Loading...
0510AORDINANCE NO. .11V /✓ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 510 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES ORDINANCE, BY UPDATING AND REVISING THE CITY'S LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEES APPLICABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR EXEMPTIONS, FROM IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE OF ALL ORDINANCES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS HEREOF; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN PAMPHLET FORM; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Southlake, Texas is a home rule city acting under its charter adopted by the electorate pursuant to Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 9 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, the City of Southlake heretofore on August 7, 1990 adopted Ordinance No. 510, known as the Water and Wastewater Capital Recovery Fees Ordinance, which provided for the assessment and collection of capital recovery fees (impact fees) on residential and non-residential developments in order to finance specified major public facilities in designated service areas, the demand for which is created by such developments; and WHEREAS, Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code provides for the updating of land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fees at least every 3 years; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a proposed update of the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fees f:\file\muni\slake\ordinanc\impactfe.amd and the written comments of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee on said proposed update; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all notices have been given and public hearings have been held as required by law with regard to the updating of the land use assumptions, capital improvement plan and impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fee should be revised as provided herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLARE, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 510, adopted on August 17, 1990, is hereby amended by replacing Exhibit B "Land Use Assumptions," Exhibit C "Maximum Assessable Capital Recovery Fees," Exhibit D "Water Improvement Plan" and Exhibit E "Wastewater Improvement Plan" attached thereto with Exhibits B, C, D, and E, respectively, attached to this ordinance and incorporated herein for all purposes. SECTION 2. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to construct any building or structure for which a building permit is required under the ordinances of the city on any lot on which a capital recovery fee is due under this or prior ordinances without first paying said capital recovery fee to the city. f:\file\muni\slake\ordinanc\impactfe.amd 2 SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 5. 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 Five -Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each offense. Each day that a violation is permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense. f:\file\muni\slake\ordinanc\impactfe.amd 3 SECTION 6. All rights and remedies of the City of Southlake are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of ordinance No. 510, as amended, or any other ordinances affecting the assessment and collection of impact fees which have accrued at the time of the effective date of this ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such ordinances, same shall not be affected by this ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 7. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby directed to publish the proposed ordinance or its caption and penalty together with a notice setting out the time and place for a 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 (10) days after passage of this ordinance, as required by Section 3.13 of the Charter of the City of Southlake. SECTION 8. 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. f:\file\muni\slake\ordinanc\impactfe.amd 4 PASSED AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING ON THIS 1993. 1A LI 74 •M ATT ST: CITY SECRETARY DAY OF vamP 8 ED AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ON THIS DAY OF " Ai , 1993. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: tJko&::�— City Attorney Date : — (S ' 3 ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE. D` f:\file\muni\slake\ordinanc\impactfe.amd 5 CITY OF SOUTHLAKE IMPACT FEE UPDATE 1993 COUNCIL REPORT STAFF MEMBERS Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance Robert Whitehead, Director of Public Works Greg Last, Director of Community Development Tom Elgin, Planner Wayne K. Olson, City Attorney CONSULTANTS Eddie Cheatham, Engineer Lewis F. McLain, Jr., Fiscal Planning Consultant CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Joe L. Wright Lanny Tate David McMahan Bruce McCombs Ernest Johnson Paul McCallum CITY OF SOUTHLAKE IMPACT FEE UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUMMARY Introduction 1 Land Use and Growth Assumptions 2 Capital Improvement Plan 2 Table I -Eligible Costs -Water 4 Table II -Eligible Costs -Wastewater 4 Other Eligible and Recoverable Costs 5 Standard Service Unit 6 Table III -Service Unit Equivalency Table 6 Growth in Service Units 6 Table IV -Calculation of Growth in Service Units 7 Maximum Impact Fee 8 Table V -Maximum Impact Fee 8 Initial Impact Fee 9 Table VI -Current Impact Fee 9 Proposed Impact Fee 9 Table VII -Proposed Impact Fee 10 Table VIII -Impact Fee Schedule Matrix 11 Accounting for Fees since 1990 12 Table IX -Impact Fee Revenues and Interest Income -Water 13 Table X -Impact Fee Revenues and Interest Income -Wastewater 14 Table XI -Application of Impact Fee and Interest Income Funds Collected through May 31, 1993 Water 15 'Table XII -Application of Impact Fee and Interest Income Funds Collected through May 31, 1993 -Wastewater 16 Comparison of 1993 Report to 1990 Report 17 Table XIII -Comparison of Key Assumptions and Results -1990 to 1993 17 Other Discussion Points 18 Conclusion 18 ADVISORY COMMITTEE COMMENTS 20 APPENDIX A -LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS A-1 APPENDIX B -CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN -WATER B-1 APPENDIX C -CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN -WASTEWATER C-1 APPENDIX D -FINANCIAL SCHEDULES D-1 Introduction This is a full report which describes the process and results of the 1993 update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees for the City of Southlake. There are four exhibits which provide many more details of certain aspects of this update: Appendix A - Land Use Assumptions Report. Appendix B - Capital Improvements Plan - Water. Appendix C - Capital Improvements Plan - Wastewater. Appendix D - Financial Model and Calculation of Debt Service. This report is intended to provide the key elements of these four exhibits without the need for further reading unless the reader is interested in the details. Even so, this report provides many important technical explanations that are necessary to fully assure compliance with the statutory reporting requirements as found in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. However, this report and each of the appendices constitutes the entire Impact Fee reporting requirements. Lou Ann Heath, Finance Director, served as the coordinator of the Study Team for the development of the City of Southlake's Impact Fee which included other key staff members Greg Last, Director of Community Development and Tom Elgin, Planner. The consultants included Eddie Cheatham, Engineer, Wayne Olson, City Attorney, Fielding, Barrett & Taylor, L.L.P.; and Lewis F. McLain, Jr., Fiscal Planning Consultant.. These individuals and others working under their direction met on numerous occasions to discuss the progress -of the technical and legal analysis required to adequately prepare an update of the Impact Fees. In this report there are references to Impact Fees in the plural. The statutes require that the City adopt Impact Fees for each individual category of utility. Therefore, the terms will usually be capitalized to signify the formal and statutory references to the Water Impact Fee and the Wastewater Impact Fee. The primary steps involved in the establishment of an Impact Fee are 1) the preparation of Land Use and Growth Assumptions that will result in a demand for water and wastewater services over the ten-year Planning Period of 1994 to 2003; 2) the sizing and compilation of a Capital Improvement Plan that responds to the growth in demand of the utility system; 3) the identification of other eligible and recoverable costs such as certain professional services and debt costs related to the Capital Improvement Plan; 4) the derivation of a standard Service Unit that will be used to measure utility users in relationship to a standard unit equivalent, such as a single-family residential equivalent or a 1 inch meter equivalent; 5) the computation of the number of Service Units of growth that are attributable to the Planning Period; 6) the computation of the Maximum Impact Fee; and 7) the setting of the Impact Fee to be actually collected. -1- There are certain other procedural steps which involve public notices and public hearings as well as the creation of an accounting mechanism to track and report the sources of fees collected and the projects upon which the Impact Fee revenues are spent. However, this report will focus on the seven steps listed above, explaining the results of the first two steps and how that information flows into the remaining five steps. The accounting for the impact fees is presented on a semi-annual basis by the City's Finance Department, but a statement will be provided in this report in response to the statutory sections which deal with conditions which may result in a need to refund Impact Fees collected. Land Use and Growth Assumptions The City of Southlake Community Development Department developed and presented Land Use and Growth assumptions in a separate report in Appendix "A" which provided a basis for the following determinations: o There are currently about 13,928 acres of land in Southlake, with about 5,305 of those acres considered to be developed. There is a residential population of about 8,700 and a minimal employment population. There are 3,803 acres of Single -Family Residential, 13 acres of Multi -Family Residential and 461 acres of Commercial & Industrial acres of development. Public and Quasi -Public uses such as schools, churches and governmental accounts for 269 acres. There are 759 acres owned by the Corp of Engineers which are assumed to remain in their existing open space condition. There are about 2,899 water connections and 826 wastewater connections to the utility system at the current time. These translate into 2,727 Service Unit Equivalents for water and 905 for wastewater. The significant difference between the two utilities is due to the infancy of the wastewater system established in the mid -80's as compared to the water system that has been in place for many years. o The growth in developed acres between 1993 and 2003 will be 1,439 residential acres (37.8%) with a population growth of 9,470 (108.9%) and a commercial/industrial growth of 599 acres (129.9%). o The growth in Service Unit Equivalents, the main measurement of connections to the utility system are estimated to be 2,602 (95.4%) for water and 2,472 (273.1%) for wastewater. Capital Improvement Plan The City's consulting engineering firm, Eddie Cheatham & Associates, in coWunction with the City staff, has developed a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) based on the Land Use and Growth Assumptions furnished by the Community Development -2- Department. The CIP, presented in separate reports shown in Appendix "B" and "C", allocates the capacity of the current and proposed projects into the Planning Period on a basis of the capacity used within the Planning Period. Excess or available capacity is viewed by individual project for water projects and as a whole for the wastewater projects with the ultimate build out and related capacity allocated into the ten-year planning period based on the ratio of ultimate growth to ten-year growth. The costs of water treatment and wastewater treatment are furnished to Southlake by the City of Fort Worth and the Trinity River Authority, respectively. The City pays for the capital costs of these facilities in the form of monthly charges combined with operation and maintenance costs. The capital costs of these treatment facilities are separable and eligible for recovery under the Impact Fee legislation. If they were located inside the City limits, built and operated by City personnel, these facility costs would surely be included in the CIP and be included in the basis of calculating the Maximum Impact Fee. However, these facilities have not been included in the 1993 Update for several reasons. As mentioned, the costs of these treatment facilities are in the form of monthly payments currently required of Southlake and paid by utility customers and tax payers. Also, these are shared facilities with the allocation of Southlake's share being dependent on information provided by those supplying entities rather than project data generated by the City's engineer. Another reason is that the City of Fort Worth calculates an Impact Fee for their wholesale customers and passes this fee on to the customer cities based on the number of new connections. Due to Southlake's current contract arrangement, this Impact Fee is not charged at the present time. There is a possibility that this fee will be charged in the future. When and if that event occurs, the City of Southlake will take ;prQpriate action at that time. The current -Maximum Impact Fee charged by Fort Worth equals $594.52 for a 1" meter. The last reason for not including any of the water and wastewater treatment costs in the Maximum Impact Fee is that the early calculations indicated a Maximum Impact Fee considerably higher than what is now being charged. Therefore, it was assumed that the City would be substantially discounting the actual Impact Fee to be competitive with surrounding communities. In that case, any additional amounts added to the Maximum Impact Fee would simply raise the level of the discount from the Maximum Fee when determining the actual fee. The decision to exclude these costs is not an indication of their ineligibility nor does it preclude the City from including the costs in future Impact Fee updates. The CIP, excluding the treatment plants, totals $44,859,601 for water and wastewater. The amounts allocated into the ten-year Impact Fee recovery period totals $4,274,201 for water and $3,494,474 for wastewater for a total allocable of $7,768,675. The ten-year Planning Period, is well defined by individual project, and has been categorized as follows: -3- Table I Eligible Costs Water Category Fisting Proposed Total Distn'bution Lines $819,892 $2,239,366 $3,059,258 Ground Storage -0- $207,333 $207,333 Elevated Storage $854,187 $-0- $854,187 Pump Stations $110,204 $43,219 $153,423 Total City Projects $1,784,283 $2,489,918 $4,274,201 Debt Service $2,547,511 $277,234 $2,824,745 Fort Worth/TRA $-0- $-0- $0 Ca-,, ultant Costs $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Total Costs $4,351,794 $2,787,152 $71138,946 Table II Eligible Costs Wastewater Category Mdsti� Proposed Total Collection Lines $1,066,028 $2,428,446 $3,494,474 Trinity River. Authority $-0- $-0- $0 Debt Service $761,925 $465,731 $1,227,656 Consultant Costs $20,000 $20,000 $40,000 Total Casts $1,847,953 $2,914,177 $4,762,130 The column headed "Existing' represents the capacity that is available in currently constructed facilities that will be used by the growth estimated to occur over the next ten years. The costs for most projects built up to 1993 have been stated at their actual costs where known or discounted from 1993 values using engineering cost index tables if not known and built prior to 1993. However, some project costs were stated at their 1990 estimated cost which is less than actual construction in many cases. For the proposed capital projects, the unit costs were stated in 1993 dollars. There is no 92 assumption or adjustment for inflation for future projects. The cost of engineering and other eligible components of a capital program have been included by the consulting engineers. Further explanation of cost estimates and changes in those estimates can be found in Appendix "B" and Appendix "C". Other Eligible and Recoverable Costs The enabling legislation for establishing and calculating the Impact Fee provides for certain engineering and financial consulting fees to be eligible for inclusion in the Impact Fee. It is anticipated that the City will not need to update the Impact Fee study for as many as three years. Accordingly, the Impact Fee has been shown to include a cost of $80,000 in total for eligible professional fees for this update and others over the ten-year Planning Period. These costs are reflected in Tables I and II. The debt associated with the financing of capital projects is also an eligible cost. A change was made in the calculation of this component since the original impact fees were established. This change in the computation of interest cost is in the perspective used for calculating debt service for projects that have already been built. As capacity is absorbed by new growth over the ten-year period and impact fees are collected for those projects, then it is assumed that the capital cost of the portion of capacity used is fully paid at the time Impact Fees are paid. Therefore, the interest calculation should stop at the point in time the Impact Fee is estimated to be paid. However, the debt service calculation should begin from the point in time the capacity is made available (meaning when the facility is built) up to the point of usage. In essence, the new growth is paying for the "carry cost" up to the year of utilization. A logic test that accompanies this concept is that a reasonable limit should be placed on the number of years to "reach back" for computing a carry cost on capacity that will be used during the period 1994-2003. In that regard, the carry cost is not computed before 1984 if the facility was constructed prior to that year. There were no facilities that exceeded these date limitations. Projects shown as "EVEN" in the Year In Service column of the CIP schedules indicates projects that cannot be specifically identified as to the year of construction. However, taken as a whole, the Consulting Engineer believes that the projects will be started evenly over the ten-year planning period. For debt service computation purposes, it is assumed that there will be an average of two years' capitalized interest for each project cost. The embedded interest cost used in the calculations was an average of 6% for all years. The total of the debt related costs for the ten-year Planning Period is $4,052,401, broken down between $2,824,745 for water and $1,227,656 for wastewater. The grand total of all eligible costs is $11,901,076; $7,138,946 for water and $4,762,130 for sewer. -5- Standard Service Unit When the Impact Fees were originally calculated in 1990, there was much discussion about how to define a standard Service Unit and how the equivalency table was to be constructed. There was evidence to support a compelling argument that it should be attached to the meter size. A meter represents the connection to the system and is identified as a formal event in the planning approval (platting) and actual implementation process (building permitting). The size of the meter represents the magnitude of the potential demand that can be placed on the utility system. The standard residential meter size for Southlake is a 1" meter. Based on standards derived from the American Water Works Association, the following table of equivalents was determined: Table III Service Unit Equivalency Table Meter Size Service Unit Equivalent 5/8 Inde Meter .40 3/4 Inch Meter .60 1 Inch Meter 1.0 1-1/2 Inch Meter 2.0 ' 2 Inde Meter .. 