HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances (O-95-1004)-10/03/1995
ORDINANCE 0-95-1004
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, AMENDING SECTION 11 OF
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY DELETING SECTION 11 AND ADDING A NEW
SECTION 11 REGULATING WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.
WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville is responsible for and committed to the provision of
public facilities and services (including roadway facilities and water and
wastewater service) at levels necessary to cure any existing public service
deficiencies in already developed areas; and
WHEREAS, such facilities and service levels shall be provided by the City utilizing funds
allocated in the capital budget and capital improvements programming
processes and relying upon the funding sources indicated therein; and
WHEREAS, new residential and nonresidential development causes and imposes
increased demands upon City public facilities and services, including water,
wastewater and roadway facilities, that would not otherwise occur; and
WHEREAS, planning projections indicate that such development will continue and will
place ever-increasing demands on the City to provide necessary public
facilities; and
WHEREAS, the development potential and property values of properties is strongly
influenced and encouraged by City policy as expressed in the
Comprehensive Plan and as implemented via the City zoning ordinance and
map; and
WHEREAS, to the extent that such new development places demands upon the public
facility infrastructure, those demands should be satisfied by shifting the
responsibility for financing the provision of such facilities from the public at
large to the developments actually creating the demands for them; and
WHEREAS, the amount of the impact fee to be imposed shall be determined by the cost
of the additional public facilities needed to support such development, which
public facilities shall be identified in a capital improvements program, and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, hereby finds and
declares that impact fees imposed upon residential and nonresidential
development to finance specified major public facilities in designated service
areas, the demand for which is created by such development, is in the best
1
interests of the general welfare of the City and its residents, is equitable,
and does not impose an unfair burden on such development;
WHEREAS, in 1987 the Texas Legislature adopted Senate Bill 336, now Chapter 395 of
the Texas Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in all things the City has complied with said
statute in the notice, adoption, promulgation and methodology necessary to
adopt Impact Fees;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS:
Sec. 1.
THAT Section 11 of the Subdivision Ordinance of the City of Colleyville be
amended by deleting Section 11 and adding a new Section 11, to be entitled
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fees, to read as follows:
WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.01 Short Title
This Chapter shall be known and cited as the Water, Wastewater and Roadway
Impact Fees Chapter.
Section 1.02 Intent
This Chapter is intended to impose water, wastewater and roadway impact fees, as
established in this Chapter, in order to finance public facilities, the demand for which is
generated by new development in the designated service area.
I Section 1.03 Authoritv
The City is authorized to enact this Chapter by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code, which authorizes home-rule cities, among others, to enact or impose
impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries and for water and wastewater, in
their extraterritorial jurisdictions, and to persons with whom they have a water or sewer
2
..... -"-..---..--..-.....-......-..........-.---------.........--.........-~--"-_...__.._~_..._~~_._.,-~.._--~-_.._...._-~- ,..-
'I
I service contract, as charges or assessments imposed against new development in order
to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility
expansions necessitated by and attributable to such new development; and by the
Colleyville City Charter. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed to limit the
power of the City to adopt such Chapter pursuant to any other source of local authority,
nor to utilize any other methods or powers otherwise available for accomplishing the
purposes set forth herein, either in substitution of or in conjunction with this Chapter.
Guidelines may be developed by resolution or otherwise to implement and administer this
chapter.
Section 1.04 Definitions
As applied in this Chapter, the following words and terms shall be used:
(1) Assessment - The determination of the amount of the maximum impact fee
per service unit which can be imposed on new development pursuant to this
Chapter.
(2) Buildina Permit - Written permission issued by the City for the construction,
repair, alteration or addition to a structure.
(3) Capital Construction Cost of Service - Costs of constructing capital
improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the
construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition
costs (including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees,
and expert witness fees), and the fees actually paid or contracted to be paid
to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or
updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the City.
(4) Capital Improvements Advisorv Committee (Advisorv Committee) - Advisory
committee, appointed by the City Council, consisting of at least five
members, not less than 40 percent of which shall be representatives of the
real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees of
the City, and, if impact fees are to be applied within the extraterritorial
jurisdiction of the City, including one member representing the extraterritorial
jurisdiction; or consisting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, including
one regular or ad hoc member who is not an employee of the City and which
is representative of the real estate, development, or building industry, and,
if impact fees are to be applied within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the
City, one representative of the extraterritorial jurisdiction area; which
committee is appointed to regularly review and update the capital
improvements program in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 395
3
11
,
of the Texas Local Government Code, and it successors.
(5) Capital Improvements Prooram (CIP) - Plan which identifies water,
wastewater and roadway capital improvements or facility expansions
pursuant to which impact fees may be assessed.
(6) Impact Fee - Charge or assessment to be imposed by the City upon new
development to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of
capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable
to new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump-sum
charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any
other fee that functions as described by this definition. Impact fees do not
include dedication of rights-of-way or easements, or construction or
dedication of site-related water distribution or wastewater collection
facilities, or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is
required by other valid ordinances of the City Code and is necessitated by
and attributable to the new development; or lot or acreage fees placed in
trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or
constructing water or sewer mains or lines.
(7) City - City of Colleyville.
(8) Citv Council (Council) - Governing body of the City of Colleyville.
(9) City Enoineer (Enoineer) - City Engineer of the City of Colleyville.
(10) City Manaoer - Chief executive officer of the City, appointed by the Council.
(11) Comprehensive Plan - The comprehensive long-range plan, adopted by the
City Council, which is intended to guide the growth and development of the
City which includes analysis, recommendations and proposals for the City
regarding such topics as population, economy, housing, transportation,
community facilities and land use.
(12) Credit - The amount of the reduction of a impact fee for fees, payments or
charges for the same type of capital improvements for which the fee has
been assessed.
(13) Existino Development - For water and wastewater impact fees, all
development within the service area which has a water or wastewater tap on
the City's water or sewer system or on another centralized water or sewer
system, as of the date of the adoption of this Chapter, and for roadways, all
4
development within the service area for which a building permit has been
issued and which has not expired.
(14) Facilitv Expansion - The expansion of the capacity of an existing facility
which serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital
improvement in order that the existing facility may serve new development.
Facility expansion does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization,
or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development.
(15) Final Subdivision Plat (Final Plat) - The map, drawing or chart on which is
provided a subdivider's plan of a subdivision, and which has received final
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council.
(16) Growth-Related Costs - Capital construction costs of service related to
providing additional service units to new development, either from excess
capacity in existing facilities, from facility expansions or from new capital
facilities. Growth-related costs do not include:
(a) Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets
other than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in
the capital improvements plan;
(b) Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital
improvements or facility expansions;
(c) Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital
improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter
safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards;
(d) Upgrading. updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital
improvements to provide better service to existing development;
(e) Administrative and operating costs of the City; and
(f) Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds
or other indebtedness, except for such payments for growth-related
facilities contained in the capital improvements program.
(17) Land Use Assumptions - Description of the service area and projections of
changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population therein over at
least a 1 O-year period, adopted by the City, as may be amended from time
to time, upon which the capital improvement plan is based.
5
(18) Livina Unit Eauivalent CLUE) - For water and wastewater, basis for
establishing equivalency among and within various customer classes based
upon the relationship of the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons
per minute for a water meter of a given size and type compared to the
continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a 3/4" diameter
simple water meter, using American Water Works Association C700-C703
standards. The land use equivalency table attached hereto as Exhibit Hand
incorporated by reference herein converts water meter size to LUEs.
(19) New Development - Subdivision of land; or the construction, reconstruction,
redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement
of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which
increases the number of service units. New development includes the sale
of water taps resulting from the conversion of an individual well to the City's
water utility and the sale of wastewater taps resulting from the conversion
of an individual septic or other individual waste disposal system to the City's
wastewater uti I ity.
(20) Offset - The amount of the reduction of an impact fee designed to fairly
reflect the value of system-related facilities, pursuant to rules herein
established or administrative guidelines, provided and funded by a
developer pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations or requirements.
(21) Roadway Facility - Arterial or collector streets or roads that have been
designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the City, together with
all necessary appurtenances. Roadway facilities do not include any
roadways or associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas
highway system. Roadway facility also excludes dedication of rights-of-way
or easements or construction or dedication of on-site streets, sidewalks or
curbs required by valid ordinances of the City and necessitated by and
attributable to the new development.
(22) Roadway Facility Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any existing
roadway improvement for the purpose of serving new development, not
including the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing
roadway facility to serve existing development.
(23) Roadwav Improvements Plan - Portion of the CIP, as may be amended from
time to time, which identifies the roadway facilities or roadway facility
expansions and their associated growth-related costs which are
necessitated by and which are attributable to new development, and for a
period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole
6
__.._".---.-----------~--'---r--.-."~.---.~-.-.,-..'". ". -....-,-,~....--..-,-.~--_---~--.~-."------.-.-.---...
or in part through the imposition of roadway impact fees pursuant to this
Chapter.
(24) Service Area - For water and wastewater facilities, the area within the
corporate boundaries of the City and within the extraterritorial jurisdiction as
defined by the Municipal Annexation Act (Article 970a, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), and for roadway facilities, the area within the corporate
boundaries of the City, to be served by the water, wastewater or roadway
capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital
improvements program applicable to the service area.
(25) Service Unit - Standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or
discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for
a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions; for water
and wastewater facilities, the service unit is a living unit equivalent; for
roadway facilities, the service unit is the (vehicle) trip.
(26) Site-related Facilitv - Improvement or facility which is for the primary use or
benefit of a new development and/or which is for the primary purpose of safe
and adequate provision of water, wastewater or roadway facilities to serve
the new development, and which is not included in the capital improvements
plan, and for which the developer or property owner is solely responsible
under subdivision and other applicable regulations.
(27) Svstem-related Facilitv - A capital improvement or facility expansion which
is designated in the Capital Improvements Plan and which is not a site-
related facility. A system-related facility may include a capital improvement
which is located offsite, within or on the perimeter of the development site.
(28) Tap Purchase - The filing with the City of a written application for a water or
wastewater tap and the acceptance of applicable fees by the City. The term
"tap purchase" shall not be applicable to a meter purchased for and
exclusively dedicated to fire protection.
(29) Trip - The single operation of a single vehicle which has as its origin or
destination a point within the service area. The operation of a vehicle which
travels from an origin outside the service area to a destination outside the
service area without leaving the public right of way is not counted as a trip.
(30) Wastewater Facilitv - Improvement for providing wastewater service,
including, but not limited to, land or easements, treatment facilities, lift
stations, or interceptor mains. Wastewater facility excludes wastewater
7
I!
I'
I
II
Ii
lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are
reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of the facilities and
which are maintained in dedicated trusts. Wastewater facilities also exclude
dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of on-
site wastewater collection facilities required by valid ordinances of the City
and necessitated by and attributable to the new development.
(31) Wastewater Facilitv Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any existing
wastewater improvement for the purpose of serving new development, not
including the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing
wastewater facility to serve existing development.
(32) Wastewater Improvements Plan - Portion of the CIP, as may be amended
from time to time, which identifies the wastewater facilities or wastewater
facility expansions and their associated growth-related costs which are
necessitated by and which are attributable to new development, and for a
period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole
or in part through the imposition of wastewater impact fees pursuant to this
Chapter.
(33) Water Facilitv - Improvement for providing water service, including, but not
limited to, land or easements, water supply facilities, treatment facilities,
pumping facilities, storage facilities, or transmission mains. Water facility
excludes water lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the
costs of which are reimbursed from charges paid by subsequent users of the
facilities and which are maintained in dedicated trusts. Water facilities also
exclude dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or
dedication of on-site water distnbution facilities required by valid ordinances
of the City and necessitated by and attributable to the new development.
(34) Water Facilitv Expansion - Expansion of the capacity of any existing water
improvement for the purpose of serving new development, not including the
repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing water facility
to serve existing development.
(35) Water Improvements Plan - Portion of the CIP, as may be amended from
time to time, which identifies the water facilities or water facility expansions
and their associated growth-related costs which are necessitated by and
which are attributable to new development, and for a period not to exceed
ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part through the
Imposition of water impact fees pursuant to this Chapter.
8
II
'I
I
!
!
Section 1.05 Applicabilitv of Impact Fees
A This Chapter shall be uniformly applicable to new development which occurs
within the water, wastewater and roadway service areas.
B. No new development shall be exempt from the assessment of impact fees
as defined in this Chapter.
Section 1.06 Impact Fees as Conditions of Development Approval
!,
No final plat for new development shall be approved within the service area without
assessment of impact fees pursuant to this Chapter, and no water and wastewater tap
shall be issued and no building permit shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the
impact fees imposed by and calculated hereinunder.
Section 1.07 Establishment of Water. Wastewater and Roadwav Service Areas
A The water, wastewater and roadway service areas are established as shown
on the Service Area Map which is Exhibit A for this Chapter.
B.
The service areas shall be established consistent with any facility service
area established in the CIP for each utility. Additions to the service area
may be designated by the City Council consistent with the procedure set
forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code and its
successors.
II
I Section 1.08 Land Use Assumptions
Land use assumptions used in the development of the impact fees are contained
in Exhibit B of this Chapter. These assumptions may be revised by the City Council
according to the procedure set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code
and its successors.
Section 1.09 Service Units
A Service units are established in accordance with generally accepted
engineering and planning standards.
9
d
B. For water and wastewater impact fees, service units shall be calculated in
accordance with the land use equivalency table for living units equivalents,
which is incorporated as Exhibit H and attached hereto, as determined by
the size of the water meter(s) for the development, or alternatively, as
approved the City Engineer as a result of an engineering report prepared by
a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such professional
engineering services in the State of Texas, which demonstrates that the
number of LUE's of service for the new development will be different than
those indicated by the size of the water meter.
C.
If the Engineer determines that the water pressure in the City's transmission
main is significantly higher or lower than standard pressure such that the
size of the water meter is not indicative of actual service demand, the
Engineer may adjust the number of LUE's based on a smaller or larger sized
meter which more accurately reflects the flow rate and the system pressure
conditions.
D. If a fire demand meter (tap) is purchased for a property, the meter size
utilized to calculate the number of LUE's shall be the dimension of the
portion of the fire demand meter which reflects the meter size which would
provide only domestic service to the property. Said reduced meter size shall
then be utilized to calculate the number of LUE's.
1. The meter types used to calculate the number of LUE's shall be
either simple or compound meters.
2. If the fire protection capacity of the fire demand meter is routinely
utilized for domestic purposes as evidenced by the registration of
consumption recorded on the City's meter-reading and billing
systems, the then-owner of the property shall be assessed the then-
current fee for the fire protection capacity which has been converted
to domestic capacity by its routine usage as domestic capacity.
