U----
Beginning Cash Balance
123,880
113,311
64,874
51,652
Deposits
148,382
167,458
218,836
163,894
Investments
200,000
100,000
95,000
630,000
Accounts Payable
Y
(124,014)
(195,866)
(150,395)
(500,000)
(176,838)
Payroll
(110,276
(116,086)
(174,185)
(108,583)
Debt Service
(124,661)
(3,943)
(2,478)
Ending Cash Balance
---------------
$113,311
-------
$64,874
---- --------------
$51,652
--------
$60,125
$0-
AUG
SEPT
Beginning Cash Balance
Deposits
Investments
Accounts Payable
Payroll
Debt Service
Ending Cash Balance
Footnotes:
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CASH ACTIVITY REPORT- GENERAL FUND
FOR THE PERIOD ENDED, DUNE, 1990
WEER ENDING
DEPOSITS
ACCTS PAYROLL DEBT
RUNNING
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAYABLE SERVICE
BALANCE
Beginning Balance
51652
June 8, 1990
27317
0 0
0 78969
June 15, 1990
51315
105736 54226
-29678
June 22, 1990
46814
60378 0
86758
June 29, 1990
Average Weekly Deposit:
(Excluding redeemed CD's)
Average Weekly Disbursement:
(Excluding investments)
Average Payroll:
130000
38448 10724
500000 500000
34144
44210
54292
Total Certificates of Deposit: 1200000
54357
60125
a
47Ft
P
daa
e
ad~
EC
H F
to W
E
�E
e
E
0C
�W
wE
p+ e
Ea
°co
rn
0)
h cc
pq F
E+
� w
� a
0 :x
E M
U.
►+
U a
w
a
a
O
�
a
Ep
�c
O
(3)
l)
ri
o
Cl)
0)
C
h
I riNhh00Nt� MO1rIM(O1-i 00w tO r-1 N M
M N N ri N r-4 t` V r-1 r•1 O N N Cr) r-1
ri
O V--weft"NO r-4NN0O)rl 00) 000 M O N K
I w 1-1 r� rq d� N V 00 O M qw M
N ri
CD t-r4EOMNO LID Ot-00r4 [ CD 0t- th O N rl
H ri N H r-1 CO " N r-1 M r-i N
i
I I CIO
co " N N r�1 O CO " C, 01 0 N rq O O 0)0 r4 d�
h ri ri coO 0)w co M M N
i ri
i
COCV) 030m(D H NVOCOONO MVO Or-1 O O O 0
I CONNON600 Or-i0000 NCO O O H
r-1 M N
it vMrlOOrlto to NNt-0r-10 �M 0w CO O O H
M
I
c °
a w
i CO � IN H °
a8
OR4 z
E H H
93
pq w
M (aU O v1 0 W W
It -
CD
O
r�
O
IN
a
a
a a
x
0
O
V) E+
W 0
O 7B 0
E4 " p4
H :9 E4
U C4 P4
W O
a a�
x
ErEG
I
pq I.
I
V]EG
x�p
E4
_M
Fa
9D
m U
44e
V1 P�
E4 a
Cal
ac
►� RRE
E4 c
8888888 F108888 88 88 c8 8 8 8
�8 CI BA N •w .0a �i Cl
N N r) r) 10 00 1n N rl
r-IC4 8 40�3888 8E EM 8 8 8 00
IhF)8E9PIC) 98eHMC1 O r'I 00 � TA
.-i C+9 Co ri o CD er U) rl .-1 1-1 C�
rl ri 1i
S8885388 OUSS888 88 88 8 8 8 8
f er-1 P ) ti O 0SO) )A Ofl 6l (C N d� ti d� N
DO N r/ rl N N rl
ra
MpDpp�8�8�,88 p0�3S88 88 8c)i «) E 8
ri rI N CO) CM tr-I N
8888888 888888 88 88 8 8 8 8
cr) H S •tN0 r�i0� •M •rl
O N N N rl rl 00 .� .-1
CD rl
0-1 0088853 �08888 88 8M 8 8 8 8
.0OOppp . . . . . .9 . . . . . �.. . . . . . .
OD
�tDN qw 000 �� O�0 CAD
l� 1-1 N N
rl
�A088888 0Np8p888 88 EE 8p 8 8 8
1lON1Ni •8r�i 00H .� •� * • �
CD r♦ CM N ri
H
M
r
E+ U
c o
v1�6x�i7 0 O co
M M M a' N �' M O
OMMOO
Pom �i i� "MI fa C7 R7 U z
W
m EO U O toCU/I W k'
Lo
N
O
M
N
1•.
0800e8��88888
MNMONOO
�HHU)
ONr�-1r�i��er
al�w
CM ri
85�88888
as
HHU
era Ulcooc��pNpC�
H t'r
C) C-1 N
Ch r" C+) 00Q c�
mc°sC�c�ibd
w
c
ri
w
N888888
Q
in ri LLM9
H
^
mA�4
aH
CV)
aw
�A8�38« 88
H
r49�����
CV)
O�U v)
O
HQ
r0-IO Wr-1
Orir-ICr)
H COi
HH
w o '�
h
x a
a
x
o asw
�
H a
N
00
ri
q
r-4
8 8
r•i
8
N
88j
�
w
M
c
ri
r
ri
cl
w
o
ti,
888$SfB
8
f
Q
W.
c o
wH
C9
w
a
�
�
a
N
f
f
40
pQC....8858
csg
OtM
oo M 1-4 N �
O
Cl ri
N
cq888f�88
8
�
H
P
0
O d5 Q)
€1�0 ri0
v
ti
N
'la
9
-A
3
Hv
H
0 h,
g
cd ~
a
>
rn
ri
a rH.
Up
M
4
5.1
FLiJ
z
7
�
oa
�
(o
Y.
z �
M a a
ul
� 8
e
> w
w
!L-�! 1:j py
L) W
47 N
W
zi
m
A
f
� �MM$ (o sM Im
� r
;I�•j 00 CO0 M IQ rOi 0 Ir0•C
m
co 0w IR
IN
N
.m
[n M • �c"o.
Q Q M
Z M Z M M
W
City of Southlake, Texas
TO: CURTIS HAWK, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JANIE DORUM, MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK
SUBJECT: MUNICIPAL COURT ACTIVITY REPORT FOR June 1990
DATE: July 10, 1990
`7/` ( 7
wig. _e n_..•��_�__ T__._.
vny vs vvuunanv, 40,00
MUNICIPAL COURT MONTHLY REPORT
M M OF June 1990
MONTH OF June 1990
*Cases Set For Trail
Plea Trl
105 25
•32
*Cases Heard
54 16
64
Cases Dismissed
03 04
02
Cases Reset
10 02
21
Cases Appealed
201
124
Past Due Letters
61
73
Cases Refered to DSC
49
61
Citations Issued
590
539
Citations Paid
268
231
*Fines Collected From Court
1,600.00
850.00
Total Revenue
21,922.50
21,255.00
* 2 Plea Courts a Month
* 2 Trial Courts a Month
bw * Total Money Collected in
Four (4) Courts
SOUTHLARE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WARRANT OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT
June, 1990
MUNICIPAL WARRANTS CURRENT MONTH PAST MONTH YTD
WARRANTS ON HAND
Beginning Count 394 453 N/A
Received
ill
2
427
Served
41
61
458
Purged
9
0
451
Ending Count
455
394
N/A
FINES COLLECTED
By Warrant Officer
4,167
6,479
47,828
Other Agency
1,914
2,656
16,996
Total
6,081
9,135
64,824
ARREST/WARRANTS SERVED
By Warrant Officer 28 46 328
Other Agency 13 15 126
Total 41 61 454
r,
SOUTHLAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
PATROL DIVISION ACTIVITY SUMMARY
APRIL 1990
OFFICER DAYS CALLS REPORTS CITATIONS ARREST ACCIDENTS MILES
DAY SHIFT
HINKLE
21
57
16
PATTERSON
19
79
17
WYRICK
20
31
6
PAUL
14
32
8
SHIFT TOTAL
74
199
47
EVENING SHIFT
HART
3
5
0
MARLER
18
55
10
ROBERTSON
20
70
6
'�TDERS
8
17
6
SHIFT TOTAL
49
147
22
NIGHT SHIFT
STEWART
17
32
3
WOOD
20
37
4
McAMIS
22
50
11
MOORE
22
41
12
SHIFT TOTAL
81
160
30
TOTALS
204
506
99
A
36
6
0
1334
42
7
2
1641
0
4
1
766
182
3
6
1120
260
20
9
4171
18
0
0
178
42
3
1
1558
69
1
2
1746
_90
219
_3
7
_1
4
_755
4237
7
0
1
895
25
0
1
1959
32
4
4
1682
30
2
0
1827
94
6
6
6363
573
33
19
14,771
�av
SOUTHLAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
PATROL DIVISION SUMMARY
MAY 1990
CALLS FOR SERVICE 506
CITATIONS 573
PATROL 301
S. T. E. P. 272
ARRESTS 33
FELONY 3
MISD 30
ACCIDENTS 19
MINOR 17
MAJOR 2
y� /
SOUTHLAKE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WARRANT OFFICE MONTHLY REPORT
June, 1990
MUNICIPAL WARRANTS CURRENT MONTH PAST MONTH YTD
WARRANTS ON HAND
Beginning Count 394 453 N/A
Received
ill
2
427
Served
41
61
458
Purged
9
0
451
Ending Count
455
394
N/A
FINES COLLECTED
BV Warrant Officer 4,167 6,479 47,828
Other Agency 1,914 2,656 16,996
Total 6,081 9,135 64,824
ARREST/WARRANTS SERVED
By Warrant Officer
Other Agency
Total
28
46
328
13
15
126
41
61
454
City of Southlake, Texas -
M E M O R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Karen P. Gandy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Selwyn School Special Exception Use
Ms. Pat McCormick called today to request a two (2) month
extension to their Special Exception Use Permit that is due
to expire in October, 1990. Their architect in finishing
plans for a permanent structure and will be submitting the
plans to the City in the next few weeks.
Her concern is that the new building may not be complete
prior to their permit expiring.
Would the Council consider granting a two month extension to
the existing permit or would we follow the procedures
setforth in Ordinance No. 480-A regarding portable buildings.
I recommend that they be allowed this extension rather than
having to bear the expense and time associated with
obtaining a Specific Use Permit.
Please advise me of the avenue we should follow.
KPG
City of Southtake, Texas
[ E M O R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
Space Utilization Study Report
The Allen/Buie Partnership has completed the Space
Utilization Study for Southlake City Hall and the results
are published in the attached report.
Please place this item on the agenda for the July 17, 1990
CityCouncil meeting.
/Aq7Q
V
MHB/ew
attachment - Space Utilization Report
•
The Allen/Buie Partnership
3 D
July 11, 1990 00
Mr. Curtis Hawk
City Manager
City of Southlake
667 N. Carroll Avenue
Southlake, TX 76092
Re: Space Utilization Study
Southlake City Hall
Dear Curtis,
Enclosed are ten (10 ) copies of the Final Report of our Space Utilization
Study for Southlake City Hall. Bob and I will be present at the Work Session
on Tuesday, July 17 at 6:30 PM at City Hall with the remaining 15 copies
and also with Specifications for the Portable Building Addition. We look
forward to seeing you then.
Sincerely,
4`
Jim Buie, AIA
JEB/ja
Enclosure
6--Z"
Architects/Planners Incorporated/1000 Pegues Place/Longview, Texas 75601 /214/753-5502
1.
City of Southlake, Texas
2 E M 0 R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Water and Sewer Impact Fee Ordinance
Attached is the Water and Sewer Impact Fee Ordinance. The
contents of the ordinance were derived from a report (to be
distributed at the council meeting) prepared by Cheatham &
Associates and Rimrock Consulting with consultation from the
Advisory Committee. Also included is a letter to the
council from the Advisory Committee chairman, Barry Emerson,
that gives an overview of how the Water and Sewer Impact Fee
Ordinance was derived.
The Advisory Committee and the consultants have put in many
hours of hard work to produce this ordinance and are ready
to submit the ordinance to the City Council for the 1st
Reading at the July 17, 1990 meeting. Mr. Emerson will be
at the City Council meeting and make a short presentation
concerning the ordinance. If there are any questions,
please contact me.
MHB/ew
attachment - Water and Sewer Impact Fee Ordinance
7-1
vyv-t�u 11
JUL9 1990
TO: Mayor Fickes and Members of the City Council
FROM: Members of the Impact Fee Advisory Committee
OFFICE OF
SZCRET,A� .
SUBJECT: Comments on the Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Program and
Impact Fee
As required by Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee
has worked closely with Staff, Cheatham and Associates and Rimrock Consulting Company to
develop water and wastewater impact fees for the City of Southlake.
Under the provisions of Chapter 395, the Advisory Committee must file written comments within
five working days of the hearing regarding the water and wastewater capital improvements
programs and the resulting capital recovery fees. Attached is the Executive Summary of the
capital recovery fee study report, including, in Chapter 7.0, the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee. This report represents the legal and technical background of the
development of the capital recovery fees, the planning and engineering work of Rimrock
Consulting Company and Cheatham and Associates, and a presentation of the concerns and
advice of the Committee.
It is our recommendation that capital recovery fees be enacted according to the conclusions
of the study report, with maximum assessable fees to be $1,035 for water and $1,562 for
wastewater. We recommend that the fee amounts actually collected be initially set at $500 for
water and $1,000 for wastewater. In addition to these base fees, any impact fee collected by
the City of Fort Worth would be passed along to the Southlake feepayers. Also, any costs of
localized approach mains and lift stations which are not specifically included in the CIP (due
to the unpredictability of their location) would be additional fees charged to new development.
It has been our pleasure to serve on the Advisory Committee and we look forward to
monitoring the progress on the CIP in the coming months, as our next responsibility under
State law.
Sincerely,
i
'Barry:'Emerson
Chairman, Impact
attachment
Fee Advisory Committee
7"
ORDINANCE NO. ) C
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE,
PROVIDING THAT THE CITY CODE BE HEREBY AMENDED
(W BY ADDING THERETO A NEW SECTION
TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE
ORDINANCE.
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 shall be provided by the City utilizing funds
allocated in the capital budget and capital improvements programming processes and relying
upon the funding sources indicated therein; and
WHEREAS, new residential and nonresidential development causes and imposes
increased and excessive demands upon City public facilities and services, including water and
sewer 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 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, 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 capital recovery fee to be imposed shall be determined
by the cost of the additional public facilities needed to support such development, which public
facilities shall be identified in a capital improvements program, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, hereby finds and
declares that capital recovery fees imposed upon residential and nonresidential development
to finance specked major public facilities in designated service areas, the demand for which
is created by such development, is in the best interests of the general welfare of the City and
its residents, is equitable, and does not impose an unfair burden on such development;
7-3
WHEREAS, in 1987 the Texas Legislature adopted Senate Bill 336, now Chapter 395
of the Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in all things the City has complied with said
statute in the notice, adoption, promulgation and methodology necessary to adopt Capital
Recovery Fees;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Southlake that the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Southlake be amended by adding an Ordinance numbered
follows: to be entitled Water and Wastewater Capital Recovery Fee Ordinance, to read as
WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.01 Short Title
This Chapter shall be known and cited as the Water and Wastewater Capital Recovery
Fees Chapter.
Section 1.02 Intent
This Chapter is intended to impose water and wastewater capital recovery fees, as
established in this Chapter, in order to finance public facilities, the demand for which is
generated by new development in the designated service area.
Section 1.03 Authority
The City is authorized to enact this Chapter by Chapter 395 of the Local Government
Code, (Senate Bill 336 enacted by the 70th Texas Legislature) and its successors, which
authorize home -rule cities, among others, to enact or impose impact fees (capital recovery fees)
on land within their corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions, and to persons with
whom they have a water or sewer service contract, as charges or assessments imposed
against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of
capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to such new
development; and by the Southlake City Charter. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be
construed to limit the power of the City to adopt such Chapter 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
Chapter. Guidelines may be developed by resolution or otherwise to implement and administer
this chapter.
Z
7- y
Section 1.04 Definitions
As applied in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall be used:
(1) Assessment - The determination of the amount of the maximum capital recovery
fee per service unit which can be imposed on new development pursuant to this
Chapter.
(2) Building Permit - Written permission issued by the City for the construction,
repair, alteration or addition to a structure.
(3) Capital Construction Cost of Service - Costs of constructing capital improvements
or facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract price,
surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including land purchases,
court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees), 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 Improvements Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) - 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 which are not employees of the City, and,
if capital recovery 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 capital recovery 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 program in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code,
and it successors.
(5) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) - Plan which identifies water and wastewater
capital improvements or facility expansions pursuant to which capital recovery
fees may be assessed.
(6) Capital Recovery Fee - Fee to be imposed upon new development, calculated
based upon the costs of facilities in proportion to development creating the
need for such facilities. Capital recovery fees do not include dedication of rights -
of -way or easements, or construction or dedication of site -related water
distribution or -wastewater collection facilities 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 sewer mains or
lines.
K
1 -.'
(7) Ci_yt - City of Southlake.
(8) City Council (Council) - Governing body of the City of Southlake.
(9) City Public Works Director (Director) - Public Works Director of the City of
Southlake.
(10) Commercial Development - For the purposes of this Chapter, all development
which is neither residential nor industrial.
01) 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.
(12) Credit - The amount of the reduction of a capital recovery fee for fees, payments
or charges for the same type of capital improvements for which the fee has been
assessed.
(13) Existing Development - All development within the service area which has a water
or wastewater tap on the City's water or sewer system as of the date of the
adoption of this Chapter.
(14) 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.
(15) Final Subdivision Plat - The map, drawing or chart 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.
(16) 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;
4
7-4
(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 program.
(17) Industrial Development - Development which will be assigned to the industrial
customer class of the water or wastewater utilities; generally development in
which goods are manufactured, or development which is ancillary to such
manufacturing activity.
(18) Land Use Assumptions - Description of the service area and projections of
changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population therein over at least
a 10-year period, adopted by the City, as may be amended from time to time,
upon which the capital improvement plan is based.
(19) Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) - Basis for establishing equivalency among and
within various customer classes based upon the relationship of the continuous
duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a water meter of a given size
and type compared to the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per
minute for a 1" diameter simple water meter, using American Water Works
Association C700-C703 standards. LUE's for water meters are as follows:
METER SIZE AND TYPE LUE's
5/8"
Simple
0.4
3/4"
Simple
0.6
1"
Simple
1.0
1-1 /2"
Simple
2.0
2"
Simple
3.2
2"
Compound
3.2
2"
Turbine
4.0
3"
Compound
6.4
3"
Turbine
9.6
4"
Compound
10.0
4"
Turbine
16.8
6"
Compound
20.0
6"
Turbine
36.8
8"
Compound
32.0
8"
Turbine
64.0
F9
10" Compound 46.0
10" Turbine 100.0
(W 12" Turbine 132.0
(20) New Development - 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 or wastewater service and
purchase of a new water or wastewater tap. New development includes the
sale of water taps resulting from the conversion of an individual well to the
City's water utility and includes the sale of wastewater taps 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 a capital recovery 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) Residential Development - A lot developed for use and occupancy as a
residence or residences, according to the City's zoning ordinance.
(23) Service Area - Area within the corporate boundaries to be served by the water
and wastewater capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the
capital improvements program applicable to the service area.
(24) 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, expressed in
living units equivalent.
(25) 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.
(26) 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.
(27) 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
0
'tap purchase" shall not be applicable to a meter purchased for and exclusively
dedicated to fire protection.
(28) Wastewater Facility - Improvement for providing wastewater service, including,
but not limited to, land or easements, treatment facilities, lift stations, or
interceptor mains. Wastewater facility excludes wastewater 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. 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.
(29) Wastewater Facility Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any existing
wastewater improvement for the purpose of serving new development, not
including the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing
wastewater facility to serve existing development.
(30) Wastewater Improvements Plan - Portion of the CIP, 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 which are 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
capital recovery fees pursuant to this Chapter.
(31) Water Facility - Improvement for providing water service, including, but not
limited to, land or easements, water supply facilities, treatment facilities, pumping
facilities, storage facilities, or transmission mains. 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.
(32) Water Facility Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any existing water
improvement for the purpose of serving new development, not including the
repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing water facility to
serve existing development.
(33) Water Improvements Plan - Portion of the CIP, 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 which are 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 capital recovery
fees pursuant to this Chapter.
r7
F.
Section 1.05 Applicability of Capital Recovery Fees
A. This Chapter shall be uniformly applicable to new development which occurs
within the water and wastewater service areas.
B. No new development shall be exempt from the assessment of capital recovery
fees as defined in this Chapter.
Section 1.06 Capital Recovery Fees as Conditions of Development Approval
No application for new development shall be approved within the City without
assessment of capital recovery fees pursuant to this Chapter, and no water and wastewater
tap shall be issued and no building permit shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the
capital recovery fees imposed by and calculated hereinunder.
Section 1.07 Establishment of Water and Wastewater Service Areas
A. The water and wastewater service areas are established as shown on the
Service Area Map which is Exhibit A for this Chapter.
B. The service areas shall be established consistent with any facility service area
established in the CIP for each utility. Additions to the service area may be
designated by the City Council consistent with the procedure set forth in
Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code and its successors.
Section 1.08 Land Use Assumptions
Land use assumptions used in the development of the capital recovery fees are
contained in Exhibit B of this Chapter. These assumptions may be revised by the City Council
according to the procedure set forth in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code and its
successors.
Section 1.09 Service Units
A. Service units are established in accordance with generally accepted engineering
and planning standards.
B. Service units shall be calculated based on living units equivalent as determined
by the size of the water meter(s) for the development, or alternatively, as
approved by City Council, based on the recommendation of the Director as a
result of an engineering report prepared by a qualified professional engineer
licensed to perform such professional engineering services in the State of Texas,
which demonstrates that the number of LUE's of service for the new
8
7 /a
development will be different than those indicated by the size of the water
meter.
C. If the 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 Council 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.
D. 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 provide only
domestic service to the property. Said reduced meter size shall then be utilized
to calculate the number of LUE's.
1. The meter types used to calculate the number of LUE's shall be either
simple or compound meters.
2. To avoid the use of fire flow volumes for domestic usage, 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 covenant shall acknowledge the right of the City to
assess such fees to subsequent owners of the property. Said covenant
shall be executed prior to the purchase of the fire demand meter and
shall be filed in the deed records of the County.
E. Upon wastewater tap purchase for lots for which no water meter has been
purchased, service units shall be established by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Texas, shall be reviewed by the Director and shall be
presented to Council, which shall designate the appropriate number of service
units.
F. The City Council may revise the service units designation according to the
procedure set forth in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code and its
successors.
Section 1.10 Capital Recovery Fees Per Service Unit
A. The maximum capital recovery 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 improvements, 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.
Maximum assessable capital recovery fees per service unit for each service area
9
shall be established by category of capital improvements and shall be set forth
in Exhibit C to this Chapter.
B. Maximum assessable fees in Exhibit C may be amended by the City Council
according to the procedure set forth in Chapter 395 of the Local Government
Code and its successors.
C. Current collected fees shall be set forth in Exhibit C to this Chapter, and shall
not exceed the maximum fees also set forth in Exhibit C. Current collected fees
may be amended by the City Council from time to time, provided they do not
exceed the maximum assessable fees.
Section 1.11 Assessment of Capital Recovery Fees
A. The approval of any subdivision of land or of any new development shall
include as a condition the assessment of the capital recovery fee applicable to
such development.
B. Assessment of the capital recovery fee for any new development shall be made
as follows:
1. For a development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the City's
subdivision regulations following the effective date of this Chapter,
assessment shall be at the time of final plat recordation, and shall be the
value of the capital recovery fee per service unit then in effect, as
provided in Exhibit C as set forth in Section 1.10(A). The City may
provide the subdivider with a copy of Exhibit C prior to final plat
approval, but such shall not constitute assessment within the meaning of
this Chapter.
2. For a development which has received final plat approval prior to the
effective date of this Chapter and for which no replatting is necessary
prior to tap purchase, assessment shall be upon tap purchase, and shall
be the value of the capital recovery fee per service unit set forth in
Exhibit C.
3. 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 a capital recovery fee. However, if the fire protection
capacity of the fire demand meter is routinely utilized for domestic
purposes as evidenced by the registration of consumption recorded on
the City's meter -reading and billing systems, the current owner of the
property shall be assessed the current capital recovery fees for the fire
protection capacity which has been converted to domestic capacity by
its routine usage as domestic capacity.
10
C. Following assessment of the capital recovery fee pursuant to subsection (B), no
additional capital recovery fees or increases thereof shall be assessed against
that development unless the number of service units increases, as set forth Sj
under Section 1.09.
D. Following the lapse or expiration of approval for a plat, a new assessment must
be performed at the time a new application for such development is filed.
Section 1.12 Calculation of Capital Recovery Fees
A. Following the request for new development as provided in Section 1.11 of this
Chapter, the City shall compute capital recovery fees due for the new
development in the following manner:
1. The number of LUE's shall be determined by the size of the water
meter(s) or by evaluation of the Director and determination of Council
upon review of reports provided by a professional engineer licensed in
the State of Texas, as determined according to Section 1.09 of this
Chapter.
2. LUE's shall be summed for all meters purchased for the development.
3. The total service units shall be multiplied by the appropriate per -unit fee
value determined as set forth in Section 1.10; and
4. Fee credits and offsets shall be subtracted as determined by the process
proscribed in Section 1.14 of this Chapter.
C. The value of each capital recovery fee due for a new development shall not
exceed a value computed by multiplying the fee assessed per service unit
pursuant to Section 1.10 by the number of service units generated by the
development.
Section 1.13 Collection of Capital Recovery Fees
A. No water or wastewater tap shall be issued until all capital recovery fees have
been paid to the City except as provided otherwise by contract.
B. Within one (1) year of the effective date of this Chapter, capital recovery fees
shall be collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit for new
development, or if no permit is required, at the time of tap purchase.
Subsequent to that one year period, capital recovery fees shall be collected as
follows:
11
7-/3
1. For a development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the City's
subdivision regulations subsequent to the effective date of this Chapter,
capital recovery fees shall be collected at the time of building permit.
2. For a development which has received final plat approval prior to the
effective date of this Chapter or for which no replatting is necessary prior
to provision of a water or wastewater tap, capital recovery fees shall be
collected at the time of tap purchase.
B. The City may, at its sole discretion, enter into contracts to establish a different
date of fee collection than those provided in this Section.
Section 1.14 Suspension of Fee Collection
A. For any new development which has received final plat approval prior to the
effective date of this Chapter in accordance with Texas Local Government Code,
Chapter 212, or pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations, the City may
assess, but shall not collect any capital recovery fee as herein defined, on any
service unit for which a valid building permit is issued within one (1) year
subsequent to the effective date of this Chapter.
B. If the building permit, which is obtained within the period provided for in
subsection (A), subsequently expires, and no new application is made and
approved within such period, the new development shall be subject to the
payment of a capital recovery fee, as provided in Section 1.13.
C. Prior to the expiration of the one year period described in Subsection A, the
City may impose and collect on such new development described in Subsection
A capital recovery fees pursuant to Chapter of the City Code.
Section 1.15 Offsets and Credits Against Capital Recovery Fees
A. The City shall 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 rights -of -way or capital
improvements constructed pursuant to an agreement with the City, against the
value of the capital recovery fee due for that category of capital improvement.
B. The City shall credit capital recovery, pro rata, acreage or lot fees which have
been paid pursuant to Chapter(s) _ of the City Code prior to the -effective
date of this Chapter against the value of a capital recovery due for that category
Of capital improvement, subject to guidelines established by the City.
C. All offsets and credits against capital recovery fees shall be subject to the
following limitations and shall be granted based on this Ordinance and
12
additional standards promulgated by the City, which may be adopted as
administrative guidelines. Sj
1. No offset or credit shall be given for the dedication or construction of
site -related facilities.
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 capital recovery 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 the acquisition of the first tap purchase
made after the effective date of this ordinance or within such period as
may be otherwise designated by contract, such offset or credit shall
lapse.
4. In no event will the City reimburse the property owner or developer for
an offset or credit when no capital recovery fees for the new
development can be collected pursuant to this Chapter or for any value
exceeding the total capital recovery 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
capital recovery 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 a capital recovery 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 a
capital recovery fee in the following manner:
1. Such offset or credit shall be prorated equally among all living units
equivalent, as calculated in Section 1.09, and remain applicable to such
LUE's, to be applied at time of filing and acceptance of an application for
a building permit or tap purchase, as appropriate, against capital
recovery fees due.
2. If the total number of LUE's used by the City in the original offset or
credit calculation described in (1) is eventually exceeded by the number
of total LUE's realized by the actual development, the City may, at its
13
r�
sole discretion, collect the full capital recovery fee exclusive of any
associated offset or credits for the excess LUE's.
3. At its sole discretion, the City may authorize alternative credit or offset
agreements upon petition by the owner in accordance with guidelines
promulgated by the City.
Section 1.16 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 a capital recovery fee is imposed pursuant to this Chapter.
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 1.17.
C. The City shall establish adequate financial and accounting controls to ensure
that capital recovery fees disbursed from the account are utilized solely for the
purposes authorized in Section 1.17. 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 Chapter; 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 program as
system -related capital projects. The City Finance Department shall also maintain
such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are appropriately made
under the provision in Section 1.19 of this Chapter, and such other information
as may be necessary for the proper implementation of this Chapter.
Section 1.17 Use of Proceeds of Capital Recovery Fee Accounts
A. The capital recovery fees collected pursuant to this Chapter may be used to
finance or to recoup capital construction costs of service. Capital recovery 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. Capital recovery fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall not be used to
pay for any of the following expenses:
14
% /A
Construction, acquisition or expansion of capital improvements or assets
other than those identified for the appropriate utility 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
capital recovery 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.
Section 1.18 Appeals
A. The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the following
decisions to the Director or his/her designate:
1. The applicability of a capital recovery fee to the development;
2. The value of the capital recovery fee due;
3. The availability or the value of an offset or credit;
4. The application of an offset or credit against a capital recovery fee due;
5. The amount of the refund due, if any.
B. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the value of
the fee or the value of the offset or credit was not calculated according to the
applicable capital recovery fee schedule or the guidelines established for
determining offsets and credits.
C. The appellant may appeal the decision of the Director to the Council. A notice
of appeal to the Council must be filed by the applicant with the City Secretary
within thirty (30) days following the Director's decision. If the notice of appeal
is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety satisfactory to the City
Attorney in an amount equal to the original determination of the capital recovery
fee due, the development application or tap purchase or building permit
Issuance may be processed while the appeal is pending.
15
7 —/17
Q
Section 1.19 Refunds
A. Any capital recovery fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Chapter
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 capital recovery 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 Article 1.03, Title 79, Revised Statutes (Article 5069-1.03, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes), 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 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 capital recovery 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 any event later than five years from the date of fee
payment.
16
-lk
E. The City shall refund an appropriate proportion of capital recovery 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 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 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 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 1.18.
Section 1.20 Updates to Plan and Revision of Fees
The City shall review the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for
water and wastewater facilities at least every three years, the first three year period which shall
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 capital recovery fees are needed and shall, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, or
any successor statute, either update the fees or make a determination that no update is
necessary.
Section 1.21 Functions of Advisory Committee
A. The functions of the Advisory Committee are those set forth in Chapter 395 of
the Local Government Code, or any successor statute, and shall include the
following:
1. Advise and assist the City in adopting land use assumptions;
2. Review the capital improvements plan regarding water and wastewater
capital improvements and file written comments thereon;
3. Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements
program;
4. Advise the City of the need to update or revise the land use
assumptions, capital improvements program and capital recovery fees;
and
17
5. File a semiannual report evaluating the progress of the City in achieving
the capital improvements plans and identifying any problems in
implementing the plans or administering the capital recovery fees.
B. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee any professional
reports prepared in the development or implementation of the capital
improvements plan.
C. The Council shall adopt procedural rules for the committee to follow in carrying
out it duties.
Section 1.22 Agreement for Capital Improvements
A. The City Council may approve the owner of a new development to construct or
finance some of the public improvements identified in the CIP. In the case of
such approval, the property owner must enter into an agreement with the City
prior to fee collection. The agreement shall be on a form approved by the City,
and shall establish the estimated cost of improvement, the schedule for initiation
and completion of the improvement, a requirement that the improvement shall
be completed to City standards, and .any other terms and conditions the City
deems necessary. The Director shall review the improvement plan, verify costs
and time schedules, determine if the improvement is contained in the CIP, and
determine the method and timing of reimbursing the owner for construction
costs from capital recovery fee or other revenues.
Section 1.23 Use of Other Financing Mechanisms
A. The City may finance water and wastewater capital improvements of 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 capital recovery fees.
B. Except as herein otherwise provided, the assessment and collection of a capital
recovery 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.
Section 1.24 Capital Recovery Fees as Additional and Supplemental Reaulation
A. Capital recovery fees established by this Chapter 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
18
sale of water or wastewater taps or the issuance of certificates of occupancy.
Such fees are intended to be consistent with and to further the policies of City,s
Comprehensive Plan, capital improvements 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 Chapter 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 1.25 Relief Procedures
A. Any person who has paid a capital recovery fee or an owner of land upon
which a capital recovery fee has been paid may petition the 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 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.
B. The 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.
ARTICLE 11
WATER FACILITIES FEES
Section 2.01 Water Service Area
A. There Is hereby established a water service area as depicted on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
19
� a�
M
B. The boundaries of the water service area may be amended from time to time,
and new water service areas may be delineated, pursuant tb the procedures in
Section 1.07.
Section 2.02 Water Imorovement Plan
A. The Water Improvement Plan for the City is hereby adopted as Exhibit D
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Water Improvement Plan may be amended from time to time, pursuant to
the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code and its
successors.
Section 2.03 Water Capital Recovery Fees
A. The maximum capital recovery fee values per service unit for water facilities are
hereby adopted and incorporated in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
B. The capital recovery fee values per service unit for water facilities may be
amended from time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.10.
ARTICLE III
WASTEWATER FACILITIES FEES
Section 3.01 Wastewater Service Area
A. There is hereby established a wastewater service area as depicted on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the wastewater service area may be amended from time to
time, and new wastewater service areas may be delineated, pursuant to the
procedures in Section 1.07.
Section 3.02 Wastewater Improvement Plan
A. The Wastewater Improvement Plan for the City is hereby adopted as Exhibit E
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
M
9-4 a.
B. The Wastewater Improvement Plan may be amended from time to time, pursuant
to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the local Government Code and
its successors.
Section 3.03 Wastewater Capital Recovery Fees
A. The maximum capital recovery fee values per service unit for wastewater
facilities are hereby adopted and incorporated in Exhibit C attached hereto and
made a part hereof by reference.
B. The capital recovery fee values per service unit for wastewater facilities may be
amended from time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.10.
2.
This ordinance shall be and Is hereby declared to be cumulative of all other
ordinances of the City, and this ordinance shall not operate to repeal or affect any of such
other ordinances except insofar as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict
with the provisions of this ordinance, in which event such conflicting provisions, if any, in such
other ordinance or ordinances are hereby repealed.
3.
If any sentence, section, subsection, clause, phrase, part or provision of this Chapter
be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be Invalid, the same shall not affect the
validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof, other than the part declared to be
invalid.
4.
The provisions of this Chapter shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its
purposes, which are hereby found and declared to be in furtherance of the public health,
safety, and welfare. Any member of the Council or any City official or employee charged with
the enforcement of this ordinance, acting for the City in the discharge of his or her duties,
shall not thereby render himself or herself personally liable; and is hereby relieved from all
personal liability for any damage that might accrue to persons or property as a result of any
act required or permitted in the discharge of said duties.
5.
Any violation of this ordinance can be enjoined by a suit filed in the name of the City
in court of competent jurisdiction, and this remedy shall be in addition to any penal provision
in this ordinance or in the Code of the City.
21
%2 3
Q
This Chapter shall take effect immediately upon passage as provided by the Charter
of the City, Article
p,
2-a�z
CITY YEAR 2000
��������' WATER & SEWER
•.
,�' ,,, I ' " �•••••• SERVICE AREA
OF _
SOUTHLAKE AT
cr
Irol
Mal
te
ol
a" _ Yam; . }.�. '�il�� � -" � � _� • .t % J
---s. - - �' � —_ � - � �- ''1i• _ r `�.�' _ -- _ �.�`-moo` \ r I � , ` •ice•-r--�-?
_ 'F yam: --- .�- _ :�.?`_'��.s•�c� .-x:�.�.• �.._»-max:; ;..� � ��
= - = _./%� _ _—=_ - - � - _ ��- � _ . r.-� i ITT-�•-* ='� _ r'"
��_-+�=_ / _ f•G'/ — - � 1 -0' _ /_�,, : •�� ' it �—� ;�• _ __
^ _t6 •'ii� � .i'r- :1 _ YLr/c —. _ � _ _ •+: a.—• r r � ` _ ■tit ��
,. L(�� ram. .. _ i. �' { • � / !
EXHIBIT B
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
CURRENT APO PROJECTED LAND USES AM POPULATION FOR THE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF SOLMLARE
1990
2000
ULTIMATE
(d)
LAMUSE (a)
........................
........................
........................
....................................
ACRES lb)
............ ............
%
............
ACRES (C)
............
%
............
ACRES (C)
............
%
RESIDENTIAL
Single -Family
3.025
22.3"
3.961
29.32%
9.993
73.9616
Multi-Family/MObile Hones
0
0.00%
62
0.46%
463
3.44%
Subtotal Residential
3.025
22.39%
4.023
29.79%
10.457
77.40%
COMaERC1AL
475
3.32%
600
4.44%
1.404
10.39%
INDUSTRIAL
300
2.22%
362
2.64%
765
5.66%
PU11ILIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
420
3.11%
442
3.57%
$83
6.55%
AGRICULTURE/VACANT
9.2"
64.76%
4.042
39.53%
0
0.00%
........................ ............ ............ ............ ............
TOTAL ACREAGE 13.510 100.00% 13.510 100.00% 13.310 100.00%
POPULATION (e) 6.450 12.694 52.900
POPULATION PER ACRE 0.48 0.94 3.92
-••--•---•-----•---------••----•----------•-------•----•--••-•--•---------------•----------------------------------
(a) Tabulation does not include U.S. Corps of Engineers Land. Transportation land uses are Contained In other
land uses.
(b) 1990 acreages developed by Cheatham and Associates.
(c) Acreages based on land use mixtures per 100 Population growth after 1990. added to existing acreages:
Single-FaM)ly Residential: 15 acres/too population
MUltl-Family/Mobile Home: 1 acres/100 Population
Commercial: 2 acres/100 population
Industrial: 1 acres/f00 Population
Public/Quasi-PubliC: 1 acres/100 Population
(d) Ultimate buildout within t990 Corporate boundaries.
(e) Current population population taken from NCTCOG (1999 Population adopted for 1990):
Ultimate Population represents holding capacity. based on land use assumptions In footnote (c):
year 2000 Population based an average annual growth rate assumption of T.00% .
? a)`
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES AND CURRENT COLLECTED
CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
The maximum assessable capital recovery fees are as follows:
Water: $1,035, plus the amount of impact fee
assessed by the City of Fort Worth, plus
the prorata cost of any approach main which
is not specifically identified in the CIP and
which is required by a new development
Wastewater: $1,562, plus the prorata cost of any localized
lift station and approach main which is not
specifically identified in the CIP and which
is required by a new development
The current collected capital recovery fees are as follows:
Water: $500, plus the amount of impact fee
collected by the City of Fort Worth, plus the
prorata cost of any approach main which is
not specifically identified in the CIP and
which is required by a new development
Wastewater: $1,000, plus the prorata costs of any
localized lift station and approach main
which are not specifically identified in the
CIP and which are required by a new
development
17'c�-,550'-
EXHIBIT D
WATER IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Water Improvement Plan is that contained in the attached Table D.
?-a 7
E)01161T D (
ESTIMATED SE; RVICE OEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WATER LIFILITY
VOLLIKE
FACILITY TYPE/LAW USE .......................................