3.2-- 3 Inch Meter 6.4 4 Inde Meter 10.0 6 Inde Meter 20.0 Based on the total number of meters in place at the present time (2,899), multiplied by the equivalency factors, it was determined that the City of Southlake has 2,727 Service Units in place for water and 905 in place for sewer when the irrigation meters and septic system customers not connected to the system are subtracted. Growth In Service Units There is hardly a more critical number in the calculation of an Impact Fee than the estimates of Service Units for water and wastewater that will be added during the ten-year planning period. These Service Units are the basis for the capacity utilization allocation made by the consulting engineers and are to be divided into the total eligible costs associated with projected growth to yield the Maximum Impact Fee. The number of Service Units are identified for various categories: Single Family, Multi -Family, Commercial/Industrial, and Public/Quasi-Public. Currently developed acreage were also grouped by these same categories. With this information, a ratio was established to show the number of Service Unit Equivalents per acre. These values were then applied to the projected acres to be developed during the ten- year planning period. This resulted in an estimate of growth in Service Units shown in the following table: Table IV Calculation of Growth In Service Units 1 . �C� • s _�, • - z• � 1 me rom 10=6 ifil • �• • •Ux4tq Per «s• �i i• _•a •• -�► ._/T ! Fj._.. s.' 1 • 1 1 s!t.. "_, • 1.1.1 .1 S in ! • 11 , '.s� :!. _• •• •• •_n.Vii..,• �. �_ 1 : 1 _/�. -7- Maximum Impact Fee The calculation of the Maximum Impact Fee is completed by dividing the total eligible costs by the number of new Service Units projected over the Planning Period. This is an important calculation because it restricts the total fees that can be charged to new development by the City. It also recognizes the level of costs and associated fees that would be necessary to relieve all ratepayers of the future cost of providing capacity to meet new growth, as long as growth occurs at the magnitude and timing outlined in Appendix A of this Impact Fee Study. The City has the ability to continually reconcile the CIP to the actual growth plan to some extent by deferring or accelerating projects as needed. This is one of the purposes of a mandatory update of the Impact Fee Study at least once every three years. Since most costs are based on either actual cost or 1993 uninflated dollars, the Maximum Impact Fee should be adjusted to reflect inflationary increases periodically. The gross Maximum Impact Fee for water is $2,743 calculated as $7,138,946 of eligible and recognized costs divided by the new Service Units of 2,602. This fee is further reduced by two amounts. The first reduction is $1,070 in capital costs that are paid by utility rate payers and will be paid by future ratepayers, although in a more diluted state as new connections are evidenced, as long as the Actual Impact Fee charged is less than the Maximum Impact Fee. The second is a recognition of interest income from investing funds prior to scheduled expenditures - equal to $38 per Service Unit. These two adjustments result in a net Water Maximum Impact Fee of $1,635. The gross Maximum Impact Fee for wastewater is $1,927 calculated as $4,762,130, of eligible and recognized costs divided by the new Service Units of 2,472. There_is no adjustment for capital costs as a future ratepayer since the wastewater utility rates do not recover capital costs at this time. However, there is a credit for the interest earnings -equal to $24 per Service Unit, resulting in a net Wastewater Maximum Impact Fee of $1,903. The fee schedule at full recovery would be as follows: Table V Maximum Impact Fee Meter Size Water Wastewater Total 3/4 Inch Meter 81 $1.142 $2,1231 1 Inde Meter $1,635 $1,903 $3,538 1-12 Inde Meter $3,271 $3,805 $7,076 2 Inch Meter 95.233 $6.089 $11,322 Inch Meter 10,467 121$22,644 4 Inch Meter $16,354 $19,027, $35,381 Inch Meter $32,7081 0 $70,762 10 Initial Impact Fee The objectives given the Study Team in 1990 included: 1) to develop the Impact Fee to comply with the statutory requirements; 2) to set the fee at such a level that the rates would provide additional revenue; 3) yet to adopt a fee to be within the range of fees established by local jurisdictions. The fees adopted at that time equalled $500 for the Water Impact Fee and $1,000 for the Wastewater Impact Fees or a total of $1,500. This represented about 58% of the Maximum Impact Fee calculated at that time. The City has not raised the fees since that time. It is the current fees of $500 for the Water Impact Fee and $1,000 for the Wastewater Impact Fee that is considered as the base from which to measure any revenue neutrality should the Impact Fees be changed from the present levels. The current fee structure is as follows: Table VI Current Impact Fee Meter Size Water Wastewater Total 3/4 Inde Meter $300 $600 $900 1 Inde Meter $500 $1,000 $1,560 1-1/2 Inch Meter $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 2 Inch Meter $1,600 $3,200 $4,800 3 Inde Meter $3,200 $6,400 $9,600 4 Inch Meter $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 6 Inde Meter $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 8 Inde Meter $16,000 $32,000 $489000 The City of Southlake has not raised its Impact Fee since its adoption, but could have done so one or more times since 1990. The Impact Fee legislation established the Maximum Impact Fee but left the actual fee charged as a policy decision of the City Council as long as the Actual Impact Fee does not exceed the Maximum Impact Fee. One approach is to compare with area cities and to set the fee In accordingly. Another approach is to take area fees into consideration but to strive to move toward full cost recovery over time. For City Council consideration, the following table has been prepared to show the recommendation proposed by the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee with concurrence from all staff and consultants involved in the Impact Fee updating process. It is believed that this level of fee represents a reasonable increase considering that it is still below the Maximum that could be charged, especially since the Maximum Fee does not include charges for the water and wastewater treatment plant costs. However, the proposed fee strikes a balance with comparable area cities which produces needed revenues without detrimentally affecting Southlake's competitiveness with surrounding communities. Table 1 Proposed ., :- Meter Size Water Wastewater Total 3/4 Inde Meter $420 $780 $1,200 1 Inde Meter $700 $1,300 $2,000 1-1/2 Inch Meter $1,400 $2,600 $4,000 2 Inch Meter $2,240 $4,160 $6,400 3 Inch Meter $4,480 $8,320 $12,800 4 Inde Meter $7,000 $13,000 $20,OOa 6 Inch Meter $14,000 $26,000 $40,000 8 Inch Meter $22,400 $41,600 $649000 The setting of the final actual Impact Fee is a policy decision of the City Council. In addition to the perspectives offered regarding the balance between Impact Fee Payer vs. Utility Ratepayer as well as the balance between a Growth vs. No - Growth level of Impact Fees, it is the ultimate decision of the elected body to determine the appropriate level of each governmental entity. Accordingly, the following matrix is offered to enable the decision makers to determine the desirable level of Impact Fee and the resulting impact on the monthly utility bills - for both existing and new customers. -10- Table VIII Impact Fee Schedule Matrix -11- Water Water Sewer Sewer Total Total % Cast Recovery Impact Fee Utility BH Mo Impact Fee Utility Bill/Mo. Impact Fee Utility Bill/Mo. 0% $0 $8.86 $0 $18.51 $0 $27.37 5% $82 $8.41 $95 $17.58 $177 $25.99 10% $164 $7.97 $190 $16.66 $354 $24.63 15% $245 $7.53 $285 $15.73 $530 $23.26 20% $327 $7.09 $381 $14.80 $708 $21.89 25% $409 $6.64 $476 $13.88 $885 $20.52 30% $491 $6.20 $571 $12.95 $1,062 $19.15 35% $572 $5.76 $666 $12.03 $1,238 $17.79 40% $654 $5.31 $761 $11.10 $1,415 $16.41 45% $736 $4.87 $856 $10.18 $1,592 $15.05 50% $818 $4.43 $951 $9.25 $1,769 $13.68 55% $899 $3.99 $1,046 $8.33 $1,945 $12.32 60% $981 $3.54 $1,142 $7.40 $2,123 $10.94 65% $1,063 $3.10 $1;237 $6.48 $2,300 $9.58 70% $1,145 $2.66 $1,332 $5.55 $2,477 $8.21 75% $1,227 $2.21 $1,427 $4.63 $2,654 $6.84 80% $1,308 $1.77 $1,522 $3.70 $2,830 $5.47 85% $1,390 $1.33 $1,617 $2.78 $3,007 $4.11 90% $1,472 $0.89 $1,712 $1.85 $3,184 $2.74 95% $1,554 $0.44 $1,808 $0.93 $3,362 $1.37 100% $1,635 $0.00 $1,903 $0.00 $3,538 $0.00 -11- Amount For Fees Since 1990 Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code specifies, among other things, that several aspects of accounting must be provided by the City: o The City must provide that all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest-bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvement project (i.e. water vs. wastewater); o Earned interest is considered funds of the account which have the same restrictions as the fees; and o Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was shown by the Capital Improvement Plan list. Further, a refund to the payer or owner of property on which an impact was paid would be owned a refund if, among other things: o The owner of the property requests a refund; o Existing facilities are available and service is denied; o The City fails to commence and build the facility within five years; o On completion of the Capital Improvements Plan list, the . City recalculates the impact fee by using actual costs and the difference is less than the fee paid by more than 10%. o Any amount of the unspent impact fee funds remain after 10 years. The City's Finance Department has been segregating the Impact Fee funds as required by state laws. Interest income is being collected and credited to the Impact Fee funds. Re nds. No one has requested a refund under any of the provisions outlined in Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. The time limit for determining some of these qualifications for a refund has not expired and will not expire for 2-7 years. No one who has paid an impact fee has been denied service. There are no facilities on the 1990 capital project list that the City Engineer does not expect to be started within five years of its scheduled date. The Capital Improvement Plan is not completed but some individual projects are going to be revised downward and some will be revised upward by the City Engineer and Consulting Engineer. In no case is there an expectation that the total CIP, when actually completed, will be less than 10% of the costs outlined in the 1990 CIP. At this time there is no -12- expectation that there will be any funds remaining after ten years. And lastly, the determination of an actual fee which is discounted considerably from the Maximum Fee makes it highly unlikely that any condition will exist which will cause a refund to be necessary. While complete determination of an impact fee refund obligation to exist cannot be made until a future date, there is no expectation of that condition occurring and the declaration as of this three-year update by the technical and legal advisors is that no refunds requirements exist at this time. In addition to all of the tests mentioned above, the most compelling argument that no refund requirement exists is that the City of Southlake has only charged 58% of the Maximum Fees calculated and is expected to charge within that general range with the proposed increase. Therefore, in light of all points outlined and comparisons to the refund requirements spelled out in the Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code, there are no refunds due at this time. Accounting. One of the first things the City has to establish regarding the accounting for Impact Fees is whether or not the funds collected will be allocated to the internal cost categories on an evenly distributed basis or on a prioritized basis. The City's discretion is even greater if the Impact Fee actually charged is less than the calculated Maximum Impact Fee as is the case for Southlake. This section of the report will outline the differences in these two approaches. Based on the Impact Fee collections through May 31, 1993, the following fees and interest have been credited to the Impact Fee Funds of Southlake: Table IX Impact Fee Revenues and Interest Income Water Fiscal Year Impact Fees Interest Income Total FY 1989-90 $16,500 -0- $16,500 FY 1990-91 $49,000 $1,697 $50,697 FY 1991-92 $157,800 $5,251 $163,051 FY 1992-93 $136,200 $5,627 $141,827 Total $359,5001 $12,575 $372,075 -13- Table X Impact Fee Revenues and Interest Income Wastewater Fiscal Year Impact Fees Interest Income Total FY 1989-90 $11,325 -0- $11,325 FY 1990-91 $34,364 $8,601 $42,965 FY 1991-92 $206,605 $13,632 $220,237 FY 1992-93 $168,860 $8,164 $177,024 Total 1 $421,154 $30,397 $451,551 The City separates the Water Impact Fees from the Wastewater Impact Fees, but the allocation of those individual Impact Fees to the internal cost components is at the discretion of the City limited only by the ceiling levels included in the supporting data used to determine the Maximum Impact Fee. The internal cost components include: 1) Debt Service On Existing Projects. 2) Direct Costs of Future City Projects. 3) Interest On Debt Issued For Future Projects. 4) Eligible Professional Fees. The concept of accounting for Impact Fees includes two steps., The first is the segregation of the Impact Fees into Water and Wastewater Impact Fees. The collection of revenues, of course, implies a receipting system that allows for the tracking of payees for each individual fee. The second step involves the- accounting for the expenditures of the fees plus the interest that has been accrued and added to the appropriate fund based on the intent of the expenditure used as a basis of the calculation of the Maximum Impact Fee. When the actual fee is less than the Maximum Fee, as is the case for Southlake, the allocation of the collected fees to the internal cost components can be adjusted by the City as long as the total dollars allocated are within the boundaries established by the Maximum Impact Fee. Tables XI and XII illustrate the general approach that can be taken to distribute the collected Impact Fees and related interest income on an evenly distributed basis or on a prioritized basis. When these fees are applied to the distribution of costs which supported the original fee calculations, adjusted for the discounted amount to ascertain the current Impact Fees, the result is an allocation of the collections consistent with the original plan. The Maximum Impact Fee which was adopted in 1990 in essence provides the budget maximums for each project. -14- Table XI Application of Impact Fee and Interest Income Funds Collected Through May 31, 1993 Water Project Evenly Distributed Prioritized Maximum Pump Station - N. Beads $7,190 $34,558 Telemetry System $7,190 $34,558 Future Gxnund Storage $1,438 $5,993 Bicentennial Park Storage $22,489 $106,103 IBM Elevated Storage $21,881 $102,835 Existing Tank $14,587 $68,556 20" Line - FM 1709 $54,417 $257,971 30736" Water Lines $21,340 $101,165 Future Lines - Low Plane $201,131 $953,482 Future Lines - High Plane $15,738 $74,609 Impact Fee Studies $4,673 $22,128 Total * $372,074 $1,761,958 In reality, the City will allocate the collected monies on a prioritized basis. As monies are collected, they can be applied to any project that has been constructed or is in process of being constructed up to the maximum amount included in the Maximum Impact Fee. For instance, the City could elect to pay up to $34,558 for the debt service related to the Pump Station at North Beach. The City could then turn to any other project on the list that is built or under construction and apply collected monies up to the maximum amounts. If all of the existing projects have the maximum funds applied to them, then the City would have to keep the remaining collected funds escrowed until such time as a project on the list was built. The City has indicated that of the available $372,074 collected or earned in the Water Impact Fee Fund $18,350 has been expended or obligated for the Impact Fee Study and $152,000 has been set aside to pay debt service on projects that have been built or are under construction. The remaining balance of $201,724 has been set aside to pay for future debt service on water projects. -15- Table XII Application of Impact Fee and Interest Income Funds Collected Through May 31, 1993 Wastewater Project Evenly Distributed Prioritized Maximum Big Bear Greek Line $85,868 $1,028,897 Denton Creek Line $132,394 $1,586,373 N-1 Maims $42,431 $508,418 N-2 Mains $3,174 $38,032 N-3 Mains $34,770 $416,626 N-4 Mains $14,725 $176,443 N-5 Mains $8,322 $99,721 N-6 Mains $15,640 $187,400 S-1 Mains $6,189 $74,159 S-2 Mains $20,783 $249,029 S-3 Mains $7,120 $85,311 S-4 Mains $24,929 $298,704' S-5 Mains $6,256 $74,962 S-6 Mains $30,268 $362,685 S-7 Mains $18,681 $223,839 Impact Fee Studies $-0- $-0- Total $451,550 $5,410,599 Similar to the comments regarding the water projects, the City has the discretion to transfer from the Impact Fee Funds any amounts available in the Impact Fee Funds to Capital Construction Funds or Debt Service Funds for the principal portion of the debt service. The only limitation would be the total project amounts included in the Maximum Impact Fee calculations in 1990. The City has indicated that $246,768 has been spent or obligated for the City's portion of the S-2 Main which is within the Maximum Impact Fee allowance. The remainder will be set aside to pay for debt service on projects on the list up to the Maximum Impact Fee allowance for the principal portion of the debt service. -16- Comnari.gi n of 1993 Report To 1990 Report There are a number of differences in the assumptions and calculations in this update as compared to the 1990 report. Certain estimates of construction costs account for some of the changes. However, there were some fundamental differences in the approach and resulting amounts for debt service calculations and Service Unit growth projection. A summary of the key factors is shown in the following table. Table XIII Comparison of Key Assumptions and Results 1990 to 1993 Item 1990 Water 1993 Water 1990 Sewer 1993 Sewer Capital Projects Total $21,913,415 $23,593,971 $22,554,834 $21,265,630 Ten -Year Period $2,692,601 $4,274,201 $5,410,598 $3,494,474 Debt Service Added $3,555,478 $2,824,746 $-0- $1,227,656 Debt Service Credits For Ratepayers $2,202,388 $2,784,140 $-0- $-0- For Bond Avoidance $2,307,912 $-0- $-0- $-0- Net Debt Funded ($954,822) $40,606 $-0- $1,227,656 Impact Fee Study $22,128 $40,000 $-0- $40,000 Interest Income Credit $-0- $97,990 $-0- $58,259 Total Maximum Cast $1,759,907 $4,256,817 $5,410,598 $4,703,871 Service Units - 10 Year 1,702 2,602 3,463 2,472 Impact Fee Ma�muna $1,035 $1,635 $1,562 $1,903 Proposed $500 $7001 $1,0001 $1,300 -17- Other Discussion Points There were other issues discussed with the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee that are worthy of comment in this report. Developer Credits. The projects contained on the capital improvement list are mostly for 'off-site" facilities, meaning that they serve more than one development and perhaps serve a very large area of growth. However, in some cases there are projects that are requested earlier than planned by the City or outside the City's financing capability at that time. In those situations, the developer may be required to construct the