HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 07-038
CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS
RESOLUTION NO. 07- {)'3f
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS,
APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE
ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR
WATER AND WASTEWATER; ATTACHING THE APPROVED
WATER AND WASTEWATER FEE UPDATE AS EXHIBIT A;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas hereby
approves the Amendments to the Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan
for Water and Wastewater.
Section 2. That a true and correct copy of the Water and Wastewater Impact
Fee Update is attached hereto and incorporated herein, as exhibit A.
Section 3.
passage.
That this resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of The Colony,
Texas, this 7th day ofMav. 2007.
Dillard, Mayor
of The Colony, Texas
ATTES~
~ . Iv lJ~V'-
ChriS'tle Wilson, TRMC, City Secretary
f'n'flulnljor the
City of The Colony
W@l)&rJ @][jfJ@ W@]&JfJ@~]@rJ
Water Impact Fee Update
City of The Colony, Texas
y
.0. S
Prepared by:
~ -.,.. Kimley-Hom
~ - ~ and Associates, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 1025
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.335.6511
March 2007
@ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc., 2007
061117014
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
, Till
,;COLONY
~"1//' ""
Table of Contents
1.1 Introduction ............................... ................................................... ......................................... 1.1
A. Land Use Assumptions.............................................................................................................................. 1.2
B. Evaluation of the Water System Master Plan.............................................................................................. 1.2
C. Impact Fee Capita11mprovements Plan......................................................................................................1.2
D. Impact Fee Analysis and Report ................................................................................................................1.2
1.2 Exec u tive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1.3
1.3 Design Criteria....................................................... ................................................................ 1.5
A. Water Transmission Lines (l2-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 IO-Year Recoverable Cost .................... 1.7
1.3 Service Unit Consumption Calculation........ ...................................................................... ........... 1.12
1.4 lO-year Additional Service Units Calculation............ ..... ......................... ............. ........................ 1.13
1.5 lO-year Recoverable Cost Breakdown........... .............................. ............ .............................. ....... 1.13
1.6 Service Unit Equivalency Table for Commonly Used Meters........................................................ 1.14
Water Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony, Texas
March 2007
~=n
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
;COLONY
~"'''''''i;0(i/%J(''''''''''''''',:,;:,,,~
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of The Colony retained the services of Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the purpose of
updating the impact fees for 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
Watcr Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.1
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
COLONY
~., .,.,.,
(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 used for 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.
, HH
iftCOLONY
~"""'..::<.'fWY/:::/""
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 IO-year (2015) 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 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 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 $1,653 per service unit.
Water Impact Fcc Updatc
City of The Colony, Texas
1.3
March 2007
~=n
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
/,(:OLON Y
~""."..."...", -"'.
Table 1.1 Maximum Assessable Water Impact Fee for Commonly Used Meters
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PD 10 1 1,653
3/4" PD 15 1.5 2,480
I" 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
I 0" Turbine 2,500 250 413,250
· PD ~ Positive Displacement Meter (Typical rcsidcntial meter)
"Opcrating capacities obtaincd from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-02
Watcr Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony. Texas
1.4
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
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 Fcc Update
City of The Colony, Tcxas
1.5
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
..~ 1111.
,*LOLONY
~'A;;;ii4'0'" ",..,
· 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 Fcc Update
City of The Colony, Texas
1.6
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
.ir-HII
-t.OLON Y
~'""+;1r""("" ".,."
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 o{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. After 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 1.1.
Table 1.2 Water Impact Fee Capital Improvements
Project Cost and 10-Year Recoverable Cost
2005 Required 2015 Required 2005-2015 Required 2015 Total Project
Proj. # Description Capacit), Capacity Capacity Projected
(Percent Utilization) (Percent Utilization) (Percent Utilization) Recoverable Cost Cost
I \Vynnwood 24" \Vater Line O~/n 44O/() 44% S 74g.000 S 1.700.000
2 Wynnwood Pump Station O~/O IOOlJu 100% S 3.5g0.000 S 3.5g0.000
3 \Vynnwood Elevated Storage Tank QO/o 500/0 50~/o S 1.200.000 S 2.400.000
4 Aquifer Storage Recovery O~'O IOO(J;() I OO(~'~1 S 3.600.000 S 3.600.000
5 Main Street 24" Water Line 44'~'" 69(iil 25(Yn S 25 g.OOO S 1.032.000
6 Memorial Dri\'c 16" \Vater Line 44% 69% 25lJ/() S 74.250 S 297.000
7 Headquarters DriveiMorning Star Drive 0% 69% 69~/i) S 59.340 S g6.000
16"/12" \Vater Line
g South Colony Boulevard 12" Water Line m'o 690/0 69%1 S 103.500 S 150.000
9 Morning Star Drive/Headquarters Drive 16" 0% 69~'1I 69% S 7 1.7 60 S 104.000
\Vater Line
10 lIeadquarters Drive 16" Waler Line A 0% 69% 69~'i) S \3g.000 S 200.000
II Headquarters Drive 20" \Valer Line B 0% 69% 6911";1 S 357.Q75 S 517.500
12 Carrollton Transmission Line 0%) 69% 69'~'.. S 5.796.000 S MOO.OOO
\3 Soulhern Pump Station and Associalcd \Vater 0% 691% 69% S 4.g30.000 S 7.000.000
Lines
14 Officc Creek Pump Slalion Upgrade 0" 100% 100% S 295.000 S 295.000
15 Cougar Alley 24" \Valer Line wi meter vault 44% 69O;cI 25%1 S 136.000 S 544.000
16 Slate lIighway 121 12" \Vater Line 0% 69% 69% S I 13.g50 S 165.000
17 Piano Parkway South 12" \Vater Line or~,() 69% 69% S 266.633 S 3g6,425
Ig \Vindhaven West 12" \Vater Line 0% 69% 69% S 104.917 S 152,054
19 \\later Impacl Fee Study O'~'.. 100% 100% S 41.000 S 41.000
Total $ 21,773,325 $ 30,649,979
Water Impact Fcc Updatc
City ofThc Colony, Tcxas
1.7
March 2007
. "
0 8
CJ . 8
. CJ ~ 0 N
~ . as
-" '" . 0 '6
c c CJ
OJ .~ N ~
l- . ..