.................................... ............
I990
............
2000
ULTIMATE
............
AVERAGE DEMAND (MW) (a)
1.4"
2.923
11.470
Gallons per Capita daily
230
223
217
TOTAL LUE's (b)
1.760
3.163
I4.436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER SUPPLY/TREATMENT PEAK Mm (c):
Estimated Demand
4.451
7.466
26.921
Existing Capacity (9)
10.000
10.000
10.000
....................................
Excess/(Deficiency)
5.550
2.532
(16.921)
M
BOOSTER PUMP am
Estimated Demand (d)
2.621 5.157 21.500
Existing Capacity (h)
6.500 6.500 6.500
....................................
Excess/(Deficiency)
3.879 1.343 (15.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROUAD STORAGE MC:
Estimated Demand (e)
1.219 2.399 10.000
Existing Capacity (h)
2.707 1.941 0.000
............
(D Excess/eficiency)
............ ............
1.189 (0.458) (10.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVATED WATER STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (f)
0.793 1.559 6.500
Existing Capacity (h)
i
0.793 1.559 3.500
............
Excess/(Deficiency)
............ ............
0.000 0.000 (3.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
la) Pre-1990 demand derived from utility operating statistics. 19a7-19s9:
Post-1990 new demand based On Cheatham and Associates projections:
Average pre-1990 demand -
230 gals/Capita/daily
Average post-1990 new demand .
215 gals/capita/daily
(b) 19W LUE's based on count Of equivalent 1' meters. 2000 and ultimate
LUE'S determined by new demand per capita divided by LUE's/Capita:
Post-1990 New LUE .
7e8 gallons/day.
(C) Peik/Average Ratio (pre-1990) •
3.00 1
Peak/Average Ratio (post-199o) .
2.23 1
(d) Capacity Demand .
406 gallons/Caplta.
(e) Ground Storage Demand .
t69 gallons/capita.
(1) Elevated Storage Demand .
123 gallons/capita.
(9) Provided by the City of Fort worth.
(h) Existing Capacity details are contained In CIP.
Excess elevated storage Is utilized for
ground storage until needed
for elevated storage requirements.
A7 - 2 / 1
EXNIRIT 0 (2)
1j
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (mild Or gals)
•1990-
fACILITV
1190-
.�E.................••__.____._....___•_._..
__.•____;N ••___••__EXCESS •_.•__•EXCESS ••
CONSTRUCTION
CAPITAL
COST
NAAE C0ST TOTAL
...........»».....»..................»»................"•••-"---
CURRENT USE < 10 YEARS s 10 YEARS
.............
COST TOTAL
PER LUE
SUPPLY APO TREATMENT
------------------
EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES
To be supplied by the City of fort Worth:
Fort Worth Impact fees WI11 be passed
through to Southlake feepayers.
............. .............
........ a.... .............
.......■.....
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
.............
...........,.
10.000
4.451
3.019
2.532
PUMPING
MCD
EXISTING FACILITIES
--------------
Pump Station at North Reath
5132,243
6.Soo
2.62t
System (No Additional Cap.)
5132.629
2.533
1.343
SS1,362
--Telemetry
6.500
2.621
2.533
1.343
Subtotal Existing Facilities
3264.872
6.500
2.621
2.535
1.347
3103.164
360.60
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
future Pumping Station
Future P1lmpinq Station
S3113,670
S3a3.670
7.300
7.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.500
So
-----
0.000
7.300
SO
Subtotal Future Facilities
5767,340
13.000
0.000
0.000
13.000
so
so.00
(a)
(a)
TOTAL HATER PUaPACE
..........................................................................................
St,032.212
21.500
2.621
2.335
16.343
$103,164
560.60
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT D (3)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (wild or gals) 1990- 1990-
FACILITY........................................................ 2000 2000
.............................................. CONSTRUCTION IN EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL COST
TYPE NAME COST TOTAL CLRRENT USE 10 YEARS a 10 YEARS COST TOTAL PER LUE
............................................. ............. ................................................................. .............
GROLAD STORAGE
...�......... Ax
EXISTING FACILITIES --------------
Elevated storage substitutes for
ground storage (see below).
....................................... ............. ............. ............. ............. ..........................
Subtotal Existing Facilities SO 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 SO
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Ground Storage Tank 5963.796 5.000 1.219 1.179 2.601 3227.307
Future Ground Storage Tank 2963.796 5.000 0.000 0.000 5.000 SO
....................................... ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. .............
Subtotal Future Facilities 51.927.592 10.000 1.219 1.179 7."1 5227.307
(a) (a)
...........................................................................................
TOTAL CROLND STORAGE $1.927.592 10.000 1.219 1.179 7.601 5227.307 5133.52
(b)
.................................................................................................................................................
ELEVATED STORAGE
JAG
EXISTING FACILITIES
--------------
Bicentennial Park Elevated Tank
3$62.955
1.500
0.340
0.323
0.332
$139.967
IBM Elevated Tank
3843.267
1.500
0.340
0.326
0.932
S184.675
Existing Relocated Tank
.....................................................
35".000
0.500
0.113
0.109
0.277
5122.640
Subtotal Existing Facilities
.............
52.266.222
3.500
............. .............
0.793
.............
0.766
.............
1.941
5496.302
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Elevated Tank
51.065.564
1.500
0.000
0.000
1.300
SO
Future Elevated Tank
.....................................................
51.063.564
1.300
0.000
0.000
1.500
SO
Subtotal Future Facilities
.............
32.131.128
3.000
............. .............
0.000
.............
0.000
.............
3.000
SO
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE
............. .............
$4.397.330
6.500
....00....0 .............
0.793
.............
0.766
.............
4.941
.............
5496.302 5291.53
---------------- »--------------------- »----•----•-•-----..-....---••----•--•--....-•--------.-..--......--•--...------..-..-.-.------------...-
(b)
A- #-) A
EXHIBIT 0 (4)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UrILITV
FACILITY CAPACITY (wgd Or pals)
FACILITY
1990-
1990-
.._.._..._.•__.•_-.__.___�E_____________•_..
...................
CONSTRUCTION
__-.__.__Eu ._.•__._._
2000
COOT
TYPE
IN
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
COST TOTAL
.._•-"
CURRENT LISE 4 10 YEARS
"-'---'.......-'-'••............................................
N 10 YEARS
COST TOTAL
PER LUE
TRANSMISSION
EXISTING FACILITIES (SUPPIY lines)
---•--------«
20- Water Lin!/FM1709
3488,371
4.364
1.760
30- 6 36- Water Lines (Supply Lines)
S351.037
1.702
902
S346,512
••-•••••--............
4.364
1.760 1.702
902
5136.923
Subtotal EXlsting SUPPLY Lines
s1.239.404
4,36a
............. .............
1,76T
1.702
902
s4a3.43s
(a)
)
EXISTING FACILITIES (Transmission Lines)
20' White Chapel Water line S440,706
19' IBM Line SIS7,140
various a-. 12'. 18' Mains 32.423,350
-
; ---••-•.............-0 -------------
Subtotal Existing Transmission liner ;.0-21-196 .1.760. 1,760 -----•-----
FUTURE FACILITIES (Transmission lines)
Various 4•-36' Lines (Low Plane) S9.552.094
Various 6'-12' Lines (High Plane) - S743.573
............. - ___
Subtotal Future Facilities 510."5.637 12.676 0 1.702 12.676 S1.362.663
(a) (a)
...........................................................................................
TOTAL TRANSMISSION S14.S$6.261
St,i66,tt7 111,096.14
-------------------------•-----------------_------•---------------'
WATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL S21,913.414
$2.692.891 S1,562
------------------------------------------ »----- «------------------------- -«—----------------------- «----- a) SOUfCl: Cheatham and Associates. 1990.
(0) Assures the following gals to LUE Conversion factors
Rsspage: 1.489 pals daily
Ground Storage: 693 pals
Elevated storage: 450 gals
(C) Fees t0 be passed through from the CItY Of Fort worth.
(d) FeepaYers requiring Construction of IocallZCd approach mains will be assessed the costs of their prorata share of the facilities.
r7_ 72
EXHIBIT E
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Wastewater Improvement Plan Is that contained in the attached Table E.
A7- 2 4/
E)Ofi01T E (1)
LWI'AATID SERVICE DEaAnD OY FACILITY TYPE
WASTEWATER LITILITY
VOLLME
FACILITY TVIOULAM USE
.......................................
....................................
I"o 2000
........................ ............
ULTIMATE
AVERAGE FUN (ala) (a):
O."S 1.269
5.290
Gallons per capita dolly
100 100
100
TOTAL LUE'S (0)
0 2./62
14.436
•ASTEIFATER TREATMENT AYE. MW:
E11tiM6ted Demand 0.000 1.269 S.2"
Existing Capacity (c) 0.000 0.000 0.000
....................................
Extesm/(DOIClency) 0.000 (1.269) (5.210)
(a) Average floe ■ 100 gallons/Ca0(ta/dally »_»
(Cheathu and Associates)
(h) 2000 and ultlaate wastewater LUE's/Capita fare as rater LUE's.
(c) Existing Capacity details are contained In elp.
'�,^3s-
E)OfIRIT E (3)
ASSOc1ATE0 CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY
CAPACITY (mod or gals)
_..---.....FACILITY
19l0-
_
•••'----•-•------ CONSTRICTION
-----•----------•-----�E
2000
TYPE
TOTAL
........................................
RgcESS E)10ESs
Ci1RRWff txE i 10 YEARS 3-10 YEARS
CAPITAL
COST
.........................•............. ............. .............
COST TOTAL
PER LUE
COLLECTION
..........................
FUTtAtE FACILITIES
TRA Bit Rear Creek Interceptor
TRA Denton Creek Interceptor
N-1 rains
N-2 mains
N-3 rains
N-4 gains
N-S rains
N-s gains
S•1 rains
3-2 gains
3-3 gains
3-4 Amin
3-5 wins
3-6 rains
3-7 rains
Subtotal Future Facilities
LUE's
34.299.100
56.613.016
52.119.411
S1S6.S43
51.736.763
5735.329
5415.699
S7s1.2os
s309.143
51.036.111
5353.s29
51.243.1aa
5312.449
31.511.902
5933,104
--•-------•--------------- ----•---------------
522.554.634 14.436
(b) IN
0 3.463 10.974 35,409,1103
............. 0............ .......... a.. .......0.... ............. a... a ...... s--28... l....
TOTAL COLLECTION 522.354.434 14.436
3.463 1o.974 ss.409,603 s1.562
-------------- ---------------------- ----------
WASTEWATER CMSTRUCTION COST TOTAL 525,647."0
34.302.434 52,456
---•----------------------------------------------------- (a) Source: MMItlr, Trinity River Authority. 1990.
(b) Source: Cheatham and Associates, 19".
(c) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion factors
Treatment: 3" gals daily
(d) Feepayers re0iring construction of localized lift stations will be assessed the costs of their ororata share of the facilities.
(a) Assumes plant expansion at an estimated cost of S2.00 per 98110n of additional capacity.
(f) Feeoayers rewiring construction of localized approach mains will be assessed the costs of their ororata share of the facilities.
A. •-,% h
I
EXHIBIT E (2)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (Mild Of Oils)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY........................................................
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
.............................................
COST
.......................................
TOTAL
CURRENT USE
10 YEARS
....................................................
. 10 YEARS
COST TOTAL
PER LUE
TREATMENT
AVE AM
EXISTING FACILITIES
TRA Central Regional Treatment
5743.902
0.321
TRA Denton Creek Regional Treatment
36O9.700
0.079
.....................................
Subtotal Existing Facilities
..........................
SI.336,602
0.400
.............
0.000
............. .............
0.400
.............
0.000
51,365.602
(a)
(a)
FUTME FACILITIES
TRA Denton Creek Regional Treatment
51.737.433
0.869
.....................................
Subtotal Future Facilities
.......................................
$1.737.433
0.869
0.000
............. .............
0.869
.............
0.000
SI.737.433
(e)
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
............................................................0..............................
S].09].035
1.269
0.000
1.269
0.000
53.093.033
5693.27
-----.-«----------------------------------------------------------«--------------------------.-----------------------------------»------------
(C)
PUMP ING
am
FUTURE FACILITIES
--------------
Localized lift stations (d)
....................................................
Subtotal Future Facilities
(d)
..........................
(d)
(d)
............. .............
(d)
.............
(d)
(d)
TOTAL WASTEWATER PUMPAGE
.............
(d)
.............
(d)
.............
(d)
............. .............
(d)
.............
(d)
.............
(d)
(d)
PI
/7 _ 2 /
JUL 16 790 12: 26 JAMES E GARON Pp
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE PUBLIC HEARING ON
S133W CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
Southlake City Council Chambers
7/17/90
Mayor - Call Hearing to order
State purpose of Hearing (to receive public comment on the water and
wastewater capital improvements plan and impact fee calculations and
recommendations).
Recognize Mickey Fishbeck, Rlmrock Consulting Company
Mickey - Overview of public process and technical work
How this fits in with the purpose of the Public Hearing tonight
What is a CIP and how does it relate to impact fees?
conceptual service areas,
` - demand forecasts,
identification of unit service measure (LUE),
inventory of existing system,
identification of additional facility needs,
split between currently used capacity and excess capacity for new
growth, and
development of unit capital costs.
Recognize Mike Monroe, Cheatham & Associates
Mike - Present the water and wastewater CIP
Recognize Mickey Fishbeck
Mickey - Overall fee model and how capital costs fit into the model
Consideration of credit to new customers for future capital payments through
utility rates
- Resultant maximum fee calculations
Turn over to Barry Emerson, Advisory Committee Chairman
JUL 16 190 12: 27 JAMEE E EARON PO4
Barry - State general charge of the Committee (to act as an advisory body to the City
Council regarding a water and sewer capital improvements plan and resulting
calculations for water and wastewater impact fees).
Committee recommendations offlcialiy made to Council in letter submitted to
Council at least 5 days in advance of this Hearing date.
- Present essence of the Committee findings — Committee recommendations on
policy issues
- Recognize Mike Barnes, Public Works Director
Mike B. - Staff comments and recommendations
Council needs to take action to adopt the CIP and fees on a non -emergency
basis within 30 days of this Hearing. So to meet this legislative requirement, we
also have before you tonight, subsequent to this Hearing, consideration of an
ordinance.
Turn back over to Mayor.
Mayor - Open Hearing for general public comment, and at Mayor and Council's
discretion, questions and answers.
Mayor - Close Public Hearing.
Mayor - Council consider and act (if desired) on Council resolution accepting Committee
recommendations.
RimRoCK
Consulting Company
1101 Capital of Texas Hwy S., Suite E-205
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-9087 FAX (512) 328-9384
COMPARISON OF IMPACT FEES
9! (
Water
Wastewater
Both
ADDISON
No Fee
ALLEN
No Fee
ARLINGTON
Maximum Fee
$2,355
$1,770
$4,125
Collected Fee (first 3 yrs.)
$ 118
$ 89
$ 207
AUSTIN
Maximum Fee
$3,463
$1,860
$5,323
Collected Fee
$1,308
$ 787
$2,095
BEAUMONT
No fee
BUDA
Maximum Fee
$ 910
$ 565
$1,475
Collected Fee
$ 910
$ 565
$1,475
CARROLLTON
Maximum Fee
$3,682
$1,026
$4,708
Collected Fee
$ 900
$ 300
$1,200
CEDAR HILL
Maximum Fee
$1,273
$ 550
$1,823
Collected Fee
$ 698
$ 302
$1,000
COLLEYVILLE
Maximum Fee
$ 827
$ 827
Collected Fee
$ 620
$ 620
CORPUS CHRISTI
No Fee
planning
economicslfinance
environmental
regulatory
management
policy analysis
RwRoCK
Consulting Company
1101 Capital of Texas Hwy S., Suite E-205
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-9087 FAX (512) 328-9384
Cat Water Wastewater Both
DALLAS
No Fee
DENTON
No Fee
DESOTO
No Fee
DUNCANVILLE
No Fee
FORT WORTH
Maximum Fee $ 839 $1,285 $2,124
Collected Fee n/a n/a n/a
GEORGETOWN
Repealed fees
GRAND PRARIE
Info in mail
GREENVILLE
No Fee
HOUSTON
Maximum Fee
$1,543
$1,369
$2,911
Collected Fee
n/a
n/a
n/a
IRVING
No Fee
KELLER
Maximum Fee
$ 983
$ 949
$1,932
Collected Fee
$ 983
$ 949
LANCASTER
Maximum Fee
$1,358
$1,948
$3,305
Collected Fee
n/a
n/a
n/a
RwRoCK
Consulting Company
1101 Capital of Texas Hwy S., Suite E-205
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-9087 FAX (512) 328-9384
Ci_yt
Water
Wastewater
Both
LEWISVILLE
Maximum Fee (First Year)
$1,699
$1,482
$3,181
Collected Fee
$1,699
$1,482
$3,181
MCKINNEY
Maximum Fee
$ 500
$ 500
Collected Fee
$ 500
$ 500
MANSFIELD
In Process
NEW BRAUNFELS
Maximum Fee
$1,160-$1,313
$1,271-$1,578
$2,431-$2,892
Collected Fee
$543-$647
$577-$817
$1,120-$1,464
PFLUGERVILLE
Maximum Fee
$1,571
$991-$2,856
$2,562-$4,427
Collected Fee
$908-$1,571
$446-$2,856
$1,354-$4,427
PLANO
In Mail
RICHARDSON
No Fee
ROCKWALL
Maximum Fee
$ 928
$3,341
$4,269
Collected Fee
$ 446
$1,606
$2,052
ROUND ROCK
Maximum Fee
$1,435
$1,565
$3,000
Collected Fee
$1,345
$1,250
$2,595
SAN ANTONIO
Maximum Fee
$415-$930
$1,095-$1,215
$1,510-$2,145
Collected Fee
n/a
n/a
n/a
SAN MARCOS
Maximum Fee
$ 353
$ 527
$ 880
Collected Fee
n/a
n/a
n/a
RimROCK
Consulting Company
1101 Capital of Texas Hwy S., Suite E-205
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-9087 FAX (512) 328-9384
Ch Water Wastewater Both
SCHERTZ
Maximum Fee
$ 633
$1,364
$1,998
Collected Fee
$ 550
$ 650
$1,200
SOUTHLAKE
Maximum Fee
$1,035
$1,562
$2,597
Collected Fee
$ 500
$1,000
$1,500
THE COLONY
Maximum Fee
$ 78
$ 311
$ 389
Collected Fee
$ 78
$ 311
$ 389
TOMBALL
Maximum Fee
$ 468
$ 569
$1,037
Collected Fee
$ 468
$ 569
$1,037
TYLER
No Fee
Information contained herein
was obtained at various times from phone calls and/or
written
material from the cities concerned and is the best that was
available to us. No representations
or guarantees are implied.
For absolute accuracy please
check with the city directly.
City of Southlake, Texas
rec
M E M O R A N D U M
kw July 13, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Amending Ordinance No. 440
Attached is a copy of the proposed amendment to Ordinance
No. 440 adding a variance provision for the requirement
of public sewer for lots less than one acre.
This same language appears in Section 33.14 of the*Zoning
Ordinance No. 480 with variance power given to the Board of
Adjustment.
MHB/kg
IL
S-I
ORDINANCE NO. 514
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 440 OF THE CITY 0
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, ALTERING AND REDEFINING CERTAI
PROVISIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE RELATING TO TH
DETERMINATION OF THE SIZE OF A LOT AS IT RELATES T
MANDATORY CONNECTION TO A PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER SYSTE
r VERSUS THE USE OF ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS; PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEE
J THE SUM OF $2,000.00 FOR EACH OFFENSE AND A SEPARAT
OFFENSE SHALL BE DEEMED COMMITTED EACH DAY DURING OR C
WHICH A VIOLATION OCCURS OR CONTINUES; CONTAINING
CUMULATIVE PROVISION; PROV EQ$�BLIC$TIQN .__AN
DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THE CITY
OF SO KE, TEXAS:
Section 2.a. of Ordinance 440 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 2. Property Not Connected to City Sewer System.
a. Minimum Lot Size and Required Septic Tank - All property
developed within the City of Southlake which does not lie within
100 feet of an available city sewer line, as measured from the
closest point on the exterior property line of the property
proposed for development, shall be of a size sufficient to meet the
requirements set forth in Section 33.14 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance of the City denominated Ordinance No. 480.
In the event said property is of a size appropriate for the
use of an onsite waste disposal system such as a septic tank, the
septic tank and its installation shall comply with all currently
applicable regulations of the City, County, State and Federal
Government as appropriate relating to design, construction and
maintenance of said onsite disposal facility."
b. Unchanged.
9")
SECTION 2
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 3
Any person, firm or corporation who violates, disobeys, omits,
neglects or refuses to comply with or who resists the enforcement
of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be fined not more
than two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Each day
that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate
offense.
SECTION 4
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.
SECTION 5
The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed
93
to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty
together with a notice setting out the time and place for a 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 6
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.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS DAY OF
1990.
U
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF
5990.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
9-4
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney
Date:
ADOPTED:
EFFECTIM
a:\amendord.440
$-5
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF WATER HYGIENE
1100 WEST 49TH STREET
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78756-3199
ADOPTION DATE
JUNE 97,1987
EFFECTIVE DATE
JANUARY 1,1988
continuation of 301.11(f) (2) (A)
(iii) development of operational data and maintenance
instructions; and
(iv) all research and development data that has been
verified by published results of a recognized college, university or research
organization.
(B) All expenses in connection with research, pilot projects
and,/or delmnstration projects must be borne by the activity submitting the
innovative design for review.
(3) Approval of proprietary systems. All new systems which deviate
significantly from these construction standards shall be reviewed by the
Department for their installation and use suitability. Notice of disapproval
by either the Department or the local regulatory authority shall prevent such
facilities from being installed. Categorical approval of proprietary systems
will not be granted by the Department.
(4) Residential lot sizing.
(A) General considerations. The failure of an on -site
sewerage system may be caused by a large number of circumstances, including
inadequate soil percolation, improper construction, design, installation and
misuse. The single most important factor concerning public health problems
resulting from these failures is the residential dwelling density which is
primarily a function of lot size. The failure of a system in a highly
populated area is the cause of public health hazards resulting
from on -site sewage disposal. surfacing sewage provides a medium for the
transmission of disease and the fact that many people are in the vicinity
causes concern aver the spreading of disease. Sewerage systems using soil
absorption for effluent disposal are more likely to malfunction in high
population density situations because the soil available to absorb or
evaporate the effluent is limited. Zhe failure of an absorption system on a
small lot can be financially disastrous to the owner because the lot may not
contain sufficient room to construct a new absorption field in a new location.
(B) Platted subdivisions served by a public water supply.
Subdivisions of single family residences platted after January 1, 1988, and
served by a public water supply but utilizing individual subsurface methods
for sewage disposal, shall provide for individual lots having surface areas of
at least one-half acre, or shall have a site -specific design by a Registered
Professional Engineer or Registered Professional Sanitarian and approved by
the Department or its designee. In no instance, shall the area available for
such system be less than two times the design area. The surface area must be
free of restrictions indicated in Table I and those referred to throughout
this publication.
(C) Platted subdivisions served by individual water systems.
In subdivisions platted after January 1, 1988, for single family residences
where each lot maintains an individual water supply well and sewerage system
with a subsurface soil system, the plat shall show the approved well location
and a sanitary control easement around the well within a 150-foot radius in
which no subsurface sewerage system may be constructed. A watertight sewerage
8
continuation of 301. 11 (f) (4) (c)
unit or lined evapotranspiration bed with leak detection capability may be
placed closer to the grater well than �50 feet, provided the minimum separation
stated in Table I is not violated. To minimize the possibility of the
transmission of waterborne diseases due to the pollution of the water supplied
for domestic use, each lot in a platted subdivision shall contain not less
area than one acne, or shall have a site -specific design by a Registered
Professional Engineer or a Registered Professional Sanitarian and approved by
the Department or its designee. In no instance shall the area available for
such systems be less than two times the design area. The surface area must
be free of restrictions indicated in Table I and those referred to throughout
this publication.
(D) The construction or installation of an on -site sewage
facility on a lot or tract that. is smaller than the size required in Section
301.11(f)(4)(B and C) of these standards shall not be allowed. However, on
such smaller lots or tracts, recorded with a county in its official plat
record prior to lanuary 1, 1988, an on -site sewerage facility may be permitted
to be constructed and licensed to operate if it meets the following criteria.
It mast be demonstrated by a thorough investigation of a Registered
Professional Engineer or Registered Professional Sanitarian (either having
demonstrated expertise in on -site sewerage system design) that an on -site
sewerage facility on one of these lots can be operated without causing a
threat or harm to an existing or proposed water supply system or to the public
health, or creating the threat of pollution or nuisance conditions.
(5) Mobile home parks and multi -use residential developments.
Mobile hone parks and maltiwse residential developments which are owned or
controlled by an individual and which rents or leases space, or mobile home
parks and multi --use residential developments which are sold but ownership and
control bf a central water system and/or a central sewerage system is vested
in a responsible entity, may utilize smaller lots than stated in paragraph
(4)(B) of this subsection provided an overall sewerage plan is submitted to
the Department or its designee and approved and water is supplied by a central
water system. Parks and developments of this type may connect no more than 20
units to a single sewerage system, provided the system is designed by a
Registered Professional Engineer or Registered Professional Sanitarian. The
total anticipated sewage discharge shall not exceed 5,000 gallons per day from
the connected hones and the sewerage facility must conform to the definition
of on -site sewerage facilities in subsection (b)(21) of this section.
Individual home sites must meet the requirements in paragraph (4) of this
subsection unless applicable under this section.
(6) motions and variances. Reque✓ts for exemptions or variances
of any part or parts of these Standards for the design, installation or
operation of any cn-site sewerage system shall be considered on an individual
basis.. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the Registered
Professional Engineer, Registered Professional Sanitarian or other qualified
individual responsible for the design or installation of the system under
consideration. Mus individual must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Department or licensing authority, that the exertion or variance has been
requested because conditions are such that equivalent protection of the public
health and environment can be provided by alternate means or construction
features. Any such request must be aeoo panied by sufficient engineering or
9
continuation of 301.11(f)(6)
applicable data to meet the Department's or licensing authority's
satisfaction. The Department shall, at the request of local authorities,
provide evaluation and comment services. for any such local authority.
Sec. 301.12 Design Standards for Sewerage Systems.
(a) Septic tank design - residential.
(1) House sewer. The sewer from the house plumbing system to the
septic tank shall be constructed of structurally sound pipe such as cast iron,
ductile iron, or SDR 35 (or equivalent) plastic pipe with metallic locating
tape, bedded in sand. Cast iron, ductile iron, Schedule 40 PVC or high
strength pipe should always be used under driveways. The pipe from the house
to the septic tank shall have a minimum inside diameter of not less than three
inches and be compatible with the house stub out pipe. Zhe slope of the house
sewer shall be no less than 1/4-inch fall per foot of pipe. r1he stub out
location shall be at the highest possible elevation with respect to the house
foundation to avoid deep treatment systems. Zhe line must be of watertight
construction. A clot plug must be provided within three feet of the
building and at 90c turns in aliTnment, both horizontal and vertical, and at
every 50 feet of straight horizontal piping. Prospective installers and users
of law flush commodes should consult with the manufacturers of these devices
regarding their grade requirements. Too steep or too shallow slopes on pipes
connecting the toilet and the treatment tank may require excessive
maintenance. Piping frcamm the treatment tankage to the disposal area must have
at least 2 inches inside diameter, have at least a minimum fall of 1/8-inch
per foot and be as sturdy as SDR 35 PVC piping. Metallic locating tape shall
be used With the installation of all piping to and within the disposal area.
This tape shall be readily detectable with a metal detector.
(2) Septic tank capacity based on sewage loading. A properly
designed septic tank shall be watertight. The settleable and suspended solids
will undergo partial decomposition under anaerobic conditions. As a result of
use, the septic tank will accmmnilate partially decomposed solids which must be
removed periodically. As additional sewage is introduced into the tank,
partially clarified effluent is discharged into the subsurface disposal field.
The best method for estimating the tank's sewage loading is based upon the
number of bedrooms in the house. Table II shall be used to determine the
required minimum septic tank liquid capacity.
(3) Inlet and outlet device_.. To assure rapid drainage of house
plumbing, the flow line of the inlet pipe shall be at least three inches
higher than the operating tank liquid level which is determined by the flow
line of the outlet pipe. Liquid penetration of the inlet device shall be at
least six inches, but never greater than that of the outlet device. Liquid
penetration of the outlet device shall be approximately one-fourth to one-half
of the tank's liquid depth. "T" branches are required for inlet and outlet
devices because they provide a means for venting the gases produced by the
decomposition process from the tank and absorption system through the house
plumbing. otherwise, gases may escape from around the lid of the tank and
cause an odor nuisance in the vicinity of the septic tank. "T" branches also
10
City of Southlake, Texas
i E M 0 R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Southlake Hills Developers Agreement
Attached is the Southlake Hills Developers Agreement to be
placed on the agenda for the July 17, 1990 City Council
meeting.
�If there are any questions, please contact me.
RV
MHB/ew
City of Southlake, Texas
HLAKE HILLS SUBDIVISION
EVELOPERS AGREEMENT
An agreement between the City of Southlake, Texas, hereinafter
referred to as the City, and the undersigned Developer, hereinafter
referred to as the Developer, of the Southlake Hills Subdivision
to the City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas, for the
installation of certain community facilities located therein, and
to provide city services thereto. It is understood by and between
the parties that this Agreement is applicable to the 106 lots
contained within the Southlake Hills Subdivision and to the offsite
improvements necessary to support the subdivision.
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. It is agreed and understood by the parties hereto
that the Developer shall employ a civil engineer
licensed to practice in the State of Texas for the
design and preparation of the plans and
specifications for the construction of all
facilities covered by this agreement.
B. Since the Developer is prepared to develop the
Southlake Hills Subdivision as rapidly as possible
and is desirous of selling lots to builders and
having residential building activity begin as
quickly as possible and the City is desirous of
having the subdivision completed as rapidly as
possible, the City agrees to release 10% of the lots
for residential permits after the underground
utilities are installed and before paving of the
subdivision is started. The Developer recognizes
that Certificates of Occupancy for residential
dwellings will not be issued until the subdivision
or phases thereof has been accepted by the City, and
this will serve as an incentive to the Developer to
see that all remaining items are completed so that
final acceptance can be obtained. The City
acknowledges and agrees that the Development of the
Southlake Hills Subdivision may be constructed in
phases for which the City agrees to accept upon the
terms and conditions set forth herein.
C. The Developer will present to the City a performance
bond and payment bond meeting the requirements of
Article 5160, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. guaranteeing and
agreeing to pay an amount equal to 100% of the value
of the construction costs of all of the facilities
to be constructed by the Developer. The performance
bond shall provide for payment to the City of such
amounts up to the total remaining amounts required
-1-
FA
City of Southlake, Texas
or the completion of the subdivision if the
Developer fails to complete the work as required
hereunder. The value/amount of the performance bond
will reduce at a rate consistent with the amount of
work that has been completed by the Developer and
formally accepted by the City. The payment bond
shall be furnished solely for the protection of all
claimants supplying labor and material in the
prosecution of the work provided for by this
agreement. A performance and payment bond from the
prime contractor will be acceptable in lieu of the
Developer's obligations specified herein.
D. The Developer agrees to furnish to the City a
maintenance bond amounting to 20% of the cost of
water, sewer and drainage facilities and a 50%
maintenance bond for street paving. These
maintenance bonds will be for a period of Two (2)
years and will be issued prior to the final City
acceptance of the subdivision. The maintenence
bonds will be supplied to the City by the
contractors performing the work, and the City will
be named as the beneficiary if the contractors fail
to perform any required maintenance.
E. Until the performance and payment bonds required in
Paragraph C have been furnished as required, no
approval of work on or in the subdivision shall be
given by City and no work shall be initiated on or
in said subdivision by the Developer, save and
except as provided above.
F. It is further agreed and understood by the parties
hereto that upon acceptance by City, title to all
facilities and improvements mentioned hereinabove
shall be vested in the City and Developer hereby
relinquishes any right, title, or interest in and to
said facilities or any part hereof. It is further
understood and agreed that until the City accepts
such improvements, City shall have no liability or
responsibility in connection with any such
facilities. Acceptance of the facilities shall
occur at such time that City, through its City
Manager or his duly appointed representative,
provides Developer with a written acknowledgement
that all facilities are complete, have been
inspected and approved and are being accepted by the
City.
G. On all facilities included in this agreement for
which Developer awards his own construction
contract, the Developer agrees to the following
procedure:
-2-
1A
City of Southlake, Texas
1. To pay to the City three (3%) percent of the
construction cost for inspection fees of the
water, streets, and drainage facilities, and
sanitary sewer. It is agreed by both the City
and the Developer that the City will pay the
following testing fees and the Developer will
be responsible to pay for all other testing
fees required by the City not listed below:
a) All nuclear density tests on the roadway
subgrade (95% Standard) Trench testing
(95% Standard) shall be paid by the
Developer.
b) All gradation tests required to insure
proper cement and/or lime stabilization.
c) Technicians time for preparing concrete
cylinders.
d) Concrete cylinder tests and concrete
coring samples.
Charges for retesting as a result of failed
tests will be paid by the Developer. Fees are
payable prior to construction of each phase,
based on actual bid construction costs.
The Developer will be responsible to pay for
all inspection fees when inspection is required
on Saturday or Sunday. These fees are
considered over and above the 3% inspection fee
as stated above. Acceptance of the project
will not be given until all inspection fees are
paid.
2. To delay connection of buildings to service
lines or water mains constructed under this
contract until said water mains and service
lines have been completed to the satisfaction
of and accepted by the City.
H. The Developer and Builder will be responsible for
mowing all grass and weeds and otherwise reasonably
maintain the aesthetics of all land and lots in said
subdivision which have not been sold to third
parties. After fifteen (15) days written notice
should the Developer fail in this responsibility,
the City may contract for this service and bill the
Developer or Builder for the costs. Such amount
shall become a lien upon all real property of the
subdivision so maintained by the City, and not
previously conveyed to third parties, 120 days after
Developer has notice of costs.
-3-
City of Southlake, Texas
I. Any guarantee of payment instrument (performance
bond, letter of credit, certificates of deposit
and/or cash deposits) submitted by the Developer on
a form other than the one which has been previously
approved by the City as "acceptable" shall be
submitted to the City Attorney for the City and this
Agreement shall not be considered in effect until
such City Attorney has approved the instrument.
Approval by the City shall not be unreasonably
withheld or delayed.
Developer shall keep said performance and payment
bonds, letters of credit, certificates of deposit
and/or cash deposits if full force and effect until
such time as developer has fully complied with the
terms and conditions of this agreement, and failure
to keep same in force and effect shall constitute a
breach of this agreement.
In this connection, all letters of credit furnished
hereunder which expire prior to completion of
construction shall be renewed in amounts designated
by the City and shall be delivered to the City on or
before the tenth (loth) day before the date of
expiration of the then existing letter of credit.
If the Developer fails to deliver the renewed letter
of credit to the City within the time prescribed
herein, such failure shall constitute a breach of
this agreement and shall be a basis for the City to
draw on all or any portion of the letter of credit.
J. Any surety company through which a bond is written
shall be a surety company duly authorized to do
business in the State of Texas, provided that the
City, through the City Manager, shall retain the
right to reject any surety company as a surety for
any work under this or any other Developer's
Agreement within the City of Southlake regardless of
such company's authorization to do business in
Texas. Approval by the City shall not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
-4-
City of Southlake, Texas
II. FACILITIES:
A. ON SITE WATER:
The Developer hereby agrees to install water
facilities to service lots as shown on the final
plat of Southlake Hills to the City of Southlake.
Water facilities will be installed in accordance
with plans and specifications to be prepared by the
Developer's engineer and approved by the City.
Further, the Developer agrees to complete this
installation in accordance with Ordinance No. 170
and shall be responsible for all construction costs,
materials and engineering. In the event that
certain water lines are to be oversized because of
City of Southlake requirements, the City will
reimburse the Developer for the oversize cost.
Additionally, the City agrees to provide temporary
water service, for construction, testing and
irrigation purposes only, to individual lots during
the construction of homes, even though sanitary
sewer service may not be available to the homes.
B. DRAINAGE:
Developer hereby agrees to construct the necessary
drainage facilities within the addition. These
facilities shall be in accordance with the plans and
specifications to be prepared by Developer's
engineers, approved by the City Engineer of the
City, and made part of the final plat as approved by
the City Council. The drainage facilities shall be
in conformance to the City's Drainage Ordinance No.
482.
C. STREETS:
1. The street construction in the Southlake Hills
residential development of the City of
Southlake shall conform to the requirements in
Ordinance No. 483. Streets will be installed
in accordance with plans and specifications to
be prepared by the Developer's engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. The Developer will be responsible for: (a)
Installation and one year operation of all
street lights; (b) Installation of all street
signs designating the names of the streets
inside the subdivision, said signs to be of a
type, size, color and design standard generally
employed by the Developer and approved by the
-5-
City of Southlake, Texas
City in accordance with City ordinances; (c)
Installation of all regulatory signs
recommended by the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices and as directed by an
engineering study performed by the Director of
Public Works.
3. All street improvements will be subject to
inspection and approval by the City of
Southlake. No work will begin on any street
included herein prior to complying with the
requirements contained elsewhere in this
agreement. All utilities which are anticipated
to be installed within the street or within the
street right-of-way will be completed prior to
the commencement of street construction on the
specific section of street in which the utility
improvements have been placed or for which they
are programmed. It is understood by and
between the Developer and the City that this
requirement is aimed at substantial compliance
with the majority of the pre -planned
facilities. It is understood that in every
construction project a decision later may be
made to realign a line or service which may
occur after construction has commenced. The
Developer has agreed to advise the City
Director of Public Works as quickly as possible
when such a need has been identified and to
work cooperatively with the City to make such
utility change in a manner that will be least
disruptive to street construction or stability.
D. ON -SITE SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES:
The Developer hereby agrees to install sanitary
sewerage collection facilities to service lots as
shown on the final plat of Southlake Hills to the
City of Southlake. Sanitary sewer facilities will
be installed in accordance with the plans and
specifications to be prepared by the Developer's
engineer and approved by the City. Further, the
Developer agrees to complete this installation in
compliance with all applicable city ordinances,
regulations and codes and shall be responsible for
all construction costs, materials and engineering.
-6-
City of Southlake, Texas
III. OTHER ISSUES:
A. AVAILABILITY OF SANITARY SEWER SERVICES - PHASE I:
The City of Southlake is proposing to install
gravity sewer to serve Continental Park Estates
(CPE) at the expense of the City and residents of
CPE. The Oakwood Drive section of this project will
provide gravity sewer to Southlake Hills - Phase I.
The Developer agrees to pay his pro rata share of
the construction cost for the 8-inch portion of the
Oakwood Drive section.
Payment of the Developers pro rata share will be
made to the City prior to the acceptance of the
subdivision by the City.
If the City does not construct a gravity sewer line
on Oakwood Drive the Developer will be responsible
to pay for the entire cost of the line including
engineering, surveying, easement preparation and
acquisition, and construction costs.
B. AVAILABILITY OF SANITARY SEWER SERVICE - PHASE II
Sanitary sewer service is available approximately
1,200 L.F.+ east of the proposed development.
This collector would start at S-4 interceptor in the
Timber Lake project, then westward thru a drainage
utility easement as shown on the preliminary plat of
Section II of the Timber Lake Subdivision.
The developers of Timber Lake have agreed in
principal to work with the Developer of Southlake
Hills for the construction of the sewer collector
line. In the event that the developer is not able
to construct the off -site collector line due to
various reasons, the City agrees to allow the
developer to construct a lift station to serve Phase
II. The Developer will be responsible for all
engineering, surveying, easement preparation, and
acquisition and construction costs of the lift
station. The Developer agrees to escrow his pro
rata share of the off -site collector by letter of
credit. The letter of credit will be required and
approved by the City prior to the final acceptance
of the subdivision.