facility. For those projects on the Impact Fee capital list that are initally funded by a developer, a credit provision is in place to repay the developer out of Impact Fee funds collected from future growth. Monies Collected To Date. The monies collected to date are for connections that have been made to the system and are accounted for as "existing" service units. The City Engineer has separated the capacity for -the capacity that is used by current connections so that only the capacity used by the development in the next ten years would be a part of the cost allocations. The monies that have been collected is to cover the capacity that has been made available to the new connections for the past three years and do not represent a credit to the growth for the next ten years and for the cost of capacity associated with that new growth. Accordingly, and as explained in the accounting section, the City has the authorization to apply monies collected to the capacity absorbed in the past three years in accordance with the 1990 Maximum Impact Fee list of projects. Therefore, the Impact Fee calculations in 1993 deal only with the growth for the next ten -years and. the associated cost of capacity for that same time period. Conclusion The Study Team believes that the Impact Fee calculations in this study for the City of Southlake are in conformance with Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code. The full fee has been calculated based on all eligible costs. The total costs identified are $11,901,076; $7,138,946 for water and $4,762,130 for wastewater. The full fee would be $1,635 for water and $1,903 for sewer or a total of $3,538 for a Standard Ser- vice Unit. A Standard Service Unit is defined as a 1 inch meter, and the table of equivalents for larger meters is consistent with meter data developed by the American Water Works Association. It is anticipated that the growth in Water Service Units will be about 2,602 and the growth in Wastewater Service Units will be about 2,472 over the next ten years. The current Impact Fees are $500 for Water and $1,000 for Wastewater for a total of $1,500 which represents only slightly over 58% of the full cost recovery as calculated in 1990. The Proposed Impact Fees for consideration is $700 for Water and $1,300 for Wastewater. * This level keeps the Impact Fee recovery rate in the same range, about 57% which still leaves 43% of the amount to be paid through the customer utility rates. The Impact Fee Study Team will be available to answer questions. Questions and other communication should be directed to Lou Ann Heath, Director of Finance or Greg Last, Director of Community Development. -19- June 30,1993 To: Mayor and Councilmembers From: Advisory Committee Re: Impact Fee Update The Advisory Committee has reviewed, discussed, and questioned the Study Team's research, presentation, and recommendations through successive drafts spanning several months. As a result of this process, we conclude that the Study Team employed an understandable methodology that apparently conforms with state law, considered appropriate historical data, and reached reasonable conclusions for the ten-year planning horizon, and we give the final report our general endorsement. More particularly, we believe that the calculated maximum impact fees are defensible and that the recommended impact fees of $700 for water and $1300 for wastewater (an overall rate of about 60% of the maximum) are set at a level that will enable the City to remain competitive with surrounding communities. Additionally, we recommend that the City begin now to address these longer-term concerns: Sole -Source Water Supply: We anticipate being at a serious disadvantage in future contract negotiations with the City of Fort Worth if that city is our sole supplier of water. We should seek out and contract for an alternate supplier for some portion of our water requirements, even if there are interim financial inconveniences before long-term benefits accrue. Build -Out Population: We project an eventual population that exceeds that derived from the recently updated Land Use Plan, which is the starting point for this impact study. We should make some plausible "what if?" assumptions, and then assess how well our infrastructure plans would meet those possible requirements. The members of the Advisory Committee appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to the City. oA� Jo t . right, Chairman -20- Appendix A Land Use Assumptions Prepared by: City of Southlake Community Development Department June 1993 INTRODUCTION Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code establishes the procedure municipalities must follow to enact and collect fees for the financing of capital improvements due to new development. A critical element of this process is the formulation of the land use assumptions, and, once the initial assumptions have been prepared, the periodic review and update of the land use assumptions. Approximately three years have elapsed since the initial land use assumptions were prepared. During this period, Southlake has experienced a population increase in excess of twenty percent (20%) and ensuing commercial and retail development. Furthermore, the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan was adopted, and the Thoroughfare Plan and Land Use Plan were updated. This review and update of the land use assumptions acknowledges these factors. The land use assumptions provide input information used to determine the demand on the water and wastewater infrastructure of the service area - first, for a "fully -developed" system and then, for the annual incremental improvements of the immediate ten-year period. Once the demand is determined, the costs of the water and wastewater infrastructure can be estimated and the debt service can be calculated. The following components of the land use assumptions are included in this report: • Definition of the service area; • Ultimate land use projection; • Ultimate population projection; • Annual population estimates; and • Annual land use projections. The assumptions, methods, and results of each will be discussed in their respective sections. A-1 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - SERVICE AREA For water and wastewater infrastructure, Chapter 395 allows the service area to be "...all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction..." Currently, Southlake's extraterritorial jurisdiction and corporate boundaries encompass the same area. For this reason and because the location of future development is difficult to predict, the geographic boundary for the service area includes all property within the corporate limits of the City of Southlake. This is the same service area as the 1990 impact fee study, and is depicted in Figure 1. CITY OF A E U HLK ......_ -Pl FIGURE 1 SERVICE AREA CITY OF SOUTHLAKE A-2 � 3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ULTIMATE LAND USES PROJECTION The location, type, and density of development within Southlake is largely determined by the City's Land Use Plan; hence, the Land Use Plan is the basis for the projection of ultimate land uses. This projection entailed two steps. The first step was determination of the acreage for each category of the Land Use Plan and adjustments to those acreages to reflect the following: 1. For Parks / Open Space uses, the Land Use Plan only indicates existing facilities. Additional park acreage requirements as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan (except for those on Corps of Engineers property) were deducted from the land use categories in which the future parks are conceptually located. 2. Also, for Public / Semi -Public uses, the Land Use Plan only indicates existing facilities. It is assumed that, although current facilities are almost fully utilized, they have enough land area to expand and service twice the present population. This ratio is approximately 1.4 acres of public / semi-public uses for every 100 persons. Future area requirements were determined at this ratio and deducted proportionally from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use land use categories. 3. The 1993 Land Use Plan indicates Floodplain as a distinct category; however, the initial impact fee study integrated floodplain with the adjacent categories of the land use assumptions. Although this runs counter to the logic of the first two adjustments, area indicated as Floodplain in the Land Use Plan was added to those adjacent categories that wholly or partially contain floodplain for sake of continuity in this update of the land use assumptions. Development densities were A-3 adjusted downward to compensate for the generally "undevelopable" nature of floodplains. Table 1 shows the acreage "take -offs" and the subsequent adjustments to the Land Use Plan. TABLE 1 LAND USE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS 1993 LAND USE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS ............................. jA0J4JSTFD:: i TOT.As : Parks/ Publid Floodplain Open Space Semi -Public (Acres) Category Acreage Floodplain 740 0 0 -740 0 Corps of Engineers 759 0 0 0 z759: Public Parks/Open Space 22 152 0 0 »74' Public/Semi-Public 247 0 400 0 5'# Low Density Residential 4,769 -74 -163 219751' Medium Density 4,252 -38 -146 385 4;453 Residential Mixed Use 2,650 0 -91 .• 119 ZS78 Industrial 489 -40 0 17 Total* 13,92BJI *Does not include 373 acres of Grapevine Lake within the corporate boundaries of the City of Southlake. The second step of the projection of ultimate land uses was the translation of the adjusted Land Use acreages into categories required for this study. The land use assumption categories are essentially the same as those in the initial impact fee study except for the addition of the Corps of .Engineers category. The following assumptions were used to translate from the Land Use Plan to the land use assumptions categories and to project the ultimate land uses: A-4 1. Mixed Use category was allocated among Single -Family (10%), Multi -Family (2%), and Commercial Categories (88%). 2. Low Density and Medium Density Residential categories were allocated to the Single -Family category. 3. Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public categories were allocated to the Public/Quasi-Public category. Table 2 shows the conversion matrix of Land Use Plan to land use assumptions categories and the respective acreage of each of the ultimate land uses. (Please note that the area unit of measure in Table 2 is expressed in acres.) TABLE 2 CONVERSION MATRIX LAND USE PLAN TO LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS LAND USE PLAN LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CATEGORIES CATEGORIES Single- Multi- Commercial Industrial Public( Corps -of Family Family Quasi -Public Engineers Corps of Engineers 0 0 0 0 0 759 Public Parks/Open 0 0 0 0 174 0 Space Public/Semi-Public 0 0 0 0 647 0 Low Density Residential 4,751 0 0 0 0 0 Medium Density 4,453 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Mixed Use 268 54 2,356 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 466 0 0 iJl T1MATfr LANIy USES 9:47-2: '.: 54 ' Z 356 : 59.8 .::. 8 7:':.:;`.::::::;::::759 ::: r .:::.:... IActesX.:.> A-5 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION The ultimate population of the City of Southlake is a function of residential land use area acres), housing density (dwelling units per acre), and population density (persons per dwelling unit). From the previous section, the total ultimate land use areas of low density single-family housing, medium density single-family housing, and multi -family housing is known. The area of each residential classification was multiplied by its respective housing density and population density, and the products were summed to obtain the ultimate population. Table 3 illustrates the ultimate population calculations. Housing density values are from observed existing residential development and/or current residential zoning regulations. Populations density values are from North Central Texas Council of Governments, preliminary 1993 Population Estimates. TABLE 3 ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Area Housing Density Population Projected (Acres) (D.UJAcre) Density Population (Persons/D.U.) Low Density 4,751 0.80 3.13 11,900 Medium Density 4,453 2.18 3.13 30,380 Mixed Use (Residential Component) Medium Density 268 2.18 3.13 1,860 Multi -Family 54 12.00 3.00 1,940 ULTIMAT> POPUEAT.ION �€b,05D It is important to note the difference in the ultimate population calculated above and the value in the initial impact fee study (46,050 versus 52,900). The majority of this 12.9% decrease in ultimate population is due to an update in the Land Use Plan that occurred A-6 �Z l since the initial study. Although the 1993 Land Use Plan is similar to the 1988 Land Use Plan, the following changes caused the decrease: increased accuracy in the depiction of floodplain and Corps of Engineers' property; decrease of medium density residential area; and increase in low density residential area. A-7 I?F LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL POPULATION ESTIMATES The ultimate land uses and ultimate population projection assumptions enable the design and cost of the ultimate water and wastewater infrastructure. The maximum allowable impact fee, however, incudes debt service in the calculation, and necessitates the estimation of incremental demand. This incremental demand is a function of residential and non-residential components. "Trend modelling" is the method used to project the residential component. Essentially, this method represents that the past growth trend is a good predictor of future growth. Annual population estimates for a 10 -year period are mathematically projected by extrapolating the best -fitting "curve" of historical data. Figure 2 graphically depicts this technique. The 20 -year historical population counts are shown as point data (source: North Central Texas of Governments and U.S. Census Bureau); the trend curve is illustrated by the solid line. - Population 200001 15000 10000 5000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year FIGURE 2 POPULATION TREND MODEL A-8 The 20 -year historical population counts and the 10 -year future population estimates obtained from the trend model are shown in Table 4. The population estimates for 1994- 2003 are in the far -right column of the table. TABLE 4 HISTORICAL AND ESTIMATED POPULATION COUNTS The calculated rate of growth from the trend model is similar to the chosen rate of growth of the initial impact fee study (7.6% versus 7%); however, comparison of the population estimates reveal differences of 10% and greater. The initial study projected population by applying a 7% rate of growth to a 1990 "base year" population count of 6450 people. After the date of this report, the Council of Governments revised their 1990 population estimate to 7065. Had the 7% growth rate been applied to the 7065 count, the differences in the estimates would be negligible. MIJ 30 HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATED POPULATION Year Population Year Population Year Populatio..n Count Count Coanf 1974 2150 1984 4300 1994 1975 2310 1985 4600 1995 i008;0:i 1976 2490 1986 5100 1996 ::: $a0 1977 2680 1987 5400 1997 t16:....D 1978 2890 1988 6100 1998 1979 3110 1989 6500 1999 53(f 1980 3340 1990 7065 2000 <t4S#1 1981 3600 1991 7130 2001 (56 80:;` 1982 3870 1992 7990 2002 Ib$80. 1983 4170 1993 8700 2003 The calculated rate of growth from the trend model is similar to the chosen rate of growth of the initial impact fee study (7.6% versus 7%); however, comparison of the population estimates reveal differences of 10% and greater. The initial study projected population by applying a 7% rate of growth to a 1990 "base year" population count of 6450 people. After the date of this report, the Council of Governments revised their 1990 population estimate to 7065. Had the 7% growth rate been applied to the 7065 count, the differences in the estimates would be negligible. MIJ 30 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL LAND USE PROJECTIONS The non-residential component of the estimation of incremental water and wastewater demand is based on the annual changes land use ares of non-residential development. This non-residential development area is roughly proportional to future population. Following is an explanation of the three steps used to forecast the annual land use projections. The first step in the estimation of annual land use changes is the determination of acreages for developed property by type of land use. This was accomplished through a combination of manual "take -offs" of existing residential and non-residential land uses, and review of zoning case information to confirm acreages. The data also revealed the amount of land that has not been developed. Next, the respective incremental land use changes were calculated. The area changes are the products of the ratio of the incremental population increases to the ultimate population multiplied by the difference of the ultimate land use areas and the corresponding base -year areas. Lastly, these incremental changes were added to the respective base -year land use areas to obtain the annual land use projections. The annual land use projections can be seen in Table 5. A-10 H Z 0 F- 0 0 Cd LO c. WW J H m Z) H Z g Q Z) Z Z Q co N O1 cn C-7 M N co Y s 14 O 10 N v - O U a� s 0 O in y M N � c O a� 0 tn EL U 0) t C S 3 N 0) t� Y IT J Q1 Ln d C a ro U O o � d IT v ro M M d 7 u � c E O C V1 0 -32- 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o m m 00 00 N N N N N N N N N N N 01 Q1 O1 m O1 C1 O1 C1 O1 C% m M M M M M M M M M M ro ^ ti rn co O tn M co co M co 47 N 1D %D V' M N M M N Ln 10 cnn 4 a0 00 CO dp !� N n n n 1D 1D O � Z j 0) 0 m m 01 01 O1 O1 CN C1 C1 01 01 to Ln un to to to to un u1 U1 Lf) N Ql Q .0 O � U ,y U ON 00 N O^ V zz 10 N O N M Ln 00 O Q -p N N N M M M M M M M 'tr Z j Q z U a W_ O O N v %D M N un Go Ln M 0! Ln Ln v1 un u1 kD -.0 %.D N r� N 0_ Rf M M M M M M M M M M M W N j Z Q J ro lfl Q1 -t 01 IT O %D M N o0 •1 j N N M V V In 10 1D GjE E 0 U M U1 %0 N 00 M O N M N N N N 7 UL M In M O %D to M u1 O O M En C1 M C1 10 - 4J �' M M V' •1' �' V' �' V' V' to to lro Z `^ 0 o 0 N 0 00 o Ln O co O N O M o N 0 00 o 00 O N O Z N M 0 00 1D un u1 u1 10 00 0 CO 01 O O N M V' Vl 1D O U -i D LLJ 0R 0_ D. M v to %D N 0o C1 O N M m C1 C1 C1 M C1 C1 O O Cl O Q 01al C1 C1 C1 C1 01 O N O N O N O N W co N O1 cn C-7 M N co Y s 14 O 10 N v - O U a� s 0 O in y M N � c O a� 0 tn EL U 0) t C S 3 N 0) t� Y IT J Q1 Ln d C a ro U O o � d IT v ro M M d 7 u � c E O C V1 0 -32- SUMMARY The City of Southlake's present water and wastewater impact fee study was adopted in August 1990. Since that time the population has increased over twenty percent (20%). Following the high-quality residential development, commercial and retail development has ensued. Demands on the water and wastewater infrastructure have increased significantly. In addition to growth, several components of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan have been amended and/or created in partial response to demands for services. These components include the Thoroughfare Plan; Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Master Plan; and Land Use Plan, and directly or indirectly affect the ultimate water and wastewater infrastructure. This update of the land use assumptions report reflects both the dramatic growth and influences of the changes to the Comprehensive Master Plan. A-12 .,�13 APPENDIX B CITY OF SOUTILAKE CAPITAL IldPROVEMENTS PLAN for WATER I M PACT FEES JOB NO. 001-919 Jane, 1993 Prepared Br. Cheatham & Assodates 1170 Corporate Dr. West, Suite 207 Mfington, TX 76006 817/633-1023 - Metro 817/640-4329 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................ B-1 Existing Facilities .................................... B-1 Water Lines ....................................... B-2 Total Storage ...................................... B-2 High Pressure Plane .................................. B-2 Water Supply and Treatment ............................. B-3 Land Use Assumptions ...................................... B-4 Service Area ............................... ........ B-4 Ultimate Land Uses Projection ............................ B-5 Ultimate Population Projection ............................ B-8 Annual Population Estimates ............................. B-9 Annual Land Use Projections .:...... . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . B-11 Water System Master Plan ................................... B-13 Demand Analysis and Plan .............................. B-13 Standard Service Unit ...................................... B-15 Proposed CIP Projects ...................................... B-22 INTRODUCTION The City of Southlake is currently updating the water impact fees. The last impact fee study was completed in 1990, and was adopted by the City Council in August of 1990. As a part of the process of establishing impact fees, a water system capital improvements plan (CIP) is required. Since a CIP was prepared for the 1990 impact fee study, at this time is will be necessary to update this plan. The water system was categorized into two general groups in the 1990 study. 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 for a 10 year study period, with regard to the projected population to be served. New development cannot be charged for facility capacity serving existing development, or for excess capacity past the 10 year time frame. A second grouping is projects that will be required to serve the ultimate design population. Some of these facilities may be required during the 10 year impact fee study period, and therefore a portion of the cost for these facilities will be eligible for impact fee . determination. The primary purpose of this update study is to determine if revised land use assumptions have any effect upon the projected water system facilities, in addition, there are some components of the water system which have been constructed since the 1990 study. These will now be listed within the category of existing projects, rather than proposed. The appropriate eligible cost of those facilities will be added to the other eligible costs. EXISTING FACILITIES: Facilities which serve the City of Southlake consist of those within the service area, and those at the City of Fort Worth's North Beach Street Facility. In addition, the City owns a supply line which connects the City of Fort Worth's facility to the City of Southlake. 01 C WATER LINES: The City currently has a water distribution system consisting of 6", 8" 10" 12", 18" and 20" water lines. Several lines have been constructed since the 1990 impact fee study. These will be included in the existing system category, and removed from the proposed category. TOTAL STORAGE: Currently the City has three (3) elevated storage tanks. This consists of two (2) 1.5 MG elevated tanks, and one (1) 0.5 MG tank. This is the total storage of the existing system. Based upon water studies which were recently updated, the ultimate storage requirements for the City are: 6.0 MG Ground Storage 4_5 MG Elevated Storage * 10.5 MG Total Storage * For a population of 45,650 It will be necessary to construct a ground storage tank within the next ten years. Currently, it is proposed to construct this tank upon the site of an existing pumping station owned by the City of Keller. HIGH PRESSURE PLANE: Since some of the service area within the City of Southlake is of considerably higher elevation than the remainder of the system, it is proposed to isolate this area into a high pressure plane. The 0.5 MG elevated storage tank will provide elevated storage and pressure for this plane, and it is proposed to share a pumping station, located on Pearson Road, with the City of Keller. The existing pumping station has a surplus capacity, and this can be used by the City of Southlake by adding additional pumps to the facility. Therefore, it is proposed that within the next year this high pressure plane will be completed. Several 6", 8" and 12" lines will need to be installed to facilitate this isolation from the lower plane of the remainder of the system. IM WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT: The City receives all of its treated water from the City of Fort Worth. The City of Fort Worth provides treated water to its North Beach Street storage facility. At that location, the City of Southlake has a pumping station and transmission line which connects the pumping station to the City of Southlake's system. The transmission line was constructed as a joint venture with the cities of Keller and Westlake. The City of Southlake has a capacity of 6.5 MGD in this line. This will not meet the projected water requirements of the next ten years, therefore a new transmission line and pumping station will be required within ten years if the population of Southlake continues to grow as projected for the next ten years. FM 35 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - SERVICE AREA For water and wastewater infrastructure, Chapter 395 allows the service area to be "...all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction..." Currently, Southlake's extraterritorial jurisdiction and corporate boundaries encompass the same area. For this reason and because the location of future development is difficult to predict, the geographic boundary for the service area includes all property within the corporate limits of the City of Southlake. This is the same service area as the 1990 impact fee study, and is depicted in Figure 1. CITYOF -^, - S O UTHLA.KE y81 N His _.....__....... .. .. _. •mss._ ..urK...,:«_ ::s•:::: e_ u,. - _ • ,x;i ":Ili: ssr H ;'u• •:T•i i ei :� .� :::»-:ter-• :...... :�_. i_....._ O "...._.: -e .......::. u.3� e�e,�• •�.c?rte„:r': a a =' ii''.=i:.iii i��' „r�:�s :sem• p : - _ -_ -'q= •o,:'»�'.,F_: i!irii•.e:ui!�... - ».. -� iii„;u',. ; •• :; ::!L�'::.. R :::. ....}i_i, _ »: •p ... •''r 2s»=o:. r �sa:.i` c,:..,rs •._ ;{i• `�`�' ?i..:r,;! .; O _” a! :E=iyc_: n.- .2„-!-,ss'"0• ..: i n`:M.p:• ..... -i: :s^,_-.....�»..._.: ,j�.y�__'•^s =,�, . ,,i,�, r - p .x a �• iii. .": .�„ .... i „"; ��m .,a?i-„'a•-5; �,�''�-i'?»c,711 _».. ;._ ' ex• 1�,.iE.r:!?��c :e,d . :...ss::T _•.'y,-,;_ i'3�'•.'3fi'?^;,;," _:er = _ _ _ ' e _ e,ini'�%"s_ Fi 5? in :'^... �;:--�.»::;; .�.• ' � art «i.:::.:...:. • _ — _ _ •e-.'''�, - .•''8»_'x�se aiT�h _ L.�''�n:u� P�'5c" 3i " .: iiiy ir. __.. ....._x«,•!i,u` IA!-- �.x.�°. r' •; � •� •: •• se.. _ '•T- ?- maa .a::»�•»� ;� �w'c, w • ;ni !_i:: = -» - -! -f?t y r_ e Wim::: r`a !iuL `�`. - :: isT=;wr•,=i'� �.: Y..` ...::� sn. �:.......r :ss;,�sin"' ..^;`�„�. ii;�� :;yam i� •<� :�! uµ' iBi �•:u :» �33-»e__r : i! ?iii=zi';1 ";; >s .fiiilOttk!i'j'i E�7'�i. - ':7�, °'!ii:3r ii- "�sY; i i : {.: „° : = S_H.;;ia �TN!..,,i...... a .. ...,:e»u»e. •a. ery`k.:. 'ass:=»:•• t�iSt,•'"•:".:i. ia • FIGURE 1 SERVICE AREA CITY OF SOUTHLAKE B-4 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ULTIMATE LAND USES PROJECTION The location, type, and density of development within Southlake is largely determined by the City's Land Use Plan; hence, the Land Use Plan is the basis for the projection of ultimate land uses. This projection entailed two steps. The first step was determination of the acreage for each category of the Land Use Plan and adjustments to those acreages to reflect the following: 1. For Parks / Open Space uses, the Land Use Plan only indicates existing facilities. Additional park acreage requirements as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan (except for those on Corps of Engineers property) were deducted from the land use categories in which the future parks are conceptually located. 2. Also, for Public / Semi -Public uses, the Land Use Plan only indicates existing facilities. It is assumed that, although current facilities are almost fully utilized, they have enough land area to expand and service twice the present population. This ratio is approximately 1.4 acres of public P semi-public uses for every 100 persons. Future area requirements were determined at this ratio and.deducted proportionally from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use land use categories. 3. The 1993 Land Use Plan indicates Floodplain as a distinct category; however, the initial impact fee study integrated floodplain with the adjacent categories of the land use assumptions. Although this runs counter to the logic of the first two adjustments, area indicated as Floodplain in the Land Use Plan was added to those adjacent categories that wholly or partially contain floodplain for sake of continuity in this update of the land use assumptions. Development densities IM Plan. were adjusted downward to compensate for the generally "undevelopable" nature of floodplains. Table 1 shows the acreage "take -offs" and the subsequent adjustments to the Land Use TABLE 1 LAND USE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS 1993 LAND USE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS ADJUST , .............................. ............................. ............................. ED Parks/ Public/ Floodplain TOTALS..: Open Space Semi -Public Category Acreage Floodplain 740 0 0 740 Q Corps of Engineers 759 0 0 0 _ _ .._1759.;:: .............................. Public Parks/Open Space 22 152 0 0174 Public/Semi-Public 247 0 400 0 Low Density Residential 4,769 -74 -163 219 4;751 Medium Density 4,252 -38 -146 385 4;453 Residential Mixed Use 2,650 0 -91 119 2;678 Industrial 489 -40 0 17 Total* 13,928 *Does not include 373 acres of Grapevine Lake within the corporate boundaries of the City of Southlake. The second step of the projection of ultimate land uses was the translation of the adjusted Land Use acreages into categories required for this study. The land use assumption categories are essentially the same as those in the initial impact fee study except for the addition of the Corps of Engineers category. The following assumptions were used to translate from the Land Use Plan to the land use assumptions categories and to project the ultimate land uses: 1. Mixed Use category was allocated among Single -Family (10%), Multi -Family (2%), and Commercial Categories (88%). 2. Low Density and Medium Density Residential categories were allocated to the Single -Family category. 3. Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public categories were allocated to the Public/Quasi-Public category. Table 2 shows the conversion matrix of Land Use Plan to land use assumptions categories and the respective acreage of each of the ultimate land uses. (Please note that the area unit of measure in Table 2 is expressed in acres.) TABLE 2 CONVERSION MATRIX LAND USE PLAN TO LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS LAND USE PLAN LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CATEGORIES CATEGORIES Single- Multi- Commercial Industrial Public/ Corps of Family Family Quasi- Engineers Public Corps of Engineers 0 1 0 0 0 0 759 Public Parks/Open 0 0 0 0 174 0 Space Public/Semi-Public 0 0 0 0 647 0 Low Density 4,751 0 0 .0 0 0 Residential Medium Density 4,453 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Mixed Use 268 54 2,356 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 466 0 0 ULTIMATE LAND 9,472 S4 2,356 508 821 759 SES . (Acres) LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION The ultimate population of the City of Southlake is a function of residential land use area acres), housing density (dwelling units per acre), and population density (persons per dwelling unit). From the previous section, the total ultimate land use areas of low density single-family housing, medium density single-family housing, and multi -family housing is known. The area of each residential classification was multiplied by its respective housing density and population density, and the products were summed to obtain the ultimate population. Table 3 illustrates the ultimate population calculations. Housing density values are from observed existing residential development and/or current residential zoning regulations Populations density values are from North Central Texas Council of Governments, preliminary 1993 Population Estimates. TABLE 3 ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Area (Acres) Housing Density (D.U./Acre) Population Density (Persons/D. U.) Projected Population Low Density 4,751 0.80 3.13 11,900 Medium Density 4,453 2.18 3.13 30,380 Mixed Use (Residential Component) Medium Density 268 2.18 3.13 1,860 M I ulti . Farni . ly 54 12.00 3.00 1,940 ULTIMATE POPULATION 46,050 :. It is important to note the difference in the ultimate population calculated above and the value in the initial impact fee study (46,050 versus 52,900). The majority of this 12.9% decrease in ultimate population is due to an update in the Land Use Plan that occurred since the initial study. Although the 1993 Land Use Plan is similar to the 1988 Land Use Plan, the following changes caused the decrease: increased accuracy in the depiction of floodplain and Corps of Engineers' property; decrease of medium density residential area; and increase in low density residential area. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL POPULATION ESTIMATES The ultimate land uses and ultimate population projection assumptions enable the design and cost of the ultimate water and wastewater infrastructure. The maximum allowable impact fee, however, incudes debt service in the calculation, and necessitates the estimation of incremental demand. This incremental demand is a function of residential and non-residential components. "Trend modelling" is the method used to project the residential component. Essentially, this method represents that the past growth trend is a good predictor of future growth. Annual population estimates for a 10 -year period are mathematically projected by extrapolating the best -fitting "curve" of historical data. Figure 2 graphically depicts this technique. The 20 -year historical population counts are shown as point data (source: North Central Texas of Governments and U.S. Census Bureau); the trend curve is illustrated by the solid line. Population 20000. 15000 0000. 15000 5000 01 1 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year FIGURE 2 POPULATION TREND MODEL :` The 20 -year historical population counts and the 10 -year future population estimates obtained from the trend model are shown in Table 4. The population estimates for 1994-2003 are in the far -right column of the table. TABLE 4 HISTORICAL AND ESTIMATED POPULATION COUNTS HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATED POPULATION Year Population Count Year Population Count Year Populatto�t Count 1974 2150 1984 4300 1994 9320` 1975 2310 1985 4600 1995 1976 2490 1986 5100 1996 10850; ..................................: 1977 2680 1987 5400 1997 11680 1978 2890 1988 6100 1998 12570 i' 1979 3110 1989 6500 1999 ................................. ................................. ............................... ........................ ........................ 13530., 1980 3340 1990 7065 2000 145100:1, 1981 3600 1991 7130 2001 15680.,. 1982 3870 1992 7990 2002 1688.0> 1983 4170 1993 8700 2003 18170> The calculated rate of growth from the trend model is similar to the chosen rate of growth of the initial impact fee study (7.6% versus 7%); however, comparison of the population estimates reveal differences of 10% and greater. The initial study projected population by applying a 7% rate of growth to a 1990 "base year" population count of 6450 people. After the date of this report, the Council of Governments revised their 1990 population estimate to 7065. Had the 7% growth rate been applied to the 7065 count, the differences in the estimates would be negligible. ( LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL LAND USE PROJECTIONS The non-residential component of the estimation of incremental water and wastewater demand is based on the annual changes land use ares of non-residential development. This non- residential development area is roughly proportional to future population. Following is an explanation of the three steps used to forecast the annual land use projections. The first step in the estimation of annual land use changes is the determination of acreages for developed property by type of land use. This was accomplished through a combination of manual "take -offs" of existing residential and non-residential land uses, and review of zoning case information to confirm acreages. The data also revealed the amount of land that has not been developed. Next, the respective incremental land use changes were calculated. The area changes are the products of the ratio of the incremental population increases to the ultimate population multiplied by the difference of the ultimate land use areas and the corresponding base -year areas. Lastly, these incremental changes were added to the respective base -year land use areas to obtain the annual land use projections. The annual landuse projections can be seen in Table 5. q N O W_ O w M Cl. W W J N CO D <a Z Q Z Q B-12 o N M r O '7Z7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * N N N N N N N N N N N a1 Q1 M M M M M M M M M M M r r r r r r r r M 00 q n M O 00 CO CO a N %.D O N M M O %Z r r -- CL CL ' t M N O N d v O c, 0� ON all cll c) c, al, c, o M M M M M M M M M M M a L c V W u Q N C) Ql, M Qll Rt O O h 0 v 'y � %O N CO O r N M ti) a da V W wO N d �O C� N M CO r M O1 CL ro M M M M M %Z %D �O 1� 1� t� M M M M M M M M M M M W y 13 O Q J V r r r M et GN O [t O CN M '�t r O [f r M r M v r r M r �O N W r r r r N N N N M MM O r O M �O M r 01 h M M Q� M M r c CO M Q10 M �t r �t N �! M �t M d z O O M N M 'n ti Z Z O O O t� O CO O M C O O n O M O N O O O O O n p O M M M I -O M r t0 Q1 O O r N M M z CO W CL 0 Oa CL C. M �t M %.O N 0p Q1 O V- 0% 0% m Q1 ON G� O O O O C� O� C*, Q� Q� G) m O O O O } B-12 o N M r O '7Z7 WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN A water system master plan must be developed in order to list projects needed to complete the water system CIP. The master plan is based on several assumptions. The master plan is designed to accommodate a projected ultimate population. That population is based upon the population projections which were updated as a result of this study. That population is projected to reside within, and be situated as described by, the land use framework depicted by the future land use plan, which has also been recently updated. For the purposes of developing this plan, it will be assumed that Southlake will receive all of its treated water from one source. The City of Fort Worth now supplies all the water for Southlake, and it is assumed that all future water supplies will also come from Fort Worth. The prior impact fee study assumed that Southlake would receive water from both the City of Fort Worth, and the Trinity River Authority (TRA) in the future. At this time however, that does not seem likely. 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 modified and updated for use in development of the new water 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. 1-13 The land use and population assumptions are analyzed to determine future water demands. The various components of the system are then sized to accommodate these various demands. Based upon an ultimate population of 46,050, as defined previously in the update of impact fees, a computer "Hardy -Cross" analysis was performed to determine the line sizes for the ultimate water distribution system to serve this population. In addition, the storage facilities were analyzed to determine how much ground and elevated storage will be required to meet future water demands, and also to provide adequate fire protection. 