HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 07-1721
ORDINANCE NO. 01- /72 /
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS,
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REVISED AND AMENDED LAND
USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT
FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER AS PROVIDED IN EXHIBIT
'~ TOGETHER WITH ALL AMENDMENTS, EXHIBITS AND
APPENDICES THERETO, WHICH ARE ATTACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN FOR ALL PURPOSES; AND AMENDING
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE
II, IMPACT FEES, TO PROVIDE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER
IMPACT FEES AS PROVIDED IN THE INCORPORATED TABLES
ADOPTED HEREIN IN EXHIBIT "it; PROVIDING A PUBLICATION
CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENAL TY CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of The Colony (hereinafter "City") contracted with Kimley Horn
and Associates, Inc. to perform a Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A," as amended," which are attached hereto
and incorporated herein for all purposes; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 395 of the TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE,
notices have been published, public hearings have been held and the written recommendations
received concerning land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for Water and
Wastewater Impact Fees, which is identical to the capital improvements plan prepared by a
qualified professional engineer; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the City
to adopt such land use assumptions and capital improvement plan for water and wastewater
impact fees established herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the City hereby approves and adopts the Land Use Assumptions
("LUA") and the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update, which is identical to the Capital
Improvements Program [Plan] ("CIP"), prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., dated
March 2007, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes as Exhibit "A",
Page 1
TM 17119.76.000
together with all its amendments and exhibits, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference, and which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Secretary,
SECTION 2. That the Code of Ordinances be, and the same is, hereby amended by
amending Chapter 8, Article II, Impact Fees, Sec. 8-52 by amending the definition of capital
improvement plan, and by amending Sec. 8-64 (a) to provide water and wastewater impact fees
and by repealing Tables 15-C, 15-D, 16-C, and 16-D and replacing with Tables 8-1.1 and 8-2.1,
which shall read as follows:
'rnAPTER 8
ARTICLE II. IMPACT FEES
Sec. 8-52. Definitions.
Capital improvement plan means . . . The said plan is dated March 2007 and
entitled "Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan," as prepared by Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. and on file in the office of the City Secretary.
Sec. 8-64. Amount of impact fees
Impact fees for water, wastewater and roadway facilities shall be as follows:
(a) Water and wastewater impact fee:
Service Area
Type of Use
Water
Wastewater
City Wide
All developments in
any land use
category.
The maximum impact
fee set forth in the
capital improvements
plan and as shown in
Table 1.1 attached to
the capital improve-
ments plan.
The maximum impact
fee set forth in the
capital improvements
plan and as shown in
Table 2.1 attached to
the capital improve-
ments plan.
* Fee is per service unit as defined and described in the capital improvements plan.
(b) .. .. .
Page 2
TM 17119.76.000
TABLE 8-1.1
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION TABLE FOR
WATER AND MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
SERVICE AREA - CITY WIDE
CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS
Maximum Continuous Maximum
Meter Size* Operating Capacity Service Unit Assessable
(GPM)** Equivalent Fee ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PD 10 1 1,653
3/4" PD 15 1.5 2,480
1 " PD 25 2.5 4,133
1 1/2" PD 50 5 8,265
2" PD 80 8 13 ,224
2" Compound 80 8 13 ,224
2" Turbine 100 10 16,530
3" Compound 160 16 26,448
3" Turbine 240 24 39,672
4" Compound 250 25 41,325
4" Turbine 420 42 69,426
6" Compound 500 50 82,650
6" Turbine 920 92 152,076
8" Compound 800 80 132,240
8" Turbine 1,600 160 264,480
10" Turbine 2,500 250 413,250
*PD = Positive Displacement Meter (Typical residential meter)
**Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-02
Page 3
TM 17119.76.000
TABLE 8-2.1
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION TABLE FOR
WASTEWATER AND MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
SERVICE AREA - CITY WIDE
CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS
"
Maximum Continuous Maximum
Meter Size* Operating Capacity Service Unit Assessable
(GPM)** Equivalent Fee ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PD 10 1 815
3/4" PD 15 1.5 1,223
1 " PD 25 2.5 2,038
1 1/2" PD 50 5 4,075
2" PD 80 8 6,520
2" Compound 80 8 6,520
2" Turbine 100 10 8,150
3" Compound 160 16 13 ,040
3" Turbine 240 24 19,560
4" Compound 250 25 20,375
4" Turbine 420 42 34,230
6" Compound 500 50 40,750
6" Turbine 920 92 74,980
8" Compound 800 80 65,200
8" Turbine 1,600 160 130,400
10" Turbine 2,500 250 203,750
*PD = Positive Displacement Meter (Typical residential meter)
**Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-02
Page 4
TM 17119.76.000
SECTION 2. A water and wastewater impact fee, as provided in Exhibit "A" and as
authorized by Chapter 395 of the TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, as amended, is hereby
imposed. The amount of the water and wastewater impact fee assessed within each Service Area
will be determined as provided in Exhibit "A."
SECTION 3. The methodology for water and wastewater impact fees, including the
service areas, service units, cost per service unit, and service unit calculation shall be provided in
Exhibit "A".
SECTION 4. Impact fee calculations, which shall include maximum assessable impact
fee per service unit, plan for awarding the impact fee credit, and service unit demand per unit of
Development shall be as provided in Exhibit "A," as amended.
SECTION 5. The City Secretary shall submit a written certification, signed by the
Mayor verifying compliance with Chapter 395 to the Attorney General each year, not later than
the 30th day of September. The certification shall include the statement: "This statement
certifies compliance with Chapter 395, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE."
SECTION 7. A record must be made and kept of the public hearings conducted as
provided by this chapter and maintained and made available for public inspection for at least ten
(10) years after the date of the hearing."
SECTION 8. This section is adopted pursuant to V.T.C.A., TEXAS LoCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE, Chapter 395. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to limit the power of the
City to utilize other methods authorized under State law or pursuant to other City powers to
accomplish the purposes set forth herein, either in substitution or in conjunction with this section.
Guidelines may be developed by City Council resolution or otherwise to implement and administer
this section.
Page 5
TM 171]9.76.000
SECTION 9. The provisions of this section apply to all new development within the
corporate boundaries ofthe City.
SECTION 10. No application for new development shall be approved within the City
without assessment of an impact fee pursuant to this article, and no building permit shall be issued
unless the applicant has paid the impact fee imposed by and calculated hereunder.
SECTION 11. The City Secretary of the City of The Colony is hereby directed to
publish in one issue of the Official newspaper of the City of The Colony, the Caption and
Effective Date Clause of this Ordinance as required by Section 52.011 of the Texas Local
Government Code.
SECTION 12. The sections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases, clauses and words of this
Ordinance are severable, and if any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, clause or word in this
Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional
by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance despite such invalidity, which remaining portions shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 13. This Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other ordinances of the City
and shall not repeal any of the provisions of those ordinances except in those instances where the
provisions of those ordinances are in direct conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 14. Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this ordinance
shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars for each offense; and a separate
offense shall be deemed committed on each day during or on which a violation occurs or
continues.