-7-
City of Southlake, Texas
C. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM:
Southlake Hills, Chimney Hills and adjacent property
to the east drain thru an existing culvert under
Continental into an existing 50 foot drainage
utility maintenance access easement thru Continental
Park Estates.
The culvert under Continental has been identified as
a critical structure. The replacement of this
structure will be done in accordance with ordinance
no. 482. All off -site easements required for the
proper drainage of this subdivision shall be
obtained by the Developer and supplied to the City
prior to start of construction of the subdivision.
D. PERIMETER STREET ORDINANCE:
The Developer agrees to perform in accordance with
Section IV, Paragraph B, sub paragraph 2 of
Ordinance No. 494.
IV. GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A. Developer covenants and agrees to and does hereby
fully indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City,
its officers, agents, servants and employees, from
all claims, suits or causes of action of any nature
whatsoever, whether real or asserted, brought for or
on account of any injuries or damages to persons or
property, including death, resulting from or in any
way connected with the agreement or the construction
of the improvements or facilities described herein;
and in addition, the Developer covenants to
indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, its
officers, agents, servants and employees, from and
against any and all claims, suits or causes of
action of any nature whatsoever, brought for or on
account of any injuries or damages to persons or
property, including death, resulting from any
failure to peoperly safeguard the work, or on
account of any act, intentional or otherwise,
neglect or misconduct of the Developer, its
contractors, subcontractors, agents, servants or
employees.
B. Venue of any action brought hereunder shall be in
Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.
-8-
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
M E M O R A N D U M
July 11, 1990
Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
Upstairs Air Conditioning - Police Department
It has come to my attention that the air conditioning unit
for the upstairs Police Department is not sufficient to
maintain a temperature less than 80 degrees Farenheit.
Watco Air Conditioning & Refridgeration Inc. has checked out
the upstairs system and has submitted a proposal (attached)
to remedy the situation.
The existing 5 ton unit is
7.5 ton unit. The
proposed to be replaced with a
system
total cost of replacing the existing
is $11,230 and consists of the following:
1.
2.
Replace
existing
ductwork and grills.
3.
Replace
Build a
existing
platform
5 ton a.c. unit with a 7.5 ton.
for the
4.
Install
required
air handling unit.
electrical wiring for proposed
unit.
The new unit will be large enough to handle the upstairs
area. It will take approximately two weeks to install the
proposed system from start to finish. If approved, other
proposals will be obtained from A/C companies and the most
economical and reputable company will be selected to perform
the work. I will proceed with this project upon your
approval. If there are any questions, please contact me.
/�llj�1J
MHB/ew
attachment
r
W A T
AIM4G7NDml7NING a
(/ v
REFRIGERATION, INC.
P. 0. Box 1090, Keller, Texas 76248
(817) 431-2211 431-2680
TO
PHONE DATE
PPROPOSAL]SU�BMMED
.,,�E
8i7.4ell .
JOB NAMEtE
,TE AND ZIP CODE
/L.f
JOB LOCATION
ARCHITECT DATE OF PLANS
JOB PHONE
We hereby submit specifications and estimates for:
�^ i ��! �f >•6+t �.r*yS , I ? m S 7�
i^'3 7' ys- 7 T a ive�e �6iC
��y>?-r-..•�y 4�7crz..'y S% S ra<�. v
�n. c�F�rn • c �,�o� .}rL yst,..oise .
el- —C-XtC-
6izC.Mic rt-
17-1C, -
rCNc6
3 S! .
4tx.—
�.+ �.rwa.✓F
�1 t9 .-
`7 � .
�t II�Z30
Be 11rapost hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specifications, for the sum of:
Payment to be made as follows:
dollars ($ ) .
Terms are net 10 days upon submittal of Invoice. The Indebtedness evidenced hereby is due and payable at the offices of WATCO In
together. with later--* from and
matilpily
party for collection.
-11 expenses 0i calle"lon III place.' 1" she hiln-s-61 thi-A
All material is Guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike
manner aeeording to standard practices. Any alterabon or deviation from above specifiea.
trans involving
Authorized
extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an
Signature
ertra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents
or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance.
Our worliars are fully Covered by workmen's Coin penaation Insurance.
Note: This propo may be /
V
withdrawn by us if not accepted within
days.
Arm;lu r of rn rns�1—The above prices, specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized
Signature '
t elo the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
of Acceptance:
Signature
FORM „a -a COPYRIGHT ,sec - Aedable /0rrwe� wc.. Gana+. Mess min
r
ION N0.90-52
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTHLARE, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE \
EMERGENCY REPLACEMENT OF THE UPSTAIRS HEATING/AIR
CONDITIONING SYSTEM IN CITY HALL; PROVIDING
FFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, during the summer months, temperatures are high
and it is imperative that air conditioning equipment is
operational in order for employees of the City to be able to be
most effective in there assorted responsibilities; and,
WHEREAS, an emergency exists due to malfunctioning air
conditioning equipment in the upstairs Police Department; now,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby authorizes the City
Staff to have the air conditioning equipment repaired or replaced
as necessary.
Section 2. That this resolution is hereby effective upon passage
by the City Council..
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
ATTEST:
Sandra L. LeGran
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Southlake, Texas
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
By:
Gary Fic es, Mayor
/D--3
M E M O R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR FICKES AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Sandra L. LeGrand, City Secretary
SUBJECT: Community Wide Environmental Task Force
------------------------------
Mayor Pro Tem Springer asked that this item be placed on the
City Council Agenda for consideration, adding, that Brad
Bradley and others, are interested in forming a committee
for a community wide environmental task force.
Hopefully, Brad will be at the meeting to lead the
discussion on this.
If you have questions, please give me a call.
S'LL sl
City of Southlake, Texas
RESOLUTION NO.90-53
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, IN SUPPORT OF THE CREATION
OF A COMMUNITY WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE.
IN SUPPORT OF A TWELVE MEMBER COMMITTEE: FOUR
MEMBERS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL, FOUR MEMBERS
FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND, FOUR MEMBERS
FROM THE CARROLL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, as the 1990's begin, world population has swelled
to 5.2 billion people, and world economic activity has expanded
to $13 trillion and new global concerns about ozone depletion,
climatic change, and the extinction of unique genetic resources
has been added to local and regional environmental problems; and,
WHEREAS, the awareness of our interdependence and the need
for respect for human rights, for knowledge, and for real
participation at a global level are growing fast; and,
WHEREAS, a more long-term view of our common future must
become the underpinning of our global cooperation; and,
WHEREAS, the Southlake City Council has accepted the
challenge to "think globally and act locally" by committing tc
the protection of our community's environment through the use of
new, innovative solutions to some of the toughest challenges
facing us today; now,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT:
Section 1. that the City Council of the City of Southlake,
supports the creation of a community -wide Environmental Task
Force composed of four representatives from each group,
comprised of the Southlake City Council, the Southlake Chamber
of Commerce, and, the Carroll Independent School Board, to
identify, address and resolve environmental concerns within our
community.
Section 2. That this Resolution shall be effective upon passage
by the City Council.
/%a
City of Southiake, Texas
Resolution 90-53
page two
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
By:
Gary Fickes, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sandra L. LeGrand
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
City of Southlake, Texas
M
M E M O R A N D U M
July 13, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Michael H. Barnes, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Construction of the N-3 Sewer Line to Carroll Rd.
In the process of planning how to provide sewer service to
Highway 114, Carroll High School, Johnson Elementary, and
Carroll Middle School, Cheatham and Associates and city staff
have developed a plan that will achieve this result. With
the refinancing of the Denton Creek Pressure System approved
by City Council June 19, construction funds are available to
begin the N-3 line.
The plan involves issuing a change order to Wright
Construction to add the construction of the N-3 sewer line
to the S-6 contract and having the school district fund
their sewer lines that connect to the N-3 sewer line. The
following narrative is an overview of that plan and how it
may be funded.
To provide sewer service to Highway 114, Johnson Elementary
and Carroll Middle School the N-3 sewer line needs to be
constructed from the Summerplace subdivision paralleling
Dove Creek north to the intersection of Dove Creek and
Carroll Ave. This would mean that a change order adding the
N-3 sewer line to the S-6 project would have to be approved
by the Council.
In June, the Council awarded the S-6 sewer project to Wright
Construction Co. at a cost of $755,515.57. State law
prohibits any construction contract from being increased by
more than 25% which means that if a change order was issued
to Wright Construction the total cost of the S-6 project
could not exceed $944,394.46.
The benefits of combining the N-3 sewer line with the S-6
sewer line are as follows:
1. It would decrease the total cost to the N-3
project by $75,000 to $100,000 (only one lift
station would be required instead of two).
2. It would allow service sewer to be available in a
highly lucrative commercial area of the City
(Highway 114).
Z02 1
I
Curtis E. Hawk
Construction of N-3 Sewer Line
July 13, 1990
Page 2
3. It would provide gravity sewer to the elementary
and middle schools, and eliminate their package
wastewater treatment plant, and make sewer
available to the high school once that portion of
the line from the high school to the Carroll
Avenue -Dove Creek location can be constructed.
Below is a detailed breakdown of how the expenditures
compare with the revenues:
Construction Cost of S-6 and N-3 Projects
If the S-6 and the N-3 projects were bid separately, the
total estimated cost would be $1,049,515.
$ 755,515 S-6 Project Cost
294,000 N-3 Estimated Project Cost
$1,049,515 Total Estimated Cost of S-6 & N-3 Projects
If the two projects were combined, the two projects would
cost $914,515:
$1,049,515 Total Estimated Cost of S-6 & N-3
Project Bid Separately
-135,000 Cost Savings to combine S-6 & N-3
$ 914,515 Total Combined Cost of S-6 & N-3 Projects
($755,515 - $914,515)/$755,515 = 21% (less than 25% Required
by State law)
Total Cost of S-6 & N-3 Projects (Const. and Engineering)
$ 914,515 Est. Combined Cost of S-6 & N-3 Projects
25,000 Contingency
35,0 0 S-6 Engineering Contract / /
6,322' Proposed N-3 Engineering Contract
Estimated Easement Acquisition Cost
15,000 Inspection Cost
$1,025,837 Total Est. Cost of S-6 & N-3 Projects
Curtis E. Hawk
Construction of
July 13, 1990
Page 3
$ 838,000
250,000
$1,088,000
$1,088,000
-1,025,837
N-3 Sewer Line
Revenues
S-6 Bond Sale
N-3 Bond Sale
Total Revenues
Total Revenues
Total Expenditures
$ 62,163 Remaining Funds
The $135,000 change order is due to the lift station being
removed and added to the N-3 project, deleting a back up
generator and laying the proposed force main with 42 inches
of cover instead of 8 feet to cover as originally designated
for the S-6 & N-3 projects.
Based on the given figures above it
has adequate funds to construct the
not including the lift station and
three schools. The school district
funding their portion of the lines,
the City an answer as to what they
appears that the City
S-6 and the N-3 projects
gravity lines to the
has been contacted about
but they have not given
can do.
For a project this large, the $25,000 contingency limit is
very restrictive especially since it is mandatory that it
cannot be exceeded. However, the contractor, Cheatham and
Associates and myself have reviewed the estimated cost
figures and think the S-6 and N-3 projects can be
constructed within the cost estimates given.
There are approximately 10-15 easements that have to be
obtained to build the N-3 line. At this time, there does
not seem to be a problem with obtaining these easements, and
the city staff will start obtaining easements as soon as
they are prepared.
m
►J
MHB/kb
/a - 3
City of Southlake, Texas
M E M O R A N D U M l
July 13, 1990
TO: Curtis E. Hawk, City Manager
FROM: Michael H. Barnes, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance
The Sign Ordinance (No. 506) has been on the council's
agenda for the past several meetings. During this period,
the council has not had the time to review the ordinance in
detail and is now being submitted for their review and
discussion.
Please place this item on the agenda for the July 17, 1990
City Council meeting.
A
MHB/ew
attachment - Sign Ordinance
/3 1
SPACE UTILIZATION STUDY FOR SOUTHLAKE CITY HALL
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
JULY3 1990
CONSULTANT
THE ALLEN/BUIE PARTNERSHIP
ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS
LONGVIEW, TEXAS
INDEX
INTRODUCTION......................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................2,3
PROJECT TIMETABLE..................................................4
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ESTIMATE.....................................5
EVALUATION OF EXISTING CITY HALL...................................6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXISTING CITY HALL ...........................7,8
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW MUNICIPAL COMPLEX .......................9,10
PRELIMINARY BUILDING PROGRAM GUIDELINES/NEW CITY HALL.............11
APPENDIX
CHRONOLOGY .................................................. ..12
BUILDING STATISTICS.........................................13-16
INTERVIEW NOTES.............................................17-26
INTRODUCTION
This study was authorized by the City of Southlake in April, 1990.
The purpose of the study was to:
1. Review and evaluate existing staff versus space requirements
according to general accepted practices.
2. Develop and recommend additional requirements for the next five years
based on projected personnel requirements.
3. Evaluate the need for a new City Hall.
4. Provide recommendations and guidelines for:
a. Modifications or additions to existing City Hall for immediate
relief of overcrowding.
b. Feasibility of longer term use of the existing site and building.
C. New City Hall --size and date for construction.
d. New City Hall site criteria --including acreage, parking and
future improvements.
e. Utilization of existing City Hall (including modifications and
additions) after construction of new City Hall.
Although The Allen/Buie Partnership is responsible for the contents of
this report, grateful appreciation is expressed to the City of Southlake
administration and staff and to the planning committee-rCity Manager
Curtis Hawk, Mayor Gary Fickes, Mayor Pro Tem Betty Springer, Council
Member Sally Hall, and Public Works Director Mike Barnes.
During the preparation of this report and visits to the site, and general
survey of the City of Southlake, The Allen/Buie Partnership consulted with
administration, staff, and the planning committee. In addition, interviews
with each city department head were conducted. A summary of the interview
notes and the work schedule is included in the Appendix of this report.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Southlake is located adjacent to and south of Grapevine Lake
between the city of Grapevine on the east and the cities of Westlake and
Keller on the west. The City is experiencing a tremendous growth rate
presently and it is anticipated this growth rate will continue through
the 1990's. Southlake has a population of approximately 6,500 and is
primarily a residential community. There are approximately 63 City
employees working out of one centralized municipal building. This building
is approximately 13,000 sq. ft. and is situated on a three acre site.
It also houses the police and fire departments. City Hall is centrally
located on North Carroll Avenue between State Highway 114 and FM 1709.
Southlake has attracted major corporate developments such as IBM's 900
acre planned community and numerous new residential subdivisions. The
City's strategic location, in close proximity to DFW International and
the recently opened Alliance Airport, promises to play a significant
role in attracting even more quality business to the City.
The recent passage of a multi -million dollar bond issue for expansion of
public school facilities to meet the future educational needs of Southlake's
expanding population is an example of the community spirit and interest in
realistic forward planning.
The same realistic view held by the City of Southlake City Council and
the City administration has brought about this study and recommendations
for the basis of a master plan for the City's immediate and future services.
2
The study includes twelve (12) related recommendations for implementation:
1. Immediately appoint a Citizens Advisory Committee to work with the
Planning Committee in finalizing and planning development of a new
City Hall complex and develop bond issue to fund new construction.
2. Select and secure approximate 20 acre site for a new City Hall complex
including a public library and amphitheatre.
3. Provide additional 2000 s.f. portable building space at existing City Hall
for occupancy by Finance and Public Works. Request proposals for furnishinq
portable building, to be ready for use by October, 1990.
4. Modify existing City Hall to correct building code violations, and to
accommodate relocation of City Manager, City Secretary, and Court Clerk.
Modify existing space to provide Records storage, conference area, and
other improvements in accord with plan and description included in this study.
(Construction to begin upon relocation of Finance and Public Works to
portable building.)
5. Provide improvements to existing City Hall site, including additional
parking and walks.
6. Construct Municipal Complex Phase I, new City Hall, including Administration,
Council Chamber, Finance, and Public Works.
7. Renovate existing City Hall for Police -Courts and Fire Departments
(after occupancy of new City Hall).
8. Reuse portable building for Public Works Maintenance facility or other
City function.
9. Form Library Planning Committee for purpose of developing a building
program and research of available funding grants.
10. Construct Municipal Complex Phase II, Police -Courts and Fire Departments
at new site.
11. Relocate Public Works Maintenance department on existing City -owned
property. Construct warehouses, offices and change house in phased
development as needs increase.
12. Evaluate potential sale of existing City Hall site after relocation of
all City functions to other sites as alternate to continued City use.
The Allen/Buie Partnership has received excellent assistance from municipal
officials and staff in the preparation of this study. At this point, it is
only a "study" and recommendations. After critical review and possible
revisions, the study should be adopted and recommendations implemented.
3
PROJECT TIME TABLE
Implementation
Commence
Complete
1.
Appoint Citizens Advisory Committee
and pass Bond Election.
Jly.
1990
Oct.
1990
2.
Secure 20 acre site.
Jly.
1990
Sep.
1990
3.
Portable building, purchase or lease.
Aug.
1990
Oct.
1990
4.
Modifications to existing City Hall.
Nov.
1990
Jan.
1991
5.
Site improvements, existing City Hall.
Jly.
1990
Sep.
1990
6.
Planning & construction, new City Hall.
Oct.
1990
Jun.
1992
7.
Renovation of existing City Hall for
Police -Courts and Fire Department.
Jun.
1992
Sep.
1992
8.
Reuse of portable building.
Jun.
1992
Jly.
1992
9.
Form Library planning committee.
Oct.
1990
10.
Planning & construction,
new Police -Courts & Fire Dept.
1995
1998
11.
Relocate Public Works Maintenance Dept.
1990
1995
12.
Evaluate sale of existing City Hall site.
1998
4
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ESTIMATE
EXISTING CITY HALL
1. Provide temporary facility addition to existing
building to house Public Works and Finance Depts. $70,000
(Alternate Lease/Purchase: $5,000 delivery & setup,
$1610 per month for 24 months, plus $51,000 purchase) ($95,000)
2.
Sitework (additional parking, walks,
etc.).
$30,000
3.
Renovation of existing facility for
reuse of space.
$15,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $115,000
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CITY HALL
1. Construction Contract for new 15,000 sf City Hall
on new site ($70 per sf) $1,050,000
a. City Administration & Council Chamber 5,000 sf
b. Public Works 3,000 sf
C. Finance 2,500 sf
d. Miscellaneous 4,500 sf
(Public Areas, Toilets, Storage, Mech.)
2. Site Development
(125 car parking, landscape & paving, utilities) $150,000
3. Furnishings and Equipment $125,000
4. Fees (Architectural, Engineering, Consultants) $100,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
(Excluding Site Purchase & Contingencies) $1,425,000
61
EVALUATION OF EXISTING CITY HALL
After observation and study of the existing City Hall and site,
the following determinations were made:
SITE
1. Location is presently good; however, future commercial development
and planned highway construction at the nearby intersection may be
a disadvantage in the future. The property has potential for a high
economic value.
2. Size of the approximate three acre site will not accommodate the future
growth and required building facilities anticipated for Southlake.
EXISTING BUILDING
1. Construction of the existing building is a metal building type,
housing the present City services including Fire, Police and Courts.
The Council Chamber and Council share one meeting space. All departments
are presently about one half the size required by any acceptable standard.
2. Additions and modifications have been made through the years to improve
the function and relieve crowding conditions. However, all departments
are presently operating in very inefficient spaces. Circulation of the
public through and to the various departments creates inconvenience for
the public and disrupts City staff.
3. Code violations exist in many situations within the facility, including
some affecting health and safety (ref. City Building Official's report).
4. Expansion of the existing facility to satisfy immediate building program
needs is possible. However, this would require a total modification of
the building for any reasonable solution. The cost of such modification
of the existing building would approach new building construction cost.
CONCLUSION
Primarily due to the inadequate size of the existing site and the anticipated
market value of adjacent property for expansion, the long term use and
development of the existing site should be discouraged.
Therefore, minimal expenditure at the existing site is recommended.
C.
a
14
r
7
mmomm!mo
1.0p
1
IAII�BI
a
J
a
C
O
O
.1
U.
w
W
d
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR EXISTING CITY HALL
Response to the evaluation of existing City Hall was a consensus of
the City Council, the Planning Committee and the Architects to proceed
as follows:
1. Solve immediate space problems by providing lease space or temporary
facility on site to accommodate Public Works and Finance.
2. Make no major expenditure for construction of addition or remodeling
existing facility.
3. Acquire site for future Municipal Complex, large enough to accommodate
City Hall, Police -Courts, Fire Department and Library.
4. Develop Master Plan with timetable for phased construction of facilities,
with first phase to provide Administration, Finance, and Public Works.
Items 1 and 2 are general recommendations for the existing City Hall described
in this section of the report. Items 3 and 4 are general recommendations for
a new Municipal complex and are included in a following section of the report.
The recommendations for the existing City Hall were based on the following
evaluations and conclusions:
1. Greatest anticipated growth and existing space limitations occur in the
departments of Finance and Public Works. These two departments have
compatible relationships including building permit review and fees and
utilities billing. A portable building, in lieu of permanent structure,
is an economical and practical solution for providing 2000 additional
square feet --the area calculated to serve minimally the space require-
ments for Public Works and Finance for the next two years.
2. Spaces occupied by Public Works and Finance were analyzed for use by
other departments for expansion with minimal changes in construction.
Relocation of administration to the Public Works space provides some
additional area for the administrative functions and, at the same time,
removes three workstations from the public corridor.
3. The public lobby presently occupied by the receptionist -cashier and
Court Clerk creates a congested, unworkable condition. Relocation of
the Court Clerk to the vacated Finance office and relocation of the
cashier to the Public Works/Finance addition improves circulation and
public service, relieves overcrowding at the lobby, and makes possible
a much needed City receptionist at the entrance. Location of the
City Secretary to the present Court Clerk's office allows sharing of
administrative reception and clerical staff and centralizes admin-
istrative personnel.
1
4. Conversion of the existing City Manager's office to a larger conference
room, immediately adjacent to the Council Chamber, provides a meeting
space for executive sessions, miscellaneous conferences, and work space
for Council members. The present City Secretary's office, with fire-
proofing improvements, may function for records storage, which will be
required by State law by the end of 1990. With a closure at the end
of the public corridor, the present administrative clerical area may
be used for additional centralized file storage.
5. Building Code violations, as evaluated by the City Building Official,
should be priorities for correction. Specifically, the addition of a
fire exit from the upper level Police Dept. and addition of a ventilation
system for the Fire Dept. Engine Room are first among these.
6. Redesign of the existing one-way drive at the north side of the building
to provide two-way traffic allows 90 degree parking. Additional paving
provides needed additional public parking and improves site circulation.
The modifications and additions to the existing building as described above
are represented by plan drawings in this section, including a site plan for
additional paving and the location of the proposed portable building addition.
8
n
z
fC
t
6
I 2
J
d
23
P
CARROLL AVENUE
SITE PLAN
SCALE 1`-20'
10 20
FICE OFFIC P W.
lT 01RE T
p p p p 4
FIN. FICERQ
PUBLIC WORKS FINANC
SHIE '
/ PUBLIC
ENTA
;C 01 RT K
PUBLIC COMPUTER
STO.
r
RECEPTION
SEC. WORKROOM
CITY MGR.
ADDITION AND MODIFICATION TO CITY HALL
LUNCHROOM
CITY SEC.
L
IECEP.
SERVICE
FILES
COUNCIL CHAMBER
UPPER LEVEL
e 10
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
"Recommendations for Existing City Hall" included items of recommendation
(items 3 and 4) relative to a new Municipal Complex as follows:
3. Acquire site for future Municipal Complex, large enough to accommodate
City Hall, Police -Courts, Fire Department, and Library.
4. Develop Master Plan with timetable for phased construction of facilities,
with first phase to provide Administration, Finance, and Public Works.
The recommendation of a 15 to 20 acre site was developed from accepted and
proven standards of land use and parking code requirements. Consideration
was given to phased construction of building areas anticipated for City Hall,
Police -Courts, and Fire Department. In addition, the City Council requested
land area for a public library and amphitheatre.
Phase I Construction: City Hall
A 15,000 square foot City Hall as Phase I construction to house Administration,
Council Chamber, City Secretary, Central Records Storage, Public Works, and
Finance was recommended based on each department's anticipated growth in 5 years.
Architects' preliminary building program, staff interview notes, as well as
projected departmental growth were used in developing projected building areas.
City Administration & Council 5,000 sf
Public Works 3,000 sf
Finance 2,500 sf
Public Areas, Staff Room, 4,500 sf
Conference, Storage,
Mechanical/Electrical,
Toilets, Corridors
Total Construction, Phase I 15,000 sf
Of the above total figure, 8,000 sf represents work areas and offices,
which approaches the average recommended gross area per staff occupant
of 175 sf per staff member. The anticipated 5 year projection of staff
growth is as follows:
Administration 8 to 10
Finance 10 to 15
Public Works 16 to 20
Total Staff, Phase I 45
9
HI
Phase II Construction: Police -Courts and Fire Department
Estimated area projections for Phase II construction are as follows:
Police -Courts 8,000 sf
Fire Department 6,000 sf
Total Construction, Phase II 14,000 sf
The anticipated 5 year projection of staff growth is as follows:
Police 37 to 40
Courts 4 to 6
Fire Dept. 23 to 25
Total Staff, Phase II 71
Public Library
The public library for Southlake should be studied to determine its services
and functions, number of volumes (relative to population) to develop its size.
For the purpose of this study, the ideal size of a small library, 20,000 sf,
has been used and is reflected in the Municipal Complex Schematic Site Plan.
Amphitheatre
An amphitheatre, or other public space, should be evaluated after site selection.
Schematic development of a 20 acre site as described above is represented by
the Municipal Complex Schematic plan drawing in this section of the report.
Also included is a Schematic Plan for Phase I construction, a 15,000 sf
City Hall, housing Administration, Public works, Finance, and Council Chamber.
Preliminary Building Program Guidelines for -a new complex are also presented
as general considerations and criteria for site selection and building.
10
r�
PRELIMINARY BUILDING PROGRAM GUIDELINES/NEW CITY HALL COMPLEX
General considerations and criteria for the new City Hall complex
are presented as follows:
Site Selection:
1. Size: The site should have a useable area of 15 to 20 acres.
2. Configuration: The ideal configuration of the site is a square or
rectangle for efficient utilization of the site. Other configurations
may be suitable as evaluated by the Architect.
3. Accessibility: The site should be accessible from all areas of the
City by automobile. A central location withing the City is desireable.
4. Compatibility: The site should be compatible with surrounding land use.
Future development should not detract from the municipal complex.
5. Regulations: The site should minimize compliance efforts related to
zoning, utilities, and drainage.
6. Image: The site should have a strong image or identity relative to
location (for example, a recognized area or district).
7. Acquisition: The site should be purchased at a reasonable market value
and be relatively easy to assemble in terms of ownership.
City Hall Complex:
1. The building should be a one-story structure, for economy and efficiency
relative to its size, with minimal load -bearing walls, easily expanded.
2. Minimal fixed interior partitions to provide open office space in work
areas, utilizing office systems partitions and furnishings.
3. Accessible floor systems (ducted raceways for power, communication and
computer systems) and accessible ceilings.
4. Carpet tile in work areas and offices; permanent haed surfaces in public
circulation areas and toilet rooms.
5. Interior finishes for permanent walls should be low -maintenance type
(example: wall covering).
6. Exterior finishes should be of quality, durable, long-lasting and easily
matched for future expansion (example: masonry --brick or stone).
7. Exterior tinted double -glazed systems and diffusing glass masonry units
are desireable; interior glass walls, where privacy and supervision are
required.
Phase I Building Design should be a compatible part of a total complex
concept design, including anticipated future construction on the site.
Phase I Site Development, including required parking, street construction
and landscaping necessary to Phase I, should be a defined portion of the
concept design for the completed Municipal Complex.
' 11
EXPANSION
o
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX SCHEMATIC
A CITY HALL
B FIRE- POLICE- COURTS
C LIBRARY
D AMPHITHEATRE
PUBLIC PARKING
50 100
SCHEMATIC PLAN - CITY HALL .
A MECHANICAL/STAFF
B ADMINISTRATION
C - COUNCIL CHAMBER
fl FINANCE.
E PUBLIC WORKS
_f ENTRANCE TO LINEAR PUBLIC ILOBBY
APPENDIX
SPACE UTILIZATION STUDY FOR SOUTHLAKE CITY HALL
CHRONOLOGY
May 2 & 3:
Conducted interviews with departments including Finance, Police, Fire,
Court, City Manager, City Secretary, and Public Works.
Obtained field measurements for plan changes to existing plans of building.,
May 4 - 9:
Prepared revised plan of existing facility from owner -furnished plans and
measurements of subsequent plan revisions.
Analyzed existing space allocation per department. Projected space
requirements for two-year growth and five-year growth based on interviews.
May 10:
Presented four proposals with cost estimates for expansion of facilities
to Planning Committee (Gary,'Betty, Sally, Curtis, and Mike).
Committee's consensus was to:
1. Solve immediate space problems by providing lease space or temporary
facility on site to accommodate Public Works and Finance.
2. Make no major expenditure for construction of addition or remodeling
existing facility.
3. Acquire site for future City Hall, large enough to accommodate City Hall,
Police -Courts, Fire Dept., and library.
4. Develop Master Plan with timetable for phased construction of facilities,
with first phase to provide Administration, Finance, and Public Works.
May 11 - 23:
Developed floor plans, at owner's direction, utilizing three 12' x 56' units
as manufactured by portable building company to provide offices for Finance
and Public Works. Studied existing facility for reuse of vacated space.
May 24:
Presented two proposals for plan of temporary facility to Planning Committee
(Gary, Sally, Curtis, Mike). Scheme A, perpendicular to existing building,
was selected. Drive -up cashier window was eliminated and slight increase of
space allocated to Finance was reviewed.
Visited various sites for consideration as new City Hall site.
May 25 - June 14:
Submitted revised plan of temporary facility and reuse of existing space in
building for approval. Plan reviewed and approved by departments involved
and by Building Official.
Performed site study for future building site.
June 15:
Presented preliminary report to City Council and staff.
June 16 - July 16:
Revised report in accord with City Council's directions. Made minor revisions
to plan for modification to existing facility and adjusted projected costs.
Prepared bid specifications for portable building.
July 17:
Presentation of final report and bid specifications for portable building.
12
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CITY HALL AREA REQUIREMENTS
Department Existing Net Area Projected Net Area - Per Cent Increase
Police Dept.
2,120
s.f.
4,500
s.f.
110%
(2.1 times
Fire Dept.
1,130
s.f.
2,000
s.f.
76%
(1.76
x)
Engine Room
3,550
s.f.
4,000
s.f.
15%
(1.15
x)
Court Clerk
140
s.f.
550
s.f.
290%
(3.90
x)
Court (Council Chamber)
1,176
s.f.
2,000
s.f.
70%
(1.70
x)
Finance Dept.
450
s.f.
1,150
s.f.
150%
(2.50
x)
Public Works
550
s.f.
1,900
s.f.
250%
(3.50
x)
Gen. Adm./Public
1,284
s.f
3,000
s.f.
140%
(2.40
x)
Total (excluding
6,850
s.f.
15,100
s.f.
120%
(2.20
x)
Engine Room)
PERSONNEL PROJECTIONS
Department Existinq Two yr. Projection Two to Five Year Pry
Police Dept.
26
31
37
Fire Dept.
12 (3 man shift)
17 (4 man shift)
23 (6 man shift)
Court Clerk
2
3
4
Finance-
5
7
10
Public Works*
9
12
16
Gen. Admin.
4
6
8
*Figures do not include maintenance personnel.
Total Personnel 58 76 98
13
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CITY HALL: BUILDING AREA PROJECTIONS (Net)
Police Department
4,500
s.f.
C.I.D.
300
s.f.
Evidence
400
s.f.
Booking
300
s.f.
Interview
80
s.f.
Communications
400
s.f.
Jail
500
s.f.
Sallyport
600
s.f.
Chief's Office
250
s.f.
Captain's Office
150
s.f.
Secretary/Reception
200
s.f.
Squad Room
450
s.f.
Lockers/Showers
220
s.f.
Workout Space
100
s.f.
Break Room
100
s.f.
D.A.R.E./Warrant
200
s.f.
Storage
250
s.f.
Parking
9 vehicles
Outside Storage
120
s.f. plus fenced compound
Fire Department
2,000
s.f.
Chief's Office
165
s.f.
Fire Marshal
120
s.f.
Secretary/Reception
200
s.f.
Inspectors (2)
200
s.f.
Dayroom/Kitchen
500
s.f.
Bunk Room
450
s.f.
Toilet Facilities
350
s.f.
Engine Room
4,000
s.f.
Court
550
s.f.
Court Clerk (2)
250
s.f.
Clerical (2)
200
s.f.
Storage
100
s.f.
Council Chamber
2,000
s.f.
14
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CITY HALL: BUILDING AREA PROJECTIONS (Net)
General Administration/Public 3,000 s.f.
Public Reception
400
s.f.
Toilet Rooms
400
s.f.
City Manager's Office
300
s.f.
Mayor's Office
200
s.f.
City Secretary's Office
200
s.f.
Clerical (4)
400
s.f.
Files/Storage
150
s.f.
Records Management
400
s.f.
Executive Session/Conference
250
s.f.
Lunchroom
300
s.f.
Finance Department
1,150
s.f.
Director's Office
150
s.f.
Accounting Office (2)
200
s.f.
Utilities Billing (3)
400
s.f.
Computer Room
100
s.f.
Storage
200
s.f.
Cashier
100
s.f.
Public Works
1,900
s.f.
Director's Office
250
s.f.
Building Official
120
s.f.
Zoning Official
120
s.f.
City Engineer
180
s.f.
City Planner
180
s.f.
Inspection
200
s.f.
Plan Review
100
s.f.
Conference
150
s.f.
Drafting
350
s.f.
Reproduction
100
s.f.
Files/Storage
150
s.f.
Maintenance Facility 3 to 5 acre site
Projected Net Area Total 15,100 s.f.
Police Department 4,500 s.f.
Fire Department 2,000 s.f.
Engine Room 4,000 s.f. (not included in above total)
Court 550 s.f.
Council Chamber (Court) 2,000 s.f.
Gen. Admin./Public 3,000 s.f.
Finance Dept. 1,150.s.f.
Public Works 1,900 s.f.
15
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CITY HALL: BUILDING AREA (as of May 8, 1990)
Total Building Area (Gross) = 9,000 s.f. (excluding Engine Room & unfinished
space at upper level, north bldQ.)
North Bldg. = 3,000 s.f. at lower level
1,500 s.f. at upper level (1,500 s.f. unfinished)
Center Bldg. = 3,100 s.f.
South Bldg. = 1,400 s.f. (excluding 3,550 s.f. Engine Room)
Building Area by Department (Net)
Police Department (2,120 s.f.)
C.I.D.
200
s.f.
Evidence
80
s.f.
Booking
120
s.f.
Interview
80
s.f.
Communications
275
s.f.
Jail
275
s.f.
Vest./Entry
100
s.f.
Lower Level Total
1130
s.f.
Chief's Office
180
s.f.
Chief's Storage
80
s.f.
Captain's Office
110
s.f.
Secretary
115
s.f.
Squad Room
255
s.f.
Sgt's. Office
50
s.f.
Work Area (L shape)
200
s.f.
Upper Level Total*
990
s.f.
* Lockers in unfinished space
Finance Department (450-sf.)
Finance Office 130 s.f.
Utilities Billing 140 s.f.
Computer Room 100 s.f.
Storage 80 s.f.
Public Works (550 s.f.
Director 170 s.f.
Zoning 100 s.f.
Clerical/Officials 280 s.f.
Court Clerk (140 s.f.
Clerk's Office 140 s.f.
Court/Council (1176 s.f.)
Council Chamber 1176 s.f.
W
Administration (511 s.f.)
City Manager 132 s.f.
City Secretary 144 s.f.
Clerical 235 s.f.
Miscellaneous
(773
s.f.)
Cashier/Reception
228
s.f.
Lunchroom
265
s.f.
Public Toilet Rooms
280
s.f.
Fire Department (1130 s.f.)
Reception 180 s.f.
Chief's Office 165 s.f.
Dayroom/Kitchen 375 s.f.
Laundry/Toilet 125 s.f.
Bunk Room 285 s.f.
Engine Room
(3550
s.f.)
Main Bay V
1820
s.f.
South Bay
1500
s.f.
Tool Room
160
s.f.
Mop Sink Area
70
s.f.
Total Net Area 6850 s.f.
(excluding Engine Room)
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
■ PUBLIC WORKS
Current Personnel
1. Director (Mike Barnes)
2. Zoning Official (Karen Gandy)
3. Building Official (Alan Carlson)
4. Secretary (Jean Bryson)
5. Inspector (Darwin Cheatham)
6. Code Enforcement (Ronnie Barcroft)
7. Assistant to Director (Eddie Wilson)
8. Water Maintenance Clerk (Charlotte)
9. Maintenance Crew (9 personnel, outside)
Short Term (Immediate) Growth: Net 2 (or 3)
1. One (or two) inspectors.
2. One clerical -typist (to assist Mike and Karen)
Long,Term (5 to 7 yrs.) Growth: Net 5 (or 7)
1. Planner (platting and zoning)
2. City Engineer
3. Technician/Draftsman (1 or 2)
Proposed Space Requirements
Reception
Clerical/reception area with work space for two to three personnel and space
to receive the public, public waiting area, and space to complete forms, etc.
Offices
1. Director's Office, large enough to accommodate conference of 4 to 5 people
2. Building Official's Office and plan review space
3. Zoning Official's Office, larger than present office
4. Inspectors' Office, large space shared by two inspectors
5. City Engineer's Office
6. City Planner's Office
7. Secretary for City Engineer and City Planner
Conference: Provide space for staff meetings, plan reviews, etc.
Drafting: Provide space for mapping files, drafting tables (related to City
Engineer and Planning and Zoning).
Reproduction Room: In-house plan reproduction, copy machine, sink counter.
Files: Centralized storage space for files, approximately 10 x 12.
Mom; _+- r ---
Facility can be relocated to another site, remote from office of Public Works.
Existing 5 acre water tower site at west boundary of City would be adequate.
Existing City Hall Site
1. Area at north boundary will be immediately utilized for additional parking.
2. Septic tank field system at east will be replaced by Carroll Ave. sewer.
3. Water tank can be removed for additional space on site.
4. Communications tower can be relocated, to serve Police/Fire departments.
17
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
FINANCE
Current Staff
1. Finance Officer (Renee Wheeler)
2. Accounting Clerk (Nelda Collins)
3. Utilities Billing (Shirley Robbins)
4. Cashier (Kim Epperson)
5. Meter Reader (in -the -field)
Proposed Additions (2 yr. growth)
1. Accounts Payable Clerk
2. Payroll Clerk
Proposed Additions (3 to 5 yr.growth)
1. Utilities Billing Clerk
2. Meter Reader
3. Accounts Receivable Clerk or Administrative Clerk (to handle assessments,
billing to developers, tax records reconciliations, etc.) in a typical
works ace with desk, p.c., printer, 2 4-drwr. file cabinets.
Department Functions
1. Maintain General Ledger
2. Accounts Payable/Payroll (65 employees)
3. Insurance
4. Budget and Financial Report Preparation
5. Utilities Billing and Collection
6. Cashier Operations (including Bldg. Permits, Court, and Ambulance)
7. Systems Operation (computer)
Present Office Space
1.
Finance Officer/Accounting Clerk Office (shared)
130
sq.
ft.
2.
Utilities Billing Office (shared with Water Maintenance
Clerk, from Public Works Dept.)
138
sq.
ft.
3.
Storage (adjacent to Finance Office, and partially under
Upper Level exit stairway)
82
sq.
ft.
4.
Computer Room
98
sq.
ft.
5.
Total Net Area, Finance Dept.
