The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-17-1998 r Yp; r ~ ! 4'F I v Lr ?M'i`Y'4r {~r•l»t rY ,'~3 M41 ~f~+ ~tS>r'A~~~Y ~ Y Pt i ~ t t.. ~ ~.'i rt f rr i r3 ~ •'e 4 r r 7 e i l) Y 'j h)' In"1 1~~ 1 ~~rl ~ Y I/ I I \ f r , r r. n VL J ~Y~/ ] 1 , fir. r~4 4 rlr J~1, ~•1. n J ~ ~ a~ T L ~Y x .1) en rr ) 5 ,r Y i ~3 3 , f r ) L 13 ~ ~ I ` I~ I '4' h ~ 4 r I l~ ! i]' J ~ G ~ ~ f r r YP ~ n ~.t jY r j l r~ e j r ~ ti ~ ~ n 1 11~ ~ ,n ~ r r 1'! i r A 1~ i iY Y, k 3~ l 1 x I r` I O ~ 3 r~ r R ~ .L" ~ I r~ l ljf + J ,4 3. Jr. 3 ,f ~ J Y 3 4 rYe J1 ~Y 1', I + 1'0yR=t~ ti ` YY,~ ),r^• r ar rr YI'3 r r d r i r !ray Art ~ I X i s- 7 T City Council Agenda Packet April 17,1998 , J f r 3 • ,1 25 x 0 r 32X • 0 Aaenda No, ---,i- Aaenda Item p P^-ENDA Date. _ CITY OF DEN10N CITY COUNCIL April 17, 1998 Joint meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Denton Independent School 1, 5 District Board of Trustees on Friday, April 17, 1998 at 12:00 noon at the Radisson Hotel, 2211 1-35E North, Denton, Texas at which the following will be considered; 1. Call to order, announce quorum ; 2. Denton's sub areas growth projections 3. Review of site plan for park, school and the C. H. Collins athletic facilities 4. Development activity 5. New bond program development and coordination 6. Impact fees 7. Collaboration activities a. New joint use agreement b. School resource officers c. Outdoor Learning Center (Greenbelt Site) o 8. Tax abatement update 9. Moving truck traffic off Highway 380 10. Special recognition 11. Adjourn CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the _ day of - 1998 at o'clock (a m,) (p.m.) r CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE RADISSON HOTEL IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF I. 0 REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE { 0 • SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY FECRETARY'S i OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIr NS DEVICES ? j FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO T I IAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE ? CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE., I I t ,,d MF r / / 5 lJ 32,`'O 1~ ~ ~ t 11 I~ it ~ ti ~ ~ Ir Y 7 t 7 ~i¢~ r C'. ~ r i d ~ ti V 1 • I .r I 1 ~ v,I ' : r r' r , J I { J ~ 1 I L:YM1~/ r p! ,r al r,, 1. A l~. fr ,z Y t , A I RA ~ .1 ~ A ~ 0 r r~ y w, i . i rA. . 1 1 : 1 I 1 ~ ~G~[ ~l a '11 C 1 I 11 1 A , a r ~ \ • l A. . 1110 ~ v I I I. 1 ~ I L'- r e r I t r . A w?YkA 'IA~d1~"KVw~$~~'~~;Y•i:!r~N'ePt 1l.b,W1l14lkt Y .~YHMIrM.iw~~.»~}. Jr..,,.\_...~.hdk a ~..~.A-..SNriMNi 'V11~i4P 1~ '11':!\ , y MEMORANDUM \ DATE: April 10 .1998 TO: City Council and D1SD School Board Members :{o FROM: David Hill, City Planning and Development Directo SUBJECT: , Attached Is a copy of an edited growth forecasting presentation prepared by consultants hired by the City of Denton. The pages Illustrate several of the concepts Involved In population forecasting, including regional and compariso s with other cities. The materials were recently used during work session of the Denton City Council on March 24°i, 1998 and April 141', 1998. Data sources used to support this presentation Include the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDS), the State Data Center, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), and the City of Denton. Additlonal Information will be available In the near future as the consultant continues to complete the final growth forecasting report. r c , y 'r I j . 1 .,•II ~ 11 1 it ~`~V r Y ~ S I 1 r1 ` [1"'~iNY"~ y 1.,.:.~ ~ X Y*15 ♦ 1`.11r'y 32x 1 i~9 ".1 i I f'✓ a c ~ ~+.;v ryt i .~~r r i Lr ~ ~x'~'S " Sj F f 1 r 1 it r r r• ~•1 yr 't r i ~ y i 1i r 4 1 t r r _.._~..,.....,.+........~sxR+rar+Woaw~+waorwav+M~od/tfFltt~►(~yY1 spa i Presentation To Denton aw, Jr city council & School Boa ~,,~'~4~~75~1ryJ~~ir1.•~i f r}R~•Yj~s Members Population} {y 1998 Through 2020 by Rust Environment & Infrastructure • Helimuth, Obata + Kassabaum March 24,1998 • EDITED BY CITY STAFF FOR JOINT • CITY COUNCIL / D1SD MEETING lz;o !y MARCH 1998 25 x 0 32X ❑ 0 o M i I i i North Central Council OVA~'a3 Y Wise DENTO Collin 'i MHunt i RO x i Dallas P810 N6 Parker µTarrari A } '=F f OOd ~ no 1110 t ' . Erath a Y I . ~ 4 1 y. e illT 1~n t. '~Q 16 County COG Area ; 2 l 32 n Population Forecasts %sSN; ~i E 16 CountYCOG Region 12 000 000 ~'''.i M"'~`~"{f'„. n T~=~1 r~S~~~kF~F ~p 1~ ~ I ~ i,. r i t:'{Y' Si ~..nf 1~y4'L~•~,F' ~ i 1 { ~ I i~Ya { is S }I ~L ~r tl,i 10,0009000 ','F r' Y Ir'•~'~~".~}~~ CSr , "•'1'~Rj FAY. ~~P,~^,Cn ~h~, 1 a"`V+s 1'{ 4 5fu T1 " ~ 1~ ti r-~y~ a{ /~r r''~i~' + 3+ yy~'f~,~• r y+r t '~n~y,'ryPy 7.~ r ~'~~~~t.~~ r }!!.i •~~r~ i 19 r.,i,k' i~ Sty l!hly. 1 .5'~.y~~~k`C{'V ~~r~ i SS ~ ! ~✓}.5 f~ n ro r,/~ ~}aq p ",V~ aP~"' Aw- r ~0.1~"*"f ~•l~ ~I~ ~ i 81000!000 • f i),~1 r ti. J ~ i. ~~n d.C t! a i i'0. t "~:"yp) ) y. :!M°a r° r~rG i iA yl.` + ~J,+♦ Scenario D OC CL V ,000,000 Sc : r A',rry Y ~ ~ ~ t`a „ r rJ Scenarienara o I ! Sconario 90-94 4f000 000 , ~'=~.riFr"~,~,t~~~r~' ,y i~~a! hrp~>!s "rS1`.'~ r ~i,YP~ ~ s r~ GA' rr 4+'~u i 1 y~4 fir r, nr- r ?rs:m k, R pF7"`-fix &rr,?*'~r 29000,000 r„ 0 ' 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 n ro:,r'1p -s: Year 3 •h r. + l ;;f 7 WN A W,p1!'6~0►i1f 3 I 1 ~ _ y~~IMta01ILu.w;~r, 7 ~)•a ~ ~ ~ "32X O uxengsa Denton Coo 1,400,000 -+-Scenario 0.00 1,200,000 -~-Scenario 0.50 -6-Scenario 1.00 -x- Sc na ro 1990-94 1,000,000 - c 800,000 b c 600,000 a • 400,000 dd do „ 200,000 9 r 4 1 i O N O 1!! O N O IA O a yti's';w~' C> m O O r e- N N M p~ r tr. kr N N N N N N N Year r ~ t , t i,~ ~p 1 1 2 I YrpyiA i I 1 n ._.».W.„.n.,m<rare.:an...t~~se.+:wrlrae~s►rWR~!w~cY/MxWroAwth!.n`~IYSftl+i~?E'JL4"'.?F:~~. Y High Growth Rate Cities rs ARIZONA FLORIDA TEXAS COLORADO ~ i t 5 ' Srty~;r. t ~{tiY.a. ' 32 x D . I k,. { I i n ..,..:.:....rrs,m'.rt~nJ'.N•°Ulet{fcM""Y.',!R"!',. !!4iIKi @{V W..WArJ``#'. ;M ry LL Y Y .m•r tizi , ~'I':da s i~ CITY POPULATION TIME ANNUAL CHANGE PERIOD RATE ANAHEIM 162,222 1960 - 1990 3.179 BAKERSFIELD 117,972 1960 - 1990 3.816 C H U LA VISTA 93,129 1960 - 1990 3.970 CONCORD 75,348 1960-1090 3.835 FRESNO 262,533 1950 - 1990 3.437 MODESTO 128,145 1960 - 1990 5.143 OCEANSIDE 103,427 1960 -1990 5.610 PONOMA 64,566 1960 - 1990 2.271 SALINAS 79,820 1960 -1990 4.510 s SANTA ROSA 82j286 1960 - 1990 4.412 . SAN BERNARDINO 101,106 1950.1990 2.421 1 'A'kfi J~jFIyMI M'3R 9~ a"~ p,4111 J K 3?_x ❑ q, 1 7 i I I k I r 'n a ~ POPULATION TIME ANNUAL CITY ~ CHANGE PERIOD RATE GLENDALE 111,906 1970 -1990 7.295 MESA 254,319 1960 - 1990 7.407 PHOENIX 391,052 1930 - 1960 7.649 SCOTTSDALE 62,246 1970 -1990 3.309 i TEMPE 78,315 1970 -1990 4.097 359,936, -1990 5.623 `TUSC,Of~ { 32xl❑ 1 J WRLMLAWRdL~ 0 - o a s i 1/ II N'11 1 ~ rY. j 'a! r i POPULATION TIME ANNUAL CITY CHANGE PERIOD RATE FORT LAUDERDALE 103,262 1950 - 1970 6.962 HIALEAH 121,032 1960 - 1990 3.500 HOLLYWOOD 869086 1960 - 1980 6.377 JACKSONVILLE 115,366 1910.1940 3.729 MIAMI 2199705 1920 -1950 7.364 ORLANDO 75,924 1950 -1980 3.032 ST. PETERSBURG 140,873 1930 -1960 5.129 TALLAHASSEE 761599 1960 -1990 3.223 A:r 223,362 1920 -1960 4,271 ° h TAMP t *7 ' N,'P i~~yf 8 s " M, Ion ! 5 J 3 2 X i El • ~ M 11 4 } IN m a bS ~RFe ~i POPULATION TIME ANNUAL CITY CHANGE PERIOD RATE AMARILLO 94,837 1930.1960 3.952 ARLINGTON 216,942 1960.1990 6.062 AUSTIN 133,425 1930.1960 4.276 CORPUS CHRISTI 110,389 1940.1960 5.516 EL PASO 179,877 1940.1960 5.391 FORT WORTH 90,135 1910-1930 4.090 GARLAND 142,134 1960.1990 5.288 GRAND PRAIRIE 69,220 1960-1990 4.037 IRVING 109,052 1960-1990 4.134 MESQUITE 46,353 1970-1990 3.098 PLANO`A?110,013 1970.1990 10.340 g 'k®rg r . a l i f a t _._.l _ ..;...--•n.•.w....,w.Yw'MdMhkR!d'.Md1~37!/YJ7VGll~iA'~~t~'.3~~~1~'~a(~s~Y~~1.. ~}'i 1' . F i CITY POPULATION TIME ANNUAL CHANGE PERIOD RATE AURORA 173,555 1960-1990 5.199 COLORADO SPRINGS 169,633 1950 - 1980 5.317 DENVER 154,002 1900 -1930 2.585 PUEBLO 39,019 11940-1960, 2.832 ' 'ye:fy t F.ry ~ Y ~4 ti ~n}~y • ' ~asf. 'i 1' I~A~i~~)ra'1~'~J '!71 Jl2..+f.. t ~L~~ 10 u 7Ad 10 3x1❑~ ' at"M l 4WRISM i Miff Factors Transportation Infrastructure U n iversities f 1 fY l 1 Alliance Area Economy rK~hr~~ ~ , 11 p l 32 x I ra i 0 • MUM r , o "A"m y r ti ILWA Trr -r. • Location of Future West By-Pass • IH 35 = NAFTA Highway? • Upgrade Loop 288 • Convergence of IH 35W & IH 35E DIFW Airport Denton Airport e i e,ti I yY! li AL, I 01, ~ry,vV N F"f rr 1(1 32X1El Y . • c 1 I I . f ly f ~ III yt, f UPPER TRINITY PROJECTS =WASTEWATER • Southwest Plant • Northern Plant UPPER TRINITY PROJECTS - WATER North Regional Plant South Regional Plant ,,'A'ANGER WATER LINE • Under Construction a 13 ♦r r yrTr +~AJc^' 32X ABEAM • r~r AIIia CLOSE TO DENTON Desirable Place to Live Reasonable Cost of Living SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYER *American Airlines & AMR DEA i~ 3l ti r 4.. lrkO11 INTEL t i i ,d N'P^At rt f t~~aiF~"*}4e~Vta.RN ]111 >i 3 qae.' a .r. WA 14 32 x I o o c . "Pula e . ..r ,i"e M.xw a.p:k ~H e'. - r ri,T.a , 40 t • University of North Texas • Texas Woman's University j• Both Anticipate and are Planning For Growth 14 f js P:. L y. 1 Y t.. Ui 32;K r e O O Y lme~ndt l Universit Enrol I i 3 45000 I 1 40000- 35000- '5 1 ~ r 1. TWU 300004 ❑ UNT , j 25000 20000, ~m i! e- r, To N N N ,r t~ ~1 i 1 ~''Y~4 r it ) 1 + ~.1 16 11p1 [7 ) 2 i 'i r I ° . _ . ....•o- ...,,:i....w ..:.....wrr rrµ -r,e c4•pir,J;r{:. J~ T~iic:T« `M V Vii( Y Regional Economy is Diversified High Tech Industries Skilled Work Force is Major Benefit Universities Improve City's Position I.t ~M 'r ; ~ J 5 'cation is Outstanding • ' xj 114 F r rH ~rtf .,r 17 MUM .32 x r 0 r resew ti ii°` Infill With • Most of Vacant Land is Zoned Agricultural • PD is the Second Most Prevalent Zoning Current MF Use is One of Highest in Metroplex ~1 r+r .xdo 1,C, rTi. r~w Y ``.'d y t r ,1 r~ --I(1 32xI❑ 1 ! t Q Unit Cost For Undeveio ,ed~~ ~`e pData Provided By Several Real Estate Brokers Location Cost Per Acre City of Denton $12-15,000 Denton County $8-20,000 Allen $40-50,000 Frisco $20-30,000 II West Plano $50-60,000 l;4 4~11.i n I l; f ~ `i 0outhlake $25.50,000 xr <x;. . McKinney $25,000 19 .32 x r r . r zoos" • I i I . I . i i ..._..........•.....~...v ramw.ner~nyav.~«....r.«.nina~rw »yf vwu:~rO~b F't~e I Vacant , Zoned Land:,IWm.~ I SF-7(C) 62 LI 19392 SF-7 632 HI 14 SF-16 150 GR 53 SF-1 O( 62 ETJ 32 S F-10 190 C 461 PD 3,661 A 59741 I O 11 2F 20 MF-1 35 OTHER 11 s Total = 12.594 Ac Vacant } i y+~~ t e 5 rti~h+" f , I z ! ~ E 20 MI. ?K, ~C) 32x1❑. f b • Land UseA'ri` Class Ac DU/Ac Cap/DU 2-F 80.69 4 3.3 2F _J.01 4 3.3 M F"1 675 ~10 M F-1(c) 58.66 22 2 M F=2 ".Ss,• °`n<r{:78425.j}'~"72~~'►'2 M F-R 39.36 12 2 4 2 3: PD 5,446.10 SF-10 1,787.35 3.2 3.3 e SF-10(c) 65.98 3.2 3.3 SF-16 950.34 0.75 3.3 fi ,r i,•'It° :at, COO ,SF~-7. ~ ,,;3 150 =F.,. SF-7(c) 10-4.61 5 3.3 Totals 38,330.01 • } r Agricultural 11,724.09 100 Yr Flood 7,405.00 j ,21 Ool AM" '1, v,5. ~ 1 Y n} 1 ~1 S 1 i i . _ . . a r, ri., 'WI!r"',jvy b.lAdlW 'r MM ~t Holding Capacity M= t 1,600,000 1,400,000 - c 1,200,000 low 1,000,000 800,000 CL 600,000 • d 404,000 "Oe ♦-25001sq ml [}-35001sq m1 2000000 -er-60001s m1 . f T 0 J ~r$ ~ ire • tin 1 0~ i V ~G $~~~•,rr.,~'r~ • hCity Limits 3.5 MI ETJ 5.0 MI ETJ a y, W G, 22 1r i 1 1 { , t s t. . sI n, o e~A .t Dento s F i.9 350,000 --4-0 %of 1980 - 1990 Migration 300,000 -o--60 %of 1980 -1990 Migration 250,000 -x--100 %ot 1980 -1990 Migration Iw, I 0 200,000 a 150,000 • 100,000 50,006 • VS I 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year 23 °I 'If1 ll J A `I w t S Denton Po .K4'* 1,200,000 6 % Ann al Gro h 19000,000 800 ,000 I 2 6% A 'nual G o h NO - ._3.5.