3. To avoid the use of fire flow volumes for domestic usage, the owner
of any property for which a fire demand meter is purchased shall be
required to execute a restrictive covenant on a form approved by the
City Attorney, which covenant shall acknowledge the right of the City
to assess such fees to subsequent owners of the property. Said
covenant shall be executed prior to the purchase of the fire demand
meter and shall be filed in the deed records of the County.
4. No fees shall be collected for the purchase of taps which shall be
utilized to provide only fire protection capacity.
10
E. Upon wastewater tap purchase for lots for which no water meter has been
purchased, service units shall be established by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Texas, shall be reviewed by the Engineer and shall
be presented to Council, which shall designate the appropriate number of
service units.
F. For roadways, service units shall be calculated in accordance with the land
use equivalency table for (vehicle) trips which is incorporated as Exhibit "I"
and attached hereto.
G. The City Council may revise the land use equivalency tables according to
the procedure set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code
and its successors.
Section 1.10 Impact Fees Per Service Unit
A The maximum impact fee per service unit for each service area shall be
computed by dividing the growth-related capital construction cost of service
in the service area identified in the capital improvements plan for that
category of capital improvements, by the total number of projected service
units anticipated within the service area which are necessitated by and
attributable to new development, based on the land use assumptions for that
service area. Maximum impact fees per service unit for each service area
shall be established by category of capital improvements and shall be set
forth in Exhibit C which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
B. The impact fee per service unit which is to be paid by each new
development within a service area shall be that established in Exhibit D,
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and shall be
an amount less than or equal to the maximum impact fee per service unit
established in subsection A
C. Exhibits C and D may be amended by the City Council according to the
procedure set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code
and its successors.
Section 1.11 Assessment of Impact Fees
A The assessment of an impact fee for any new development shall be made
in accordance with the provisions of this section.
11
~~------~
B. Assessment of the impact fee for any new development shall be made on
occurrence of the following events:
1. For new development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the
City's subdivision regulations after June 20, 1987, or for which
replatting results in an increase in the number of service units after
such date, assessment shall be at the time of final subdivision plat
approval, and shall be the amount of the impact fee per service unit,
as provided in Exhibit C then in effect The City may provide the
subdivider with a copy of Exhibit C prior to final subdivision plat
approval, but such shall not constitute assessment within the
meaning of this Chapter.
2. For new development which has received final plat approval prior to
June 20, 1987, and for which no replatting is necessary prior to the
issuance of a building permit, assessment shall be upon the issuance
of a building permit, and shall be the amount of the impact fee per
service unit set forth in Exhibit C then in effect.
3. For new development which occurs or is proposed to occur without
platting, assessment shall be upon the issuance of a building permit
or water or sewer tap purchase (whichever occurs first), and shall be
the amount of the impact fee per service unit set forth in Exhibit C
then in effect.
4. For water and wastewater facilities, fees shall not be assessed to a
development for which taps previously were purchased and which
development does not result in an increase in the number of living
unit equivalents as determined by the land use equivalency table. If
the exchange of said taps will result in an increase in the number of
LUE's, impact fees for the increase in the number of LUE's shall be
assessed in accordance with Exhibit C then in effect.
5. Because fire protection is of critical concern to the community as a
whole, water demand related solely to fire protection is not subject to
assessment or collection of an impact fee. However, if the fire
protection capacity of the fire demand meter is routinely utilized for
domestic purposes as evidenced by the registration of consumption
recorded on the City's meter-reading and billing systems, the current
owner of the property shall be assessed the impact fees currently in
effect at the time such conversion is established by the City for the
fire protection capacity which has been converted to domestic
capacity by its routine usage as domestic capacity.
12
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
C. Following assessment of the impact fee pursuant to subsection (B), no
additional impact fees or increases thereof shall be assessed against that
development unless the number of service units increases, as set forth
under Section 1.09.
D. Following the lapse or expiration of approval for a plat, a new assessment
must be performed at the time a new application for such development is
filed.
Section 1.12 Calculation of Impact Fees
A The City shall compute impact fees due for the new development in the
following manner:
1. The total service units for the new development shall be multiplied by
the impact fee per service unit established in Exhibit D; and
2. Fee credits and offsets shall be subtracted as determined by the
process proscribed in Section 1.14 of this Chapter.
C. The amount of each impact fee due for a new development shall not exceed
a amount computed by multiplying the maximum impact fee per service unit
assessed according to Exhibit C by the number of service units generated
by the development.
Section 1.13 Pavment and Collection of Impact Fees
A
No water or wastewater tap or building permit shall be issued until all impact
fees have been paid to the City, except as provided otherwise by contract.
B.
Impact fees shall be paid at the time of the issuance of a building permit,
except as provided in subsections C through E.
C.
For new development converting to the City water utility from a water well or
to the City wastewater utility from a septic tank or individual waste disposal
system, the City may allow the feepayer to pay impact fees in the form of a
monthly assessment in the same manner as monthly assessments for
related tap fees, if such an extended payment program for tap fees is
currently in effect.
13
'I
I
I
I
D. For new development which is platted in accordance with the City's
subdivision or platting procedures before the effective date of this ordinance,
no wastewater impact fee may be collected on any service unit for which a
valid building permit is issued within one year after the effective date of this
amendatory ordinance.
E.
The City may, at its sole discretion, enter into a contract with the owner of
a tract of land for which the plat has been recorded to establish a different
time and method of payment of impact fees than those provided in this
Section.
F.
Whenever a property owner proposes to increase the number of service
units for a development previously assessed, the additional impact fees to
be collected on such service units shall be determined in accordance with
Exhibit D then in effect, and such additional fees shall be collected at the
times prescribed by this section.
G. For roadway impactfees, in circumstances where non-residential uses may
be exempt from payment of fees based upon prospective generation of sales
tax revenues, such fees shall be paid as provided in this section, subject to
rebate pursuant to section 1.18, upon demonstration that more than 50% of
the floor area of the structure for which a building permit is issued will be
utilized by a business generating city sales tax revenues.
Section 1.14 Offsets and Credits Aaainst Impact Fees
II
II
A
The City shall offset the reasonable value of any system-related facilities,
pursuant to rules established in this section, which have been dedicated to
and have been received by the City, including the value of rights-of-way or
capital improvements constructed pursuant to an agreement with the City,
against the amount of the impact fee due for that category of capital
improvement, subject to administrative guidelines established by the City.
B.
The City shall credit impact, pro rata, acreage or lot fees which have been
paid pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance prior to the effective date of this
amendatory ordinance against the amount of an impact due for that category
of capital improvement, subject to administrative guidelines established by
the City.
C. All offsets and credits against impact fees shall be subject to the following
limitations and shall be granted based on this Ordinance and additional
standards promulgated by the City, which may be adopted as administrative
guidelines.
14
I
i
~__ln~~~__u .
II
I
I
1 . No offset or credit shall be given for the dedication or construction of
site-related facilities, except as set forth in Section 1.14(C)(2), or for
any capital improvement which is not identified within the applicable
capital improvements plan, unless the City agrees that such
improvement supplies capacity to new developments other than the
development paying the impact fee and provisions for offsets are
incorporated into an agreement for capital improvements.
2. Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of off-site
roadway facilities agreed to or required by the City as a condition of
development approval shall be credited against roadway impact fees
otherwise due from the development.
3. The unit costs used to calculate the offsets shall not exceed those
assumed for the capital improvements included in the capital
improvements plan for the category of facility within the service area
for which the impact fee is imposed.
4. An offset or credit created pursuant to prior impact fee ordinances
shall expire no later than ten (10) years after the effective date of this
amendatory ordinance, unless a different expiration date has been
agreed to by the City by contract or certificate. Offsets or credits
created after the effective date of this amendatory ordinance shall
expire within ten (10) years from the date the offset or credit was
created, unless otherwise prescribed by contract.
5. In no event will the City reimburse the property owner or developer
for an offset or credit when no impact fees for the new development
can be collected pursuant to this Chapter or for any value exceeding
the total impact fees due for the development for that category of
capital improvement, unless otherwise agreed to by the City.
6. Offsets or credits created after the effective date of this amendatory
ordinance for a development which has received final plat approval
prior to the effective date hereof shall be discounted to take into
account the number of service units in the development which will
utilize the facility for which the offset or credit was given.
D. An applicant for new development must apply for an offset or credit against
impact fees due for the development either at or before the time of plat
recordation, unless the City agrees to a different time. The applicant shall
file a petition for offsets or credits with the City on a form provided for such
purpose. The contents of the petition shall be established by administrative
15
guidelines. The City must provide the applicant, in writing, with a decision
on the offset or credit request, including the reasons for the decision. The
decision shall specify the maximum value of the offset or credit which may
be applied against an impact fee, which value and the date of the
determination shall be associated with the plat for the new development.
E. The available offset or credit associated with the plat shall be applied
against an impact fee in the following manner:
1. Such offset or credit shall be prorated proportionally among all
service units, or for roadway facilities, among all units of trip
generation, as calculated from the applicable land use equivalency
table, and shall remain applicable to such service units, to be applied
at time of filing and acceptance of an application for a building permit,
against impact fees due.
2. If the total number of service units used by the City in the original
offset or credit calculation described in subsection (1) is eventually
exceeded by the number of total service units realized by the actual
development, the City may, at its sole discretion, collect the full
impact fee exclusive of any associated offset or credits for the excess
service units.
3. At its sole discretion, the City may authorize alternative credit or
offset agreements upon petition by the owner in accordance with
guidelines promulgated by the City.
Section 1.15 Establishment of Accounts and Records
A The City shall establish separate interest-bearing accounts, in a bank
authorized to receive deposits of City funds, for each major category of
capital facility for which an impact fee is imposed pursuant to this Chapter.
B. Interest earned by each account shall be credited to that account and shall
be used solely for the purposes specified for funds authorized in Section
1.16.
C. The City shall establish adequate financial and accounting controls to
ensure that impact fees disbursed from the account are utilized solely for the
purposes authorized in Section 1.16. Disbursement of funds shall be
authorized by the City at such times as are reasonably necessary to carry
out the purposes and intent of this Chapter; provided, however, that any fee
16
I'
II
paid shall be expended within a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed
ten (10) years from the date the fee is deposited into the account.
D. The City shall maintain and keep adequate financial records for each such
account, which shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues,
which shall account for all monies received, and which shall ensure that the
disbursement of funds from each account shall be used solely and
exclusively for the provision of uses specified in the capital improvements
program as system-related capital projects. The City Finance Department
shall also maintain such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are
appropriately made under the provision in Section 1.18 of this Chapter, and
such other information as may be necessary for the proper implementation
of this Chapter.
Section 1.16 Use of Proceeds of Impact Fee Accounts
A The impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter may be used to finance
or to recoup capital construction costs of service. Impact fees may also be
used to pay the principal sum and interest and other finance costs on bonds,
notes or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance such
capital improvements or facilities expansions.
B. Impact fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall not be used to pay for
any of the following expenses:
1. Construction, acquisition or expansion of capital improvements or
assets other than those identified in the associated capital
improvements plans;
2. Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital
improvements or facilities expansions;
3. Upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to
serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental or regulatory standards;
4. Upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to
provide better service to existing development; provided however,
that impact fees may be used to pay the costs of upgrading,
expanding or replacing existing capital improvements in order to meet
the need for new capital improvements generated by new
development; or
17
II
I
I
5. Administrative and operating costs of the City.
Section 1.17 Appeals
A The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the
following decisions to the City Manager or his/her designate:
1. The applicability of an impact fee to the development;
2. The value of the impact fee due;
3. The availability or the value of an offset or credit;
4. The application of an offset or credit against an impact fee due;
5. The amount of the refund due, if any; or
6. The alternative determination by the City Engineer concerning the
size of the water meter which is to be converted to service units,
pursuant to section 1.09.
B. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the value
of the fee or the value of the offset or credit was not calculated according to
the applicable impact fee schedule or the ordinance provisions and
guidelines established for determining offsets and credits.
C. The appellant may appeal the decision of the City Manager to the Council.
A notice of appeal to the Council must be filed by the applicant with the City
Secretary within thirty (30) days following the City Manager's decision. If the
notice of appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety
satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount equal to the original
determination of the impact fee due, the development application or tap
purchase or building permit issuance may be processed while the appeal is
pending.
Section 1.18 Refunds
A Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Chapter which
has not been expended within ten (10) years from the date of payment, shall
be refunded, upon application, to the record owner of the property at the
time the refund is paid, or, if the impact fee was paid by another
18
governmental entity, to such governmental entity, together with interest
calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory
rate as set forth in Micle 1.03, Title 79, Revised Statutes (Article 5069-1.03,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), or any successor statute.
B. If a refund is due pursuant to subsection (A), the City shall pro-rate the same
by dividing the difference between the amount of expenditures and the
amount of the fees collected by the total number of service units assumed
within the service area for the period to determine the refund due per service
unit. The refund to the record owner or governmental entity shall be
calculated by multiplying the refund due per service unit by the number of
service units for the development for which the fee was paid, and interest
due shall be calculated upon that amount.
C. Upon completion of all the capital improvements or facilities expansions
identified in the capital improvements plan upon which the fee was based,
the City shall recalculate the maximum impact fee per service unit using the
actual costs for the improvements or expansions. If the maximum impact fee
per service unit based on actual cost is less than the impact fee per service
unit paid, the City shall refund the difference, if such difference exceeds the
impact fee paid by more than ten percent (10%). The refund to the record
owner or governmental entity shall be calculated by multiplying such
difference by the number of service units for the development for which the
fee was paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount.
D. Upon the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has
been paid, the City shall refund such fees if:
1. Existing service is available and service is denied; or
2. Service was not available when the fee was collected and the City
has failed to commence construction of facilities to provide service
within two years of fee payment; or
3. Service was not available when the fee was collected and has not
subsequently been made available within a reasonable period of time
considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to
be constructed, but in any event later than five years from the date of
fee payment.
E. The City shall refund an appropriate proportion of impact fee payments in
the event that a previously purchased unused water meter is replaced with
a smaller meter, based on the LUE differential of the two meter sizes and the
19
per-LUE fee at the time of the original fee payment, less an administrative
charge of $50.
F. Petition for refunds shall be submitted to the Engineer on a form provided
by the City for such purpose. Within one month of the date of receipt of a
petition for refund, the Engineer must provide the petitioner, in writing, with
a decision on the refund request, including the reasons for the decision. If
a refund is due to the petitioner, the Engineer shall notify the Finance
Director and request that a refund payment be made to the petitioner. The
petitioner may appeal the determination to the City Manager and Council,
as set forth in Section 1.17.
G. The City shall rebate roadway impact fees to the owner of property on which
a building permit has been isued, for which such permit has expired without
construction pursuant thereto, or in circumstances where more than 50% of
the structure for which a building permit has been issued will be utilized by
a commercial or industrial business that generates city sales tax revenues.