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 unit prices. The unit prices include construction cost, engineering and inspection costs. They are based on current (1993) cost figures. There is no contingency allowance included. TABLE 6 EXISTING SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS (1993) 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 & 351,037 36" Water Line/Pro Rata Share of Supply Line Pump Station at North Beach - Pro Rata Share 132,243 0.5 MG Tank High Pressure Plane 160,000 18" Water Line/IBM 157,140 Telemetry System 132,629 Various 8", 12" 18" Distribution Mains 4,610,300 TOTAL - Existing Systems $ 8,578,648 B-14 STANDARD SERVICE UNIT When the Impact Fees were originally calculated in 1990, there was much discussion about how to define a standard Service Unit and how the equivalency table was to be constructed. There was evidence to support a compelling argument that it should be attached to the meter size. A meter represents the connection to the system and is identified as a formal event in the planning approval (platting) and actual implementation process (building permitting). The size of the meter represents the magnitude of the potential demand that can be placed on the utility system. The standard residential meter size for Southlake is a 1" meter. Based on standards derived from the American Water Works Association, the following table of equivalents was determined: TABLE 7 SERVICE UNIT EQUIVALENCY TABLE Meter Size Service Unit Equivalent 5/8 Inch Meter .40 3/4 Inch Meter .60 1 Inch Meter 1.0 1-1/2 Inch Meter 2.0 2 Inch Meter 3.2 .3 Inch Meter 6.4 4 Inch Meter 10.0 6 Inch Meter 20.0 8 Inch Meter 32.0 Based on the total number of meters in place at the present time (2,899), multiplied by the equivalency factors, it was determined that the City of Southlake has 2,727 Service Units in place for water and 905 in place for sewer when the irrigation meters and septic system customers not connected to the system are subtracted. B-15 Growth in Service Units There is hardly a more critical number in the calculation of an Impact Fee than the estimates of Service Units for water and wastewater that will be added during the ten-year planning period. These Service Units are the basis for the capacity utilization allocation made by the consulting engineers and are to be divided into the total eligible costs associated with projected growth to yield the Maximum Impact Fee. The number of Service Units are identified for various categories: Single Family, Multi -Family, Commercial/Industrial, and Public/Quasi-Public. Currently developed acreage were also grouped by these same categories. With this information, a ratio was established to show the number of Service Unit Equivalents per acre. These values were then applied to the projected acres to be developed during the ten-year planning period. This resulted in an estimate of growth in Service Units shown in the following table: The following pages include Table 8 thru Table 11 which illustrate the projected growth in service units, population and land use, and water demand. S. / TABLE 8 CALCULATION OF GROWTH IN SERVICE UNITS Item Water Wastewater Current Service Units Residential 2,337 790 Non -Residential 390 115 Total 2 727 905 Developed Acres Residential 3,816 3,816 Non -Residential 730 730 Total 4,546 4,546 Service Units Per Acre - Current Residential .6126 .2070 Non -Residential .5337 .1578 Average .5999 .1991 Service Units Per Acre - Pro'ected Residential 1.2252 1.1639 Commercial/Public/ uasi-Public 1.0674 1.0140 Industrial 2.5000 2.3750 Growth in Acres Residential 1,448 1,448 Commercial/Public/Quasi-Public 708 708 Industrial 29 29 Growth in Service Units Residential 1,774 1,685 Commercial/Public/Quasi-Public 756 718 Industrial 72 69 Total 2,602 2,472 B-17 R_1R O O M 0�0 O N N -� Ln co .- n NH O F- a— N Z W V1 O O 1n OU �O Ifs O O tt O N et (G O CA s W W �— O �— M Z O <> ><»<. Z Q 00 0 N N M r— O O O O 00 M N H W V) r cV CC ................... .>.:.. a.... tt O O N at 0 0 0 W r N M ul tu 4m 00 ." Z3.t N O V) W 1n �— M O r CC W Z Z co (O o N N r a �r O N ul O n n cV t CC :� CC W W N N s 00 s of M c r c N � r c N c M c c v0 s 00 J Q a— F- O H R_1R Lc) — (D (D tt W n 00 (Dir n N w a000D(000.--(DMNCDn n° 3 MON ttWM��n0M �Q W �r•-�NNNMM N� U N r W J nNnnr*-T-W (DO N W N O M (A n M •- M n O M tD M M (D 3 NNMMMMtt -tqtd'tn N� M 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O z J N N N N N N N N N N N Z Q M M N M M M M M M M M Q O (MMttMMMMM("1MM Z M OO qt P- LO a ... (D 00 F- > N(DCNCf) M0(.0 (M 00 O W (DttCD•-MntnNOnst x-00 z o ao ao 00 ao n n n n n (D cD N N LL M M M M M M M M M M M O O Ln Ln u) Ln Ln Ln Lc) Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 n.Z nnnnnnnnnnn 0 �O W O W U CC cc (� MMMONtnMttOOn 00Ln U N CDn000.-NM0NMa M � Q J Q NNNMMMMMMMtt W -N a C � ' ON�(DMNtnOO�tnM M °st NJ WWtoWtoWWWnnn NaO Q M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 � O Z Or r -r a 00('M.-it—MODM W J �M0q*M it0WMNM n° Q ra-- a- NNMttIgMWW Ln2?M n U O U �. Md mwr,-WMO—NM G J � Q LL LU MtnMO(D�ntnMln� G ,}j 00'-MtnMMM(Dstst C 00 MO r -N Mtn(DOOON t Z Q MM����d �tttntn N LL. LLJ 00 M O N M Ln n Q1 Cl) Ln O NMtn(Dn00MONM d LL (VN(4N(4(4(V66M6 (I Z Q Q 0 M Lu IL 000-M��M�n'au e aCL CC NLgUnLgUnLntntnMtl�Ln V O U N(DMCDO00(Xi 6(D(D(D C = a z_ a p 00000000000 c a.oncoLr) oonMn0000n r n, n al 0 00 (D Ln Ln Ln (D OR �- • O 00MOO�NMstMCDM ( M I Ln(Dn00M 0.-NMMMMMMM0000 MMr-e-r-%-e-NNNN N MI 11" �I, I I�Ito '1 co a 00 N � (DEMO N (-000 N CD O O r (D co MO r'M00 L' Q IN] N a P.- Q V-0 z O 5. o O N } n O M 00 coir -lo O r L' Q W a Q z O 5. o O } _= UW z�O w} Z O L7 J cc W oCy20H CC CC MZ U J 1= J D. M W LU m~ (7 (D Q o s Gi s .S The following pages illustrate the estimated cost for the CIP projects required to serve the projected growth of the City. TABLE 12 REQUIRED ADDITIONAL WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS NEEDED TO SERVE ULTIMATE POPULATION (46,050) FOR IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION PROJECT ESTIMATED COST Various 8", 12", 20" 24" lines needed to complete low pressure plane $6,734,934 Various 6", 8" & 12" lines needed to complete high pressure plane 500,000 Additional 1.0 MG Elevated Tank 850,000 3.0 MG Ground Storage 650,000 2.25 MG Ground Storage 500,000 0.75 Ground Storage (Keller) 225,000 Pumping Station (within system) 425,000 Pumping Station (within system) 425,000 Additional 30" supply line to Fort Worth 1,755,000 Pumping Station (Fort Worth) 750.000 - Subtotal - New Facilities Construction $ 12,814,934 + 0% Contingency 0 + 13% Engineering/Surveying 1,665,941 + 3% Inspection 384,448 + Land [Three Sites] 150.000 Total - New Facilities $ 15,015,323 It should be noted that there are no treatment plant projects or costs shown in the above listing of capital projects. The City of Fort Worth's costs for existing and new capital facilities will be passed to Southlake customers through rates and future impact fees. The following page describes each of the above facilities in more detail. B-21 PROPOSED CIP PROJECTS (WATER) Low Pressure Plane Various 8", 12", 20" & 24" lines to complete distribution system Estimated Cost $6,734,934 High Pressure Plane Various 6", 8" & 12" lines to complete high pressure plane w/pumping station sharing with Keller. Estimated Cost $500,000 Elevated Storage Tank A new 1.0 MG elevated tank will be required Estimated Cost $850,000 Ground Storage Tanks w/Booster Pumping Stations One (1) new 3.0 MG ground storage tank and one (1) 2.25 MG ground storage tank and two (2) 6.5 MGD booster pumping stations will be required to meet future max hour water demands. In addition, a 0.75 MG ground storage tank will be required for the high pressure plane, which will be constructed upon the site of Keller's pumping station. Estimated Cost $650,000 ea. for 3.0 MG tank $425,000 ea. for 6.5 MGD booster pumping sta. $500,000 ea. for 2.25 MG tank Additional Supply Line A new 30" water transmission line will be required to be constructed to the Ft. Worth storage tank. Estimated Cost $1,755,000 Additional Pumping Station At the Ft. Worth storage tank, a new 15.5 MGD booster station will be required. Estimated Cost $750,000 The following table illustrates the existing and proposed facilities, and the calculation of water impact fee eligible costs for the ten year study period. lim APPENDIX C CITY OF SOUTHLAKE CAPITAL MPROVEMENTS PLAN for WASTEWATER IldPACT FEES JOB NO. 001-919 June, 1993 Prepared By: Cheatham & Associates 1170 Corporate Dr. West, /207 Arlington, TX 76006 817/633-1023 - Metro 817-6404329 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................ C-1 Existing Facilities .................................... C-2 Land Use Assumptions Service Area ....................................... C-3 Ultimate Land Uses Projection ............................ C-4 Ultimate Population Projection ............................ C-7 Annual Population Estimates ............................. C-8 Annual Land Use Projections ............................. C-9 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan .................................. C-12 Demand Analysis and Plan .............................. C-12 Standard Service Unit ...................................... C-13 Proposed CIP Projects ...................................... C-21 Denton Creek Watershed ............................... C-21 Big Bear Creek Watershed .............................. C-22 INTRODUCTION The City of Southlake is currently updating the wastewater impact fees. The last impact fee study was completed in 1990, and was adopted by the City Council in August of 1990. As a part of the process of establishing impact fees, a wastewater system capital improvements plan (CIP) is required. Since a CIP was prepared for the 1990 impact fee study, at this time is will be necessary to update this plan. The wastewater system was categorized into two general groups in the 1990 study. 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 for a 10 year study period, with regard to the projected population to be served. New development cannot be charged for facility capacity serving existing development, or for excess capacity past the 10 year time frame. A second grouping is projects that will be required to serve the ultimate design population. Some of these facilities may be required during the 10 year impact fee study period, and therefore a portion of the cost for these facilities will be eligible for impact fee determination. The primary purpose of this update study is to determine if revised land use assumptions have any effect upon the projected wastewater system facilities, in addition, there are some components of the wastewater system which have been constructed since the 1990 study. These will now be listed within the category of existing projects, rather than proposed. The appropriate eligible cost of those facilities will be added to the other eligible costs. 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 a portion 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 C-1 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. EXISTING FACILITIES: The existing facilities of the City of Southlake's wastewater system consists of a portion of several trunk lines which have been constructed since the 1990 wastewater impact fee study was prepared. This includes a lift station which pumps wastewater from the N-3 basin south to the S-6 basin. This arrangement however, can only be in place until November 1996. By 1996 it is proposed that the Denton Creek system be in place to transfer the wastewater from the north side of Southlake to the existing TRA treatment facility north of Roanoke. The only other facility which currently exists on the north side of Southlake is a small treatment plant which serves the Dove Estates Addition. This plant will be abandoned once the Denton Creek System is in place. On the south side of town, there are several sections of the S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5 and S-6 lines currently in operation. In addition, the Big Bear Interceptor has been completed. This line serves the entire south side of Southlake and all of the S-1 thru S-7 lines will eventually connect to the Big Bear Interceptor. There are several existing sub -divisions, schools, and commercial developments now being served by the existing wastewater system. There is another small treatment plant which serves the eastern portion of the S-7 basin. Once the S-7 trunk line is installed, this treatment plant will be abandoned. C-2 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - SERVICE AREA For water and wastewater infrastructure, Chapter 395 allows the service area to be "...all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction..." Currently, Southlake's extraterritorial jurisdiction and corporate boundaries encompass the same area. For this reason and because the location of future development is difficult to predict, the geographic boundary for the service area includes all property within the corporate limits of the City of Southlake. This is the same service area as the 1990 impact fee study, and is depicted in Figure 1. CITY -- OF SOUTHLAKE ``_ + it _ ::::-•:: -- - - '= = _ - - :.:.::nnnra- a _ sF•,z,-^""-.x; _,,.�^,rx--_�� �M�IIIM:-i^:.j£ a e£ gin i _ _ =N _ -- ... N +�`.. s r ' :M_ ,=°�£ z::....: •:ijic �� r�3::si:�M ra . 3.-.•.z'us. ,,3R 7C =^zzz ;'°...�• �$�5� �= ate.__ _' = s� s, :;�M a�'�£«..' . it .1 rani:•• .xr._.;.. •_•� ...«...... =r'=as�# O .. .._....-m ss,,_=T„J• a :ss�'zri ?N» -- a :::_::F«_•. _ ....... .. .. .. � Wiz^ «- 'f.•i:„�.:mz„££ iG ._. it ... •� 'i::..� ,•_ z",z''ilir i 'r�-^^'i ,= ... y __. .. ... ::::s :.:rasa^_ •:�, .._": r - _'-�:�:^•:,,. `:. e' _z�'•':':-'u'7z:w - : « r ... Ana•:.: £-;.«._;� ....:: }.-.«_««_- --__ m�� � a7 •_ gra:-« ..:.:.:.... .3_r•-- —• - .. .x'-3ra._in ::uz.: •_?:: e'r'r•,_. « _ ^ .a',.... ::::3: •- ... � • n:a .. z�....•., �M1w1��:LL.�%+ �1� ::•:.;'c:�:��a��Yr:'?':i':�'�'3u.�a.'.�m�r:£'tlz::y£r� nom:..: �...,..... z.. z_-:..c::.�z:3•• '� '" _ .:'iF:.-• :::: ....—�,•.. :_-�..::^ •aa'a:�Su e:;..:'-?ra _ u:•`�'•!:'e is :,££•z • � x __± see �•i,z•zr. ;_, ::s�zaue•iaz . a.zsr_,r . .�'i�'..n8:-�'--x�£ra._.,•E_''^r:z'�.-'z,z_-.Y-,••r�"'°'Si3gys �-� �_ ' ' .. _..: ',""'s'ra�.`^� ' g� �= r ? '^ - _-'',,-`•E� Yrs''•"' - ��;;u!y�__ �::1 H a .....-:zsz,£x ;,az-.,.israw'rT�z - - _ "'';un� �a-!••.,:•':7. `n`-G.:iif.:z• i_r• . : •,3z57 :::::r•E'-_"n•�S�:e 'ems �' •f,• z _ ..., _ - - r=smz :: EF it - •',- :;£'_•"•.asst :�.. Ga- �.. « ..� .._._ �-��i �:n:i...: -G:..__ it . �r G ..__..:£..... at.,, ..... ; iz ru�ssts y `•gin:- :' : : s ` :a£: is ._ lzx:::._:..: ::__.......-•« •........z:••:::z.-.f;i„:i===n� ..:c::"E�.ir„; :e?::. - .zt•?;,�'_:«. .. ".z,.=. 11 it �.nr........ innu!ltaii s�k2£r�,.:::.. � .... ....-. _.....__. _.... _ •__.. .._ ..... .... Caa� ” _...:._ •rte.:::,:_.:.: ss=a:£::£`?:�:.:. «. n ... t ..:.....ia. ' r.;rliEiEG su:: •:.::a:nur:::y,£•':•.ei:P£i:sm'�j',:,tisu :....:c7:::.-E�'•.,£ �:caxr�r� a£ -:•::`'':u ii °ja',nau:as?. ��.''+ ...'sir � '�°£:`:.s=•� . FIGURE 1 SERVICE AREA CITY OF SOUTHLAKE C-3 62 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ULTIMATE LAND USES PROJECTION The location, type, and density of development within Southlake is largely determined by the City's Land Use Plan; hence, the Land Use Plan is the basis for the projection of ultimate land uses. This projection entailed two steps. The first step was determination of the acreage for each category of the Land Use Plan and adjustments to those acreages to reflect the following: 1. For Parks / Open Space uses, the Land Use Plan only indicates existing facilities. Additional park acreage requirements as described in the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan (except for those on Corps of Engineers property) were deducted from the land use categories in which the future parks are conceptually located. 2. Also, for Public / Semi -Public uses, the Land Use Plan only indicates existing facilities. It is assumed that, although current facilities are almost fully utilized, they have enough land area to expand and service twice the present population. This ratio is approximately 1.4 acres of public / seri-public uses for every 100 persons. Future area requirements were determined at this ratio and deducted proportionally from Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use land use categories. 3. The 1993 Land Use Plan indicates Floodplain as a distinct category; however, the initial impact fee study integrated floodplain with the adjacent categories of the land use assumptions. Although this runs counter to the logic of the first two adjustments, area indicated as Floodplain in the Land Use Plan was added to those adjacent categories that wholly or partially contain floodplain for sake of continuity in this update of the land use assumptions. Development densities C-4 6, Plan. were adjusted downward to compensate for the generally "undevelopable" nature of floodplains. Table 1 shows the acreage "take -offs" and the subsequent adjustments to the Land Use TABLE 1 LAND USE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS 1993 LAND USE PLAN ADJUSTMENTS ADJUST ED, Parks/ Public/ Floodplain T.O. S:. Open Space Semi -Public Category Acreage .............................. (Acres) _. _ .. ............................. Floodplain 740 0 0 .............................. .............................. -740: ............................. ............................. 0 Corps of Engineers 759 0 0 0 .............................. < 759 Public Parks/Open Space 22 152 0 0 ............................. Public/Semi-Public 247 0 400 0 647: ............................. ............................. Low Density Residential 4,769 -74 -163 219 4,751 Medium Density 4,252 -38 -146 385 4,453 Residential Mixed Use 2,650 0 -91 119 Industrial 489 -40 0 17 466: Total* 13,928 *Does not include 373 acres of Grapevine Lake within the corporate boundaries of the City of Southlake. The second step of the projection of ultimate land uses was the translation of the adjusted Land Use acreages into categories required for this study. The land use assumption categories are essentially the same as those in the initial impact fee study except for the addition of the Corps of Engineers category. The following assumptions were used to translate from the Land Use Plan to the land use assumptions categories and to project the ultimate land uses: 1. Mixed Use category was allocated among Single -Family (10%), Multi -Family (2%), and Commercial Categories (88%). 