% Annua .--S rL 600,004 - --2.0 % Ann al Gro Gr wth svina ' 'n°. 4009000; 'x 240,040 ~ a ro y 4`~"s~„~~f4f~r~sx•h ~.f+Ya~~ @ il'` " 199b 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2026 2030 2036 2040 2046 2050 Year 24 2C) 32x , r • O r 1 u +rnh !u.«r•r:n.•e•M.nn~[,4wPuivMP'-'eYaMOAWae Mf+R.ii;w rfCpM~.Fr:YV+4r••n• t.[ e~.bN'l::IfY',I ~I{'~['~ip.'~~ ~ 1. •C ~ 4b. Jet ~v ~4 ~ (',~~'!T f[ y. Yi 800,000 700,000 - - - 1- % _ 600,000 - - 500,000 7.5 0 400,000 a - _ - -5 -0/s n°. 300,000 s 200,000 100,000 - - „ i 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Y,:.. Year 25 25~t~.~ 32XIO 1 11 1 ~ t T KIM I A ~ rr ,{J... ,r......... as .u,rr..:+.e,.n.or.<-.,w n,rv...2.,.•r .w.:a F.F~~r«r+WNYi`?7~$44 p!~ -tA I ,1 yy tipL °ty 1 ~r b is • Build Out Population - City Limits = 300,000 - 400,000 - ETJ = 800,000 • Growth Rate = 4 to 10 percent 2020 Population Range - Low = 120,000 High = 2309000 w Adsorption Range , ~ b 300 - 600 AcNear 26 32xI[I ' o • o ]*Y/ f r Surn `At 1a ~ •p 1 L fir'"iYiX4.Y4' ;Y t • Assume 200,000 In 2020 { - Population Increase : 130,000 - Population Of Denton Nearly Triples • Annual Population Increase = 5,900 - With 75 % In SF & 25 % In MF Housing ° 1340 SF Building Permits 1 Year 740 Apartment Units Per Year ° - $12,000,000 In Infrastructure By Developers 60,000,000 Added To Tax Base ! Year Wi 1N 21 \ L=kYrAL ~'6 i 9 it a , i ♦.r Summary Of Sub-Area Fore.cas s } Iv "•f 2 1990-2020 Increase 4 1000's 3 • 2 4 10 2 2 7 ~11 L13 8 • 2~ 8 11 14 Sub-Area Number 2 7 • 5 7 r h„~p i e 1 8' 28 32 Y~ - i nos . Y, t dl yA'r 1 7/9 ,y v i i y I in 1 0 !I" 4 VMS"1 e . __...,wn...uM..•nv„w.++in+N.w.n...a.VVw\ai wwfYY•MrWR/.+4WVMMwrurwinWwwHw++TYrwWWP Wlwnvn\'Rn1rwOM1!'NA'Shl\.~oYMPa~• y.S ) V~ 1y1 [ y Study Sub-area Forecasts by NCTCOG' s Sub-area 1990 2010 2020 1 52 985 10517 j 1794% 2817% 2 816 11620 21048 98.5% 1509% 3 20,127 220657 24,400 125% 21.2% 14,258 169643 4 10,394 37.1% 5911% 5 21,301 25,196 27,744 18.2% 30.2% 29 32xi❑ y i pr', P ,N ~ r'n l o tl~k! r ! rtt tt~ h f. k f r_\ r f k Y 31 'y . t J X ! s r O r t ..i. n~+ur....~....arrur...u.r.-rr Wnn~a.uu.~. I9ww.ri Y~++wn.wln'J'•rn.non.Mew✓V+'>.w~w~.rw,r+.ruu...sr~-un rrii~rv.amwar•r'NMAIM~YMIIY n s r r' p Study Sub-area Forecasts by NCTCOG Sub-area 1990 2010 2020 6 11,512 17,430 20,990 51.4% 82.3% 7 11610 69555 91783 n 307,1% 507.6% 976 3,817 11: '14 8 764 tlx 27,7% 399.6% 958 2,940 9 824 16,2% 256,8% 41992 50206 r y $ 10 49473 11.6% 16.3% ~t 30 i ~~xlt~ 3210' Now „ wurai 0 " , xoma e , , :.............:.,....,~.........."........"...~.-......"..,......,:«....,...........~.«......,m..,.......,.., ~................+...-.w.n. u.r..«ne.+ror. M.ll Ith. n Study Sub-area Forecasts by NCTCOG Sub-area 1990 2010 2020 1,416 2,198 3,154 11 55.2% 122.7% 12 29274 21491 3,072 9.5% 35.0% • 2,556 3,522 13 1 155 121.3% 204.9% F " ' t 99035 12,077 14 41240 113.0% 184.8% rrM 1411,0% 51 5,593 28,571 15 3,0 kY~ 836.4% 1 31 i 25 ICJ 32xIO , f 'Ys a : ) ¢ ~ a 4 7 y,~ t w ~i` y~,r ;l, M*~'i vv rl'Ati,!i r , 1 "cA ~Y GZ , ~ ,t ~ :r l tJ , a 4)1~ ~ hn ,w v r t d~ ,.i o e ~ .1, ,Y I mammas r l i n f y p 4 a :✓+„e1t.Mdt+YakiWKaiKro+•+nBx•ne,roca.::w..w-.~...:` ~w LW4 Agenda Ne._ZlZS11L. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Item Date 4-1*7- 9W AGENDA DATE% April 17,1998 x, DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office rn , s CMIDCM/ACM: Ted Benavides, City Manager 4. SUBJECT Receive a report from Schrickiel Rollins & Associates concerning the master plan for park, school and the C.H. Rollins athletic facilities located north of Loop 288 and west of F.M. 428. BACKGROUND f In the Fall of 1997, the Denton Independent School District purchased a large tract of land on the northern part of the city north of Loop 288, between Sherman Drive and Stuart Lane. Because of the success of the City'sjoint project with the D1SD concerning the construction of Mcklath Elementary School at South Lakes Park, the joint district and city planning committee recommended another joint venture. Participation in the joint venture will allow the money to go further for both entities, allow some use of joint facilities, and reduce the cost to the taxpayers for both the City and the V; strict. F,STI IATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Schrickiel Rollins & Associates will review the estimated schedule in their presentation. PRIOR ACTIONIREVIEW (Council. Boards. Commissions) 'I'hc City Council was briefed on this project at their meeting of October 7, 1997. FISCAL INFORMATION The City has approximately $450,000 from the 1986 bond Issue. • Respectfully submitted: Ted Bcnavldcs ''4 City Manager , n f„ ' 32 dW INS== _ . , - „ , r f i.✓ y+t! .j; A Ij $r r f „l`: ~ r :I'f i r 1 }i,;la~ A r y i} r yy✓4' r, 1'ky",~ ';r:> ! i~'.. .II i 'i' ! it f+J J r' i J ( t~'' ,i.. •kRy,, 'I 5i i' ii J;1, 'r r.1 +^~JTrr~ ; "a !.f V. r r r,j p-:.'% " ".i ,r'.✓ ,'i.it A l ✓i'r., x i,, .r~ fa , ,r, .7 yes r f 7: r •.,;f qW `r x,QA, 'fr.y lr+'4ti. r t , a : s i 1:. i y , r. i r , . ~ ~ r ;'i c r r : r 5'C r t(rj rt~ 4A ~1r.. 'fi$~~t,'1, .i I d" , f ( } 1 ,r } 1 ` t r rt„1, + 14 ''I^ ei ll9iA. "!'~1., yy'I', 1, ryy'Ak at w t r > .I' ~r r; i l 7 ~ .r;t era inyr•L t y t ! ; i i , .1 ~',5 J Y e ~ ;y i~}J'yfe rrl~r r+ b,, r k t, r ' r r r r d r x 1~ V~ i t ~ ni 1 t r~ v s r' `A i~,h 5 1 t ~ I;.r r y I' r ~fyL~;6 la f ~p$7a,d f x4 S " .r r 1 ,t A r l,'t 1 1 t, V , r A t q Jp ~I~rt { Ir f t, 7( ~ yrlpi 'r ii 0 : 4 a \ r I I x 4 i UL r Y p l I ~ J J M1 r r~ J l yn a 0 i ✓f n 7ri i~, 1 r I,^ti r r r , J ,r Il 1 r 1 -r - ,r } t a y r r "y t a T ' ,11~~d - , , ' ■ ~ ~r 1 t I i ~ ''il A t 'f { ' 1ta1M~l ~ a. I . ✓ I , ,e r,rVk, ;w.'Y'AW -,...rt.+; 7.unxr0.^xw. .,mm+. n.wrn..„uw ',t ' 5. 1i w 'r e~ r a ir, : r ..r w r LID ]Y~ r kk Ihr.Ti I{1 + .y f :p'r 3~'1~.~+.'r` t d "."N?!rrr a 'j i^~'frd C(IJt t 1w.,1 t £r 1tiiE° y 71 i''"`N i du I}qjv •,r Lf 4 "rit?, 'Y. °rk farrryr S'c: asr'.r a r... ,ya~i„M C ir''•' s 0.r tl;.,r,, ; ,.t -1~ xl fr,t,'.11 l r u A r r11fi ii r'' lyt,v r ir( f y (tir L. 1p, 1j ln. r x ~y , t: r f 1 r t C :0 Yr ^'~u: 4;1 1 a, 1'. M t ls, re% } ~.'ra t7 r'1 ri Sri 1 ,fir. s G'`Va"p✓a.A ,V~ d~,. :Irpµr Ax w.i " i f sr;'ft✓ + ,,'h , 1'rt. a ~a5u!rt t;,~rq ^1rwA 011! I . ,;ja y. r+Lil ','=fir ~ .W~~ ,.t . e'.~ tYlr R4r: 1 " di3 t JI ",~Kl~„~ :a , r } N" High School Stadium Middle SchoolNatatorium " Elementa _ ry school R.O.W. Dedication ~ 1 ' s ~ I I I t1 ~ : r' ~ ~ r ~t ✓ l^ 4 , 1 y r . ~ r 777~~~ sI I V ~ h, "'r r A I n v.. I r l0 I ,r r r"d rr t M' I d, d r> L1 ":r yt } ~ u.. ~ ,}7 '1 r y f r.. J lr iY ~h r~ t y,'r✓ 1. :1 y~l~ , r r" n 11 a } tr J ~r 1, °:Y r r. W r 4. i r, J r.. 1 l,1 I rrA 4k tttt~~~ T ~~r. deJ i~ ? ri ' ilrf~},✓6 1rvrNr Ir~r ~Ii rl t' I ~ a 1', i 0^"e~wy~~j t~, } t : r'i raY ~ ~ rl.. ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~1~ y r Ir~ / ~ ~ w ~rl Ir ~ ~ rrp1, t h P„ I _ .1 1 r r r Ll- 0, . 'LNCy r .?I 1 r r J •p G1... v ..;+1}0 F 1 > Ai" 'tr rr fii .I' .i r i JkT+ h d~' ~t~Rty~ ~Va1- r'.. 4 r 16 t ~0 ! 9~ 1, "'~af. 4!`:,~.. rn ' ,^tuJ ~y ' ~Y I i r qM1 r . t i ~~rII p I~J 1' 1 :~L+✓a ik}} r-N„ 1.edd d: ~6 ti✓~ :rr .t 'vyi r:1 rr r: r _ (✓n Am Pa Gd . r r. r L h" ✓ .i. y i~ ir ~tir0',~ .n}L ''~r r<wt, ,1~4 y4f fxti 11r ~y: y'r~ l - rd :r'a " 1~~7t MALLO L n 7S i~ Ir l' i :.City Park Land , Y~ i r< Dr t ~ I,1 I, i Np 1T 0qJ v 'I t 1' a~ J r r~ r it r LOWLbeLl IaYp1 Mry ~ i.: _ ~t i aq 'r IM L~M lPLO IA ~e r Ided D6aMlinMO' i" 1 A y r MAfhkkA Mlit 1>Oy yr \ MIP o- p mawN1r1✓m/$No^ 34.11L 9.4nv r~ TOM-IIIOrlp M.Ia& L'>~na r~q~ T ~e y r~ rat, L 114 s gMLr+l IOAR ,.I Tdi.Cy MJe 'f; ~t C TOM 170 ~01L SM* vf~j 11 0 1 fi (s ✓ tk 1 v: ! # w r? J , " , ay IM J~ e0(J' ; r„'. f ~ r✓ " 6 >,11: er It it rr Fi ' x.(. r ~1 n 1 1~ erl r I `7 r iS r rl (J1+rr~.`, ri t s T > InJ irn ~~''yyTT~ '•J,. J l rrbi'?rI,P¢¢ 1 M1 Y y~rr l y 'clai IbY r✓, i : i r ✓ I~~~ V Ix '/itt'M'.yf V r r;7 ✓ L.1 ..F✓ ' 7. ;Vr P 4 i.~'}ilrr "vii Y ar,! nWr n i,~~'{~! :~~{i., 7 ~~!3Fa s I;y rl r ,'r er „4 dl rrr" f tr w ,4 e;yi Y.r 3+ +F✓~ 1I 1 :i'rI n0w' r 1, r 0 A d, '~r t iW141W ~,,~~y~y a { r f r 1 {t• r Tf i ✓ I +Y1 p ~ra :r~'S r t ~'1' f Q ~'f ii. CTS 4 r, 14 LAMCM•MYIYyrMN ~1~p11A6~f ,iwMM~~~ Il~ r '}l~>hn lluvl:.' Q 0 a119 \0 b~.!'~d,1~ rl YTiirw rr .'t.,m-~I;°I fr✓r,?, I~MY. ~..~~J~t,~ a'J'' Mr fit k~ I{T ia Y~'f' t y rr j~~"'rE riir ~'1,~lph, YO}v. y~(~ 14~j: rr Jf fA.r~et( d a: 1. zr ax I© 2 10 2- 5~ I~ x ra c:: .~_~s:7 ? ..X;. xr I~. e. f r '+d?I~4/,r', d rrS#:1R1 1,;, I 'nY eh :.,'i 1 44 ^i rr ~r'l.;''Apl F, rl. t r t it 1 «P yl Al 1 1 r.. Y• Mp',h x. r;C~ir ( ,I 1 I 7...,a rr l`.',. 10 }i!': t 1+:Yr--'ib a 1 ;1i K r I ".i'.~ r''< w 1 , n O. r pfj .l t r - 1 AN . I .9.r1.., f. r., 1{. sr; it r tr .ny x. .rVi 1 1 r 1:. r 1 ~.:cy,. rf- O ir., 1 4A:. tr ,s" 1 l.c 11 11 atr c 1 r ! '1 r' S♦i)~ i ri,i v `1!:1;.;. .p.il.b V w rl:: ~F.`(,+' I./~~, !:9`, '~!„I, rt t rrl.,; 1+~: 1 ..1 1 11 r "t h ,i V I ' i~Q 1 Y'«i04 r. •!r: r ` " .",{~J.y'~~~A2ali. i ♦ r 1 r,i I' tl ; 1/ Jfi l 1 ~dlr ~ I f Y'. ~ er,' r 'r4~1, 1 I q~{M~,k ~r Grp"j~ I..II9. . r!V 1 i p `1~!1 Ir "Ifytri 'l j♦ al v, 1 .Y. 14 ~'4'.. k ` 07~.,1~;~J 4'~I~'~~~',~;.~~. i,{~ ~ r 1 r r 1 ' 4 1 r L 3 :l`I r ` Y.1 r,?LL y ;rytrN M~}: ' I 1 M1 t r I t it 1 ty, ilky ~4 J rv '.44 iO~ ly ~1 1 w .1 r r ~ 1 1 O1 r' S i 1 1 .1 O N r r. ~,{"y {'t.5➢„I. 'H `?Y 1 .i i f I~ 141 1 f pl 4 ~ r \ ~1. 1 .,r~ i1;' S 1 t 1 1 4 ~ YY4 } ~ tyx'~pp~yry "S~~J 'h. I IF p r + 1` ~ ~ 1 N n. "1 r I r ? t I I. 1n. 4 r V~ l'.Y r ?~41 '~'o + w .11 u' 1^ `.d 1 ~ I 4, 1 I h IQ 1 F 't 'I 1 I ~ 1 r ~ AtY~yp ~ I ➢r ,n~ 11. O 1 r Y Fx, n 1 1 1 1 " f 1 a r 1 f c 1 T4~~' n "i~ .y1 r ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 a .r: ♦ °,y i' 4 a rk. bt.r{~ifl.. r 4t♦fi~6 - O .V. r x i J 1 n .11 r J 1 f°~ 1 r4!'~}~ 1 t 1 I ! 1 ♦ 1 P I s3.~ k ' : 1 k b ,9 I n ! 1 y~l i y ♦ 4 Ir4 " , J P I+o i' w ~V { b~. ~x. Y r" t 11 1 " r r}' n v 1 1 b R FF. h y '21 1 . . 1 r' ifJMrh~&~M1rer N~r]5i:ik ,.1 ..ax. drSr.Y r.vr, brpaA. uv ry+PC:.-n.x" ~.tnv~;r~ 'r. 41 ~ 1 r v ~ T~~ 1A t, 1 ~ O 71'1 1 ~ 1 `t _ Elemen r~+ ool R,O.W.DedlcaGon ` rNewHigh School Stedlurri' i CihrAquatic Parke F.r y r' I 1r~~ti ➢._..I i.... 1. c.. RdR/LAXf ~.r i. r f 11 FT ` ` f~F . M d4: yM A'~4. 1 r r,r a' f° ~I 1y4 r - 11~ h ~`k' I I X174 , ~ 1 t)~` 1 r k PA- ~~+~}r r` ^1 ~ ~ ~ n { 1 hr rr y ^ - ~rC'; + f♦ +R`1 ~M1 k J 1GI Y 4 1 OFT IF. rl, 6 S 1 t r ! i r h l i ~dIF lr ' ~7r~1 1 ~ til li s: ; lltly i . !~R 1 , 1 td ~ 11 i 'I ~ ^ 1 r rv dd~ 1 ~r1f/ r. 4> n 'l 1~ r~ rl 'c',:u tr It 1 Y x11 !~t \xu r Ii IbN'` 6M1 } V! C '4° r yV r h , - °1" 113; FF, r , ~r ?rj + IY`° ^t~i ilr 1J r:~ r~ It ~b r r.' ~ l W y 1 I 1 r , r I ~ TmI 1t1 R 1 i l ➢ n'ri, 1 I , +e !h~ 1 17 tv! r.J. l~i?~' A'„ S' t 11~: 1r11 A I'~M• xA I Sn p.°' L~r'b t 4 v r 1 M i, 71 t ~a11... 