Loading...
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