Page 6
TM ]7119.76.000
SECTION 15. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its
passage and publication, as the law and charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas, this l~ of
~n
-d"'(A/\r"'V , 2 007 .
APPROVED:
By:
By:
ATTEST:
~~ \)J~>-
CHRISTIE WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
, CITY ATTORNEY
7)
By:
Page 7
TM 171]9.76.000
('ity of The ('olou\
W@fJ@[f @][fiJ@ W@]~W@][]@[f
DWD[f)@]@f] &5~ @[fJ@@fJ@
~ .....^<-'<.~...--
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
Prepared by:
~- ~ Kimley-Hom
IIII......J _ ~ and Associates, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 1025
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.335.6511
March 2007
-..,....",
-- ~ OF r.,.',
,,-,\,,~...........~-t \,
, "." * ".-:'.s> .
.- .' . .
'* ... ". *',
, . .
,*:' '''*'
,.......... ... ........ .... ............... :....1
~ JOHN R. ATKINS ~
.,... .:" ......... ........... ....\...~
"~"" 85376 ......I'.t't
'f~.<"'!.!. eNs~~"~
?\'~ ......~~
'I:, N
"
.
3.3D-'"
@Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2007
061117014
~-_n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
Table of Contents
1.1 Introd uctio n ............................................................................................. .... .......................... 1.1
A. Land Use Assumptions............... ........... ............... .......................................... ........................................... 1.2
B. Evaluation of the Water System Master Plan.............................................................................................. 1.2
C. Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan........ .......... ......................................... ........................... ................ 1.2
D. Impact Fee Analysis and Report ................................................................................................................ 1.2
1.2 Executive Summary ......................................................................... ...................................... 1.3
1.3 Design Criteria...... .................................................................. ............. ........... ....................... 1.5
A. Water Transmission Lines (12-inch and Larger)......................................................................................... 1.5
B. Storage Tanks........................................ ................................................................... ................................ 1.5
C. Pump Stations...... ..................................................................................................................................... 1.6
1.4 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan................................................................................ 1.7
A. Project Descriptions ................................................ ............................................... ................ ................... 1.9
1.5 Water Impact Fee Calculation............................................................................................. 1.12
Appendix
Water Land Use Assumptions
List of Figures
1.1 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan .......................................................................................... 1.8
List of Tables
1.1 Maximum Assessable Water Impact Fee for Commonly Used Meters ............................................ 1.4
1.2 Water Impact Fee Capital Improvements Project Cost and 10-Year Recoverable Cost .................... 1.7
1.3 Service Unit Consumption Calculation.......... ........................................... ......... ........................... 1.12
1.4 IO-year Additional Service Units Calculation ........... .............. ...................................................... 1.13
1.5 IO-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown.................................................................................... ...... 1.13
1.6 Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters........................................................ 1.14
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
March 2007
~-_n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of The Colony retained the services of Kim1ey-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the purpose of
updating the impact fees for water system improvements required to serve new development. These fees
were originally developed in 2003 in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code
(impact fees), which requires a city imposing impact fees to update the land-use assumptions and capital
improvements plan upon which the fees are calculated.
The purpose of this report is to satisfY the requirements of the law and provide the City with an updated
impact fee capital improvements plan and associated impact fees.
For convenience and reference, the following is excerpted from Chapter 395 of the code:
(a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements
plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific
enumeration of the following items:
(1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the costs to
upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which
shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such
professional engineering services in this state;
(2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer licensed to perform such professional engineering services in this
state;
(3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and
their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based
on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer licensed to perform such professional engineering services in this
state;
(4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or
facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a
service unit to various types of land uses, including but not limited to residential,
commercial, and industrial;
(5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and
calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;
(6) the projected demandfor capital improvements or facility expansions required by new
service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years; and
Water Impact Fec Update
City of The Colony. Texas
1.1
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
(7) a plan for awarding:
(A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues
generated by new service unit during the program period that is usedfor the
payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in
the capital improvements plan; or
(B) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total project cost of
implementing the capital improvements plan.
The impact fee study includes information from the Master Plan & Modeling of Water System, Pump
System and Well Feasibility Study completed by Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc. in June 2004. The impact
fees are based on recommended capital improvements and the population growth projections outlined in
the Master Plan & Modeling of Water System, Pump System and Well Feasibility Study.
The study process was comprised of four tasks:
A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This task involved comparing the population growth projections shown in the Master Plan &
Modeling of Water System, Pump System and Well Feasibility Study to the Land Use
Assumptions shown in the Roadway Impact Fee Update. The growth projections were then used
to project water demand throughout the City.
B. EVALUATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
This task involved reviewing the Master Plan & Modeling of Water System, Pump System and
Well Feasibility Study and its growth projection compatibility with the Land Use Assumptions
Report. The water demand projections were then used to determine the additional service units.
C. IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
This task involved evaluation of the water capital improvements plan outlined in the master plan
and discussion with City staff to identify projects that will be built in the 10-year planning
window and meet the design criteria.
D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AND REpORT
This task included calculating the additional service units, service unit equivalents, and credit
reduction. These values were then used to determine the impact fee per service unit and the
maximum assessable impact fee by meter size.
Water Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony. Texas
1.2
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was performed to update the City of The Colony's Water System Impact Fees. Water system
analysis and the Water System Master Plan are important tools for facilitating orderly growth of the water
system and for providing adequate facilities that promote economic development in the City of The
Colony. The implementation of an impact fee is a way to shift a portion of the burden of paying for new
facilities onto new development.
Elements of the water system, including storage facilities, pumping facilities, and the distribution network
itself, were evaluated against industry standards as outlined in the Design Criteria section of this report.
Information related to the growth of the City was provided by Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc through the
Master Plan and Modeling of Water System, Pump System and Well Feasibility Study, June 2004.
Water system improvements necessary to serve 10-year (20 IS) and ultimate system needs were evaluated.
Typically, infrastructure improvements are sized beyond the lO-year requirements; however, Texas'
impact fee law (Chapter 395) only allows recovery of costs to serve the 10-year planning period. For
example, the projected cost to serve the ultimate system needs is $30,649,979. Of this $21,773,325 is
projected to be eligible for recovery through impact fees within the next 10 years. The remainder can be
assessed as the planning window extends beyond 20 IS and as the impact fees are updated in the future.
The impact fee law defines a service unit as follows, "'Service Unit' means a standardized measure of
consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally
accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the
political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years."
Therefore, the City of The Colony defines a service unit as unit of development that consumes the amount
of water requiring a standard 5/8"x 3/4" meter. For a development that requires a different size meter, a
service unit equivalent is established at a multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 5/8"x 3/4"
meter. The equivalency factor and associated impact fee by meter size is shown in Table 1.1.
Based on the City's lO-year growth projections and the associated demand (consumption) values, 8,804
additional service units will need water by the year 2015. Based on the additional service units and the
recoverable capital improvements plans, the City may assess a maximum of$I,653 per service unit.