1 ~ r".. ~ 1.J~.. > ~ ?~;F.:' 7°G?',r ♦ + n?:!t ~ b1~t 14r '4 11 111i~ 1 11 rl {P': r y1Y~lbl 11 r ! { 1 ''~x r'fi I ~Y ~ lodum if I~♦ AI. r k1 lti t: yp➢) r1•FI~ 1 1 4q A~1N~ )1 .r 41111h r ~IL Ii1~]i ,4ata{ ,X/IIIAr "r hr,5r,1.")4d r~, Ch' ~`d'Ii1,r ~1 n 4J"I 111 rl rlli l4 l'ri r' "1. r rf« n + i w }Vi ~r x 1 A. / by1. 1 l +b.. 1 D rA.¢rtM I 1' ~3x~--rte I 1 I 1 r 1 1 1 ,y+q r V 1 r S ;rY 4~ ♦~I I I r 1/11 i / 1141 1 , 1, ~1 ♦ 1 \ l:~l ul x. 'IF Chy Park Land I . 1 0, s I j , ti Ilru rrl I School 'S ~ rV 1 rJ,J I I n / I1 ✓ r 1 _ I I i A f 1 rl rxr ' + it 1 c + + I iYl V41 M11 ['q u 1 I S P Jr I; I y'q' u~ _ r I ~ f 1 m _r_~ 1 I r M. A 1 e4 b4':, 1 4+ 11 1 1 r r hK 7 10 I I r r _ !T I I r ! r r r 1 ``Hff ~ ~ 1 I i 1 I 1 ( ii a~ 1 ~ 1 11. r L" UM ~10111T L $1 1 4 r> 1 r ~ I J~1 IMrtLIA0 11 4 4 Il, 1 1 1 ~i i I . f ' TOM dk%" n t } 1 . _ 1 r 'r 1 St dP PI 1 f r 1 . MaNdcd 07Ar tlD~. 1 I: 1 Il ~ 4♦ ~~t ♦ 1 YM Id10a LIC IIOM 1 ~n ~ I ~ 11 I 11V / IWIM WodIMM 34, URA . I IA '1 TOM- Owu TO0m M1, 1 +y' CN TIM um A"&" MAR ,r TOW-ft ar r y ' I FF. r. TOM of 1200m 1,777• rpl'1- qr. ;r ~~Z +r r 4 ` rrP+}'rllJ➢ LROtf+~(q 4lyrl~t~r!/U 1 Y:r1 1: 13 gyp'} yv u'^~➢~ v r r. ~ ~ s-~ 77p4 4'. N+ 1y p 1 fk i ,,r rMM~~ A11 - i . t K t YKi' M~ ~ y '1 Iv~~fr ,`;i 2 i1Q« 32xIO 25x• ;r1. 7~a + s_ trt ~ '3,{ le :'n t A i e p s Y 1 , n orb`. ti r " i c. I 1 , '~t;v.*.rT%SeLfY,+4YWwir'3~~~1"P'al.~{i'~'.~J~~'Iv.w..'41. mrran+nn~: wv+r.a.":a J 4'a. >.~w~e~.e.hNN'YtN}L$tMR~'%SYIINOilhpfb[r'Wes" I 4 C CITY OFDENTON, TEXAS 2149F McKinney Rt~eplp[I Te:a&76261 ta~ML9>S~tin 07 Atm 4;. office of the City Manager r MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1998 `N^ TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council } DISD Trustees FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager { v' p SUBJECT; DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES <C I've attached a list of development activities as of April 14, 1998. As all of you know we've experienced a major increase in the amount of lots being zoned andifor platted. Preliminary plats indicate things moving through the process. Final plats indicate that the lots are on the ground and building permits could be issued and, in some cases, have been issued. Also with this material is a separate map that shows the location of most of this activity. We are also showing activity in Bartonville and Double Oak; however, we do not know the status of these particular developments. There are also a number of other proposals that have made application for annexation or plan review. These include 1) a major development on 35-W at the Ponder exit of about 400 acres, 2) more development at Unicorn Lake and, 3) a very large development west of 35-W and north of Crawford Road. These are just a few of the a 1 other activities we are seeing, I I think all of you know our staffs continue to trade information and develop these maps 0 in an effort to help both of our organizations. If any of you have any questions, please G call me at your convenience. Rick Sveh t➢ Deputy City Manager RS:af Attachments City DISD Joint Meeting Develo"ni Activities "~~kdlr.~ lu (~uu~ily Scndn" ~rA r K j 1,10 32 ' Y r C ! J ti.b .h2 ~ r' d^. Kr 1 ~ ' , J r11) ♦ O ry'. t ♦ . .._..._..._,.....,...«_v_..........~-..~.........._.+.......-,...„«»..... .w«-.w...............-w.r. ^...,.....m. .rrM.«.isw T#Ntbie' `fMr'MOI Ii «l~ DENTON SUBDIVISION LOT TALLY As of April 14, '19911, T~ PRELIMINARY/ FINAL PLATS LOTS PRELIMINARY PLATS FINAL PLATS UNITS " CONSTRUCTED S! SUBDIVISION NAME r = NOTAPPV. 'APP OVED DA1F `APPRO D n 1. Milam Creek Ranch Phase It 15 15 15 NOT FILED ` 2. Spring Hill Estates' 71 71 71 71 59 d 3. Bevel Hills Estates 138 136 j1 NOT FILED 4. The Meadows of Wind Hill 40 40 40 40 4 5. Deerwood Phase Ili 31 31 31 31 9 r Sherman Oaks 41 47 47 47 13 7. Blue Sky Estates* 17 17 17 17 0 8. Betlalre Heights, Phase tV 84 84 3 3 3 S. Covin ton 35 35 10. Lakeview Ranch' 368 368 11. Count Club Place' 37 37 12. Crown Oaks _ 77 77 77 77 25 13. Wind River Estates 434 434 113 43 0 14. Beni Creek Estates, Phase I 108 ice 108 108 0 15. Sundown Ranch 433 433 18.RId emonlAddition 74 74 46 46 0 17 Hills of Argyle 148 148 85 85 2 , I& Oaks of Montecito II 230 230 44 44 3 19. Denton County Club Estates 186 168 38 NOT FILED 0 20. Hickory Creek Hel his 94 04 04 0 20. Oak Perk Village Summit Oaks 337 337 1!28198 Not ,~ubmltled NONE 21. The Preserve 1189-2 1 892 NONE 22. Hickory Creek Ranch 217 217 1128198 Not submitted NONE ' 23. River Oaks 633 633 V28198 Not submitted NONE S I, 24, Wolskl Develo ment 1 250 1 950 25. Audra Lane Development 53 53 26, Denton Apartments 154 154 t 27. Pebblebrook A artments 250 250 28, The Highlands 32 32 29. Wslerford S ecer Oaks 240 240 240 t 30. lubbers Addition 19 19 Not submitted 31. Sommersel Addition 68 68 0 31 Estates of Forrestrldge, Sec. II 43 43 33. Unicorn Lake 100 100 34. Oakmont 192 192 k J 35. Oakmont II 105 105 36. Rollin Meadow 25 20 1128198 Notsubmitted NONE 37. McDonne" Hi htartds PII4 PIII 100 100 1728198 Notsubmittad NONE TOTAL LOTSNNITS 8 377 3,769 4,6031 1120 612 116 ' Subdivisions in the ETJ, DiviCon One "1 C_~ 32 x I Q V r ! i" IY s'~`1! 1 i. 6r a rg y, :k a 'k v P" M1 "ti rl" K"s n > r i} !i. 1 r X> 4 4 U y' k ~ L~ ~ ~~J 'Cir 1 I " " ^ t 7g,i i Y, 1 1 1 ' C' ti 1 i• C! k •,t 1 ~ 1 1 F :'11111 gi f I 1:~ 1 i .1 f t•• e -i re ~ 9 ~ ~.+.~».,..+,,...r.N~-r.wwn~NMUYMtlM1al11M01lM~hY SUBDIVISION LOT TALLY IN SUROUNDINO MUNICIPALITIES As of April 14,109a r' ~ S 1 b+ PRELIMINARYI FINAL PLATS LOTS PRELIMINARY PLATS FINAL PLATS UNITS X CONSTRUCTED L! ION E F;;x:,,. r, ,Nr ' CITY OF CORINTH `i 100. The Woods 80 101. The Knoll Phase II 109 102. Sommersel Addition 68 t, 103, Briar Glen 70 a' 104. The Wlas on the Fairway 43 k' 105. Fairway Estates 88 108. Windsor Ride 214 M^ 107. Lake Sharon Plaza 250 " 10S. C ress Point Estates 493 109. Corinthian Palisades 156 110. Kensington Estates 258 g CITY OF BARTONVILLE 13D. Des Creek Estates 109 ITY OF DOUBLE OAK 150. Estates of Double Oak 481 1 OTAL LOTS(U ZITS 1 982 0 } 1 1 ILI urn" 25 X 10 32 x l a ~ s f l ! l c ti Ak , ~ I `i A n ' s. ~ w s t 1-. l +Y Y r'.; ,A A 1f I 1 n r 1 ';I r 1. yca+e~rrr ' G:~ 4 , ' t Preliminary Information • For Discussion Only s Planning and Development Activity within DISO Summary Sheet on School Impact Total a of Number Percent Elem Sch Mid Sch High Sch Elementary ( Attendance Zone unke tanned Occupied occupied Im et .43 Impact .19 Im ct A5 G e florman 140 _ 0 _0% 60 27 _ 21 Evers 435 0 0% 187 83 65 Ra zor 0 0 0% 0 0 _0 Wilson 176 _ 1 1% 76 _ 34 27 Ginnin s 89 5 6% 36 16 13 Hodge 1,649 4 0% 707 313 247 ? Lee326 0 0% 140 _ 62 a9 ' N; Rivera 2,569 43 2% 1,086 480 379 9 _ Houston 1,984 __1f, I% 647 374 295 j McNair 3,153 195 6% 1,272 562 444 Grand Total 10,523 263 2% 4,412 1,949 1 539 Calhoun Zone 575 109 r Strickland Zone _ 2,242 424 McMath Zone 7,706 J 1,416 DHS Zone - 5,712 - 825 RHS Zone 4,811 714 Current DISD Enrollment (excluding early Childhood) 6,111 2,985 3,216 Projected Increase Based on Development 4,412 1,949 1,539 Projected Total Enrollment Based on Development 10,523 4,934 4,755 Number of Existing Schools' 10 3 2 Projected Number of Additional Schools 6 2 1 ' Exisling Schools Include McMath and exclude Sullivan-Keller and Fred Moore Note: Impact figures taken from Lewisville ISD density calculations. Assumptions Denton ISD density Is similar to that of LISO. f Impact figures represent an average density of all dwelling units (sing!e family homes, O mobile homes, apartments, e1c.). All development phases will occur as submitted. C Addendum • Section 4 II } 10 32xiii r. T 'i I s i' I 1 ! n+ 7 r ! t 1' ~ } Y 6, w , f ' v l r , .R ~ Y yl •I~ L ~ 1 ~ ~ti . ~ r ~ r I 1 ~,r S ~ ,:t + ~ i I+ t n 4n I, , r .•9 L, f C • l ~ Il, !~w~ fl r; , ( F , 1.; I i w r t' ~ •I ' M1 • ~ r J I ' ~ h I ~ 1 I I •I I! i a AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET r , AGENDA DATE: April 17, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Finance CM/DCMIACM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT FIVE-YEAR PLAN FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS f' 1 ' I BACKGROUND The fast City of Denton bond election was held in 1996, and the f yy Denton citizens overwhamingly approved a five-year plan for capital improvements. The 1997-98 budget includes finding to complete the five-year plan approved by voters r in 1996 one year early, and the City •.vill not have the authority to issue bonds after fiscal j year 1998-99. Therefore, it is necessary io begin planning for the next bond election. ;L j ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Attached are four different timelines for ` election dates to hold the next bond election. The possible election dates in 1999 are January 16, May I, August 14, and November 2. • i r ,r i All the timelines allow sufficient time for a Citizens Advisory Committee to be appointed by Council and for the Committee to study the needs of the City of Denton end formulate the next five-year plan for capital improvements to submit for voter approval. You will note that the election dates and the Council meeting dates are highlighted in blue. The 1 City Council must pass the ordinance calling for a bond election at least 45 days before the election is to be held. The first highlighted date on each schedule represents the latest " . possible date to pass the ordinance in order to have the election held on the date indicated, FISCAL IN fQpXATON N/A f Respectfully submitted, Foo se Assistant City Manager of Finance JF4th + } 32 Iv r. A r rr. flff~yr .li Ir r air Ea v Z f i1f X d4 t r e ~ t' e4 r ti A 0 11, l / 1 r 'tr t ~p., r Y j A I I ti 1 t 1. i 1. 1 1 ~ t Ir .rL' ~11~ rd [ , i ' t y' ( I. r~ r l t 1c % il'A71W4E7~ ± , . n P r ~,....*nt~n..tijYSA"~..1~'Fii'~4~W:5'Kr.)d•.It _ .~a....-...~.w'E.re :Y.+l9g't~."•'k. ~ nnn may.' r 1999 BOND ELECTION TIME TABLE Tuesday June 2 City Council passes resolution creating a Special Citizens 1 Advisory Committee for the Capital Improvement Program. Tuesday July 21 City Council appoints 50 member citizen committee. Thursday August 6 First Blue Ribbon CIP committee meeting; sub-committees ' appointed. August 6 Sub-committees collect facts, meet with citizen groups, September 19 study needs. w.~ Saturday September 26 Subcommittee reports forwarded to Blue Ribbon d^ Committee Chairperson. 1 9 Wednesday October 14 Sub-committee chairs and Blue Ribbon Chair reduce project list and finalize proposed projects for each year, Monday October 26 Full Blue Ribbon CIP Committee votes on approval of final ; CIP list. Wednesday October 28 Planning and Zoning Commission votes on approval of Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan. Tuesday November 10 City Council receives the Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan. I Tuesday November 11 City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed CIP recommendations. Tucsday December I City Council passes an ordinance calling for a bond election on January 16. Monday December 14 Press conference held. , 5anurday January 16 Capital Improvement Bond election held , 2 -2 eiK a 32XID i e 1~ w w,~ s ° t t a i r , ~ " w l r ~ i P 2 C ; r i~' ` k S t . ss . ~ h.. r i s + ~ r r O r 1 1 ~ .r~nxur r r'. 