2. Low Density and Medium Density Residential categories were allocated to the Single -Family category. C-5 3. Public Parks/Open Space and Public/Semi-Public categories were allocated to the Public/Quasi-Public category. Table 2 shows the conversion matrix of Land Use Plan to land use assumptions categories and the respective acreage of each of the ultimate land uses. (Please note that the area unit of measure in Table 2 is expressed in acres.) TABLE 2 CONVERSION MATRIX LAND USE PLAN TO LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS LAND USE PLAN LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CATEGORIES CATEGORIES Single- Multi- Commercial Industrial Public/ Corps of Family Family Quasi- Engineers Public Corps of Engineers 0 1 0 0 0 0 759 Public Parks/Open 0 0 0 0 174 0 Space Public/Semi-Public 0 0 0 0 647 0 Low Density 4,751 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Medium Density 4,453 0 0 0 0 0 Residential Mixed Use 268 54 2,356 0 0 0 Industrial 0 0 0 466 0 0 ULTIMATE LAND 9,472 54 2X6 508 $2L' : 759 sEs c Cr�� C-6 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION The ultimate population of the City of Southlake is a function of residential land use area acres), housing density (dwelling units per acre), and population density (persons per dwelling unit). From the previous section, the total ultimate land use areas of low density single-family housing, medium density single-family housing, and multi -family housing is known. The area of each residential classification was multiplied by its respective housing density and population density, and the products were summed to obtain the ultimate population. Table 3 illustrates the ultimate population calculations. Housing density values are from observed existing residential development and/or current residential zoning regulations. Populations density values are from North Central Texas Council of Governments, preliminary 1993 Population Estimates. TABLE 3 ULTIMATE POPULATION PROJECTION RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Area (Acres) Housing Density (D.U./Acre) Population Density (Persons/D.U.) Projected Population Low Density 4,751 0.80 3.13 11,900 Medium Density 4,453 2.18 3.13 30,380 Mixed Use (Residential Component) Medium Density 268 2.18 3.13 1,860 Multi -Family 54 12.00 3.00 1,940 ULTIMATE POPULATION 46,050 It is important to note the difference in the ultimate population calculated above and the value in the initial impact fee study (46,050 versus 52,900). The majority of this 12.9% decrease in ultimate population is due to an update in the Land Use Plan that occurred since the initial study. Although the 1993 Land Use Plan is similar to the 1988 Land Use Plan, the following changes caused the decrease: increased accuracy in the depiction of floodplain and Corps of Engineers' property; decrease of medium density residential area; and increase in low density residential area. C-7 �_7 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL POPULATION ESTIMATES The ultimate land uses and ultimate population projection assumptions enable the design and cost of the ultimate water and wastewater infrastructure. The maximum allowable impact fee, however, incudes debt service in the calculation, and necessitates the estimation of incremental demand. This incremental demand is a function of residential and non-residential components. "Trend modelling" is the method used to project the residential component. Essentially, this method represents that the past growth trend is a good predictor of future growth. Annual population estimates for a 10 -year period are mathematically projected by extrapolating the best -fitting "curve" of historical data. Figure 2 graphically depicts this technique. The 20 -year historical population counts are shown as point data (source: North Central Texas of Governments and U.S. Census Bureau); the trend curve is illustrated by the solid line. Population 2oaoo 15000 10000 5000 0' ' 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year FIGURE 2 POPULATION TREND MODEL C-8 The 20 -year historical population counts and the 10 -year future population estimates obtained from the trend model are shown in Table 4. The population estimates for 1994-2003 are in the far -right column of the table. TABLE 4 HISTORICAL AND ESTIMATED POPULATION COUNTS The calculated rate of growth from the trend model is similar to the chosen rate of growth of the initial impact fee study (7.6% versus 7%); however, comparison of the population estimates reveal differences of 10% and greater. The initial study projected population by applying a 7% rate of growth to a 1990 "base year" population count of 6450 people. After the date of this report, the Council of Governments revised their 1990 population estimate to 7065. Had the 7% growth rate been applied to the 7065 count, the differences in the estimates would be negligible. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL LAND USE PROJECTIONS The non-residential component of the estimation of incremental water and wastewater demand is based on the annual changes land use ares of non-residential development. This non- residential development area is roughly proportional to future population. Following is an explanation of the three steps used to forecast the annual land use projections. C-9 6 ci HISTORICAL POPULATION ESTIMATED POPULATION Year Population Year Population Year Populatton :i Count Count Count 1974 2150 1984 4300 1994 9370 1975 2310 1985 4600 1995 ...................................... 10080....1 1976 2490 1986 5100 1996 10850> 1977 2680 1987 5400 1997 11680 1978 2890 1988 6100 1998 ................................... ................................... ..................................... 12570..:' 1979 3110 1989 6500 ..................................... ..................................... ....................................... ....................................... ....................................... 1999 ...................................... .................................... ...................................... ....................................... = .43530'.>' 1980 3340 1990 7065 ....................................... ....................................... ..................................... ..................................... .................................. ................................... .................................... 2000 ............................ 0... 14570<> 1981 3600 1991 7130 2001 156$0 1982 3870 1992 7990 2002 16880: 1983 4170 1993 8700 2003 18170 The calculated rate of growth from the trend model is similar to the chosen rate of growth of the initial impact fee study (7.6% versus 7%); however, comparison of the population estimates reveal differences of 10% and greater. The initial study projected population by applying a 7% rate of growth to a 1990 "base year" population count of 6450 people. After the date of this report, the Council of Governments revised their 1990 population estimate to 7065. Had the 7% growth rate been applied to the 7065 count, the differences in the estimates would be negligible. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS - ANNUAL LAND USE PROJECTIONS The non-residential component of the estimation of incremental water and wastewater demand is based on the annual changes land use ares of non-residential development. This non- residential development area is roughly proportional to future population. Following is an explanation of the three steps used to forecast the annual land use projections. C-9 6 ci The first step in the estimation of annual land use changes is the determination of acreages for developed property by type of land use. This was accomplished through a combination of manual "take -offs" of existing residential and non-residential land uses, and review of zoning case information to confirm acreages. The data also revealed the amount of land that has not been developed. Next, the respective incremental land use changes were calculated. The area changes are the products of the ratio of the incremental population increases to the ultimate population multiplied by the difference of the ultimate land use areas and the corresponding base -year areas. Lastly, these incremental changes were added to the respective base -year land use areas to obtain the annual land use projections. The annual land use projections can be seen in Table 5. C-10 C-11 * N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M Co d• N to O co 00 M $4 00 .. �.o d' M T- N Rt co co Co co N N N N N �O a, y o L U W V Q M m et O O (� N h N CO N O M r•- M N M M M to M N M O M O � � 3 H a da V W WON �t N to CO r �A Q1 n. ,m 0 Ln 0 0 Ln �c 1c %D N N N M M M M M M M M M M M W (A y Z � � r- '�t O O M r•- et r- M r to %D %.D 0 U r N M Li O O e- M In CN M C) � Rt et c M M d er �t d rt et N M Z y Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O n M O O Ln LM 0"D O .- � O M U r- r r r r•- r r r r - CLO 0 a M LA 'C N m ON m CN m m O O O O } C-11 SANITARY SEWER MASTER PLAN A sewer master plan must be developed in order to compile a listing of projects needed to complete the wastewater CIP. 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 updating process, land use and population assumptions were modified and updated for use in development of the new wastewater impact fees. These assumptions, along with good planning and engineering practices, are the tools used to build the wastewater master plan, and the subsequent wastewater CIP. DEMAND ANALYSIS AND PLAN: The objective of the wastewater 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 several years ago. The basic plan contained in that report has been modified reflecting recent developments. The projects and figures contained in this study reflect the latest system configuration and engineer's construction cost estimates. C-12 STANDARD SERVICE UNIT When the Impact Fees were originally calculated in 1990, there was much discussion about how to define a standard Service Unit and how the equivalency table was to be constructed. There was evidence to support a compelling argument that it should be attached to the meter size. A meter represents the connection to the system and is identified as a formal event in the planning approval (platting) and actual implementation process (building permitting). The size of the meter represents the magnitude of the potential demand that can be placed on the utility system. The standard residential meter size for Southlake is a 1" meter. Based on standards derived from the American Water Works Association, the following table of equivalents was determined: TABLE 6 SERVICE UNIT EQUIVALENCY TABLE Meter Size Service Unit Equivalent 5/8 Inch Meter .40 3/4 Inch Meter .60 1 Inch Meter 1.0 1-1/2 Inch Meter 2.0 2 Inch Meter 3.2 3 Inch Meter 6.4 4 Inch Meter 10.0 6 Inch Meter 20.0 8 Inch Meter 32.0 Based on the total number of meters in place at the present time (2,899), multiplied by the equivalency factors, it was determined that the City of Southlake has 2,727 Service Units in place for water and 905 in place for sewer when the irrigation meters and septic system customers not connected to the system are subtracted. C-13 Growth in Service Units There is hardly a more critical number in the calculation of an Impact Fee than the estimates of Service Units for water and wastewater that will be added during the ten-year planning period. These Service Units are the basis for the capacity utilization allocation made by the consulting engineers and are to be divided into the total eligible costs associated with projected growth to yield the Maximum Impact Fee. The number of Service Units are identified for various categories: Single Family, Multi -Family, Commercial/Industrial, and Public/Quasi-Public. Currently developed acreage were also grouped by these same categories. With this information, a ratio was established to show the number of Service Unit Equivalents per acre. These values were then applied to the projected acres to be developed during the ten-year planning period. This resulted in an estimate of growth in Service Units shown in the following table: The following pages included Tables 7 thru Table 10 which illustrate the projected growth in service units, population and land use, and wastewater demand. C-14 %V TABLE 7 CALCULATION OF GROWTH IN SERVICE UNITS C-15 7s Item Water Wastewater Current Service Units Residential 2,337 790 Non -Residential 390 115 Total 2 727 905 Developed Acres Residential 3 816 3,816 Non -Residential 730 730 Total 4,546 4,546 Service Units Per Acre - Current Residential .6126 .2070 Non -Residential .5337 .1578 Average .5999 .1991 Service Units Per Acre - Projected Residential 1.2252 1.1639 Commercial/Public/ nasi -Public 1.0674 1.0140 Industrial 2.5000 2.3750 Growth in Acres Residential 1,448 1 448 Commercial/Public/Quasi-Public 708 708 Industrial 29 29 Growth in Service Units Residential 1,774 1,685 Commercial/Public/Quasi-Public 756 718 Industrial 72 69 Total 2,602 2,472 C-15 7s C-16 -2('. C) o J n M H Z LuH LLJ to e- W N Z Z Q Q O N N W O O O :<::::: W r N M (O O r O N C,4 M ot uj FQ- O W co M CD M :: F= U >: W Z Z O :U C M W cc W W N N I 00 W c M c r s N � r c N s M c d' c e CO J Q r O C-16 -2('. d H 0: tn�rCOCOt (Dn00(Oe-n No SON aQoQ.�oE W 3 000 MON¢t�oMa to to 00r-(oMN(on - IN0M r- 7n �N �O nttQ�O 00000 W r-NNNMM NO �Lv O _ ...... m N d •- e- Ln (6 •- 00 n O ;> W r.. J n N n n n r Co (O O N .Q n Co .Q .Q .Q W �. NCO.-d nC) M C) nOM(oMM Lo (n M Oo (off N NO 0 00 0 0 NCVC' q*q* NO O N 00000%)(l)(nV) 3 .................................... r 00 00 00 00 w 00 00 O Co w 00 O 00 O Z N N N N N N N N N N N N O M C) N C) C) M (7) C) C) C) M Q Q) O Q Q Q Q O MMst CV) MM CV) MM CV) M Z MN z z z z r r r r r r r r r r r MOOq*n Lf) 00000M(o00 tn.Q F-- ) N(oONMMO(o.-r-M OOo QQQQ O W CDm*(0r-Q)nLnC140N e-00 < Z O co co NN ZZZz �♦Vn .:......:: O CnCAC) LO CF) C)(nC)0MmC) O o C) .e 0 3e a v Q CL C7 nnrnnnnnnnnn Ln LO LO Ln LO O O W Ln Ln o 0000 z O W O 0 o 0 0 0 0 U:LL v Q V U N CA()a)ON (on00O.-N Il)()-t0con Mton00O 00 LO [t —O �oaoao� W::::......:: Q J NNNMC")C'OrOMMeM�t M� �M`- n Co N 000 (o�MO CO = N O N n00�O O d st N Co O O a MrLn0 ' a-Lf)A CA o O DMON[t(OMNLf)CO N"L M � N C14O COr r-Nn0MMM C j Ln (O 00 0 0 Z �r"tt00 CO) — C41 ODM st co O of `E .Q Q. W J Q rInC)¢tM�0WMNW �a-rNNM[t'�t0WW no W [n to n (o LO MO �CA00 o oao Z ... o O N N N ci n O Q ' y CV) q* Lf) (Gn000)0 NM O N qe M rre- e- e- NNNN e-QQ N lf) O nNr O Z N N O Lf) ttO +- LL N r Lf) o W } M tO M O Co n to M tO r OotO N N 4m Z J J (7 OO�MtOC)MCACO�tt 00 C)0�-NMLnCo000N M ,t co r- lf) N �t0 ���C Z M(MetttatttItdtqtInLO r N MN Q M OLOttO U. d r O W co C) O N M in n M M to .4t M V, N('MW(On00C)0NMR* Ln M 00 Q NNCVNNNNMC'OMM (oNIt � z Q Q st 0_ UJ UJ 000.-MRt'*Mttn(oLO "t tt aCC N Ln to to Ln to LO LO Ln to to to to JO U N co co co co co co co co co co ca co = a z_ a p 00000000000 0�; 4. On00tn00nMnOOaon o aD co to to to co 00 •- n tn� o o c O CO(n0 0 NMRTtn(a00 C)^ ON co Ln tn . ?... a .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .- .� 00000 rNCOO �- M st to (o n 00 C) O N M Q a»�rn�a�a�0000 a N (nMC)C)MC)00000 O Q v- e- I- I- ems T- T- O W Q W W �' U w } WW 0: W p 0 W H} Oz�OJ O 3Soac �� a zoo ui U)CC 0 fr U Z J J a y W m O O Q O r_iQ The following is a listing of the CIP projects and their estimated cost, followed by a more detailed description of the individual projects. The cost estimates include engineering, inspection, and easement acquisition costs. TABLE 11 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROJECTS (1993) FOR IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION PROJECT Denton Creek Watershed Denton Creek Interceptor Pressure & Gravity System Lines: N-1 Mains N-2 Mains N-3 Mains N-4 Mains N-5 Mains N-6 Mains Subtotal Big Bear Creek Watershed Big Bear Creek Interceptor bSouthlake's 33% of total projected ond sale of $12,750,000] Lines: S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 S-6 S-7 Subtotal TOTAL - All Sewer Projects C-19 $ 6,113,000 2,119,400 158,500 1,736,750 735,500 415,700 781.200 $ 4,300,000 309,150 1,038,100 355,630 845,200 312,500 1,111,900 933.100 ESTIMATED COST $12,060,050 $9,205,580 $21,265,630 77 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. 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 the costs for facilities serving the Southlake service area. The following pages describe each of the wastewater facilities in more detail. C-20 '56 PROPOSED CIP PROJECTS (WASTEWATER) Denton Creek Pressure System: Lines and lift stations required to complete the interceptor system on the north side of town. Estimated Cost: $6,113,000 North and South Trunk Lines: N-1 thru N-6 and S-1 thru S-7 trunk lines - portion of some lines have been constructed. Estimated Cost: $ (as shown for each). Treatment costs to be covered by TRA billing to City. 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 and O&M cost. 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 Main: 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: $2,119,400 C-21 gj N-2 Main: This combination of mains serves a small area, mostly adjacent to the interceptor system. The cost of this system is currently estimated at: $158,500 N-3 Main: This main serves a large portion of central Southlake. The cost of this system is currently estimated at: $1,736,750 N-4 Main: This small group of mains 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: $735,500 N-5 Main: This main and a branch serves a small area in the eastern most part of the City along SH 114. The cost of this system is currently estimated at: $415,700 N-6 Main: -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: $781,200 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 and O&M costs. C-22 Big Bear Creek Interceptor: A gravity main was constructed parallel to an existing interceptor along the run of Big Bear Creek. This system collects 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: $4,300,000 S-1 Main: This main serves the far southwestern portion of the city. The cost of this main is currently estimated at: $309,150 S-2 Main: This main and two branches serve a large area of southwestern Southlake. The cost of this system is currently estimated at: $1,038,100 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: $355,630 S-4 Main: This system of mains serves a large portion of south central Southlake. The cost of this system is currently estimated at: $845,200 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: $312,500 C-23 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. The cost of this system is currently estimated at: $1,111,900 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: $933,100 The following table illustrates the existing facilities, and the calculation of wastewater impact fee eligible costs for the ten year study period. C-24 WE.. CO J W W LL' N oJJ ty9C7r-f�r-t1lOMNNf�'t .J J m m (C <'7000MONMn1nM00+ROn (7; *000m n(ONqtNnMtn0�n MMVW4. b O N M O tl► lC H N 464& N owr%mQ' 41* O O -4pvr N tC to O to r- 00M 1h03 0011) ram iA C.)Zoo 0 N N N NgrgrRtINrqrqt.tqtqtqrqraa N N N N N N N N N O o c71W a j!;> 00000000000000 J J z z Z Z } 0 0 0 .600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iron z ; 022 W x Uzzz I-- cc 15 cc = o o M M M M M M M M M M M M M M m = zaa voo M M M M M M M M M M M M M M } O O 00000000000000 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z Q 0C F -F- W r.-rr.-rrrrr O A z Id O O rr J LU Or Ot WMtntn0LnLaMMantnMMto Mir-r�r-r a Q Q w n N N N N N N N N N N N N N W Q� LU cc a00 ~ Z W W Mnnnnnn Jr•�-e-�r•re-e��-��-e- m fl. nnnnnn cc w cr.Z U } oro:Neh��'7ttd'etd'a ad a Q Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N O o c71W aL J J z z Z Z } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iron z ; W x Uzzz I-- cc 15 cc °C N N G m = U) voo Q V W W LU o0 CL Qsx o LULL. Q 0C F -F- W r.-rr.-rrrrr rr J LU Or Ot WMtntn0LnLaMMantnMMto Mir-r�r-r c w Fa- LU U OZZ W W W W W W LU cc ~ Z W W Jr•�-e-�r•re-e��-��-e- m cc w cr.Z Q 0 ZZZZZ 0 0 0 ZQQQJaQ J J J Q Q J I- 4 z m LULU- 0000000000000 -crcrccawc YocacCCE- Zaa 000 c Ln a001n0MOw0 aaa Y Q �-- 3 O O 0 Lr) r% Lq It N .