~ III
OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::E
OJ . . . " >
0
OJ l.) > CJ > '" CD . . .
c .9 '" 0 0 . . 0 . . 0
Q) . ~ " . CJ
"C 0 0 0 0 :;; 0
~ (f) OJ C 0 ro ~ . CJ CJ 8' CJ . 8 ii
c: 0 Iii .:; ..
OJ c U t- o . . OJ . ~ 0
(j) ii5 '0 :::; . 0> N ~ ~ " . "" "-
OJ . 0 0 0 0
CI ~ OJ Q) . 0> >- 0 ~ e- o CJ ~
0. m ~ '0' 0 ! CJ " " 0 ~ ~
(j) $ CJ 0 0. ~ 0 ~ 1;: 0 . N
E > Vi ~ . 0. Iii ~
..J ~ OJ ~ D: . ~ . ~ . . ro ~ 8
::J " ~ 0. ~
.~ Cl. iJJ ~ Iii . a: g > > Vi ~ N 0
!!: ~ 0 . ~ <'5 CD <'5 <'5 <'5 0. ;: >- N
OJ '0 '0 > 0> ~ a. >-
U ;0 . ro . >- . . ~ >- I 0
(f) OJ OJ w . 0 0 . . . ~
Vl Vl Q) a. 0. . t .g Vi t t a. . ;
" " Vi . . ;;'
Q; 0 0 Q) 8 " 8 0 co 0> 0 0 ~ U :f a.
0. 0. U. 0. -" Vi e- o e- e- o
~ e e ~ f ~ 0 " c " " B 0> . 0.
U ~ ~ i} ro 0 " ro 0 0 0 0
Cl. Cl. ~ . 0. . . 0. 15 0. 0 0
'" '" I en :;; I I en CO Vi a:
c.
E '-' '-'....................."-"............."'-""-''''-'''~...........~~''iV~~.........~
...
.......
.
.
.
'.
.
'.
.,
.
tIl.. :'
.
.
.
,
..,
.. -:.
\....
..
.~..
.. ..
.
....
..
..
.
I
I
.
.
.
.-.
.#
.
....
..
.
fa _.
.,
.
'.~
.. .
.-. .
"
....~-I . .. . . . It
.', ..,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
#
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
.
.
.
,
..'
..
...
....
....
.
.
.
.
I
.. .
-. -,.
. .......
. '.. ..
: ..'
.
....
~=~
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 of2.0 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
In conjunction with the Wynnwood pump station an Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) system
will be constructed with the 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 ofThc Colony, Tcxas
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 Drive/Headquarters 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 Fcc Updatc
City of The Colony. Texas
1.10
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
,~ 1m
At.OLONY
~,,"',', ..,
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 wi 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 Fcc Updatc
City of The Colony. Texas
1.11
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
fHi.
,COLONY
~ ',<,
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.
T bl 1 3 S
U'C
C I I
a e . ervlce mt onsumptlOn a cu ahon
Residential Water Usage Consumption
Units A verage Day per Service
Year Populationl (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 3 I ,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
(I) City of The Colony Impact Fcc 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 I O-years.
Water Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony. Texas
1.12
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
a e -year IlOna ervlce ms a cu a .on
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 t'
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 10-year recoverable costs and the associated impact fee per service unit is as follows:
a e -year ecovera e os 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 t B kd
Impact fee per service unit
10-vear recoverable costs
IO-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 $1,653.
For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is established at a
multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 5/8"x 3/4" meter. The maximum impact fee that could
be assessed for other meter sizes is based on the value shown on Table 1.6, Service Unit Equivalency
Table for Commonly Used Meters.
Water Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony. Tcxas
1.13
March 2007
~=n
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
T bl 1 6 S
T bl fi C
IUdMt
U 't E . I
a e erVlce m ;qUlva ency a e or ommomy se e ers
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
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
I 0" Turbine 2,500 250 413,250
* PD ~ Positivc Displaccmcnt Mctcr (Typical residential mctcr)
"Operating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C -700-02
liE
OLONY
Water Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony. Tcxas
1.14
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Appendix
Water Land Use Assumptions
Water Impact Fcc Updatc
City ofThc Colony, Tcxas
1.15
March 2007
(P&Y~
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, Inc.
2.2 WATER 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.
6115/2004
T:\200l ProJects\oJ22 CCO\;~r<'ft\rf'For1 dOl;
2-4
~
~
~
:...
~
~
.....:-
~
~
~
~
::
~
....
e
(I)
c
o
+-
(,)
~.!.
I 0
N~
(I) a.