Section 1.19 Updates to Plan and Revision of Fees
The City shall review the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for
water, wastewater and roadway facilities at least every three years, the first three year
period which shall commence from the date of adoption of the capital improvements plan
referenced herein. The City Council shall accordingly then make a determination of
whether changes to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan or impact fees
are needed and shall, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the
Texas Local Government Code, or any successor statute, either update the fees or make
a determination that no update is necessary.
Section 1.20 Functions of Advisorv Committee
A The functions of the Advisory Committee are those set forth in Chapter 395
of the Texas Local Government Code, or any successor statute, and shall
include the following:
1. Advise and assist the City in adopting land use assumptions;
2. Review the capital improvements plan regarding water, wastewater
and roadway capital improvements and file written comments
thereon;
20
_.......-___,u.___.,,______~_ __'0--___. h" .__,_,_~.~_~_~.__..H _<,__. ", "'~_'_"~"" .-
3. Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements
program;
4. Advise the City of the need to update or revise the land use
assumptions, capital improvements program and impact fees; and
5. File a semiannual report evaluating the progress of the City in
achieving the capital improvements plans and identifying any
problems in implementing the plans or administering the impact fees.
B. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee any professional
reports prepared in the development or implementation of the capital
improvements plan.
C. The Council shall adopt procedural rules for the committee to follow in
carrying out its duties.
Section 1.21 AQreement for Capital Improvements
A The City Council may approve the owner of a new development to construct
or finance some of the public improvements identified in the CIP. In the
case of such approval, the property owner must enter into an agreement
with the City prior to fee collection. The agreement shall be on a form
approved by the City, and shall establish the estimated cost of improvement,
the schedule for initiation and completion of the improvement, a requirement
that the improvement shall be completed to City standards, and any other
terms and conditions the City deems necessary. The Engineer shall review
the improvement plan, verify costs and time schedules, determine if the
improvement is contained in the CIP, and determine the amount of the
applicable credit for such improvement to be applied to the otherwise
applicable impact fee before submitting the proposed agreement to the
Council for approval.
B. The City and such owner either may agree that the costs incurred or funds
advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the
new development, or they may agree that the City shall reimburse the owner
for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments which will
use such capital improvements or facility expansions.
21
! Section 1.22 Use of Other Financina Mechanisms
I
!
!
I
II
A
The City may finance water, wastewater and roadway capital improvements
or facilities expansions designated in the capital improvements plan through
the issuance of bonds, through the formation of public improvement districts
or other assessment districts, or through any other authorized mechanism,
in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law,
in addition to the use of impact fees.
B. Except as herein otherwise provided, the assessment and collection of an
impact fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution
of, any other tax, fee, charge or assessment which is lawfully imposed on
and due against the property.
Section 1.23 Exemption
A new development, more than 50% of which is utilized by a commercial or
industrial business generating city sales tax revenues, shall be exempt from
payment of roadway impact fees.
I,
'I Section 1.24 Impact Fees as Additional and Supplemental Reaulation
A. Impact fees established by this Chapter are additional and supplemental to,
and not in substitution of, any other requirements imposed by the City on the
development of land or the issuance of building permits or the sale of water
or wastewater taps. Such fees are intended to be consistent with and to
further the policies of City's Comprehensive Plan, capital improvements
plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other City policies,
ordinances and resolutions by which the City seeks to ensure the provision
of adequate public facilities in conjunction with the development of land.
B. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property,
density of development, design, and improvement standards and
requirements, or any other aspect of the development of land or provision
of public improvements subject to the zoning and subdivision regulations or
other regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full
force and effect without limitation with respect to all such development.
22
Section 1.25 Relief Procedures
A Any person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land upon which an
impact fee has been paid may petition the Council to determine whether any
duty required by this ordinance has not been performed within the time so
prescribed. The petition shall be in writing and shall state the nature of the
unperformed duty and request that the act be performed within sixty (60)
days of the request. If the Council determines that the duty is required
pursuant to the ordinance and is late in being performed, it shall cause the
duty to commence within sixty (60) days of the date of the request and to
continue until completion.
B. The Council may grant a variance or waiver from any requirement of this
ordinance, upon written request by a developer or owner of property subject
to the ordinance, following a public hearing, upon finding that a strict
application of such requirement would, when regarded as a whole, result in
confiscation of the property.
23
ARTICLE II
WATER FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
Section 2.01 Water Service Area
A There is hereby established a water service area as depicted on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the water service area may be amended from time to
time, and new water service areas may be delineated, pursuant to the
procedures in Section 1.07.
Section 2.02 Water Improvements Plan
A The Water Improvements Plan for the City is hereby adopted as Exhibit E
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Water Improvements Plan may be amended from time to time, pursuant
to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government
Code and its successors.
Section 2.03 Water Impact Fees
A The maximum impact fees per service unit for water facilities are hereby
adopted and incorporated in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
B. The impact fees per service unit for water facilities which are to be paid by
each new development are hereby adopted and incorporated in Exhibit D
attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
C. The impact fees per service unit for water facilities may be amended from
time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.10.
24
II
I
I
I
ARTICLE III
WASTEWATER FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
Section 3.01 Wastewater Service Area
A There is hereby established a wastewater service area as depicted on
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the wastewater service area may be amended from time
to time, and new wastewater service areas may be delineated, pursuant to
the procedures in Section 1.07.
Section 3.02 Wastewater Improvements Plan
A The Wastewater Improvements Plan for the City is hereby adopted as
Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Wastewater Improvements Plan may be amended from time to time,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code and its successors.
Section 3.03 Wastewater Impact Fees
A The maximum impact fees per service unit for wastewater facilities are
hereby adopted and incorporated in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a
part hereof by reference.
B. The impact fees per service unit for wastewater facilities which are to be
paid by each new development are hereby adopted and incorporated in
Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
C. The impact fee per service unit for wastewater facilities may be amended
from time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.10.
25
I,
I
ARTICLE IV
ROADWAY FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
II Section 4.01 Roadwav Service Areas
A There is hereby established roadway service areas as depicted on Exhibit
A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the roadway service areas may be amended from time to
time, and new wastewater service areas may be delineated, pursuant to the
procedures in Section 1.07.
Section 4.02 Roadwav Improvements Plan
A The Roadway Improvements Plan for the City is hereby adopted as Exhibit
G attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Roadway Improvements Plan may be amended from time to time,
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code and its successors.
Section 4.03 Roadwav Impact Fees
A The maximum impact fees per service unit for roadway facilities are hereby
adopted and incorporated in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part
hereof by reference.
B. The impact fees per service unit for roadway facilities which are to be paid
by each new development are hereby adopted and incorporated in Exhibit
D attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
C. The impact fees per service unit for roadway facilities may be amended from
time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.10.
(End Section 11 of the Subdivision Ordinance)
Sec. 2.
THAT this ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be cumulative of all
other ordinances of the City, and this ordinance shall not operate to repeal
or affect any of such other ordinances except insofar as the provisions
thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance, in which event such conflicting provisions, if any, in such other
ordinance or ordinances are hereby repealed.
I
I
I
~_._-~._._-~-_.._.__._-_._---~--~-~~
26
Sec. 3.
Sec. 4.
Sec. 5.
Sec. 6.
Sec. 7.
If any sentence, section, subsection, clause, phrase, part or provision of this
Chapter be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the
same shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole, or any part
thereof, other than the part declared to be invalid.
The provisions of this Chapter shall be liberally construed to effectively carry
out its purposes, which are hereby found and declared to be in furtherance
of the public health, safety, and welfare. Any member of the Councilor any
City official or employee charged with the enforcement of this ordinance,
acting for the City in the discharge of his or her duties, shall not thereby
render himself or herself personally liable; and is hereby relieved from all
personal liability for any damage that might accrue to persons or property
as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of said duties.
Any violation of this ordinance can be enjoined by a suit filed in the name of
the City in court of competent jurisdiction, and this remedy shall be in
addition to any penal provision in this ordinance or in the Code of the City.
This Chapter shall take effect upon passage as provided by City Charter.
The City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause publication
of the descriptive caption and penalty clause hereof as an alternate method
of publication provided by law.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
The first reading and public hearing being conducted on this the ,5"iJ.- day of
S f'.p+~wtbt( , 1995. tA.
The second reading and public hearing being conducted on this the I q - day of
l Sa.p +- uVLh t.1" ,1995. . d
The third reading and public hearing being conducted on this the 3 r, day of
O~+o hif ,1995.
ATTEST:
JJ~
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
r?lP
Je n Harris, CMC
City Secretary
Ed Baker
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
;j?T~
Ross T. Foster
City Attorney
27
ORDINANCE 0-95-1004
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A - Service Area Map
EXHIBIT B - Land Use Assumptions
Land Use Plan Map
EXHIBIT B1 - Water and Wastewater Land Use Assumptions
EXHIBIT B2 - Current and Projected Land Uses and Population
EXHIBIT C - Schedjule of Maximum Impact Fees
EXHIBIT D - Schedule of Maximum Impact Fees to be Collected
EXHIBIT E - Water Improvements Plan
Capacity Demand for Each New Water Lue
Current Meter Count and Estimation of Living Units Equivalent
Estimated Water Service Demand by Faicility Type
Water CIP Inventory and Costing
Categorization of Water Utility Debt
Water Maximum Impact Fee
EXHIBIT F - Wastewater Improvements Plan
Capacity Demand for Each New Wastewater LUE
Estimated Wastewater Service Demand by Facility Type
Wastewater CIP Inventory and Costing
Categorization of Wastewater Utility Debt
Wastewater Maximum Impact Fee
EXHIBIT G - Roadway Improvements Plan
Transportation System Impact Fee Determination 1994-2004
EXHIBIT H - Water and Wastewater LUE Multipliers
EXHIBIT I - Land Use Equivalency Table
28
PAGE 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
37
38
39
44
47
48
49
49
50
55
57
58
59
81
82
EXHIBIT A
SERVICE AREA MAP
SERVICE AREA 2
.
.
iI
.
....iI
CREEK
.... ......S...........
.
JOHN MeCAIN RD.
i
'"
c
...
~
t.k~LL 501001. RO.
SERVICE
AREA 1
LO.lOCKETT RD.
'"
...
>
=
~
g;
c
....
<.>
....
z
o
2
...
. ........-
~If
...
~
if
~
Q,
;
19
GlACE RD.
::
.,;
.
.
.
......
Description of Service Areas
LEGEND
Water Service Area: Entire City
Wastewater Service Area: Entire City
Roadway Service Area 1: East of SH 26
Roadway Service Area 2: West of SH 26
. II II.. - SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
. . . . . .. - PLANNING ZONE
29
.. ~.,"_.________._,.~~._~,.._ ."_w_.>..,,.,..",~._.
ORDINANCE 0-95-1004
EXHIBIT B
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Contains the following:
EXHIBIT B1 - Water and Wastewater Land Use Assumptions
EXHIBIT B2 - Current and Projected Land Uses and Population
Land Use Plan Map.
· This map is a representation of the Official Land Use
Map on display in the City Council Chambers.
30
31
32
33
EXHIBIT B-1
WATER AND WASTEWATER LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
CURRENT AND PROJECTED lAND USES AND POPULATION
FOR THE CITY OF COLLEYVILl..E
I I .
1991 .. 1994 2004 ULTIMATE
..
..
LAND USE AC " } AC " AC " AC "
[a] , [b] . [b] [a]
Single Family 3,051 35.98% 3,338 39.36% 5,233 61.71% 6,750 79.60%
Multifamily 20 0.24% 13 0.15% 13 0.15% 13 0.15%
School 74 0.87% 81 0.95% 127 1.50% 161 1.90%
Building Institution 11 0.13% 11 0.13% 11 0.13% 11 0.13%
Churches 38 0.45% 38 0.45% 38 0.45% 38 0.45%
Cemeteries 110 1.30% 110 1.30% 110 1.30% 110 1.30%
SUBTOTAL .. ..... .,. 3,304 I 38.96% 3,591 42.35" 5,532 65.24" 7,083 83.53%
Business/Commercial 194 2.29% 212 2.50% 333 3.92% 750 8.84%
Industrial [el 160 1.89% 160 1.89% 160 1.89% 160 1.89%
, 4.17"
SUBTOTAL Cd] .,... 354 372 4.39" 493 5.81" 910 10.73%
Parks 189 2.23% 207 2.44% 324 3.82% 487 5.74%
SUBTOTAL 189 2.23% 207 2.44% 324 3.82% 487 5.74"
Vacant 4,633 54.63% 4,310 50.82% 2, 131 25.13% 0 0.00%
I TOTAL II 8,480 I 1 00.00% II 8,480 1100.00% II 8,480 I 100.00% " 8,480 I 100.00% I
DWELLING UNITS 4,942 5,407 8,477 11 ,588
[cl [c]
POPULATION/DWELLING UNIT [c] 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11
ESTIMATED POPULATION 15,370 16,816 26,363 36,039
{aJ Source: City of Colleyville Land Use and Thoroughfare Plan Elements of the Colleyville Master Plan, 2/2/94, except for current industrial use,
which was measured by City Staff.
{bJ Prorated according to chDnge in dwelling unit growth, except for st:Jble land uses.
{cJ Source: City Staff.
fdJ Master Plan includ8l$ a total of 910 acres for a combined Business/Commercial and Industrial Uses at Ultimate Buildout
31
N
I
~
-
~
~
-
-
C)
U
....
C)
.e-
U
~
.c
-
...
~
eM
~~
=-
:; .
=.,l'Il
= =
g.Z
"'Cl =
e e
=<
l'Il ~
:;: u
;:J .-
"'Cl ~
e ~
=00
.J
"'Cl
~
-
u
~
.C'
...
g.
"'Cl
e
=
-
e
e
...
=
U
lJ:l
~
lJ:l
J:
X
W
2 II) .S! l'l ~ ~ ~ il ., 0 ,~ 8 ~ 8
- - ,...
CJi ci - ci ci - ci - on i8 ~ ~
,... ::;:;:::....
lil ~ ~ - ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 i! ~ - i
..... - - -
"",',;u t; - (W)
itJ'!i -
-
,... ~ N II) ~ 0 8 I/) lR 0 "",.8 ~ ~ ~
.. \I) "': - -
,. f!! - oj (W) an iiS 0;; 0;;
...~ :~:::'..
~ l'l ;:: (I) Ql 0 ~ ~ l!i 0 oti ~ - ~
,~ - - -
- :-:::;.~ (W)
l'l """""
....... -
....
.. &l 0 S - ~ ~ ;; ~ &J 0 ,.J~ ~ 0< ~
- z
.. I!! N N ci ci ,,; \8 $ $
: ....