1 ` . 1 pt.t♦.:!'dk rN4.r+S'4~A'~Dl~F.'i~.m+:~k.'tl44.'.u w. ; ~...+:wVowrJ.'QXi4f~"q[tlkL'Cfae'iRU6. ~ wT.,~w. r 1999 BOND ELECTION TIME TABLE Tuesday September 15 City Council passes resolution creating a Special Citizens Advisory Committee for the Capital Improvement Program. Tuesday November 3 City Council appoints SO member citizen committee. Monday November 19 First Blue Ribbon CIP committee meeting; subcommittees ' appointed November 19 Sub-committees collect facts, meet with citizen groups, January 2 study needs. Saturday January 9 Sub-committee reports forwarded to Blue Ribbon Committee Chairperson. Wednesday January 27 Sub-committee chairs and Blue Ribbon Chair reduce project list and f nalize proposed projects for each year. ` Monday February 8 Full Blue Ribbon CIP Committee votes on approval of final { CIP list. Wednesday February 10 Planning and Zoning Commission votes on approval of Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan. f Tuesday February 23 City Council receives the Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan. Tuesday March 2 City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed CIP recommendations. ' 5 • Tuesday !March 16 City Council passes an ordinance calling for a bond election on May l Monday April s Press conference held. i. 0 Saturday May I Capital Improvemett Bond election held. r 3 r f. a Y ~n 32x~❑ t f . ~ , r r f t tt~i Y ~ t r , 4' Y f 4~ i J pppp I A.. t 1 t ( ~..j'L I. d t . . t 1999 BOND ELECTION TIME TABLE Tuesday December 15 City Council passes resolution creating a Special Citiu-ns "a, Advisory Committee for the Capital Improvement Program. t Tuesday February 2 City Council appoints 50 member citizen committee. Thursday February 11 First Blue Ribbon CIP committee meeting; sub-committees appointed. February 11 Sub-committees collect facts, meet with citizen groups, 4 P March 27 study needs. F Saturday April 3 Sub-committee reports forwarded to Blue Ribbon Committee Chairperson. ; Wednesday April 21 Subcommittee chairs and Blue Ribbon Chair reduce project list and finalize proposed projects for each year. ` r ` Monday May 10 Full Blue Ribbon CIP Commincs votes on approval of final CEP list.`; t r Wednesday May 12 Planning and Zoning Commission votes on approval of Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan,`. k Tuesday May 24 City Council receives the Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan Tuesday , June I City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed CIP ` % recommendations. 1 ' • Tuesday June Is City Council passes an ordinance calling for a bond election f 3 on November 3. Monday July 12 Press conference held,+ j q uriay August 14 Capital Improvement Bond election held. ti J141 4 1 E i 25x~~ 32 x~ r :1 4 1 e f 9J 1, 4n l ~ ! + 1 A t ! l + , 41 1999 BOND ELECTION TIME TABLE i uesday March 2 City Council passes resolution creating a Special Citizens Advisory Committee for the Capital Improvement Program. Tuesday April 20 City Council appoints 50 member citizen committee. Thursday May 6 First Blue Ribbon UP committee meeting. sub-committees appointed. May 6 Sub-committees collect facts, meet with citizen groups, June 19 study needs. Saturday June 26 Sub-committee reports forwarded to Blue Ribbon II• Committee Chairperson. Wednesday July 14 Sub-committee chairs tund Blue Ribbon Chair reduce project E list and finalize proposed projects for each year. Monday July 26 Full Blue Ribbon CIP Committee votes on approval of final CIP list. Wednesday July 28 Planning and Zoning Cv..•: nission votes on approval of Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan. Tuesday August 10 City Council receives the Blue Ribbon CIP Committee report of five-year plan. Tuesday August 17 City Council holds a public hearing on the proposed CIP recommendations. r • Tuesday September 7 City Council passes an ordinance calling for a bond election on November 3. Monday September 27 Press conference held. kr Tuesday November 2 Capital Improvement Bond election held A F, M 1. 3 25 10 1 A~IY ~ ~ c a r9. ♦ r s ',r T ~ ~ ~ ~ y , I' , r sc~xssr n. ,.::'w ~,r. v,. . A:',".:. 59: ea^.'s/ •'f"`:ly.li``''"~ti4`.~11N.'tF!t,SStQ?tt"~Yr.'eT, y ~~I?~%:r.'t°a"N'4'i!y K''0t'ri. .N - Agenda No, Age, Nem__ / . Date " 16 r . CITY OFDENTON. TEXAS MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of City Councii FROM: Jill Jordan, Director Water Utilitieq?,(J, } THRU: Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager of Utilities DATE: April l4, 1998 SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT FEES - PHASE I The City Council directed staff to begin a two phased process of enacting impact fees. Phase I Impact Fees are to include only the water and wastewater treatment facilities. Phase it of the impact fees will include enacting fees to recover costs associated with water distribution and wastewater collection lines, and possibly roadway and drainage improvements. The reason for having two phases involves a more lengthy time frame for developing the data necessary to determine costs for the items included in Phase II. As directed by the City Council, staff developed the Impact Fee Schedule for Phase 1 as shown in Exhibit I. Based on this schedule, the Council will con,ider adoption of the impact fees for treatment facilities by Octuber 6, 1998. Phase 11 Impact Fees are to be considered for adoption by the end of 1999. In response to a Council question, staff contacted the City's consultant for impact fees, Duncan Associates, for information concerning school impact fees. Communication • from the consultant is shown in Attachments I through 4. Attachment 5 includes the t State of Texas' legislation dealing with impact fees which is "Chapter 395 Local Government Code. Page 2 of the Attachment I (Table 7) shows an inventory of which states allow school impact fees to be collected. This table shows that State of Texas j does not provide for enabling legislation to implement impact fees for school facilities. w , I "Ndirared to (hrnhq' ScnJre" 2 5K Cl 32x!0 A + , Ali. 1 i X i o r w r . r ~i~l ' 1 4, 1 , .r . f , r r ~ . y,t+~,t:r":~. ~s~.1~;a lt;,4ri,@.sx.,, r d➢ S .a'~S7S.'1f~~"tS~'.*'t~i „y>3:'".A°$i~tC~C^-;r~ b•"~~Si+TY ata,.°~~i .!a.'+,4'~' r tS!t5"''~'°•~ ` Page 2 IMPLEMENTATION OP IMPACT FEES - PHASE t i 'e . ` Also, Chapter 395 of Local Government Code, Section 395.1 Definitions, defines Capital Improvements as any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision; "Water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and stormwater, drainage, and flood t control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service i area; and roadway facilities." r , Staff is available to pursue this matter further if so directed by the City Council I Attachments: -44 Exhibit 1: Impact Fee Schedule Attachments 1 thru 4; Communication from the consultant Attachment 5: Chapter 395 local Government Code I 25)10 2X111 r • I,t •'J~fi r r t ~ ~rtL rt._ rti 1 r `.r« p 4 ~ Wr t at ~ Nr F ti _ Ifi r r ~ } ° ~e t rP r t J 4~ r ° T 1 _q 9 t ,t+~ F~ r~" r ~ • nlr$r .fin ."I t ~T t t t J I~ ~ 1T r ~ r 1 ~ r r r 1 Y t r ~ VS aiW nil 1. ~ 1 S F ~ r i Y. i t yr. Y r l S 1 r787H00 r rh~ ~ A i i I'•. ' i ~ ' r : . t,. .,~,~1• ~p~ay'. Iyy~~.yJ a .r[ t w ~N p ~.y ~ ~ i n ♦ %~~r1.kRi p4liI,M ~i.. ~f~ ~ `1G~1'." t~ .~'~rtOifIIM~< 1XV•NM.r+r`^ ~Te.l~+pn: ~ w...« ~ ~ T i~ T{`4M t11'.'~t ~ 'r l~'a e•1 •>rfS~~°~IY'~~Y4WJ~CNF.V ~a err 'M m { • r EXHIBIT 1 I I 'i F .t r t'., ~ l tll i ~ 1Mi I r r;' a ii i I ;A-6v A 4<; 25~x a 32 X I d 0 .5'u~ l +i y *'r Ep 0 1 ~ i t~ n fir.` .i c-G f' "1 i Impact Fee Schedule Dates Assuming that we base Land Use i Ilk Assumptions on Market Forecasts Council appoints Adv Board 17-Mar Rust briefs Council and Adv Board on market forecasts 24-Mar Rust modifies forecasts as appropriate 3125415 r Council sets hearing date 21-Apr i Adv Board recommends land use assumptions 22-Apr .I Mandatory 30.60 day public review 4122.612 Council holds public hearing 2-Jun r ' Council adopts land use assumptions 16-Jun i AGT/Duncan reviews existing plant Info 31184110 AGT/Duncan prepares 10-yr CIP 4113-5131 PUB review 1-Jun Adv Board review 10-Jun TM City Council review 9-Jun AGT/Ouncan modify 10-yr CIP 6112.7/24 Council sets hearing date 4-Aug ' Adv Board sends comments on CIP 12-Aug . j Mandatory 30.60 day comment period 815.9115 Council holds public hearing 15-Sep Council adopts fees 1016196 i - - t`'. ~h ICS 32X #u i s h v I r r . w ~ ~ d { l ATTACHMENT 1 L ' E 1 i ' E a t rh" r i i r .1 p I r 4f 1. I 1 f • 32xl❑ - - - 1 v r 7eQM v r n 1 _ , A ;%Edu m . Apr-13-98 05:29P Duncan Associates 512 256 9994 P.01 duncan~associates land de'-'Plopanerd fi`0001" s glUwih rf KfrlUQtdit't~nl y kri(k]C11~t7; ralostimlle Transmission TO: jiil}ordan FAX: 940-349.7334 Director of Water Utilities l DATlt April 13, 1998 PAGES: 6. including this cover page E.. School irrpw.t Fees This n in response to your request for information on states in which schcol impactfees ate authorized. Our own experience and review of the Reralure indicates that school impact fees are authorized by impact fee enabling acts in seven states: California. Hawaii, Maryland. New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. School impact fees have also been adopted by kxal jurisdictions in states that lack impact fee en3bl ng acts, most nota* in Florida. In addition, some Tennessee communities have been given specific state authorization for school impact fees or facility taxes, including the City of Franklin and Williamson and Rutherford Counties. I i t We have not done an in depth analysis on this topic, and the literatures somewhat contrad story, perhaps in part due to the variety of terms used to describe the concept of impact fees. I am attaching excerpts from two recent publications The first attachment is page 35 from Impact Fee: end the Role of the State: Guidance for DrAing Legislation, which was prepared by the National Aswcation of Homebu,kders Research Center for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development in December 1993, According to this summary, only five states have Impact listed states Ar4orla, sloes not in fact fee enabling acts that authorize school impact fees. However one of the dearty auftrize school impact fees (oties have unrestricted authority for facilities that impose 'costs to the municipality.' and R is not clear whether the courts wit interpret schods to fall under this language). Several other states that now authorize school fees are not included 'M this somewhat dated ducument, I The remaininft attached pages are from the more recent 1995 American Bar Association book. Exactions impact Fees and Dedieat;o~:, edited by Robert H. Fre;P,ch and David W. Bushek. One poss bk error here is the irdication that Colorado has a spec6c Impact fee enabling statute. The referenced statute has not beers interpreted as prov4ing such From tat deck or authority based on our experience working with impact fees in that [Rory Nuaen ftdSG Senor Atta'te MNCUt UIOtu TII 1124 Munn the Swte as I hope this information n helpful, Please let us know d we ran be of •vttM Tx 767SO flblsa MI rVrthef aSSKtaMlru si visa iii N iI I 32X10 e r 1 Apr-13-58 t75:29P Duncan Associates 512 258 9994 P.02 Crttarla for Drafting Impact FN Legleldon - - I TABLE 7 BTATE INVENTORY OF FACILITIES AND OTHER EXPENDITURES i AUTHORIZED UNDER ENABLING LEGISLATION FadlWaa „ T. . Aut~ Med, water Fadrdat J / / / / ! / ! / ! ! ! 