:Oc
ca 0
I-+-
ca
~
Q.
o
a.
lO 1"-"'" ('I) "'it ..- 'V
N"'it "'" I"- "'it L()
N en..- L() L() 0 ('I)
0
N 1"-10 N N to L()
I"-N ..- ..- ..- to
0 "'it"'" I"- 0 ...... I"-
NO 0 "'it ..-
N CO ('I) ('I) 0 L() lO
0 0
N <00 N <<i ...... "'it
<ON ..- ...... lO
L() "'it I"- N lO ..- N
0 to "'" en 'V ('I)
...... M "'it 0 N
0 ('I) 0
N "'" L() N ('I) "'" L()
It) ...... ...... 'V
-
0 en l"- I"- <0 N
to N 0 0
...... "'it to <0 <0 en I"-
0 I"- It)
N to 0 en CO N cD
"'it ..- M
I"- 10 ('I) ('I) N
0 IX) N CO 0 ...... 0
0 l"- I"- L() 'V CO N
N 0 "'" "'" ...... L() ('I)
'V M
L() l"- I"- I"- 0
CO - 0
0 ('1)- CO CX> 0 0 to
0 "'" l"-
N I"- L() 10 ..-
M ('I)
N N ('I) M en
0 en CO CO 0
0 0) CO CO 0 0 ..-
N ...... N N ol
('I) N
e >. a>
0 ~ .e
:;:; ~-:::- t- a>
e .!!! ~lU m .e
~ e m t-
O o a> .Q ~ :;
+:; 0 .- .... I/) >.
m (l, iGtV 10m e .0
~ -a> :;a> e "0
.e :J 0 a> ~ ~
0 0 0..- 0.0 (l,
(l, e o C: o'~
tV (l,a> (l,a> "0 a> 0
~ 0:: .el/) 0 I/) 0
.el/) 0 eO
0 e o 0 g~
e e ~ 0
:;:; .~
(ij I/) tV tV tVo e
- :J O::(l, 0::- I~ :J
0 <( 0
l- e- .!: 0 a.
:;:;0
m I/) en 0
- (l,
0 :J :J
I- <( <(
v
o
o
N
---
IF)
---
\D
II)
I
N
~
8-
~
8-
g
~
[
8
"
f-
I'- <0 ..- C')
0 C') ..- C') C') I'- ..-
"" 0 cq C') on 0> <0
0 "" C') N e
on N ~ "" IX) N 10
N IX) ..- - - - - - - ..-
;J 0 C') iO IX) CO CO on 10 on '<t N v
N ..- 0 I'- 0> ..- IX) CO 0 IX) 0
(() I'- 0 C') N I'- I'- ..... 0
~ N ci C') N
I'- <0 ..... C') on ..- "" I'- ---
....... C') lr)
~ -<
---
\0
r... I'- C')
~ C') 0 ..- I'- C') CO on on on
I'- e cO 0> 10 ..... CO N (()
~ 0 CO CO N C') ..- ..j a:i ..... '<t I'-
N ....... ro 0 ro - ....... ....... ....... .......
0 C') C') CO I'- on ..... C')
....: N ..... (() C"l 0> <0 "" CO CO 10 .....
~ 0 0> 0 C') ..... CO N 0> C')
(() C') on - C') 10 N .n
..... .....
~ ..... N
~
~ 10 CO
::
~ "" <0 0> C') '<t 0 C') 0> I'-
..... "! cO 0> 0> '<t 0 10 <0
on ..j ..... ~
tj CO I'- ..... N ..... CO N
..... ro --- ....... 0 M CD ..... en
0 C') C') 0> - C')
N ....... N (() ..... '<t IX) on on 0> '<t
0 on CO C') 0 on CO 1'-- N_
M .n I'-
10 ....... 0 ..... ..... C')
....... N
N I'-
0> 0> ';J; "'<t CO 0
I'- C') on C') ..... '<t I'-
0 C"'i C') '<t 0>
(() 10 N ..... C') ~ ci e .....
....... --- ....... - - - -
0 C') ..... ....... <0 0> CO 0 -- -- .....
N ..- N 0 "" CO 10 ..... 10 C') IX)
0 on <0 0 '<t '<t CO 10 ..-
N cD - N -.:i N <0 -
'<t m ....... .....
..- I'll
CD
... I'll
rn I'll < ~
"C CD C') CD en
s:: ... N ..r:: 0 l:
N < ..- ~ I'- 0'- "" C') C') C 0 CO
as 0 l:~ cq I'- 0>
I E CD ....... 0 ..- ..j CD 0 "! C')
N I'- 0 10 ~ I'll CD N
0 0 ....... ..- 0:: en ..- CD iO D- o 0
CD CD 0 C') .~ 0> - (() - 0 en - C9
:cO ..- I'- 0 0> N N CO '0 - 0
N "" 0 C') l: 0 0> CO N 0 C') C') 10 N
CD 0 ~ l: <0
... M I'- 0 ..- N
as en rxi '<t en I'll ..- C')
....s ..- ~- ~
~ <0. l:
as <3 - ~
~ 0
'<t I'- ~ 3:
CO 0> <3 C') I'-
on on '<t ~ '<t
on 0 CO CO C"'i
10 ~ ..- ..- ci ..- 0 0 0
0 - ....... .......
0 N ..... - -.r M 0 0 0 -- 0
N ..... CO 0> I'- '<t ..- 0
..- ..... ..... CO C') ""
C') on
C') I'- C') ..- N
..-
""
N "" CO 0 N 10
0 cq
N ..j "! CO '<t 0>
0> Q) ..- ci ci ........ 0 0 0
0 - CD .......
0 ..... N - ro en <0 - - .......
N ..- 0> I'- on '<t 0 0 0
I'- ..... on I'- C') ..-
N <Ii N CO
..... .....
.....
C C C C C C C C C
C 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0
.9 u~ :.::; ~~ :.::; :.::; -~ :.::; :.::;
III III III III "Oro ro III
ro E2:-2:U-2: E2:-2:'02: E2:-2:'02:
'0 2: _ Q) "0 Q) 0> Q) -ffi"8,ffiOlffi .......Q)"oQ)o>Q)
C Q) E~E~E~ E~O)~E~ ~
III III ECEcEc o.o.€oEo 8.