- r- IR c a) O a 0 CV) M00 qt' Lf) Lf) r-MM Lf) n r 00 CCQQ r-�•W cc �CCCCCCw re gt�MWOq* J �dCa.aOCLLCLJ et F- O G tO N in ^ 4& iA +a aA +A +n ifi b VfnV)V)fnlnfgtnytgNtqf/iMF Z Z N N N V tgtntntnfnt/)Fa„ H 3 3 m O O Com., o W Z U IQ=_�= ZZZZZZZZZZZZZo ccZZZZZZo aaaaaa� a Cat oat MZZZZZZZZZZZZ W 333~ oaaaaaaaaaaaaa~ r' W W W W W W W W W W W W W W v -> W� W all 0 ggggm m������m cr a aaam CC CC w N ~ m m Zr-NM W � 1nM,NM lntan� M t7NMdtncOM� WQ W N ~ O W F -F -F- oZ2ZZZZfAfA6ViNtoU) Tuuuj) , nWMNNViZ H- y es H m00000mm �O tre�o-t o LO otreo} O0- OO Ir!nr-o-r�reL41 } O tna00N0 Mln0r N ItN10mw +*4(&4&4aV�- MOONr- M M M M M M M M M (n Irl 1C Z O Z OY� ZF- c71W aL EL iron W x Uzzz I-- °C m = U) voo o0 o LULL. c w LU U W W W W W W LU cc m cc w cr.Z 0 ZZZZZ 0 0 0 ZQQQJaQ J J J J J I- 4 z m ���EE -crcrccawc YocacCCE- c aaa Y Ccoc 333., W cc �CCCCCCw J �dCa.aOCLLCLJ F O us �N�%f" ILI til VfnV)V)fnlnfgtnytgNtqf/iMF V tgtntntnfnt/)Fa„ Com., o ZZZZZZZZZZZZZo ccZZZZZZo aaaaaa� W 333~ oaaaaaaaaaaaaa~ v -> 00 0 ggggm m������m a aaam CC CC w N Zr-NM W � 1nM,NM lntan� M t7NMdtncOM� N ~ O W F -F -F- oZ2ZZZZfAfA6ViNtoU) , nWMNNViZ H- y Irl 1C AJ H • L Q1 a m a � i ~ U LL 0)LL 4) v� N a m d N V m m cn a— a� o Cn C V o = ca '� U c >+ m LL d 0 LL d 0o .r LL o to CL u wm L L L L Q) L a a s *a m a' o g U a' = a' °' E E E a N = L dcc COL L Qi O L Gi L d L d L CO C O LL 6. U U U U U O N M 'Vto W i- 00 Q) O N Mt7 ' to W N t) tT W 1- 00 0) r r T- V. V. V- V- e- e- e- N N N N N N N L L D-1 D-2 � N � lf) O n M Ln O N co V- M IP O W U v, a W N It W Q J o •- o ao 0 o O q* n J 00 Ln � M N (D 04 � N H ~ Z W OLf) O O W ucc qt N W M M O N N Z w c z J Q 0 0 OD O Q L00 n n N e- M Z,H W `" N cc F. W Y �. �G O O N 0 0 . Q Q W O C .- N M O 0 N M a L uj J = Q O 00 to N � M O N N 00 OD N . 0 a cj x - Z z O N LO z M Q w o� r - j} w z o U 00 N C ti .... W - .. :: s W W e s c N s e s c s J LLJ N Lr) ch `- N M tt �O 00 O D-2 � N � lf) O n M Ln O N co V- M IP O W U v, a W N It W Q J D-3 O O o o Ln O O O o Ln ri z H O F W U > N W O O O N L O O O O W) r t!7 W N p Z Z e- 0 p n 0a) n ^Zcc V N N W Lu tie ', 4 _Uj G. W ct C W O O r- O N N M6 tt O 6 O N O M N LU t �FZMl- Q 0 0 0 a) n 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 (O N Co . 4 1- Q.. o Q I- 1L � .. Z uj z O O Z W � U w n � ..............::......................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ........................................................ ....................................................... ......................................................... ...................................................... ........................................................ ....................................................... ........................................................ ........................................................ ....................................................... ....................................................... ..................................................... ...................................................... ................................................... ....:................................................. ................cr ....__ .................................................... c W F W V) s t 1 s M s c N a- r x N x M s s x J O H D-3 D-4 r 00 O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C � J N N N N N N N N N N N Z C CA N C71 Ci CJ) Q) CA O CA C1 WO MMstMMMMChC'MthM r r r r r r r r r r r M00ttnLr) 00000MCD00 u E- NWONM MOLD.-�-M 0 O W CD [t C0 r- Cn n to N O n q* r Z O 00000000nnnnnCD(a C LL MCAC�CACAC7IMCACAMM G O Lf) OLf) Mw0u)OOOO CL C7 nnnnnnnnfl- nn ccz N O W W V Cr V CAMCAON tnt��000n Cf N n U CD000r-NMMNM0 C Q J< N N N M M M M M M M d Co � O a 0N[tCDCANtnOD Lf)0) a cn -J cs Q Cl) M M M Cl) Cl) M Cl) Cl) M M D 0C Z r MW J to M d' M d0 CD M N 00 r Q N N Ce) 41 ttLf) (DCD u' O U �. M tt to co n Co CA O r- N M c F- ,,� �- r r �- r r r N N N N r D Q LL i MtOm0(WD nlnMtnr- OC J J oo-MLf) (nMC qt It M O Ra!C r -N MLf) to000N tt Z Q M Cl) [t [t t} [t u) to r M LL OO M O N 'n U) r G'm - M to tt C7 N M to CD n co Cn O N M ct O Z Q Q NN CV NCV NNMMMM CO O at W p D. 00 0 r- CV)[t M tt N w w � Q 4. Ci Nu'1OUlIntotoOto00 to .J 0Z N coa. (D (D CD O (D t0 (D (D (D CD a O 00000000000 O onwtownMnwwn n W } N tnr-tOCD�ttDn0oc0r-n �p SR N ttN r r N� w 00at0(000 MON�tCGO•-�nOM � r-tOMNCOn LO co 00 0 n n° stQ � W- n00st0 r-r-e-a-NNNMM NLq N O 0 Na, y � 00 0 Nt000 r W r CO O M r to O r- c O tt O CDM aoao�o�o oo chN C z z z 2 rNCn00 J nNnnnr- to N Wr-d (DI al N.Q � Nr-0T- u'n CD & min, en en ems° 00 O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C � J N N N N N N N N N N N Z C CA N C71 Ci CJ) Q) CA O CA C1 WO MMstMMMMChC'MthM r r r r r r r r r r r M00ttnLr) 00000MCD00 u E- NWONM MOLD.-�-M 0 O W CD [t C0 r- Cn n to N O n q* r Z O 00000000nnnnnCD(a C LL MCAC�CACAC7IMCACAMM G O Lf) OLf) Mw0u)OOOO CL C7 nnnnnnnnfl- nn ccz N O W W V Cr V CAMCAON tnt��000n Cf N n U CD000r-NMMNM0 C Q J< N N N M M M M M M M d Co � O a 0N[tCDCANtnOD Lf)0) a cn -J cs Q Cl) M M M Cl) Cl) M Cl) Cl) M M D 0C Z r MW J to M d' M d0 CD M N 00 r Q N N Ce) 41 ttLf) (DCD u' O U �. M tt to co n Co CA O r- N M c F- ,,� �- r r �- r r r N N N N r D Q LL i MtOm0(WD nlnMtnr- OC J J oo-MLf) (nMC qt It M O Ra!C r -N MLf) to000N tt Z Q M Cl) [t [t t} [t u) to r M LL OO M O N 'n U) r G'm - M to tt C7 N M to CD n co Cn O N M ct O Z Q Q NN CV NCV NNMMMM CO O at W p D. 00 0 r- CV)[t M tt N w w � Q 4. Ci Nu'1OUlIntotoOto00 to .J 0Z N coa. (D (D CD O (D t0 (D (D (D CD a O 00000000000 O onwtownMnwwn n W } N LO 00 I l0 0 0 �p SR N ttN r r 00000 � ° LO co 00 0 n N r- ON � n O r n00st0 NLq N O 0 to N '�t 00 0 Nt000 r CO O M r to O r- c O tt O CDM aoao�o�o oo chN C z z z 2 LO 00 I l0 0 0 d nM000CDtnlnlnCD00r- �� O 00 a)'r 0 0 CII II ul 00 CA CL r r r r r r r r n MetlntDn OOMOr-NM CDMmMCD MCn0000 r• r-mmmmmmmoo r- r- r- r- r- N N N N tt O t0 F— J CA CD it O w O O O 00000 ■- N CD O r r r ° � n N r- ON n00st0 NLq 0 '�t � Nt000 M r to O r- 0 tt O CDM aoao�o�o oo C CDC rNCn00 to N O nj u'n CD O O r- � M ct to 0010 O n O T- o o° M o 00 00 O N N N n rl� 7 q CA`- �Nn0 r r r- R Q 0r- tN tLn aM- 04 N N oORt0 Z r 4 00 n O N r O O r- cn OR -OR Na-- N �Or0rn0 �p ON M r: Otn4O d nM000CDtnlnlnCD00r- �� O 00 a)'r 0 0 CII II ul 00 CA CL r r r r r r r r n MetlntDn OOMOr-NM CDMmMCD MCn0000 r• r-mmmmmmmoo r- r- r- r- r- N N N N tt O t0 F— J CA CD it O w O O O 00000 ■- N CD O r k �i� D-6 c7? n_-7 J P% N n n n r CD CD 0 c n CD o_ 0 3° of H LLJ N t�C7)rMtflCDO r O r n OM � � M N O N 04M MN CM 4 4 �t Lo CD O N 0000 M CD U r CO 0 W Q } Ln MOM to MMN st N 00 r a) rNN N qt(D000111M NNNCMCMCMcc O Co } Clil LL tt�d �t�tctettt��� �t p M W W M Ln Ln M to M to M to -j CV) M M M M M M M M M M M N 00 00 00 00 OD M M 00 00 00 00 00 .... J CC Q W r r r r r r .;:........::::::::::.;:> C7 a oW000000000000 0� opt ���� o000 M00000000000 0 or (D 10 o000 Q t C4C CY)� OD OOMM CMC+MI�CDr- T- nrrF. N CtN CMMcVCV W OO�On n 00 CA CA Lf) 0 M��.-�M r N M Lo CD tffn M r �N00 r MOOtAtt n n 00 00 W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o O O O O Q M 0 0 0 qlI!»�D 0 0 0 0 cl7 0 0 ;tit 0 0 �- O r'(D O W r 0 O OO�OA O O O W Cn O r 00 O O 00 ct 00 le 00 q* N r tp N OOLf)Ul)0 06000 _; Z O MrrrrMtnMMMCD rNMq*tnCDn000rM t„)n N OO M rNCDO OMM� nrNM Q to N r r Z" a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 6 q* y� o 0 o W N N O a O qt O W O 0 O CD O � O CD O Rt O CD O CD O tt O � O 0 r 0 C Ln L 0 O �` �rNr-(DLn(DLna)Mt- M to rN OD a Q Z rCDe-00(DCDnottr0 M 0 N M Lf) n M N n M OOn O M r �NCDD0 W Z O O r N N N N N N M C n M M N 0 = W 0 LnWCD't� r rnctNtt M o p.� 0 \\\ 0 0� OtoMtt a NCDntoRtOLOLoq*R*O (0Nr00rNNMLnM00 n\ rCD O MO r 0Nn0 0CDr00 Q Fuj - LO M 00 M to 1- CC M to N to O CG N CNMMO O to C; to t- Ntor0a-Ct0(n000M rn C7� �NCDO ONa-M O d �MNIn00rLo00MnN 00 W r to a 00n V >:Q:>?:> : Z m MCMd tt to0toMCDN— M 0 r COMM a Z Z tnCDCDttttrrnCtNR* NCDntostOtototttt0 M� CD OR•e�� 0 0 0 0 OIOMCo W CD N e- 00 r N N 0) to M CO no r M Or n p to M CD O ONnM p Cp r r d H to M 0p M to r; CG cM to N Lo O n e- N lf�nn0 O to 0 q* .. D. Q NtorOr�OM000M ti a)NtneorLo OOM nN r 00 M O rr CD ONrCD Od 00 r- N Wr M M 't 4 4 Lo to to to CD n M N O M M N .:::.::.. fl»> WCDM�} N,Tr, rrn OtnIn Nd M CD IR p Z Rc!7OR7NNMLnM00 [t0 n� r O n lo1)C71C�D0 Q} 0 M 00 ) M W n M CO)M to N to O t� Ln N r O Q N W r O �- CF O OAOOOM r- n M lonn0 W D 'It M N W OD r to 00MnN M O r r CD O r D M M tf eta W to MCon M N Y N Q W Ln Lo LnLn Ln Ln l!) Ln to to Ln Ln Ln D. X N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Lo 00 CDmtMNr0MMn M M } a nco00coco00000onnn n r Q o ►_' a r r r r r r r r r r r r N _........: CC Q V a w OntoM�toMn� e-M M� MCD .Q o a N y J LAOnn0CDNIn it CDM d ^ M 000 r �N�O c CC M cc Q CVnd rCnnMNatlf) M rN WW W Q O F- N tnn00orN Wn0tt(D �-orr CD Mn M M ���C } >U Oo r*- r- Q H r r r N CV N N cV N M�- M M Q D O dr w F- QMXCC M�tnCDn00MOrNM MMM M M M M 0 0 O O O H O o o V C7 OZ C7 W W X.r Q M r M r M M r M a- M r M r 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N x w F'- X Z Z J Z Z Z Q Q m _F - - z Q � W O x O F- F- F- W m~ W» C7 7 Q Q W n_-7 D-8 y S m 0 0 It 0 0 el- ......... ... . z W N N voO"O(h000(DNa) aaaaa IT 000It Lf) N0 O_ 0 r d W0 [t W w cc J m— O O CCCcr- a; LLI Ln6(9NNr.: H � Lu LL IL HF ���p -F (9000 MOO ZZZZZZZZZZzzza LnOOrD t O ui O zz r�(ON�Nr�MlnOrr� z oaaaaaaaaaaaaa� - - - - - - OOLnN - - 0M L) - D n M oO CD J J N r W r N r cc ccW rN/h�Ln(OrNM cc O i J L17(Df\� J J N� 4! N N F -F fQ N Ozzzzzz(hri)NN( N � F -F- F- r M o0N(A Lli 00 m U b 40) N cn �o0 W W 0 0 >w .:i::..: '•:: LL. oc cc Z ISRCT W 6 WWW OR WW Lr z0O Nd'ct't qtqt't-td'�td'd'ctr d'Rt-t*gtst'tqt M a~ J J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 00000000 CL aE mx= (or�rzrzr�r�rzrzr�:r.:r.:t;P� P�(o (o (Li (o (o (o (6 (D (o (D r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r moo pit }zz lr J - — = 0 0 F--- M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM('9MM M M M O M M M M M O M M M c M O M M M M M c M M o d d } zaa o0000000000000M 00000000 ^ oo et O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r Z r W W rrrrrrrrrrrrrr� rrrrrrr^ r^ to O -OO E-- O Z Z Q Q Q r-NNNNNNNNNNNNNo M r` rl t` f\ n f\ t\ n N r\ r` r\ r\ NNNNNNN n N r` r` r\ r` n n Q r U } accccc Ngtgt'tqtq -tttIt -t -td,It� ttgtgt��d�� � �0 O a a Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N� N N N N N N N (6 N W c �.J z Z Q Q Z a a C7 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOo tntntntntnlnlno o Mo '- LU O O M M M O M wGo : (, 7 N H O O t(i t: t6 V W W LU Qii Lf)d _ _ tD(DMMtO(OtDo \ (O o n w W CC OCC W LL Mrr M LA LD rrrrrrrr Ln Ln Ln Ln Lf) LO LO rrr� Ln Ln Ln O It It ' t 'It 't Q 't � M Q 1 p O z Z Jrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ct Cf �' a' a' Ct Cf Ct tt O Ln Lf) Ln W Ln Ln Ln Q '• Ln' r ......... } Z w w rrrrrrrO Q r v1 = F' Q a Q W W W zaa 000000000000000 0a0 Lr) 000 Lr) 0 CV) 0 00M 00000000 00000000 O W ..i Q .J a 3:O O 0gt0NMNNrrLDN C! OOOOLnOOLt1 M (.0 O w F... a i� O O O Z z L'7000CtLnLnrOM rrLnrMr00000M LL) r, MMr MOo OLf) 000N0NN Lf) _ OLraQ O Q rrr�r,stNMCD OMtnO rNN tD ui.:•:• j— U L- O O vlNN.n v1 OLD vr� MttN-tMCOM(D ofNvr yr N w w w =ZZ (ONsn .0 r,MtpN d;N+A tD yr r N y� ((� :� W }OO to rM00Nrr > � z U ooQcoQc �zzzZZZzzzzzzZ mcoimmco)cMicMi - lLwwW WLLwWwLLUJW W rrrrrrr CC LU LU } NccF- F . .:................:.!:!:: :::G ...:::..:.:..: TWN W W H ham- ......... ... . z Z J X aaaaa =0~C0~C O_ 0 W O 3W 'Q .J W w cc CCCcr- CCCCCCCC LLI z H � Lu LL IL HF ���p -F -Fa UMrnNMMMN(�NyNNNa ZZZZZZZZZZzzza O ui Nln aaa z oaaaaaaaaaaaaa� - - - - - - - - - - L) - - OCzz baa cc ccW rN/h�Ln(OrNM cc O O L17(Df\� (7NM F -F -F- Ozzzzzz(hri)NN( F -F- F- ww o0N(A U Lr cn �o0 0 0 >w oc cc w W WWW WW Lr ......... ... . U QQ~ X aaaaa =0~C0~C W O 3W 'Q .J W w cc CCCcr- CCCCCCCC LLI J W Uda IL HF ���p -F -Fa UMrnNMMMN(�NyNNNa ZZZZZZZZZZzzza ~ Nln aaa z oaaaaaaaaaaaaa� - - - - - - - - - - - - - OCzz baa cc ccW rN/h�Ln(OrNM T L17(Df\� (7NM F -F -F- Ozzzzzz(hri)NN( ww o0N(A rr W CL W a cle c D-12 `JCA _.......__......._.. LO CO _ M W M N - M M O M W M 0 0 0 N O O r- N t0 U) O d N r- W to U) co M n W M O N LD (0 U) n W n W N LO n0 M y N N .- M W M N W O M M M d sf W N N O N O (D M d (D M M n O vao ei etavr-Mau M N. LO On(0 Ln dtti Ci (O Uj (O (0 (D N r- r- r- d d r• LD d r- (D r- M U) W O r- ai vNi ,. (D N r- d N y y n r- dtD.-n0LD W UDOf0M M 0000 O O W n0 N N On0O UI) y N N n W MntOOnNM W n N Mn O N U (0 NN O W r nyNNnmy aMt NOoMvv t")00 Ln La zO v N V (n Oa M N : N d W (0 W N r r r d (D LO N r LO n N M N LD y U) y n N� r- y01 .......-.� :.-: . y yO y nU)r -tondr- W (DO W 000 (D O 0 N N M W 0q W NM U) M n W M CO CO O �- W n t0 W M .- .� O W LD W (0 y UI O N W (D O U) N } r• O n o O Ln n N M n �- 0 0 U1 0 O� (0 r' U1 tO I (D M O n (') O Of O) t0 N N 0) O) O l0 O O V N '- (D 00 a7 00 t1f (0 M N O N Or•U1 MU)r� �� N NM d cl)r-0 N M dMN y y J r- r• .- U1 N d m N y y U) (n ._..;. O y y y y y y p Or- WnMONMnMOr- 0)N000r O O O O N M 000.-.-M M (0 m W = O LOdMOnW V)dM N dm U1 M r- yM111N0 W n N Q 0) r'(0 Lf) NP. n N M U) n U1 (0111 W W N n .4..... .......>`........:.; � O t0 t0 0) 00 (0 n M m M (0 n W 0 t0 t") .- T O '- M N .... N M O d r' d r' r- W O n M N M '- M M •- M l v+ r' '- d N M n N y y LO n - Q w MOr- W d'-W W MOM (D 00 0 000r- O O d0U)0 d M W L Q OOd co n(0mr-n U) M CO U) n co) yOU)dMM (0 (0 N . W Q n O Ln r- n M r- W d n M W Ln M r M U) W W r- N W n 0A CO n r-m d (0 d dd(0nd N N Z r- CO M d O d r- �- O m t0 M m O 00 MN LO O y y N n r-yyd n p y N y y y y LU M (0 O W - 4 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 M r- O r- W n t0 r- U1 M co W N CO Od CO 04n000N LO O n d N co yc*J M W d M N L ,J Q m.-m0U)d Nd0 n Lf) (n r- (D M co) r•d;rM N Uf n r Q O M n O L!1 M (O n O Ln C M M It N N n 00 M M M•- LD n (D M W N (D M N O N y y M '- N w r• y y d W a y y y N y y n 0 t0 O N N d O W O O O U) Colo O O 000 U1 to O r- o O d LO m M W (.. r LO(DmN(OLnIOnIO M ON N M ynyr- n LO N M N Q M n M (0 a co LO LO W W d m M M (D n U) 0 N M n r (DrMO).-�-Uf (0 n M n M .- (0 M d .- (0M W LO O N M N d Or'a N n M N y N y M r' N Ln r y M Ln Qy W n L00)MM00 CO r, -t r- O n 00000000 y 1 y n OOOLO y N y y n O N 00 O co LO N co O cM m M(D0 N N W co t0 t0 W O r-W n W m M m n yNyMdm LD M M n r- N d N N n > O N M P O n N M P O N N .v/ J. w W (D LO W N 00 (D N r- et LO N n N in (0 d m 01 .- a e y M r- d y y :W ��tOdMnnt0m00 CO M00000000 .- r- OMO(a(Dr- LO (0 W m Ln O M d O N n O n 0 O O d m W y LO y W O U1 M U) N W Q U)M�M WMNMn M W W d n O tDO n M dU:NtDN d IO O M 00 d d (0 00 M .- dd O N co O N 00 O LO N (n O 04 N y N y -� LL! :: y yr y y y y i'.:0..:.. dr- n-tt't -noN Mnoo000000 to co 0WOnNW Ln Ln W n00'-(D-U) W Ln dd m d yNyMNd co n N < Q� r to n W N O n d M W an d M O d M (0 O r- O n N ♦♦� :<;<:;:;:::;; V'is>::>:: M..:i::>:>:>::>: 0� r d d W d N N M W r- N 00 M d LO N r M M (0 M O n M co (0 0) M .- N 1 M 00 (V y y ::::.':: ;; -� mMN m0(0M0qtnM(D m r-dW0t0 d WU10 U) W 0 0 W W O O WNm NW m W It O yM CO CO W Mdd 01 (0 N O U) W Q O n o M a M (n O M .- n M W Uf n n m 0 Ln n n O .- O t0 t0 n 'ct n M N LO O d M r= st 0) st N U1 "`'m':i>: ":":":: O M d N Ln d N - W d N M M d (0 O M O N d N LO r- N 0 N co m Myr- LO O (0 N W t] y y y f� N N 1(0 r• N ... ............. y N y y .. .........::. co co dU1 WOO md0r W ncooM O 0M mm r- OnMMnr N r-(00 CO r-n0 W My co nlnyyyM y y0r-r- O y W MNLn0 O d i— Nn LO(Oda NN. - N co M M r-NM N r-MdNN to W CO st st 0; M n M Uf a; P at O 1� n r M O) v 4 n M O1 d' N 0. rO COW N (0 (O M M d coW coW tO O O d W n Uf O In In n U Q d dr' dr-yyyy n W It N r-yd N CO N N L f V y N N y N y y y N d y y y M d y y y N y y U 00 co co In to In 00 n Ln Z (`) r- 00 .- .- F- UJ } > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 WOO (n OO Z UJ J N C7 01 0 0 01 0� 0 0 0 0 0 to O O r rrrrrrrr �-N r' NN w- Oa Q o U U= to a 2U z 0>C W o ��_� Ln a WW w� J ZZQ LL Z m ZZ mm 0C OC 0 - a HH W W w O - wZF-W Z W ��� ZZ Z F- W w y W a N F-cc C7 C7 Z F- � g C7 Z C7 w Z - F- a Z Z W W W w Z Z Z O a C7 J J y w - Lr UA as J o � m — a a a C7 C7 C7 O O LU O C7 g � a _ o a <. V � Lr Lr } Z F- lY w W Li QQQ �� Z F" W a o z N v F- ::: (/i U W 00 o a >- (n F- tY O Lr lY lY aa a O - O - - J N W Q ��- tn(nwwgL a Vw}-Q to J � 000 J a z� F- H to p O W 0 Z Z QJ O Z DC p (=/)NV%HHF- 0 N N N N V)Z~a - y VZp�a� w p OC 'd i- Op- W W JJOli - I- W - J 0 F- O N W W p W DDD C7 C7 J C7 F- O } m w H p Z F- N � W J W Z w W O tY F- as t- 000C N OC 0 � F- a a H Z Z Z Z Z}Z J F- � J H a a Z a F- U � a w 1- www CL W F- W O - m x a a s a a m a a O a O w Lr a QaWa o����� > »>t'n LY /Y n o Wi`W�a�~ w, o > ..„i ww���SaF-�1-> J=wC7C7C7 a atAa i- oc ? Q n 11d3 /G D CONAM10000U)mNn0to NIt00 n0 N nr O : O 00 O'rtO ) a) co0)U)M ��r� NOpr0 r ' O N N l> W C14 O r Qf U r-: n U) C4 n C O N m N ;% N 00 t0 0 N r(7Oco: n a C N IZ N N0 U) M r r r N r r r r N r T r H H N y H H N ZZ M0aV)ttNmmONCOOMUf� nOtfnstc)0U) 0) It �O O J -t MNOCONIn00)OMO 0)mr Lo NMN COmU)U)U)M U)r '; N C; -4 tF(C of nNO)mnM 00P LA Nr nr0) NItO -a n10 00 r CO Nt%: OOn m Oi M r Nr W :i .; 00 00 N W M r r N r r r N Ma m r r r r N r H H N n a O O NMU)OONora00m 0000 mm NOmnLnn W n � m OO r Z m t0 M 14O n N () It U) W (0 O N m M 0) M W 00 r r at m n r O J}} U) 04 0)00N -t NtTd CO O N O W }. O N .-t== m na c)-(D(nr4t019NOi OOr NMMW Orr IG yy ., O r Mr r r rNm Lnr rr Nr In O Z Z M r N U) ani O O H H > O O �� OOQ)mONOdO)O) �OMrO Mrrtnrin00M M r 00 O O O }Z_Z_ mNNrLnMrO)mrCO vmMn14 .4mNr MON Mmr rO W NMm WNOMstn NWrm M n n N 0)r tato ' O '� N et M 0 Ui o0 0 t0 N N M O Of r Ui N 0 M M M O aD M r r U) r N r r r r r M M M r r r r r N H H o a a H H F- A) W(() O) O M N 00 n n N Uf U) 0 01 N at 0 10 00 n r W r Ln r O ZOO MM r'NOU)MOrOnOU) 00N000TrMU)O m U)rt0 W 1D C7COQfOrntOr m u) W MmNTrOCOM M N 0)0) Z Z M r M n 0 Ui t0 r N co 00 co 0 0 n r oo n co eJ W r r LLJr M [} N r r r im r 0 r r H H ~ 0. 0 0 r N r H cc cc �== 00 �roitNntnr(`lintn(NOLono(tDooLon00004 mo(focoo co(nmi(r0 v0 W O d°COC W� Nrm'cf co m mnN NM MM Omn0 00) N c)) N 4, N 4% ZZ mmN U)t)n a to Orn co (D W (n 0)m 0 P% CO 0) J r d d r M N r r r r O O r r Ln N H H r N r r W a^ z 00 LO �COOm MN M n m COO a n�nmOrnrmm� mmN U)NMm cc m r n r U C) �F-t- nnlo mvOrNrnM NnN MNmr Nrmm m N nos �:: 0) NN NtANMNPMLnCrt� co LntO OD InM(O MIOC 0 r r W W O M N r r r r N 0) r M H H Y >� O W �� LU MU)MmcratNU)UfU)nOatMn NrstU) M�Mr M O M O d00 co COm�mM�OnM(0n r'�N CONnW NON(n r O rr w O 0� OZZ mItm OrmO) N n W CONNrrmN40; coM Nr r (O P40 Oind{` W rw rr Z W W rN n r N HH W CA Ln 4ccCO W W W �tOmCOnnMnt0mtoOOMCO atNnOU)mrMUfrn O�t0)�(0rUf M Uf MO CL : t� >zdd CO'INMtnCON�ttOLON m01r OMCO 0)MCOCOanmd rNNO)nQlrtn m v m r Uf moi r >OO n0N00L6 co (O nMM Oi0vcc -1 Lfi(0 to �r W r• 0 0 0 n Cl) N r r r 0) t0 O O H H QZZ H H ..:��'!�.::: U»: �.. ,,���r � Ci' F W 0gNmmstmnmvmOmmN ntoOm�00)mMM ttCOUfOMM�m A CO r0 iiia;\i�::?r>`��'iii:�/i::�?� W W nrNO)IOmrraCl mm� tO IRI �t -tLn0rMONn "ti lL)mNNCOt00 tr W n r Or c '?� t"'� is � 01 F- co N 01 01 t[1 0 s! Oo r M 0 N Ln r M M (O at co to 0 r r O O W H~ coM0)mrst000etmOCO0)r M0maMatmto (0 N W W m m � to r 0 N o to It V) rN t0(0 n MtoN t0 n 0) 4 Q Z = (MO to V)M Rt 11 U) NN Mmn torOM � NnN_m m ct F- ct H IovMoitrimcBm IN tV M O M n MM � r n r n Cq W mit Nr r r rr(p - 0)MMIn V) MnMm N m m 7 nH N D �/� O H :::::V �.:::%:::::�:::::::: W W F- h i4ii�i'i:':;iiiiiii .. cc9 t0 MmOMONOf O M O m N N O nUfO) O m U) COHOnef O 0 r m r nLoO)NrNMN Ln r CO m CO � n N n :: F- cc cc Ito00Mm0mno)v moa Lnnovr mo v » 1:L1`'«:::=::> Q N f- t•- 0; nmN .= 1: Le NnMU)Orn 0 M N N n a M COLON 0o co of COmstm10n00))U)tm0 Oi o tri v - R M N d ::'ii.�:::....:::....:i: Q (n M H N r H r H r H H H r It m H H H H H H O CO U ::. :. LL 1� U H H H N H H H N H r M H H H U � Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z r M O O N r r ;: } N OYF- O �������������� W W W W W W W W W W W W W ����0)�� M r rrrr e-rr W . _ .. (7 w U. .. Z oWC Yzt O U U H f- QZZ Z a cc O 0 cc D U O O W w O W W W Z USO d .- W J, OLL, - W W W W W W y tr a tr y "' I-- CL F.�F w o Z coo O o w JJJJJJ .. ... W ' OC - OC OC OC - ZZZZZ Z aQQaa Q N W U HIw-H a aaaaa -f-f-F=F=F=►= -' Od W V a Q a Y W W OC GC cc cc cr CC N U � W 33 3J W W W W W W w aaaaa a ►_ J V) .. c WW W CcCC�CC� ...) Wddn.o.do.J Z a0 V () to (A (A to to O Z y N F ZZaZaZaZa Za ZsO CZaZaZaZaZa to Za W- w O ZZZZZZZ O W� c�- 33 Q Q Q Q Q Q a31-O F- H J Q m m m Q W aaa oc cc cc � Z UJ rN(r1 wOOr-NthsttOtOn > C7 NM �t Ln Goth > � cc W cc U W F-F-F-� OZZZZZzwww n(% ww mNNNNtnZN U zQ D-15 r% A C z o_ H O IL W F - r� (n fr W } a a W H. W UJa J Q Lu W W cn as LU W C7 ~ Z N IW-' D y y Coui j y y CC � Q 0 y 00 M W � CL W z Z a� CC 0cc Lu a Q ~ W LL F- O J Na W(D . . . . . z a O n M 00 M N a- 00 .A N yr to aA .A .A a ED M M a- M st N f\ N N qt to N Lo N Z N 1 I/ g N N N b N N Z U W: M CO Ln CO n Q Z to F 00 n O Ln Ln N N O N 00 M O n It M M O N O N Cr inItNONM.