Water Impact Fee Update
City ofThc Colony, Tcxas
1.3
March 2007
~-n Kimley-Hom
IIIII..J _ ~_J and Associates, Inc.
Table 1.1 Maximum Assessable Water Impact Fee for Commonly Used Meters
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PD 10 1 1,653
3/4" PD 15 1.5 2,480
1" PD 25 2.5 4,133
1 1/2" PD 50 5 8,265
2" PD 80 8 13,224
2" Compound 80 8 13,224
2" Turbine 100 10 16,530
3" Compound 160 16 26,448
3" Turbine 240 24 39,672
4" Compound 250 25 41,325
4" Turbine 420 42 69,426
6" Compound 500 50 82,650
6" Turbine 920 92 152,076
8" Compound 800 80 132,240
8" Turbine 1,600 160 264,480
10" Turbine 2,500 250 413,250
· PO = Positive Displacement Meter (Typical residential meter)
"Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-02
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.4
March 2007
.........-J__ n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
1.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
A. WATER TRANSMISSION LINES
Water transmission lines shall be sized to maintain the following pressure requirements:
· Peak hour demand with a minimum pressure of 35 psi;
· Night-time tank filling with a maximum pressure of 100 psi; and
· Peak day demand plus fire flow with a minimum pressure of 20 psi.
B. STORAGE TANKS
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the State Board ofInsurance
(SBI) have established criteria for ground and elevated storage. These criteria address volume
and height requirements only. The layout of the distribution system, location of the storage
facilities, and the interaction with the high service and booster pumps affect the amount of storage
necessary for the most efficient and reliable operation of the system.
1. GROUND STORAGE
Ground storage serves two functions:
· Equalization for differing feed rates between the water supply and pumping to the
system; and
· Emergency capacity in the event of temporary loss of water supply.
Generally, ground storage facilities are located at water supply points or at each pump station
within the water distribution system. Suggested storage capacities are established based on
several criteria. There are specific requirements of the TCEQ. These criteria are detailed later in
this section. Although ground and elevated storage facilities perform separate functions within
the system, both are aimed at decreasing the impact of demand fluctuations. Their capacities are
established based on knowledge of how demand varies seasonally and daily.
2. ELEVATED STORAGE
Elevated storage serves three purposes:
· Functionally, elevated storage equalizes the pumping rate to compensate for daily
variations in demand and to maintain a fairly constant pumping rate (usually referred to
as operational storage), or a pumping rate that conforms to the requirements of the
electrical rate structure.
Water Impact Fec Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.5
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
.
Provides pressure maintenance and protection against surges created by instantaneous
demand, such as fire flow and main breaks, and instantaneous change in supply, such as
pumps turning on and off.
.
Maintains a reserve capacity for fire protection and pressure maintenance in case of
power failure to one or more pump stations. Sufficient storage should be maintained to
provide four hours of fire flow demand during a loss of power to the pump station.
Suggested storage capacities are established by the TCEQ. Adequate operational storage is
established by determining the required volume to equalize the daily fluctuations in flow during
the maximum day demand, plus the reserve volume required for fire protection.
The minimum requirements for storage, according to Chapter 290 of the Texas Administrative
Code, are as follows:
· Total Storage - Equal to 200 gallons per connection.
· Elevated Storage - Equal to 100 gallons per connection; or
· Elevated Storage ~ Equal to 200 gallons per connection for a firm pumping capacity
reduction from 2.0 gallons per connection to 0.6 gallons per connection.
C. PUMP STATIONS
Pumping capacities must provide the maximum demand or the peak hour demand required by the
water system or the suggested capacities established by the TCEQ. Pumping capacity should
supply the maximum demand with sufficient redundancy to allow for the largest pump at the
pump station to be out of service. This is known as firm pumping capacity.
Each pump station or pressure plane must have two or more pumps that have a total capacity of
2.0 gallons per minute per connection, or have a total capacity of at least 1,000 gallons per minute
and the ability to meet peak hour demand with the largest pump out of service, whichever is less.
If the system provides elevated storage capacity of 200 gallons per connection, two service
pumps with a minimum combined capacity of 0.6 gpm per connection are required.
Water Impact Fec Update
City of The Colony, Tcxas
1.6
March 2007
~__n Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
1.4 IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Due to the current growth in The Colony, the City Council commissioned Chiang, Patel & Yerby, Inc., to
develop a Water System Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide the City with a logical
strategy for upgrading and expanding its water distribution system to accommodate future growth and for
addressing existing system deficiencies. Chiang, Patel & Yerby completed the Master Plan & Modeling
of Water System, Pump System and Well Feasibility Study and recommended system improvements to
accommodate growth through the City's build-out.
Eighteen (18) projects proposed in the Master Plan & Modeling of Water System, Pump System and Well
Feasibility Study are determined eligible for recoverable cost through impact fee over the next 10 years.
The total cost of these projects is $30,649,979. The projected total recoverable through impact fees is
$21,773,325. Mter financing costs are added and the 50% credit reduction calculation is complete,
$14,557,927 is recoverable through impact fees serving the lO-year system needs. These impact fee
capital improvements are shown in Table 1.2 and illustrated in Figure Lt.
Table 1.2 Water Impact Fee Capital Improvements
Project Cost and to-Year Recoverable Cost
2005 Required 20]5 Required 2005-2015 Required 2015 Total Project
Proj. # Description Capacity Capacity Capacity Projected
(Percent Utilization) (Percent Utilization) (Percent Utilization) Recoverable Cost Cost
1 Wynnwood 24" Water Line 0% 44% 44% $ 748.000 $ 1,700.000
2 Wynnwood Pump Station 0% 100% 100% $ 3,580,000 $ 3.580,000
3 Wynnwood Elevated Storage Tank 0% 50% 50% $ 1.200.000 $ 2.400.000
4 Aquifer Storage Recovery 0% 100% 100% $ 3.600.000 $ 3.600.000
5 Main Street 24" Water Line 44% 69% 25% $ 258.000 $ 1,032,000
6 Memorial Drive 16" Water Line 44% 69% 25% $ 74.250 $ 297,000
7 Headquarters DriveIMoming Star Drive 0% 69% 69% $ 59.340 $ 86.000
16"/12" Water Line
8 South Colony Boulevard 12" Water Line 0% 69% 69% $ 103,500 $ 150,000
9 Morning Star Drive/Headquarters Drive 16" 0% 69% 69% $ 71,760 $ 104.000
Water Line
10 Headquarters Drive 16" Water Line A 0% 69% 69% $ 138.000 S 200.000
11 Headquarters Drivc 20" Watcr Line B 0% 69% 69% $ 357.075 $ 517,500
12 Carrollton Transmission Line 0% 69% 69% $ 5.796.000 $ 8,400,000
13 Southern Pump Station and Associated Water 0% 69% 69% $ 4.830.000 $ 7.000.000
Lines
14 Office Creek Pump Station Upgrade 0% 100% 100% $ 295.000 $ 295,000
15 Cougar Alley 24" Water Linc wi metcr vault 44% 69% 25% $ 136.000 $ 544,000
16 State Highway 121 12" Water Line 0% 69% 69% $ 113,850 $ 165.000
17 Plana Parkway South 12" Water Line 0% 69% 69% $ 266.633 $ 386.425
18 Windhaven West 12" Water Line 0% 69% 69% $ 104.917 $ 152.054
19 Water Impact Fee Study 0% 100% 100% S 41.000 $ 41,000
Total $ 21,773,325 $ 30,649,979
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.7
March 2007
['I -1
't:l
r::
QI
Cl
QI
..J
c:
.Q
16
m ii5
~ a.
