Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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