448
sq.
ft.
Problems with Existing Space
1. All areas are inadequate to serve public and/or personnel.
2. Finance Office, shared by two, has no space for credenza or work surface
other than desks. There is -so space --.available for conference with visitor
(public, employee, or other city official). Exit door from building is
within space and is kept locked, in violation of building code.
3. Storage Room is inadequate and also in violation of building code
(combustible materials stored below exit stairway). Location requires
access through Finance Officer's space.
4. Computer Room is adequate for present equipment, but inadequate for storage
of supplies. Operation console could be in this space if possible.
No space is available for storage of computer manuals and supplies.
Utilities form buster is presently in this space. Location of computer
is not central to department (crossover of Utilities Billing required).
5. Utilities Billing is shared with Water Maintenance Clerk (Public Works).
There is no space for public and location within building is•inconvenient
to public. Filing space is inadequate. There is no space for supplies
storage and two-year record of past bills. Forms buster is located in
Computer Room. Water Maintenance Clerk does not have full access to map.
(This may be more appropriate in Public Works department.)
18
May 10, 1990
6. Cashier's Space, at building entrance, is entirely too small.
This space contains postage meter, scale, typewriter, cash register,
adding machine, and ambulance billing files. Location near front
entrance is not good (customers are often unhappy about billings)
and.telephone reception often interferes with bill payments.
Suggestions/Recommendations
1. Finance Office: Provide a separate office with desk and additional
work surface, p.c. and printer, storage for supplies, bookshelf,
® four'drawer file, space for visitor conference.
2. Accounts Payable/Payroll: Provide a separate space shared by two
clerks, with worksurfaces, computer terminals (2), bookshelving, and
files (two 4-drwr. for Accts. Payable, and two 4-drwr. for Payroll,
locked), typewriter for Accounts Payable.
3. Utilities Billing: Provide a separate space shared by two clerks
with space to receive public; file space (or location adjacent to
central file storage) for meter books, forms buster (or in adjacent
space).
4. Files/Storage: Provide a fireproof, lockable space, convenient to
offices with space for forms and supplies, two-yr. record of past
utility bills, computer supplies, etc.
5. Cashier: Provide larger space in another location, away from entrance
but convenient to public (perhaps, another cashier provided in Public
Works dept. for building permits). Separate functions of finance dept.
from receptionist (telephone and outgoing mail). If possible,
Cashier's space should be more central to all departments to reduce
customer inconvenience.
19
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Personnel/Growth Projections
Fire Chief
Fire Marshal
Dept. Secretary
4 Firemen, each shift (3 presently, project 6 in 5 yrs.)
2 Inspectors (1 presently)
Equipment (total, 11 pieces, excluding 2 passenger vehicles)
2 Pumpers
1 Aerial Truck
1 Attack Truck
2 Grass Trucks
1 Ambulance
1 Utility Truck (air bottles)
1 Utility Truck
1 Tanker Truck
1 Fireboat
Engine Room
Existing room provides covered parking for 9 vehicles (air truck and van
are parked outside --requested additional covering near tool room).
Exhaust system should be installed .jfumes leak into building interior).
Tool Room does not meet code, as per Building Official's report.
Bunk Room
Existing space for four beds (cannot accommodate shift increase).
Provide for six shift personnel in 5 years.
Addition of sub -station will not affect requirement for six on shift.
Day Room
Inadequate for training space. Kitchen will be inadequate for shift increase.
volunteers are also involved in program.
Toilet
Existing facility is essentially a private toilet (cannot be used by more
than one due to lack of partitions, etv.).
Space will be inadequate for increased force and for mixed use (male/female).
Chief's Office
Adequate as is.
Reception Area
Inadequate, overcrowded for existing personnel. Provide space for secretary,
fire marshal and two inspectors.
NOTE: Chief Steele recommends sub -station construction in 1991. Booster and
pumper will relocate to sub -station.
20
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
1. Security:
Prisoners must be conducted through same entrance as public, which
includes customers paying bills after 5:00 pm, visitors, members of
various committees/boards, etc.
Prisoners have potential access to other parts of the building.
There are no surveillance cameras within the building, including cells,
and no ability to monitor the exterior entrance.
Communications officer is exposed to all traffic at the entrance.
Recommend a sallyport for prisoners to separate from the public and
to provide security.
2. Communications:
Computers, tape loggers, radio transmission box should be in a controlled
environment to prolong equipment life.
Space should be provided for addition of a Communications officer and
for the Warrant officer.
Supervisor should be in adjacent office, separate but accessible (four
personnel total, this area).
Provide a toilet facility within Communications area, to maintain security.
3. Interview:
Present size is adequate. Location should be in proximity of jail area;
however, view window should be in a pre -view space (not in Booking as is).
Space is used by attorneys, complainants and prisoners.
4. Booking:
Present size (9 x 13 = 117 s.f.) is inadequate. Space should accommodate
stationary camera mount, storage of prisoners' personal property, and
should provide space for two officers and two prisoners at any given time
for fingerprinting and booking, etc. Space should include storage of
evidence (temporarily) and personal property closet. A lock -up within
the space is desireable. Booking room should be in proximity to cells.
Recommended size should equal the present Squad Room (15 x 17 = 255 s.f.).
5. Jail:
Two-year growth would be accommodated by the addition of a single cell and
a tank to house 3 to 4 people for a short time. visual monitoring (cameras)
should be provided. Shower/clean-up is adequate as is. Provide a food
preparation space, with microwave, cold storage and sink. A secure
emergency exit (perhaps into the sallyport) should be provided.
6. C.I.D.:
Present staff of two detectives should be adequate for two-year growth.
Another detective should be added after two years. Present space is
inadequate for research, files and work surface for case preparation.
InterVi(ews are conducted at detectives' desks. Location of Evidence
space off C.I.D. is not desireable.
21'
7. Evidence Room:
Present size should be quadrupled. Ground floor location is desireable,
but proximity is not a priority. Space must be secure, including from
roof. Space should contain cold storage for items such as blood, food,
etc., and locked storage for items such as cash, narcotics, etc.
Storage for items which are no longer evidence is needed (can be remote).
8. Secretary (Maggie):
Present office equipment is adequate. Location of workspace is poor due
to high level of circulation and lack of privacy.
9. Chief's Office:
Size is adequate; however, office arrangement should provide desk with
credenza and conference table for visitors. Small closet should be
provided. Window is a priority!
10. Captain's Office:
Office is too small (no area for visitors). A small closet is needed.
11. Squad Room:
Space should accommodate roll call, training and implementation of infor-
mation. Force will increase from 15 to 19 in two years. Each shift has
4 to 5 persons (eventually 7 to 10). Provide lockers for 30 within-5 yrs.
in an adjacent space with a shower and two changing areas (male/female).
��►► A small physical education area for 2 to 3 persons is desired. Within
the Squad Room, provide storage space for TV/VCR, supplies, and shotguns.
Sgt's. office should be adjacent. Use of the Squad Room for meetings by
committees, etc. is acceptable.
12. Break Room:
Presently in Corridor/Lobby. Provide a separate space to accommodate
four persons at'a table, with counter and sink.
13. D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education):
Space should be a ground level (public access) with large storage area
for materials. Officer could share a large office with the Warrant
officer, unless Warrant officer is in Communications area).
14. Storage:
Total amount for various types (ammunition, office supplies, used eqpt.)
should be equal to present Squad Room size, in 2 or 3 locations in dept.
Outside storage should be approx. 10 x 12 with fenced -in compound, which
can be offsite (remote).
15. Parking:
Presently, 12 vehicles, half of which are on the street at any given time.
In 5 years, increase to 17.
16. Growth Projections (Personnel)
Present: 21 officers, 5 civilians (26 total)
2 years: 24 officers, 7 civilians (31 total)
5 years: 28 officers, 9 civilians (37 total)
22
Addendum to Police Department Space Utilization
(as submitted by Chief Campbell)
1. The need for a secondary exit upstairs.
2. Handicap access considerations downstairs.
3. Possible future office for a Lieutenant.
4. Area large enough to also include DWI Intoxilyzer and video area.
5. A lock -up and booking cage.
6. Outside storage area must be secure and a building needs to be
provided for items that must be kept out of the weather.
23
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
COURT
Current Personnel
Court Clerk (Janie Borum)
Deputy Court Clerk (Julie Hinkle)
Short Term Growth
One (1) clerk.
Five Year Growth
One (1) clerk (Four total personnel in 5 years).
Proposed Space Requirements
Clerk's Office
Workspace for Clerk with space for judge and prosecutor (judge signs documents).
Office could be shared with Deputy Clerk (two workspaces).
clerk should have separate office when third clerk is brought on staff.
Outer Office
Workspace for two clerks (long-term)
Space for ticket files and window (secure) for public access.
Area for warrant officer/bailiff.
Storage
Space for tapes of court proceedings (Court of Record).
Printer could be located in this space to reduce noise in office area.
Storage for computer/printer supplies and general office supplies.
Courtroom (Council Chamber)
Present space is satisfactory.
24
H
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CITY SECRETARY
Office
Provide larger office to accommodate worktable/credenza behind desk.
Provide space for visitors (conference) --at least two chairs.
Provide space for absentee voting booth.
Office has direct relationship to Council Room and to mayor's office.
Records
State -mandated Records Management Plan (effective Jan. 1991) requires
climate -controlled, secure, fireproof storage for any records not used
more than once monthly. Records include zoning, payroll, ordinances,
minute books, bonds, etc. (some are permanent, some are kept 2 to 5 yrs.).
Recommend 20 x 20 space to accommodate next 3 yrs. Provide immediate (easy)
access to minimum of 10 4-drwr files in space approx. 12 x 12 (secure,
vault -type room).
Clerical
Provide space for Records Management secretary and clerical assistant.
Miscellaneous
Copy Machine should be in centralized area, supervised by administrative
personnel (presently located in lunchroom).
25
May 10, 1990
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
CITY MANAGER
Manager's Office
Provide space for conference area within office to seat 5 to 6 people.
Provide space for layout of materials, plans, etc.
Public exposure is presently a problem (drop -in visitors interrupt work).
Office should be related to secretary's workspace and to Council chamber.
Should be adjacent or convenient to manager's office with central file
storage and supplies, etc.
Provide space for intern assistant or large clerical area for 3 to 4 personnel.
Secretary should provide reception for visitors (buffer manager's office).
Mayor
Provide office for mayor in administrative area.
Council
Consider location for executive session of council, to seat 9 to 10 persons.
Chamber
Occasionally, present chamber is inadequate to seat all attendants; however,
size is adequate.
Central Files
Space needed in administrative area for files (could be in clerical area).
Miscellaneous
1. Storage and retrieval of information is a problem. (Plats and engineer's
drawings are located in engineer's office in Ft. Worth.)
2. Public Service:
a. Lack of staff to serve public adequately.
b. Lack of space for public to be received, to wait, etc.
c. Lack of space for public conferences with various personnel.
3. Personnel
a. Lunchroom has often been pre-empted for meetings due to lack of any
alternate space.
b. Overtime situations are created at peak periods (e.g., preparation of
council meeting agenda packets) due to lack of staff and lack of space
available for staff to perform functions.
26
DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY FEE PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TEXAS SENATE BILL 336, AS AMENDED
Prepared for :
THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
Prepared by :
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
- and -
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
D90-0029.01
DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY FEE PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TEXAS SENATE BILL 336, AS AMENDED
Prepared for :
The City of Southlake
Prepared by :
Rimrock Consulting Company
1101 Capital of Texas Highway South, Suite E-205
Austin, Texas 78746
(512) 328-9087
- and -
Cheatham and Associates
2011 East Lamar Boulevard, Suite 200
Arlington, Texas 76006
(817) 460-2111
January, 1990
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY FEE PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TEXAS SENATE BILL 336, AS AMENDED
Table of Contents
Section
Title
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1-1
2.0
LEGAL CONTEXT OF CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
2-1
2.1
LEGAL CONTEXT IN A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
2-1
2.2
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF SB336
2-12
3.0
POLICY DECISIONS RELATED TO TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF
3-1
CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE FORMULATION
3.1
SERVICE AREA DEFINITION
3-1
3.2
GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS
3-3
3.3
UNIT MEASUREMENT
3-5
3.4
TYPES OF FACILITIES FUNDED BY THE FEES
3-12
3.5
TIMING OF FEE COLLECTIONS
3-14
3.6
ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
3-16
3.7
LEVEL OF COST RECOVERY
3-17
3.8
FEE OFFSET APPROACHES
3-17
4.0
EQUITY RESIDUAL APPROACH TO CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE
4-1
CALCULATION
4.1
DEFINITION OF TERMS
4-1
4.2
CONCEPTUAL METHODOLOGY
4-2
5.0
TECHNICAL BASIS OF FEE CALCULATION
5-1
5.1
LAND USE AND PLANNING DATA
5-1
5.2
UNIT USAGE STATISTICS
5-7
5.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
5-7
6.0
CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE CALCULATION
6-1
6.1
CALCULATION OF CREDITS FOR FUTURE RATE PAYMENTS
6-1
6.2
FEE CALCULATION
6-1
7.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7-1
7.1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS
7-1
7.2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY
7-2
COMMITTEE
t�
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Table of Contents
Section Title Paae
8.0 APPENDICES
A. BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
B. SB336 & HB1786 LEGISLATION
C. ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHARGE, MEMBERSHIP & SCHEDULING
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
List of Tables
Table
Title
Pace
3-1
Illustration of Conversion of Capital Recovery Fees ($1989) to
3-15
Nominal Fee Amounts at Time of Collection
4-1
Responsiveness of Equity Residual Approach to Tests of
4-9
Reasonableness and Legal Constraints
5-1
Historical Population for the City of Southlake
5-4
5-2
Three Alternative Growth Rate Projections for the City of Southlake
5-4
5-3
Comparison of Various Growth Projections: City of Southlake
5-5
5-4
Historical and Projected Land Uses and Population for the City of
5-6
Southlake
5-5
Assumptions Used in Fee Calculation
5-8
5-6
LUE Equivalencies for Various Types and Sizes of Water Meters
5-9
5-7
Current Meter Count and Estimation of Living Units Equivalent:
5-9
Water Utility
5-8
Estimated Service Demand by Facility Type: Water Utility
5-11
5-9
Estimated Service Demand by Facility Type: Wastewater Utility
5-12
5-10
Associated CIP Inventory and Costing: Water Utility
5-16
5-11
Associated CIP Inventory and Costing: Wastewater Utility
5-19
6-1
Categorization of Existing Debt: Water Utility
6-3
6-2
Derivation of Maximum Water Capital Recovery Fee Through the
6-4
Equity Residual Model
iv
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
List of Figures
Figure Title Paqe
2-1 Rational Nexus 2-7
2-2 Nexus Complications and Fair Share Payments 2-8
4-1 The Equity Residual Model 4-3
5-1 Map of Conceptual Service Area: WAter and Wastewater Utilities 5-2
5-2 Historical/Projected Population: City of Southlake 5-4
5-3 Comparison of Growth Projections: City of Southlake 5-5
6-1 Equity Residual Model Cost and Fee Calculations: Water Utility 6-5
u
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
DEVELOPMENT OF
am WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY FEE PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TEXAS SENATE BILL 336, AS AMENDED
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 70th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 336 regulating various types of utility
fees, defined in the legislation as "impact fees". Such fees included not only traditional impact
(or capital recovery) fees, but also lot, acreage, frontage and other typical utility fees. The
legislation laid out very specific requirements for the technical development of such fees as well
as the procedures necessary for enactment of such fee programs. Cities were given three
years (until June, 1990). to come into compliance with the legislation.
2.0 LEGAL CONTEXT OF CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
2.1 LEGAL CONTEXT IN A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
While Senate Bill 336 and its amendments provide many specific guidelines regarding
the technique and process for fee development, it is important to look beyond the specific
requirements of that Act to understand the historical evolution of capital recovery fees,
particularly in regard to potential constitutional issues -- which are not completely addressed
by S13336. Although impact fees — or capital recovery fees — are a relatively new form of
development exaction, they are the result of a long history of local subdivision regulation.
Texas is one of the few states which has specific enabling legislation for impact fees; while
SB336 offers considerable definition to the exact requirements for fee development, it is also
necessary to be aware of ongoing constitutional challenges to such fees (primarily in other
states) to appreciate precedents established by the courts.
Historically, cities have had the authority to establish capital recovery fees arising from
their home rule authority and from the general state -delegated authority to regulate subdivisions.
1
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
E
The ultimate validity and enforceability of any capital recovery fee ordinance rests, in an
historical sense, upon its identity as an integral element of a city's broad, well -recognized
authority to control land use through police power zoning and subdivision regulation for the
protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
In order to develop a capital recovery fee most responsive to earlier court decisions
on constitutional challenges, as well as meet the requirements of S13336, several "tests" should
be applied to any prospective fee:
+ A capital recovery fee must relate to the protection of community health,
safety, and general welfare;
+ A capital recovery fee should be based on full or partial cost of service in
order to be construed as a fee and not an unconstitutional tax;
+ There must be equity to all users;
+ Deviations from equity must be based on a carefully -defined public policy
basis;
+ Those who pay a capital recovery fee must have created a demand for the
facilities which are being funded by the fee;
+ The fees collected must be used for the benefit of those who paid them;
+ Fees assessed must be proportional to the cost of serving and benefits
provided to the feepayer;
+ Past and future rate/tax/facility contributions by feepayers must be
acknowledged as a credit in fee calculations; and
+ The City cannot impose punitive fees on any customer or class of
customers.
2.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF SB336
Generally, the provisions of SB336 and its amendments are:
+ The City is regulated in its authority to charge impact fees for water, sewer,
drainage and local roadways.
2
N
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
t a new fee and an time the
+ A detailed technical study is required to initiate y
fee is updated (including service area definition, growth projections, CIP
development, cost allocation, unit usage determination, etc.).
+ Fees per unit "run with the plat' since they are set at time of platting;
unless fees are also collected at platting, this could result in considerable
losses for the City since actual cost of service may be much higher when
service is ultimately provided than it was when the land was platted.
Careful fee construction may avoid this undercollection.
+ The maximum allowable fee under SB336 is the full capital cost per unit.
[However, if this ceiling is not reduced by the amount of future rate
payments by feepayers, then feepayers will pay more than their fair cost
of service, and the City might have to refund overpayments.]
+ The City must create an advisory committee which contains both real
estate representatives and a representative of the ETJ.
+ Fees which are not expended on appropriate CIP projects within 10 years,
or fees which are substantially in excess of cost must be refunded, plus
interest.
+ Feepayers must receive immediate service, if capacity is available,
otherwise they must receive service in five years or less.
+ Developers must be reimbursed or receive fee offsets for contributed
facilities.
3
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
3.0 POLICY DECISIONS RELATED TO TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CAPITAL RECOVERY
FEE FORMULATION
3.1 SERVICE AREA DEFINITION
For the purposes of developing the capital recovery fees, a conceptual service area
must be defined in order to orient, size and cost the CIP. The service area is described for the
purpose of fee determination and does not necessarily constrain the Utility in actual future
service availability for exact locations — which may be precisely unknown given undefined
future market demands.
The service area should be defined broadly enough to encompass growth for at least
ten years, or any other logical period given the capacity of existing facilities and the limitations
of topographic characteristics. Service areas are potentially constrained by the City's restricted
application of the fee (which may be assessed only within the corporate boundaries, ETJ or
contractually -served area served by Utility); service areas of other utility providers; and practical
limits to service from already existing or planned facilities.
3.2 GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS
Under the provisions of S6336, costs may either be segregated by rational subareas
or may be examined in aggregate for each utility. Aggregate costs may be justified due to the
facts that (1) costs related to geographic locations are often due to discretionary siting and
design choices on the part of Utility professionals rather than to locational decisions on the
part of the customer; (2) systems are often designed with redundant facilities for system
reliability (such as "looped" water systems); and (3) some facilities have no geographic -specific
service area. Where notable cost differentials do occur due to locational decisions of the utility
customer, utilities are more justified in developing geographic -specific fees. Among those costs
which could most easily be segregated are wastewater capital costs for a particular drainage
basin, facility costs (particularly lines) according to broad soil classifications, and approach
main costs for a defined array of developments in a particular location.
4
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
3.3 UNIT MEASUREMENT
Measurements of unit usage statistics must be chosen in the course of the study both
for determining system -wide utility demand and for applying a fee amount to an individual
customer. The same unit measurement is not necessarily used in both instances. The Utility
will be guided in its choice of units by the availability and quality of information at a particular
point in time, the purpose for which the statistic is used and the administrative feasibility of
using such factors. Unit statistics of one type are generally convertible into statistics of another
type, thus preserving the overall integrity of the study when one type of unit is used to estimate
future system demand and another for individual fee assessment.
Some common unit measurements are:
+ Per capita consumption/flow
+ Consumption/flow per acre
+ Consumption/flow per nonresidential building square footage
+ Operational indicators of service demand such as employment, enrollment,
seating, etc.
+ Consumption/flow per dwelling unit (DU)
+ Linear feet (If) of road frontage (appropriately a measure of cost rather than
service demand)
+ Living Unit Equivalent (LUE) (common denominator for service demand)
+ Water Meter Size
+ Pipe Size
+ Fixture calculations for water -using and wastewater-discharging'appliances
5
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
11
3.4 TYPES OF FACILITIES FUNDED BY THE FEES
SB336 applies to fee monies or contributions which fund all water and sewer capital
facilities with a few specific exceptions. Exempted from the SB336 process are:
(1) Dedication of rights -of -way or easements, or construction or dedication
of on -site water distribution or wastewater collection when these
dedications and construction are required by valid ordinances and are
necessitated by and attributable to new development; and
(2) Lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of
reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer
mains or lines.
Otherwise, SB336 governs all "charge[s] or assessment[s] 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 . . . new
development'. Thus, many fees which have been typically enacted by cities, such as acreage,
frontage and prorata fees, will no longer be permissible after June 1990 unless they are
precisely configured as oversizing fees placed in trust funds, as defined above.
The Advisory Committee and Staff need to determine what types of facilities the City
should fund with capital recovery fees, either including or excluding such facility categories as
treatment, storage, pumpage and transmission/collection. It may be desirable to give special
consideration to the treatment of line costs in developing a fee program by disaggregating line
costs into major line and approach main components for separate fee determination. Some
of the various funding approaches are (1) development of a system -wide average fee for
approach mains; (2) development of an approach main impact fee which is specific for a
geographic area served by a specific line; or (3) establishment of a fee program which is
exempt from SB336 regulation.
3.5 TIMING OF FEE COLLECTION
Fee assessment is required to be calculated, for the most part, at the time of plat
filing; fee collection, on the other hand, can occur at platting, connection (tap purchase),
building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy issuance. The committee should carefully
consider the potential fiscal impacts on the city if fee collection were to be set later than
platting, versus the fiscal impacts on homebuyers and businesses resulting from early payment
0
III
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
of fees (which may considerably increase the actual cost impact on a home). Moreover, timing
of collection needs to be considered carefully in conjunction with the City's selection of a unit
of measurement.
3.6 ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION CONSIDERATIONS
The Committee and Utility need to address whether fees for water and wastewater are
to be assessed to all parties who purchase a water or wastewater tap or whether exceptions
will be made on some public policy basis. For example, a common consideration is whether
a wastewater fee should be assessed to septic tank cutovers. The Committee may also wish
to consider whether a full fee should be _paid by all customers in the same manner or in the
same proportion, or whether lower fees should be assessed to low-cost housing residents,
major employers or other customers for some community policy reason.
3.7 LEVEL OF COST RECOVERY
The Committee and Staff should consider whether the city should collect the maximum
possible fee or something less, due to potential economic effects or other community concern.
Also, the Committee may want to recommend that the fee be set somewhat less than the
maximum allowable as a conservative measure to avoid potential refunds which are required
if the fee is ultimately found to be more than 10 percent higher than actual costs would justify.
3.8 FEE OFFSET POLICY
The fee ordinance should be carefully worded by the City's Attorney to ensure that
proper credits or reimbursements are provided if a feepayer has contributed facilities or fees
for the same types of facilities for which the fee is collected. In part, this credit will be
automatically provided with a fee offset for future rate payments, which is calculated by the
Consultants. However, non -rate contributions must also be recognized and credited. The City
may enter into contracts with developers for private funding and construction of utility facilities,
but the City must also allow credits against the fees due from such properties and/or
reimburse the developer from subsequent fee collections.
7
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
4.0 EQUITY RESIDUAL APPROACH TO CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE CALCULATION
The Equity Residual methodology developed by Rimrock Consulting Company
provides that each new customer contributes "equity" in the utility systems comparable to that
owned by other existing customers. Once that equity payment is made through the capital
recovery fee, each new customer would pay the remainder of his or her capital -related cost of
service through rate payments equal to the rate payments of existing customers. This
minimizes cross -subsidization (one customer group paying for the costs of another) and
provides for full cost recovery for the utilities.
4.1 CONCEPTUAL METHODOLOGY
Figure 4-1 presents a conceptual illustration of the Equity Residual methodology, and
will be referenced throughout this section.
For purposes of this conceptual discussion, costs are defined for a common
measurement of capacity and demand; that service unit of measurement is "Living Unit
Equivalent" or LUE. Each service unit has a capital cost associated with the comprehensive
group of facilities required to provide service (treatment, transmission, pumpage, storage, etc.).
This value is the Construction Cost of Service.
If a facility is funded through bonding, however, there are additional costs. Bonding
and interest costs are shown in Figure 4-1; these can effectively double or triple costs. Times
coverage costs are not shown since these excess rate revenues can be carried over from one
year to another and used to finance the utility.
The central tenet of the Equity Residual approach is that future utility customers will
partially pay for their own costs of service through rate payments in an amount typically equal
to the remaining debt service payback for existing customers. The remainder of their costs of
service, or the "residual" amount, will be subject to payment through a capital recovery fee.
Thus, future customers will be permitted to pay a portion of their costs of service through the
rates, similar to existing customers. However, existing customers will not, in the long-term,
bear the cost of facilities for future customers. Thus, the Equity Residual approach allows
future customers to pay their costs of service partially through the public sector (with rate
payments equal to existing customers) and partially through the private sector (through a
capital recovery fee).
H
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
FULL COST PAYMENT
OF SERVICE METHODS
INTEREST
COST
FUTURE
INTERESTTORT I I INDEBTEDNESS I �� PAYMENTS
BONDING COST
BONDING COST
SYSTEM
PAST
(p��pal -4— RATE(TAX
CONSTRUCTION plus Ineere" PAYMENTS CONSTRUCTION
COST
EXISTING UNIT DEMAND
PAYMENT
METHODS
FUTURE
EXISTINGINDEBTEDNESS
PAYMENTS
AVOIDED
BONDING AND
INTEREST
COST
�—
SYSTEM
EOUTTY
PURCHASE
CONSTRUCTION
�—
RECOVERY
FEE
J
FUTURE UNIT DEMAND
FIGURE 4-1
THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
LEGAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
+ Conforms to Senate Bill 336 Requirements
+ Based on Cost of Service
+ Based on Community Comprehensive Planning Documents
Oriented Toward Protection of Community Health, Safety
and Welfare
+ Equity Among Classes and Generations of Customers
+ Meets Demand Nexus and Benefit Nexus Tests
+ No Punitive Effects
011
R►MROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
IP
5.0 TECHNICAL BASIS OF FEE CALCULATION
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
5.1.1 Service Area Definition
Figure 5-1 illustrates the conceptual service area of the water and wastewater utilities,
respectively. These areas represent the general geographic basis for planning the utility capital
improvement programs, used to formulate the fees. The service areas are conceptual in nature
and do not necessarily represent a definitive commitment for service by the Utilities; conceptual
service area boundaries also do not necessarily represent limits to service potential or fee
assessment (which is governed by specific provisions for fee application in SB336).
5.1.2 Land Use Assumptions
SB336 requires that the Utilities project the land uses, population, densities and
intensity of new development within the next 10 years and at full buildout. HB1786 allows the
use of city-wide planning assumptions applied to the service areas of the Utilities. Table 5-1
and Figure 5-2 show historical growth patterns for the City of Southlake. Figure 5-2 also
shows three alternate growth rates for future years, which are shown in tabular form in Table
5-2. Figure 5-3 and Table 5-3 compare these to other projections performed by other
forecasters. A 7% growth rate was assumed for the next 10 years, consistent with regional
forecasts by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and the Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB). The Advisory Committee considered this growth rate a slightly
conservative assumption in the fee derivation, given recent and ongoing growth experience.
Table 5-4 presents population and land use projections for the City of Southlake
based on the 7% growth projection for the next ten years, and upon land use distributions
contained in the City's Land Use Plan and Zoning Map. Population estimates for 1990 were
provided by the City; full buildout population represents the holding capacity for the residential
areas contained in the City's land use plan.
10
11
FIGURE 5-1
MAP OF CONCEPTUAL SERVICE AREA
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
[Service Area Coincident with 1990 City Boundary]
E
CITY
OF - ''
ISOUTHLIKE
SERVICE AREA27
MIL l9®
-tea—.- — �- - - -, - - 1 � r_ ��ti•._T '-GJ��'.�i {iT_ f � ` - — - -1
-- � _ '� ✓a""' _--' r - � _ .-,� - ;� - SFi� _ - 1•� mot•`'
t ems: :TR
s r - - _ ram- � :—"' •� a - - - :ea`' - ' 1�— F tr
WK
op
- -"- - -'• -•' I � f�; • CHEATMAM s ,g550CIF
i
!
!
1
�
�
M
A
X
H
'
� V
K
J
!
H
O P Ix1 O
M 1
Y
$
i
'
C
i
u
u
u
i C
8 V
1
1
A
x;
i
oa
1
!
P —
r
1
i
a� c
o
a
^ ar n ♦ d
,
i �
� N �� �
c u
!
pr
i
S O O
V O W
p
O
1
< i
O
O W G N
a i
� •• u
1
_
V
1
A N P
O !
<
u
J r!
O O O 0 P
O,
ON
x x x x x
i
0 0 0 0 o
0 0 0 0 0
!
1
Y
i
W Z 3
O O O 1
0 00 0 0
1
W ZZZZZ< CC�Z
n n n n n
�
� W
a
�
�
<
x x x x0
0*
o 0 0
1
d
M YI Mf N N
i
1
�
J
t
1
1
!
O P 0 0 0 1 O
i
n u o 0 0
♦ ev P P 1 P
!
O1 N N 1 N
1
W
1
K '
OW 1t- O
♦ �O P O P
r '
W
O
W V
N o n o
♦ ^ e v ao
i
J
�
rS O !
G
0 N 0 it
W
M
y
O O O O O O
Ip ,A ♦ Ih N
(spu06no41)
UOgoIndod
12
TABLE 5-3
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS GROWTH PROJECTIONS
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
SOURCE
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
---- `---"""-""'
NCTCOC (a)
-----"""---'"- ----""--"""----""-
9,100
18,820
-"""'--"""-----""'
22,880
TWDB (LOW)
(b)
9,130
16,676
18,768
20,860
23,072
TWDB (High)
(b)
9,193
16,925
19,258
21.696
24,395
TWDB (Average)
(b)
9,162
16,801
19,013
21,278
23.734
9% Annual Rate
(c)
6,450
15,269
36,148
52.900
52,900
7% Annual Rate
(c)
6,450
12,688
24,959
49,099
52,900
5% Annual Rate
(c)
6,450
10,506
17,114
27,877
45,408
-_.__....._....._..........--------------------------------------....._._.._-.._.....----------
(a) NCTCOC, February
1989. Dallas -Fort Worth
Economic Outlook.
(b) TWDB, 1989.
Projections of Population & Municipal Water Demands.
(C) Based On
1990
population estimate
Of 6,450.
60
50
40
c V)
0 -0
N 30
a 0
0
20
10
0
1980
❑ NCTCOG
COMPARISON OF GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Southl°ke
1990 2000 2010 2020
FIGURE 5-3
+ TWDB o 5% 0 7% x 9%
13
TABLE 5-4
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USES AND POPULATION FOR THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
1990 2000
ULTIMATE
(d)
LANDUSE (a) ------------------------
------------------------
------------------------
ACRES (b) % ACRES (C)
------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------
%
------------
ACRES (C)
------------
%
RESIDENTIAL
Single -Family
3.025 22.39% 3,961
29.32%
9.993
73.96%
Multi-Family/Mobile Homes
0 0.00% 62
0.46%
465
3.44%
Subtotal Residential
3,025 22.39% 4,023
29.78%
10,457
77.40%
COMMERCIAL
475 3.52% 600
4.44%
1.404
10.39%
INDUSTRIAL
300 2.22% 362
2.68%
765
5.66%
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC
420 3.11% 482
3.57%
835
6.55%
AGRICULTURE/VACANT
9,290 68.76% 8.042
59.53%
0
0.00%
------------
TOTAL ACREAGE
-----------' ------------------------
13,510 100.00% 13.510
------------
100.00%
------------
13,510
100.00%
POPULATION (e)
6,450 12.688
52,900
POPULATION PER ACRE
0.48 0.94
3.92
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Tabulation does not Include U.S. Corps of Engineers Land. Transportation
land uses are
contained in
other
land uses.
(b) 1990 acreages developed by Cheatham
and Associates.
(c) Acreages based on land use mixtures
per 100 population growth after 1990,
added to existing
acreages:
Single -Family Residential:
15 acres/100 population
MUlti-Family/Mobile Home:
I acres/100 population
Commercial:
2 acres/100 population
industrial:
1 acres/100 population
Public/Quasi-Public:
1 acres/100 population
(d) ultimate bulldout within 19g0 corporate boundaries.
(e) Current population population taken
from NCTCOG (1989 population adopted
for 1990):
Ultimate population represents holding
capacity, based on land use assumptions
in footnote (c):
Year 2000 population based on average annual growth rate assumption of
7.00%
.
14
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
H,
5.2 UNIT USAGE STATISTICS
The basic unit usage statistic on which all facility demand is based is average daily
water demand and wastewater flow per capita. Due to recent changes in the City's zoning
ordinance, it was assumed that average daily water usage would decrease from the current
230 gallons per capita daily (gpcd) to 215 gpcd. The peak -to -average ratio for water use was
assumed to decrease from 3:1 to 2.25:1. (Cheatham and Associates)
For wastewater, an average per capita flow of 100 gallons per day was adopted as the
basic unit usage statistic.
Unit usage assumptions and other assumptions used in fee calculation are shown in
Table 5-5.
5.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLAN
5.3.1 Conversion Table
SB336 requires a conversion table of service units. That table is shown in Table 5-
6. This table shows how demand may be expressed in living units equivalent (LUE's) based
on water meter size. The Utilities' smallest typical water meter (currently 1 ") is used as the
base, and demand by other meter sizes is scaled upward proportionate to the ratio of the
larger meter's continuous duty maximum flow to that of the smallest meter. Current water
LUE's were tabulated based on a count of active water meters by size, with the conversion
factors in Table 5-6 applied to the count of various meter sizes. That result is shown in Table
5-7. Although the water meter size may be used as the determinant of wastewater LUE's, there
are sometimes circumstances in which water meter size overestimates wastewater flow -- such
as in consumptive commercial uses or in industrial processes. For these reasons, it is
advisable to include a provision in the capital recovery fee ordinance permitting the Public
Works Director to establish an appropriate number of wastewater LUE's for an individual
customer when presented with documentation from a professional engineer regarding the likely
wastewater flow of a particular project.
15
k
TABLE 5-5
S5336 WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE STUDY
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN FEE CALCULATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR VALUE/RATIONALE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POPULATION GROWTH Increase at an annual average rate of 7.00% over the next ten years.
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
1990:
According to Cheatham and Associates inventory.
Post-1990 New Development:
Acreages based on land
use mixtures per Zoning map
Single -Family Residential
15 acres/iOO
population
Multi-Family/Mobile dome
1 acres/100
population
Commercial
2 acres/100
population
industrial
I acres/100
population
Public/Quasi-Public
1 acres/100
population
WATER DEMAND ASSLNIPTIONS:
Average demand
Pre-1990 development
Post-1990 development
Peak/Average Ratio
Pre-1990 development
Post-1990 development
Water LUE (post-1990 growth)
Supply/Treatment Facilities
Booster Pump Facilities
Total Storage Facilities (2000)
Ground Storage Facilities
Elevated Storage facilities
WASTEWATER DEMAND ASSLa1PTIONS:
Average demand
LUE's per capita
Peak/Average Ratio
Wastewater LUE
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
FUTURE BONDING ASSLYAPTIONS:
SOFT COSTS
INTEREST RATE
TERM
----- ------
230 gals/capita/daily (estimated from operating statistics)
215 gals/capita/daily (Cheatham and Associates)
3.00 1 (Cheatham and Associates)
2.25 1 (Cheatham and Associates)
788 gallons/day
Peak day
406 gallons/capita (Based on Cheatham & ASSOC. operational analysis)
312 gallons/capita (Based on Cheatham & ASSOC. operational analysis)
189 gallons/capita (Total demand minus elevated demand)
123 gallons/capita (Key fire rate times 1.25. per Cheatham & ASSOC.)
100 gals/Capita/daily (Cheatham and Associates)
0.27 (Same as water LUE'S)
4.0 : I (Cheatham and Associates)
366 gallons/day
100 gals/capita/daily (average demand)
3.00%
7 . 50%
25
---------------------------------------- ------
TABLE 5-6
LUE EQUIVALENCIES FOR VARIOUS
TYPES AND SIZES OF WATER
METERS
-`-^---`--`---------`^--`----`--^-`^--`---`-----`---------^----^-------------`
CONTINUOUS
DUTY
RATIO
METER
METER
MAXIMUM
TO 1'
TYPE
SIZE
RATE
METER
------------`
SIMPLE
5/8" X 3/4"
10
0.4
SIMPLE
3/4"
15
0.6
SIMPLE
1"
25
1.0
SIMPLE
1-1/2"
50
2.0
SIMPLE
2
80
3.2
COMPOUND
2"
80
3.2
TURBINE
2"
100
4.0
COMPOUND
3"
160
6.4
TURBINE
3'
240
9.6
COMPOUND
4"
250
10.0
TURBINE
4"
420
16.8
COMPOUND
6"
500
20.0
TURBINE
6"
920
36.8
COMPOUND
8•
800
32.0
TURBINE
8"
1600
64.0
COMPOUND
10"
1150
46.0
TURBINE
10"
2500
100.0
TURBINE
12"
3300
132.0
SOURCE: AWWA standards C700, C701, C702, C703
TABLE 5-7
CURRENT METER COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT
WATER UTILITY
------------------------------------- _________
Number of LUEs per Number of
Meter size Meters Meter [a] LUEs
------------------------------------------------------------ ------------
5/8'
0
0.400
0
3/4"
999
0.600
599
1"
958
1.000
958
1.5"
17
2.000
34
2-
24
3.200
77
3'
0
6.400
0
4"
4
10.000
40
6"
1
20.000
20
8"
1
------------
32.000
------------
32
------------------------------------ ------------
Total
2,004
1,760
^------------`---`^--`---`^---`---`^-------`---`--`--------`----`---``--`---
[a] Derived from AWWA C700-C703 standards
for continuous
rated
flow performance of meters scaled to
5/8" meter.
17
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
5.3.2 Proiected Service Units for New Development
Tables 5-8 and 5-9 present information on projected service units and facility needs
within the next ten years and at full buildout, as required by the legislation. A water LUE was
established as 788 gallons daily (for post-1990 growth), and a wastewater LUE as 366 gallons
daily.
5.3.3 CIP Development for Existing and Future Needs
Given the demand projections in Tables 5-8 and 5-9, a CIP was developed for each
utility, including existing facilities, retrofit and upgrade facilities and future facilities, as required
by the legislation. Then, as further required by S13336, the needs of existing customers were
separated from those of customers in the next ten years, and costs were weighted according.
(In some facilities, there was capacity for customers beyond the ten year horizon as well.)
These results are shown in Tables 5-10 and 5-11.