~ S
'5 CL
CD ~
~ ~
~ d:
II
-" III
c: c:
~ .2
Q) ~
OJ 0
Cll III
.9 C11
(f) 2! C
al ~
~ JB
~ ~
'0
i}l
8.
e
CL
o
c
-'
o
~
o
~
o
~
"
*
u
o
~
<<
"
c
.
c
o
~
o
o
V)
~
;;- ~
~ ~
'f 0.
: ~
U5 a::
o
c
-'
.
c
-'
c:""
co
Q,
.I!!
c:
"
E
~ ~
....:...5.
LU"E
0::--
3~~
II: g-
u
:!:
u.
ti
co
Q,
.5
'"
~ QJ ~
~ ~ ~
o ~
~ ~
g> N
e
o
~
ti
<
o
t
.
"
"
"
.
.
I
~
>
'"
.
c
.:J
<<
.
c
.:J
QJ ffi ~
~ ~ ~
I
~
ti
.
c
~ .:J
.:J .
W ~
~
.
o .
1ii ::;
g, ~
::J ~
Q .:J
1; 0
US ~
~
0.
c 0
. c
t- O .:J
. 0
'" f c
. .:J ~
Q 0 0
iii ~ '"
~ 1ii '"
V) i 0 ;; .
.
~ '" (]
. 0
w 0 0 ~
0. " iii ii5
"8 g ~
~ .$1 "
I ~ <J. ~ ::;
<<
ti
CIl ~
'[ .:J
D.. .
!!: ~
u
CIl
CIl
LL
.
c
.:J
c
o
~
I
'"
c
o
~
i
~
'"
~
c
.g
U
~
o
>
ti
I
I
.
>
ti
i I.
o
::; I
.
iii
0-
~
0. ~
~ u
~ ~
~ 5
'0
OJ
III
8.
e
CL
ti
co
D..
E
;;
"
g
~
~
---'-"''''-'''-..'~'-'
~':.:;;;:.-. .~, -''-''''- (2) I
'I 'X\\\:'L."io')':'.:.
/)~>..-~ ~..; .' :.'..,.. r=..... '. . -: '. '..., '.'/' -,;~..l ) ~.,'.'.' :.' '.. '. :'= '\\11 .
/)"/7)1\ t. .. _ ",:" ~
· I c I,S-> D:'>;/-" ~+__~
':~'1T/// y\\_
[ LLCL ..' ! JJ
11:,:
\--)\t;;;~ (, ,i'hcc-'\ '-..
1"1 c- s .' t~... ".,'
'T" J \ ~ ___#"', (1,<.,
\9 "'__"~~_"';- I \' ,1)1
- ~C.-LL/r. .l\ ( , u
-- -< -/ ~ L - <-1:'-., -'1r\\'" '\ ~
j'-~-- Tt1 K:~f '--'~~,> . L /~\.~ % '\
1-1 " - Jol J, t/' \. ";, "S-
' ," ., -. I, ""
e, - ,of,,, '+\ i . 'JI. ' I I"
CI 'r-'-';~/ . 1_ 1 ::~ _.:.\ "
'~y.~t. '~""'I .. ,.. '\
JL_/.j ~ ".l~~I.T-'--'; . . .. ~. . . . ~\":i \
'r'~ '\ ;71Ir,---rL-,_ '"
r ~'I' ~~ d L" J--- .,:M1(O~'~~ L:Ztl ~-::'>~<" ~/
- I I ~ f-',. r r ""::::.y
.: j 1 c-::L, ,''-- -- U~JOW::-)' '-'
: ! T \ \ " q'\(;. ,,<-;,} ~ ,->> )\t-f-~ '\ '\ 4.1 .:
. "~L LI..L Ll )', ( 'l'j'l :::\ 1 :> ~ c;." 0 .," .
: l-IUl ~LJ I ~I" ,~ "'.i;\ j.
'. . : I .. '( n fJ f lll}-IfJ1i' 1../ I. .~/......, i/l-\~/.:
. -Jf., j / Imnffi /-If ____ I JJ 1 ~_\:_"\"
: I J ,7;fo,; r R' I \
. In, I..,,} J, I J I 1__ ~ ~ . i' ""'
: 11((( ~ljv '.,~:, I .', ..-_
~ ',' -~':",AI~if~:ilj~1~1;' ly'yjl'~lltl -':-1 ]\/\\~.~/
. f~ , J " II, "
.. I I 'I -.)" l'!eW l,..'" 'r'"
. \'" , """' 'I,
,', ;" , \
,,!:M~\ .~.
1l(':.(I~V;~lO+_.'IL~ I ._~~
.":tP~V" -"r \'\:,
: '. ~-]
: !
,
.
--=....----
,-~
"\.
23
o
a:i
"
8
N
-6
..
~
g ~
..
23
0.
N
,
..,oJ1
,.L
//. :
.,~. 'I
~
)
;
I
I
I
I
I
----.J1 (
f~1
,
,
,
.
.
.
.
'.. 'r"
.
I
.
.
.
,
'. .
.
.
~
.
I
, \ I
/\"\~f':-~..t'~,.
~:, ~ '--1--..---
\ .
t.--..
-~ Y
\1
I
I
--rJ
,'.1
i
\
i, i
L..I
---~---\ I
\ !
\[ L_.
'I
'j L
~;-
.
.
.
.
.
j".'"
,
,
.
,
.
.
..
I-
t
>p.. :'
,
.
-
,
.
,
.
.
.....
.
. .
...... .. ~
..
.
iii.. "'.
.. ,
.
'...
.
.
'; .
"''''ll''
"":"
"
//
Ii
',.\
\;
,.