-NM00 N v► M to to (7) Ln W w N w O M N O M n O N fA iA v/ Ln Z LL to •- N N N N M 19 N a IA +A aA aA lA v► 4A iA W Ln(DNMMMOnnLo QI cc X w 0o 00 00 (D U. t\ 00 n to ct M to CD n w O et N N w F M O— N M Ln W N O M n n CC U N N N N N N N M M M N N r% A C z o_ H O IL W F - r� (n fr W } a a W H. W UJa J Q Lu W W cn as LU W C7 ~ Z N IW-' D y y Coui j y y CC � Q 0 y 00 M W � CL W z Z a� CC 0cc Lu a Q ~ W LL F- O . . . . . . . . . . . z a .A N yr to aA .A .A W: M CO Ln CO n to F 00 n O Ln Ln N N O N 00 M O n It M M O N O N Cr w N v► N to to to w v► fA iA v/ to n-± U X' ~ QI cc X w O 00 n (D (D t\ 00 O (N -t r� N M N N N N N N 44). iA N N V! y ' > w a Q w LL �i N UJm cD cD m cD cD cD cD m cD co cD cD > }! 00 Ln m Ln M Ln M M M Ln m Ln M O M M M M M Z Q Ln Ln Ln Ln 00 O W f] 0`C II 00 CO CO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 M 0� Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln W fA N N -W b Ln N Ln N Ln N Ln Y► Ln N Ln L. H Q iA i.Y Lf off..: �'- 1 a= co M w0 Co 00 Co Co Co Co 00 00 00 00 00 M M + M M M M M M M M O OC (00 COQ (09 qt N co u. In N M M M M M M M M M M M �y cq N N N N N N N N •N N N M in ." ' Q. fn O n M n M n M n M n M n M n M N M n M L: M n M 00 r U d �t tt ct tt ct tt qt 'd O 00 to to {A fA a { U ('O (") M M M M co M M M M M [t tt d d ct d tF tt et n M N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 N { M M M (O tD (D (D (O to (D O to . .................:::: :.:: m w r Ln r Ln r Ln �- Ln r LD r to e- Lf) r to r In r to r to 00 (D D to w {A w to N v► N to fA ^ N J N 0M0 n N M M . n NMrDO 05>sit>in�t (DNM O L• O cn aOLn.7 O UOO N MoCN0OMOO MM M Mat V (/) N O W M Ln n N N O M [t O J CC n qt M 00 O (D N tt O O M wt Q: M n M O N w O U; N �t Q� W J } (1) O O O 00 N (D M It M N �- LU} Ln J N N n n n �- CD .- tt t0 O N O O w tt d O M N(D C9 n0M(DMM U NNMMMM'(t �d et Ln LU y n Ln Ln O O Ln [t (D M N D N . w N 00 M N et (D 00 O to M w d 1..-.-NNNNNMMM (f7 J N Q N .:.............. y M M � � VJ n 00 M O r N M J M O O M O M M 0 00 O Q M O O M O M 0 0 00 O 1- } •-�.-�NNNN O H r% A C z o_ H O IL W F - r� (n fr W } a a W H. W UJa J Q Lu W W cn as LU W C7 ~ Z N IW-' D y y Coui j y y CC � Q 0 y 00 M W � CL W z Z a� CC 0cc Lu a Q ~ W LL F- O Lli -� N O M n .- lA O In 0 Q O O 0 (D r` n 00 00 Q) ZL5N N N N N N N N cc Q Z D-17 / 0 a �N •- M M tD M ct O O tt � O to In It r coco0ococococococococo w W N tD n n 00 47 M O N (D(0(D(D(Dcow(a(D(D -- - Z LL LLn 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N lu N �— M M (D M qt 0 0 It qt 0 M n (n N LLL 0 LO r n O n n Q) (D It M 0) to 00 W N Or` O r` 00 M M O N N 0) 00 r (D O N !n (D N N N r Z a N N N N N M Co 0) to st (D 1n .9t MI t, N to In O Q7 N Q7 O O 10 (Dr 00 W O r` O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ? r } 0 r r r r r u7 J a a W Z� WU N�— } NO O X 00 n (0 O M N r` W O< �- Q X W 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 N N N N N N N N N N . N U) r w co [t O N 00 O r n O 00 tD 0 0o .- (D I-- N > w n 0) O N et t0 M d n O Q w LL N N M tntnlnoCONrr00d'n N 0 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 00 Ln 0 O M r O N N N N N N N N N N N M J } M tt tff((—Mno(—mrn 01O(nO0(n Q � Q X 0 000 F- ..00 cD cD co (o cD cD (o cD cD cD cD (D n CO CO CO 00 00 00 CO CO CO 00 Q. W W E— LL au ao 0o ao ao aD ao a ao ao ao co -�00 vM�vM�v�0�m m� cNo N N N N N N N N N N N N M Q) 0) M Q) 0 M M 01 Q) 01 00 In .. -_ .. - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 __ : LL U. to !n U:::: -... O N N N N N N N N N N N r` a . N N N N N N N N N N N N :. Nol I col col col 001 col col 001001 col col col lool F D-17 / 0 a �N �pt���ptt.�� Lq �W coco0ococococococococo co co (D(0(D(D(Dcow(a(D(D LLn 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N -� N(n It co 0o N Co M n (n N O to O n n Q) (D It M 0) to 00 O 00 q1t O IA Of N M 17 00 r (D O N !n (D 00 0) 0 0 N N N N N M Co 0) to st (D 1n .9t MI t, N to In O Q7 N Q7 O O 10 (Dr 00 O r` O O to M N O 00 '21 M r ? r r r r r r r u7 J N�— } NO O 0) 00 n (0 O M N r` W O< �- N J U) r w co [t O N 00 O r n O 00 tD 0 0o .- (D M N (O n 0) O N et t0 M d n O MM N N M tntnlnoCONrr00d'n W O N 00 0 1 M Ln n 00 M r O 0 f- N N N N N N M M J OC M tt tff((—Mno(—mrn 01O(nO0(n 0 000 NNN N D-17 / 0 a � N N k ►i 0-19 c, 00 tf n 00 to to N 0 0 0 00 00 O n M r M tt1 t� O N F- w M M M a- r ID tfj O N Vl► M M M +� N Lf) M N to CO NN t0 .- N .- M .- 00 O N (D +N N +� W N .- �- .- -- W o M n O M st tt) d N n n Or tu Z an .- b N '- N .- f? .- b N to M f? OOOOOOOOOW y � Q M M M M M M M M M W Z Wi N w n N 0 O J N N ONO 0 tMO Q Z t9 n M n M M w 0 0 0 w N M N� Z : U �j cc a +n .n mt qt U) q* g r: ( M N CO M t0 M W n N M N t0 to N N M M = N Lo �t O to M O M W W 1- Z M d !n et M r O M O vi w In N vMi vNi M — — Q zcr- j N N N 401 .J uiw 00 n M O M to N to n W cc � O to n M to M CO M M r r M W t0 r O M t0 !t M X O n Q Q W G: �` " j H coM N n M N O cn N N r N N (y O M [t to UJ n n M r r O J X Q Z W W Z W Q LU LU }' d tL .Q N tff to n M .- M M M n W W U. Q: J w N MN n M N CO M d M 00 ct M M st t0 M O M p (� U;`r O O M to n Oo O to M to Oo J Z Z Z U O O LO M to n to N (0 t\ O N n 00 n Cl) CO t0 M M M W UJH .:: J: w M M M M M M M M M M V Q ................... LL. qt n Rt n qt n t n qt n 11 n qt n qt n q' n Rt n Z X Q U N N N N N N N N N N H _ J yr •a yr yr yr yr yr yr ar yr w a a uj Z to to O M to 4qt lD M N tt N — CC\\ W o 0 0 0 0 0 a a• 00 M N (D aD O to M M O tD p 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O Lu w U- U 000000 O O 00 ...... N OMO0ON((DDM M N 3 Q d' r- p W U U Z qt to(D n o M O .- N M M Ma) o) M M o o o o cc M M M M M M o O o o } 0-19 c, D-20 / D 7 N � IL LJ.. LL V ++ V E Q. EOL .� L � U o a. D-21 1 D-22 LU Lu Ln M N 00 (w) 0 r� C'j 00 N w a N ui D u Ln o m (.3 X N ca LD 0M 0 4& CN -4 4* Cw) r - 4& ......... . 0 iL 4& .. .. ........ LU uj (D Cld -t M o Ln 0 CY) CO P, r- r. C4Ln N co to CO a a o co (6 14 (n CO 0 .... ((J ..... . LU CC 0 -t 0 W C) 0 0 0 0 C4 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >LU LU 0 C -4 LiJ ui .... ...... ............... I f M m cq m cn m ... ... :3 LU 0) . Im a) . 0) (D 0) (h im (5 r. r. r. 7-i ... ....... LU Lf) 00 Cw) N CV) W Ln 0 M ........ ... .a ... cq to 6 (a C4 C4 M Lo .......... X ... .. i t I I ..... ..... C, 0 0 o 0 C) 0 xx.. F UJ CC 0 40 NM W 0 0 NLu . . .... ...... ......... ............... . .. .............. ........ ...... ......... ru Cq m ......... . ................ .4 ............... ... ... Lu 5 . ...... . .. ... .......... .. .... --- . ......... - ----- - ....... .......... ....... ........... .................. .... ....... * ....... ............ ......... ......... ***'* ... ........... ......... .... : t . .............. : - .:; . . . ....... .... ... . Ln Ln Ln U) Ln Ln Ln Ln 1. ............. . .... .... ...... Mm M V) M V) in F) in . ..... ........... ............ ..... ..... ......... . .......... . ..... .. ..... w . to . to . (D . (o . w w ID fa ...... . ................ .................... uj . . . ............. ..... ......... ................... ............... .................... ........... .. ......... .......... L ...... .. L CQ...... ..... ..... ..... ....... ....... . .. ...... . .... . . . ......... .................. ..... ........ ... w w Lu co r 9 N T- r r m t qt (D co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L n D-22 W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O H W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Z LL W m w O w w 0 0 0 m cc V N N � r (O cr- Q N N N UCL U � F' O 00000000 Z ww �- �- e- •- •- � J N N1 N N N N N N N cc U W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- W 000000000 Z W N M W O W N O O O cc a N N N N N O LO UCL N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ccW W O O N 4 000 W O. W O O �- N MOO N M Q W 3 J 00000000 F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z w W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N � J N w w = N 2 N�Ma—rNM�(Od r D-23 W W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O L+- tC O O N O O O N N C4 cli N U Qa N N N N M N a W H 0 et 0 <O 0000 O O N qt 0 O 0 o 0 0 jLu W N M (O O N J W a W N .. Q. Q . . ................::::::::i F' O 00000000 Z ww �- �- e- •- •- � J N N1 N N N N N N N cc U W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- W 000000000 Z W N M W O W N O O O cc a N N N N N O LO UCL N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ccW W O O N 4 000 W O. W O O �- N MOO N M Q W 3 J 00000000 F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z w W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N � J N w w = N 2 N�Ma—rNM�(Od r D-23 D -24 ! W O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU W L. 00NoO't00000 maU atNav�iv�i�N�c`to pQ CL ia+n4r,w U a LU W o N 0 00 0 O 0 O 0 w 00 N O 0 O 0 O V- W n M (O '- M O O w N r U yr 46 +4? N Q a +a to W LU E--w 00 It(OOONct000 0 00 0 0 0 0 a W 00 LULU N M 3 Y y" tj © D 0 000000000 00 0 00000 w MMM(")(l9MMMM i=^ Wo� LJLI (j1 Q a J4fk4A4auyr+nv►41).h ILL to Q w W LU o 00N0O 0 0 0 0 d'Oo000 0 0 0 0 F.+n yr 44, Nsf 1�etN O Q N L! M N 44. 4A cc a }—: 111:»::»:::<::<:>:>>:>:»::<:> a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC W W a W o 0 .- N M (O O O N . .- N M oG:< a w :c::>:>:>::: J 0 0 O o O o 00 0 0 w o O o 0 0 00 O o W O-J CL O N O< CL LU w = N00 N �= M i - NNM'tt0000 () D -24 ! D-25 D-26 //3 Z 00 00 M M tO (D r lO N m 00 M to to 6) O M M N tD 00 O N L(') O W N N 00 N .- M 4 N r D 0C H4A 4 a 44, 40). 46 M N r M N [t N O lO N r O (D 00 M v) M 00 M d O tD st N r O M N m M M LO 00 <O 00 m t0 t0 m N 4 M LO 00 4 N M O N 00 O M r N M 00 N tt 00 M N W N r tti i•,• t? N N N N N N f? Ln LU LL +? N y c C D (D M M N N N N It w w N N m w w N m W M ct � N N M W a N a M N N W LO O Q LO N N M 4 c1' 00 Ln t0 N t} (O O 00 r 00 M It H M .- v) r vi N to N N M .- LO W F - (D O N M O ('M d M N a- U'! ('9 N 0 0 0 �- N a) 0 0 (D It to N O N N 00 O M O O O M M N N N 00 4 M (D LO LO Ch N e- O O o M M M {n N M— M — ct r- to (D Rt N p (L r O n N 00 N r O m' r N LO M N LO LO O N O m W ct.- N LO N LO N N N 00 N O (D N M a N LO d � M O M M M M W W 2 O M = WLLJ M H LL Z QZ U 0 Z w= Z 9L ZO C7 cc 0 Z a =a W W Ucc F DC U W Q ( i LV � U cc X t- H LU N LL z W w O _ LU p } Z H 0 o ao Z (n LLA n LL Q H cc LUa W z 1- Z M O N00 N O M ct N LO (D N W LO O N 3 oc 0 M LO 't .- N LO N to N N N 00 N O (D N (D iQ b N N N L r J_ +a Lf) O L'0 (") c9 M M M M M M M M Cl) M tM (M M M LO F- tD M tD M tD M M (D tD tD tD tD tD (D tD (D (D et W CF tt Ct tt '� Ct d' tt to �7 M M M M M M M M M vi M M M M ('9 () CV) p 0 Z CCa Z 00 M %t O (D %t N 'It r O M N M tD 00 LO hW- a 00 tD 00 00 (G (D M n lfi 00 tt N M O Q O O tO to H et .- H .- N N v► N N M N at N a) .n N v) yr N Ln tO L7 +n v) y) N Z O =) N LL 00_ CL f- V W W J W O W Q Z ~ J z ZN O a L) U U U V (n (n N N N N N N CO N N (n V) W �oaaaaaaaaaaaaa~a UU m ►- Q O W W w'• N M ct tO (D N M �t tO tD N 0- F- S 2 iml al z ;il ;ij;l il 6 0 0cocn0co F -F - i' � X. W O O 00 M .- N N O •- 00 M LO O m Z M �' M M 'It M W W M .- ct M M N N N v) m � Z 0C w LO �' It 00 W M M W N LLI LO 't N ci tts+n 4* N .& N .0 40, M an N0 .ti N r to tR N M _.....:.. L/:.... i.i Or fA a y ...................... r� LLJ Z N t] (D N (D M M N O O M 00 00 LO 00 O tD LO � W m (D (D M N 't M � M N � N O to MW Cl) W a uj oioi.-oa;Giri0oo + NMN— NN NNv►O (6 C; LL O p v> as yr 402� 401, N 4A <n C)w U N qt N It N M M N M M O Cl) N r N N qt 00 d W M O Q D' X Q 00 N N a NO to (D O N M O It M <n .a ui N p v) It LO LO (D It r M ycF :.:.:..� .=.I .. N N N N N M to � N N O M N r M N [t N O lO N r O (D 00 M v) M 00 M d O tD st N r O M N m M M LO 00 <O 00 m t0 t0 m N 4 M LO 00 4 N M O N 00 O M r N M 00 N tt 00 M N W N r tti i•,• t? N N N N N N f? Ln LU LL +? N y c C D (D M M N N N N It w w N N m w w N m W M ct � N N M W a N a M N N W LO O Q LO N N M 4 c1' 00 Ln t0 N t} (O O 00 r 00 M It H M .- v) r vi N to N N M .- LO W F - (D O N M O ('M d M N a- U'! ('9 N 0 0 0 �- N a) 0 0 (D It to N O N N 00 O M O O O M M N N N 00 4 M (D LO LO Ch N e- O O o M M M {n N M— M — ct r- to (D Rt N p (L r O n N 00 N r O m' r N LO M N LO LO O N O m W ct.- N LO N LO N N N 00 N O (D N M a N LO d � M O M M M M W W 2 O M = WLLJ M H LL Z QZ U 0 Z w= Z 9L ZO C7 cc 0 Z a =a W W Ucc F DC U W Q ( i LV � U cc X t- H LU N LL z W w O _ LU p } Z H 0 o ao Z (n LLA n LL Q H cc LUa W z 1- Z M O N00 N O M ct N LO (D N W LO O N 3 oc 0 M LO 't .- N LO N to N N N 00 N O (D N (D iQ b N N N L r J_ +a Lf) O L'0 (") c9 M M M M M M M M Cl) M tM (M M M LO F- tD M tD M tD M M (D tD tD tD tD tD (D tD (D (D et W CF tt Ct tt '� Ct d' tt to �7 M M M M M M M M M vi M M M M ('9 () CV) p 0 Z CCa Z 00 M %t O (D %t N 'It r O M N M tD 00 LO hW- a 00 tD 00 00 (G (D M n lfi 00 tt N M O Q O O tO to H et .- H .- N N v► N N M N at N a) .n N v) yr N Ln tO L7 +n v) y) N Z O =) N LL 00_ CL f- V W W J W O W Q Z ~ J z ZN O a L) U U U V (n (n N N N N N N CO N N (n V) W �oaaaaaaaaaaaaa~a UU m ►- Q O W W w'• N M ct tO (D N M �t tO tD N 0- F- S 2 iml al z ;il ;ij;l il 6 0 0cocn0co F -F - i' � O m 00 N N iA t0 O F' F-C/) ut vs M .- 't a) qt +n M 4& LO is N v) m � LO LLI a LLJ Z N (D N (D N LO N 0o O m M t0 00 M 00 N M M N LD N r tD LO � W m N N N � N � to Cl) {y uj .: C)w N qt N It N M M N M M O Cl) N r N N qt 00 d W M O �t M m a y y vt .a N p ycF .. U W W Q :Q N F •' O O 00 N M to r lO r M O tt Q} M N N M N 00 d' M M 00 (D CV) LL;? CL ca • 'LL Z ....: a Z w U oo�tcD.-�r.ln th N It et m (D O 00 N Nm r 00 LL m cc t? N r M N O O t] w Cq y N 00 N tt O st M M lO >:J/ FQ•- N Cl) Cl) M .- O N O CO LO U) r M ......: .: d O '- .a N v) N M V! Ln ,. U '? N N N N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 ''`' W W Z J N N r N N N N N N N N N N r r r r r r r r r r Z NN NNLnONMMMM� F -Z O F- O O F U ao LO 0o LO O M ao M N M tt w r LO N M Ln LO M 00 LO N O (D QQ U lO N tO v► N N 00 00 .- 4 00 r N N (C S (D M N 00 M m N � N M u7 0 yr yr .n r +n `Q N (D cc .ri► N C14V J a � (� Z �� Z Q o N W W COW f -w -p V�'JOF-mZZZ W F-Qa_j QF Z a (n U f p� a a 0 Z} p O w = F- ui Ui ZW� U))CiuiW D• W �ZwF-?M»U0 LULU Q MwcV F-1-aF- Ll F- LL m m W N (M L= i. L=L M N r M N [t N O lO N r O (D 00 M v) M 00 M d O tD st N r O M N m M M LO 00 <O 00 m t0 t0 m N 4 M LO 00 4 N M O N 00 O M r N M 00 N tt 00 M N W N r tti i•,• t? N N N N N N f? Ln LU LL +? N y c C D (D M M N N N N It w w N N m w w N m W M ct � N N M W a N a M N N W LO O Q LO N N M 4 c1' 00 Ln t0 N t} (O O 00 r 00 M It H M .- v) r vi N to N N M .- LO W F - (D O N M O ('M d M N a- U'! ('9 N 0 0 0 �- N a) 0 0 (D It to N O N N 00 O M O O O M M N N N 00 4 M (D LO LO Ch N e- O O o M M M {n N M— M — ct r- to (D Rt N p (L r O n N 00 N r O m' r N LO M N LO LO O N O m W ct.- N LO N LO N N N 00 N O (D N M a N LO d � M O M M M M W W 2 O M = WLLJ M H LL Z QZ U 0 Z w= Z 9L ZO C7 cc 0 Z a =a W W Ucc F DC U W Q ( i LV � U cc X t- H LU N LL z W w O _ LU p } Z H 0 o ao Z (n LLA n LL Q H cc LUa W z 1- Z M O N00 N O M ct N LO (D N W LO O N 3 oc 0 M LO 't .- N LO N to N N N 00 N O (D N (D iQ b N N N L r J_ +a Lf) O L'0 (") c9 M M M M M M M M Cl) M tM (M M M LO F- tD M tD M tD M M (D tD tD tD tD tD (D tD (D (D et W CF tt Ct tt '� Ct d' tt to �7 M M M M M M M M M vi M M M M ('9 () CV) p 0 Z CCa Z 00 M %t O (D %t N 'It r O M N M tD 00 LO hW- a 00 tD 00 00 (G (D M n lfi 00 tt N M O Q O O tO to H et .- H .- N N v► N N M N at N a) .n N v) yr N Ln tO L7 +n v) y) N Z O =) N LL 00_ CL f- V W W J W O W Q Z ~ J z ZN O a L) U U U V (n (n N N N N N N CO N N (n V) W �oaaaaaaaaaaaaa~a UU m ►- Q O W W w'• N M ct tO (D N M �t tO tD N 0- F- S 2 iml al z ;il ;ij;l il 6 0 0cocn0co F -F - i' � Fort Worth Star-Telegram 400 W.SEVENTH STREET•FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76102 STATE OF TEXAS ty of Tarrant Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, this day personally appeared RITA CORONA Billing Specialist for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, published by the Star-Telegram Inc. at Fort Worth, in Tarrant County, Texas; and who, after being duly sworn, did depose and say that the following clipping of an advertisement was published in the above named paper on the following dates: ORDINANCE NO.510-A AN ORDINANCEAMEN ING RD NAN NO. 0 OF THE ITY DATE AD INVOICE NO. DE LAKE T`XAS HE - AD SIZE INCH/LINE AMOUNT TER AN WAFT WA CAPITAL RY SEP 10 2542035 CL. 358 EESEORD'LUX:AND puBlggEY 1X66 L 66 .43 28 . 38 1 GGD HpPyIIG YS CANPITAL Sept . 10 j1�PRMPEL�� TS PLA BpE S EE L gENL.,TPRy VI IING OMFNOR HCTMTgEES Ou RDINANC VFALLGOREA DINANC LPIT PI ANASLTYSSEF I1?)IOLAprrrrrr ITN�NA SAVING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUB`II FPAOT IMO,N i N N P pAAAAAApM P H L T UURRBLICNATRRI Nllf� HEFFpNOOOOF- TIV DLDATSANrrRF'FEC-. SECTION 5. D -9-C .0,_)QefUt5-Yi.t.- 1111 Any person firm or rpora- - --- --- BSCRIBED AND SWORN T lion who v(olates, d`(°sogevs.THIS THE loth DA OF Sept 1993 omits witherneRlect or refYses to NOTARY PUBLIC comply with or who res I sis the enforcement of any of the p ro- visions ofthlsordlnance hall &'• C-i4C/464-1-/ be fined not more t_An0 ) - HBundredDollarss(h5500. ARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS vlolatlloensepemlfledtoezlsl -------�..___._.---- hall constitute a separatep of- =R'R'F(e` � C AIU�RINGGTHE CITHYEL,OON '` y isn't CIL MEETINGHELD ON feA �\ '- 0a SEPP'TEMBER// 1 9 y r•. ''Avert-, Mayor ATTEST: City Secretary 'rand TEAR ALONG THIS APPROVED AS TO FORM: :TURN THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT—� CityyAttorrneyaylor,Jr. REMIT TO : 400 W . SEVENTH, FW, TX 76102 Fort Worth Star-Telegram RVIIT ACCOUNT MOUNT A 35 NUMBER CIT57 DUE 28 . 38 77 y h ..�;.rr :'.. PAGE OF 1 II CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 667 N CARROLL AVE PLEASE PAY 28 . 38 SOUTHLAKE TX 76092-9595 THIS AMOUNT IP' ATTN: PLEASE WRITE IN AMOUNT ENCLOSED Fort Worth Star-Telegram 400 W.SEVENTH STREET•FORT WORTH,TEXAS 76102 HE STATE OF TEXAS unty of Tarrant Before me, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, this day personally appeared RITA CORONA Billing Specialist for the Fort Worth Star—Telegram, published by the Star—Telegram Inc . at Fort Worth, in Tarrant County, Texas ; and who, after being duly sworn, did depose and say that the following clipping of an advertisement was published in the above named paper on the following dates : DATE }AD INVOICE NO. DESCRIPTION AD SIZE oTAL RATE AMOUNT NCH/LINE SEP 10 25420221CL . 358 1X66 L 66 . 43 28 . 38 Sept . 10 ORDINANCE NO.510-A AN ORDINANCE AMc S 0 IONG H D �I�RTys F AFHE �XAS TUTH- _........... .... ........_..... .._...._..---___.__ p1EI5TAL pWNENp A�EUR'S?, Wil-.5 PTI�j SS CpNige RPiTAL IM NITO PEMV Ilk PFA�SNE AND IAMAPACCCCTTTT FE APPLI- ABLETON WDEVEVOR �EMPTIRp S FF{OM 1M PAST FEE PIFRY41% IIIIU B S HAT THIS ORDINANCCEE G N E I► HALL E RA!)LATIV CRIBED A D SWORI DIN A R EILT,� DAY OF Sept 1993 Au4 "� " : T IS THE 13th lNSALE{EY F I IqA NOTARY PUBLIC i--,_,,,_ //IN NA SAVINGS CLAUSE: ..l f�, c +�j( ZfPR VIDING FOR PUBLI- CANON IN PAMPHLET TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS FORM; PROVIDING RR FOR l': PROVIDING NSPAN� FFEC- ..�r,.•A TIVE DATE. ir^•' SECTION 5. Ir.,i Any person firmorcorpora- _.... _.... .t,l�T"... tlon who v(olates, d 5soobbeeys. omits neglects or refyses to comp(ywlthorwhores ststhe enforcement of any of the pro- 1 / vislonsofthlsordlnance5hall ' 1 be fined not more than Five- �• HundredDollars $500.111)for 1 f—TEAR ALON ,eroatloa 'i IsepeeEm1ttedOez sf JD RETURN THE LOWER PORTION WITH YOUR PAYMENT-�, shall constitute a separate of- fense. PASSE OVED DURING THECAND COUN REMIT TO : 400 W . SEVENTH, FW, TX 76102 CDILRMEETHNGCIHEYELLCD ON SEPTEMBER 7,1993. Fort Worth MIT To.ATTEST: /lllT !l /s Sandra L.LeGrand �� ACCOUNT AMOUNT 2542022 cl�r secretary NUMBER C I T 5 7 DUE 28 . 38 4 ''' APPROVED AS TO FORM:k'''''')<Of' ''''Viy'''' '4411;' /s/E.ttAttorrnevaylor,Jr. 1 CityS CITY OF SOUTHLAKE 667 N CARROLL AVE PLEASE PAY 28 . 38 SOUTHLAKE TX 76092-9595 b. THIS AMOUNT ATTN : PLEASE WRITE IN AMOUNT ENCLOSED