9awer fadNrMt I i atonrt Watw Fieftes / / ! I ! I J / / ! I ! flood Car" Padu and Asweisaon open SPA sow waste / ' Scroda / / ! / ! Poke FadllYes 00 Piibk aul" t.ea SeMaet"' / / AdnuniNfatlon J•••• ! 'oew IadlwWaspae uss may ircWda puake tnraA at transponakk a rWli. Dart. @MW9 Ry mad cal, woman conw, W4 any other 12616 for who the mbond noun tact tan be rrH. it -L#"IMson fpact t" nemt noted, W Nava ill openerded. -1 mckidN 36N" and rnairlt"MCe panannM (119. law tnkramtru. Me NMinp), ,-Up to 7 pen:ent of the IN may bit med for tee admm.slrallon Impact fees provide only a portion of the funding for specific eligible facilities that benefit the assessed development: general revenues, user fees, grants, or other sources finance the balance The availability of state, federal. and other financing for certain facilities should be considered in determining eligibility for impact fee funding. For example, if state, federal, or other outside i funding is available to pay pan of the cost of an improved waste water treatment facility to support new development, a local jurisdiction may supplement that funding by issuing general obligation bonds rather than impose impact fees for the facility. Similarly, if outside funding for road improvements is severely limited, the jurisdiction may elect to impose impact fees only for roads. Likewise. a state whose road network is severely deficient may authorize impact fee assessments only for roads as pan of a statewide road improvement effort. In all cases, any outside funding should be deducted from the impact fee calculation. e , • The effect of impact fees on aftosdabte housing should be considered in detcrsnining facility eligibility. Communities authorized to impose impact fees for the entire range of eligible capital improvements needed to support new development may unintentionally prise new homes beyond the market's ability to pay. or equally important, virtually eliminate affordable housing 35 I 11 32 X to .nrcerwl , I a r p r . f ,11m%r~s Apr-13-96 OS.2. ,.a , . 9P Duncan Assoc Tatas 512 258 9994 P.03 „f ¢ 3, R ~ 41 g ~l O. ' > C~ to w N a v1 g $ m~ ° 3 E 3 A O_l W* 15 :7 0 Ti gR f o p Fig ^ ~ 0 1{ cad ' l 11 TABLE 1. Analysis of Stale Impact Fee Legislation SeY•iYd 14mIfMAwm clturo Tkv for l'Upp~j krll d { IICIIMM Cmvnk.w Im1a.I11m0 a A.,-.mN Tom Llmh Fw lwprq, ntn ArIWI AfklexlP i SI Nf'1 erlae AwIft-lead %nUfrd f..l7letlM IlnlWremenH [IMNIaM RUI %µ.4d RryYlfd amwi ed Ai-m. me.4.h N. At Wk of SU94 Me Pow S Ott, fuel. PJ No, gM,JMd ran Na. NO. i Nbr i.wLxe fm n.idcnud IfxJih 4Pr ttme. f nnwn Je.aopmea. T ALl PL. Sf.1 An. { YAI.1.M i . 15upp IW31 1940 OkA1 {fait •MdnA 1114630411101 • A,J~n1 RoLfi. t.a. My lrY+..ed M W1401 pemm A.N let hmb rl MUM famiq.n .,Nn S n.. mux eOef Y., f... a tut { CC* L Mru. 1r alp e. Pt, )'AM if JAt d toil" cu.nil h.a. . r I.tUUMI v„nuM .tn, •tIM' yin w nfud due ro pat pIu11 .w. d. ea., butt,-.1 dill .n,e d tuna 1iidinp rt e.Ler u 1 n• nil "A W CIp Am, III. %?.t ",.wed to and of tenlfent or W. p~ J D° 1 A.. III Im cupN'n MI id chin, r nkM 11 n.y Ikorr Wm AlLm potiadr Amb 11110kA1 { ILIIU11R1 411-IIIryA) I IPllott 1 Ilbtlarilq. 114lICb al. I ILI1MlAh4 1 Cdfam.n UnAJA'1~ N~. C.dltnN he m.dentld f,;rNe 11M1 h, rd MUM In1vn A I YMyn N1w No so` Idnelo{.wel at find in > M,qMe 1'. 3.04 l ' Ua.'e Cnis .pain a unu.l.e of tMnm4plJy of W. et d.M of i4JUml a n m.p db.. Id~ 1 e"tm"Y•Y ..A~6nle al Nwpal U% Oft? maum. tid m ,*,t pdep.th I.rl.fe d M. l'A'Ht"pir •tMM.n n.vH firm. W NM., W ♦nn.d e•nn. wilco loud pd'+I r..%.na 9711 ro1Vn9nn wl aevr Hr mpan IMluimd. .d.mp MIH A+nnd. d un~f..r d IMt.f kn o6jill rm .•.dedfp pr MPAW ne.Up.K) fo liik. if COP Ar N. K Ole100 ti M r er RI O. rln.Mrwm.+ pit old nt d. rwq o IC.%InwM vv w put. nHyf.1M fet.tludlfiip ...m w sllidl.l.4n MID 'Aff 09 fd ewe N' AN a" It IMP.ld M I.M Lm `LMe N •1. Gar'1 C.d. I Will I I wm a 1 wig' 1 I60of { ynlua A L1 1 Id0'1P1 3 2 x i Q . I • vRrea7lvR t. n 1 1 l' 1 '1YdpRKp Apr-33-98 05:30P Duncan Associates 512 258 9994 i'P.04 . I 'CABLE 1: Analysts of State Impacl Fee L4gislation (Continued) S.e.kr rd.,lifkuloa oIM11,1111 Y+'+" IN l1pIW 1Nene rr Amber a 1911 n« tapa r A Anrrn411/ 71mr LAIR rN 7nlprrmNl. Aral.l D.rKl.tKkv 5rur1[II.1kei AIr16rr1td Il 1egWrd fefOoedtlo n Ra9drr 0 L001odllum MN Rpvtnt Amt p Rrwimk [nbnd. L'NewAMJ Ito riot mmfiw Coln fir.. e" IV IvrIIry tJp Snt. 1 70 f Ay mwgmr'tr a' 101 &.,04 Imd dntWp t-I Iwipq. l-M K d4vtoon or - 9v?I, IKII I[.erreoun. - • I tv t,p7 Ga,rpY OrwIN, Jt+vr, Yu, rJ.imy Cdimwl "o u'lla dan uputx kd• b A MvU •Ifnpd rpan 0 umlr Yn, a Inn d Ye.. Nu. . r.prily alfJ. Camps ifh pr,9ti1 iauAw Nir7 type rnJ 1rn7n 01116011 or rn9r,ry.~.at1 rdv w t]rl,. Cant 11"K . walm"IftfRf uttp r. *Mt rro if" .n.umked pnXUiw Obn. 11611 h 16) 0naf ean9d. flood ciMNw 1¢ditia wldiir 0 Yun NOW rel- fA'Op 19911 Nrarat4elYfnY. Ilydvy ryIMII 11M "I fnl.ldd. 1 36114116) 1.6 Ili { 161u1dI 1767Nu). 136 16V11). 1167141+1 1167141A1 Na.ul rflmi N h No tUY . Im,.Wd prior m ivmNU Sepow wv I" Mwr e6A"e a - Yu, wl.u 1e1 Yn, m.r Ir Yen, sr pen y OP•• ii Milos ow krlJinp W. 4y kNKM tra ped wiAN 0 yan of u nw.upiy n.i nly.-llk if d f.[didn M 1 .w, Jtr•. Oil M,,I,Ll Inv W. ullatia r A1r In a Ion Ii hr dw Arrt of ronotU" W le 0'.6, W. Nr.AI uuu• ' ILA . lrl m Among el.n n bvtldinl pt Inn 4w to%m ,r Amoy hat upon vpplk.Nnr1 of nmKR IN meal .IUA7, ILpp IVV: plat or •r 1nu U"I NJ No ep ap• do4apar IN, wen.ni. <oil;p or .e1NKat. 1 t 1 f1 praprWt hdl IA . mi"'I MA, Ihdy 10.LIb1 116116 II6W(b I010A(JI, Irblaap7 IIAIN3) {16111dNN I 1 61.1.1 eNm knr, Ye•. dvuory Cdtr. madKI Nun .r.,Ort wooll, Mwl be r,rwp&A 1n, Mwo I. 1.e tPraj •AAin 10 I"'n nl drK Loved m rrnl". +aln, 'doe CVn d eop wn"m Net pull. up.rilr mly Ilwmmlr.rmml te.lro l'noe Klamr.lu, vwmim, irwnlcl of budd pNola,1 Wnd by ft- Of cow m fill •r.l. wu or Irnd f I7'03U1 n e1V Omd cunena. II N prMH of kk of ton7 ppi Irv, rof rn td do wso "Irt.na P01N Supp W) Nliit yfn7 Irurw(rrtuRd nine mnal vn1 ful), local le•emm..I Ir ii;m 3er't + II'Iw6 p MII, of 4 "'Id 1 L, b1 k.daptt, r^^e' 1 1 A1.1721 M11 A 167.r:C1(:J1 161.1-'M l n'I:dlll SeUtlpeh. 101.1]11. Ie7.g0A. {07.17031341 IALONN Ollm.. X.6 drar7y YIr. v•,wry tmp "I I 6rd plo Op. Sgrnu ee eoupa III Mwl H Intumb rrd Yu, rumps- 1'a, mrp k Tn. w p.n j aMeIE M only pfwd ON 1,0101 I permit eei.lte.nl williA 1 yyn of e.R of kMlrl p,a,l Jutidlnion- of enaNpuMn E07 uI l'.rner Infra tr. u.uana N NO, rlea 1P teOuMen u nhnd n vnpmnaKl" widr II R1- Inc rod im lw St.r ANN md1 rxf, pm-Id mm.,, mIW 1114 for pVn, iv.iittn.ee p1m Iy1.d a .,Jmt ptrnem.m pm. {5 W)l n "N And 1,1 NM m buikrnl prmld aNMN N Imrml. ups. a6 lad tar a.' Sw -M.•d nr, d.-hits fm m INIII•fandy unit Mnel of r sninn. q w, p.. 10911 meat emrld elwVYeliaa. 1, o nlniNr fetue Niad I0 , I"IplAuiy frcrUpl oY.wm. An ~ 7 peIla ud.nq.ely dl ahl et.tbpmomN In aIl6JlaMl 1. `{I h.r lntuRmtm PEP Nm 19C1M1I r I p1.n 1 S p!71A7 k f s-o1a u 7111 IN Iv,M+rtrwl. I S.v70. 1 y.4u1. 11-rR,t. MK 11117 1 S-Oi A. 't { ]VII. _ .a6"N Tn. tme /m Ya d Of". U InrK I p In.1ur. So . K.tf. Ya, MI.," Impact NO, 41Kr to JU $"Na, reafu y R.f,4 40 40 ni.e l' .w NNUb. Imry A". Olt, aeWMr of A'. f.40 Ntpe rat ON of fu pryef I7goON if rfarGlNeN N." I1wM . Deft pm 1 • I.o C., A.. drvimi r um ptmto a MI wA+ perl ion. Ledrtln for .N., kc a WON! n 0In 4 , I *11A.11a1 e, nod cowl-. ft W or e..e117.nmI =21 ra cemplmd *W amlep. titntkl mm ON, u1 f]lViti I.N p1m, "buiNw M ade YQa of er /.u "m &a I6 al 1 lot . Ads 19931 ellkrnal up" Kluane N"Ji1nld r tone pies d .a Rrod 10 It1^ , 7Y df Yy ildlnn01 pm1ri, f hu In" drlnlt Afu~N1 .1 AKaI IrK No[ prm IM 000, or 61CLAOU, OF If A".l W-1 6r Cm~ u1 A9al w pnmrN PIN, . ;nl.um.R 0649 fagnaMe pegRU ,Ni renlreVn4ln 47 OK dnr gw,f.,A m dw taK Ow of -"0. inn id d"Iau of brl Nlnl plf, Nr1a1711 14 bl. ►Ideia.rt M uAR/ 1 161 1177 6 e IU1,r Nt rM.V.11IJiM 1614 115:1. I>r1.74 IJIVrdI. IM.1d.117! 1167 17L11IJId 9 mommummomm 0 r r I %VIM" r , 512 258 9994 P.05 Ay1e^-13-98 06:30P Uuncan Associates TABLE 1: Analysis Inf State Impact Fee Legislation (CondnJeed ) _ Sankrl IdMiIIm4r 4 ~ . Cryra F TIM Rr Suurf.N.tioa A.I~ C.e.nllnr lapne0ar a AnawlYrl TYnr Limb kr lapfdw hw Ar: ; INlklocw Rryudnd Celltlke lwdrrmnu p4ptedo wne rim Redo-ka b Rpu .lo M.Inr Rode, ern, NO 1401 rpn'fid mum Ne epleluwl Mar etpend hMm K Yer. b part d NO N„ park.. Inn. man" etad cacti m re.r.lak Mr. Ram. irat. FIN pewc. N CabpnnrNive d U ptu ANn n. 33-A. ",I °KA c,a Kth a nm rbbhb fdN a 14354 Nome re1uM .aNr M fial hr r Sapp lwlj, . e433ylNAf. _ 1USN21111. 1sIJ411NDt 147547lIfC1. N1Z .mu, "a. Ma M . .l.ay Na Ipm,'Add. N'a .I~ihd 1khN up $ rtyw. .J Yn. lmtudinp Yn. Tu, u pul Nn. Rtv Sut. Monn.aln, 1 prePN erKr f"im fe doem W6 of Clp, 17111.0 n'n dnimla it eedmIa f.& rem M1W el In bt. IIaI i. fir +I Cie ae inifleed Ye., K ku rain J yru, d An III a Law ee. var'bled dMA 10 u., ummp- { yam. wide pnjcw lW kaY 1A j 1 7761000, 11111.110. Ilia 100, il{ _ Via IX 12749 . 100. 12710.1%. ~ Ner II.meYre Radm, K.er. No. ROprN prbr q a r blurt h w1npW Mal tape.. Faye / yd,. No. Nn, .Ietf, p6, olldir«w Add rNaae of ban $1101111 hN IM Y" K W114tliA K N. H. Ra•, St.t. elamrrn. building pwroo, Wide mw enwwrd kr by rm, gMu IWmnmrr rbr J Arn. 1614 . it do ede r. r eaMywn for iid a d uuMwud h vmet xm 1 I S.pr. rw7/ n" mberel. 4 rftifK eferrp• Irrl r arced z 1 yang. .kow Of peKy, K efuNt :'KOitlr. . Ad ride, rNMN me", r bIInrfr i 11tt.lIIVI 1dta71(vildl. (VA)ANmr 16,74 1474.;1!•X11 i i i ,I Ner j.'.7 Rlr.b, a+er. Nn ImP..t me mMillon Or N>t rpcilr! Nn Ipedid. Yr. urtvketlw yet. IWO" Nn ~ ran.. pppr,nr A rvldi.kien n and:K wmpn' Ida a tom. N.I. St., Aen 4Mr1p 1pa pkn, eoM1aura omt balM MRny nra 4M n. I by1Da1 eK rpKlOri wMiu pen. kW ad. CAM 1"') 140. fSDa7, I40'50-A2 140AJD~2. 140 JJfIIt1. _ ,•r Ne. Meum ew. Yn, tdv" 1m^uaa IF Uri" pr• septmt ...nrw by RC01M ap'n W51 of Yr. Mad a Yep Mr i•' led, r pan .mete. .wit IN. Iwo. mawfw n bed10 rypr MI ar. pepeny war Mg4%f%4 "MM .41 CIA& 4aNM11 0`1 Cie IAy Me Meetk+. wnn., reu, k.w pmnDk time 1541 n• n,tt r:t d fKOiry a+wa tiAe htd re e.• fibm furil , 0 {x.11:1. 122 O.Imp. aA,e Ow IKKOn d tl mmpkN rlJ~e I rvmprhm. i.r dwlien of N..t coMtrp. Nildml ORM yon IRer adrdmi a ptew.d r ftw6rdeliy P44" rim. Iran On fen. 1lIDt IJ7 1a 1tA. Sle 11 l$I Ie ~4 . Na No pry"n R~rL. Krer, Nu N•. 1Wifrcd L.penn Knrnu by Ke lprci0wl Yr .wet, dnr4cO17 7M ' ! M flow 7!J 291 S if '-4 mn0ol 4 004 I • p , ~ ~ , u40u Pebt I lTtl 7vg10rl 11713$1 _ ~ I73)MIy. rrnryt'enle Rod. Yn .Ll.r~ry N~+akhw r PKIA'rg frpenn SCWI if p.hnd rapminy n I, 1'er. pwe M. Yee, 1w a, rem wpm nMr. a Nnulw epplWxn Ir ervee ua a fl d wyn.r. 0M WIN aK 4.411 1 of Cie p. S~.r M! i ebpmrN, euNln wlol m.rm meet ralmea<md uanpwl "we, mtlem } 1 10701 A me MR mna.1.0 r WJ• edrr yrn.e v.r pn;ummd e u J, l 4544 of b W"m p1Od1 Jwa N fip P" I Ar rt u4 fsupp1rN W )UM 1 IMO' A 1 ION. A!1 I IAWJ-A 1a A 141 I tOW Aid1 I I+rSOS-Afli it IOSd.AId 1 IMOlrUI 110101 Mq 10 3 2 X I O alai 1 ~~I r" 1 r ~Y r 1 i t s r i !'LYI/9rU4 Assor_iatas 51% 2 258 9994 P.OG A Pr 13 98 Ob:30P Duncan TABLE I: Analysis of State Impact Fee Legislation (Contfnued) f sn.avf 51.vAl0e.lpr i t LIIWI TYw Me CvPlw Mar11r 2 ` Forun e:omednr IrPrllkw A Aarurby T1116, LMt de :•rr'+YlmtllU Arrbl IIt6'dr.iol RvINCkr# .AenArtltr~ RyuM [nblrllr ~ryde.IrMr [ptdb.la Mlq" IItq" 11114AW I` Tew lm di, w•en, Yes, IdYf6orf 1'w M.,ss"W rllrr Iq sq,,mw w. m y )kcW r Ma1XAd Yes. l rya! an vs., far rota Y". ,v pm .rtlr, WY, idu'w. InYl6d, bar..lfr{,ly 4PI.J Omer rtquird d fwd.