\r\
"
;\
\\
',I
'\
-l~'
, ]
\, L
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Wynnwood 24" Water Line
Construct 24" water line from the Wynnwood Pump Station east to Main Street and then south to
the intersection of Main Street and Oak Street.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$1,700,000
$748,000
Wynnwood Pump Station
Construct a new pump station at the northeast end of the Wynnwood Peninsula. The initial phase
of the station will have a firm pumping capacity of 2.0 MGD, with a planned ultimate firm
capacity of 5.76 MGD.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$3,580,000
$3,580,000
Wynnwood Elevated Storage Tank
Construct a 1.0 MG elevated storage tank that will serve the Wynnwood Peninsula area. This
tank will be located along Lebanon Road approximately 4,700 feet west ofFM 423.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$2,400,000
$1,200,000
Aquifer Storage Recovery
An Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) system will be constructed with a well, allowing the
recovery of water to be used during peak demand times of the year.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$3,600,000
$3,600,000
Main Street 24" Water Line
Construct 24" water line on the west side of Main Street from the Office Creek Pump Station to
North Colony Boulevard.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$1,032,000
$258,000
Memorial Drive 16" Water Line
Construct 16" water line east of Paige Road to the intersection of South Colony Boulevard.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$297,000
$74,250
Water Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.9
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Headquarters Drive/Morning Star Drive 16"/12" Water Line
Construct 12" water line on Headquarters Drive from Spring Creek Parkway to Morningstar
Drive. Construct 16" water line on Morning Star Drive from Headquarters Drive to State
Highway 121.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$86,000
$59,340
South Colony Boulevard 12" Water Line
Construct 12" water line along South Colony Boulevard from State Highway 121 to Memorial
Drive.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$150,000
$103,500
Morning Star DrivelHeadquarters Drive 16" Water Line
Construct 16" water line on Headquarters Drive from Morning Star Drive to South Colony
Boulevard. Construct 16" water line on South Colony Boulevard from Headquarters Drive to
State Highway 121.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$104,000
$71,760
Headquarters Drive 16" Water Line A
Construct 16" water line along the future alignment of Headquarters Drive from PIano Parkway
to South Colony Boulevard.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$200,000
$138,000
Headquarters Drive 20" Water Line B
Construct 20" water line along the future alignment of Headquarters Drive from proposed Austin
Ranch to PIano Parkway.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$517,500
$357,075
Carrollton Transmission Line
Construct 30" transmission supply line from the City of Dallas wholesale water line to the
proposed Southern Pump Station.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$8,400,000
$5,796,000
Southern Pump Station and Associated Water Lines
Installation of a new pump and associated water line south for the Austin Ranch area south of SH
121.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$7,000,000
$4,830,000
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.10
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Office Creek Pump Station Upgrade
Installation of a new 4,500 gpm pump with variable frequency drive at the existing Office Creek
Pump Station.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$295,000
$295,000
Cougar Alley 24" Water Line w/ meter vault
Construct 24" water line along Cougar Alley from Blair Oaks Drive to Main Street along with a
new meter vault associated with the Office Creek Pump Station.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$544,000
$136,000
State Highway 12112" Water Line
Construct 12" water line along State Highway 121 from Blair Oaks Drive to existing State
Highway 121 12" water line west of Paige Road.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$165,000
$113,850
Piano Parkway South 12" Water Line
This is a 12" water line constructed along PIano Parkway from just southeast of State Highway
121 to the City Limit Line.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$386,425
$266,633
Windhaven West 12" Water Line
This is a 12" water line constructed along Windhaven from PIano Parkway west to the
Windhaven dead end.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$152,054
$104,917
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.11
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
1.5 WATER IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code defines a service unit as follows, ""Service Unit" means a
standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and
trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during
the previous 10 years." Therefore, the City of The Colony defines a service unit based on historical water
usage over the past I 0 years as compared to the estimated residential units. The residential unit is the
development type that predominately uses a 5/8"x 3/4" meter. The measure of consumption per service
unit is based on a 5/8"x 3/4" meter and the data shown in Table 1.3.
a e . ervlce m onsumpllOn a cu a Ion
Residential Water Usage Consumption
Units Average Day per Service
Year Population! (3.2 persons/unit) Demand (MGD) Unit (GPD)
1995 22,200 6,938 3.33 480
1996 23,006 7,189 3.40 473
1997 23,841 7,450 3.47 466
1998 24,706 7,721 3.54 458
1999 25,603 8,001 3.61 451
2000 26,531 8,291 3.69 445
2001 28,450 8,891 3.97 447
2002 31,992 9,998 4.24 424
2003 34,273 10,710 4.38 409
2004 35,796 11,186 4.23 378
Average Consumption per Service Unit 443
T bl 1 3 S
U'tC
t' C I I t.
(I) City of The Colony Impact Fee Analysis for Water, Wastewater and Thoroughfares. June 2003
Additional Service Units and Water Impact Fee Calculation
Based on the City's 10-year growth projections and the resulting water demand projections, water service
will be required for an additional 8,804 service units. The calculation is as follows:
· A service unit, which is a unit of development that consumes approximately 443 gallons per day
(GPD), is a typical residential connection that uses a 5/8"x 3/4" meter. Table 1.4 outlines the
future water demand projections and its relationship to the additional service units projected for
the next lO-years.
Water Impact Fec Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.12
March 2007
~_-n Kimley-Hom
IIIII......J U and Associates, Inc.
a e . -year Ilona erVlce ms a cu a IOn
Average Day Service Unit
Demand Demand Service Units
Year (MGD) (GPD)
2005 4.47 443 10,090
2015 8.37 443 18,894
10-year Additional Service Units 8,804
T bl 1 4 10
Add'f
IS
U 't C I I f
Impact fee law allows for a credit calculation to credit back the development community based on the
utility revenues or ad valorem taxes that are allocated for paying a portion of future capital improvements.
The intent of this credit is to prevent the City from double charging development for future capital
improvements via impact fees and utility rates. If the city chooses not the do a financial analysis to
determine the credit value they are required by law to reduce the recoverable cost by 50 percent. The city
has chosen the latter. Therefore, the maximum recoverable cost for impact fee shown below is 50 percent
of the Pre Credit Recoverable Cost.
A breakdown of the lO-year recoverable costs and the associated impact fee per service unit is as follows:
a e -year ecovera e ost rea own
Recoverable Impact Fee CIP Costs $21,773,325
Financing Costs (provided by City) $7,342,529
Pre Credit Recoverable Cost for Impact Fee $29,115,854
Credit for Utility Revenues (50% credit) $14,557,927
Maximum Recoverable Cost for Impact Fee $14,557,927
T bl 1 5 10
R
bl C B kd
Impact fee per service unit
10-year recoverable costs
10-year additional service units
Impact fee per service unit
$14.557.927
8,804
Impact fee per service unit
$1,653
Therefore, the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $1,653.
For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is established at a
multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 5/8"x 3/4" meter. The maximum impact fee that could
be assessed for other meter sizes is based on the value shown on Table 1.6, Service Unit Equivalency
Table for Commonly Used Meters.
Water Impact Fee Update
City ofThc Colony, Texas
1.13
March 2007
~-_n Kimley-Hom
IIIII......J U and Associates, Inc.