! 0 i I/) Ql ~ Ie ~ ~ 0 .......~ ,... - !
c ":::;~ - ~
- l'l (W)
.....-...;. -
~ \I) ~ l'l ~ ~ &J ~ &l l'l :1 8 ~ 8
- - -
... ;; - - (W) - (W) lQ ~ ~
rl ;':::.:~
a l'l ~ - ~ 0 ~ 2 ., ;;; ..! ~ - ~
- - - ~ -
""",j - - - N (W)
:.:.:.;:.... I/)
:.;.".:.;.:.:.
l!l ~ ~ \I) ~ 0 8 \I) :B , ",.,8 :8 ~ :8
............. - -
'rl lB - (W) (W) . ~ ,8 ~ ~
t',',lll ;::-:.'"
;:iI ! ~ lR (I) ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 J,!S ~ - ~
(:::~ - - (W)
.:.:-:.:.:.:.;. - r~
... -
.... 8 0 ~ - ~ ~ i ~ :B lD >8 - ~ -
.... - - -
::::.::,... 13 - N . N ~ :8 N N
"""'. \I) \I)
..,~ ...
~;:I ~ 0 ~ II) ~ 0 III ~ ~ ~ "S ,... - ~
; -
- - (W)
... . -
~ \I) S l'l ~ ~ lil il ; 13 ::8 8 ~ 8
- -
~ ci ci ci ci N - N S }8 8 ~
.:-:::::,...
~ ~ ;; - ~ 5! N ~ ~ 0 "I ~ - (I)
i:::t~ - N ~ - i
- (W)
....... -
~::::::::::;.. ~ ~ ~ II) ~ 0 ~ \I) \I) s '1 \I) ~ I/)
- - - iJ -
:::0:. ;;; - (W) (W) m ~
i::~ .-......
..:.;-:.:.:-;-: ~ l'l ~ (I) ~ 0 il ~ ~ ~ ti ~ - i
... ...
".,~ - - :::.:.::W- N (W)
:...:: - - . "'",;oor
...
~ 0 l'l ... ~ ~ ~ i! ~ 8 <a. :B 0< :B
- - z
, - N (W) - rJ 8 2 fa
........
~ 0 " \I) ~ ~ ~ ~ r::: N :1 ~ - ~
:::'~ ,... -
- - CD (W)
""'~ -
i ~ ,... l'l ~ ~ l!l ~ ~ 13 :.8 8 ~ 8
CD -
!Ii ci ci ci ci N - N ~ ,:~ 8 ~
-
~ ~ ., - ~ 0 iI iii Z i ..! i - ~
lt~ ,,... - - -
- - - - (W)
..... -
... ~ ~ ~ ,... ~ 0 ., \I) S N ::; 13 0< :l
..... f'! ~ z
"",,1 ~ - (W) (W) :; ~ ~
.i,l~ ~ ~ ~ ,... ~ 0 Wi ~ ~ ~ >'"t:; I - ~
,j,:.= -
- ... .;:::;::.... (W) ;;
... ",/"". -
....
....lli~ ~ 0 Ci ~ ~ ~ l!l ~ ~ 0 \8. ,... 0< ,..
- i z i
t= ~ - N (W) - , :'~
"'~Ir ! 0 ; ., lD 5! ~ ~ ~ i HI ., - ~
.."...".,.!i - ~ -
- - (W) St
-
li I
~ j ) II i
i :~ 1,S ~ I c Go
!5 1! ::l i
lL E .. li ~
J! .5 to i j
! I ~ ~ ~ C!
~ ~ j ~ -e
to "2 .. "
rn ~ aJ 0 0 aJ Go Go ::l W
32
II'l'.,!". ~ J
i : "'c';(1 \ \ ~
: =."~"7~.a-
. ..l .--
1 c iI :i J
~ 1 li i
0 :I :, .
..I tli '. ,
z ~ i " i~ I ~I ': i
j 8 lIo. -<' a: .1 ;
a.w~ .. :, I
> ji!
W~..1 a: ( i. i
"'a:O c .i.
:l
=ou a: 141
Qu.u. III . ~' I, j
Z 0 ... I if :
j ~ '" .
.. ,i:
u -.- .......... c
I .......... 0
... .......... I ~ :
... ::I!::: I
... 'I'
... I. ;
!.! !ll
=
c .",
"1
:1,
\.
. ,'\~ .
. ~\....
. .
.
'\ _i..... Y
I~\
--"L,~
\:.0.......
. ~'--.
" " ,?
\0:1 " '
.\\ iI "
~~
~)..
u.q:
O~
~~
o Q .
j:: CI)
~a::
~01Ll
ffiQ.~
CI)~q:
~UJ~
Q.CI)..,J
1LI;::,_
a:: 0
q:~~
Cl)q:O
-..,JO
Q...,J)..
oq:-1-
~~-
-=00
Cl)i:i:1LI
-u.-
i:o~
33
EXHIBIT C
SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES
The maximum impact fees assessed are as follows:
Water:
$816 per LUE
Sewer:
$51 per LUE
Roadways:
Land Use Service Unit ... Area 1 Fee Area 2 Fee
Single Family Dwelling Unit $1,690 $1 ,767
Multi-Family Dwelling Unit $1 ,145 $1,197
Schools Student $193 $202
Institutions Acre $8,850 $9,250
Church 1,000 Square Feet $1,650 $1,724
Cemeteries Acre $736 $770
Commercial Acre $54,516 $56,980
Industrial Acre $9,204 $9,620
34
Water:
EXHIBIT D
SCHEDULE OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES TO BE COLLECTED
$816 per LUE
$51 per LUE
Sewer:
Roadwavs:
',' ..,.......-.- "".'"....". 0._,.... ____. ___.,......
." ,_. ~. ..-....,............... .........-..._-..............-...........
.... . .:;Da1.Fe;nnU.Arfia2':f'ii'}
Single Family Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family Dwelling Unit
Schools Student
Institutions Acre
$1,600 $1,600
$1,100 $1 ,100
$190 $190
$8,000 $8,000
$1,600 $1,600
$700 $700
$3,000 $3,000
$3,000 $3,000
$0 $0
Church 1,000 Square Feet
Cemeteries Acre
Non-Sales Tax Generating Acre
Commercial
Non-Sales Tax Generating Acre
Industrial
Sales Tax Generating Acre
Commercial and Industrial
35
ORDINANCE 0-95-1004
EXHIBIT E
WATER IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Contains the following:
Capacity Demand for Each New Water Lue
Current Meter Count and Estimation of Living Units Equivalent
Estimated Water Service Demand by Faicility Type
Water CIP Inventory and Costing
Categorization of Water Utility Debt
Water Maximum Impact Fee
37
37
38
39
44
47
36
CAPACITY DEMAND FOR EACH NEW WATER LUE
., . - -.-. .... ..., -. ......."..... ... < ~R()e()RTIOr-J,c\TE> . ..... ....
I.. ..... ......". ...... . '.--...-.
... ... ........ - ....
..._, d. ._.. ..'.__..
.... '-'. - -, ... ..... --..... ,_..
........ ,...", -,- .."_...,..,,... '-,. -,.. -.-.......
..- -,- -. . -..-. ..,... ""'''''''''''-'
. -- -. . '.... .'. ..
.... .... ... -, ,........
.......... --. .. ..., -. '.._- .....
... ,..... "" - ..- -..,. . -, -.-..
. ........ FACILITY CONTROLLING BASIS < .. CAPACITY PERLUE
SupplyfTreatment Peak Day 2,251 gallons daily
Pumpage Engineer's Analysis 1 ,409 gallons daily
Ground Storage State Board of Insurance 397 gallons
Elevated Storage 1 5% of Peak Day 427 gallons
Major Transmission Engineering Analysis Per analysis
SOURCE:
Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc., June 1, 1995. Water System Design Criteria.
CURRENT METER COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF
UVING UNITS EQUIVALENT
NUMBER OF 1 LUEs PER . NUMBER
METER SIZE METERS (a) '.....METER(b)... .OF LUEs
3/4" 2,901 1.000 2,901
1" 2,995 1.000 2,995
1%" 35 2.000 70
2" 70 3.200 224
3" 4 6.000 24
4" 1 10.000 10
.... .....
Total. .. 6,006 ... ... ........ I. ... .. 6,224
Population 16,816
Population/LUE 2.70
(a) Source: Derived from City of Colleyville customer count, January
1994; and distribution of meters by size, March, 1995.
(b) See Table 5-6.
37
ESTIMATED WATER SERVICE DEMAND BY FACIUTY TYPE
i LU~'S(~) tie! VOLUME I
FACIUTYTYPE 1994 .., .:.:2004. I ULTIMATE
i 6,224 i 9,758 13,339 I
WATER SUPPLY AND TREATMENT PEAK MGD: (b)
Estimated Demand 14.011 21.996 30.027
Existing Capacity (t) 14.011 14.011 14.011
Excess! (Deficiency) . . ..... 0.000 (7.955)
............ ..... 'i.. I . (16.016)
BOOSTER PUMP PEAK MGD: (c)
Estimated Demand 8.768 13.747 18.792
Existing Capacity (t) 0.000 0.000 0.000
Excess/(Deficiency) . ... 1><(13.747)..
. (8.768)d (18.792)
GROUND STORAGE MG: (d)
Estimated Demand 2.473 3.8n 5.300
Existing Capacity (t) 1.200 1. 200 1.200
Excess/ (Deficiency) . >:.'. .....(1.273) . (2.6n) ... (4.100)
ELEVATED WATER STORAGE MG: (e)
Estimated Demand 2.660 4.170 5.700
Existing Capacity (t) 2.500 2.500 2.500
Excess!(Deficiency) ... . (0.160) ......... (1.670) ... (3.200)
.....
(a) 1994 LUE's Illken from Table 5-5. 2004 and ultimate LUE's determined by 1995 persons per LUE. (LUE
= 2.70 persons)
(b) Capacfty Demand = 2,251 gallons/LUE/day.
(c) Capacity Demand = 1,4099allons/LUE/day.
(d) Capacity Demand = 397 gallons/LUE. Some 9round storoge provided by elevated storage; TRA ground
storage is reseNe.
(e) Capacity Demand = 427 gallons/LUE.
(f) Existing Capacity delllils are conlllined in Table 5-8.
38
WATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
.. . ..
I ACIL
...... .. ........ .... .
.. TYPE..' .. ...... ... ..... ... . NAME.
.. .... .... ...............
.... .. ._-
..' .
I .. . >.
... ,>. . ... . ......
SUPPLY AND TREATMENT
EXISTING FACIUTIES
TRA Plant Facilities (d)
$8,239,310
..
... '.- ..._--..
..-.... -,.. ..--.."'
Subtotal Existing Supply/Trea1ment ...........$8.23e.310
FUTURE FACIUTIES
.
..-. '...........
FACILITY CAPAClTYtrnQdOr981S)"'>
..._-..._-. .....
..-. .......... ,... .....-., .'..---..
... FOR . .f)(CESS EXCESS
CURRENT.<JO .......>10...
.........::- ..... . <CUST... ......YEARS.. ..YEARS .......
PEAK MGD
14.011
14.011
0.000
14.011 . ... 14.011
0.000
39
<NEXT..
.....".- ..
..10-YEAR
..... CAPITAL
<"COST
. . TOTAL
0.000
0.000.1... . .
NEXT
10-YEAR
...COST .
PER WE
(aY.
$0
$0
WATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
..... \ ......-.- . -'.-, .'.
> i \ FACIUTYCAPACrry(mgdOr 9aIs) : NEXT. NEXT ..
!. . -.- . .... .'.
. <\ .. -.. - ..."...-..... ........ ....... 10-YEAR . 10-YEAR
..... ."..-.. """" ... ,.... .. '--"',.
(,;051 ... ....FOR.....:.... .... .. exCESs .. ... EXCESS. CAPITAL COST
.....
JUIAL CURRENT <10 . . > 10 .. COST PER WE
I .
TYPE . . NAME ..... .... I. ..... ... ..... CUST;... . YEARS : YEARS TOTAL ...... (a)
GROUND STORAGE
EXISTING FACIUTlES MG
Glade Road (To be abandoned) (e)
Overland Trail (h, k) $88,692 1.200
Subtotal Existirlg Facilities 1< ... ._~.. . !. Ii>
.... .. ...... $88,692 1.200 /1.200 0.000 I.. 0.000 $0
FUTURE FACIUTIES
McDonwell School Road (t, h) $1,820,000 4.100 1.273 1 .404 1 .423
.. ....: 4.1ooi ..... .......1m < $623,294.
.. ... Subtotal Future FaCIlities .<. $1,820,000 .. .1.404 1.423 ....
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $1,820,000 5.300 2.473 1.404 1.423 $623,294 $176.38
.. (b) (e) . (e) ........... .....
ElEVATED STORAGE
EXISTING FACIUTIES MGD
Hall-Johnson Road (h) $888,500 1.500
Bransford Road (h) $568,391 1.000
Subtotal Existing Facilities $1,456,891 ... .... k
2.500 2.300 0.099 0.101 .... $57,889
FUTURE FACIUTIES
Pleasant Run Road (t, h} $1,620,000 2.200
Western Trails (High Plane) (t, h) $900,000 1.000
Subtotal Future Facilities . $2,520,000 3.200 0.360 ....... 1.411 1.430 . $1,110,973
Hi TOTAL ElEVATED STORAGE $3,976,891 5.700 2.660 , 1.510 1.530 $1,168,863 $330.76
.... . i. \i ..............,.. . (e) (el . I.. .. ..
....
40
WATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
........ . . .. ..... ~ ..... .... ..:0:.....1. -00....--. 'FACIUTYCAPACrry(mgd otgals) it ... .
I ..............L.... ....................i......(..... ....NEXT . NEXT
<~A"''' rrv ............. ... ..."...."..... ---,-... JO-YEAR .10-YEAR
,- . ..... ."..._,. ..-.