E c o.o_oEo o.o_oEo
Q) 0 ~()E()o.() ~()E()o.() ~()E()o.() ~
"0 () "O.c o..c O).c "O.c o..c 0) .c "0:5 0.:5 0>:5 l
19 :5 c ~ Ol~ -~ ffi '3 ~'3 :;'3 c'- 0).- ---
lll~-~"O~ ro~-~"O~
'0.. .~ E-"O-c- ~~~~ffi:g E-"O-c.... u
Q)fjffifjlll-Q Q)-Qffi~lll-Q N
~ '- ~
Q) "O:JE:JE:J "O:JE:JE:J "O:JE:JE:J
'- .c t
Q)-- >-eQ)e~e >-eQ)eQ)e >-eQ)e~e l
o.>-lll lll"O"O"'O "'0 ro "0 "0 "0 "0. "0 ro"O"O"O "0
lllQ) "Us....>-.,l..:JL... "'OL...>-.L...:;L- -oL...>,I-:;L... 8
"O"O~
Q)u;_ Q)rollllllOlll Q) III III III 0 III Q)lll rolll o III "
-Clll O)~"o~.c~ 0)~"O~.c~ 0l~"O~.c~ l-
~..QE ~1~...:se::1 ~I~I~I ~'~'~I
'e'm (; Q)Q)IllQ)IllQ) Q)Q)IllQ)IllQ) Q)Q)IllQ)roQ)
>CQ)CQ)C >CQ)CQ)C >CQ)CQ)C
a.. ~z <{o a.. 0 a.. 0 <{o a.. 0 a.. 0 <{o a.. 0 a.. 0
CP&YJ
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 - -
Julv 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
AUQust27,2000 6,510 9.38 2,560 3.69 2.54
July 24, 2001 5,780 8.33 2,760 3.97 2.10
August 24, 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
6/15/2004
T-\200J ProjutJVB22 CCO\rcpon\report doc
2-7
CRY)
Chiang, Patel, & Yerby, 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
Prepared by:
~ _.,.. Kimley-Hom
~ - ~ and Associates, Inc.
801 Cherry Street, Unit 11, Suite 1025
Fort Worth, TX 76102
817.335.6511
March 2007
-............",
--- t:. OF r.,.'\
...-..",,~...........~-t"f \ \
.:' ~...., *" ......05' I,
'.: '. .',
, . .
,fr:' \.'
,............. ..... ......... ....:....1
~ JOHN R. ATKINS .~
'i"'~'''''''''''''''''' .~.......~...."
'~'" (85376 ./,
";.('~" . ENS~c:?'"
l' ...~. ..~~
" ~,
.
3.30-01
@ KimIey-Hom and Associates. Inc., 2007
061117014
lIIII"""l-n Kimley-Hom
-........J _ r.' and Associates, Inc.
,~ Till
/~OLON.Y
~"""'''b;fA'1i1:r#",w,''''u""j,,'
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 E xecutiv e Summary............................................................................................... ................ 2.3
2.3 Design Criteria....................................................................................................................... 2.5
A. Sewer Trunk Lines (Interceptors) .............................................................................................................. 2.5
8. 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 I O-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
Wastcwatcr Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony. Texas
March 2007
~=n
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
/: THr
",COLONY
~'~"""';"}!i't:}!W
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 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
Wastcwatcr Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony. Tcxas
2.1
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
..~ Till
~OLON,Y
~"......"f'
(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. EVALUATION 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 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.
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony. Texas
2.2
March 2007
~1-_InI_.. Kimley-Hom
~ ~ _ ." and Associates, Inc.
;(:OLONY
~."h","'~0r$V
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 10-year (2015) 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 lO-year planning period.
For example, the projected cost to serve the ultimate system needs will be $29,348,521. Of this,
$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 IO-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 $815 per service unit.
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony, Texas
2.3
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
,;COLONY
.U,.,...c.,.m.. .=.. ",.,,"2;"'''''''' .,
Ta
ble 2.1 MaXimum Assessa e astewater mpact ee or ommonlv se ete
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PD 10 I 815
3/4" PD 15 1.5 1,223
I" PD 25 2.5 2,038
I 112" 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
I 0" Turbine 2,500 250 203,750
bl W
I
F ti C
I U dM rs
'PD~Positivc Displacement Mctcr (Typical Residential Meter)
"Opcrating capacities obtained from American Water Works Association (A WW A) C-700-02
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony, Texas
2.4
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
, TH!
.;€OLONY
~"">"""i+ft:(/,:;i;J!'~"
2.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
A. SEWER TRUNK LINES (INTERCEPTORS)
The design criteria for sewer trunk lines or interceptors is based on the TCEQ requirements that
meet peak wet weather design flows with no overflows while maintaining a minimum of 2 ft/sec
cleaning velocity and a maximum of 8 ft/sec velocity.
B. LIFT STATIONS PUMPING CAPACITY
The design criteria for lift station pumping shall be to provide firm pumping capacity to meet
125% of the peak wet weather design flows. The firm pumping capacity is defined as the
available total pumping capacity with the largest pump out of service.
C. LIFT STATION WET WELL CAPACITY
The design criteria for lift station wet wells are to provide adequate volumes to limit pump
cycling to once every 10 minutes. Based on this criterion, the required operating volume for each
pump can be calculated as
v = tQ/4 where,
t = Maximum pump cycling time = 10 minutes
Q = Lead pump discharge rate in gallons per minute (gpm)
V = . Required wet well volume between pump start and stop elevation
D. FORCE MAINS
The design criteria recommended for force mains is to meet the required pumping capacity of the
lift station at a velocity less than 8 feet per second and a maximum discharge pressure of 100 psi
and to allow a minimum of 2 feet per second scouring velocity during a single pump operation.