- IJQ .a urnu4 not d CU. T6r uc.1 n9nn.6ln, M befon Of r MrAl. enin w in 6Y6dtbl[ ruin w 1URT6M pro creel dip Cn -,T Cwt d16➢wve lira dOL.m; 00.t16'n domed, w it fwilbin I" ad a w,.t eq" Y, y An.. 1195,001 0wd amtld. umt Of p4m IwAli*wm MhAtwism W. n.. Prhd of r .•rrye a;~ to fq (Wa, b0dol Rrn M adirv Oaroxi to ++6M 1 Ira loyt6rlt 1.n6O kn m 4 J'. wPp. 19911. tae of ,ecq..7 1r6. )ran, ne V em," w n, CAM nrvr , vnr, w w lldw of roa M M Aw -160 3 666 1 "'liar ow I 7rn, w Y M IM Ct• Mkw •113'u 10Ign ` S Mw of cOOattian j y. 139} 001(14 1 39!.51. I M 916. 11 397.021 1 W.01.91 b I9l MA. 4195001(m) , 1 393.016u) I verroom Uvurrkled. No 1"%iklen a voWitir of AAnatl IrrO loo R,ww -lI.n I }tql Ya Ka W. i..wnu d Oalaal or nb. "Ited. "Won, a millions Vt Si.T. Ann. d,.'n'nw prlrM; 030r.6% r, P,vplr'y e.nw , 61. 21, 1 = n ,r7 10 prim w jarllrt arm Oil, 699:1 dil.00S wa7dl•hion 1 Ptmur, i"lfnwra Py. ,MINI 6wbarl[Md 1 . ~i 15201 1IWO) 1SIM(Cl. 1Molt vlllibir 11"d. Ya. ftwiw brfnn m a S.prnv wourni h GronA rwpira d fed. n, wk19w1 w Yet Yo, u put ewe of 6w fl.. n dbdi 9 lc* au. n) wwli rii.0 w &.radfrom to of C V. Y. Cnnl A9.. kill Rl•a`r I, ' 't Hire eollenlaA tar6pIew! rIUuA 15 ..w19n6r 11.14491n n'r4wxr a/w' a u On, 1 rnkn of n M.n 17rr ry(MxAw lv6v onepwel, w.w,,nem Plale l'aunry u A .eerp 19Y7I p,yneu pun Now reus"I" i I,Ie31 113 14A Z 1 1.114" J 11 1514996 1 15 14%.9. 1 is .I w9P 10 1 17 14". A. 1014") 40.1496.Cl II. 1 Bomb t, e , w..lunPton Rohde pr1n. Mo Mpwu„w u toJni,w ,n Sc)anu M..ww M Ent9.9rr r ttpM Vn. Y per ar 7.~WM Mbaelt fn de,glo"V 6Pplowl. A,911 0Pt .6fun 6 yun of dal Id ConveAeblWt w..n. R6• COM PINsel r roillen.., b Iperifl d eoglu6w yr nfuJ w r1t6 n.rwr. A9. 3 1: o31pld Peer" men, Mal 11703 d9A131 11?Ot OhFII 1NV)fnq 31 1120.,"61. MllRr1 Supp 19036 IU 07 ow) 961141 Y FL n Yes nwr nl MVw b.Pend v1d,w 1 rq M'Ca vlrP,e w tlw,4, M q. e, at r 6 [md rm m frllnr+Y9t tn mrJ Omen dam of udlMnon `,W,1 c 1) ..m• ~ Will d Jill P ryMw,r t• M. Ca 1 jell ro eeaY of CI9 t.rdi-, wa gplorld. ilwwea,9i.P vq.imd. W n6od upon .IV+Kr . fu n„ li~nd9n,Ymr,.. nn. 7"'r , . •i a OAl A. P9t. I, r741 n rr{ dnawyr. v,{ bur'1 pajrl. IR ll ,.J or nnlM1tau,R IW31 mnw. d 6pf^ ` 1 . PfalrfloH, OPt1eM n a'VI/4e1,[6 M I tmerpwY Plant l mednt l M. f NI. abeD11. ' 7.16I;d1 1 }_2uv(.6 (}'SOMnMT1. 1130d(.). 1 r40rP3 I }630 ?Ip 1 9-7a1i11 h i 2r, It, 32 x Q Vr.- LJKAOJJAL,14~~m Mm ~ 1 f t F~ f t ~ f 1 r F l hT\ ~ p r r ~ . :~r 1 r i ~ ~ V' ~ i r l r l ,.i + Yr~ i f ~o P 'n~~ 1 r f t i r ~~r a tt t i i s s r i T 1v~~ 7 P 1 f ~ i , ~ '.r t 1 n ~ i ➢ ~ r ~ n';v 1. ha Maim w i f , . n I P...I CS yfl L' f. ~ l , ATTACHMENT 2 l I' [ 1 I ~ I , i ~ v r r i x 1 0 1 32 X 25 ,varcr , c duncan associates 13214 Research Btvci, Suite 208 Austln, segos 78750.3238 CONTENTS j P 11 SCHOOL LAND DEDICATIONS t CR:DITS I Recalculation of Deferred Land Dedication Requirements . . I Past Excess Land Dedications l SCHOOL "ACT FEES 2 APPLICABILITY 2 TIMING OF PAYMENT 2 AMOUNT OF PAYMENT 2 ROUNDING 3 ` FEE SCHEDULE 3 DWELLING UNIT SIZE . 3 Detached Units 3 Anached Units 3 FORM OF PAYMENT 3 INVALID PAYMENT 3 FEE PAYMENT ERRORS 4 Additional Fees Owed . . 4 Refdnd of Eueu Fees 4 • SCHOOL IMPACT FEE EXEMPTIONS 4 i CUIrna by Fee Payers 4 Developreent for Which a Valid Building Parmrt has Been Issued 4 Alteration of Existing Dwelling Unit . 4 Accessory Uses and Structures 3 rl • O • School Exactions Adminiatratiw Manual l I 10 32XID r . i i x ~ ~ Y I ~ R 1 t 1 e ~ . a 1 4 a tl 1= r i , s~ n 0 i . i ' '.lIYl1YL7 i - x f Replacement of Destroyed Dwelling Units . SCHOOL IMPACT FEE CREDITS ti Credit for Put Impact Fee Payments • , 6 Proposed Land Dedications . 6 Basis for Credit . . 6 Land Value 6 Construction of Improvements 7 Procedure 7 Basis for Credit . 7 Credit Agreemeat 7 TlLning of Credit 7 • Transfer of Credits 8 Liability for Reimbursements 8 DEPOSIT AND EXPENDITURE OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE FUNDS 8 County's Remittance to School District . 8 School District's Deposit of Funds , 8 Interest on School Impbet Fee Funds . . . 8 Use of School Impact fee Funds 8 Order of Expenditure . 9 REFUND OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEES . 9 Building Perait Abandonment 9 ` Fees Not Expended of Encumbered within Six Yeats . 9 Notice of Itefund , . 9 i Procedure . 9 Application Contents . . . 10 Arnountof Refund . 10 Tinning of Refund . . 10 SCHOOL IMPACT FEE UPDATES Changed Conditions I0 Revised Property Tax Credits . 1 I I 1 r, , _ . _ r ~ O • School Exactions Administrative Manuel II , z5 x CJ 32 x J rZ J. ~ ♦n r ~ ' +n~ Tr ~ ti~tK : t 1 t n.., ' F jr t rJ I }'r s rl J c r (y y VI ~ V.i 1C1 r ~ , •~L' r 1 ~ J J p I. 1 , i dafa~ , i r f t , r h r , - r J; ~y 4 ,~;11 r P 1f 1 I r ~ 1 ~ a ~ ~ . • y a et 1 ;M1 ' 41 Ameu!ms ~ I ~~~1. rt nl ,F . ; I 1. ~J 1.T J 1 I r 1 t I, This School Exactions Adm' tistrative Manuel has been prepared as an aid to be used in understanding and administering the Land Dedication and School Impact Fee provisions of the San Miguel County Lend Use Code. The manual generally tracks the organization of the Code and restates many of its provisions. It also includes interpretations and explanations of some of the more complex lend dedication and Impact fee requirements. i ~i I' r. " 1 ' O r w'n SMool Ewtions Administrative Manual i'rl j ; f. p ryry`` I , n f, , ,r~ ~ rJ+ r• t r l ~ l ~ .y 1. ' , i WAKM SCHOOL LAND DEDICATIONS CREDITS The 1493 amendments to the Land Use Code's school land dedication provisions resulted in a(downward) revision of the dedication standards. Consequently, twa new code sections (5-804 O. and 5-804 H.) were added to provide credit for past excess land dedications. Recalculation of Deferred Load Dedkodon Requirements ! If land dedication requirements for developments approved prior to (effective date of resolution to be fn:eered here] were deferred, the amount of the required dedication must be recalculated prior to the acceptance of the land dedication that was deferred. The recalculated dedication amount shall be based on the dedication standards of Section 5.804 E. Once recakulated dedication Is accepted, the promissory note or other security which served as a guarantee that the dedication would be made will be released. Dart Excess Land Dedications Credit will be given for land dedications nude by a developer prior to feaecdve date of resolution to be fnscrred here] if the amount of the dedication was based on dedication standards in excess of those required by Section 5-804 E of the Lard Use Code. The amount of credit due will be determined by the Planning Director by subtracting the land dedication required pursuant to Section 5-804 E. from the land dedication made by the developer and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to (effective date of resolution to be Inserted here). Suppose, for example, that the developer of a subdivision or Pl)D containing 40 single family detached units (to(s) and 25 attached condominium units was required to dedicate 10,500 square feet of land under the dedication standards in place in March 1992. The dedication standards of Section 5.804 E., however, would only require the dedication of 26,560 square feet. 74 'excess' dedication in this case is 43,940 square feet (70,500 - 26, 560). To ddernsine the basis for a per- tutu-credit, the excess dedication amount would be divided by the number of units to be built within the subdivision (43,940 + 65). Such a calculation yields a per weir credit of 676 square fee per unit. Excess Load Previous Land Land Dedicadw Required Dedication Credit Dedication Sec,5-SN.E In the case of land 'dedications' that have come In tits form of cash in-lieu of land, the nor step would be to divide the cash-in•Ueu amounr received by 676 to determine a per unit credo. If, for exampft, the Co" had received 112W,,000in-Ueu of the 70,500square feet, the credit woud be $296 per unit School Exactions Administrative Manual t 32XIO I 4 d 7 Ai i aC i 1 '.%NMI% ' I In the case of acrual land dedications, land credits (square feet) will need to be converted ro dollar amounts. These conversions should be accomplished by calculating the value of the dedicated land at the time of dedication, This value wot-fd then be divided by the land. based credit figure (676 square feet in the example) to yield a per unit credit. The basis for calculation of excess land dedication credit is the cumulative total land dedication for , all filings in the subdivision or PUD. In other words, the fact that a developer dedicated an excess amount of land for one phase of a project would not, in and of Itself, be used as the basis for calculating credits due for that fling. Rather, the amount of credit due to the project as a whole would be determined by subtracting the land dedication required pursuant to Section 5-804 E. for all previous filings from the land dedication made by the developer for all previous filings, SCHOOL IMPACT FEES APPLICABILITY Sc~,ooi Impact Fee requirements apply to all new "residential" uses (as that term is defined In Article 6 of the Land Use Code). After (effective dare of resolution to be inserted here], any persoo requesting (1) a building permit for a residential use; (2) a permit for mobile horse b utallatioo; (3) an extension of a building permit for a residential use; or (4) an extension of a permit for mobile home Wullation must pay School Impact Fees. Persons who filed a fully completed building permit or mobile home permit prior to 4:30 p. m., /fart working day before effective date of resoludon to be Inserted here] will not be subject to School Impact Fee payment requirements for such permit. TIMNG OF PAYMENT School Impact Fees must be paid before issuance of it building pertnit or mobile borne insWtation permit. AMOUNT OF PAYMENT I The amount of the School Impact Fee will be determined by the Planning Director in accordance with the following School Impact Fee formula: Formak * DweWng Uok Sin Ban Sin Sane + Fee Per Square Fool l . (S4aan Feet) (54. Ft, Fee Abe* Baas Sin "33 0 $0 + $0 634-1,032 634 $0 + $1.14 1,033-1,553 1,033 $478 + $3.95 1,354.2,598 1,554 $2,537 + $3.27 2,599+ 2,599 $5,958 + $2.29 School Exactions Admin+atrativo Manual 2 i f 011 son I . r ~ ■ . nary w ROUNDING School impact Fee amounts should be rounded to the nearest dollar. FEE SCHEDULE Y t A complete schedule of School Impart Feet applicable to all sizes of dwelling units will be made available to the public at the County Planning Office. DWELLING UMT SIZE Detached Units The site of detached dwelling units will be based on the sum area of all floors in the dwelling, including