1(> ........... ./ ..< ..(i ...... ......................FOR........./.... EXCESS EXCESS ... ...CAPITAl.. . COST
...--.,.. ..... .._-.
l'YPE/.. :!.... .. . ..... ...> < .... ( TOTJ\L CURRENT> <10 . >10.... >.COST .. PER WE
......... .......<. """'1111:: ~ . .. .........CUST........ .. '.YEARS YEARS ....TOTAL. .(8)<
TRANSMISSION UNES
EXISTING FACIUTIES (i) %
Bransford Road (k) $425,195 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $110,282
Brown Trail (Study Une 33) $6,688 100.00% 47.n% 25.94% 26.29% $1,735
Brown Trail (Study Une 1033) $4,518 100.00% 47.75% 25.95% 26.30% $1,173
Brown Trail (Study Une 1032) $6,638 100.00% 47.76% 25.95% 26.29% $1,722
Brown Trail (Study Une 272) $1 ,580 100.00% 47.87% 25.89% 26.24% $409
Brown Trail (Study Une 61) $12,556 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $3,257
Brown Trail (Study Unes 62, 464) $12,317 100.00% 47.n% 25.94% 26.29% $3,195
Oak Knoll Drive (Study Une 1064) $13,511 100.00% 48.34% 25.66% 26.00% $3,467
Oak Knoll Drive (Study Une 1065) $8.978 100.00% 47.53% 26.06% 26.41% $2.340
Jackson Road (Study Une 1 327) $9,523 100.00% 47.86% 25.90% 26.24% $2,466
Jackson Road (Unes 104, 538) $11,682 100.00% 47.76% 25.95% 26.29% $3,031
Pool Road $8,975 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $2,328
Arbor Trail $65,096 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $16,884
Amador Trail $68,595 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $17,791
Hall Johnson Road $138,443 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $35,908
Hall Johnson Road $58,323 100.00% 47.79% 25.93% 26.28% $15,124
Hall Johnson Rd Elevated Supply $19,289 100.00% 47.n% 25.94% 26.29% $5,004
Bluebonnet (Study Unes 875, 876) $30,892 100.00% 47.79% 25.93% 26.28% $8,011
Bluebonnet (Unes 572, 573, 205) $58,129 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $15,On
Bluebonet (Study Une 492) $30,117 100.00% 47.75% 25.95% 26.30% $7,816
Cherry Lane $22,099 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $5,732
Rose Street $29,393 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $7,623
Behrens Road (Study Une 940) $6,655 100.00% 47.82% 25.92% 26.2SO.4. $1.725
Behrens Road (Study Une 941) $27,769 100.00% 47.83% 25.91 % 26.26% $7,195
Behrens Road (Study Une 938) $10,895 100.00% 47.85% 25.90% 26.25% $2,822
41
WATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
.. .... , . FACIUTYCAPACrrY(mgd orgais) . NEXT . I NEXT
......
..>r.. ..... "'A"" !TV /> ... CONSTRUCT \/ .. ..10-YEAR 10-YEAR
...>/ .i< ..COST....( .....FOR. EXCESS . . EXCESS CAPITAL COST
.. . ..:..
> CURRENT. <10 >10 . COST PER WE
I > - .....
TYPE NAME ..... .. . CUST; YEARS YEARS . TOTAL .. (a)
Existing Transmission Unes (Cant.)
Tyler Drive $34,769 100.00% 47.88% 25.89% 26.23% $9,001
Bowman Drive $23,147 100.00% 47.98% 25.84% 26.18% $5,981
Oak Knoll Drive (Study Une 628) $25,333 100.00% 47.96% 25.85% 26.19% $6,548
Oak Knoll Drive (Study Une 627) $5,820 100.000/0 48.61 % 25.52% 25.87% $1,486
Jim Mitchel Trail West $58,025 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0
Cross Country $9,437 100.00% 47.86"10 25.90% 26.24% $2,444
Tumblewood Trail $24,975 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.000/0 $0
Glade Road $126,645 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $32,848
Glade Road (Study Une 159) $10,467 100.00% 47.50% 26.08% 26.42% $2,729
Colleyville Blvd. $25,711 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $6,669
LD Lockett $29,804 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $7,730
LaVaca Trail (Study Une 802) $25,087 100.00% 47.67% 25.99% 26.34% $6,520
LaVaca Trail (Study Une 801) $26,424 100.00% 47.76% 25.95% 26.29% $6,856
LaVaca Trail (Study Unes 183, 175) $10,278 100.00% 47.77% 25.94% 26.29% $2,666
Cross Country (Study Une 222) $23,288 100.00% 47.83% 25.91 % 26.26% $6,035
Cross Country (Study Une 221) $9,816 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $2,546
Tinker Road $31,992 100.00% 47.78% 25.94% 26.28% $8,298
Bill Simmons (Study Une 1310) $19,845 100.00% 47.75% 25.95% 26.30% $5,150
Bill Simmons (Study Unes 945, 944) $53,082 100.00% 47.79% 25.93% 26.28% $13,765
Subtotal Existing Facilities .. $1,661 ,800 .. ..... > . ... < I:.. .... $409.387 .. ..
42
WATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
FACIUTY CAPACITY. (mQdOr9aJs).. ..
.....-..-... .. ....... ..-.
,- ..., -.' - -.....,.,...-.
)<FORi ..
. ""..--.. ...,....
~~~S.
.... .'. -- ......
EXCESS .
.-<JO
YEARS.
...., '.,. .-.... '.
EXCess
._-. ',.. . ....
.... ,-... - .
<.>10<
YEARS> ·
NEXT
1(). YEAR
CAPITAl
........... COST
.... TOTAl
NEXT
1c)'YEAR
COST
PER WE
a
FUTURE FACIUTIES
LUE's
Water Main Network (For Existing)
U)
$4,202.849
6.224
6,224
o
o
$0
Water Main Network (For Future) Q)
$6,599.701
$10,802,550..
7,115
o
3,534
3,581
$3,2n,962
TOTAlS
.$12.464.350
$31.584.673 ..
$3:zn.962
.. ...> (c)
....$3.687.349. $1.043.43
...... ...... $8,230.069 $2.328.91
(a) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion factors:
Supply: 2,251 gals daily
Pumpage: 1.409 gals daily
Ground Storage: 397 gals
Elevated Storoge: 427 gals
(b) Facility sizes needed to serve existing customers.
(c) Prorata share of incremental growth capacity.
(ei) Total facmty cost data from KEF letter, July 10, 1995; prorated to Colleyville according to relative capacities shown in 'Tarrant County Water Supply Forecast
of Plant Capacity and Colle}"lille's Share of Capacity", KEF, July 7, 1995.
(e) KEF letter, July 10, 1995.
(f) Costs from 'City of Colle}"lille, Water & Sewer Capital Improvements Plan, Water System Proposed Facilities to Meet Build-Out Demands, Preliminary Opinion
of Probable cosr. KEF, June 1, 1995.
(g) Capacities from 'City of Colleyville Water & Sewer C.I.P., Proposed Pumps', KEF, June 1, 1995.
(h) Capacity from 'City of Colle}"liJle Water & Sewer C.I.P., Water Storage System', KEF, July 7, 1995.
(I) Includes only lines which were financed by bonds which still have outstanding debt service. Costs and capacities from 'City of Colle}"lille Water & Sewer
Capital Improvements Plan Existing Water Lines Funded by Revenue Bonds: Cost Share to Serve Existing Customers', KEF, July 7. 1995.
(j) Costs for existing customers taken from 'City of Colle}"lille, Water & Sewer Capital Improvements Plan, Water System Proposed Facilities to Meet Existing
Demands, Preliminary Opinion of Probable cosr, KEF, June 1, 1995. Costs for future customers represents the difference between build-out costs and costs
for existing demands.
(k) Cost from 'Water & Wastewater System Improvements Projects Funded by Revenue Bonds', KEF, July 18, 1995.
43
CATEGORIZATION OF WATER UTIUTY DEBT
..... ... I.... ..... . ..----- ..
BOND ... (
......... .... ;.\\ ----if--/ >Hir .......> ..c>-- T. ..
<. ...... .. rr. . ....::....:. ...... .. PAYBACK
TYPE I NAME ': ..... .... ....... ..... .--- .... -,....". ....-.......,--. """. . . .....;ii/ PER
................ -, .._-..
........ < ISSUANCE < .......... .F1EMAINING.. .. .....................I.(JIAt....:... .... '.r. FOR CURRENT
.(< .. < ...:.:.......--DATE ..........:..:...... AMOUNT .1. P1.YB1.CK (a)/ CURRENT WE
> ../ :.. . ..................r.< ... ... CUST. ..
SUPPLY
Tarrant Water District Purchase (b) 1975 $1,400,000 $1,750,875 14.011 14.011 $281
Repairs on Tarrant System (b) 1975 $250,000 $341,150 14.011 14.011 $55
TRA Plant Facilities (c) $8,239,310 nla 14.011 14.011 $0
TRA Plant Facilities - Upgrade 1995 $407,710 $1,281,670 14.011 14.011 $206
TRA Plant Facilities - Upgrade (d) 1995 $884,966 $1,657,623 14.011 14.011 $266
Subtotal Supply . . <. .... .... $11,181,987 I $5,031,318 ...........:. ... $808
PUMPING
Western Trails Pump Station (d) Prospective $479,502 $898,151 7.560 3.528 $67
McDonwell School Road (d) Prospective $581,706 $1,089,588 11.232 5.241 $82
Subtotal Pumping .... ..... ............ ...../..... . $1,061,208 .. $1,987,7:39 ......... .......... ...... F $149
GROUND STORAGE
Overland Trails Tank (e) 1981 $88,692 $107,887 1.200 1.200 $17
McDonwell School Road (d) Prospective $1,856,400 $3,477,207 4.100 1.273 $173
... i<
. Subtotal Pumping .... . .. $1,856,400 $3,4n,207 . .. .. $173
ELEVATED STORAGE
Bransford Road (e) 1981 $566,861 $689,546 1.000 0.920 $102
Hall-Johnson Road (e) 1987 $869,000 $1,071,342 1.500 1.380 $158
Pleasant Run Road (el) Prospective $1,652,400 $3.095,096 2.200 0.247 $56
Western Trails (High Plane) (d) Prospective $918,000 $1,719,498 1.000 0.112 $31
,.... ... ....... ..---.-.- ... ... I ..
Subtotal Elevated Storage ... . ... $4.006,261. ... $6,575,482 ... ... .. . .. $347
44
45
CATEGORIZATION OF WATER UTIUTY DEBT
(a) Where more than one facility was funded by an issue, remaining payback amounts are prorated among the various facilities.
(b) From 'Outstanding Debt Service Requirements - Utility Department", City of Colleyvil/e, faxed May 8, 1995.
(c) Debt Service information not available.
(d) Assume financing parameter. 7.00% interest & 20 years & bonding costs of 2.0% over construction costs.
(e) From 'Water & Wastewater System Improvements Projects Funded by Revenue Bonds', KEF. July 18. 1995.
46
WATER MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE
UTILITY FACILITY COST/LUE* ....... CREDITILUE* MAXIMUM
1 i . ..... ........ FEE/LUE..
....
WATER Supply and Treatment (TRA) $700 $425 $275
Pumping $78 $78 $0
Ground Storage $176 $91 $85
Elevated Storage $331 $183 $148
Major Transmission $1,043 $744 $300
Study Costs $8 $0 $8
... . . $2.337 .< $1.521
TOTAL WATER ... $816
* An LUE is equal to use by a typical household with a 1" water meter.
47
ORDINANCE 0-95-1004
EXHIBIT F
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Contains the following:
Capacity Demand for Each New Wastewater LUE
Estimated Wastewater Service Demand by Facility Type
Wastewater CIP Inventory and Costing
Categorization of Wastewater Utility Debt
Wastewater Maximum Impact Fee
49
49
50
55
57
48
CAPACITY DEMAND FOR EACH NEW WASTEWATER LUE
Treatment
Major Collection
TNRCC Criteria
Peak Day
':-'>'::-:-::':::"":::-:->"":>:::"":'::::::<::".:::,'.-:".-:.. ....-- '.
....../PROPORTIONATE<.. ....
. CAPACIT'fPERLUE<
270 gallons/day
Per analysis
SOURCE:
Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc., June 1, 1995. Wastewater System Design Criteria.
ESTIMATED WASTEWATER SERVICE DEMAND BY FACIUTY TYPE
l<iii .... I VOLUME ~t~~~.1
FACIU1Y lYPE ....1994>1 2004\ I
i 6,457 i 10,123 i I
I LUE's (a) 13,838
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PEAK MGD:
Estimated Demand (b) 1 .682 2.636 3.604
Existing Capacity (c) 1 .682 1 .682 1 .682
.. ! .. .. ...
Excess! (Deficiency) .... 0.000 (0.955) ...._H//
........ ... .... ...... ....... I.. ... I .. ... .... ..<.\./.... "'
(a) Wastewater LUE's same as water.
(b) Averoge flow = 270 gallons/LUE/daily.
(c) Existing Capacity equivalent to existin9 demand.
49
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
I CONSTRUCT
. . . ('.l"lRT .1. ...
~............ .
.. . ..... ..
..
. ..
TYPE I ...
..
. ..
TREATMENT
EXISTING FACIUTlES
TRA Treatment Facilities (1989) (b)
TRA Treatment Facilities (1992) (b)
1992 TRA Treatment Expansion (b)
$898,783 1.476
$246,919 0.206
$415,061 0.955
.... .. . I
. $1.560.763 2.636
. ,-.-..,-.-., .-,-.,.....
..,...'..,....-.-...-.-...... '-'."'--- -.-.---.-.
.. .. Subtotal. ExiSiiriQ FacilitieS
FUTURE FACILITIES
1994 TRA Treatment Expansion (b) $368,566
1994 TRA Treatment Upgrade (b) $345,570
0.955
1.682
.. .... -- .--.--.,. -,.....
.. .... ......-.-.......- .......
SubtOtal FlltlJreFac:ilitieS. .... .... ......... $714.136.
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT >$2,274,899
..... .. . .... ... . .... .
2.636
2.636
50
FACIUTY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
NEXT
10- YEAR
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL .
NEXT
10- YEAR
COST
PER WE
. .(a\
FOR
... CURRENT....
cusr
EXCESS
<10
YEARS
EXCESS
.> 10
YEARS
AVG MGD
1.476 0.000 0.000
0.206 0.000 0.000
0.000 0.955 0.000
.
1.682 ..0.955 0.000 $565,240
0.000 0.955 0.000
1.682 0.000 0.000
1.682 0.955 0.000 $258,629 ...
1.682 0.955 0.000 .. ..$823.869 $233.13
I
:.
TYPE I
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
~,.. . ..:. . :. .......
t,;...r.llrry . . . ... ... ~UN~IHU~I,
. . :..> ,..._ . .... .... ..cn~T . I TOTAl
NAMt: ......
MAJOR COLLECTION
EXISTING FACIUTIES (c)
A1f
A1e
A1d
A1c
$12,881
A1b
$27,150
A1a
$19,395
$13,213
B1c
B1b
$21,791
B1a
$19,100
C1g
C1f (400' N of Shelton)
C1f (Beverly Drive)
C1e
$8,614
$7,880
C1d
C1c
$36,206
C1b
$16,635
Cla (Glade Rd)
C1 a (250' S of Glade Rd)
$4,755
C1 a (250' N of TRA Interceptor)
$5,419
01 d (200' N of Kingswood Ln)
01 d (250' W of Royal/Bluebonnet)
D1c (1400' N of Glade Rd)
D1c (Glade Rd)
D1b
$6,414
D1a
$2,498
FACIUTY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
n/a
100.00%
n/a
100.00%
nfa
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
$0
$0
$0
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
$0
100.00%
100.00%
$0
$0
$0
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
$0
100.00%
100.00%
FOR
CURRENT
.... CUST.