The results of the cost analyses can be summarized as follows:
CAPITAL COST ELEMENT COST/LUE'
WATER
Supph/Treatnent
$ (a)
Pumping
S 61
Ground Storage
S 134
Elevated Storage
S 291
Major Transmission
$1,098 (b)
Study Costs
$ 13
Total Water Capital Cost
$1,595
WASTEWATER
Wastewater Treatment (TWy
fi 893
Pumping
S (c)
Major Collection
51,582 (b)
Study Costs
S 13
Total Wastewater Capital Costs $2,488
TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER $4•083
' An LUE is equal to use by a typical household with a V water meter.
(a) To be determined by the City of Fort Worth.
(b) Plus the prorate cost of any localized approach main required by the new development which Is not specifically identified
in the CIP.
(c) To be determined on a prorate basis for new development which requires localized lift station.
18
TABLE 5.8
ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WATER UTILITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOLLAE
r
FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE ---------------------------------------
1990
---
2000 -ULTIMATE
---
AVERAGE DEMAND (MGD) (a)
1.484
2.825 11.470
Gallons per capita daily
230
223
217
TOTAL LUE'S (b)
1,760
3.463 14,436
.;:
--------------------------------------------'_----------------_--------"---
WATER SUPPLY/TREATMENT PEAK MGD (c):
Estimated Demand
4.451
7.468 26.921
Existing Capacity (g)
10.000
10.000 10.000
------------
Excess/(Deficiency)
5.550
------------ ------------
2.532 (16.921)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOSTER PUMP MGD
Estimated Demand (d)
2.621
5.157 21.500
Existing Capacity (M
----6.500
-------6.5006.500
--
--
Excess/(Deficiency)
3.879
1.343 (15.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUTD STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (e)
1.219
2.399 10.000
Existing Capacity IN
2.707
1.941 0.000
------------
Excess/(Deficiency)
1.488
------------ ------------
(0.458) (10.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVATED WATER STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (f)
0.793
1.559 6.500
Existing Capacity IN
0.793
1.559 3.500
------------------------
------------
Excess/(Deficiency)
0.000
0.000 (3.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Pre-1990 demand derived from utility
operating statistics. 1987-1989:
Post-1990 new demand based on Cheatham and Associates projections:
Average pre-1990 demand =
230
gals/capita/daily
Average post-1990 new demand =
215
gals/Capita/dally
(b) 1990 LUE's based on count of equivalent
1- meters. 2000 and ultimate
LUE's determined by new demand per capita
divided by LUE's/capita:
Post-1990 New LUE =
788
gallons/day.
(c) Peak/Average Ratio (pre-1990) =
3.00
1
Peak/Average Ratio (post-1990) =
2.25
1
(d) Capacity Demand =
406
gallons/capita.
(e) Ground Storage Demand
199
gallons/capita.
(f) Elevated Storage Demand
123
gallons/capita.
(g) Provided by the City of Fort worth.
(h) Existing Capacity details are contained
in
TABLE 5-10
Excess elevated storage is utilized
for ground storage until needed
for elevated storage requirements.
19
M
I'�
TABLE 5-9
ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE ________________VOLUME
"-"""""""""""""'
1990
2000
ULTIMATE
------- _---- _----- _---- _____________ ____________ ____________
AVERAGE FLOW (A%M) (a): 0.645
1.269
____________
5.290
Gallons per capita daily 100
100
100
TOTAL LUE'S (b) 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.463
14.436
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AVE. AGO:
Estimated Demand 0.000 1.269 5.290
Existing Capacity (C) 0.000 0.000 0.000
____________ ____________
Excess/(Deficiency) 0.000 (1.269) (5.290)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Average flow = i0o gallons/capita/daily
(Cheatham and Associates)
(b) 2000 and ultimate wastewater LUE's/capita same as water LUE'S.
(C) Existing Capacity details are contained In TABLE 5-11
20
L
TABLE 5-10
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACILITY
CAPACITY (mgd
or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY
______________________________________________
CONSTRUCTION
________________________________________________________
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
2000
CAPITAL
2000
COST
TYPE NAME
_____________________________________________
COST
_____________
TOTAL
_____________
CURRENT USE
_____________ _____________
1 10 YEARS
_____________
> 10 YEARS
_____________
COST TOTAL
_____________
PER LUE
E
SUPPLY -AND -TREATMENT
------------------
EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES
To be supplied by the City of Fort worth;
Fort worth impact fees will be Dassed
through to Southlake feepayers.
:::__:___::::
::_::__::__::
::_:_::::::::
_:__::_::___:
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
..........
_::
______:::_:__
10.000
_:::::::__:::
4.451
3.018
2.532
(C)
(C)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________--
PLYAP I NG
"'""'
EXISTING FACILITIES
Pump Station at North Beach
$132.243
______________
6.500
2.621
2.535
1.343
$51,582
Telemetry System (No Additional Cap.)
5132,629
6.500
2.621
_____________ _____________
2.535
_____________
1,343
551,582
_____________
_______________________________________
Subtotal Existing Facilities
_____________
5264,872
_____________
6,500
2.621
2.535
1.343
$103,164
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Pumpin9 Station
Future Pumping Station
3383,670
7.500
0.000
------__0.000 --
0.000
--_--0.000
7.500
-_-_--_7.500
-----_ __--SO
SO
Subtotal Future Facilities
---_5383.670
$767,340
-------7.500
15.000
0.000
0.000
15.000
SO
(a)
(a)
TOTAL WATER PLAAPAGE
=$1 a32,
1;
=21
500
= 2 621
zz
2'S3S
= 16 343
= 5103
164
=560 60
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(b)
21
TABLE 5-10 (Continued)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (Mgd Or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY
--------------------------------------------------------
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
---------------------------------------------
COST
-------------
TOTAL
-------------
CURRENT USE
--------------------------
< 10 YEARS
-------------
> 10 YEARS
-------------
COST TOTAL
-------------
PER LUE
GROUND STORAGE
----------""
MG
EXISTING FACILITIES
--------------
Elevated storage substitutes for
ground storage (see below).
---------------------------------------
Subtotal Existing Facilities
-------------
SO
-------------
0.000
------------- -------------
0.000
-------------
0.000
-------------
0.000
SO
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Ground Storage Tank
5963,796
5.000
1.219
1.179
2.601
$227.307
Future Ground Storage Tank
---------------------------------------
5963.796
5.000
0.000
0.000
5.000
SO
Subtotal Future Facilities
-------------
$1,927,592
-------------
10.000
--------------------------
1.219
-------------
1.179
-------------
7.601
5227.307
(a)
(a)
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE
$1,927.592
10.000
1.219
1.179
7.601
$227.307
5133.52
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)
ELEVATED STORAGE
-"--------"---
MG
EXISTING FACILITIES
--------------
Bicentennial Park Elevated Tank
5862,955
1,500
0.340
0.328
0.832
5188.987
IBM Elevated Tank
5843.267
1.500
0.340
0.328
0.832
$184.675
Existing Relocated Tank
5560.000
0.500
0.113
0.109
0.277
$122.640
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$2,266.222
-------------
3.500
--------------------------
0.793
-------------
0.766
-------------
1.941
5496.302
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Elevated Tank
$1,065,564
1.500
0.000
0.000
1.500
SO
Future Elevated Tank
$1,065,564
1,500
0.000
0.000
1.500
SO
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Future Facilities
$2,131.128
-------------
3.000
------------- -------------
0.000
-------------
0.000
-------------
3.000
SO
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE
$4.397.350
6.500
0.793
0.766
4.941
$496,302
5291.53
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b)
NN
TABLE 5-10 (Concluded)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY
(mgd or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY________________________________________________________
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE ------------------NAME
______ _________________
__---COST
____
-_-TOTAL_-_-
CURRENT USE --<-10
-------------
YEARS ->_10-YEARS-
_______
-------------
COST TOTAL
_____________
PER LUE
TRANSMISSION
LUE' S
EXISTING FACILITIES (SUPPIY lines)
------"""----
20" water Line/FM1709
5888,371
4,364
1,760
1.702
902
5346,512
30" k 36" water Lines (SUPPIY Lines)
5351,037
4,364
1.760
1.702
902
$136.923
Subtotal Existing Supply Lines
$1,239.408
4,364
1,760
1,702
902
$483.435
(a)
(a)
EXISTING FACILITIES (Transmission Lines)
20" White Chapel water Line
$440,706
18" IBM Line
$157,140
Various 8", 12", 18" Mains
32.423.350
Subtotal Existing Transmission Lines
$3.021.196
1,760
1,760
0
0
SO
FUTURE FACILITIES (Transmission Lines)
various 8"-36" Lines (Low Plane)
$9,552.084
Various 6"-12" Lines (High Plane)
$743.573
Subtotal Future Facilities
$10.295.657
12.676
0
1,702
12,676
$1.392.683
(a)
(a)
TOTAL TRANSMISSION
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________"--_-______________________-_
$14,556,261
S1 866 117
S1 096 18
WATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL
____---"_'________""-'---'____"'________________"'--"''_____________----__-______""'----_--________-----_'___________-__---______________
$21,913.414
$2,692.891
$1.582
(a) Source: Cheatham and Associates, 1990.
(b) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion factors
Pumpage: 1.489 gals daily
Ground Storage: 693 gals
Elevated Storage: 450 gals
(c) Fees to be passed through from the City of Fort worth.
23
TABLE 5-11
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY
________________________________________________________
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
_____________________________________________
COST
_____________
TOTAL
_____________
CURRENT USE
_____________ _____________
< 10 YEARS
_____________
> 10 YEARS
_____________
COST TOTAL
_____________
PER LUE
TREATMENT
AVE *CD
EXISTING FACILITIES
_-_
-""'--
TRA Central Regional Treatment
$745,902
0.321
TRA Denton Creek Regional Treatment
$609,700
0.079
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$1,355.602
0.400
0.000
_______ _____________
0.400
_____________
0.000
$1.355,602
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
TRA Dent On Creek Regional Treatment
$1,737,433
0.869
_____________________________________
Subtotal Future Facilities
_____________
$1.737,433
_____________
0.869
__________________________
0.000
_____________
0.869
_____________
0.000
$1.737,433
(e)
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
53.093,035
1.269
0.000
1.269
0.000
53.093.035
3893. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)
PUMPING
FUTURE FACILITIES
-----""""'"-
Localized lift stations (d)
---------------------------------------
Subtotal Future Facilities
-------------
(d)
-------------
(d)
------------- -------------
(d)
-------------
(d)
-------------
(d)
(d)
TOTAL WASTEWATER PU%PAGE
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________""
(d)
(d)
(d)
'
(d)
's
(d)
z(d)
---------------__--------
(d)
24
TABLE 5-11 (Concluded)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WASTEWATER UTILITY
CAPACITY (mgd Or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY
-----------FACILITY
___________________________________________
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
IN EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
_____________________________________________
COST
_____________
TOTAL CURRENT USE < 10 YEARS
---------- ___ _______________________________________
> 10 YEARS
COST TOTAL
_____________ _____________
PER LUE
COLLECTION
----------
LUE's
FUTURE FACILITIES
--------------
TRA Big Bear Creek Interceptor (a)
$4.289.100
TRA Denton Creek Interceptor (a)
$6.613.018
N-1 Mains
$2,119,411
N-2 Mains
S158.543
N-3 Mains
$1,736,763
N-4 Mains
$735.529
N-5 Mains
$415,699
N-6 Mains
$781,205
S-1 Mains
S309,143
5-2 Mains
$1.038,111
S-3 Mains
5355,629
5-4 Mains
$1,245.188
S-5 Mains
S312.489
S-6 Mains
$1,511.902
S-7 Mains
$933,104
Subtotal Future Facilities
$22,554.834
14,436 0 3,463
10.974
S5.409.803
(b) (b)
TOTAL COLLECTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S22,551.831
xxz
14.436 0 3.463
10.974
55,409,803
$1.562
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL
$25.647.869
S8,502.838
S2,456
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)
(a) Source: Hunter. Trinity River Authority.
1990.
(b) Source: Cheatham and Associates, 1990.
(c) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion
factors
Treatment:
366 gals daily
(d) Feepayers requiring construction of localized
lift stations
will be assessed the costs of their prorata
share of
the facilities.
(e) Assumes plant expansion at an estimated cost
of $2.00 per gallon of additional capacity.
25
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
6.0 FEE CALCULATION
6.1 CALCULATION OF CREDIT FOR FUTURE RATE PAYMENTS
In order to assess a fair fee which takes into account the various ways in which utility
customers pay their capital costs, the Consultants had to calculate a credit for future rate
payments by water feepayers, equivalent to future rate payments by existing customers. Those
calculations are shown in Table 6-1. The wastewater utility has no current customers, thus no
similar credit calculations were made for the wastewater utility.
6.2 FEE CALCULATION
The remaining steps of fee calculation are shown in Table 6-2 and Figure 6-1 for the
water utility. The maximum fee was established as $1,035 for water. The Advisory Committee
recommended a maximum fee of $1,562 for wastewater. The recommended maximum
wastewater fee includes only the capital costs of major lines, and excludes the cost of
treatment facilities which are funded by TRA and charged to Southlake customers through TRA
wastewater rates.
26
TABLE 6-1
CATEGORIZATION OF EXISTING DEBT
WATER UTILITY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY EXISTING
FACILITY ------------------------------------- DEBT PAYBACK
------------------------------ ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING FOR EXISTING PER CURRENT
TYPE NAME DATE AMOUNT PAYBACK TOTAL CUSTOMERS LUE
______ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
MGD
PUMPING ___
Pump Station at North Beach 1984 $132.243 5207,597 6.500 2.621 $48
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal $132.243 3207,597 6.500 2.621 S48
MG
GROUND STORAGE --
Future Ground Storage Tank Prospective $963,796 $2.161,569 5.000 1.219 $299
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal $963.796 $2.161,569 5.000 1.219 5299
MG
ELEVATED STORAGE
Bicentennial Park Tank
1985
5758.654
51,158.144
1.500
0.340
$149
IBM Elevated Tank
______________________________
1995
5741,346
$1.131.722
1,500
0.340
$146
______________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal
$1.500.000
$2,289,866
3.000
0.679
5295
LUE'S
TRANSMISSION
-"'-
MISC. Line Improvements
1984
$367,757
$577,310
4,364
1.760
$132
MISC. Line Improvements
1985
$1.075,000
$1,641,071
4.364
1.760
$376
Misc. Line Improvements
______________________________
1987
$217.000
$251.238
1,760
1,760
$143
______________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal
$1.659,757
$2,469,619
$651
WATER OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
$4.255.796
$7,128,651
ies
'
$1 293
27
TABLE 6-2
DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM WATER CAPITAL
RECOVERY FEES
THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL _MODEL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FUTURE CUSTOMER TOTAL
---------------------------------------------------
COST OF CAPITAL PER LUE
LESS
EXISTING
EQUALS
LESS
AVOIDED
EQUALS
MAXIMUM
PLUS
PLUS
EQUALS
DEBT SERVICE
ELIGIBLE
BONDING h
CAPITAL
BONDING
BONDING
DEBT SERVICE
PAYBACK IN
RECOVERY
INTEREST
RECOVERY
CONSTRUCTION
SOFT
INTEREST
PAYBACK
RATES PER
COSTS PER
COSTS PER
FEE PER
,
- --- .ITEM
_______________________
COSTS
___
COSTS [a]
____________
COSTS (b]
____________
COSTS
____________
LUE [a]
____________
- _LUE
_____
LUE (c]
____________
LUE-
WATER UTILITY
-------------
Pumping
S61
$2
$73
$140
S48
$92
$52
$40
Ground Storage
$134
S4
$171
$308
S299
$9
S5
$4
Elevated Storage
$292
$9
S373
$673
S295
S379
$215
S164
Transmission
$1,096
$33
$1,403
$2.532
S651
S1,881
$1.067
$814
CIP/
----FEE Study Costs
------_---3-
_------__So_
$30
313
Total Water
$1.595
S48
--__----516-
$2.041
-----------
$3,684
---------So_
S1.293
-------
$2.391
-----------$17
S1.356
---_-----
$1,035
[a] Assume MisC bonding cost of
3.0%
over construction costs.
(b] Assume financing Parameter:
7.5%
% interest 6
25
years.
[C] Assume financing Parameter:
7.5%
% interest a
25
years k bonding
costs of
3.0%
over construction costs.
M-
FULL CAST
PAYMENT
OF SERVICE
METHODS
FULL COST PAYMENT
EXISTING
FUTURE
OF SERVICE METHODS
INDEBTEDNESS
44 RATERAX
PAYMENTS
$1293
INTEREST
COST
EXISTING FUTURE
$2041
INDEBTEDNESS
INTEREST $1293 PAYMENTS
COST
AVOIDED
BONDING AND
INTEREST
Us >
$1356
SYSTEM
EQUITY
BONDING COST
PURCHASE
BONDING COST
SYSTEM PAST
EQUITY �— RATE
CONSTRUCTION
ENT
CONSTRUCTION ppsl PAYMENTS
lus us Irrtnt eresq
COST
RESIDUAL
COST
S1%5
CONSTRUCTION
CAPITAL
COST
RECOVERY
FEE
$1W5
EXISTING UNIT DEMAND
FUTURE
UNIT
DEMAND
Plus Associated
Less
Less
Equals
Growth -related
Bonding and
Existing
Avoided
Residual Cost
Construction
Interest
Indebtedness
Bonding &
(Max. Fee)
Facility kem
Unit Cost
Costs
Cost
Interest Costs
Per LUE
Water Pumping
$ 61
$ 80
$ 48
$ 52
$ 40
Ground Storage
$ 134
$ 175
$ 299
$ 5
$ 4
Elevated Storage
$ 292
$ 382
$ 295
$ 215
$ 164
Transmission
$1,096
$1,436
$ 651
$1,067
$ 814
CIP/Study Costs
$ 13
$ 16
$ 0
$ 17
$ 13
Water Total
$1,595
$2,089
$1,293
$1,356
$ 1,035
FIGURE 6-1
EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL COST AND FEE CALCULATIONS
WATER UTILITY
29
MW
lu
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AN
D ASSOCIATES
„7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS
This report represents the technical compliance activities of the City of Southlake
responsive to Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, and to its amendments. In addition
to the adoption of the fees calculated herein, the Consultants recommended:
(1) Consideration of a fee escalator, based on the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index, on an annual basis, to ensure that the fee assessed
in any given year represents the true value of the fee and recovers full calculated
cost value.
(2) Consideration of collection of the fee in nominal dollars, for the same reasons.
(3) Use of fee revenues to avoid future bonding, whenever possible.
(4) As a second-best option, fee proceeds should be used for early retirement of the
growth -related portion of existing bonds for growth -related capacity in the CIP.
(5) Only when (3) or (4) are infeasible should fee proceeds be used for debt service
for future customers.
(6) The Consultants recommend that the City maintain separate dedicated accounts
for water and sewer fee revenues, respectively, and retain accrued interest in
each account, as stipulated in S13336.
The Consultants also recommend that the Utilities' records include the following
information for each capital recovery fee payment made:
(a) Date of final plat (i.e., date of fee assessment)
(b) Ordinance number by which property is assessed a capital recovery fee
(c) Date of tap purchase
(d) Size of water meter
(e) Number of LUE's for which a capital recovery fee is assessed
(f) Amount of capital recovery fees paid
(g) Date of payment of capital recovery fees
(h) Special conditions or exceptions, if any
(i) Sufficient locational information, consistent with city or county deed records, to
enable the Utilities to establish ownership of property
30
11
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Throughout the study, the Advisory Committee recommended or approved several
policy -related decisions, in addition to support for the overall technical study. In summary,
those policy decisions included:
1. The Committee recommended including in the fee calculations all major off -site
facilities needed to provide water and wastewater service throughout the service
area. Included as a part of these costs were the prorata costs for individual lift
stations and offsite approach mains not specifically included in the CIP, the
location and costs of which will not be known until a new development is
submitted for approval.
However, they also recommended that the maximum fee for wastewater exclude
the costs of wastewater treatment. The costs of that treatment are not precisely
known; moreover, feepayers will pay for those costs through their wastewater
rates from the Trinity River Authority. On t e other hand, it was recommended
that impact fees impo of Fort Worth for water supply and
treatment facilities be passed along to Southlake feepayers.
2. city limits of the City of Southlake was recommended for the water and
wastewater service areas.
3. The Committee and Staff recommended that fees be charged on a pooled cost
basis rather than disaggregated to smaller geographic areas.
4. It was recommended that the City use the "living unit equivalent', or LUE, as the
basis for charging water and sewer impact fees, and that the number of LUE's
for a new development be based on the size of the water meter.
5. The Committee recommended that, in the event an applicant for service feels
that the water meter is not indicative of demand from that particular
development, the applicant's engineer may submit a report to the City Public
Works Director justifying a request for a reduced capital recovery fee consistent
with expected service demand. (This is intended particularly to respond to
consumptive water users for whom the water meter size is a poor indicator of
wastewater service needs.) The Director would then make a recommendation
to the City Council, which would decide whether to grant a reduced fee amount
as an exception.
6. The Committee and Staff discussed the advisability of including an inflation -
based fee escalator to maintain the value of the capital recovery fees collected,
relative to the value of the fees at assessment, or relative to the value of the fees
at the date of ordinance adoption. The Committee recommended that no such
31
R
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
escalator be included, but rather that the fee be updated from time to time
through the mandated monitoring and update procedures.
7. The Committee recommended that all properties platted prior to the enactment
of the new capital recovery fee ordinance, and all new development which will
occur without platting be assessed a fee at the time of tap purchase. Fees for
these new developments will also be collected at time of tap purchase.
8. All properties platted after the date of the new ordinance (the vast majority of
future fee payers) will automatically be assessed at the time of plat recordation.
The Committee recommended collection of fees from these new developments
at time of building permit. It also recommended that the City could enter into
contracts, at its sole discretion, to establish a different, mutually agreeable date
for collection.
9. Regarding the amount of fees assessed, the Committee recommended that the
maximum amount of assessable fees be stated in the ordinance as $1035 for
water and $1562 (lines only) for sewer and that the City Council be provided the
flexibility to set the fees at the maximum or at any lesser amount. However, the
Committee also recommended that the Council initially collect fees of $500 per
LUE for water and $1000 per LUE for sewer. Moreover, they recommended that
the Council review the amount of the water fee after the amount of the pass -
through Fort Worth fee is known (and possibly lower the water fee at that time).
10. It was recommended that a capital recovery fee for fire flow capacity not be
collected.
11. The Committee and Staff recommended that the ordinance allow the City to
enter into contracts with feepayers to construct or finance portions of the utility
and be reimbursed with capital recovery fee funds. It was moreover
recommended by the Committee that credits or offsets not be used to reimburse
a feepayer for constructing or financing CIP projects, but rather that fees be
collected from all appropriate feepayers and the proceeds be used to reimburse
developers for prorata commitments.
12. It was recommended that all appeals be directed first to the Public Works
Director, and, if the appellant is not satisfied with the Director's decision,
subsequently to the City Council.
32
I�
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY FEE PROGRAMS
ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
TEXAS SENATE BILL 336, AS AMENDED
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 70th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 336 regulating various types of utility
fees, defined in the legislation as "impact fees". Such fees included not only traditional impact
(or capital recovery) fees, but also lot, acreage, frontage and other typical utility fees, as well
as facility dedication requirements. The legislation laid out very specific requirements for the
technical development of such fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment of such
fee programs. Cities which already have such fees were given three years (until June, 1990)
to come into compliance with the legislation.
This report represents the compliance activities of the City of Southlake. Various
legislative, regulatory and other information is contained in the appendices to the report. An
outline and scheduling of Committee and other SB336 compliance activities can be found in
Appendix B.
The purpose of the early sections of this report is to orient City officials and staff, the
Advisory Committee and the public to the general environment in which water and wastewater
capital recovery fees must be designed. Later sections of the report document the formulation
of such fees.
Section 2.0 of this report presents the legal context for fee development. Section 3.0
highlights a few technical and policy issues pertinent to the study. Section 4.0 presents a
particular fee development model — the Equity Residual Model -- which responds to the
requirements of SB336 and constitutional issues.
Section 5.0 contains the technical data which is the basis for fee calculation: land use
and planning data, unit usage statistics and capital improvements plan.
Actual fee calculation is shown in Section 6.0 and Section 7.0 contains
recommendations for enactment and administration of the fee.
1-1
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Finally, Appendices are provided in Section 8.0 for the City master record which
include a bibliography and reference listing, the Advisory Committee charge and composition
adopted by the City Council, draft ordinance and copies of public notices of hearings.
1-2
f
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
11
2.0 LEGAL CONTEXT OF CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
While Senate Bill 336 and its amendments provide many specific guidelines regarding
the technique and process for fee development, it is important to look beyond the specific
requirements of that Act to understand the historical evolution of capital recovery fees,
particularly in regard to potential constitutional issues — which are not completely addressed
by S13336. The purpose of this investigation is to develop fees which not only meet State
requirements but which can also withstand potential constitutional challenges. As with all
matters of a complex legal nature, the City should consult closely with its Attorney regarding
specific local circumstances and legal interpretations.
2.1 LEGAL CONTEXT IN A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Although impact fees — or capital recovery fees — are a relatively new form of
development exaction, they are the result of a long history of local subdivision regulation. It
is important to understand this evolutionary development in order to appreciate the authority
for this type of exaction as well as its limitations. Texas is one of the few states which has
specific enabling legislation for impact fees; while SB336 offers considerable definition to the
specific requirements for fee development, it is also necessary to be aware of ongoing
constitutional challenges to such fees (primarily in other states) to appreciate precedents
established by the courts.
2.1.1 Capital Recovery Fees as a Form of Subdivision Exaction
Historically, cities have had the authority to establish capital recovery fees arising from
their home rule authority and from the general state -delegated authority to regulate subdivisions.
The authority to regulate the subdivision of land is an exercise of the state police power
authority which is delegated to municipalities. The regulation of land subdivisions has been
generally recognized as a valid exercise of the police power subject to the same basic standard
of reasonableness enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty
Co., (272 U.S. 365 (1926)), which stated that municipal zoning ordinances would be upheld
unless found to be "clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relationship to
the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare". The ultimate validity and enforceability of
any capital recovery fee ordinance rests, in an historical sense, upon its identity as an integral
element of a city's broad, well -recognized authority to control land use through police power
2-1
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
zoning and subdivision regulation for the protection of the public health, safety, and general
welfare. (Of course, in the State of Texas, cities have also been granted express powers to
enact impact fees for water, sewer, local roadways, and drainage.)
The precise form of subdivision regulations and exactions has evolved over time from
limited, on -site contributions of capital infrastructure, to include its current form of cash
payments for major off -site facilities which benefit an entire community. In the beginning,
subdivision regulations required that certain lands within the proposed development be
dedicated for streets, roads, alleys, or other essential capital improvements specific to the
development itself. This form of requirement later expanded in two ways: first, to address
street and road requirements outside the development, and second, to address land
dedications for supplemental purposes, including parks, open space, and educational uses.
Payments "in lieu" of facility dedications were later exacted as a further refinement, especially
for the support of educational, recreational, public safety and other services not entirely
appropriate for land dedications. In many jurisdictions, in lieu payments have been replaced
by impact fees, such as capital recovery fees, which are generally considered to be more
flexible mechanisms for distributing the costs of growth, especially for sewer and water and
other extradevelopment capital facilities.
2.1.2 Tests of Validity
As the form of subdivision exactions evolved, legal theories were developed through
case law to test the validity of these exactions, including capital recovery fees. It is important
to understand this evolution since SB336 embodies the theoretical principles of these tests.
2.1.2.1 Privilege Theory
Early challenges to subdivision regulation were disposed of in some jurisdictions on
the grounds that the subdivision of one's property was a privilege conferred by the governing
authority and was not an inherent right. Since the subdivider can always choose not to
subdivide, the theory goes, he or she cannot claim to be harmed by restrictions imposed on
the manner of subdivision. The privilege theory has been generally abandoned, except in
California where it appears to be making a comeback (Hagman, 1982).
2-2
IRIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
I
2.1.2.2 Specifically and Uniquely Attributable Test
Later, more restrictive standards were applied to subdivision exactions; there have
been a range of standards applied to exactions, extending from the "specifically and uniquely
attributable" test of reasonableness (the most restrictive test) to the "reasonably related" test,
the most liberal standard.
The "specifically and uniquely attributable" test was enunciated by the Illinois Supreme
Court in Pioneer Trust &Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect and focused on the
authority's obligation to demonstrate a clear linkage between the need for capital expenditures
and the growth directly attributable to subdivisions subject to the exaction (Pioneer Trust &
Savings Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect, 176 NE 2d 799, (III. 1961)). At about the same
time, the "direct benefit" standard enunciated by the New York Supreme Court invalidated
subdivision exactions unless it could be shown that funds collected from required payments
for capital expenditures were specifically tied to a benefit directly conferred on homeowners in
the subdivision which paid the fees (Gulest Associates, Inc. v. Town of Newburgh, 209 NY 52d
729 (Sup. Ct. 1960)). For example, a builder could only be charged a fee for the specific water
lines, pump stations, treatment plant, etc., which provided service to his development. This
highly restrictive test is no longer applied, even in Illinois (Frank, 1987).
2.1.2.3 Rational Nexus Test
Overly restrictive effects of "specifically and uniquely attributable" and "direct -benefit'
standards led to the articulation of a more discretionary standard by the Wisconsin Supreme
Court in Jordan v. Village of Menominee Falls (137 NW 2d 442, 1965, appeal dismissed 385
U.S. 4, 1966), which upheld a local ordinance requiring dedication or payment in lieu for
education and recreational facilities. The court softened considerably the municipality's burden
of proof in demonstrating the specific relationship between the new development and the fee.
However, it maintains the proportional linkage among service demand costs and service
provision and the amount of fee charged. This test is in the current mainstream of court
decisions and appears to be reflected in the requirements of S6336. (See Section 2.1.3.2 for
detailed discussion.)
2-3
I
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
"CLOSING THE RATIONAL NEXUS LOOP"
DEMAND NEXUS
Capacity
Demand'
No -
FEEPAYER
44
Capacity
Provided4
BENEFIT NEXUS
FACILITY
EXPANSION
Capacity Cost
Calculation
11110.
44
Dedicated
Funding3
FEE
DEMAND NEXUS: 1. Feepayer creates demand for an increment of
facility expansion.
2. The cost of that expansion increment is
calculated as basis for the fee.
BENEFIT NEXUS: 3. Collected fee is dedicated to funding facility
expansion for which the fee was collected.
4. Facility expansion funded by the fee provides
capacity to the feepayer which is proportionate
to the amount of the fee paid.
FIGURE 2-1
RATIONAL NEXUS
2-7
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
EXISTING
CUSTOMER
::]__o"_
DEBT RETIREMENT
FOR EXISTING
CAPACITY
RENOVATION
OF EXISTING
CAPACITY
OPERATIONS
AND NORMAL
MAINTENANCE
DEBT RETIREMENT
FOR GROWTH
DEBT RETIREMENT
FOR EXISTING
CAPACITY
RENOVATION
OF EXISTING
CAPACITY
OPERATIONS
AND NORMAL
MAINTENANCE
DEBT RETIREMENT
FOR GROWTH
CAPACITY
CASH PAYMENT
FOR NEW CAPACITY
IN -KIND CONTRIBUTION
CONTRIBUTION FOR NEW CAPACITY
FIGURE 2-2
NEXUS COMPLICATIONS AND FAIR SHARE PAYMENTS
2-8
L
FAIR SHARE
PAYMENT
FAIR SHARE
PAYMENT
IV
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Figure 2-2 illustrates further equity considerations which the City will have to consider.
The top register in Figure 2-2 shows utility cost recovery by existing customers. Through their
rate payments, these customers pay for debt service for existing facilities which provide them
VP with service and for renovation of those facilities. They also pay for operational expenses.
Assuming that capital recovery fees will insulate existing customers from additional debt service
for system expansion, rate payments by existing customers constitute their fair -share payments
for services provided.
The bottom register illustrates the inequitable position of new customers if they pay
for their total cost share of the utility system in a cash fee. These new customers would also
make rate payments (like all other utility customers) which would be used for existing system
debt retirement and renovation as well as system operation. While the operations portion of
the rate payments is appropriate, payments for debt retirement and renovation of the existing
system are an inequitable subsidy of existing customers. In order to ensure that equity is
achieved (i.e., rational nexus), new customers must either have a reduced capital recovery fee
or reduced rate payments.
An additional equity complication involves facility contributions to the system by
developers (the costs of which are then passed along to the ultimate feepayers). Unless an
adjustment to the fee is made to compensate for these in -kind contributions, the feepayer will
make an inequitably high system contribution. Such problems are generally handled with fee
"offsets" or with reimbursements to developers to maintain the rational nexus while achieving
full cost recovery for the utility. S8336 prohibits feepayers from being charged a fee for the
same facilities they contributed to the city, thus providing for total cost equity.
2.1.3.3 Apportionment of Costs
The "reasonableness" element of the rational nexus standard is in essence the
touchstone for challenges to the capital recovery fee based on real or perceived inequities in
the apportionment of charges and benefits among various classes of users. Several questions
arise out of the equitable apportionment issue; only a portion of these issues are addressed
by SB336.
A recent Utah case (Laffeq v. City of Payson City, 642 P. 2d 376 Utah (1982))
2-9
14
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
f7
provides a list of factors to be analyzed in apportioning costs between 'old" and "new"
customers. These include:
+ Cost of existing capital facilities
+ Means of financing existing facilities
+ Past and future contributions of the feepayers toward financing existing
facilities
+ Private contributions by feepayers of facilities normally financed publicly
+ Extraordinary costs of serving feepayers
+ Time -price differential in amounts paid at different times
As determined in the Laffeqy case, the interaction of fee payments with rates and
other contributions must be acknowledged to avoid "double payments" by the feepayers. While
SB336 somewhat addresses this issue (in stating that a landowner may not be required to both
contribute capital facilities and pay a fee for the same facilities), the interaction of utility rates
and fees is completely ignored in S13336. Given precedents established in case law (such as
Laffeqy and others) however, it would be prudent to acknowledge future rate payments by
feepayers in calculating the amount of the fee. This refinement in fee calculation is now
generally advocated by experts in the field (Nicholas, et al., 1988; Kaiser, et al., 1986;
Juergensmeyer, 1985; Duncan, et al., 1985). There are other possible refinements in
apportioning costs based on more detailed economic studies, but there is less consensus on
these.
2.1.3.4 Geographic Aspects of Fee Application
The perceived importance of geographic distribution of capital facilities varies among
jurisdictions. In some cases, ordinances have been invalidated because proposed facilities
were in a different part of town; in California, on the other hand, the State Supreme Court
appears to be increasingly indifferent on this point. In Texas, SB336 provides that fee analyses
may be "prepared on a system -wide basis within the service area", and makes no requirement
for geographic -specific costs for water and wastewater. On the other hand, nothing in SB336
prohibits geographic considerations, if that distinction is desired by the City.
2-10
11
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
2.1.3.5 Protection of Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Despite the revenue potential of the capital recovery fee, this mechanism must retain
its identity as an exercise of the city's police power regulatory authority, directed toward the
protection of public health, safety and welfare and not simply the naked generation of revenue.
In other words, the City should be prepared to argue that, despite the revenue potential of the
capital recovery fee, it is an integral part — in intent and practical effect — of the City's
regulatory regime for controlling land use for the general welfare of the community. This is
supported by the SB336 requirement that the fee have its ultimate origin in a system -wide land
use plan and capital improvements plan.
2.1.4 Summary of General Legal Context
The sections above provide a general legal context for the development of a capital
recovery fee. Other issues and guidelines have been defined by SB336 (discussed in Section
2.2) or may be identified by City staff, other regulatory bodies, or attorneys with specialized
knowledge in this field. However, the discussion in this report suggests some legal constraints
which the City should consider in developing a capital recovery fee through a given
methodology. In summary, these parameters are as follows:
+ A capital recovery fee must relate to the protection of community health,
safety, and general welfare;
+ A capital recovery fee should be based on full or partial cost of service;
+ There must be equity to all users;
+ Deviations from equity must be based on a carefully -defined public policy
basis;
+ Those who pay a capital recovery fee must have created a demand for
the facilities which are being funded by the fee;
+ The fees collected must be used for the benefit of those who paid them;
+ Fees assessed must be proportional to the cost of serving and benefits
provided to the feepayer;
+ Past and future rate/tax/facility contributions by feepayers must be
acknowledged as a credit in fee calculations; and
2-11
P
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
E
+ The City cannot impose punitive fees on any customer or class of
customers.
or These guidelines should serve as a point of departure in setting community goals and
objectives related to capital recovery fees.
2.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF SB336
The provisions of SB336 and its amendments are summarized below and put in the
context of the legal framework discussed above.
2.2.1 Definition of "Impact Fee"
The legislation specifically addresses impact fee (i.e., capital recovery fee) regulations
for water; wastewater; storm, flood and drainage; and local roadways with a life expectancy of
three or more years. The Act states that "Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law
or this Act, no governmental entity or political subdivision shall enact or impose an impact
fee". Legal opinion on the meaning of this phrase varies. One knowledgeable source
maintains that this language, when considered with various definitions in the Act, does not
prohibit all other impact fees; rather this provision is interpreted to limit the applicability of the
Act's requirements to the infrastructure components listed above, leaving other potential fee
programs unregulated (Shahady, 1987). On the other hand, another knowledgeable expert
maintains that the opposite is true -- that municipalities probably cannot impose fees for any
other types of capital facilities (Morgan, et al., 1988). Cities which want to assess impact -type
fees for any other facilities than those listed above should check with their legal counsel.
The only other type of capital facility addressed by the Act is parks. The Act specifies
that parkland dedication and in lieu fees are not considered to be "impact fees" under the
legislation; thus they are neither prohibited nor regulated. Also, the following are not
considered impact fees:
+ Right-of-way or easement required by ordinance for a development;
+ On -site distribution, collection, drainage, streets, sidewalks and curbs
required by ordinance for a new development; and
2-12
Ab
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
+ "Oversizing" or "subsequent user" fees placed in trust funds to reimburse
developers for water or wastewater line construction or oversizing.
Typical lot, acreage and prorata fees are generally subject to interpretation as de facto impact
fees and must be replaced with fees developed under SB336 to be in compliance with State
law. Also, all off -site contributions in aid of construction (except as explicitly exempted) are
considered impact fees.
2.2.2 Application of the Fee
Impact fees may be assessed by cities operating under general law, or special or
home rule charter, and by special districts (municipal utility districts, road districts, etc.) for
water, sewer, drainage and local roadways. County governments with jurisdictions of 2.2
million persons or greater (Harris County) and adjacent counties can collect impact fees for
storm water, drainage and flood control. River authorities and the Edwards Underground Water
District are authorized to collect impact -type fees under separate legislation. Thus SB336
confers specific authority (in addition to that which might be assumed under general
subdivision regulatory authority) for fee collection.
Water, sewer and drainage fees may be assessed in the utility service area inside the
city and in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ); fees may also be assessed to areas outside the
ETJ which are applied by contract with the City. Roadway impact fees may not be applied
outside the city limits nor more than three miles from the development paying the fees, in order
to ensure that the feepayer will realize a benefit from paying the fee.
Fees may be assessed and collected for "new development", which includes new land
subdivision; redevelopment; or any use or expansion of use which increases the service
demand of a property (including "cut-overs" from individual wells or septic systems).
2.2.3 Cost -of -Service Basis
SB336 is extensively devoted to specific requirements for performing technical studies
by qualified professionals according to accepted engineering and planning standards. The
specifics of these studies are highlighted below.
2-13
L
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
2.2.3.1 Service Area
There must be a defined and clearly mapped service area which acts as the
geographic planning basis for the fee. The fee may be applied within the City and within the
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
2.2.3.2 Projections of Future Land Use or Population Growth
Land use in the service area, in terms of land use character, density, intensity and
population, must be projected for (1) full buildout, and (2) growth within at least the next ten
years. Recent revisions to the legislation allow the water and wastewater utilities to use growth
projections for their entire jurisdiction (as is usually presented in a city master plan), without
performing projections for the precise utility service areas which may be different than the
jurisdictional boundaries. This planning information is to be used in developing the CIP to
serve service area growth.