T hi 1 6 S
VOtE
T hi fi C
IUdMt
a e . erVlce m ~qUlva ency a e or ommomy se e ers
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PO 10 I 1,653
3/4" PO 15 1.5 2,480
1 " PO 25 2.5 4,133
1 1/2" PO 50 5 8,265
2" PO 80 8 13,224
2" Compound 80 8 13,224
2" Turbine 100 10 16,530
3" Compound 160 16 26,448
3" Turbine 240 24 39,672
4" Compound 250 25 41,325
4" Turbine 420 42 69,426
6" Compound 500 50 82,650
6" Turbine 920 92 152,076
8" Compound 800 80 132,240
8" Turbine 1,600 160 264,480
1 0" Turbine 2,500 250 413,250
* PD = Positive Displacement Meter (Typical residential meter)
"Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-D2
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.14
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Appendix
Water Land Use Assumptions
Water Impact Fce Update
City ofThc Colony, Texas
1.15
March 2007
CP&YJ
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, Inc.
2.2 WA TER SUPPLY AND DEMANDS
2.2.1 Population and Water Demand Projections
The data necessary to evaluate the future water supply needs for the City of The
Colony were taken from several sources. The current and projected population
data was provided by the City; water use projections are from the Dallas Water
Utilities 2000 Update - Long Range Water Supply Plan and the City of The
Colony provided the City of Dallas water supply figures along with the capacities
of the existing water supply wells.
The population projections show substantial growth within the City through the
year 2025. While the growth of the "central city" area, defined for this report as
the City excluding the Wynnwood Peninsula and Austin Ranch developments,
shows it has reached a plateau, having a total population growth of only 7,600
people between the years 2002 and 2025. - The substantial growth is attributed to
the development of two currently undeveloped areas of the city. These areas are
the Wynnwood Peninsula and Austin Ranch. Wynnwood Peninsula is a planned
development, located to the northwest on Lewisville Lake, consisting of a golf
course, a hotel and convention center, muti-family housing and single-family
housing. The City will supply water to the entire community. The second area of
development is Austin Ranch, located to the southeast bordering Piano and
Carrollton. Austin Ranch will consist of multi-family housing, single-family
housing as well as some commercial development. The City will serve half of the
population of Austin Ranch while the other half is under contract until the year
2028 to be served by the City of Piano.
The demand projections were calculated by multiplying the per capita demands
(gpcd) for the city by the population projections. The per capita demand
projections are from the Dallas Water Utilities 2000 Update - Long Range Water
Supply Plan and were developed using historical water demands, historical
population estimates and planning studies. The plateau for the later years (2015
through 2025) is due to the fact that as a city approaches build out, it is assumed
that the land use and demographics will stabilize, causing the gpcd to "level out"
at a constant value. The population projections for years 2002 through 2025 are
presented in Table 2-1 and the water demand projections for the same years are
presented in Table 2-2.
Once the future demand projections were calculated, the effect of water
conservation was taken into consideration. The Texas Water Development
Board estimates that conservation will save a minimum of 18 gpcd over 40 years.
The Dallas Water Utilities 2000 Long Range Water Supply Study assumed that
the amount of conservation would take effect over the next 30 years, equivalent
to a reduction of 0.6 gpcd per year, or 3 gpcd per 5 years for the years 2000 to
2030.
6/1 5/2004
T:\100J Proj<<:rs\OJ.22 CCO'l1C'l""'rl\'-~port doc
2-4
~ to t-t- ('I') 'V ..- 'V ~
~ N'V t- t- 'V to 0
N ol..- to to 0 ('I') 0
0 N
N t-tO N N to to --
~ V)
t- N ..- ..- ..- to ~
\0
iIo,
~
~
....:- 0 'Vt- t- O ..- t-
NO 0 'V ..-
~ N eo ('I') ('I') 0 It) to
.... 0 WO 0
t:l N N eo ..- 'V
~ <ON ..... ..... to
~
~
t:l
....
e 'Vt- N to N
to Oto t- ..- ('f)
..... ('I') 'V 0 ol 'V N
0 N ('I') 0
N t-tO ('f) t- to
to..... ..- 'V
-
0 Olt- t- to N
tON 0 0
..- 'V to to to ol t-
O t- to
en N tOO ol eo to
c 'V..- N ('f)
0
+i
t)
"t"".!.
· 0
N...
C1)Q. to ('I') N It)
:g t- ('I') I
C 0 CX)N IX) 0 ..- 0 N
II 0 0 t-t- to V IX) N
~+i N ~t- t- ..... to ('f)
II ('f)
:J
Q.
0
Q.
to t-t- t- O
IX) IX) - 0
0 IX)
0 ('I')t- t- O 0 to
N ~tO to ..-
('f)
N
o
o
N
N ('I') ('f)
Oleo eo
ol IX) eo
;;)N N
ol
o
00.....
ol
N
c: >- Q)
O~ .I::
:O:;U I- Q)
aJ '-'" ~ '-'" aJ .I::
C:"Sc:aJc:';;;-1-
0::: Q) "'~
.- .... 0 ... 0 Q) '^ >-
+-' 0'- .-... W..o
~Ll..1iiaJ1iiaJC:
~ "SQ)"SQ)C:"O
o g g-'~ g-.2 ~ ~ 1::
a..aJa..Q)a..~"O~..Q
Z~L:l/).I::l/)O 0
.- 0 0 0 0 c: U
U _ c: c: c: c: ?: ;: .Q
Ciiii)aJ~aJ5C:a;
+-' ~~n ~_~c:_
0<( ....... 0 ~
I- .s a .s () 00.
rnii) 'ii) n
..... ~ ~ .......
(:!.<( <(
~
8.
~
8.
g
N
~
u
!
8
'"
....
t-- <0 ..- C')
"It 0 C') ...... C') C') t-- ..- <0
0 ~ C') 10 0>
0 "It C') N to ci
10 N ~ N "It CO
N CO ...... - - - - - -- ......
C') -- CO <0 <0 10 10 10 "It -
~ 0 10 N "It
N ...... <0 0 t-- 0> ...... CO CO 0 CO 0
~ N t-- 0 C') N t-- t-- ...... C') 0
0 N
t-- <0 ...... C') 10 ...... "It t-- --
........ C') V)
~ -
--
\0
.... t-- C')
~ C') 0 ..- t-- C') <0 10 10 10
t-- ei cO 0> 10 ...... ~ N <0
~ 0 CO CO N C') ...... ~ cri ...... ~ .....:
N -- - -- - - - -
0 C') C') CO 0 CO CD t-- 10 ...... C')
.....:' N ..- CD C') 0> CD "It CD CO 10 ......
~ 0 0> 0 C') ........ <0. N 0> C')
CD C') 10 ...... C') 10 ...... N LCi
~ ..... N
~ 10 CO
::
~ "It CD 0> C') "It 0 C') 0> t--
"'! <0 0> ~ ~ 0 10 CD
.... ...... ~
e 10 CO t-- ..... N ...... ~ CO "It
...... CO c;:; -- - - ..... -
0 C') 0> 0 C') CD - 0> C')
N r- N <0 ...... "It CO 10 10 0> "It
0 10 CO C') 0 10 lO t--_ "'!.
M LCi t--
10 ..- 0 ..- ...... C')
..- N
N t--
0> 0> "<t" ."It lO 0
t-- C') 10 10 C') ...... "It t--
0 ('t') C') ('t') cD "It 0>
CD 10 N r- ei ei ......