52.02%
62.81 %
58.74%
71.04%
75.26%
80.03%
93.96%
89.55%
88.60%
91.52%
80.22%
78.86%
90.75%
87.34%
86.08%
83.99%
87.01%
83.57%
87.01%
70.21 %
70.21%
53.62%
52.67%
68.46%
64.36%
51
I.. EXCESS
<10
YEARS
%
23.83%
18.47%
20.49%
14.38%
12.29%
9.92%
3.00%
5.19%
5.66%
4.21%
9.82%
10.50%
4.59%
6.29%
6.91%
7.95%
6.45%
8.16%
6.45%
14.80%
14.80%
23.04%
23.51%
15.67%
17.70%
EXCESS
> 10
YEARS
24.15%
18.72%
20.n%
14.58%
12.45%
10.05%
3.04%
5.26%
5.74%
4.27%
9.96%
10.64%
4.66%
6.37%
7.01%
8.06%
6.54%
8.27%
6.54%
14.99%
14.99%
23.34%
23.82%
15.87%
17.94%
NEXT
10-YEAR
CAPITAl
COST
TOTAL ....
NEXT
10- YEAR
COST
PER WE
Ca\
$0
$0
$0
$1.853
$3,336
$1,924
$396
$1,131
$1,081
$0
$0
$0
$396
$495
$2,503
$1,323
$307
$0
$350
$0
$0
$0
$1,508
$0
$442
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
... ....................... li/.......< . . ..... ...........
I . . .. . FACIUTY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) NEXT NEXT
...... ... 1.- , 11"T. 1 0- YEAR
................... ........ 10- YEAR
I. FOR EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL COST
. . .....i.. .. . .. . . .. ... .../.. .. ... ISl)~1 ....... r.Tt"\TA'.
Ii ........... .... ..CURRENT .... . <=.10 >10 COST PER WE
< ' '" I .....<
TYPE ...1..... ................... .................... .... ........ ...... ..... CUST. YEARS . YEARS TOTAL (a)
Existing Major CoDection Unes (Cont.)
Ele $0 100.00% 66.49% 16.64% 16.87% $0
E1 b (200' S of Normandy Dr) $0 100.00% 67.30% 16.24% 16.46% $0
E1 b (Camelot Dr at Avondale) $20,652 100.00% 55.64% 22.03% 22.33% $4,550
E1 b (Glade Rd at Camelot) $3,867 100.00% 55.64% 22.03% 22.33% $852
Ela $26,350 100.00% 57.02% 21.35% 21.63% $5,625
E2 $0 100.00% 96.36% 1.81 % 1.83% $0
E3 nla 100.00% 92.59% 3.68% 3.73% $0
F1b $0 100.00% 65.24% 17.26% 17.50% $0
Fla $0 100.00% 83.57% 8.16% 8.27% $0
Glg $0 100.00% 90.50% 4.72% 4.78% $0
G1f $0 100.00% 76.16% 11.84% 12.00% $0
G1e $0 100.00% 63.34% 18.21 % 18.45% $0
G1d $0 100.00% 79.35% 10.26% 10.39% $0
G1a2 $0 100.00% 89.89% 5.02% 5.09% $0
Glal $0 100.00% 86.31 % 6.80% 6.89% $0
G2 $0 100.00% 86.90% 6.51% 6.59% $0
L1 $0 100.00% 93.80% 3.08% 3.12% $0
L2e $0 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0
L2b $0 100.00% 10.89% 44.26% 44.85% $0
L2a $23,590 100.00% 39.97% 29.82% 30.21 % $7,034
M2e - $0 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% $0
M2b $0 100.00% 90.68% 4.63% 4.69% $0
M2a $0 100.00% 47.02% 26.31% 26.67% $0
Ole $0 100.00% 86.23% 6.84% 6.93% $0
01b $0 100.00% 78.92% 10.47% 10.61% $0
01a $48,076 100.00% 75.56% 12.14% 12.30% $5,836
52
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
...: -- ... . ... ..........:. .. ...>.) I.. ..... . FACIUTY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) ...NEXT NEXT
..... i
,.~"'IU I J (;U~~T~~U{; I ... . I.~ 10- YEAR 10-YEAR
I......... .................. .. ...... ........... .........,."..... .i .......... FOR EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL COST
TYPE/I < NAME . d. ...:...... I ............... ) CURRENT <10 > 10 COST PER WE
...... ......... ....... ... CUST. YEARS YEARS TOTAl .. (a) ..
Existing Major Collection Unes (Coot.)
P1d $3,023 100.00% 94.63% 2.67% 2.70% $81
P1c $5,806 100.00% n.35% 11.25% 11.40% $653
P1b $16,6n 100.00% 39.31 % 30.14% 30.55% $5,027
P1a $7,767 100.00% 51.68% 24.00% 24.32% $1,864
R2 (200' S of Charlottesville) $0 100.00% 87.88% 6.02% 6.10% $0
R2 (Leesburg Dr at Charlottesville) $8,225 100.00% 87.72% 6.10% 6.18% $502
R2 (Lees burg Dr at Jefferson Cir) $0 100.00% 90.04% 4.95% 5.01% $0
Sl c1 (J McCain 200' W of $0 100.00% 30.42% 34.56% 35.02% $0
Monticello)
Slc1 (Monticello 500' S of Adams) $9,236 100.00% 52.49% 23.60% 23.91 % $2,179
Sla $22,605 100.00% 40.86% 29.37% 29.n% $6,640
Slb1 $0 100.00% 75.42% 12.21% 12.37% $0
Slc2 $9,375 100.00% 79.32% 10.27% 10.41% $963
S1c1 $12,912 100.00% 79.16% 10.35% 10.49% $1,337
U2 $0 100.00% 80.50% 9.69% 9.81% $0
U3 $6,310 100.00% 68.Q1% 15.89% 16.10% $1,003
V1f $0 100.00% 70.80% 14.50% 14.70% $0
V1e $0 100.00% 64.52% 17.62% 17.86% $0
W1b $0 100.00% 80.05% 9.91% 10.04% $0
W1a $0 100.00% 79.54% 10.16% 10.30% $0
X $0 100.00% 81.76% 9.06% 9.18% $0
Z $0 100.00% 93.15% 3.40% 3.45% $0
>i< ........ .... ..
SUbtotal Existing FaciUties ... .. $426,422 .. . $61,190
53
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
I... ..... ......................i . .............. i.. <1 <i.............. ..
..... ...... .. FACIUTY CAPACITY (mgd or gals) NEXT NEXT
Ii >...~A ,...T. 10- YEAR 10- YEAR
""~'Ti< ....... I... .... < 'I.......... FOR .... EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL COST
....
..... Tt'\TAI CURRENT <10 > 10 COST PER WE
.. TYPE>>! ..... NAME. .... i. ...............i.... .....
.............. I.. CUST. YEARS YEARS TOTAL (a)
FUTURE FACILITIES (<1)
A1h $38,880 100.00% 7.27% 46.06% 46.67% $17,907
A1g $88,800 100.00% 4.30% 47.53% 48.17% $42,208
11 $157,056 100.00% 10.42% 44.49% 45.09% $69,881
Sld $149,050 100.00% 38.98% 30.31 % 30.71 % $45,171
Sla $48,180 100.00% 41.00% 29.30% 29.70% $14,119
T1 $110,592 100.00% 37.31% 31.14% 31.55% $34,433
V1b $108,075 100.00% 12.82% 43.30% 43.88% $46,797
V1c2 $88,368 100.00% 37.74% 30.93% 31.34% $27,328
V1c1 $83,136 100.00% 22.99% 38.25% 38.76% $31,800
V1d $104,610 100.00% 55.68% 22.01 % 22.31% $23,027
V1a $296,645 100.00% 80.00% 9.93% 10.07% $29,468
Slb2 $23,664 100.00% 47.06% 26.30% 26.65% $6,222
Slb1 $144,650 100.00% 88.57% 5.68% 5.75% $8,211
I. ..
SUbtotal Future Facilities .. .'.. $1,441,706 $396,573
TOTAL TRANSMISSION UNES ....... .... ..... .. .... .... $1,868,128 ...> ........ . $457,763 $129.54
..
WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL ... ..$4,143,027 ...... ....... ... $1,281,632 $362.07
... ..... ... .... . ..
(a) Assumes the following gals to LUE conversion factors: Treatment 270 gals daily
(b) Capacities from 'Centml Regional Wastewater System Forecast of Plant Capacity & Colleyville's Share of Capacity", KEF, January 31, 1995.
(c) Capacities and costs from 'City of Colleyville Water & Sewer Capital Improvements Plan Existing Sewer Line Costs for Future Customers', KEF. June 28,
1995.
(d) Costs for existing customers taken from 'City of Colleyville Water & Sewer Capital Improvements Plan Wastewater Collection System Proposed Interceptor
Sewers to Meet Existing Demand Preliminary Opinion of Probable cosr, KEF, June 15, 1995.
(e) Costs from 'City of Colleyville Water & Sewer Capita/Improvements Plan Wastewater Collection System Proposed Interceptor Sewers to Meet Build-Out
Demand Preliminary Opinion of Probable cosr, KEF, June 15, 1995.
54
CATEGORIZATION OF WASTEWATER UTIUTY DEBT
. .........>...... .. <:.... ..... ...< .... FACILITY CAPACITY
. < 80NDISSUE <>/
PAYBACK
. I:Af"'1I IT IT 11\l4~ .....> .... ..
1/\ ., ~".... .... .... ..,~, ...1... .-- -- PER
....d ....\\ ......:. > /<<<.- __-.- I .....,. .'- . ...: ... REMAINING ....<<..< FOR CURRENT
.......\ ............. .: ....:.. PAYBACK ..TOfAl.\ .:. CURREN LUE
<<I ... ...
I....... .......>< ....... < <>1>..... ......<.......q>....... ....>/<< ... T
I...... ..... .} > > <> .... ....... >....1>. ... CUST. ..
TREATMENT
TRA Treatment Facilities (1989) (a) 1989 $898,783 $2,478,098 1.476 1.476 $204
TRA Treatment Facilities (1992) (b) 1989 $246,919 $383,523 0.206 0.206 $62
1994 TRA Treatment Upgrade (b) 1994 $345,570 $604,706 1.682 1.682 $97
SubtOtal I ./.......... .......... ..... >> $1 ,491,271 $3,466,326 $363
.... .
MAJOR COLLECTION (b)
A1c 1975 $12,881 $16,109 100.00% 71.04% $2
A1b 1975 $27,150 $33,954 100.00% 75.26% $4
A1a 1975 $19,395 $24,256 100.00% 80.03% $3
81c 1975 $13,213 $16,525 100.00% 93.96% $2
81b 1975 $21,791 $27,252 100.00% 89.55% $4
81a 1975 $19,100 $23,887 100.00% 88.60% $3
C1e 1975 $8,614 $10, n3 100.00% 90.75% $2
C1d 1975 $7,880 $9,855 100.00% 87.34% $1
C1c 1975 $36,206 $45,280 100.00% 86.08% $6
C1b 1975 $16,635 $20,804 100.00% 83.99% $3
C1 a (Glade Rd) 1975 $4,755 $5,947 100.00% 87.01% $1
C1 a (250' N of TRA Interceptor) 1975 $5,419 $6,777 100.00% 87.01% $1
L2a 1975 $23,590 $29,502 100.00% 39.97% $2
1990 Wastewater Improvements (d) 1989 $584,917 $899,145 100.00% 62.51% $90
A1 h (c) Prospective $38,880 $72,826 100.00% 7.27% $1
A1g (c) Prospective $88,800 $166,331 100.00% 4.30% $1
11 (c) Prospective $157,056 $294,180 100.00% 10.42% $5
S1d (c) Prospective $149,050 $279,184 100.00% 38.98% $17
S1a (c) Prospective $48,180 $90,246 100.00% 41.00% $6
T1 (c) Prospective $110,592 $207,149 100.00% 37.31% $12
V1b (c) Prospective $108,075 $202,434 100.00% 12.82% $4
55
CATEGORIZATION OF WASTEWATER UTIUTY DEBT
FACILITY CAPACITY
FOR
CURREN
T
CUST.
PAYBACK
PER
CURRENT
LUE
Major Collection (Cont.)
V1 c2 (c) Prospective $88,368 $165,521 100.00% 37.74% $10
V1 c1 (c) Prospective $83,136 $155,721 100.00% 22.99% $6
V1d (c) 1994 $104,610 $162,262 100.00% 55.68% $15
V1 a (c) 1994 $296,645 $460,131 100.00% 80.00% $59
S1 b2 (c) 1994 $23,664 $36,706 100.00% 47.06% $3
S1 b1 (c) 1994 $144,650 $224,369 100.00% 88.57% $32
Other Sewer Collection for Existing 1994 $2,290,431 $3,552,729 100.00% 100.00% $571
Subtotal Collection.. . $867
$1,229
(a) From "Central Regional Wastewater System Forecast of Plant Capacity & Colleyville's Share of Capacity", KEF, January 31, 1995.
(b) From "Outstanding Debt Service Requirements - Utility Departmenf', City of Colleyville, faxed May 8, 1995. Remaining payback
amounts are prorated among the various facilities.
(c) Assume financing parameter: interest and 20 years & bonding costs of 2.0010 over construction costs.
(d) From "Water & Wastewater System Improvements Projects Funded by Revenue Bonds", KEF, July 18, 1995.
56
UTIUTY
SEWER
WASTEWATER MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE
COST/LUE* CREDITILUE* MAXIMUM
FE ElLU E*
Treatment (TRA)
Study Costs
TOTAL SEWER
$233
$8
$371
* An LUE is equal to use by a typical household with a 1" water meter.
57
$190
$0
$190
$43
$8
$51
ORDINANCE 0-95-1004
EXHIBIT G
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
Contains the following:
Transportation System Impact Fee Determination 1994-2004
59
58
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
1994-2004
CITY OF COLLEYVILLE
August 3, 1995
Prepared By:
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
1161 Corporate Drive West, Suite 200
Arlington, Texas 76006
(817) 649-3216/Metro (817) 640-8212
FAX (817) 649-7645
SRA Project No. 3056
As amended by City of Colleyville through August 3,1995
59
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Overleaf Executive Summary 1
List of Exhibits 11
I Introduction 1
II Transportation Facilities 1
III Growth Projections 3
IV Equivalent Service Unit Determination 3
V Cost of Growth 4
Appendix A Trip Generation Rates
Appendix B Roadway Costs
Appendix C Maximum Impact Fee for Each Land Use
60
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - 8RA No. 3056
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of tIus report is to detennine the maximum impact fee which the City of
Colleyville can assess for the transportation system. The City is divided into two
service areas and a separate fee is calculated for each.