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony. Tcxas
2.5
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
T'li
,COLON,y
~"....,//[,qfl')fi<e"
2.4
IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Due to the current growth in The Colony, the City Council commissioned Freese & Nichols, Inc., to
develop a Wastewater System Master Plan. The purpose of the plan is to provide the City with a logical
strategy for upgrading and expanding its wastewater collection system to accommodate future growth and
for addressing existing system deficiencies. Freese & Nichols completed the Wastewater System Master
Plan and recommended system improvements to accommodate growth through the City's build-out.
Twenty (29) projects are proposed in the Wastewater System Master Plan, and fourteen (14) are
determined eligible for recoverable cost through impact fee over the next I 0 years. The total cost of the
14 eligible projects is $29,348,521. The projected total recoverable through impact fees is $14,964,137.
After financing costs are added and the 50% credit reduction calculation is complete, $9,327,700 is
recoverable though impact fees serving the IO-year system needs. These impact fee capital improvements
are shown in Table 2.2 and illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Table 2.2 Wastewater Impact Fee Capital Improvements
Project Cost and 10-Year Recoverable Cost
2005 Required 2015 Required 2005-2015 Required 2015 Total Project
Proj. # Description Capacity Capacity Capacit}' Projected
(Percent Utilization) (Percent Utilization) (Percent Utilization) Recoverable Cost Cost
I Stewart Creek WWTP Phase II & IlA Of!/o IOD'}!) 100% S 6,204.250 S 6.204,250
1a Stewart Creek WWTP Expansion to 7 MGD 0':'" 100/Q 10% S 612,663 S 6,126,625
2 2.5 MGD Wynn wood LS and 16" FM nOlo 75'% 75% S 2,550.000 S 3,400,000
3 Austin Ranch East Trunk Line 50% IOOO/!) 50% S 72,511 S 145.022
4 Paige Road 2\" Scw'cr Line 60% gm'o 20% S 14,352 S 7\, 7 60
5 Austin Ranch LS and 20" FM 0"/0 75% 75% S 2,591,018 S 3,454,691
6 [ndian Creek Interceptor - South 20(~'o 600/0 40~/o S 709,706 S \'774,266
7 Saintsbury LS and 6" FM O'!/(J 5Do/!l 50% S 256,680 S 513,360
8 [ndian Creek Interceptor - North Ot~/() 25% 250/0 S 111,396 S 849,583
9 Piano Parkway Interceptor 0% 20% 20% S 226,099 S \,\30,496
10 10"/12" Scwcr Line east of Piano Ph",y O'~'" 250/0 25% S 69,138 S 276,552
11 Statc Ilighway 121 Intcrccptor 0" SQO;'O 50% S 199,736 S 599,4 72
,"
11 7 MGD Austin Ranch LS Upgrade and O/~/o 1011/0 10% S 386.191 S 3,861,906
18"/20" FM
13 2.5 MGD Master LS I Expansion O'~'" 90% 90% S 627.110 S 696,900
14 Saintsbury/Arbor llills Trunk Line 55% 100% 45% S 91.187 S 202,638
15 Wastewater Impact Fcc Study 0" 100% 100% S 41,000 S 41,000
,"
Total $ 14,964,137 $ 29,348,521
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony, Texas
2.6
March 2007
~ ~UIl4~ l
(l) 0 ~
~ ~ a, \-""" ~ ~ ~ ; ,
a:- $ ~ r -g ~
i J!lii~~ ';; ~,,1' lJ- ~
i - ~ .~ II ~ l' ~ ~ ~ o! ~ I ~ ~71J~rJ .. [
ii ~ ~ '- D.. E ~ ~ ~ b .:. ~ 0 a. 1n ~ ~ I- ~U W ~ 0
~C~~ ~CLCL~ ~~a~a.~~ .c:~~ ~! 8 ~
E.Q~(/) LL.~~-g O)~@~~~.~....g _ eJ-a -q: L.L.
~~~! iii~ ~~!~!j~~~i~ YJ /[L~ g i
j Iii i ~ ~ ~; I! ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ : i ! rJ · l g ic:;~ '; Naa- i~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
I GI ---r--I- k., II
~ ~ II j '-''-''~--'"'-''"-''"-''"-'----~~~~'''-' - ~ u
I f i~tt~XJs ~ I~ \ f [J""- J ~"G Tr>
~\ ~ ~, y(~r?m:"(\E~ c
\ ~/ / Zi "' ~ ~~~ U~..-'A{r
llIrl/J ~ f"1 'srt l1jr~f ~ ~ iJ]7 fJJ-~ ~ \, ~ \ ~
l;;n qs~ "--'C '" jI y-::Y A ~ j: ~
.l~'J---.. R
"tIlllIf sfi~"""~ff)~~'-- I;"::'~"~... ..L {...~-
/ (n rtt- ~v Ua --j- y,\, ~ ~ N=-:....: /~
~ - ~~~ L.~ 1~1 Il'"'ft~ " J, :.....~ - \. ", J
I mkT ~ \lY~ I~/ ~~I' !;'[ ~.1 h":':':':--.: ===' 1>.
1/ . ~IJ '-I YJ
~ T)J : 1m ( ~/~I~II ~ \
) V :,,\\ I~ \,(JIUillr
. ...:rill I ~ I,l)~!el\l Ul I
~: \ ~'~ flt::v~ \~~
: 'j'J '\
. "--I r:::. ..
'.~ -:Jt IT\\ r) '. .
:.r........~ ~ v \~v ~ ~ j .... ~
..... ~ Ii It a: r
J:-:_--:::" '~ ~ ~ <.'.
~... ~Q .
L~~ \
4~~ -Af '- \.
~. '~..."'..... ....
, -.. ..I~# '''. .._
rG.:~...i.~ f.. -.'.~. ..........
: ....,. -..-
.: : .. .,..:..........-....:
..:11' ..:
. ," f
~ -. . '. .,
. .
'-'. _.-. ~:"t
..... .
... t.. t
.. -, ,
t.