...... - ..- - - - - --
0 C') ..- - CD 0> lO 0 - - ......
N ...... N 0 "It CD 10 ...... 10 C') CO
0 10 <0 0 "It "It lO 10 ..-
N cD N -.i' N CD -
"It oi ..- ..-
..- III
CI)
... III
'" III < ::I
"tS CD C') GJ II)
C ... N .cU s::
N CU < ...... ~ t-- U.- "It C') C') C 0 CD
I 0 0 s::~ CD t-- 0>
N E t-- GJ tri ..- ~ IllGJ ..- N or:i GJ 0 N C')
0 0 U - ..... D::en ...... (0 in Q. ei ei ei
CD CD 0 ('I) .~ 0> - CD -- - -- C9
..- t-- 0 0> N N CO "C - 0> 0
:aC N "It 0 ('I) s:: 0 0> CO N 0 C') C') 10 N
... CD 0 .. s:: t-- M 0 CD ...... N
lI:l en M rO -.i' II) III ..-
...,! ..- ::1- ~
CU ~ c(Q. s::
3: <3 '0 s::
"It t-- ~ ~
lO 0> 0 C') t--
10 10 "It 0> "It
10 ~ ei lO lO ('t')
10 ..... ci ..-
0 ..- ~ - - 0 0 0
0 N ..- - c;:; 0 0 23 - a
N ..- co 0> "It ..- 0
...... ...... ..- lO C') "It
M C') 1.0
t-- C') ..- N
..-
"It
N "It ~ 0 N 10
0 CD
N or:i "'! CD "It 0>
0> 0> ...... ei ei ...... 0 0 0
0 - (0 (0
0 ..- N - co - -- - -
N ..- 0> t-- 1.0 0> "It 0 0 0
t-- ...... 1.0 t-- C') ..-
N <ri N CD -
..- ..-
..-
C C C C C C C C C
C 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 -:;::i ~ ..-- :z:;: :.;;; :.;;; -~ :.;;; :.;;;
'lJ 10 10 UIO 10 10 'lJ1O m m
~ E~-~u~ E~-~u~ E~-~U~
'lJ ~ CD 'lJ CD 0) CD _ CD 'lJ CD 0) CD (J)UCDO)CD
C CD [ II) 0)11) E II) E~E~E~ [II) Olll) E(/) ~
10 II) cEc C C E C C ~
E C 0..0_0[0 0..0_0[0 0..0_0[0 8.
CD 0 Oll.lEl.l 0 ~l.lEoo..l.l ~oEoa.l.l .!:
l.l ~:; a.:; g,:; ~
'lJ 'lJ..c o....c Ol ..c 'lJ:; 0.. :; Ol :; ~
10 oS c'- 0)-- --- ffi j ~j ~j C -- Ol-- ---
- .~ 1O~-~'lJ~ 1O~-~'lJ~
-a. E-'lJ-c- E-'lJ......c- E-'U-c- u
~ .... CD~ffi~lO~ CDQ lij"2 10"2 CD~ffi~lO~ ~
CD 'lJ:::JE:::JE:::J 'lJ:::JE::IE::I 'lJ::IE::IE::I
.... ..c li
CD-...... iQ-eCDe-8e >.eCDeCDe >.eCDe-8e l
0..>'10 m'lJU'lJUU m"C'U'U 'lJ
.{g~ 'U'U'lJ'U....U "OL..>.L....:5"- ~......>-,'-~'- ~
L..>-.'-::lL....
~U;_ CDlOlOmOIO CD 10 m ro 0 10 CD 10 1010 010 I-
-cro 0l~'lJ~..c~ 0l~'U~.!::~ 0l~'U~..c~
.~..Q E ~ ,~ I ~ I ~1':'::r~1 ~I~I~I
iY- L- CD QI 10 CD 10 CD CDQlmCDIOCD QI(J)roCDmQl
....mo >C(J)C(J)C >CCDCCDC >CCDCQlC
a.. ~z <(00..00..0 <(00..00..0 <(00..00..0
CP&Y)
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, Inc.
The City's supply system must be capable of providing water on the highest-
demand day of the year, historically for the city occurring during July or August.
This peak-day or peaking factor is the ratio of the demand on this day to the
average day demand. Calculating historical peaking factors and evaluating them
based on yearly climatological conditions determined the peaking factor. The City
provided peak day flows and total yearly flows for the years 1995 to 2003.
Average day flows were calculated by dividing the total yearly flows by 365.
Historical peaking factors were calculated using the peak day flows and the
calculated average day demands by dividing the peak day flows by the
corresponding average day demand. These historical flows as well as calculated
peaking factors are presented in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3
Historical Peak Day Flows
Date Peak Day Flow - - Average Day Flow Peaking
Factor
gpm mgd gpm mgd
July 9, 1995 3,180 4.58 - -
July 7, 1996 4,080 5.87 2,360 3.40 1.73
August 3, 1997 3,760 5.42 2,410 3.47 1.56
September 7, 1998 5,100 7.34 2,460 3.54 2.08
August 21, 1999 5,330 7.68 2,510 3.61 2.13
August 27, 2000 6,510 9.38 2,560 3.69 2.54
Julv 24, 2001 5,780 8.33 2,760 3.97 2.10
August24,2002 5,870 8.45 2,940 4.24 1.99
August 7, 2003 7,080 10.20 3,040 4.38 2.33
The historical peaking factors range from 1.56 in year 1996 to 2.54 in year 2000.
The year 2000 peaking factor is substantially higher than the other years and can
be attributed to the extreme high temperatures and lack of precipitation during
the summer months of that year. At the same time, the year 2002 peaking factor
is lower than the previous four years and can be attributed to the mild
temperatures and above average precipitation during the summer months of
2002. It was determined to use a peaking factor midway between the year 2001
factor, which represents a more normal year, and the year 2000 peaking factor.
A peaking factor of 2.30 was used. For the calculation of peak-hour demands, a
peak-hour factor of 1.8 was used.
Both the average-day demand and the peak-day demand are greatest during
drought periods. The two types of droughts are the one-year drought and the
extended drought. One-year drought factors are more severe than extended
drought factors because water users do not adjust to the water shortage over the
short time periods. The one-year drought factor used was 1.16, which came
from the Dallas Water Utilities 2000 Long Range Water Supply Study. For this
evaluation it was determined to use the one-year drought scenario with
6/1512004
T:\200J Pn>Jcus1lH22 CCO\report\report doc
2-7
CPBcy)
Chiang, Patel, & Yerhy, Inc.
conservation because it represents the critical water demand to be met by the
water supply system.
Wastewater Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
.~
L' C..."....
:.,'~'..~t)
1fIlIIIlill r
Prepared by:
~-~ Kimley-Hom
~ - ~ and Associates, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 1025
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.335.6511
March 2007
-,.....""
-- ~ OF r '\
..-..."...~...........!="-t "
; ~...., .. "'~IS' I,
'* .. '. .',
, . .