The first step is to estimate the cost of transportation facilities attributable to new
growth during the time period 1994-2004 for each service area. These figures are
$5,134,000 for Area 1 and $7,338,000 for Area 2.
The second step is to estimate the growth in equivalent service units during the
study time period. These figures are 29,076 ESU for Area 1 and 39,768 ESU for
Area 2. A single transportation "trip" is used as the standard service ruut.
The final step is the calculation of the maximum allowable impact fee using the data
presented above:
AREAl: $5,134,.000 = $177 perESU
29,076 ESU
AREA 2: $7,338,000 = $185perESU
39,768ESU
These figures are lower than tile 1987 Impact Fee Study. The figures calculated in the
1987 study for Area I were $268, and for Area 2 were $219.
61
CITY OF" COLLEYVIL.LE - I 994 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - SRA No. 3056
LIST OF EXHffilTS
Exhibit 1 Major Thoroughfare Plan
Exhibit 2 Service Area Boundary Map
Exhibits 3 & 4 Capital Improvements Plan - Area 1 & 2
Exhibits 5 & 6 Upgrade Plan to Serve Existing Development -
Area 1 & 2
Exhibit 7 Current and Projected Land Uses and Population -
Area 1 & 2
Exhibits 8,"9 & 10 Equivalent Service Unit Calculations - 1994, 2004,
and Ultimate
Exhibit 11 Summary of Growth Projections - Area 1 & 2
62
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
_._.._~~,___,_. .,-+-___._'_._.__..__._..,.....~__c__~......"._.._,...._.--.._,_._._____.,_~.__.,._.
I. INTRODUCTION
This study determines the maximwn assessable impact fee for transportation
facilities within the City'of Colleyville. This is an update of a study prepared by
Parsons, Brinckerhofr, Quade & Douglas (PBQD) in 1987 for the City of
Colleyville.
As required by the enabling legislation (SB336), only cost attributable to new
growth can be included in the impact fee determination. This study uses the
following procedure:
1. Detennine the cost of transportation facilities attributable to growth
during the study period;
2. Determine the amOlmt of new growth from the land use plan and
population study provided;
3. Determine the cost of new growth, i.e., the maximum allowable
impact fee.
Consistent with the 1987 PBQD study, the transportation impact fee is divided
into two service areas, and the "trip" is the standard service unit. The
boundaries of Service Area 1 and 2 are identical to those used in the 1987
PBQD study. Different types of land uses can be converted using the table
provided in Appendix A.
II. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
The initial step in the impact fee determination is the development of a Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) for the time period 1994 to 2004 for eligible
transportation facilities. The City of Colleyville Master Thoroughfare Plan dated
February 1994 was used for the development of the Impact Fee CIP. Design,
construction and right-of-way costs were estimated using the data provided in
Appendix B. The CIP used for tIns analysis is presented in Exhibits 3 and 4. It
is important to note tIlatthe total cost calculated for the ultimate development is
reduced so that only tIIat cost attIjbutable to growth during the study period is
included.
City of Colleyvllle - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SAA No.
3056 1
63
Consistent with the 1987 PBQD study, this analysis assumes that the existing
Colleyville thoroughfare system is generally adequate for the current population.
However, there are a number of existing two-lane roads that are less than 24 feet
wide. These facilities are considered sub-standard and the cost to widen these
facilities is considered as improvements to serve existing development. These
costs are provided in Exhibits 5 and 6.
III. GROWTH PROJECTIONS
The second major step in the detennination of an impact fee is the evaluation of
growth. The calculations herein are based upon the City ofColleyville Land Use
Master Plan dated February 2, 1994. This data is presented in Exhibit 7. It is
divided into service areas and presented for the years 1991, 1994, 2004 and
Ultimate Development.
IV. EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNIT DETERMINATION
The third step in this study is determining the number of existing service units
and estimating future service units. The basic service unit has been established
as a single traffic "trip." ,. Equivalent service units (ESU), can be calculated using
the conversion table provided in Appendix A. ESU's for each category of Land
Use and divided into the two major study areas are presented in Exhibits 8
through 10.
Using the infonnation developed above, Exhibit 11 shows the change in ESUs
from 1994 to 2004. TIns figure represents the projected growth over the 10-year
study period.
City of Colleyville - 1 994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No.
3056 2
64
v. COST OF GROWTH
The final step in the detennination of the maximum impact fee is the calculation
of the cost of growth. The cost figures developed on Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6 are
combined as follows:
AREA 1 AREA 2
Impact Fee CIP (1994-2004) $5,655,000 $7,970,000
less Upgrade to Serve Existing
Development - 521,000 - 632,000
Total Cost to be Included in Impact
Fee (1994-2004) 5,134,000 $7,338,000
The amount of growth is determined by obtaining the difference between the
existing ESU's and the estimate for ESU's in the year 2004:
AREA I AREA 2
Equivalent Service Units (2004)
less ESU (1994)
Growth in ESU (1994 to 2004)
112,363
-83,287
29,076
87,520
-47,752
39,768
The maximum allowable impact fee is the ratio provided by caS/', therefore:
6ESU
Area 1 hnpact Fee = $5,134,000. $177
29,076
Area 2 Impact Fee = $7,338 ,000 . $185
39,768
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No.
3056 3
65
These amooots represent the cost of new growth during 1994 to 2004 and are the
maximwn allowable impact fees for the transportation system. These figures are
different than the 1987 PBQD study as shown:
1987 Study
$268 per trip
$219 per trip
Service Area 1
1994 Study
$177 per trip
$185 per trip
Service Area 2
A brief review of the 1987 PBQD Study reveals that the eIP used in 1987 is
significantly greater than tlIat used in tile 1994 study. These figures are included
herein for comparison purposes only:
1987 PBQD Study' Area 1:
$30,215,657 . $268
112,610 ESU
Area 2:
$15,521,853 . $219
70,999 ESU
It should be noted that any impact fee calculation is merely an estimate of future
occurrences and tllerefore is subject to tile variabilities inherent in the
development of a growing community.
City of Colleyvllle - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No.
3056 4
66
Exhibit 1
Thoroughfare Plan
. . - ............, ~
r."!"" .....
I ......1'..
~ ;
I
!
I
t
I
I
I.. .~!!~...
....81~!'I..... ..... .... ".:
.... .......
'"
APPROXIMA TE SCALE:
,.. z 4000'
~
~
i
...
f
8
...
c:i
...
HAL~ JOIIISON
t
t
I
'j
I
i
:.---'
...
'"
...
!
i
'"
'"
i
I
I
1 t
'-.
a.AllE RO.
alEE!< SP AllGEII RD.
i :
L_!
i
i
:
I .__..~
.-....
,.
il
LEGEND
CITY BOUNDARY
MAJOR ARTERIAL
MINOR ARTERIAL (UNDIVIDEDI
MINOR ARTERIAL (DIVIDEDI
MAJOR COLLECTOR
MINOR COLLECTOR
RAILROAD
.....
C3C3E3C3C3
.......
aaoeae
':''''''''''''''- :.:.-. ::- .~. -'!Yo...=ii!L~.~~I':~-'- :_h. ~
CIty of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
67
Exhibit 2
Service Area and Planning Zone Map
SERVICE AREA 2
...~
: ~...............~
i ill ;. _ .."..n@ ·
l!i
CV~
o
2
@
o-fiK SP ARGER RO.
iI
.
..
.....
LEGEND
.. 3:1 2 it - SERVIC~ AREA BOUNDARY
. . . . . .. - PLANNING ZONE
68
City of Colleyvlile _ 1994 Transoortotlon Imcoc! t:'~e - SRA No. 3056
,
I
APPROXIMA TE SCALE:
IN . 4()OO'
SERVICE
AREA 1
HAll
-
~.
0"""
~*
~.*
12
:
'"
-
-------...........----
Exhibit 3
Capital Improvements Plan for Impact Fee Determination
1994 - 2004
Service Area No.1
Unit
Street Limits Imr Lenldh Cost Total Cost
($1,000)
SanderslWyatt SH 26 to Industrial E 2,000 335 670
Longwood Rd. SH 26 to Broad Oak 2 1,000 20 20
Pool Road Glade to Hall Johnson B (ex) 4,000
Hall Johnson to Big Bear Creek 4,6 5,600 75 420
Jackson Rd. Cheek Sparger to Glade E 3,700 371 1,373
B (ex) 4,200
Hall Johnson Road SH 26 to Pool 0 7,000 371 2,597
Signal at Pool 80
River Walk Road Glade to Hall Johnson 01 4,200 371 1,558
Montclair Drive Glade to Hall Johnson E 4,000 335 1,340
Glade Road SH 26 to SH 121 D 14,2QOl 371 5,268
Martin Parkway Cheek Sparger to Glade 2 3,200 10 32
Heritage A venue4 Cheek Sparger to City Limits C 6,000 2274 1,362
2,400 453 1.087
Signal at Glade 80
(credit for Bond Financing 1994) (109)
Cheek Sparger SH 26 to Heritage 2,4 19,500 74 1,443
Bedford Road Cheek Sparger to Glade E 2,800 335 938
2 2,000 20 40
Brown Trail4 So. City Limit to SH 26 B 2,800 2224 1.240
2 1,500 20 30
Center Park SH 26 to Bedford Rd. 2 2,400 20 48
Signal at Bedford Rd. 80
Current Available Perimeter Thoroughfare Escrows (1,576?
Total Net Cost for Ultimate Development $18,02
"Times" Level of Growth at Year 2004 x 0.31386
Cost of Improvements (1994-2004) $5,655
To Be Built By Developer
Improvements ~r Ci~ Staff, see Ap~di." B
Reauced by (~ 5~ LF to account for existin~ half section at the Brook Meadows and Woodland Hills Addition.
Assume ~ Cost S . g with adjacent City: Eu ess, Bedford, etc.
TxDOT to consUUct roadway under PASS program.
From Exhibit II
Cit'( of Colleyville . 1994 Transportation Impact fee . SRA No. 3056
69
Exhibit 4
Capital Improvements Plan for Impact Fee Determination
1994 - 2004
Service Area No.2
Unit
~ Umlts TVDe1 Len2th (LFl Cost Total Cost
($1,000)
Precinct Line Rd. I So. City Limit to Davis Blvd. 2 8.600 10 86
McDonwell School Rd. Precinct Line to Westcoat E 6,000 371 2,226
Signal at Westcoat 80
L. D. Lockett Road Precinct Line to Pleasant Run E 10,200 371 3,784
BransfordlWestcoat Drive SH 26 to John McCain E 13,900 371 5,157
(credit for Bond Financing 1989) (252)
Pleasant Run Road SH 26 to Big Bear Creek D 14,000 371 5,194
Signal at John McCain 80
John McCain Road Westcoat to SH 26 D 9,300 371 3,450
Tinker Road Pleasant Run to SH 26 E 2,800 335 938
Shelton Road Bransford to Pleasant Run E 2,200 335 737
Glade Road West City Limit to SH 26 D 5,70Q3 371 2,115
Signal at Bransford 80
Bogart Road Pleasant Run to SH 26 D 2,100 371 779
John McCain Road Maranatha to SH 26 ... 900 1,583
SH26 Cheek Sparger to Big Bear 2,4 22,000 74 1,628
Creek
Current Escrows (259)
Total Net Cost for Ultimate Development $27,449
"Times" Level of Growth at 2004 x 0.2908.
Cost of Improvements (1994-2004) $7,970
County Project - No Cost to City
2 Improvements per City Staff, see Appendix B
J Reduced by (~) 1,700 LF to account for existing half section at the Mill Crossing Addn.
. From Exhibit 11
... Grade separation is considered as separate, additional project. See Appendix B for cost breakdown.
CITY 01'" COll.EYVIUZ - I 994 TRANSPORTATlON IMPACT rEI!: - SRA No. 3056
70
Ex1nbit 5
Upgrade Plan to Serve Existing Development
Service Area No. 1
Aw:rage PaviD&
FDtiDg R.c:quired Length Quantity Total
Street T imits Width Upuade ...a.a (SY) eosr
($1,000)
Sanders/Wyatt I SH 26 to Industrial 15'/10' 9'(24' 1,600noo 3,470 69
Pool Road Hall Johnson to Big Bear 20' 4' 5,600 2.490 SO
Creek
Jackson Rd. Cheek Sparger to 20' 4' 3,700 1,650 33
Shenandoah
Hall Johnson Road SH 26 to Pool 20' 4' 7,000 3,120 62
Montclair Drive Glade to Hall Johnson 20' 4' 4,000 1,780 36
Glade Roadz SH 26 to SH 121 22' 2' 11,400 2.540 51
Heritage Avenue Cheek Sparger to City 16' 8' 8,400 7,470 149
Limits
Cheek Sparger McClain to Heritage 22' 2' 12,000 2,670 53
Bedford Road Bridge to Glade 20' 4' 2,000 890 18
Total Cost to Upgrade Roadways to Serve Existing Development $521
1 Existing 10' Grav~l Drive to be replaced with 24' HMAC.
~ Reduced by 5,600 to account for existing ~ sections.
3 Cost for widening = $20 per S. Y.
71
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
"-..
Exhibit 6
Upgrade Plan to Serve Existing Development
Service Area No. 2
EmtiDg Paving
A...enge Required Length Quantity Total
Street T mits W'1dtb. Upuadc ~ (SY) eosr
(SI,<XXJ)
McDonwell School Rd. Precinct Line to 20 4 6,<XXJ 2,670 S3
Westcoat
L D. Lockett Road Precinct Line to 20 4 10,200 4,540 91
Pleasant Run
Bransford/Westcoat Drive Glade to John McCain 20/17 4n 12.900 7,890 158
Pleasant Run Road1 SH 26 to Big Bear 20/17 4n 12.900 7,890 158
Creek
John McCain Road Westcoat to SH 26 20 4 9,300 4,140 83
Tinker Road Pleasant Run to SH 26 20 4 2.800 1,250 25
Shelton Road Bransford to Pleasant 20 4 2,200 980 20
Run
Glade Road West City Limit to SH 20 4 4,900 2,180 44
26
Total Cost to Upgrade Roadways to Serve Existing Development $632
1 Reduced by 1,100 LF for the Cutter Ridge Subdivision.
2 Reduced by 1,700 LF for the Mill Crossing Addn.
3 Cost for widening = $20 per S. Y.
72
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
~
-
-
'&
-
-
Q
U
"""
Q
~
U
~
.c:
-
'"
.s
eM
.~ ~
~-
::I 0
__ c.. fI)
.- Q Q
.-:: Q. Z
:9"C~
~ e f
~=<
~ ~
fI) CJ
;:l .-
"C t:
e ~
~rJ'1
...J
"C
~
-
CJ
~
oC'
'"
l:l.