~
""
a
a
a
a5
"
8
N
-6
..
III
::E
'0
l:
Ql
Cl
Ql
...I
rr-
/
~,
.' '-- ~
. -
l ~
~J
~
~
;;:;
(
\
\
l~
o
~=n
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
(1) Stewart Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Phase II & IIA
Expansion of the existing Stewart Creek WWTP to 4.5 MGD.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$6,204,250
$6,204,250
(la) Stewart Creek WWTP Expansion to 7 MGD
Expansion of the existing Stewart Creek WWTP to 7.0 MGD.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$6,126,625
$612,663
(2) 2.5 MGD Wynnwood Lift Station and 16" Force Main
Construct new 2.5 MGD lift station and 16" force main serving the central and northern portion
of the Wynnwood Peninsula.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$3,400,000
$2,550,000
(3) Austin Ranch East Trunk Line
Consists of existing oversized lines that have excess capacity to accommodate future
development.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$145,022
$72,511
(4) Paige Road 21" Sewer Line
Construct a section of 21" sewer line along Paige Road just north of State Highway 121.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$71,760
$14,352
(5) Austin Ranch Lift Station and 20" Force Main
Construct a new 3.5 MGD lift station and 20" force main to serve the Austin Ranch area. The
force main will extend north from the lift station to Piano Parkway.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$3,454,691
$2,591,018
(6) Indian Creek Interceptor - South
Construct a new 21",27", and 30" sewer line from northeast of the Austin Ranch Lift Station to
Piano Parkway, along Piano Parkway north to Windhaven Parkway, along Windhaven Parkway
east to the BNSF Railroad.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$1,774,266
$709,706
Wastcwatcr Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony. Texas
2.8
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
1ill
LONY
(7) Saintsbury Lift Station and 6" Force Main
Construct a new 0.5 MGD lift station and 6" force main at the south end of Saintsbury Drive
which will serve the southeast portion of Austin Ranch.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$513,360
$256,680
(8) Indian Creek Interceptor - North
Construct a new 12" and 15" sewer line along the railroad from State Highway 121 south to
Windhaven Parkway.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$849,583
$212,396
(9) Piano Parkway Interceptor
Construct a new 10", 12" and 15" sewer line from just north of the Austin Ranch Lift Station to
Piano Parkway.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$1,130,496
$226,099
(10) 10"/12" Sewer Line east of Piano Parkway
Construct a new 10" and 12" sewer line from Piano Parkway southeast to near the city limits.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$276,552
$69,138
(11) State Highway 121 Interceptor
Construct a new 12" sewer line long the south side State Highway 121 from Paige Road to
Morning Star.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$599,472
$299,736
(12) 7.0 MGD Austin Ranch Lift Station Upgrade and 18"/20" Force Main
Replace the pumps to increase the capacity of the Austin Ranch Lift Station from 3.0 MGD
capacity to 7.0 MGD, and extend the force main from Piano Parkway to the Stewart Creek
WWTP.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$3,861,906
$386,191
(13) 2.5 MGD Master Lift Station 1 Expansion
Expand the Master Lift Station I from 5.5 MGD capacity to 8.0 MGD.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$696,900
$627,210
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony, Tcxas
2.9
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
, Till
~COLON,Y
~, ",",if""""
(14) Saintsbury/Arbor Hills Trunk Line
Consists of existing oversized Jines that have excess capacity to accommodate future
development.
Project Cost
Recoverable Cost
$202,638
$91,187
Wastewater Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony, Tcxas
2.10
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
2.5 WASTEWATER 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
wastewater 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 2.3.
a e ervlce m onsump Ion a cu a Ion
Residential Wastewater Flow Flow
V nits Average Day per Service
Year Population! (3.2 persons/unit) Flow (MGD) Unit (GPD)
1995 22,200 6,938 1.72* 248
1996 23,006 7,189 1.78 248
1997 23,841 7,450 1.88 252
1998 24,706 7,721 1.86 241
1999 25,603 8,001 1.77 221
2000 26,531 8,291 1.95 235
2001 28,450 8,891 2.25 253
2002 31,992 9,998 2.31 231
2003 34,273 10,710 2.28 213
2004 35,796 11,186 2.39 214
Average Flow per Service Unit 236
T bl 2 3 S
U 'tC
f C I I t'
(I) City of The Colony Impact Fcc Analysis for Water, Wastewater and Thoroughfares, June 2003.
* Estimated valucs bascd on following years.
Based on the City's 10-year growth projections and the resulting wastewater flow projections, wastewater
service will be required for an additional 11,441 service units. The calculation is as follows:
. A service unit, which is a unit of development that discharges approximately 236 gallons per day
(GPD), is a typical residential connection that uses a 5/8"x 3/4" meter. Table 2.4 outlines the
future wastewater discharge projections and its relationship to the additional service units
projected for the next 10-years.
Wastewater Impact Fcc Updatc
City ofThc Colony, Texas
2.11
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
llli
.;COLONY
~.
a e -year IlOna ervlce m a cu a IOn
A verage Day Service Unit
Flow Demand Service Units
Year (MGD) (GPD)
2005 2.09 236 8,856
2015 4.79 236 20,297
10-year Additional Service Units 11,441
T bl 24 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 I O-year recoverable costs and the associated impact fee per service unit is as follows:
a e -year ecovera e ost reak own
Recoverable Impact Fee CIP Costs $14,964,137
Financing Costs (provided by City) $3,691,264
Pre Credit Recoverable Cost for Impact Fee $18,655,401
Credit for Utility Revenues (50% credit) $9,327,700
Maximum Recoverable Cost for Impact Fee $9,327,700
T bl 2 5 10
R
bl C B
d
Impact fee per service unit
IO-year recoverable costs
10-year additional service units
Impact fee per service unit
$9,327,700
11,441
Impact fee per service unit
$815
Therefore, the maximum assessable impact fee per service unit is $815.