,ft:' ". *'
~............ ............. .... ..... ..,
~ JOHN R. ATKINS .~
';"'~'"'''''''' ....... .~.......~...'"
'~"" 85376 ./,
'f"'~"~' ENS~~""
l' ...~. ..~~
" ~-
.
3-30'D1
@ Kimley-Hom and Associates, [nc., 2007
061117014
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Table of Contents
2.1 Introd uctio n ................................................................................................. .............. ...... ...... 2.1
A. Land Use Assumptions.............................................................................................................................. 2.2
B. Evaluation of the Wastewater System Master Plan .....................................................................................2.2
C. Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan...................................................................................................... 2.2
D. Impact Fee Analysis and Report ................................................................................................................ 2.2
2.2 Exec utive Summary......................................................... ........... ........................................... 2.3
2.3 Design Criteria......................................... ............ .................................. ...... .......................... 2.5
A. Sewer Trunk Lines (Interceptors) .............................................................................................................. 2.5
B. Lift Stations Pumping Capacity ................................................................................................................. 2.5
C. Lift Station Wet Well Capacity.................................................................................................................. 2.5
D. Force Mains................................ ................................................................... ........................................... 2.5
2.4 Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan................................................................................2.6
A. Project Descriptions................ .................................................................................................................. 2.8
2.5 Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation ................................................................................... 2.11
Appendix
Wastewater Land Use Assumptions
List of Figures
2.1 Capital Improvements Plan for Water Impact Fees ......................................................................... 2.7
List of Tables
2.1 Maximum Assessable Wastewater Impact Fee for Commonly Used Meters.................................... 2.4
2.2 Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvements Project Cost and IO-Year Recoverable Cost............ 2.6
2.3 Service Unit Consumption Calculation........................................................ ................................. 2.11
2.4 IO-year Additional Service Units Calculation ...............................................................................2.12
2.5 10-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown.......................... ....................... ......................................... 2.12
2.6 Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters........................................................ 2.13
Wastewater Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of The Colony retained the services of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the purpose of
updating the impact fees for wastewater system improvements required to serve new development. These
fees were originally developed in 2003 in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code
(impact fees), which requires a city imposing impact fees to update the land-use assumptions and capital
improvements plan upon which the fees are calculated.
The purpose of this report is to satisfY the requirements of the law and provide the City with an updated
impact fee capital improvements plan and associated impact fees.
For convenience and reference, the following is excerpted from Chapter 395 of the code:
(a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements
plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific
enumeration of the following items:
(1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the costs to
upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs
and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which
shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such
professional engineering services in this state;
(2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer licensed to perform such professional engineering services in this
state;
(3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and
their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based
on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer licensed to peiform such professional engineering services in this
state;
(4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or
facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a
service unit to various types of land uses, including but not limited to residential,
commercial, and industrial;
(5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and
calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;
(6) the projected demandfor capital improvements or facility expansions required by new
service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years; and
Wastewater Impact Fce Update
City of The Colony, Texas
2.1
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
(7) a plan for awarding:
(A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues
generated by new service unit during the program period that is usedfor the
payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in
the capital improvements plan; or
(B) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total project cost of
implementing the capital improvements plan.
The impact fee study includes information from the Wastewater System Master Plan completed by Freese
& Nichols, Inc. in September 2005. The impact fees are based on recommended capital improvements
and population growth projections outlined in the Wastewater System Master Plan.
The study process was comprised of four tasks:
A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This task involved comparing the population growth projections shown in the Wastewater System
Master Plan to the Land Use Assumptions shown in the Roadway Impact Fee Update. The
growth projections were then used to project wastewater flow throughout the City.
B. Ev ALUA nON OF THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN
This task involved reviewing the Wastewater System Master Plan and its growth projection
compatibility with the Land Use Assumptions Report. The wastewater flow projections were then
used to determine the additional service units.
C. IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
This task involved evaluation of the wastewater capital improvements plan outlined in the master
plan and discussion with City staff to identify projects that will be built in the lO-year planning
window and meet the design criteria.
D. IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS AND REpORT
This task included calculating the additional service units, service unit equivalents, and credit
reduction. These values were then used to determine the impact fee per service unit and the
maximum assessable impact fee by meter size.
Wastewater Impact Fee Update
City ofThc Colony, Texas
2.2
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
2.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was performed to update the City of The Colony's Wastewater System Impact Fees.
Wastewater system analysis and the Wastewater System Master Plan are important tools for facilitating
orderly growth of the wastewater system and for providing adequate facilities that promote economic
development in the City of The Colony. The implementation of an impact fee is a way to shift a portion
of the burden of paying for new facilities onto new development.
Elements of the wastewater system, including gravity pipes, force mains and lift station facilities, were
evaluated against industry standards as outlined in the Design Criteria section of this report. Information
related to the growth of the City was provided by Freese & Nichols, Inc.
Wastewater system improvements necessary to serve 1O-year (2015) and ultimate system needs were
evaluated. Typically, infrastructure improvements are sized beyond the 1O-year requirements; however,
Texas' impact fee law (Chapter 395) only allows recovery of costs to serve the la-year planning period.
For example, the projected cost to serve the ultimate system needs will be $29,348,521. Ofthis,
$14,964,137 is projected to be eligible for recovery through impact fees within the next 10 years. The
remainder can be assessed as the planning window extends beyond 2015 and as the impact fees are
updated in the future.
The impact fee law defines a service unit as follows, "'Service Unit' means a standardized measure of
consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally
accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the
political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years."
Therefore, the City of The Colony defines a service unit as unit of development that consumes the amount
of water requiring a standard 5/8"x 3/4" meter. For a development that requires a different size meter, a
service unit equivalent is established at a multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 5/8"x 3/4"
meter. The equivalency factor and associated impact fee by meter size is shown in Table 2.1.
Based on the City's 1O-year growth projections and the associated flow values, 11,441 additional service
units will need wastewater service by the year 2015. Based on the additional service units and the
recoverable capital improvements plans, the City may assess a maximum of$815 per service unit.
Wastewater Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony. Texas
2.3
Mareh 2007
~ __ r1I Kimley-Hom
~ U and Associates, Inc.
Tabl 21M
e aXlmum ssessa e as ewa er mpac ee or ommomy se ee
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PO 10 1 815
3/4" PO 15 1.5 1,223
1 " PO 25 2.5 2,038
1 1/2" PO 50 5 4,075
2" PO 80 8 6,520
2" Compound 80 8 6,520
2" Turbine 100 10 8,150
3" Compound 160 16 13,040
3" Turbine 240 24 19,560
4" Compound 250 25 20,375
4" Turbine 420 42 34,230
6" Compound 500 50 40,750
6" Turbine 920 92 74,980
8" Compound 800 80 65,200
8" Turbine 1,600 160 130,400
1 0" Turbine 2,500 250 203,750
A
bl W t
t I
tF fj C
I U dMtrs
'PD=Positive Displacement Meter (Typical Residential Meter)
"Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-02
Wastewater Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
2.4
March 2007