areas to be used for human occupancy in basements and attics, as measured from the exterior faces of the wails. It will not include any floor spaca in accessory buildings or garages that is not to be used for dwelling purposes. Attached UnlU The size of attached dwelling units will be based on the sum area of all floors in the building, including all area to be used for human occupancy in basements and asks, as measured from the midpoint of the walls separating individual units. It will not include any floor apace in accessory buildings or garages, nor will it include elevator shahs, hallways, stairwells, office or community gathering space that is sot to be used for dwelling purposes. FORM OF PAYMENT Payments must be made in the form of a personal check, cashier's check or money order made payable to the San Miguel County Boud of County Commissioners. Payment must be made at the County Planning Office, 333 West Colorado, 3rd Floor. INVALID PAYMENT If a School Impact Fee payment proves to be invalid due to Insufficlent funds, improper execution or other • reasons, the Planning Director must notify the fee payer and the properly owner by cerGBed trail, return receipt requested, This nodfiatloo must state that the School Impact Fee amount is due irnmedistely upon receipt and that if not paid within 30 days, the County will have the authority to stop all construction related to the permit No future building permits, certificates of occupancy or other development permits for the project will be Issued until :`a fee is paid School Exactions Administrative Manual 3 - ~D 32xio I 1 / O FEE PAYMENT ERRORS If School Impact Fees have been calculated and paid based on errors or misrepresentations, the fees must be recalculated and any difference refunded to the fee payer or paid by the fee payer, whichever is applicable, Additional Fees Owed If an additional fee is owed, the Planning Director must notify the fee payer and the property owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. No building permits, certificates of occupancy or other development permits for the project will be issued until the full amount of the recalculated fee is paid. The County will have the authority to stop all construction related to the permit if the fee is not paid within 30 days of the time that the fee payer u notified. Refund of Excess Fees U a refund for payment orexcess school Impact Fees is due to the fee payer, the Planning Jirector must notify the fee payer and the property owner by certified mail, return receipt requested. Fee refund payments will be available from the County Planning Office. Fee refund payments not claimed within 180 days of the date that the return receipt is received by the County Planning Office will be forfeited. SCHOOL IMPACT FEE EXEMPTIONS ' Claims by Fee Payers { Exemptions crust be claimed by fa payers at the time of application for a building permit. If not claimed at that time, any right to an exemption will be waived by the fee payer. Development for Whkh a Valid Building Permit haia Been Issued If a valid building permit was Issued prior to (effective dare ojresnfudoa to be Gverred herel, the j dwelling for which the permit was issued will not be subject to School Impact Fee requirements so long as the budding permit remains valid and construction is commenced and diligently pursued according to the terms of the building permit J ' Alteration orExladei Dwel[Ing Units A',erations of an eitiating dwelling unit will not be subject to School Impact Fee requirements so long as the alteration does not result in an increase in the site of the dwelling unit, Alterations that do result In an increase in dwelling unit size will be subject School Impact Fee requirements . in such cases, applicable School Impact Fee payments will be determined by ukulating the School Impact Fee payment " would have been required for the dwelling unit prior to its alteration 11 (based on Impact fee levels in place at the time that alteration is to occur) and subtracting this amount from the Impact fee that is applicable to the expanded dwelling unit. Q 1 School Exactions Administrative Manuel 4 li - + 32 x i r I arnra"sf For example, assume that a 1, 209 square loot dwelling unit was altered to add an additional 300 square feet area. In such a case, an impact Jet of $1,167 shouts be collected. Thar fee is determined calculating the fee that would have applied to the original) unit fl, 200 square feet - $1,108), and subtracting that amount from the fee than applies to the expanded unit (1, 300 squarefeet - $2,275). Impact Fee Fee for Expanded Dwelling Fee For Dwelling Unit Unit Prior to Expansion $1,167 = $2,275 $1,108 Accessory Uses end Structures The construction, alteration or expansion of accessory uses and structures will not be subject to School Impact Fee requirements. This provision does not exempt accessory dwelling units from School Impact Fee requirements. Replacemeat of Destroyed Dwell Units The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed dwelling unit will Dot be subject to School Impact Fee requirements so long as the site of the replaced dwelling unit does not exceed the size or the original dwelling unit and so long as a building permit for the replacement structure is obtained within twelve (12) months of the date that the structure was destroyed. If the size of the t replacement dwelling unit exceeds the size of the previous dwelling unit, School Impact Fee requirements will apply. In such cases, applicable School Impact Fee payments will be determined by calculating the School impact Fee payment that would have ban required for the dwelling unit to be replaced (based on impact fee levels in place at he time that replacement is to occur) and subtracting that amount from the impact fee that is applicable to the replacement dwelling unit. for example, assume that a 1, 200 square foor dwelling unit wns destroyed and replaced with a 1,500 square foot ~trucrun. In such a case, the implacr fee applicable to the orfginal•site (1,. • xquare feet) is $1,108. the fee for the replacement unit (at 1,500 square feet) would be $2,275. no net impact fee would be $1,167. Impact Fee = Fee for Replacement - Fee For Orlgieal Dwelling Unit Dwellint $2,273 511108 $1,167 = If a building permit for a structure that is inteoW to replan a destroyed or partially destroyed structure is not obuiaed within twelve (12) months of the date that the structure was destroyed, O School Impact Fee requirements will apply and be based on the full size of the replacement structure. O O School Exactions Administrative Manust 5 " 2 ,ICl 32XIQ r ~ S , ! i I SCHOOL IMIPACT FEE CREDITS Credit for Past Impact Fee Payments Since the revised impact fee standards change the time at which fees will be due and payable (from final plat filing to time of building permit), it will be important to calculate credit for impact fee payments made by developers prior to (effective dare of resohWon to be inserted here). The amount of credit due for put impact fee payments will be determined by subtracting the impact fee payment required pursuant to Section 5.806 B. from the Present Value of the impact fee payment trade by the developer and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on behalf of the Telluride R-I School District Board prior to jeffeetlve date of resolution to be Inserted here). Credit for past impact fee payments must be claimed and will be due no later than the time of application for a building permit. Any past impact fee payment credit not claimed by the time of application for a building permit will be forfeited. Put Impact Fee Present Value of Previous Impact Fee Required by Payment Credit Impact Fee Payment Sec. 3.806.6 In making the Present Value calculation, the Consumer Price Index (CPO for All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average, for all items (1983.1984) published by United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics shall be used. Present Value is calculated by multiplying the past School Impact Fee payment by the ratio of the CPI for current year to the CPI for the year in which the payment was trade. Suppose, for example, that to 1987a developer made an Lnpact fee paymau In the amount of $10,000. The Present Value of that paymru in 1992 would be calculated as follows: Present Value of Past Payment Rado of CPI Jbr Clumar Year + Parr Payment ° Amount X to CPI r Payment Year 1 Ratio ■ 1992 CPI: 1987CPI - 136.1.:; P.d - 1.989 ! $1,198.910 - $1,000 X 1.989 Proposed Land Dedications I Fee payers may obtain credit against all or a portion of Scbool Impact Fees otherwise due by, dedicating heeded land for acbool facilities which b not otherwise"IsrW by the Land Use Code. No credits will be allowed unless the proposed dedication b approved by the School Board and Board of County Commissioners, Buis for Credit j School Exactions Administrative Manual d 400, 32xU I i •sv.ra~s. C o 6 i School Impact Fee credits for proposed land dedications will be based on the appraised i value of the land to be dedicated, as determined by a qualified property appraiser chosen by the Board of County Commissioners and paid by the individual requesting the credit. In the alternative, the Board of Counry Conunissioners may elect to establish the level of credit on the basis of land values determined by mutual agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the individual requesting the credit. Credit for the dedicated land will be provided when the property has been conveyed at mo charge to, and accepted by, the Board of Ceumy Commissioners on behalf of the Telluride R•I School Board. Land Value For the purpose of calculating land values to be used as the basis for School Impact Fee credits, land will be assigned Its current market value without improvements, except that it will include the value of those site improvements (including curb, gutter, streets, sidewalks and utilities) that are in place or will be in place at the time of conveyance. Market value will be determined by the documented purchase price of an arm's length transaction which is no more than one (1) year old, or by any other recognized means accepted by the Board of County Commissioners. Constrvolon of Improvements A fee payer may obtain credit against all or a portion of School Impact Fees otherwise due by constructing needed school facilities which are not otherwise required by the Land Use Code. No credits will be allowed unless the proposed construction is approved by the School Board and Board of County Commissioners. NgSedure Persons seeking School Impact Fee credit forconstructioo of school facility improvements will be required to submit engineering drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates to the County Planning Director. Engineering specifications and construction standards must comply with all San Miguel County and Telluride R•1 School District statoduds. Basis for Credit School impact Fee credits for construction of school facility Improvements will be based on the estimated value of the improvements, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners and School Board, The Board of County Corttmtissioners and School Board will determine the amount of credit for facility Improvements oa the basis of the submitted apftifl arloea and cost estimates or upon alternative conarructloa cost estimates ! ii the submitted specifications and estimates are determined to be Inaccurate of unreliable. Credit Agreement O I School Exactions ..