2.2.3.3 Disaggregation of Costs for Existing and Future Customers
The current utility system must be fully described, separating that part of the system's
facilities needed for existing customers from the excess capacity remaining for new customers.
Also, the CIP must differentiate between future projects (or portions of projects) needed to
meet existing needs and to upgrade service to existing customers, from future projects needed
to serve new customers. In this manner, costs for existing customers are separated from costs
for future customers. The legislative requirement for disaggregation of costs falls squarely
within the requirements of the mainstream "rational nexus" test.
2.2.3.4 Unit Cost Calculation
The study must select a measurement unit (e.g., gallons, housing units, LUE's) and
determine how many units are required to serve various types of land use. Usage figures must
be calculated separately for at least residential, commercial and industrial uses.
2-14
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
2.2.3.5 Fee Calculation
The maximum fee which can be charged is the total cost of facilities specifically
required for future customers divided by the unit usage for each future customer. This
apparently permits a fee set at the full capital cost, with no consideration of future rate or tax
payments by the feepayer. Given past court decisions, it is not clear whether this approach
would withstand a constitutional challenge. One line of legal opinion holds that such over -
collection would be appropriately addressed with refunds after a project is complete (Shahady,
1987), although such a situation is not specifically addressed in the legislation. It might be
more prudent for the city to enact a fee consistent with the mainstream of court decisions,
which would require credit for past and future non -capital -recovery -fee contributions by the
feepayer, rather than face the potential refund of revenues at a future date. This is a matter
on which cities may wish to consult their legal counsel.
SB336 also states that "Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be
included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the
payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf
of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified
in the capital improvements plan...." There is a diversity of legal opinion on this phrase also.
From a technical viewpoint, such charges must be carefully construed to retain the cost of
service basis. Again, this is a matter which should be addressed by the City's legal counsel.
2.2.3.6 System -Wide vs. Geographic -Specific Fees
The Act provides that the service analysis may be prepared on a system -wide basis;
however, this provision seems to apply only to water and sewer service. Local roadways are
constrained to a service area of three miles (which must be within the city limits), regardless
of the actual extent of impacts. New amendments to the legislation also restrict the drainage
service areas and CIP development to watershed boundaries. But for water and sewer,
geographic disaggregation is not required. This allowance of system -wide fee development
seems to address the rational nexus standard rather than the more restrictive "specifically and
uniquely attributable" test which requires geographic disaggregation.
2-15
L
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
g
2.2.3.7 Facilities Which Can Be Included in the Fee Base
The Act provides that only facilities in the associated CIP can be funded by the fee.
This would suggest that oversized approach mains must be adopted as CIP projects if they are
to be included in the facilities for which a fee is assessed and on which fee funds are
expended. (Otherwise, oversized approach mains may be partially funded by developers
through oversizing trust funds, as discussed above, and by any non -fee mechanism available
to the City, such as current revenues or bond monies.) The requirement that fee -funded
facilities must be in the CIP also cements the fee assessment to a comprehensive planning
document, and thus implies a strong orientation to the city's overall approach to controlling
land use for the purpose of public health, safety and welfare — i.e., the ultimate basis for the
authority for such fee programs.
2.2.4 Proportionality
The technical approach outlined in the Act ensures that fees paid must be proportional
to demand caused by the feepayer. The Act also addresses "offsets" — a situation whereby a
developer finances and constructs a facility which is normally funded in full or part by the fee
process, and either has his fee assessment reduced accordingly or receives reimbursement of
costs. The Act stipulates that "no owner shall be required to construct or dedicate facilities
and pay impact fees for the same facilities". Again, this provides for meeting the rational nexus
test.
An additional provision relative to roadways goes beyond this requirement, stating that
the costs of constructing off -site roadways required by the City for development approval shall
be deducted from a developer's roadway impact fee. This seems to ensure that a developer
is reimbursed for off -site roadway construction whether or not it is generally funded by fee
revenues.
Again however, a weakness of the Act is that it never addresses the interaction of fees
and taxes with utility rates in ensuring that a customer does not pay more than the cost of
service. This refinement should be included in the City's fee study to provide maximum
protection from potential constitutional challenges.
2-16
Mr-
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
N-
2.2.5 Rational Nexus
2.2.5.1 Rational Nexus: Demand Nexus
The technical study provisions of the Act ensure that feepayers will pay only for the
demands they place on the system (averaged over a whole class of customers).
2.2.5.2 Rational Nexus: Benefit Nexus
The Act contains numerous provisions to ensure that a feepayer receives the benefit
of service for which the fee has been paid. Impact fees cannot be collected where service is
not currently available except under specific conditions:
(1) the capital improvement for which the fee was collected is in the CIP, will
begin construction within two years and will be completed in no more
than five years; or
(2) the developer agrees to build/finance the facility for offset credit or
reimbursement; or
(3) the landowner voluntarily asks to reserve future service.
The Act moreover stipulates that the feepayer must receive permanent use of services
for which the fee was paid and that he must receive immediate service from any existing
facilities with capacity to serve him.
2.2.6 Timing of Fee Assessment and Collection; Grandfather Provisions
2.2.6.1 Fee Assessment
The Act distinguishes between the timing of fee assessment, when a determination is
made about the fee amount per service unit which will be charged to a property, and the
timing of actual fee collection. Furthermore, these requirements are complicated by varying
regulations based on whether a City already has an impact fee in effect at the time the State
law was signed and by the status of a given property in the development process.
2-17
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
(1) FOR IMPACT FEES ADOPTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE ACT
(WHICH MUST BE REPLACED BY JUNE, 1990)
(a) For land subdivided and platted prior to the date of the Act, and for
land on which development will occur without platting: Fees can be
assessed at any time during the development approval and building
process.
(b) For land subdivided subsequent to the effective date of the Act:
Fees must be assessed before or at the time the subdivision plat
is recorded. Cities with pre-1987 ordinances should amend those
ordinances, if necessary, to include this provision.
(2) FOR IMPACT FEES ADOPTED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
L ACT (FEES IN COMPLIANCE WITH SB336)
(a) For land already subdivided and platted prior to the adoption of the
fee, and for which a building permit is issued within one year after
adoption of the city's impact fee: No fee can be collected.
(b) For land subdivided and platted subsequent to the adoption of the
fee: Fees must be assessed before or at the time the subdivision
plat is recorded.
(c) For property on which development will occur without platting: Fees
can be assessed at any time during the development and approval
process.
These provisions pertain to fee assessment; for the most part, the amount of fee and
the maximum fee per unit will be determined at the time of plat recordation. After that
assessment is made, "no additional impact fees or increases thereof shall be assessed against
such tract for any reason, unless the number of service units to be developed on such tract
increases". Initially, the overall effect of this provision seems to be onerous for the City if a
subdivided parcel were not developed in a timely manner, or if, many years hence, a
development expands its capacity demand. Regardless of the passage of time and increases
in cost over time, the City may be effectively prohibited from charging the developer the cost
of service at the time he/she receives service; rather the City may be limited to charging the
cost of service at the time the subdivision was platted, whether or not service was used at that
time. Over time this is also likely to affect the real estate market since undeveloped properties
with low fee assessments will become more valuable commodities. To avoid both the revenue
loss and land speculation activities, fees should be carefully crafted to account for the disparity
2-18
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
4
between the cost of capital improvements at the time of assessment and that at the time of
collection.
2.2.6.2 Fee Collection
Actual collection of fees is generally allowed "at the time of recordation of the
subdivision plat or connection to the ... water or sewer system or at the time [of issuance of]
either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy". However, due to the timing problem
described above, collection of fees at tap purchase or later could ultimately result in
incomplete cost recovery for the City unless the fee or the fee collection process are carefully
crafted.
Additionally, for any fee developed under S6336, note the "grandfathering" provision
for already -subdivided properties. The City would be unable to collect any fees from already -
subdivided properties which receive a building permit within one year of the City's adoption of
a fee ordinance. This may result in an interruption of fee collections for some cities when they
replace pre-1987 ordinances with SB336 ordinances.
In addition to grandfathering provisions, there are other provisions of the Act which
serve to protect developers or builders from unexpected fee expenses. The institution of a
new impact fee or the updating of an old fee requires a lengthy study and public hearing
process; the City's fee ordinance may not be passed as an emergency measure; and
moratoria for the purpose of awaiting completion or updating of the fee ordinance is
prohibited. Thus all developers should have ample notice and time to obtain subdivision
approval and either avoid fee payment altogether (in the case of a new fee) or grandfather
their fee assessment at an old, presumably lower, fee amount (in the case of fee updates).
Therefore, any program to partially fund capital facilities with a fee program will take a period
of time to effectively collect funds and will be unlikely to achieve significant immediate results.
Nevertheless, over a longer period of time, impact fees should still be effective as one of
several funding sources for capital improvements.
2.2.7 Use of Funds
Impact fees must be deposited in individual dedicated accounts with earned interest
2-19
R_
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
becoming a part of the dedicated funds. Expenditures may be made only for the uses for
which the fees were collected. Expenditure of fee funds is specifically prohibited for:
(1) Either capital or interest payment for any facility not identified in the CIP
(including, presumably, non-CIP approach mains or other major facilities
not identified in the CIP);
(2) Repair, operation or maintenance expenses; or
(3) Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing facilities to meet
stricter standards or provide better service to existing customers.
These provisions are generally required as a part of meeting the rational nexus test
to ensure that feepayers receive specific benefits from fee payment and that fee revenues are
MW not diverted to pay for facilities or other purposes which do not benefit new customers. They
also further tie fee funds to the adopted planning documents (CIP) of the city by prohibiting
expenditures on facilities not in the CIP.
2.2.8 Refunds
SB336 also addresses refunds of unused or overcharged fees. All funds must be
expended within 10 years of collection or the remaining fees, plus interest, must be refunded
to the current property owner or to the political subdivision which paid the fee. This implies
considerable recordkeeping efforts on the part of cities.
Also, if a feepayer is denied immediate service (when existing service is available) or
if the City does not begin and complete construction within the time period stipulated above,
the feepayers may request and must receive a refund, plus interest.
Finally, the City must, after construction is complete, compare actual costs to the
projected costs which were used in fee calculation. If actual costs were higher, the City cannot
collect additional fees since the fee -per -unit is permanently determined at platting. However,
if projected costs were more than 10 percent higher than actual costs (i.e., the feepayer has
overpaid by more than 10 percent), the City must refund the difference, plus interest, to the
current property owner.
Again, these provisions provide checks to ensure that feepayers actually receive
benefits from their payments. Moreover, it discourages fee collection when there is no
2-20
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
significant need over the longer -term for growth -related CIP expenditures, which supports the
"demand nexus" test.
2.2.9 Public Process/Fee Updates
The Act contains extensive provisions related to the public process required to enact,
revise and update an impact fee. Generally, these provisions include:
(1) Technical planning and engineering studies concerning land use and
population projections, facility needs and cost allocation.
(2) Public availability and review of all assumptions and data.
(3) A public hearing to review all aspects of fee formulation when a new fee
is developed. However, if any party requests separate hearings for land
use (planning assumptions) and for CIP/fee development, the City must
comply with two separate hearing processes.
(4) Published notice of hearings.
(5) Appointment of an advisory committee (which may be the Planning
Commission), including real estate representatives and a representative
from the EfJ.
(6) Any lawsuit opposing the fee ordinance must be filed within 90 days of
ordinance adoption.
Cities are required to review their ordinances every three years and determine whether
there is a need to update the fee or any of its underlying assumptions. If the City Council
determines that no update is necessary, it must publish a public notice so stating. However,
Air if any party requests that a full update be performed, the City must comply, following the same
procedure as that for initiating a new fee under a single -hearing format. Likewise, if the
Council itself decides that updates of any provisions of the fee are needed, the City must
r follow the full single -hearing process.
There is a special provision for cities which had impact fees in effect at the time
SB336 was adopted in June 1987. These cities have three years to replace their existing fee
with new fees developed in accordance with the Act. (Any new fee ordinance imposed after
June 1987 must be developed in conformance with SB336.) However, cities with pre-1987
ordinances may receive particular penalties if they do not update their fees within one year of
2-21
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
the Act (i.e., by June 1988). Specifically, if it is ultimately determined that the fees charged
after the first year were more than 10 percent in excess of cost, the City must refund twice the
difference, plus interest, plus attorneys' fees and court costs.
2.2.10 Summary of SB336 Analysis
In summary,
+ The City is regulated in its authority to charge impact fees for water,
sewer, drainage and local roadways.
+ A detailed technical study is required to initiate a new fee and any time
the fee is updated (including service area definition, growth projections,
CIP development, cost allocation, unit usage determination, etc.).
+ Fees per unit "run with the plat" since they are set at time of platting;
unless fees are also collected at platting, this could result in considerable
losses for the City since actual cost of service may be much higher when
service is ultimately provided than it was when the land was platted.
Careful fee construction may avoid this undercollection.
+ The maximum allowable fee under SB336 is the full capital cost per unit.
However, if this ceiling is not reduced by the amount of future rate
payments by feepayers, then feepayers will pay more than their fair cost
of service, and the City might have to refund overpayments.
+ The City must create an advisory committee which contains both real
estate representatives and a representative of the ETJ.
+ Fees which are not expended on appropriate CIP projects within 10
years, or fees which are substantially in excess of cost must be refunded,
plus interest.
+ Feepayers must receive immediate service, if capacity is available,
otherwise they must receive service in five years or less.
+ Developers must be reimbursed or receive fee offsets for contributed
facilities.
2-22
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
L
3.0 POLICY DECISIONS RELATED TO TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF CAPITAL RECOVERY
FEE FORMULATION
Several policy and technical decisions must be made in the course of developing an
impact fee. These include:
1. Definition of service area
2. System -wide vs. geographic -specific fees
3. Selection of a unit measurement as the basis for fee assessment
4. Identification of the specific types of facilities to be funded by the fee
5. Timing of fee collection
6. Eligibility and exemptions
7. Level of cost recovery desired
8. Fee offset approach
3.1 SERVICE AREA DEFINITION
As a first step, the boundaries of the conceptual service area in which the fee will be
applied must be defined. The purpose of this potential service area designation is to define
the conceptual area of growth for which the fee is developed, to estimate service demand
arising from that particular growth, and to develop a capital improvements program (and
associated costs) to meet those service needs. Thus development of a CIP for a defined
service area ensures that capital recovery fees will be closely tied to the other planning and
regulatory documents of the City and that the rational nexus tests will be addressed.
The conceptual service area is simply that — a concept. The Advisory Committee
delineation of the conceptual service area primarily serves to gqLde the CIP derivation and unit
costing. It is not strictly binding on the Utility management in its future flexibility on particular
service area decisions.
In defining that service area, it should be remembered that in three years the City must
decide if any factors used in the fee formulation have substantially changed, and if so, a full
update process will be needed. Thus, the Utility may wish to define the future service area as
3-1
11
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
broad) as reasonably possible to minimize the need for u activities.
y y p update ties. Cities or utilities
which have relatively known limits to their expansion may wish to use the ultimate geographic
limits of their service as the SB336 fee service area. At minimum, the service area should be
the Utility's best approximation of the possible boundaries of its service within the next ten
years.
It is unclear whether the City could impose impact fees in areas which were not
specifically identified as a potential service area during the fee development. Because the
exact location of future growth will be, to some degree, unknowable, it would be best to
include all areas of potential growth in the foreseeable future to avoid possible future questions
about whether the fee is applicable to any given area. This approach will result in a larger CIP
than might otherwise be developed, but since the fee is calculated on a per -unit basis, a larger
CIP, per se, should have little impact on the fee magnitude.
An exception to this, however, relates to whether a new service area might have
unique service requirements and costs which would tend to make the average cost increase.
For example, service to the entirety of a drainage basin might be a reasonable service area
assumption. On the other hand, proposing a potential service area extending into new and
unserved basins could imply higher per -unit costs associated with pump-overs of sewage or
construction of new treatment facilities not otherwise needed. The City will have to carefully
balance these considerations in the determination of the conceptual service area used in fee
calculation.
3.1.1 Existing Service Areas
The service areas proposed for both the water and sanitary sewer utilities are
coincident with the existing city limits. Currently, the city is almost entirely surrounded by other
cities and there is little chance, if any, for future annexation. Therefore, the service areas will
likely remain as proposed.
3.1.2 Service Area Constraints
SB336 stipulates that the City may apply its capital recovery fee ordinance within the
City limits, within the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), and to customers with which they have
a service contract. Thus, the service area adopted must acknowledge any limits to the future
3-2
R
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
citylimits or ETJ and must recognize an existing or future contracted service outside those
9 Y 9
limits.
In addition, the capital recovery fee for the Southlake Utilities can only be collected in
areas which are served by that particular utility. Other service providers which may be located
within the current or future City ETJ will have to adopt capital recovery fees (if appropriate)
through a separate compliance process. Thus one of the constraints to service area definition
is the recognition of the service area boundaries of other providers (unless the City wishes to
plan for the possible absorption of any of these other providers).
Aside from jurisdictional considerations, there are practical aspects to service area
determination. These relate partially to the location and capacity of existing or planned major
facilities, but perhaps more critically to topographical characteristics. The service area of a
water system is not restrained as critically as the sewerage system. The water system operates
under pressure and topographic features can be overcome by additional water storage tanks
and pumps.
The sewerage system operates by gravity through pipes flowing to wastewater
treatment plants. These plants are located to serve an areawide drainage basin. In some
instances, sewage lift stations are installed to transfer wastes from smaller drainage basins or
to pump sewage to the wastewater plants.
3.2 GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS
SB336 does not require that water and sewer fees be disaggregated into service
subareas, although geographically disaggregated fees are permissible. Thus, the costs of the
system may be pooled and shared equally among all feepayers, or alternatively, costs may be
specifically allocated to various subregional service areas if certain facilities can be uniquely
assigned to serving specific areas. In either case, the direct linkage between feepayer and fee
amount and funded facility must be maintained.
3.2.1 Pooled Costs
Pooled costs can be justified from several perspectives. First, from the perspective of
an individual customer, the location of treatment plant, size and placement of lines, method of
wastewater disposal, etc. are discretional decisions made by the Utility. For example, whether
3-3
N
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
an individual lives close to a treatment plant or several miles distant is determined more by
discretional decisions by the Utility than by service demands of a customer. It is possible that
two customers in generally identical geographic locations with similar system demands could
have significantly different individual costs of service due to these discretionary siting and
design decisions.
The water utility of many cities, in particular, is designed with features to ensure
system -wide reliability. This is especially illustrated by the fact that special mains are often
installed to allow various treatment facilities to serve several areas of the city. Moreover, many
systems are "looped" to provide somewhat redundant transmission facilities. These system
reliability aspects make it difficult or impossible to assign certain costs by geographic area.
Additionally, in some instances there are facilities which serve functions for various
geographic areas and therefore present geographically unallocable costs. For example, a
sludge treatment facility might treat sludges from various wastewater treatment plants and thus
from several geographic areas.
In summary, because (1) many siting and design decisions are discretionary rather
than locational; (2) systems are often designed with redundant facilities for system reliability;
and (3) some facilities have no geographic -specific service area, it can be argued that each
utility operates as a complete, integrated system. Therefore, any customer which receives
service from such a system may reasonably be considered to be receiving sufficient benefit
from the payment of a capital recovery fee, thus meeting the benefit nexus of the rational nexus
test.
An argument against pooled costs can best be made when customers in various areas
impose truly unique and distinct costs upon the utility due to topography or other factors
making service more costly, which are not the result of discretionary engineering decisions
about technical approaches to service delivery.
3.2.2 Geographic -Specific Costs
The pros and cons of geographic -specific costs mirror those of pooled costs. A
favorable aspect is that the linkage between a customer's specific demands and specific costs
may be much stronger than with pooled costs, especially under conditions discussed above
when engineering discretion does not determine the cost differential. Also, some court rulings
3-4
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
have required a very strict linkage between specific facilities and fees such that the customer
could only be required to pay for the specific lines, etc. that provided that customer with
service -- as opposed to a pooled service cost. However, that type of strict nexus
interpretation is outside of the mainstream of court opinions and such strict linkage is not
required by S6336. Nevertheless, where notable cost differentials occur -- as in differences in
topography or soils -- cities would be justified in developing geographic -specific fees.
On the negative side, geographic -specific fees are more complex to calculate and
administer. At its logical extreme, geographic -specific costs would require a different fee for
each user, depending on line lengths utilized. Obviously, some level of pooled average costs
must be used for the fee. Among those costs which could most easily be segregated are
wastewater capital costs for a particular drainage basin, facility costs (particularly lines)
according to broad soil classifications, and approach main costs for a defined array of
developments in a particular location.
3.3 UNIT MEASUREMENT
During the capital recovery fee study, units of measurement must be selected for two
separate purposes -- for system -wide demand projections and CIP development, and for
individual demand determination and fee sizing for each feepayer. This unit of measurement
may be any logical and technically defensible basis such as meter size, dwelling units, acreage,
square footage, employees, or other standard. In choosing units of measurement, a balance
must be achieved among the goals of (1) using readily available data to project demand; (2)
matching actual demand of a project to the fee paid to preserve rational nexus; and (3)
achieving administrative ease in assessing the fee. The first factor in particular may vary widely
depending on what point in time the demand is to be determined. For example, during this
study, the Consultants will have to determine overall demand for a given period of time.
Available information may be in the form of population projections, land use acreage
projections, utility connection forecasts or other form of growth projections. Any of these can
be used for the sole purpose of determining overall system demand and designing an
appropriate CIP. However, these same rather gross measures may not be the most
appropriate technique for assessing a fee amount to a particular customer. Section 3.3.1
below discusses the interchangeability of various unit usage statistics; Section 3.3.2 describes
some of the types of statistics which may be developed and utilized and gives the pros and
cons of each.
3-5
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
E
3.3.1 Conversions of Unit Usage Statistics
Theoretically speaking, there is no reason why projections of overall utility demand and
projections of demand for a single customer should not use the same unit measurement. As
a practical matter however, there is always a conversion process whereby the same growth
phenomenon is expressed through a variety of measures. For example, the- community may
have a land use plan, and projections of utility demand may be made directly from projections
of each land use. Most likely, however, residential land uses will be converted into population
or connection projections and a standard usage statistic per capita or per household will be
used to project residential demand. For nonresidential land uses, acreage or square footage
may be used as a unit usage statistic (again involving a conversion calculation from acreage
to square footage). Or, alternatively, "nested" per -capita figures will be used, wherein overall
demand is based on population alone, with some amount of nonresidential use assumed per
person to accommodate both residential and nonresidential consumption with a single demand
factor. All of these techniques are commonly used by planning and engineering professionals
and are more or less reasonable, depending upon local circumstances. Moreover, this variety
of usage statistics and conversion techniques maximizes the planner's flexibility in determining
demand, allowing use of readily available local information in whatever form it is available.
During the course of the SB336 study, it will be necessary to make some conversion
between the overall demand projections of the "land use assumptions" and the CIP
development and the individual fee calculation. It is likely that the exact same units of
measurement will not be directly used in all aspects of the study. What is important, however,
is that the conversion process be clearly presented to show that the impact fee is consistent
with the planning and CIP data. If that conversion process is consistent and reasonable, there
should be ready translation between one element of the SB336 study and another, although
demand may be expressed on a per -acre basis in one instance and on a per-LUE basis in
another.
Also, some unit measurements are intended to be more specific than others. One of
the most specific types of units measurements for utility use is an accounting of water -using
or wastewater -producing fixtures (such as faucets, dishwashers, waste disposers, etc.) While
this type of measurement might be highly indicative of the usage of an individual customer,
using such units to predict system -wide demand and to develop a CIP would be impractical.
Finally, the quality of available information at any point in time partially determines the
practical choice of unit measurements. Information about a particular development becomes
3-6
A
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
E
more certain during the later stages of development than at the outset. Thus, if a fee were to
be collected at time of plat, some relatively gross measure of demand would be necessary
because information such as meter size, square footage or fixture counts would be generally
unknown. In that case, a unit statistic such as land use acreage might be an appropriate
measure. On the other hand, more precise measurements are available by the time a
development receives a building permit or purchases a tap.
3.3.2 Examples of Unit Usage Measurements
Some common unit measurements, in roughly ascending order of precision are
discussed in this section.
3.3.2.1 Per Capita
Perhaps the most aggregate form of unit usage statistic is a population -based measure
of demand. It is also one of the most available forms of information and most widely used
techniques for projecting usage. When an estimate of current or historical population is
compared to water demand or wastewater flow, a demand per capita is derived. This per
capita statistic includes both residential and nonresidential service usage, thus it represents a
"nested" usage figure. Use of per capita standards to project utility demand is most
appropriate when no substantial change in land use mixture is expected in the service area
over a sustained period. If such land use changes are anticipated, somewhat more detailed
information on the particular land use shifts and land -use -specific demand figures would be
needed. Per capita figures can easily accommodate assumptions about potential water
conservation by simply showing a declining usage per capita over time.
The most positive aspects of per capita figures are their simplicity and ready
comprehension. On the negative side, under significantly changing conservation or land use
patterns a constant "nested" per capita assumption over time could result in significant forecast
error. Per capita statistics are best used for estimated demand in large geographic areas; they
have little usage for fee assessment, since "nested" per capita figures would not correctly
assess demand for either a particular residential or nonresidential customer.
3-7
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
3.3.2.2 Acreage
Acreage alone provides no practical indication of demand. If land use for that acreage
is known, however, estimates of demand per acre can be made based upon similar existing
land uses and their average demand per acre. Statistics of this type are most useful in
providing estimates of overall utility demand based on a particular mixture and magnitude of
future land uses. As discussed above, this technique becomes necessary in the event of
changing land use mixtures over time. However, the more detail which is included in system-
wide projections, the more likely significant error will occur. Demand forecasts based on
acreage of various land uses has more detail than per capita statistics and thus has greater
chance of including an erroneous assumption of either land use mix or unit usage by land use
type over time. System demand calculated on a per -acre basis should always be compared
to demand calculated on a per capita basis to assess the reasonableness of the results;
drastic changes in per capita use over time must be readily explainable by the land use mixture
changes.
Caution should be exercised in using zoning as an indicator of land use demand.
Quite often, zoning gives no accurate presentation of either existing or future land uses --
particularly where cumulative zoning occurs. A lot zoned commercial may actually have
residential uses. Moreover, portions of the utility service area may be unzoned -- such as in
the ETJ.
Per acre statistics are not only used for estimating system -wide demand, but they are
often used for individual fee assessment. As mentioned above, fees collected early in the
development process are often based on acreage for lack of more detailed information. Fees
which are collected at a later point can be based on more precise determinations of service
demand.
3.3.2.3 Building Square Footage
Square footage may be a proxy for demand for nonresidential uses, but the wide
variety of commercial/industrial uses makes this a generally imprecise measurement unless
somewhat detailed subcategories are established. For example, a warehouse has considerably
less service demand than an office building. Thus it is possible to develop varying fee
structures based on different subcategories of nonresidential use to increase the precision of
this type of measurement.
3-S
MW
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
E
Building square footage is used to estimate nonresidential system -wide demand by
IV
either assuming a particular floor -to -area (FAR) ratio (in which case demand could simply be
determined directly from acreage) or assuming a particular square footage per employee
(where demand could be directly determined from employees). Thus, the use of square
footage in estimating system -wide demand is usually a derivative practice.
Individual demand is commonly determined by square footage of different building
types. These measures are based on research into demand arising from a sample of similar
MW buildings. Provided the sample of similar land uses is reasonably designed, individual fees
based on square footage would fairly represent an average demand cost for that type of use.
3.3.2.4 Operational Measures: Employment/Enrollment/Seating, Etc.
For nonresidential uses, demand may be based on any number of detailed operational
factors particular to the type of use. These factors may include number of employees, number
of students or residents, seating in restaurants, theaters or churches, etc. These types of
measurements attempt to estimat demand from indicators of the types of activities which
occur in the structure. They may 4 ither be used for more detailed land -use -based projections
of system -wide demand, or they m y be used as indicators of use for a particular development.
To the extent that a precise lanc use is known for various properties, they may be very
appropriate measures. Nevertheless, these indicators contain multiple assumptions and thus
have greater potential for error; thus, a broader system -wide method (such as a per capita
approach) should also be applied as a point of reference in determining the reasonableness
of the results from such detailed unit statistics. It is likely that operational measures would be
more useful in individual fee deter inations rather than in system -wide projections.
3.3.2.5 Dwelling Units
Similar to square footage for nonresidential uses, dwelling units (DU) may be a proxy
for demand for residential land us s. This statistic is derived from projections of residential
acreage or of population, and thus is not particularly useful in developing system -wide demand
forecasts (Le, system demand could be more easily determined directly from acreage or
population). On the other hand, a dwelling unit measure is commonly used in assessing
demand of an individual residential customer. In order for dwelling units to be most accurate
in determining demand (and assessing fees), different usage statistics should be developed for
3-9
R
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
various densities and types of housing -- such as single-family, duplex, low- and high -density
multifamily, institutional, etc.
3.3.2.6 Linear Feet of Road Frontage
Linear feet (If) of road frontage is a common unit measurement in many cities, arising
from similarly -based assessments for roadways. Properly used, it is only one element in any
determination of fee amount and relates most strictly to utility line cost rather than to capacity
needs. Essentially, frontage feet is a proxy for acreage in defined areas where lot sizes are
approximately the same and land use is similar. For example, a residential area of quarter acre
lots would have a certain demand which could either be divided by the number of units, the
number of connections, lot area or any other similar measurement which apportioned demand
to each customer. Any of these divisors would result in approximately the same unit costs
because of the homogeneity of the development. Front footage (with limitations for corner lots)
would have the same type of cost allocation result.
Another manner in which linear front footage is used is in calculation of a fair share
of cost allocation on a given length of pipe serving a development, with the assumption that
each customer should reasonably pay for the additional length of pipe needed to serve his or
her property. In these instances however, front footage is not a determinant of demand, per
se, but simply one of the factors used in apportioning line costs; the actual demand of a
development is determined by other means and is also incorporated into the cost allocation
through the pipe diameter.
Thus, in general, linear footage can be used as a proxy for demand in homogeneous
developments, but it is generally not useful by itself where there are land use mixtures or
variable lot sizes and shapes. It is also not used in determining system -wide demand.
3.3.2.7 Living Unit Equivalent (LUE)
A living unit equivalent (or dwelling unit equivalent) is a derivative measurement
intended to establish a common measurement unit for all types of land uses. An LUE is
equivalent to the amount of demand typically produced by a single-family residence using a
5/8" or 3/4" water meter. Demand is directly calculated by some other unit statistic (such as
3-10
R
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
land use acreage, population, etc.) and translated into LUE's. Thus an LUE is not a unit usage
statistic per se, but rather a translation of such statistics into a common denominator.
3.3.2.8 Water Meter Size
Water meter size is frequently used to indicate demand for an individual customer.
Projections of customers (i.e., connections) by water meter size may be used to also project
system -wide demand. Water meter size is a generally good indicator for both residential and
nonresidential water demand. The reason for this is that a meter is a physical element which
constrains the upper limits of demand from a particular connection. Moreover, meters can be
maintained and controlled by the utility, thus allowing the monitoring of the accuracy of meter
sizing. The utility can require any necessary replacement of meters which can be shown to
have been sized too small for a development and collect additional capital recovery fees
required by the change in meters. Typically, the City's smallest water meter would be the base
unit for capital recovery fee assessment (that is, one living unit equivalent). The ratio of each
larger meter's continuous -duty maximum flow rate to the rate of the base meter would
determine the fee multiplier and the scale for other calculations relating to this fee. Because
water meter size translates demand into a common measurement for all land uses, the use of
water meter size allows equitable cost assignment to each of the three customer classes
identified in SB336 (residential, commercial and industrial) without administrative complexity.
Typically, some concern is expressed that water meters are not always a reasonable
means of calculating wastewater flows, particularly for certain consumptive types of
commercial/industrial users (restaurants, car washes, canneries, etc.). Experience has indicated
that few such customers choose to have a separate wastewater meter because of the
installation and maintenance expense incurred. Given the potential that some consumptive
commercial and industrial customers may be considerably overcharged for sewer capacity
AW demand when water meter size is used for calculating wastewater capital recovery fees, it is
important to provide for exceptional (and equitable) treatment of these customers. Specifically,
individual wastewater customers should be permitted to present data, prepared by a
professional engineer, documenting expected wastewater flow significantly below that indicated
by meter -size determinations for a lower sewer fee.
3-11
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
3.3.2.9 Pipe Size
s" Water distribution pipe size is a similar to water meters in its usefulness in determining
demand for a particular water connection. However, the potentially large amount of excess
capacity in the minimum sizes of sewer collection lines presents potential problems of pipe
sizes which are not representative of actual wastewater flows.
3.3.2.10 Fixture Calculations
Although not useful in determining system -wide demand, an inventory of water -using
and wastewater -discharging facilities may provide the most accurate indicator of actual demand
from an individual development (assuming the number of fixtures is commensurate with the
level of operation use). Such an inventory is inherent in the determination of water meter size
and line sizes. However, both meters and lines contain excess capacity which is generally
never used either because the development's resident/user does not have the fixtures to allow
such maximum use or because usage habits are simply less than capacity. Thus, fixture
calculations would closely estimate actual, rather than potential, demand and usage. While
highly precise, this approach has high administrative cost for both the utility and for the
feepayers since it requires a detailed inventory and review of that inventory. It also requires
frequent updating when a customer purchases additional fixtures after payment of the original
fee.
3.4 TYPES OF FACILITIES FUNDED BY THE FEES
SB336 applies to fee monies or contributions which fund all water and sewer capital
facilities with a few specific exceptions. Exempted from the SB336 process are:
(1) Dedication of rights -of -way or easements, or construction or dedication
of on -site water distribution or wastewater collection when these
dedications and construction are required by valid ordinances and are
necessitated by and attributable to new development; and
(2) Lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of
reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer
mains or lines.
3-12
11
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Otherwise, SB336 governs all "charge[s] or assessment[s] 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 . . . new
development". Thus, many fees which have been typically enacted by cities, such as acreage,
frontage and prorata fees, will no longer be permissible after June 1990 unless they are
precisely configured as oversizing fees placed in trust funds, as defined above.
On the other hand, the City is not required to charge a fee for any type of facility --
whether it be lines or other capital facility. Thus, the Advisory Committee and Staff need to
determine what types of facilities the City should fund with capital recovery fees, either
including or excluding such facility categories as treatment, storage, pumpage and
transmission/collection. Whatever type of facilities are chosen for impact fee funding, however,
must be funded with a S6336-regulated fee.
It may be desirable to give special consideration to the treatment of line costs in
developing a fee program. Conceptually, linework can often be divided into the major
transmission or collection lines which bring service to broad regions of the service area in
comparison to "approach mains" which bring service to smaller defined developments. The
former array of lines can be viewed as major facilities which are related to the utility's ability to
make service broadly available, while the latter are often considered the responsibility of the
developer or customer. In reality, the distinction between these two types of lines may be
fuzzy. Nevertheless, the Utility and the Advisory Committee may want to attempt such a
distinction for several reasons: (1) approach mains have highly variable costs per unit,
depending on their distance from existing major lines; (2) funding of approach mains is a
riskier venture since the ability to utilize their full capacity is dependent on the market success
of individual customers; (3) extension of approach mains can result in a less compact and
efficient system if development is not contiguous to the existing system; and (4) the Utility may
want to collect approach main fees (or dedications) earlier in the development process
consistent with the time at which the Utility incurs these costs and in light of the somewhat
risky nature of such development.
Thus, the City may want to finance major lines differently from approach main lines
and should consider this in determining whether to include all line work in the fee and whether
to disaggregate line costs into major line and approach main components for separate fee
determination. Some of the various approach main funding techniques are (1) development
of a system -wide average fee for approach mains; (2) development of an approach main
impact fee which is specific for a geographic area served by a specific line; or (3)
3-13
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
L
establishment of a fee program which is exempt from SB336 regulation. Each of these
approaches has varying characteristics relative to precise cost recovery, administrative ease,
Utility risk exposure and consistency with broad community goals. Any determination of
facilities to be included in fee calculation should be made with the desired funding approach
in mind.
3.5 TIMING OF FEE COLLECTION
As discussed above, fee assessment is required to be calculated, for the most part,
at the time of plat filing; fee collection, on the other hand, can occur at platting, connection
(tap purchase), building permit issuance or certificate of occupancy issuance. The Committee
should carefully consider the potential fiscal impacts on the city if fee collection were to be set
later than platting, versus the fiscal impacts on homebuyers and businesses resulting from
early payment of fees (which may considerably increase the actual cost impact on a home).
Moreover, timing of collection needs to be considered carefully in conjunction with the
City's selection of a unit of measurement. For example, water meter size is often unknown at
the time of final platting, when the fee must be assessed. Thus, it is possible that an
estimated fee payment may have to be made if collection is made prior to meter purchase, and
a later fee adjustment made upon actual tap purchase when the meter size is known.
One possible approach to ensuring that the Utility not lose any revenue value caused
by cost inflation is to assess all fees in 1989 dollars and collect fees in nominal dollars, as
determined by application of the Construction Cost Index published in the Engineering News
Record (ENR) on a periodic basis. This approach would solve both the problem of collection
of fees at a much later date than assessment, and at the same time provide for an escalating
fee assessment over time, such that fees assessed five years hence retain the same value as
those assessed in the current year. This solution is illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Alternatively, with advice from the City's attorney, the fee could be assessed and made
payable at time of plat, with an ordinance provision that the fee payment could be delayed until
time of building permit issuance (for example), with interest applied to the fee from the date of
assessment until the date of collection. This interest could also be determined as the
difference between the amount of the fee assessment and a nominal dollar amount determined
3-14
T
IY
W
O
W C 2
J U
Q W
F- J
ao
U U
0 O
O
w
zf
O
H
cx 1 -
1u a
O co
U Z
0
oa
O W
w
7 �Q
M OICJ
t— Q
J � Z
m J
Q J
�—z
i IT N P M 00 tom N LT
N � I .l�1O 1n OIn CD Ln
v t
V t
A 1
� A i
i 1
1 In It Ir 10 P M 001nell N
N 1 M M M 1 1 n Ln
CD Ln CD
cz 1
Y 1
t N N N N N N N N N N
v i
OA i
t
!
i 1O O .N LA t � N 10;; n O In
i cc 1 NMMM�t�TtnM�O�O
� OC 2
Y i N M M M N N N N M N
00 2
i V t
A t
� A 2
t
2
2 (DNIn It 'O PM 00 In
i M 10 O It 00 N 10 InO
i N i NNMMM�t1MN�O
OC t
T 2
2 N N N N N N N N N N
Z � ti 2
I0 i
t- A t
W t
J J sO �}
2 NIn It101O Ol M_00
U Ln
N 2 QNNMCD MM�t1 V11n
O 10 1ix Nr N N N N M N N N N
Q Ln i
W A t
Y � 2
T
m 1 Pit O i`CD1 It 10 PM
1 �PM1O O.f OON10�
H N 2 N N M M M
CIC t • • _
F In t
Q v i
A !
O � A i
!
L) 1 10 Ol It O NLn It 10P
W 1 �! P M 10O It 00 N 10
J - N 1 NNM MM 't T
J i CIC 1
O Y 1
N N N N N N N
i V 2
Al !
!
2
1 M10 P It O N Ln It It 10
t PNIn P M 10 O It 00N
N 1 O .-N N M M M It
T i N N N N N N N N N N
� M i
N 1
A i
t
1 MHO O,'r 0 N Ln 't �t
t O P N In P M 10 O.100
CIC !
Y t
1 N N N N N N N N N N
N !