For a development that requires a different size meter, a service unit equivalent is established at a
multiplier based on its capacity with respect to the 5/8"x 3/4" meter. The maximum impact fee that could
be assessed for other meter sizes is based on the value shown on Table 2.6, Service Unit Equivalency
Table for Commonly Used Meters.
Wastcwatcr Impact Fcc Update
City ofThc Colony, Tcxas
2.12
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
.~ Till
;;~OLON,Y
~"~#/""
T hi 2 6 S
U'E
T hi fi C
I U dM
a e ervlce mt ~q U1va ency a e or ommonly se eters
Maximum Maximum
Meter Size* Continuous Service Unit Assessable
Operating Capacity Equivalent Fee
(GPM)** ($)
5/8"x 3/4" PD 10 1 815
3/4" PD 15 1.5 1,223
I"PD 25 2.5 2,038
1 112" 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 ~ Positivc Displacement Meter (Typical residential meter)
"Opcrating capacities obtained from Amcrican Watcr Works Association (A WW A) C -700-02
Wastcwatcr Impact Fcc Updatc
City of The Colony, Texas
2.13
March 2007
~=~
Kimley-Hom
and Associates, Inc.
Appendix
Wastewater Land Use Assumptions
Wastcwatcr Impact Fcc Update
City of The Colony. Tcxas
2.14
March 2007
City of The Colony
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
2.0 POPULATION PROJECTIONS
2.1 Historical and Projected Population Growth
Population projections are an important element in the analysis of wastewater
collection systems. Wastewater loads depend on the population served by the
collection system. A thorough analysis of projected populations provides the
basis for future wastewater loads. Historical and projected populations from the
Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Evaluation prepared by FNI and dated
March 28, 2003 served as the basis for population projections for this study.
Historical population data obtained from the report is shown in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1- .
Historical Population Growth
Year Population Average Annual Growth
Rate
1995 22,200 -
1996 23,006 3.63%
1997 23,841 3.63%
1998 24,706 3.63%
1999 25,603 3.63%
2000 26,533 3.63%
2001 28,451 7.23%
2002 31,000 8.96%
2003 - 32,315 4.24%
2004 33.685 4.24%
The City of The Colony consists of three distinct areas: the Wynnwood Peninsula
in the northwest, Austin Ranch south of SH 121, and the central portion of the
City, located north of SH 121. The central portion of the City is approximately
75% developed, with the majority of undeveloped land located along SH121. The
Wynnwood Peninsula currently has no existing development, but planning is
currently underway to begin building. Austin Ranch currently has some
commercial development just south of SH 121, and commercial and residential
development along Windhaven Parkway. Both the Wynnwood Peninsula and
2-1
City of The Colony
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Austin Ranch have large tracts available for future development, and most of the
future growth in the City is expected to occur in these two areas.
Population projections from the treatment plant report were modified in
conjunction with The Colony Planning Department staff utilizing updated data
from the staff, and recent data provided by developers planning to build in the
Wynnwood Peninsula and Austin Ranch areas. Land use data provided by the
City was utilized to estimate current and projected future commercial and
industrial development. The current land use map for the City is shown in Figure
2.1. Current and projected populations and commercial and industrial
development for the City are shown -in-Table 2.2. Commercial and industrial
development also includes institutional, school, and municipal areas.
Table 2.2
Current and Projected Populations
~
Year Estimated Population Estimated Commercial and
Industrial Acreage
2005 37,387 361
2010 46,469 698
2015 57,304 1,026
Buildout 80,359 1,424
2.2 Population Distribution
The City of The Colony is divided into three major sewer basins. The Wynnwood
Peninsula Basin is located northwest of the central portion of the City. The
Stewart Creek Basin is located mainly north of SH121 and contains most of the
City's existing development, and the area along both sides of SHl2l. The Indian
Creek Basin is located south of SH 121. Each basin was further subdivided into
smaller sub-basins. The Wynnwood Peninsula sub-basins were configured based
on development patterns proposed by the developcr and the overall area of the
development. Figure 2.2 shows the basins and sub-basins.
The basins and sub-basins were used along with the land use maps to distribute
population and commercial acreage across the City for wastcwater collection
2-2
'1
~..S--I , t \
~ ~VLz
~~~
,~ c(,1 <, .J
;----' ), ?
f r
~
)
L
'-... La kt,
'\' L""i"i~/~...__
... v. ....< ~l;~...t.'.'.....,',:.;
.'~.i'-)
f.-~~:;c.:;'
~~.y
Figure 2.1
The City of The Colony
Land Use Map
LEGEND
C-J City Limit Land Use HT QP
Lake A MD R
J
100 ~ Year Flood Plain C MF SF
-+-+-+ Railroad CM MH U
Roads G 0 V 0 3,500
GH SCALE IN FEET
Fill
".... __ Nichols
~ THE
11 \ ~?In'
~~7
--""
,r-.':..-:::
i-'\
/
I
,/
10' <"-
{...._5---
.........---'#.....~
<
,/
""
JLI
f _ (S1 ('r-'
i .' \ ,C- ~.--/
(_~_r) ) '-.\ ; .^L.t
-, \ { , <"-"',
.......__f .#........... 0J..--
\..------
"
i
\.