"C
e
~
-
e
f
'"
::I
U
l6 It) ,S\ .., !4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ::8 8 < 8
- - .... z
~ c;j c;j c;j .0 - ,.; ms 8 8
"I ::::::::p
,."Jt ~ .., iD - ~ 0 ~ l6 .... 0 I ~ Ol
1:1 - - - ~ - ~
:::'::::::::::: .... - - - ..;
CD -
-
rn ~ N It) ~ 0 8 It) l8 0 I ~ < ~
"": - z
ml ~ - al ..; ,.; Ii) Ii)
..1 ">:<'~
~ .., ;:: CD Ol 0 It) ~ ~ 0 :F:l ~ - ~
:::::.~ - - :;; -
':':';':':';-.- - {(; ..;
... .... .H -
H .. l;f 0 l:i - ~ f3 iD Ol .., 0 is .... < ~
- CD Ol ~ z
tJi; al N N .0 c;j ,.; ts ~ ~
....
:::::.:1 .....
~ 0 ~ II) ~ 0 II) ~ ~ 0 I .... - ~
:::9 :;; 18 -
- ..;
.... .... .... ~
.... ~ II) ~ .., ~ ~ Sl ~ &l .., :~ 8 < 8
- - - z
iD - - ..; - ..; ,.; 8 8
.::::.; N
- -
a .., ~ - ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ;;; )! ~ - i
..,..,.,,- ::I::~ - - - PI -
II) - N ..;
. . .......
~ ~ ~ II) ~ 0 8 II) :8 ~ :,1 ~ < ~
- - z
r= fa - ..; ..; oj ~ ~ ~
:.,...,..iI .:-:::....
;::::';1 ~ ~ l8 CD ~ 0 .., ~ ~ ~ it. ~ - ~
N -
- - :::::::~ ..;
.;.:.:.:.:-:.'. N - :.."...~
-
:8 0 ll! ~ f3 5l f1! :8 .... - < -
H - CD - z
::!:i 13 - N oj N ~ N N
II) II)
....... !4 0 N II) ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ a .... - ~
rr~ .... - N ; -
~ - - ..; :;;
::::~::::::::: -
~ II) s .., !4 ~ ~ ~ ; :3 :.1 8 < 8
- - z
... III c;j c;j c;j c;j - N - N S 8 8
::...; ::::::;:p -
~ ~ a; - ~ 0 N ~ ~ 0 I ~ - CD
::::!W tru - N ij - i
........~ - ..;
....... -
~ ~ CD II) ~ 0 ~ It) II) l:i :,S II) < II)
"": - - - z -
;'::1 ;;; - ..; ..; m ;.:8 III al
..,
...1 .~:~: .:....
~ .., PI CD Ol 0 l6 ~ ~ ~ hF:l .... ~
Sf - - - -
- - :-:.:::.... - ..;
- N "...)! N
.-.... H ... ...
~ 0 .., - ~ f3 ~ Ol ~ 8 8 :8 < :8
........ - - CQ Z
,.,.,.:;; ~ - N ..; - ~ }8 fa fa
J:: :::::::~
)}c .....-. ~ 0 ~ II) Ol 0 N ~ I:: N "HI ~ ~
:t~ - - II) Iii -
- - ..;
-
..........,. ..... -
..... s ~ Iii .., !4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1Cl .8 8 < 8
- z
.. ~ c;j c;j c;j c;j - N - N ~ is 8 8
I::rl .:::::-~ - -
~ ~ .., - ~ 0 Cli l6 III ~ I ~ - 0
.......i;i, ....... .,.. - - - ....
;;:::::~ - - - - ..; f3
....... ..... .. -
. II) ~ ~ .... ~ 0 ~ II) a N .'....8 .., < :3
.:.:-:.:.:.:.:. - - C'! - ~ :.~ CD z
1m. ~ - ..; ..; iD III al
..,
..li.:1 ~ ~ ~ .... ~ 0 in ~ ll3 ~ rt:! Ii - ~
:,r'~ -
- - rt; ..; iD
",.:.,,;c - -
....... ..-.
!4 0 C! ~ ~ f3 ~ ~ ~ 0 :~ .... < ....
I:;; - - z ~
~ - N ..; - ~ g
...1 ::::::::~
{{b ! 0 ; ~ U) 0 ~ ~ ;1; ~ HI ~ - ~
- - ~ -
.,...)!iiI: - - - ..; Sl
ii c:
~ ~ .2
.. ~
.~ E ~
~ s '" g
""
~ .~ 13 Xl ~ c: ~ D.
"" Sl ::l al
... E ~ 'C: ii &
J! ~ .c .. 1: C Ji ~
.. i: ~ u ~ c: 'to ~
~ 5 OJ ::J ~ ~ 5- ""
::J U .c .. ::J '2 ca ca 0 c: 'to
en :::!i en CD 0 0 CD D. > D. ::l w
73
Exhibit 8
Equivalent Service Unit Calculations
1994
Trip Generation Areal Area 2 :tAreal&2
Land Use Rate Unit Qty. # trips Qty. # trips Qty. # trips
Single Family 9.55 D.U.\ 3,290 31,421 1,961 18,726 5,251 50,148
Multi Family 6.47 D.U.2 0 0 156 1,009 156 1,009
Elem. School 1.09 students3 1,745 1,902 1,356 1,478 3,101 3,380
Bldg. Institution 50 acre 5 250 6 300 11 550
Churches 9.32 1000 sq.ft.GFA4 76 708 76 708 152 1,417
Cemeteries 4.16 acre 110 458 0 0 110 458
Business/Camm'l 308 acre 152 46,816 60 18,480 212 65,296
Industrial 52 acre 30 1,560 130 6,760 160 8,320
Parks 2.23 acre 77 172 130 290 207 462
. 1 ESU = 1 Trip
\ S.F. du = [est. pop. + (pop./du)] - MF du
2 assumed 12 du/acre (multifamily only)
3 1994 enrollments prorated by appropriate increase in du since 1994
4 assumed 4,000 ftZOF Nacre
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
74
Exhibit 9
Equivalent Service Unit Calculations
2004
Trip Generation Area 1 Area 2 ~Areal&2
Land Use Rate Unit Qty. # trips Qty. # trips Qty. # trips
Single Family 9.55 D.U.l 4,417 42,185 3,903 37,271 8,320 79,456
Multi Family 6.47 D.U.2 0 0 156 1,009 156 1,009
Elem. School 1.09 students) 2,343 2,554 2,600 2,834 4,943 5,387
Bldg. Institution 50 acre 5 250 6 300 11 550
Churches 9.32 1000 sq.ft.GFA4 76 708 76 708 152 1,417
Cemeteries 4.16 acre 110 458 0 0 110 458
Business/Comm'} 308 acre 209 64,372 124 38,192 333 102,564
Industrial 52 acre 30 1,560 130 6,760 160 8,320
Parks 2.23 acre 124 277 200 446 324 723
. 1 ESU = 1 Trip
1 S.F. du = [est. pop. + (pop./du)] - MF du
2 assumed 12 du/acre (multifamily only)
) 1994 enrollments prorated by appropriate increase in du since 1994
4 assumed 4.000 ft~GFNacre
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
75
Exhibit 10
Equivalent Service Unit Calculations
Ultimate Development
Trip GcDeradoD Area 1 Ala. 2 XA1al&2
. . ..
LaDd Use Rate Unit Qty. # ttipa .Qty.. .... # trip& ~.. #tripJ
Single Family 9.55 D.U.1 5,617 53,640 5,815 55,537 11,432 109,177
Multi Family 6.47 D.U.2 0 0 156 1,009 156 1,009
Elem. School 1.09 students) 2,979 3,247 3,825 4,169 6,804 7,416
Bldg. Institution 50 acre 5 250 6 300 11 550
Churches 9.32 1000 sq.ft.GFA4 76 708 76 708 152 1,417
Cemeteries 4.16 acre 110 458 0 0 110 458
Business/Comm'l 308 acre 375 115,500 375 115,500 750 231,000
Industrial 52 acre 30 1,560 130 6.760 160 8,320
Parks 2.23 acre 258 575 229 511 487 1,086
. 1 ESU = 1 Trip
1 S.F. du = [est. pop. + (pop./du)] - MF du
2 assumed 12 dulacre (multifamily only)
3 1994 enrollments prorated by appropriate increase in du since 1994
4 assumed 4,000 ftlGFNacre
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
76
Exhibit 11
Summary of Growth Projections
AREA 1 TRIPS AREA 211UPS
I.:.md UlIe . 1994 A 2D04 A OIL 1994 A 2D04 A UIL
Single Family 31,421 10,764 42.185 11,455 53,640 18,726 18,545 37,271 18,266 55,537
Multi Family 0 0 0 0 0 1,009 0 1,009 0 1,009
E1cm. School 1,902 652 2,554 693 3,247 1,478 1,356 2,834 1,335 4,169
Bldg. IDstitutiooal 250 0 250 0 250 300 0 300 0 300
Churches 708 0 708 0 708 708 0 708 0 708
Cemeteries 458 0 458 0 458 0 0 0 0 0
Business/Comm'! 46,816 17,556 64,372 51,128 115,500 18,480 19,712 38,192 77,308 115,500
Industrial 1,560 0 1,560 0 1,560 6,760 0 6,760 0 6,760
Parks 172 105 277 298 575 290 156 446 65 511
I Totals II 83,2871 19,006 I 112,363 I 63,5741 175,938 I 47,752 39,768 tr1,520 96.jT1':' .^. ,^
,
I % of Ultimate II 47.34% I -I 63.87% I -I 100% II 25.88% I -I 47.44% I -I 100% I
Growth from 1994 - 2004 as a % of growth from 1994 to Ultimate
AREA. 1:
29,076
175,938 - 83,287
= 0.3138 = 31.38%
AREA 2:
39,768
184,494 - 47,752
= 0.2908 = 29.08%
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
77
Appendix A
Trip Generation Rates
(24 Hour Rates)
Trips Generated Unit of Trip
Land Use per Unit Generation
Single Family 9.55 Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family 6.47 Dwelling Unit
Elem. School 1.09 Students
Building Institution 50 Acre
Church 9.32 1000 ft2 GFA
Cemeteries 4.16 Acre
Business/Commercial 3081 Acre
Industrial 52 Acre
Parks 2.23 Acre
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. Fifth
Edition. Washington, D.C., 1991.
1 Aggregate rate using eight different land uses typical of business/commercial
development.
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
78
Appendix B
Roadway Cost
I. TYPICAL STREET PROJEcrs
rype
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial (undivided)
Minor Arterial (divided)
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Designation Paving Width
A 2-26' FF
B 48' FF
C 2-24' FF
D 40' FF
E 36' -40' FF
Cost Calculation Assumptions:
Cost per LF
$489
$443
$453
$371
$335-$371
1. Street Paving ..... $5.00 per S.F. *
2. Sidewalk paving ..... 5% of No.1 (Use $101LF for 4' walk)
3. Drainage ......... 20% of No. 1
4. Utility Relocations .. 20% of No.1
5. Engineering ....... 12% of No.1
6. Right-of- Way ...... 10% of No.1
7. Contingency....... 15% of No.1
*
Includes removal items, excavation, subgrade preparation, pavement, driveways, pavement
markings, erosion control, landscaping, and traffic control.
II. GRADE SEPARATION - JOHN MCCAIN ROAD OVER DART RAIL
Paving ....................... $180,000
Earthwork ...................... 325,000
Bridge ........................ 625,000
Sidewalks, Utilities, Drainage, ROW . . . . 99,000
Contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,000
Engineering .................... 170.000
Total Project Cost ............ $1,583,000
City of Colleyville . 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - SRA No. 3056
79
Appendix C
Maximum Impact Fee
For Each Land Use
1994-2004
Maximum Calculated2
Trips Generated} Unit of Trip Impact Fee
Land Use per Unit Generation Areal Area 2
Single Family 9.55 Dwelling Unit $1,690 $1,767
M ulti- Family 6.47 Dwelling Unit $1,145 $1,197
Elem. School 1.09 Students $193 $202
Building Institution 50 Acre $8,850 $9,250
Church 9.32 1000 ft2 GFA $1,650 $1. 724
Cemeteries 4.16 Acre $736 $770
Business/Commercial 3081 Acre $54,516 $56,980
Industrial 52 Acre $9,204 $9,620
Parks 2.23 Acre $395 $413
1 From Appendix A in 1994-2004 Impact Fee Determination Study.
2 From 1994-2004 Impact Fee Determination Study: Area 1 = $177 per ESU; Area 2 = $185 per ESU.
City of Colleyville - 1994 Transportation Impact Fee - 8RA No. 3056
80
EXHIBIT H
WATER AND WASTEWATER LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENCY (LUE) MULTIPLIERS
FOR SELECTED WATER METER SIZES
SIMPLE
SIMPLE
SIMPLE
SIMPLE,
COMPOUND
------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------
TURBINE 2" 4.000
COMPOUND 3" 6.000
------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------
TURBINE 3" 7.000
COMPOUND 4" 10.000
------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------
TURBINE 4" 12.000
_~_~~~~~~_~__________ ________~~~________ ______________~Q~Q9_Q_
TURBINE 6" 25.000
TURBINE 8" 36.000
TURBINE 10" 58.000
. ...... -. ....,.. ..... --...
.._-...,--..._-,........................... .........."...............................-..".
....,.........-....,........................... .................."...."'...........--...,......
i~5'!!~:$lZe) :::.::al~:rrt"?,~t
:;, ::::::: :~::~:: :~~:;~:;;~;:~~::;i; :i: :::::::::::;: ::: :::::: ::::::;::~:~::: }:~:: :i: ::::i: ::;:i:: ;:; ::;; ;;; ;:: :::::::=::. .~:~~):~:~~M ~l'gl~1~:1~1~~::~:::~::~~ :~: ~~~~~::~~:~: :~:
5/8" x 3/4" 0.667
3/4" or 1" 1.000
1-1/2" 2.000
2" 3.200
"
81
EXHIBIT I
LANDUSE EQUIVALENCY TABLE
TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR SELECTED LAND USES
(24 Hour Rates)
Trips Generated Unit of Trip
Land Use per Unit Generation
Single Family 9.55 Dwelling Unit
Multi-Family 6.47 Dwelling Unit
Elem. School 1.09 Students
Building Institution 50 Acre
Church 9.32 1000 ft2 GFA
Cemeteries 4.16 Acre
Business/Commercial 3081 Acre
Industrial 52 Acre
Parks 2.23 Acre
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation. Fifth
Edition. Washington, D.C., 1991.
1 Aggregate rate using eight different land uses typical of business/commercial
development.
82