� V 1
A t
A 1
1
! (D 0rLn 't
1 MHO P N In OP M 10 O It
1 O O O N N M"
CL' t _
T 1
t N N N N N N N N N N
� t
V t
i
� t
t 0 0 M 10 Ol It O t-- In
2 CD ml PNIn PM 10O
O t 0 0 0 0 N N M
1- W 2
Z N t
N t N N N N N N N N N N
f y i
Q N t
Q i
t
2 P OpCD. N M 'pT.. Up'N. pp0.. fOp�.. 00
..
wz i PPPPPPPO PO
o LU i
OC fnf 1
US LU
Y V1 t
N 1
a 1
T
M
3-15
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
L
3.7 LEVEL OF COST RECOVERY
IP
The consultant's cost of service study will calculate the maximum legal fee. The
committee and staff should consider whether the city should collect the maximum possible fee
or something less, due to potential economic effects or other community concern. Moreover,
the City could be faced with refunds at some future date if actual construction costs (which will
often not be known until some future date) would have resulted in a fee which is more than
10 percent lower than the fee charged. For that reason, cities may wish to reduce the level
of their fee as a conservative measure to avoid future refunds and the detailed record -keeping
required to process those possible refunds.
3.8 FEE OFFSET APPROACHES
The Advisory Committee and Staff need to consider how to administer an "offset"
policy. When a feepayer funds or constructs a facility which is contained in the CIP and which
is a part of the cost basis for the fee calculation, that owner may not also be required to pay
a fee for the same facility. Assuming that costs are passed along from the developer to the
builder to the owner of the property, such credits must also follow the same progression. That
is, a developer may put in various facilities but the builder may be the entity paying the fee due
to the timing of fee collection; in this instance the builder would receive the fee credit (but
presumably paid for the facility dedications in the purchase price).
As one means of crediting the developer for such contributions, the legislation allows
the Utility to enter into contracts with developers, who are compensated for their dedications
Ir through "credits" against the capital recovery fees due from their developments and through
future reimbursements from capital recovery fees paid by subsequent users of the excess
16
capacity of the dedicated facilities. Specifically, the Act states that:
... impact fees may be assessed, but shall not be collected, in areas where
services are not currently available unless ... the political subdivision agrees
that the owner of a new development may construct or finance the capital
improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or
funds advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from
the new development or agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from
impact fees paid from other new developments which will use such capital
improvements or facility expansions, which fees shall be collected and
reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its
plat.
3-17
P
Ir
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
One fairness problem which might arise would be if the facility dedicated by a
developer exceeded the capital recovery fees otherwise due from the development. In this
case, the builder or ultimate owner would receive a fee credit, but might pay, through the
purchase price, for the extra costs beyond the capital recovery fee amount. The developer
would thus receive compensation twice -- once through the purchase price and once from the
Utility through subsequent user capital recovery fee payments.
It is important to note that irrespective of the time at which the Utility typically collects
capital recovery fees, fees for subsequent users of these privately -contributed facilities must be
passed through at time of plat, whether or not the Utility actually collects the fees from these
subsequent users at that time or later. The ordinance should be carefully worded by the City
Attorney to establish a system of credits or offsets.
3-18
0
MR
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
E
4.0 EQUITY RESIDUAL APPROACH TO CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE CALCULATION
This portion of the report describes the Equity Residual approach to calculating a
capital recovery fee. This approach was devised by the Consultants to respond to community
needs and values as expressed in the Advisory Committee's goals and objectives; to provide
a sound legal basis for the fee by meeting tests of reasonableness and the requirements of
SB336; and to meet the cash flow needs of the utilities insofar as other goals and objectives
are attained and legal constraints are accommodated.
This methodology provides that each new customer contributes "equity" in the utility
systems comparable to that owned by other existing customers. Once that equity payment is
made through the capital recovery fee, each new customer would pay the remainder of his or
her capital -related cost of service through rate payments equal to the rate payments of existing
customers. This minimizes cross -subsidization (one customer group paying for the costs of
another) and provides for full cost recovery for the utilities.
This section contains a full discussion of that model for Committee and Staff
consideration.
4.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Terms which will be used throughout the conceptual presentation of this approach
are defined below:
Cost of Service (Construction) - The full off -site construction costs associated
with providing one unit of service, including costs of all facilities (treatment,
transmission, pumpage, storage, etc.) required to provide a single unit of
service. Construction costs include engineering design costs and other cost
components permitted by S6336.
Cost of Service (Bonding) - Costs incurred in the issuance of bonds, such as
ratings, fees for financial advisors, bond counsel, etc.
Cost of Service (Interest) - The interest cost applied to construction costs
and bonding costs when payments are made over time.
Cost of Service (Full) - The sum of payments made for a single unit of utility
service. This is equivalent to capital construction costs only when cash
payments are made instead of bond financing. For bonded improvements,
full cost of service includes construction, bonding and interest costs.
4-1
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
L
Customer Class - A group of customers with historically documented, common
water and/or wastewater use characteristics.
Debt Service - Regular principal and interest payments made by the City to
repay bonded costs of facilities.
E ui - Value of contributions made toward full payment of cost of service;
full cost of service minus outstanding debt service payments.
Existing Customers - All customers of the utilities prior to the adoption of a
particular capital recovery fee ordinance.
Existing Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand in existence as
of the date of the proposed capital recovery fee ordinance.
Future Customers - Customers gaining utility service after the date of capital
recovery fee ordinance adoption.
Future Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand occurring on or
after the date of capital recovery fee ordinance adoption.
Indebtedness (Debt Service Payback) - Total amount outstanding for all debt
service payments at the time a capital recovery fee ordinance is adopted.
Times Coverage - Excess revenue collections required by bond covenants to
ensure the City's ability to meet its debt service revenue requirements.
Minimum times coverage is generally 25% over the amount of debt service;
for greater security, greater times coverage is preferred.
4.2 CONCEPTUAL METHODOLOGY
Figure 4-1 presents a conceptual illustration of the Equity Residual methodology, and
will be referenced throughout this section.
4.2.1 Components of Utility Capital Cost of Service
For purposes of this conceptual discussion, costs are defined for a common
measurement of capacity and demand; that service unit of measurement is "Living Unit
Equivalent" or LUE. Each service unit has a capital cost associated with the comprehensive
group of facilities required to provide service (treatment, transmission, pumpage, storage, etc.).
This value is the Construction Cost of Service (see Figure 4-1).
4-2
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
FULL COST PAYMENT
OF SERVICE METHODS
INTEREST
COST
FUTURE
EXISTING RATE/TAX
INTEREST INDEBTEDNESS PAYMENTS
COST
BONDING COST
BONDING COST
SYSTEM PAST
EQUITY -40— RATERAX
CONSTRUCTION (Principal PAYMENTS CONSTRUCTION
plus Interest) COST
COST
EXISTING UNIT DEMAND
PAYMENT
METHODS
FUTURE
EXISTING
RATE/TAX
INDEBTEDNESS
PAYMENTS
AVOIDED
BONDING AND
INTEREST
COST
SYSTEM
�- EQUITY
PURCHASE
CAPITAL
RESIDUAL
CONSTRUCTION
RECOVERY
COST
FEE
FUTURE UNIT DEMAND
FIGURE 4-1
THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
J
LEGAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
+ Conforms to Senate Bill 336 Requirements
+ Based on Cost of Service
+ Based on Community Comprehensive Planning Documents
Oriented Toward Protection of Community Health, Safety
and Welfare
+ Equity Among Classes and Generations of Customers
+ Meets Demand Nexus and Benefit Nexus
+ No Punitive Effects
4-3
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
4.2.3 System Equity and Remaining Indebtedness for Existing LUE Demand
On the left side of Figure 4-1 is a representation of the Cost of Service for each unit
of existing demand and the method for paying those costs. Theoretically, each existing unit
of service has a full cost associated with it, consisting of construction costs, bonding costs,
and interest costs. (Prior to the adoption of capital recovery fees, construction costs were fully
bonded and thus subjected to bonding and interest costs.)
Customers in this group have, for the most part, been permitted to pay their full Cost
of Service through the rates without an upfront cash payment of costs, as shown in the
second bar for existing service demand. The second left-hand bar is divided into two
segments: system equity and remaining indebtedness. Existing customers, on the date a
capital recovery fee ordinance is adopted, will have theoretically paid some portion of their full
Cost of Service through past rate payments. Thus, they have a certain amount of "equity" in
the existing utility system. This is shown on the bottom portion of the second bar. Existing
customers also have a corresponding amount of remaining indebtedness to be paid through
future rate payments over the next 25-30 years. This is depicted on the top portion of the bar.
These two payment components -- equity and remaining indebtedness — thus describe the
Total Payment of each customer's Full Cost of Service for existing service unit demand.
4.2.4 Calculation of Cost of Service for Future Service Unit Demand
On the right side of Figure 4-1 is a depiction of the Cost of Service for future LUE
demand. The Cost of Service for future customers will be higher than that for existing
customers due to inflation and possibly due to technological and regulatory changes. If these
new facilities are bonded, they will have not only construction -related costs, but also bonding
and interest costs (similar to those for existing customers). These latter costs will also be
higher than comparable costs for existing customers because bonding and interest costs are
directly proportional to the higher new construction costs.
4.2.5 Fairness Between Customers Through the Rate Structure
A key concept in the Equity Residual methodology is that rate payments of future
customers are dedicated to .retirement of debt for facilities for future needs, while rate payments
of existing customers are used to pay for facilities for existing needs. Application of this
4-5
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
concept has two primary results:
+ Cross -subsidization between existing and future customers is minimized;
and
+ Future customers enter the utility systems on an equal basis with existing
customers.
This approach is effected by purposefully setting the total payback indebtedness of
future customers to the same amount as the total payback for existing customers. Thus, in
Figure 4-1, the remaining indebtedness for each service unit of existing demand is the same
as for each service unit of future demand. In order to accomplish this equalization, however,
future customers will have to submit a "system equity" payment to contribute their remaining
Cost of Service and to put them on a par status with existing customers (see discussion
below).
4.2.6 Equity Residual and Equity Contribution for Future LUE Demand
The second bar in the right-hand diagram of Figure 4-1 shows the payment methods
for future customers. At the top of the bar is indebtedness equal to that of existing customers.
This indebtedness includes construction and bonding costs (both principal payments) and
interest payments.
Below the indebtedness payback are shown the components of the remaining Cost
of Service, or that portion which must be paid to achieve fairness through the rate structure.
This portion of the Cost of Service has been designated "System Equity", similar to past debt
payments by existing customers. System Equity has three components, as do all Costs of
Service: construction cost, bonding cost, and interest cost. If the construction costs in the
System Equity portion of the Cost of Service were to be paid in cash, corresponding bonding
and interest costs would be avoided. The remaining construction costs, or "residual', would
be the actual payment necessary to achieve fairness — or equity -- in the utility system. This
residual cost is the amount which should be subjected to payment in a capital recovery fee.
In sum, the Equity Residual approach to funding improvements will result in a payment
for Cost of Service for future service demand which has the following characteristics:
+ A portion of the Cost of Service will be paid through the rates; the
total payback on this portion of the Cost of Service will equal that for
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
total capital indebtedness for existing customers reflected in the rate
structure;
+ New customers will contribute equity status in the utility system by
jj paying the remaining, unbonded portion of construction costs ("residual')
l through a capital recovery fee;
+ Bonding and interest costs associated with residual construction costs
will be avoided.
+ This approach will result in full cost recovery for growth from
payments made by future customers.
4.2.7 Potential Benefits of the Equity Residual Approach
As shown in Figure 4-1, the Equity Residual approach to calculating the capital
recovery fee has some benefits for all parties. Although this method does not achieve absolute
equity among customers, it is designed to minimize cross -subsidization and thereby provide
appropriate benefits to all affected parties.
4.2.7.1 Existing Customers
First of all, the Equity Residual approach benefits existing customers because they
would pay for their own costs of service and would not substantially subsidize new customers.
Therefore, future rate increases will generally reflect only renovation and operations costs and
not growth -related system expansion costs.
It is important to note, however, that a stabilization of the rates is a benefit which will
likely be achieved over several years. It is very possible that there will be near -term rate
increases because of the immediate need or timing for system expansion or due to prior
contract commitments. Moreover, the short period in which capital recovery fee revenues
have been generated may necessitate bonding while awaiting fee revenues to accumulate; i.e.,
some system improvements may be necessary before sufficient building permits can be issued
and fees collected. This is especially true because of the grandfathering provisions of S6336.
4-7
n
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
IL
4.2.7.2 Future Customers
Future customers will also be benefitted by the Equity Residual approach to fee
calculation. Although these customers will be required to make a partial cash payment for
utility service, their overall cost of service will be less than it would have been if the entire
amount had been bonded and subjected to interest costs. Thus, even though construction
costs for new facilities are higher than those for older facilities (due to inflation and other
changes), new customers will not realize that entire cost increase.
This occurs because bonding and interest costs are avoided on a portion of the
construction costs. Thus future customers would enjoy lower rates than would have otherwise
been required to pay their cost of service and would realize an overall cost savings in spite of
high construction costs.
liar It is important to note, however, that these overall cost savings are achieved by private
financing of the utility. Thus, the future customer must either have cash for fee payment or
must finance the fee, and thus incur associated interest costs through the private sector.
However, mortgage interest payments (which includes in the home cost the capital recovery
fee payments) made through the private sector are currently deductible items on federal
income tax payments. Because a portion of interest payments could be deducted on income
tax returns (while utility rate payments could not), future customers would not experience the
full effect of interest costs applied to capital recovery fee financing.
4.2.7.3 The Utility
The utility also receives benefits from the Equity Residual model. This methodology
will produce a relatively predictable source of revenues and will thus facilitate cost- and service -
effective planning by the utility. Although this model is not intended to totally avoid bonding
of facility improvements, it will reduce the need for bonding.
In addition to the economic benefits to the utility, the Equity Residual method is
designed to meet the tests of reasonableness and to operate within the defined legal
parameters of SB336. As a result, all customers would be treated on an equitable basis with
fee schedules based on cost of service. This approach, therefore, should provide the utility
with a legally defensible methodology which will protect the capital recovery fee revenue source
in the event of legal challenge. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the Equity Residual model's
responsiveness to tests of reasonableness and legal constraints.
4-8
I
H
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE 4-1
RESPONSIVENESS OF EQUITY RESIDUAL APPROACH
TO TESTS OF REASONABLENESS AND LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
EVALUATION FACTOR COMMENTS
Protection of Community Basis in cost of service and comprehensive planning
Health, Safety, and Welfare documents of the City; designated for facilities required for
the protection of community health, safety, and welfare.
Basis in Cost of Service Based on proportional cost of service calculation, with a
portion of the cost paid through the rates and the
remainder through a capital recovery fee.
Equity:
Among Classes Costs are leveled among classes due to administrative and
data limitations. However, cost leveling of this type has
long historical precedent. The only likely inter -class
inequities ar those due to administrative and technical
limitations.
Between After an initial adjustment period, the net effect would be
Generations (Existing to substantially eliminate cross -subsidization between
vs. Future customers who enter the utility system at various points in
Customers) time.
Punitive Effects No punitive effects, other than unavoidable impacts caused
by administrative limitations.
Rational Nexus:
Demand Nexus The need for facilities supported by a capital recovery fee
is documented; the fee is based on CIP and cost of
service consistent with SB336 requirements, thus the fee
is proportional to demand.
Benefit Nexus The fee is based on cost of service; thus, benefits
received are proportional to fees paid. The utilities are
established as integrated systems such that fees do not
need to be geographically dedicated in order to establish
the benefit nexus.
4-9
1
14
3
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE 4-1
(Concluded)
RESPONSIVENESS OF EQUITY RESIDUAL APPROACH
TO TESTS OF REASONABLENESS AND LEGAL CONSTRAINTS
EVALUATION FACTOR COMMENTS
Administrative Feasibility Cost of service calculation as required by SB336 is
somewhat complex; requirements of SB336 may require
detailed accounting. However, actual administration of fee
collection activities can be simple and efficient.
Potential Community
Concerns:
Growth Effects Does not require a full cash payment for growth -related
costs, but does essentially eliminate cross -subsidization.
May require public education efforts.
Rate Effects Expected to stabilize rates (related to system -expansion
debt retirement) after initial adjustment period.
Economic Impacts Economic effects are generally predictable and will change
gradually over time, provided city projections of future
growth are relatively accurate. Probability for prohibitively
high fee is reduced because a portion of costs is paid
through utility rates, and because the City may adjust its
fee downward to be competitive with nearby cities. Thus,
customers should not be particularly encouraged to seek
locations and service delivery outside the City's
jurisdictional control.
Legal Vulnerability Specifically designed to respond to external legal
constraints, both those contained in SB336 and those
implied by recent case law.
4-10
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
5.0 TECHNICAL BASIS FOR FEE CALCULATION
5.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS
SB336 requires the following in the land use and planning assumptions:
+ Definition of the service area
+ Projections in changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population
within the service area for full buildout and the next 10 years
+ Land use assumptions differentiated by at least residential, commercial
and industrial land uses
The following sections provide a discussion of these assumptions.
5.1.1 Service Area Definition
As discussed in Section 3.1.1 of this report, there is little possibility for Southlake to
expand beyond its current boundaries. Thus the service area proposed for both the water and
sewer utilities was the current corporate boundaries of the City of Southlake.
5.1.2 Land Use Assumptions
Various data was gathered and evaluated in the development of the planning and land
use assumptions that underlie the water and wastewater CIP and impact fee derivation. These
included the City of Southlake zoning plan; recent population estimates from the City, the
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and the Texas Water Development
Board (TWDB); population growth projections from NCTCOG and TWDB; and trends in utility
customers and usage volumes from the Southlake Utilities.
Table 5-1 shows the historical population trends for the City of Southlake since 1960.
Over this period of time, the rate of growth has been an approximately 6.6% compound annual
growth rate. This "trend line" is graphically presented in Figure 5-2 and is compared to actual
historical figures. As can be seen in Table 5-1, the growth rate for the 1980's exceeded this
historical average rate, even in the later 1980's when growth in the region and throughout the
State had substantially slowed.
5-1
FIGURE 5-1
MAP OF CONCEPTUAL SERVICE AREA
WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES
[Service Area Coincident with 1990 City Boundary]
CITY ,
O F _ �'
.
SOUTHLAKE --'f
SERVICE AREAS
_. _...
1v
�� ..r'...c« , - - - +�' 1. �- /-_:T1�'``_i r ate•- ✓' � 1 �-- 17
wl
-
_���' i' �1 �{7�'• r -'� �. ' - --_ _ - L.. Sri 4` � 'I * -_ - .� -w-�- q __ I_..
fT
t f/� _ ._ �� •/ � - / - '��I i _. _' - _ - - - /'[. — --fir- - 4`} 1 ... �
-
Al. � -,emu aareH •' '- . '- -- - _ ,
. •' / r CHEATHAM s g550C1A
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Figure 5-2 and Table 5-2 provide three alternative low, medium and high growth rates
(5%, 7% and 9%, respectively) based on alternative growth rates which were considered to
bound the limits of a reasonable growth assumption. The most recent population estimate was
for 1989, amounting to 6450 persons. This was adopted as the 1990 base year population
due to the relatively low level of building activity in recent months. Application of the high-
level growth rate of 9% results in a population of 15,269 by the year 2000. A lower rate of
growth is presented with the 5% growth projections, which results in a population of 10,506 for
the year 2000. The growth rate used in this study falls between these two; a 7% annual
growth rate results in a population of 12,688 projected for 2000. This projection will be used
for land use analysis, demand forecasts, CIP derivation and fee calculations.
The selected growth rate can be compared to projections by other agencies, as
shown in Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3. Projections have been performed by the Texas Water
Development Board, with high and low projections defining a range of population forecasts.
Overall, TWDB projections overestimated current population, but otherwise tend to show a
similar growth rate as that used this study (approximately 7%). NCTCOG also overestimated
current population, but anticipates a rate of growth slightly higher than that used here (8%).
As can be seen from Figure 5-3, the population projection resulting from the adopted
7% growth rate falls slightly below TWDB and NCTCOG projections due to the overestimate of
growth by these two entities in recent years. However, adustments for that error show that the
adopted 7% growth rate is very similar to these regional projections. As such the 7% growth
rate assumption for the next ten years represents a reasonable assumption for future growth.
Land use amounts and composition were derived from the ultimate land use patterns
embodied in the City's adopted zoning plan. Table 5-4 shows the acreages of various land
uses at ultimate buildout and the population holding capacity for that land use mix. It was
assumed that 95% of all new residential development will be at lot sizes of 20,000 square feet
or less, resulting in a population density of approximately five persons per acre for new
development. The holding capacity for the corporate limits was thus determined to be 52,900
under the current zoning plan.
Current land use was determined by an inventory by Cheatham and Associates. As
stated above, population growth for the year 2000 was projected at a 7% rate, resulting in a
population of 12,688. Land use was projected according to zoning plan land distributions per
100 persons of holding capacity, as shown in the footnotes to Table 5-4, applied to the new
population between 1990 and 2000, and then added to 1990 land uses.
5-3
1
i
V
N u
X O
W
H
<
H V
<
J 2
x x x x
x l
m%
1
=
ZZZZ iOi
C
ZZZZ OO
1
U O
O
y0~j a`c
H
L
K Y —
a
�
c
1
m
V �
N
�
C
V
a N
1
'
i
1
C
<
_
P —
1
v m
Y C
O
N i
H
�
n 0 n •• q
N n O P
1
N
�
O 1
W S Z
1- CC
v�
�
o o g n♦
i
:; �
a i
a
,c��
g
V
ul 1
06
p i
2 0
v
< >
< i
y
o ..
i
O
i
1
t a N
<r O
Z >
pppppp����
W
O 4 P
O
no
O O O O O O
10 In < 17 N
(spuosno4l)
Vopohdod
5-4
x x x x x
o a o 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
P P P P P
2
x x x x x i
0 0 0 0 0
n n r n n
x x x x x
0 o S o o
N N N N N
a
O P g 0 0 O
P P P
2
Ng P P 0
q N P O
,G � ♦ P N �
t
j
0
v
0 0
i vi - o
v
a
O O O O ^
P O N
a o n O a
<
N N N
Y
,
'^
1 <
TABLE 5-3
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS GROWTH PROJECTIONS
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
SOURCE
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
---------------------------------------------`-----------------------------------------
NCTCOC (a)
9,100
18,820
22,880
TWDB (LOW)
(b)
9,130
16,676
18,768
20,860
23,072
TWDB (High)
(b)
9,193
16.925
19.258
21,696
24,395
TWDB (Average)
(b)
9.162
16.801
19,013
21,278
23.734
9% Annual Rate
(c)
6,450
15,269
36,148
52.900
52,900
7% Annual Rate
(c)
6.450
12,688
24.959
49,099
52,900
5% Annual Rate
(c)
6,450
10,506
17,114
27,877
45,408
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) NCTCOC, February
1989. Dallas -Fort worth
Economic Outlook.
(b) TWDB, 1989.
Projections of Population & Municipal
water Demands.
(C) Based on
1990
population estimate
of 6,450.
60
50
40
c a
0 -0
�- a
N 30
Q. °
0 L
lZ �
20
10
0
1980
❑ NCTCOG
COMPARISON OF GROWTH PROJECTIONS
City of Southlake
1990 2000 2010 2020
FIGURE 5-3
+ TWDB 0 5% 0 7% x 9%
5-5
2030
ETABLE
5-4
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USES AND POPULATION FOR THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
-•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ULTIMATE
(d)
°
--1990-2000
LAND USE (a) -ACRE- - - - --------- -ACRE--- ----------'-
-ACRE-_ ---"------
ACRES (b) % ACRES (c)
------------------------------------ ------------ ------------------------
%
ACRES (c)
%
------------
RESIDENTIAL
------------
------------
S Ingle -Family 3,025 22.39% 3,961
29.32%
9,993
73.96%
Multi-Family/Mobile Hopes 0 0.00% 62
0.46%
465
3.44%
Subtotal Residential 3.025 22.39% 4.023
29.78%
10,457
77.40%
COMMERCIAL 475 3.52% 600
4.44%
1.404
10.39%
INDUSTRIAL 300 2.22% 362
2.68%
765
5.66%
aw
PUBLIC/QUASI-PUBLIC 420 3.11% 482
3.57%
a65
6.55%
AGRICULTURE/VACANT 9.290 68.76% 8.042
59.53%
0
0.00%
------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
TOTAL ACREAGE 13,510 100.00% 13.510
------------
100.00%
-----"'----
13,510
100.00%
POPULATION (e) 6,450 12,688
52,900
POPULATION PER ACRE 0.48 0.94
3.92
--•----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Tabulation does not Include U.S. Corps of Engineers Land. Transportation
land uses are contained in
other
ir
land uses.
(b) 1990 acreages developed by Cheatham and Associates.
(C) Acreages based on land use mixtures per 100 population growth after 1990.
added to existing
acreages:
Single -Family Residential: 15 acres/100 population
Multi-Family/Mobile Home: 1 acres/100 population
Commercial: 2 acres/100 population
industrial: I acres/100 population
Publlc/Quasi-PubliC: I acres/100 population
(d) Ultimate buildout wlthln 1990 corporate boundaries.
(e) Current population population taken from NCTCOG (1989 population adopted
for 1990):
Ultimate population represents holding capacity, based on land use assumptions In footnote (c):
Year 2000 population based on average annual growth rate assumption of
7.00% .
M.
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
5.2 UNIT USAGE STATISTICS
As shown in Table 5-8, Cheatham and Associates assumed that, due to recent
changes in the City's zoning ordinance reducing the minimum lot size, the pattern of water use
was likely to change in the future from the usage patterns of the past. Current development
in the City of Southlake uses approximately 230 gallons of water per capita daily (including
nonresidential water use). It is assumed that future development will demand 215 gallons per
capita daily (gpcd) due to the smaller lawn sizes and reduced irrigation requirements of denser
development. Moreover, it is further assumed that the peak -to -average ratio for new
development will be reduced to 2.25:1, as opposed to the current ratio of 3:1.
Sewer flow is anticipated to remain constant (since this is relatively unrelated to
residential density) at 100 gpcd.
5.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM PLAN
SB336 requires the following elements be included in the Capital Improvements Plan
(CIP) used as the basis for capital recovery fees:
+ Table of service usage for each category of capital improvements and
a conversion table of service units per acre (or other measure) of
residential, commercial and industrial land uses
+ Projections of total service units for new development, within the service
area:
- At full buildout
- Within 10 years or less
+ Description of existing capital improvements, including:
- Existing capital improvements within the service area
- Analysis of total capacity of existing improvements
- Analysis of current usage of existing improvements
- Analysis of commitments for usage of existing capacity
- Costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand or replace for existing
needs
+ Description of capital improvements needed to serve new development
within the next 10 years or less (based on adopted service area, land use
and unit usage assumptions), including:
- All or portions of the existing CIP
5-7
11
TABLE 5-5
58336 WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEE STUDY
ASSUMPTIONS USED IN FEE CALCULATION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACTOR VALUE/RATIONALE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POPULATION GROWTH Increase at an annual average rate of 7.00% over the next ten years.
LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
1990:
According to Cheatham
and Associates inventory.
Post-1990 New Development:
Acreages based on land
use mixtures per zoning map
Single -Family Residential
15 acres/100
population
Multi-Family/Mobile Home
i acres/100
population
Commercial
2 acres/100
population
Industrial
1 acres/100
population
Public/Quasi-Public
1 acres/100
population
WATER DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS:
Average demand
Pre-1990 development
230
gals/capita/daily (estimated from operating statistics)
Post-1990 development
215
gals/capita/daily (Cheatham and Associates)
Peak/Average Ratio
Pre-1990 development
3.00
1 (Cheatham and Associates)
Post-1990 development
2.25
1 (Cheatham and Associates)
Water LUE (post-1990 growth)
788
gallons/day
Supply/Treatment Facilities
Peak day
Booster Pump Facilities
406
gallons/capita (Based on Cheatham h ASSOC. Operational analysis)
Total Storage Facilities (2000)
312
gallons/capita (Based on Cheatham h Assoc. Operational analysis)
Ground Storage Facilities
189
gallons/capita (Total demand minus elevated demand)
Elevated Storage Facilities
123
gallons/capita (Key fire rate times 1.25, per Cheatham 8 ASSOC.)
WASTEWATER DEMAND ASSUMPTIONS:
Average demand 100 gals/capita/daily (Cheatham and Associates)
LUE'S per Capita 0.27 (Same as water LUE's)
Peak/Average Ratio 4.0 : 1 (Cheatham and Associates)
wastewater LUE -366 gallons/day
wastewater Treatment Facilities 100 gals/capita/daily (average demand)
FUTURE BONDING ASSUMPTIONS:
SOFT COSTS 3.00%
INTEREST RATE 7.50%
TERM 25
5-8
t
E
TABLE 5-6
LUE EQUIVALENCIES FOR
VARIOUS TYPES AND SIZES OF
WATER METERS
wk
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONTINUOUS
DITTY
RATIO
METER
METER
MAXIMUM
TO 1"
TYPE
SIZE
RATE
METER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9pm)
SIMPLE
5/8" X 3/4"
10
0.4
fib
SIMPLE
3/4'
15
0.6
SIMPLE
1"
25
1.0
SIMPLE
1-1/2'
50
2.0
SIMPLE
2"
80
3.2
COMPOUND
2"
80
3.2
TURBINE
2"
100
4.0
COMPOUND
3"
160
6.4
TURBINE
3"
240
9.6
COMPOUND
4"
250
10.0
TURBINE
4"
420
16.8
COMPOUND
6"
500
20.0
TURBINE
6"
920
36.8
COMPOUND
8"
800
32.0
TURBINE
8"
1600
64.0
COMPOUND
10"
1150
46.0
TURBINE
10"
2500
100.0
91
TURBINE
12"
3300
132.0
SOURCE: AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703
TABLE 5-7
CURRENT METER COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF LIVING UNITS EQUIVALENT
WATER UTILITY
---------------------'_-------`_--------'__---------------------------------
Number of LUES per Number of
Meter Size Meters Meter [a] LUES
------------------------------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
5/8"
0
0.400
0
3/4"
999
0.600
599
1"
958
1.000
958
1.5"
17
2.000
34
2"
24
3.200
77
3"
0
6.400
0
4"
4
10.000
40
6"
1
20.000
20
8'
1
32.000
------------
32
------------------------------------ ------------
Total
------------
2,004
1,760
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[a] Derived from AWWA C700-C703 Standards
for continuous
rated
flow performance of meters scaled to
5/8" meter.
5-9
C
at
R/MROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
All or portions of the future CIP
- Costs associated with both existing and future CIP facilities needed
for new development
In addition, the legislation provides that the CIP may include construction price, survey
and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (including "soft" costs), and the costs of consulting
work to the develop SB336 fees.
5.3.1 Conversion Table
As discussed earlier, various types of convertible unit usage statistics were used in the
technical development of the fee -- some to estimate system -wide demand and others to use
as a measurement for fee assessment to individual customers. Unit usage statistics were
converted into living units equivalent (LUE's), as discussed in Section 3.3, to provide a
common unit of measurement for all unit usage figures.
Tables 5-8 and 5-9 show LUE equivalencies for various facility types of each utility.
These equivalents were used to project system -wide demand.
A different type of measurement (also expressed in the common units of LUE's) was
determined to be more appropriate for calculating the fees due from any individual customer.
Water meter size was selected as the unit determinant for fee collection for the following
reasons:
14
+ It allows the use of an American Water Works Association (AWWA)
published standard.
+ This standard includes both safe continuous flow and safe maximum flow
which will thereby accommodate all requests for service.
+ These standards are those used by building owners, professional
engineers and architects, and City staff for sizing meters and plumbing
fixtures.
+ Meters are a physical element which can be maintained. and controlled
by the City, thus allowing the monitoring of the accuracy of meter sizing.
The City can require any necessary replacement of meters which can be
shown to have been sized too small for a development and collect
additional capital recovery fees required by the change in meters.
5-10
M
TABLE 5-8
ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WATER UTILITY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FACILITY TYPE/LAW USE----1990-
_______V----
------
--------
------------------------------------ ------------
2000
---""'---- -----""---
ULTMATE
AVERAGE DEMAND (MGD) (a)
1.484
2.825
11.470
Gallons per capita daily
230
223
217
TOTAL LUE'S (b)
1,760
3,463
14.436
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER SUPPLY/TREATMENT PEAK MGD (C):
Estimated Demand
4.451
7.468
26.921
Existing Capacity (g)
10.000
10.000
10.000
Excess/(Def iciencY)
5.550
2.532
(16.921)
----------------------------------------------------------------'_----------
BOOSTER PUMP MGD
Estimated Demand (d)
2.621
5.157
21.500
Existing Capacity (h)
6.500
6.500
6.500
____________
Excess/(Deficiency)
3.879
____________ ____________
1.343
(15.000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GROUND STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (e)
1.219
2.399
10.000
Existing Capacity (h)
2.707
1.941
--_
Excess/(Deficiency)
1.488
-'-'------- ------
(0.458)
-0.000
(10.000)
--------------------------------------------------_-------------------------
ELEVATED WATER STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (f)
0.793
1.559
6.500
Existing Capacity (h)
0.793
1.559
3.500
------------
Excess/(Deficiency)
------------ ------------
(3.000)
______________________0.000---_----0.0110
----------------------_---__-
(a) Pre-t990 demand derived from utility
---
operating statistics. 1987-1989:
Post-1990 new demand based on Cheatham and Associates projections:
Average pre-1990 demand =
230
gals/capita/daily
Average post-1990 new demand =
215
gals/capita/daily
(b) 1990 LUE'S based on count of equivalent I- meters. 2000 and
ultimate
LUE's determined by new demand per capita divided by LUE's/capita:
Post-1990 New LUE =
788
gallons/day.
(C) Peak/Average Ratio (pre-1990) •
3.00
: t
Peak/Average Ratio (post-1990) =
2.25
1
(d) Capacity Demand
406
gallons/capita.
(e) Ground Storage Demand =
199
gallons/capita.
(f) Elevated Storage Demand =
123
gallons/capita.
(g) Provided by the City of Fort Worth.
(h) Existing Capacity details are contained 1n
TABLE 5-10
Excess elevated storage is utilized
for ground storage until
needed
for elevated storage requirements.
5-11
11
E
TABLE 5-9
ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WASTEWATER UTILITY
VOLUME
FACILITY TYPE/LAND USE ---------------------------------------
1990
2000
ULTIMATE
E
------------------------------------ ------------
------------
AVERAGE FLOW (MGD) (d): 0.645
1.269
5.290
Gallons per Capita daily 100
100
100
rk
TOTAL LUE'S (b) 0
____________________________________________________________________________
3,463
14,436
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AVE. AGO:
Estimated Demand
0.000
1.269 5.290
Existing Capacity (c)
0,000
0.000 0.000
Excess/(Def ltlency)
____________
________________________
______________________ ----------------------0.000_______(1.269)_____-(5.290)
(a) Average flow
= 10o
-__
gallons/capita/daily
(Cheatham and Associates)
(b) 2000 and ultimate wastewater
LUE's/capita same as water LUE's.
(c) Existing Capacity details are
contained in
TABLE 5-11
5-12
R/MROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
PV_n
+ Particularly in the larger meter sizes, the builder may have to pay for
more capacity than needed for the development, thus resulting in a
potential payment above actual costs. However, these large -meter
customers will be able to use that excess capacity if later building
expansions occur or if use patterns change. Moreover, the capacity
purchased would be a marketable amenity which would add value to the
property.
+ The use of water meter size allows equitable cost assignment to each of
the three customer classes identified in SB336 (residential, commercial
and industrial).
Since water meter size is the basis for calculation of both water and wastewater fees,
the base fee should be applied to the smallest meter size used by the City. The following
policies were suggested by the Consultants:
The standard used for the ratio of the continuous duty maximum flow rate
would be derived from AWWA C700-C703 (in gpm).
The City's smallest water meter would be the base unit for capital recovery
fee assessment.
The ratio of each larger meter's continuous duty maximum flow rate to the
rate of the base meter would determine the fee multiplier and the scale for
other calculations relating to this fee.
The Capital Recovery Fee Ordinance should have the schedule published as
shown in Table 5-6, which includes both compound and turbine meters.
The use of a turbine meter, in connection with displacement meters in a
compound meter installation, would require the use of the turbine meter
schedule.
The capital recovery fee assessment should be adjusted when the City
determines that unique water pressure conditions of the system result in a
meter size which is not indicative of actual flow (as when pressure is
unusually low or high). In this instance, the ordinance should provide for
individual review.
Responsive to these recommendations, Table 5-6 shows a conversion table for various
types and sizes of water meters. Because the fee calculation was based on water meter size,
the LUE/meter conversion table applies equally to all land uses. Table 5-7 shows how this
5-13
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
table may be applied to Southlake's water utility to determine the current number of LUE's
using the system. As can be seen in the table, there are 2,004 active water meters of various
sizes, which yield 1,760 LUE's (with one LUE equal to the potential flow through a one -inch
meter). As can be seen in Table 5-7, the City has both 3/4" and 1" residential meters. The
one -inch meter size was selected as the base size because the current City standard is a
minimum one -inch meter for a typical residence.
Typically, some concern is expressed that water meters are not always a reasonable
means of calculating wastewater flows, particularly for certain consumptive types of commercial
uses (car washes, restaurants) or industrial processes. Additionally, any land use might have
a large meter for irrigation purposes, thus overrepresenting its wastewater flows. However,
experience has indicated that few such customers choose to have a separate wastewater meter
because of the installation and maintenance expense incurred. Because no alternative means
for assessing flow is technically feasible, the consultants recommended that the water meter
also be adopted as the basis for wastewater capital recovery fees.
However, given the potential that some consumptive commercial and industrial
customers may be considerably overcharged for sewer capacity demand when water meter
size is used for calculating wastewater capital recovery fees, the Consultants also
recommended that the ordinance provide for exceptions. Specifically, the ordinance should
permit individual wastewater customers to present data, prepared by a professional engineer,
documenting expected wastewater flow below that indicated by meter -size determinations for
a lower sewer fee.
5.3.2 Projected Service Units for New Development
The estimated demand per capita was applied to projected populations shown in
Table 5-4 to yield the estimated water and wastewater service demands shown in Tables 5-8
and 5-9, expressed in LUE's. As required by the legislation, projections are shown for both
2000 and ultimate buildout.
5.3.3 CIP Development for Existing and Future Needs
Several steps were necessary in order to perform the required inventory of existing
facilities (provided by Cheatham and Associates); develop the 10-year and ultimate CIP (Staff
5-14
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
and Cheatham and Associates); and allocate the capacity and associated costs to the
appropriate customer groups (performed by Rimrock Consulting Company).
First, as discussed above, projected service demands for each utility were expressed
in LUE's. A post-1990 water LUE was determined to be equivalent to 843 gpd, calculated by
determining the current number of LUE's/capita and multiplying that result times the unit usage
statistic of 215 gpcd. Wastewater LUE's were assumed to be the same as water LUE's since
the service area of both utilities is identical and the plan assumes that all water customers will
ultimately be served with wastewater treatment. Thus, new wastewater LUE's are determined
to be 366 gallons/LUE. Using these standards, Tables 5-8 and 5-9 show projected service
demand expressed in LUE's.
These demands were then used to project facility needs for both existing and future
customers. Table 5-5 contains the design assumptions which were used to project needs for
each facility type for each utility (as well as other assumptions). Table 5-8 shows current
needs and deficiencies (for existing customers), if any, and projected capacity needs for future
growth. As indicated in Table 5-9, there are no current wastewater utility customers, and thus
no sewer system deficiencies.
Tables 5-10 and 5-11 then perform the required allocation of existing and future CIP
facility needs for existing development; future development within the next ten years; and
excess capacity for subsequent future development. For each generation of utility customers,
these tables show facility needs which will be met by Existing Facilities and Future Facilities.
Cost allocations are also shown in Tables 5-10 and 5-11. Cost estimates for each
facility were developed by Cheatham and Associates). Costs were expressed on a per-LUE
basis. Finally, an appropriate cost share was attributed to 1990-2000 growth, as determined
from capacity allocations shown. Total capital costs for 1990-2000 growth were then summed
for each utility.