; ,...;.-..,
, ,,'
I, ; .1
^ {\~ ('J{ r;"l
); \t~ ~_/ ("2"-<?~
/J -~> ~i
~/,y J:l~,J.-
~ ~_? !f! sc>' ']
/-1" I cJ,-' ~ --.~- ",.'.r j'
1-? L_~J4; ';~~ -. --. -ft! / ,,~j I
~.?y /.. X.:J,.:::-"i--- - 'c~''-V ,_{,I
".0\' ,'" ",~",", i ~~,.) . ' '
.. . . \ : I sc~ ",. sc-, ~, ' \ sc-<,C- J
, (1 .0)<.. ..it SC.~~ ~I :;o~~/v~"'c."i;~~~_1J.~;~:~;""~)3.~~'~~.:': ~.:'"~/
1:--......::- (~..~ d"j; ~1 "l i ....,.':'-'< i i~--' -,
n"", .... r",.i}5;Y '" 'c:>~ sc-" I L' ~ ' i
)/ I \\ I.,wisvilk .....~.. c_;y,"~ '--~'~---'-'-'~~ .~~~5 i \
.j .' ,,/""- ~.'" .... <:SC.-18 ,,'.' -, \
/ "J \ ~r/^' ~ ~.. " ,.;';,' / -\
/-/', \,/ ,,,,,.. -" '
/ '> vf/\ ,,'- . ,_~L<---~"":'~'
',_ I'~ ~ ~ ,
.~_~ I
~-,
"
~'<!- ,~
$Y-''''''
'1
~
~ LONY
~ .....:.;,;,;
City of The Colony
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
system analysis. Projected population distribution for 2005, 2010, 2015, and
buildout conditions are provided in Table 2.3. Projected commercial development
distribution is provided in Table 2.4.
Geographical Information System (GIS) mapping of the sub-basins was overlaid
on the land use maps to distribute the population and commercial development in
the Stewart Creek Basin. The entire area south of SH-121 is typically referred to
as Austin Ranch, most of which is in the Indian Creek Basin. However the area
immediately south of SH-121 is in the Stewart Creek Basin, Sub-basin SC-23.
Population projections for the Indian Creek Sub-basins and sub-basin SC-23 were
distributed evenly based on the total-buildout population for Austin Ranch
provided by the planning department.
Sub-basins WP-l through WP-5 are generally referred to as the Wynnwood
Peninsula. However, the planned Wynnwood Peninsula Development includes
only sub-basins WP-4 and WP-5. Population distribution in the Wynnwood
Peninsula Basin sub-basins WP-4 and WP-5 was determined utilizing data
provided by the company planning the development for these basins. Outside the
planned development, populations for sub-basins WP-I, WP-2, and WP-3 were
estimated based on an even distribution of the projected population for these areas
provided by the City of The Colony planning department.
2-5
City of The Colony
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 2.3
Current and Projected Population by Sub-basin
Sub-
Basin basin 2005 2010 2015 Buildout
Wvnnwood Peninsula
WP-1 0 0 674 2,200
WP-2 0 0 0 900
WP-3 0 0 0 900
WP-4 0 1,108 2,650 2,824
WP-5 0 1,488 3,717 5,623
Total Wynnwood
Peninsula 0 2,596 7,041 12,447
~. "..
Stewart Creek
SC-1 0 0 0 0
SC-2 1,258 1,258 1,285 1,358
SC-3 716 716 716 866
SC-4 1,900 1,900 1,950 2,168
SC-5 1,812 1,812 1,872 2,062
SC-6 705 705 705 905
SC-7 935 935 988 1,145
SC-8 1,154 1,154 1,154 1,294
SC-9 1,753 1,753 1,753 1,893
SC-10 1,740 1,740 1,790 1,890
SC-11 808 808 908 1,007
SC-12 950 950 1,000 1,025
SC-13 2,038 2,038 2,068 2,117
SC-14 1,715 1,715 1,755 1,885
SC-15 742 742 742 842
SC-16 1,870 1,870 1,970 2,100
SC-17 2,292 2,292 2,292 2,360
SC-18 688 688 738 941
SC-19 2,469 2,469 2,519 2,669
SC-20 1,659 1,759 1,859 2,061
SC-21 1,211 1,254 1,704 1,824
SC-22 3,184 3,258 3,371 3,500
SC-23 0 1,429 1657 2,000
Total Stewart Creek 31,600 33,246 34,796 37,912
Indian Creek
IC-1 0 1,722 3,452 10,800
IC-2 0 1,804 3,620 11 ,400
IC-3 5,787 7,100 8,395 7,800
Indian Creek Total 5,787 10,627 15,467 30,000
TOTAL 37,387 46,469 57,304 80,359
2-6
City of The Colony
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
2005 2010 2015 Buildout
Sub- (acres) (acres) (acres)
Basin basin (acres)
Wynnwood Peninsula WP-1 0 0 0 0
WP-2 0 0 0 0
WP-3 0 0 0 0
WP-4 0 14 14 14
WP-5 0 43 43 43
Total Wynnwood
Peninsula 0 57 57 57
Stewart Creek SC-1 0 0 0 5
SC-2 9 .- -~ - 11 28 28
SC-3 21 32 42 42
SC-4 5 10 10 10
SC-5 23 23 23 23
SC-6 30 45 67 67
SC-7 20 25 25 25
SC-B 10 12 15 28
SC-9 6 12 12 12
SC-10 12 18 23 23
SC-11 9 9 9 9
SC-12 8 12 16 16
SC-13 28 34 42 56
SC-14 7 7 7 7
SC-15 12 18 23 23
SC-16 - 12 18 26 26
SC-17 7 9 11 11
SC-18 13 16 20 32
SC-19 32 54 75 75
SC-20 27 72 147 210
SC-21 45 62 79 114
SC-22 10 78 160 201
SC-23 5 55 100 205
Total Stewart Creek 351 632 960 1,248
Indian Creek IC-1 4 4 4 104
IC-2 0 0 0 10
IC-3 5 5 5 5
Indian Creek Total 9 9 9 119
TOTAL 361 698 1,026 1,424
Table 2.4
Current and Projected Commercial Development by Sub-basin
2-7