5-15
0
TABLE 5-10
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FACILITY
CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
1990-
1990-
`
FACILITY
2000
2000
_____________________________ CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
_____________________________________________ _____________
COST
TOTAL
_____________
CURRENT USE
_____________ _____________
< 10 YEARS
_____________
> 10 YEARS
_____________
COST TOTAL
_____________
PER LUE
SUPPLYANDTREATMENT
_ -
EXISTING AND FUTURE FACILITIES
To be supplied by the City of Fort Worth:
n
Fort Worth Impact fees will be passed
through to Southlake feepayers.
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
10.000
4.451
3.018
2.532
(C)
(C)
tom!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUMP 1 NG
_______
MGD
EXISTING FACILITIES
Pump Station at North Beach
$132,243
6.500
2.621
2.535
1.343
$51,562
Telemetry System (NO Additional Cap.)
$132,629
6.500
2.621
_____________ _____________
2.535
_____________
1.343
_____________
$51,582
_______________________________________ _____________
Subtotal EXlsting Facilities
5264,872
(a)
_____________
6.500
(a)
2.621
2.535
1.343
5103,164
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Pumping Station
$383,670
7.500
0.000
0.000
7,500
SO
Future Pumping Station
$383.670
--_0.000 -
-_7.500
SO
------ _------- _------- _______________ _____________
Subtotal future Facilities
$767.340
- .--7.500
15.000
____
_ --- _-0.000 -
0.000
0.000
15.000
SO
:::sass.::(:'
_s:ssss.:s(s'
s ss:ssssssssss
sssssssssss:s
sssss:s:ssss:
ssssssss:ssss
TOTAL WATER PUw1PAGE
51,032.212
21.500
2.621
2.535
16.343
5103,
164
560.60
(b)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"'--_
t
E
5-16
TABLE 5-10 (continued)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AID COSTING
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY
CAPACITY
(mgd or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY
________________________________________________________
2000
2000
______________________________________________
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
_____________________________________________
COST
_____________
TOTAL CURRENT USE
_____________ _____________
< 10 YEARS
_____________ _____________
> 10 YEARS
_____________
COST TOTAL
_____________
PER LUE
GROUND STORAGE
--------------
MG
EXISTING FACILITIES
______________
Elevated storage substitutes for
ground storage (see below).
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$O
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
s0
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Gr 0und Storage Tank
$963,796
5.000
1.219
1.179
2.601
$227.307
Future Ground Storage Tank
$963,796
5.000
_____________
0.000
0.000
_____________ _____________
5.000
_____________
$O
_______________________________________
Subtotal Future Facilities
_____________
$1,927.592
_____________
10.000
1.219
1.179
7.601
$227,307
(a)
(a)
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE
$1 927
592
10.000
1.219
1.179
7.601
$227.307
$133.52
(b----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVATED________________----_'-____________________--_____--'____________-------__----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVATED STORAGE
ELEVATED-
EXISTING FACILITIES
Bicentennial Park Elevated Tank
$862.955
1.500
0.340
0.328
0.832
$188.987
IBM Elevated Tank
5843.267
1.500
0.340
0.329
0.832
3184.675
Existing Relocated Tank
$560.000
0.500
0.113
0.109
0.277
$122.640
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$2,266.222
3,500
0.793
0.766
1.941
5496.302
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
Future Elevated Tank
$1.065.564
1.500
0.000
0.000
1.500
SO
Future Elevated Tank
$1,065,564
1.500
0.000
0.000
_____________
1.500
_____________
s0
_____________________________________________________
Subtotal Future Facilities
$2.131.128
_____________ _____________
3.000
0.000
_____________
0.000
3.000
s0
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE
S1,J97,350
6.500
0.793
0.766
4.911
5496.J02
5291.53
'___-_'____-'____'-____'-'__'_'-'_'--'-'-'--______"___________________ """"
-'___'--'__---'-'_"__-_-"""
""
""""""
"
""
""
(b)
5-17
TABLE 5-10 (Concluded)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY
(mgd or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY--------------------------------------------------------
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
---------------------------------------------
COST
-------------
TOTAL
-------------
CURRENT USE
--------------------------
< 10 YEARS
-------------
> 10 YEARS
-------------
COST TOTAL
-------------
PER LUE
TRANSMISSION
------------
LUE's
EXISTING FACILITIES (Supply Lines)
20" Water Line/FM1709
$988,371
4,364
1,760
1,702
902
$346.512
30- h 36" Water Lines (Supply Lines)
---------902
-
$136.923
_--
Subtotal EXisting Supply Lines
-_---$351.037
$1.239,408
-------4.364
4,364
-------1.760
1,760
-------1.702
1,702
902
5483.435
(a)
(a)
EXISTING FACILITIES (Transmission Lines)
20" White Chapel Water Line
5440.706
18" IBM Line
$157.140
Var ioUS 8". 12". 18" Mains
42J.350
Subtotal EXisting Transmission Lines
---52.
$3.021,196
-
1,760
1.760
0
0
SO
FUTURE FACILITIES (Transmission Lines)
various 8"-36" Lines (LOW Plane)
59,552.084
various 6"-12" Lines (High Plane)
$743,573
Subtotal Future Facilities
$10.295.657
12.676
0
1.702
12.676
$1.382,683
(a)
(a)
TOTAL TRANSMISSION
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________"'------------"'---"-
s ;14 556
261
51,866.117
$1.096.18
WATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL
$1.582
----------------------------' --------------------321.913.41!________-__"-__--_----_"__-_--___-______-___-_-_--_______-_-52.692.891
(a) Source: Cheatham and Associates. 1990.
------
"_----_-
-
(b) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion factors
Pumpage:
1,439
gals daily
Ground Storage:
693
gals
Elevated Storage:
450
gals
(c) Fees to be passed through from the City of
Fort Worth.
5-18
L
TABLE 5-I1
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
---------- _____________________________________
1990-
2000
1990-
2000
______________________________________________
CONSTRUCTION
IN
EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
COST
TOTAL
CURRENT USE
__________________________
< 10 YEARS
_____________
> 10 YEARS
_____________
COST TOTAL
_____________
PER LUE
_____________________________________________
TREATMENT
_____________
_____________
--------'
AVE *GD
EXISTING FACILITIES
--- ---
TRA Central Regional Treatment
TRA Denton Creek Regional Treatment
S745.902
3609,700
0.321
Subtotal EXiSting Facilities
S1,355.602
------0.079
0.400
0.000
0.400
0.000
$1,355.602
(a)
(a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
TRA Denton Creek Regional Treatment
$1.737.433
0,869
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________________________________
Subtotal Future Facilities
_____________
51,737,433
(e)
_____________
0.869
_____________
0.000
0.869
0.000
$1.737,433
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
$3,093,035
1.269
0,000
1.269
0.000
$3,093.035
$893.27
-----"'--------------------"""----""""'---""------"""'
------""------_
_ _ _ _ _-------_
_ _ _ -------------
- -----
PLIMP I NG
-
FUTURE FACILITIES
Localized lift stations (d)
---------------------------------------
subtotal Future Facilities
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
_ --- ______...
__________:__
______-___:__ :_____.::__:_
_____._
...... __=
........
=_ _-.=
__
.........
TOTAL WASTEWATER PUgPAGE
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
(d)
-----------------------""----------------""'---------"'------""-------------------------"""-----"'-"'------_
_--------_
_--------------
5-19
L4
K
E
t
L
L
TABLE 5-I1 (Concluded)
ASSOCIATED CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd Or gals)
1990-
1990-
FACILITY
--------------------------------------------------------
2000
2000
----------------------------------------------
CONSTRUCTION IN EXCESS
EXCESS
CAPITAL
COST
TYPE NAME
---------------------------------------------
COST
-------------
TOTAL CURRENT USE < 10 YEARS
-------------------------- --------------------------
> 10 YEARS
-------------
COST TOTAL
-------------
PER LUE
COLLECTION
----------
LUE's
FUTURE FACILITIES
--------------
TRA Big Bear Creek Interceptor (a)
54,289.100
TRA Denton Creek Interceptor (a)
$6.613,018
N-1 Mains
$2,119,411
N-2 Mains
$158,543
N-3 Mains
51.736,763
N-4 Mains
$735,529
N-5 Mains
$415.699
N-6 Mains
$781.205
S-1 Mains
$309.143
5-2 Mains
$1.038,111
S-3 Mains
$355.629
5-4 Mains
$1,245.188
S-5 Mains
$312,489
S-6 Mains
31.511,902
S-7 Mains
$933.104
--------------------------
-------------
Subtotal future Facilities
-------------
$22.554.834
--------------------------
14,436 0 3,463
10.974
$5,409,803
(b) (b)
TOTAL COLLECTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$22.554.834
14.436 0 3,463
10,974
$5,409.803
$1,562
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL
$25.647,869
$8,502.838
$2,456
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d)
(a) Source: Hunter, Trinity River Authority.
1990.
(b) Source: Cheatham and Associates, 1990.
(c) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion
factors
Treatment:
366 gals daily
(d) Feepayers requiring construction of localized
lift
stations will be assessed the costs of their prorata
share of
the facilities.
(e) Assumes plant expansion at an estimated cost of $2.00
per gallon of additional capacity.
5-20
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
6.0 FEE CALCULATION
The Equity Residual Model described in Section 4.0 was used in fee calculation for the
water utility, which has current customers with current capital debt. The model was not used
for the sewer utility, which will be a new utility.
6.1 CALCULATION OF CREDITS FOR FUTURE RATE PAYMENTS
As noted in earlier discussion, SB336 states that the maximum fee amount may not
exceed the full capital cost per unit. However, the legislation also states that customers may
not be charged a fee for facilities which they have already constructed or dedicated; this may
be interpreted to include dedication through rate contributions. Moreover, there is a body of
case law and legal opinion that future rate contributions must be considered in setting the fee
amount. Thus, Table 6-1 contains calculations of rate credits for the water utility which has
existing customers and existing debt. These computations attribute a portion of existing debt
to current customers according to the capacity needed by these customers. The remainder
of existing debt responsibility is assigned to future customers. In addition, some amount of
future bonding requirements (for future ground storage facilities, as shown in Table 5-10) are
shown for existing customers, to be shared with future customers.
Table 6-1 shows the dollar amount of debt service payback proportionately attributed
to each LUE of existing service. This same amount of debt service payback is allotted to each
future customer and is converted to a capital [principal] credit against the full capital cost.
6.2 FEE CALCULATION
Table 6-2 shows the remainder of the fee calculation process and relates the numerical
results to the Equity Residual Model. Figure 6-1 also shows the results according to the Equity
Residual Approach for water. Referring to the table, construction [capital] costs for water
service for future customers amount to $1,595 (Column 1). If these costs were to be bonded,
bonding soft costs are estimated to be approximately $48 (Column 2) while interest payments
over the life of the bonds would be $2,041 (Column 3). Thus, the total bonded costs for future
' service would sum to $3,684 (Column 4).
In contrast, each existing LUE of service is responsible for $1,293 in total water bond
payback (Column 5). This represents the outstanding capital costs of existing customers which
6-1
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
they will pay through their rates. Thus, in order to establish future customers on an equity
basis with existing customers, $1,293 is subtracted from the total payback for future customers,
leaving a remainder of $2,391 (Column 6). Because the intent of the capital recovery fee is to
avoid bonding, this balance must subtract the assumed bonding and interest payment of
$1,356 (Column 7) to leave solely the principal capital amount (Column 8). Thus the resulting
maximum fee is $1,035.
Similar calculations were not performed for the wastewater utility since it is a new
utility. The Advisory Committee considered a wide range of legal and economic factors in
recommending a fee amount. Among these considerations were: the interaction of utility rates
and fee payments; "carrying costs" associated with financing improvements for the benefit of
future customers; differential contributions of inside -City and outside -City customers; effects of
inflation on the value of the fee over time; and depreciation of the value of capital
improvements over time.
WE
A
TABLE 6-1
CATEGORIZATION Of EXISTING DEBT
WATER UTILITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOND ISSUE FACILITY CAPACITY EXISTING
FACILITY _____________________________________ DEBT PAYBACK
ISSUANCE ISSUANCE REMAINING FOR EXISTING PER CURRENT
TYPE NAME DATE AMOUNT PAYBACK TOTAL CUSTOMERS LUE
______ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mm
PU11P I NIS _--
Pump Station at North Beach 1984 $132.243 $207,597 6.500 2.621 $48
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal 3132,243 $207,597 6.500 2.621 S48
MG
GROUND STORAGE
Future Ground Storage Tank Prospective 5963,796 $2,161,569 5.000 1.219 $299
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal $963.796 $2,161.569 5.000 1.219 5299
MG
ELEVATED STORAGE
Bicentennial Park Tank
1985
5758.654
$1.158.144
1.500
0.340
$149
IBM Elevated Tank
1985
5741,346
51,131.722
1.500
0.340
5146
----------------"'----------- ---""--------------"'------------------------------"""'----------""---
Subtotal
51,500.000
$2.289,866
3.000
0.679
5295
LUE'S
TRANSMISSION
Misc. Line Improvements
1984
$367.757
$577,310
4,364
1,760
$132
MISC. Line Improvements
1985
$1,075,000
51,641,071
4,364
1.760
$376
MISC. Line Improvements
1987
$217,000
$251.238
1.760
1,760
$1,43
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Subtotal
$1.659.757
52.469.619
$651
zzz.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz::zzzzzz_zz____s__zz_____:z____z_azz___zz::z___z_
WATER OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
$4.255.796
57,128.651
$1,293
M
N
TABLE 6-2
DERIVATION OF MAXIMUM WATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES
THROUGH THE EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
FUTURE CUSTOMER TOTAL COST OF CAPITAL PER LUE LESS LESS EQUALS
--------------------------------------------------- EXISTING EQUALS AVOIDED MAXIMUM
PLUS PLUS EQUALS DEBT SERVICE ELIGIBLE BONDING 6 CAPITAL
BOLDING BONDING DEBT SERVICE PAYBACK IN RECOVERY INTEREST RECOVERY
CONSTRUCTION SOFT INTEREST PAYBACK RATES PER COSTS PER COSTS PER FEE PER
ITEM COSTS COSTS (a] COSTS (b] COSTS LUE [a] LUE LUE (C) LUE
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------------------ ------------ ------------
WATER UTILITY
-------------
Pumping
$61
$2
$78
$140
$48
S92
$52
S40
Ground Storage
$134
$4
$171
$308
$299
$9
$5
S4
Elevated Storage
$292
$9
5373
5673
5295
$379
$215
$164
Transmission
51,096
S33
$1,403
$2,532
$651
$1.881
$1,067
5814
CIP/Fee Study Costs
$13
SO
S16
$30
------------
SO
------------
$30
S17
------------ ------------
S13
-----------------------------------
Total Water
------------
51.595
------------ ------------
$48
$2.041
------------
$3,684
$1,293
52,391
$1.356
51,035
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[a] Assume misc bonding cost of
3.0%
over construction
costs.
[b] Assume financing parameter:
7.5%
% interest 6
25
years.
[Cl Assume financing parameter:
7.5%
% interest k
25
years 6 bonding
costs of
3.0%
over construction
costs.
6-4
R
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
FULL COST PAYMENT
OF SERVICE METHODS
INTEREST
COST
EXISTING
INDEBTEDNESS ._ FUTURE
RATE/TAX 52041
INTEREST $1293 PAYMENTS
COST
$4s > BONDING COST
BONDING COST
SYSTEM
AST
EQUITY RATE/TAX CONSTRUCTION
(Principal PAYMENTS COST
CONSTRUCTION plus Interesq
COST $1595
EXISTING UNfr DEMAND
PAYMENT
METHODS
FUTURE
EXISTING
INDEBTEDNESS
PAYMENTS
$1293
AVOIDED
BONDING AND
INTEREST
COST
$1356
SYSTEM
�—
EQUITY
PURCHASE
RESIDUAL
CONSTRUCTION
APITAL
RECOVERY
FEE
$1035
FUTURE UNIT DEMAND
Plus Associated
Less
Less
Equals
Growth -related
Bonding and
Existing
Avoided
Residual Cost
Construction
Interest
Indebtedness
Bonding &
(Max. Fee)
Facility Item
Unit Cost
Costs
Cost
Interest Costs
Per LUE
Water Pumping
$ 61
$ 80
$ 48
$ 52
$ 40
Ground Storage
$ 134
$ 175
$ 299
$ 5
$ 4
Elevated Storage
$ 292
$ 382
$ 295
$ 215
$ 164
Transmission
$1,096
$1,436
$ 651
$1,067
$ 814
CIP/Study Costs
$ 13
$ 16
$ 0
$ 17
$ 13
Water Total $1,595 $2,089 $1,293 $1,356 $ 1,035
FIGURE 6-1
EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL COST AND FEE CALCULATIONS
WATER UTILITY
6-5
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS
This report represents the technical compliance activities of the City of Southlake
responsive to Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, and to its amendments. In addition
to the adoption of the fees calculated herein, the Consultants recommended:
(1) Consideration of a fee escalator, based on the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index, on an annual basis, to ensure that the fee assessed in
any given year represents the true value of the fee and recovers full calculated
cost value.
(2) Consideration of collection of the fee in nominal dollars, for the same reasons.
(3) Use of fee revenues to avoid future bonding, whenever possible.
(4) As a second-best option, fee proceeds should be used for early retirement of the
growth -related portion of existing bonds for growth -related capacity in the CIP.
(5) Only when (3) or (4) are infeasible should fee proceeds be used for debt service
for future customers.
(6) The Consultants recommend that the City maintain separate dedicated accounts
for water and sewer fee revenues, respectively, and retain accrued interest in
each account, as stipulated in S6336.
The Consultants also recommend that the Utilities' records include the following
information for each capital recovery fee payment made:
(a) Date of final plat (i.e., date of fee assessment)
(b) Ordinance number by which property is assessed a capital recovery fee
(c) Date of tap purchase
(d) Size of water meter
(e) Number of LUE's for which a capital recovery fee is assessed
(f) Amount of capital recovery fees paid
(g) Date of payment of capital recovery fees
(h) Special conditions or exceptions, if any
(i) Sufficient locational information, consistent with city or county deed records, to
enable the Utilities to establish ownership of property
7-1
Im
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Throughout the study, the Advisory Committee recommended or approved several
policy -related decisions, in addition to support for the overall technical study. In summary,
those policy decisions included:
1. The Committee recommended including in the fee calculations all major off -site
facilities needed to provide water and wastewater service throughout the service
area. Included as a part of these costs were the prorata costs for individual lift
stations and offsite approach mains not specifically included in the CIP, the
location and costs of which will not be known until a new development is
submitted for approval.
However, they also recommended that the maximum fee for wastewater exclude
the costs of wastewater treatment. The costs of that treatment are not precisely
known; moreover, feepayers will pay for those costs through their wastewater
rates from the Trinity River Authority. On the other hand, it was recommended
that impact fees imposed by the City of Fort Worth for water supply and treatment
facilities be passed along to Southlake feepayers.
2. The city limits of the City of Southlake was recommended for the water and
wastewater service areas.
3. The Committee and Staff recommended that fees be charged on a pooled cost
basis rather than disaggregated to smaller geographic areas.
4. It was recommended that the City use the "living unit equivalent', or LUE, as the
basis for charging water and sewer impact fees, and that the number of LUE's
for a new development be based on the size of the water meter.
5. The Committee recommended that, in the event an applicant for service feels
that the water meter is not indicative of demand from that particular development,
the applicant's engineer may submit a report to the City Public Works Director
justifying a request for a reduced capital recovery fee consistent with expected
service demand. (This is intended particularly to respond to consumptive water
users for whom the water meter size is a poor indicator of wastewater service
needs.) The Director would then make a recommendation to the City Council,
which would decide whether to grant a reduced fee amount as an exception.
6. The Committee and Staff discussed the advisability of including an inflation -based
fee escalator to maintain the value of the capital recovery fees collected, relative
to the value of the fees at assessment, or relative to the value of the fees at the
date of ordinance adoption. The Committee recommended that no such escalator
be included, but rather that the fee be updated from time to time through the
mandated monitoring and update procedures.
7-2
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
MW
7. The Committee recommended that all properties platted prior to the enactment
of the new capital recovery fee ordinance, and all new development which will
occur without platting be assessed a fee at the time of tap purchase. Fees for
these new developments will also be collected at time of tap purchase.
8. All properties platted after the date of the new ordinance (the vast majority of
future fee payers) will automatically be assessed at the time of plat recordation.
The Committee recommended collection of fees from these new developments
at time of building permit. It also recommended that the City could enter into
contracts, at its sole discretion, to establish a different, mutually agreeable date
for collection.
9. Regarding the amount of fees assessed, the Committee recommended that the
maximum amount of assessable fees be stated in the ordinance as $1035 for
water and $1562. (lines only) for sewer and that the City Council be provided the
flexibility to set the fees at the maximum or at any lesser amount. However, the
Committee also recommended that the Council initially collect fees of $500 per
LUE for water and $1000 per LUE for sewer. Moreover, they recommended that
the Council review the amount of the water fee after the amount of the pass -
through Fort Worth fee is known (and possibly lower the water fee at that time).
10. It was recommended that a capital recovery fee for fire flow capacity not be
collected.
11. The Committee and Staff recommended that the ordinance allow the City to enter
into contracts with feepayers to construct or finance portions of the utility and be
reimbursed with capital recovery fee funds. It was moreover recommended by
the Committee that credits or offsets not be used to reimburse a feepayer for
constructing or financing CIP projects, but rather that fees be collected from all
appropriate feepayers and the proceeds be used to reimburse developers for
prorata commitments.
12. It was recommended that all appeals be directed first to the Public Works
Director, and, if the appellant is not satisfied with the Director's decision,
subsequently to the City Council.
7-3
I
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
8.0 APPENDICES
0
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Mr
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Bagwell, Tony, and Mickey Fishbeck. 1986. Development of Water and Wastewater
Capital Recovery Fees and Review of Water and Wastewater CIP and Utilities Rates Structures
for the City of Cedar Hill, Texas. Austin, Texas: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Connors, Donald L., and Carolyn R. Meacham. 1985. Financing of Development -
Generated Capital Facilities. Boston, Massachusetts: Choate, Hall & Stewart.
Dowsett, Michael G., Terry D. Morgan and John W. Shonkwiler. Exactions: The
Providing of Public Improvements.
Duncan, James B., and Norman R. Standefer. 1985. Impact Fees: The Changing
Direction of Growth Management.
Fishbeck, Mickey, and Tony Bagwell. 1984. Conceptual Presentation of the EgWN
Residual Methodology for Calculating a Capital Recovery Fee for Austin Texas. Austin, Texas:
Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Fishbeck, Mickey and Tony Bagwell. 1987. Development of Red Oak Creek Regional
Wastewater System Fee Study. Austin, Texas: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Fishbeck, Mickey, Tony Bagwell and Tom Van Zandt. 1984. Preliminary Investigation
of the Legal Context for Development of a Capital Recovery Fee for Austin, Texas. Austin,
Texas: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Fishbeck, Mickey, and Tony Bagwell. 1984. Report of the Ad Hoc Capital Reocvery
Fee Task Force for Austin. Texas. Austin, Texas: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Fishbeck, Mickey. 1988. Water and Wastewater Capital Recovery Fee Study, City of
Tomball Texas: Examination of Legal Context Technical Aspects and the Eguity Residual
Approach. Austin, Texas: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
Frank, James E., and Robert M. Rhodes. 1987. Development Exactions. Washington,
D.C.: American Planning Association.
AF-3
A-1
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Freilich, Leitner, Carlisle & Shortlidge. 1988. Report to the Mayor and City Council
of the City of Arlington Texas on Financing Public Facilities Through Impact Fees. Kansas
City, Missouri.
Freilich, Robert H. 1985. "Subdivision Controls, Exactions and Other Development
Management Techniques". Paper presented at Fifth Annual Zoning Institute.
Hagman, D. G. 1982. "Landowner -Developer Provision of Commercial Goods Through
Benefit -Based and Harm Avoidance Payments (BHAPS)". Zoning and Planning Law Report, Vol.
5, No. 4.
Juergensmeyer, Julian C. 1985. "Funding Infrastructure: Paying the Costs of Growth
Through Impact Fees and Other Lnad Regulation Charges". Paper presented at American
Planning Association Annual Conference. Montreal, Canada.
Kaiser, Ronald A., and James D. Mertes. 1986. Acguiring Parks and Recreation
Facilities Through Mandatory Dedication: A Comprehensive Guide. State College,
Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Morgan, Terry D., Eric J. Strauss, and Martin L. Leitner. 1988. "State Impact Fee
Legislation", Land Use Law & Zoning Digest, 40, 1: 3-9.
Nelson, Arthur C. (Ed.) 1988. Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice,
Theory, and Issues. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association.
Nicholas, James C. 1985. "Florida's Experience with Impact Fees". Paper presented
at American Planning Association Annual Conference. Montreal, Canada.
Richards, Steven L., and Dwight H. Merriam. 1984. "Land Dedications, In Lieu of
Fees and Impact Fees: When Are They Legal?", in Land Use Law: Issues for the Eighties,
Part II (Netter, Edith M., Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Planning Association.
Snyder, Thomas P., and Michael A. Stegman. 1986. Paying for Growth: Using
Development Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Vinson & Elkins. 1987. "Summary of Land Use, Special District, Water Quality and
Texas Economic Development Laws Adopted by the 70th Texas Legislature, and Related
A-2
0
RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY CHEATHAM AND ASSOCIATES
Matters". Austin, Texas: Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc.
A-3
0
C
L
APPENDIX B
SB336 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
n
PROPOSED PROCEDURAL RULES TO BE ENACTED BY THE
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE
FOR THE COMPOSITION AND CONDUCT OF THE
SB336 (IMPACT FEES) ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The governing body of the City of Southlake hereby enacts the following procedural
rules for the appointment and conduct of the required Advisory Committee ("Committee") for
guiding the utility impact fee development mandated by Texas Senate Bill 336 (SB336), 70th
Legislature and as amended by Texas House Bill 1786, 71 st Legislature.
1.0 Advisory Committee Size and Composition
The City Council of the City of Southlake shall appoint by a majority vote a Committee
to act in an advisory capacity to the Council in the development of water and wastewater
impact fees according to the required SB336 process. The appointed Committee shall be
comprised of:
(a). an ad hoc committee of at least five persons, 40% (2 members) of whom
represent real estate interests (ex., developers, builders, real estate
brokers, engineers, title company personnel, etc.). These real estate
representatives shall not be employees of the City;
or
the City Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission with at least one real
estate -type representative present; if none exists on the P&Z, one outside
real estate person can be appointed to the Committee.
(b). If fees will be assessed in the ETJ during the 10-year planning horizon,
at least one Committee member must live in the ETJ. Multiple roles can
be met by one person. For instance, the representative from the ETJ can
also be a real estate person.
(c). Should any appointed member resign from the Committee, the City
Council of Southlake shall take prompt action to appoint a new member
to fill the vacancy. Should any appointed Advisory Committee miss two
or more consecutive meetings, the City Council may, at its sole decretion,
appoint a new Committee representative to replace the absent member.
In any case, newly appointed Committee members will meet the
committee composition requirements of S13336.
B-1
1j,
2.0 Functions of the Advisory Committee
The functions of the Committee are those set forth in Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Article 1269j-
4.11, or any successor statute, and shall include the following:
(a). Advise and assist the City in adopting land use assumptions;
(b). Review the capital improvements plan regarding water and wastewater
capital improvements and file written comments thereon;
(c). Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements
program;
JU (d). Advise the City of the need to update or revise the land use
Ih assumptions, capital improvements program and capital recovery fees;
and
(e). File a semiannual report evaluating the progress of the City in achieving
the capital improvements plans and identifying any problems in
implementing the plans or administering the capital recovery fees.
3.0 Conduct of Advisory Committee
The City Council hereby directs the Advisory Committee to:
(a). Meet to conduct Committee business only when a quorum of 40% or
more of the appointed Committee is present at the scheduled meeting;
(b). Designate by majority vote of the Committee a Chairperson to direct the
Committee activities, schedule meetings and conduct other such
activities as commonly proscribed in Robert's Rules of Order;
(c). Develop recommendations for referral to the City Council by a majority
vote of those Committee members present for voting;
(d). Meet at sufficiently frequent intervals to accomplish the functions outlined
in Section 2.0 above; and
(e). Provide a Committee report to the City Council on recommendations for
E
the initial development of SB336 water and wastewater impact fees for
the City of Southlake as soon as possible but no later than [date], 1990
to allow the City sufficient time to review the Committee report and
consider full ordinance -making action by [date], 1990.
B-2
li
1
4.0 Responsibilities of the City Government
The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee any professional reports
prepared in the development or implementation of land use plans, capital improvements plans,
or utility financial reports relevant to the development of impact fees under the SB336 process.
B-3
[9
i
APPENDIX C
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
1.1
L
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEES
PREPARED BY CHEATHAM & ASSOCIATES
APRIL, 1990
C
INTRODUCTION
The City of Southlake is considering adopting and assessing Impact Fees to defray costs of
providing water facilities to new development. As a part of that process, a Water System
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is required. The CIP will list all of the projects that can be
identified at this time needed to serve Southlake's ultimate population with potable water.
This document will categorize projects in two general groups. The first is the listing of existing
projects that currently serve the existing population. This is required for the accounting
process used to develop the fees. Some of those facilities have excess capacity with regard
to the existing population served. New development cannot be charged for facility capacity
serving existing development.
A second grouping is projects that will be required to serve the ultimate design population.
C
H
WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
A water system master plan must be developed in order to list projects needed to fill-in the
water system CIP. There is an accompanying map which graphically describes the water
system plan that has been developed.
The master plan is based on several assumptions. The master plan is designed to
accommodate a projected ultimate population. That population is based on North Central
Texas Council of Governments current population projections. That population is projected to
reside within the land use framework depicted by the City Council approved future land use
plan.
For the purposes of developing this plan, it will be assumed that Southlake will receive treated
water from two basic sources. Those are the City of Fort Worth and the Trinity River
Authority.
To more assure system sufficiency in all parts of the city, a "design population" figure of 5
persons per acre is used to size elements of the ultimate water system. Population figures
from this "water system design population" should be used only within that context.
Standard water system practices with respect to demand and capacity were used in developing
the size of the various system elements.
Earlier in the impact fee development process, the land use and population assumptions were
adopted for use in development of the impact fees.
These assumptions, along with good planning and engineering practices, are the tools used
to build the water system master plan and the subsequent Water System CIP.
Demand Analysis and Plan:
The objective of the water system master planning process is to develop a schematic plan for
a water system to serve the ultimate design population. That schematic is the basic framework
of the system.
The schematic is detailed enough to determine approximate location, size and extent of
facilities needed. From that, a listing of projects and their estimated costs (the CIP) can be
developed.
H
The land use and population assumptions are analyzed to determine demands. The various
components of the system are then sized to accommodate these various demands.
The following is a listing of the projects considered to be undifferentiated infrastructure and
their estimated cost.
The cost figures shown are based on estimated quantities and unity prices. The unit prices
include construction cost, revised engineering and inspection cost. They are based on current
(1990) cost figures. There is no continguency allowance included.
TABLE 1.
EXISTING SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS
FOR IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
PROJECT
ESTIMATED COST
1.5 MG Elevated Tank @ Bicentennial Park
$ 862,955
1.5 MG Elevated Tank @ IBM
843,267
20" Water Line/White Chapel
440,706
20" Water Line/FM 1709
888,371
30" Water Line/Pro Rata Share of
supply line &
36" Water Line/Pro Rata Share of
supply line
351,037
Pump Station at North Beach
-Pro Rata Share
132,243
0.5 MG Tank Relocation
160,000
18" Water Line/IBM
157,140
Telemetry System
132,629
Various 8", 12", 18" distribution
mains
2,423,350
Total - Existing System
$ 6,391,698
TABLE 2.
REQUIRED ADDITIONAL WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS
NEEDED TO SERVE ULTIMATE POPULATION
FOR IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
PROJECT ESTIMATED COST
Various 8", 12", 2011, 3011, & 36"
lines needed to complete low
pressure plane $ 8,234,555
Various 6", 8", & 12" lines
needed to complete high
pressure plane 641,011
Additional 1.5 MG Elevated Tank
875,486
Additional 1.5 MG Elevated Tank
875,486
5 MG Ground Storage
787,755
5 MG Ground Storage
787,755
Pumping Station
330,750
Pumping Station
330,750
Subtotal - New Facilities Construction $ 16,655,100
Contingency @ 0% 0
Engineering @ 13% 1,672,261
Inspection @ 3% 385,906 '
Land (four sites) 200,000
Total - New Facilities $ 15,121,716
It should be noted that there are no treatment plant projects or costs shown in the above
listing of capital projects. In the case of both water supplying agencies, TRA and Fort Worth,
costs for existing and new capital facilities will be passed to Southlake customers through rates
and fees.
Those capital costs and the mechanisms for repayment will appear in the accounting
procedure for fee determination.
CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FOR SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEES
PREPARED BY CHEATHAM & ASSOCIATES
APRIL, 1990
11
INTRODUCTION
The City of Southlake is considering adopting and assessing Impact Fees to defray costs of
providing sanitary sewer facilities to new development. As a part of that process, a Sanitary
Sewer Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is required. The CIP will list all of the projects that can
be identified at this time needed to serve Southlake's ultimate population with sanitary sewers.
Those projects included in the pool of projects to be funded, at least partially, by impact fees
fall into two general categories:
1. Two major interceptor sewer line systems, each to serve approximately one-half
of the city. One is called the Denton Creek System which will serve the north
one-half, of the city. The second is called the Big Bear Creek Interceptor, which
will serve the south one-half of the city. Both of these projects will be owned and
operated by the Trinity River Authority (TRA), a regional wastewater collecting and
treating agency.
2. Thirteen sewer main systems, each one serving approximately 1 /13 of the city.
Six will flow into the Denton Creek System and seven will flow into the Bear
Creek Interceptor.
These thirteen systems are viewed collectively as being the network providing
service to all areas of the city, but not individual properties.
Either the TRA or the City of Southlake will own and operate these various sewer
mains.
A
SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN
A sewer master plan must be developed in order to develop a listing of projects needed to fill-
in the sanitary sewer CIP. There is an accompanying map which graphically describes the
sewer master plan that has been developed.
The plan is based on three general assumptions. The first is the geography of the region, in
that sewer systems are designed to operate with gravity flows to the maximum extent possible.
The second and third are land use and population assumptions.
Earlier in the impact fee development process, land use and population assumptions were
adopted for use in development of the impact fees.
These assumptions, along with good planning and engineering practices, are the tools used
to build the sewer master plan and the subsequent Sanitary Sewer CIP.
Demand Analysis and Plan:
The objective of the sewer master planning process is to develop a schematic plan for a
sanitary sewer system to serve the ultimate design population. That schematic is the basic
framework of the system.
The schematic is detailed enough to determine approximate location, size and extent of
facilities needed. From that, a listing of projects and their estimated costs (the CIP) can be
developed.
The land use and population assumptions are analyzed to determine design flows. The
various components of the system are then sized to accommodate these flows.
A wastewater system plan was developed in a report to the city two years ago. The basic plan
contained in that report has been modified reflecting recent developments. Additional territory
has also been annexed. The projects and figures contained in this study reflect the latest
system configuration and engineer's construction cost estimates.
The following is a listing of the projects and their estimated cost. The appendix contains a
more detailed description of the individual projects.
The total cost figures have been revised. The figures now contain no contingency amount,
reduced right-of-way costs, and reduced engineering and inspection costs.
TABLE 1.
SANITARY SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
PROJECTS
FOR IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
PROJECT
ESTIMATED COST
DENTON CREEK WATERSHED
Denton Creek Interceptor
pressure and gravity system
$ 6,113,000
Lines:
N-1 Mains
2,119,411
N-2 Mains
158,543
N-3 Mains
1,736,763
Ar
N-4 Mains
735,529
N-5 Mains
415,699
Mw
N-6 Mains
781,205
Subtotal
$ 12,060,150
BIG BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
Big Bear Creek Interceptor $ 4,207,500
[Southlake's 33% of total
projected bond sale of
$12,750,000]
Lines:
S-1
309,143
S-2
1,038,111
S-3
355,629
S-4
1,245,188
S-5
312,489
S-6
1,511,902
S-7
933,104
Subtotal
-- --------------------
$ 9,913,066
Total all sewer projects
$ 21,973,216
It should be noted that there are no treatment plant projects or costs shown in the above
listing of capital projects. In the case of both the Denton and Big Bear Creek systems, the
TRA owns and operates the terminal treatment facilities. Southlake has executed contracts with
the TRA to pay for treatment plant capital costs through volume charges and other annual fees.
Those 'capital costs and the mechanisms for repayment will appear in the accounting
procedure for fee determination.
Also note that the sewer master plan shows areas outside the city limits or service area
containing facilities, such as area N-1. However, the costs shown in this report reflect only to
costs for facilities serving the Southlake service area.
E
L
LISTING AND DESCRIPTION
OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS
01
DENTON CREEK WATERSHED
Treatment Plant
Wastewater coming into this system is treated by the TRA owned and operated
Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant, near Roanoke. Capital costs for this facility
appear in billing to Southlake from TRA that combines debt an O&M costs. The
procedure for determining the effect of these costs on the impact fees will appear in
the material on fee determination.
Denton Creek Interceptor Pressure and Gravity System
A combination of gravity mains, force mains and lift stations will be constructed parallel
to the south shoreline of Grapevine Reservoir. This system will collect the flows from
the six sewer mains serving the Denton Creek watershed in Southlake. This system
will then transport the wastewater westward approximately five miles to the treatment
plant north of Roanoke. The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$6,113,000
N-1 Mains
This combination of mains serves a large area in the west -central portion of the
service area. The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$2,119, 411
N-2 Mains
This combination of mains serves a small area, mostly adjacent to the interceptor
system. The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 158,543
N-3 Main
This main serves a large portion of central Southlake. The cost of this system is
currently estimated at:
$1,736,763
N-4 Mains
This small group of main serves a relatively small area along and north of SH 114 in
the eastern portion of the city. The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 735,529
N-5 Main
This main and a branch serves a small area in the eastern most part of the city alon
SH 114. The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 415,699
N-6 Mains
This system serves the newly annexed northern portion of the city. The system
consists of gravity mains, a lift station and a force main. The planned configuration
may change depending on final design of the Denton Creek Interceptor system. The
cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 781,205
BIG BEAR CREEK WATERSHED
Treatment Plant
Wastewater coming into this system is treated by the TRA owned and operated
Central Wastewater Treatment Plant, in Irving. Capital costs for this facility appear in
billing to Southlake from TRA that combines debt an O&M costs. The procedure for
determining the effect of these costs on the impact fees will appear in the material on
fee determination.
Big Bear Creek Interceptor
A gravity main will be constructed parallel to an existing interceptor along the run of
Big Bear Creek. This system will collect the flows from the seven sewer mains serving
the Big Bear Creek watershed in Southlake.
This system will then transport the wastewater eastward approximately fifteen miles to
the treatment plant in south Irving. Southlake's 33% share of the cost of this system
is currently estimated at:
$4,207,500
S-1 Main
This main serves the far southwestern portion of the city. The cost of this main is
currently estimated at:
$ 309,143
S-2 Main
This main and two branches serve a large area of southwestern Southlake. The cost
of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 1,038,111
S-3 Main
This main serves a small area south of FM 1709, west of Peytonville. The cost of this
system is currently estimated at:
$ 355,629
S-4 Mains
This system of mains serves a large portion of south-central Southlake. The cost of
this system is currently estimated at:
$1,245,188
S-5 Main
This main and a branch serve a relatively small area south of FM 1709 east of White
Chapel. The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 312,489
S-6 Main
This is an extensive system serving a large portion of central Southlake and will
temporarily serve a portion of the Denton Creek area via a pressure main connection.
1�
The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$1,511,902
S-7 Main
This system consists of a pair of mains serving the far southeastern portion of the city.
The cost of this system is currently estimated at:
$ 933,104