„N,.•..• y Adminlstntivs Manual ~ I p,K aw a I h K 10 1 11 a + r ;.i < tic ,0 1k b ,~~tl ;stn,',, . , , v i t1ilfMYtfa i . ~ 0 I After determining the amount of credit to be granted, the Board of County Commissioners and School Board wi!l provide the applicant and the County Planning Director with a letter or certificate setting out the dollar amount of the credit, the reason for the credit and a description of the property to w'hlch the credit my be applied, The applicant must sign and date duplicate copies of such letter or certificate indicating agreement to its teens and ` return the signed document to the County Planning Director. Failure of the applicant to sign and return the document within silty (60) days will nullify the credit. Timinit of Credit Credit against Impact fees otherwise due will not be granted until construction of specified school facility improvements is completed and accepted by the Bond of County Commissioners atW School Board. Credit may, however, be granted before conpletion of specified scbool facility Improvements if the fee payer posts srcur v for the costs of construction. Security In the form of* performance bond, Irrevocable letter of credit or escrow agreement will be posted with and approved by the School Board in an amount equal to one hundred ten (110) percent of the cost of the construction. If facility improvements will not be constructed within one (1) year of the credit agreement, the amrunt of the security will be increased by ten (10) percent compounded, for each year ` of the life of the security. Transfer of Credits Credits cannot be transferred from one project to another without the express approval of the Board of County Commissioners and School Board. Liability for Relanbtrrsernenas and Refunds Any School Impact Fee reimbursements or refunds due will notconstiwte a liability of the County or School District; they will be payable only to the extent of impact fees collected. DEPOSIT AND EXPENDITURE OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE FUNDS County's Reunktamx to School District School Impact Fee proceeds collected by the County pursuant to this section trust be promptly deposited in a separate School Impact Fee Trust Fund accoua. School Impact Fee funds from the trust W account mill be remitted to the School Diwkt on a monthly base. School Dbtrict'e Depodt of Funds The School Dbtrict must deposit -.drool impact Fee funds into an Interest•be"i; account, Intemst on School Import Fee Funds fy School Exactions Administrative Manual I K Icy 32XIO tl 3 ' 0 aerr+suv Interest eamed on School Impact Fees will be considered proceeds of the account on which it is earned and will be subject to all restrictions placed on the use of School Impact Fees under this section Us_ of School Impact Fee Funds T Expenditure of School Impact Fees will be nude only for school capital facilities within the R• I ! r School District, except that up to two (2) percent of all fee revenue collected will be held by the County as reimbursement for the administrative costs of collecting fees and administering School impact Fee requirements. School Impact Fees will not be expended for my purpose that does not involve building or expanding school capital facilities that create additional capacity available to serve new growth and development, School Impact Fees may be used for the payment of principal and Interest on bonds, sores or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the School District to finance Capital Facilities and expansions, pursuant to the standards of this section Order of Expenditure School Impact Fee funds will be expended in the order in which they are collected. REFUND OF SCHOOL FACT FEES Building Permit Abandonment ` In the event that a building permit is abandoned or expires pear to the co-amencemew of construction, the fee payer will be entitled to a refund, without interest, of any School Impact Fees paid, except that the County will retain two (2) percent of the fee to offset the costs of collecting fees and administering School Impact Fee requirements. The fee payer must submit in application for such a refund to the County within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the permit. Any refund claim not made within thirty (30) days will be deemed waived. Fees Not Expeoded or Encumbered within Six Yem Schoe) Impact Fees that have not been used or encumbered for the acquisition, construction or expansion of school capital facilities within six (6) years after the date that web fees were collected must be refunded in accordance with the prov Word of this section. For the purpose of determining whether School bV. wt Fees have been encumbered, fees will be considered encumbered on a first- In, first-out (FIFO) basis. Notice of RefVrgQ When the right to a refund exists due to ► failute to eocumtvr School Impact Fees, the County must provide written rake of enctiement to a refund so the Individual who paid the School Impact Fee at the address shown on the building permit application or to the fee payer's successor in interest who has given notice to the County of a legal transfer or 0 assignment of the right to entitlement to a refltnd and who has provided the County School Exactions Administrative Ma 10 32 xI ❑ i Planning Office with a mailing address. Such notice must also be published in a local newspaper of general circulation within thirty (30) days after the expiration of the six (6) year period, The notice must contain the heading: "Notice of Entirlement to School Impact Fee Refund." i procou re A refund application must be made in writing to the County Planning Office within one ~ I (1) year of the date the refund becomes payable or within one (t) year of publication of the notice of entitlement to a refund, whichever is later. A refund not applied for within that time period will be deemed waived. Apglicadon Sonignts A refund app kation must include information and documentation sufficient to permit the County Planning Office to determine whether the refund claimed is proper, and, if so, the amount of such refund. Amount of Refund School Impact Fee refunds trade pursuant to this section will be based on the actual School Impact Fee payment, except that the County will retain two (2) percent of the fee to offset the costs of collecting fees and administering School Impact Fee requirements. Refunds ' must include a pro rata share of interest earned on the collected fee. Timinn of Refund All refunds must be made to the fee payer within sixty (60) days after it Is determined by the County Planning Office that sufficient proof of claim for refund has been made. SCHOOL UYIPACT FEE UPDATES Changed Conditions A cmMmhemive update of the School District Impact Fees should be performed if the County . Planning Director determinet that there is evidence to suggest that the underlying methodology or data used In calculating existing fees no longer reflects We* coodnioos in the Scbool District. Generally, a cotnprebeoalve update of impact fees Will Decd to be performed approxunately every ten (10) years when U.S. Census data becomes available. Cotrtpreberolve updates will also aced to be performed if the School District adopts a new capital facUides master plan. ~a ~ Q s School Exactions Administfstive Manuel 10 t ~ti • Ifl 32x10 e o I . Revised Property Tax Credits While it is unlikely that a comprehensive update of School Impact Fees will need to be performed more often than once every ten (10) years, beginning ip 1994, the fees will need to be revised annually to reflect the fact that applicable property tax credits will be declining. Two forms of property tax credit are included in the County's R-I School District Impact Fee formula-credit for past property tax paymentt used to refire the 1987 bond debt and credit for { future property tax payments that will be used to retire the $11.5 million bond issue approved by County voters in November 1992, Past property tax credit amounts will be increasing every year until the 1987 bonds are retired in 2003, since each passing year nuke another year that property owners have been paying on the bonds. Conversely, future property tax payment credits will be declining over the life of the 1992 bonds, since devalopmen occurring after 1993 will be paying on the bonds over a shorter period of time, As shown in Table 12 of the Capital Facility Finonre and Impact Fee Report (November 30, 1992), the property tax millage that accounts for past property tax payments Is $14.71 per $1,000 of 1992 assessed value. Beginning in 1994, revised credits must be calculated by adding another year to the credit table and recalculating the table with the present value for the current year at 1. As shown in Table 10 of the Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report (November 30, 1992), the property tax rnillage that accounts for future ptoprrty tax payments is $49.73 per S1,000 of 1992 assessed value. Beginning in 1994, revised credits must be calculated by deleting the previous ycus milloge credit and recalculating the table with the present value for the current year at 1. Using the crsdh update procedure outgned above, revised credit ceiouletions have ban prepared for the years 1894.2003. These rev.sed credit calculations have been used to prepare the follow" revised Base Impact Fes and Variable Fee Rata which should be used as revised Inputs lonnuohl Into the Mnpoct fa fornwla of Section "04 8.11 of the land Use Code. 1994 Size Range Avg. Prop. Ton Plowly 8660 ISq. Ft.) IW e ft. e o" I unit C hi ~M Fa Rate • Uo!•• :o orated Son M{ uel Count 034.1032 634 11.29 1818 /0 11,17 1033.1653 1,033 01.06 61,095 1468 13.94 11S64-2,595 1,554 11.45 $2,253: 12 522 13.24 2,599+ 2,609 11.49 13 873 16 1106 12.27 11 School Exactions Administrative Manual r - - - ttti, D,r;,, 32 x i Q 1 I Y I 1995 'J Size Range Avg. Prop. Tax propwy Base Tax Variable (Sq. Ft,l Sisa Cradle! Croft impact FM Rata (sq. h.1 sq. h. Unit Fee Un3kw orated San Maus[ Coun 634-1,032 634 $1.25 1793 $0 11.25 1,033-1,553 1,033 $1.03 11,084 1499 14.03 1,554-2,598 1 554 11.40 12,176 12 599 13.29 Z 699+ 2 599 11.44 $3,743 16,035 $2.31 1996 Slaa Ran" Avg. Prop. Tax Prop" Illase Venable (6q. Ft.l I size l a ~ Cum U sect F" Rata Untnco ated San M use Coun 831.1032 634 $1,23 1780 $0 11.30 l 1033.1653 1,033 11.01 11,043 $520 14.06 1 654.2 695 1,654 11.38 $2,145 $2,030 13.31 12,32 12,699+ 2 699 11142 11,360 9 1 18,087 i I 1997 6ha Range Avg. Prop. Tax ftwly !a" She Credit) Tax Variable Cradle/ Impael Fa Rata (Sq. Ft.) ,sq. M.1 rq. h, Urvf F" Unineo dad San MhWNJWW 834-1 032 834 11.20 1761 40 11.38 10331563 11,033 10.98 11,012 1661 $4,11 1 661-2 698 1,654 11.34 $2002 62.693 13.35 Z 599+ 2 699 11.38 $3 607 $6,191 12.35 School Exactions Administrative Manual 12 32x~~ =Ii Mollf ' I .Y • 1 I 1 I I 1 1996 Property Avo. Size Range Size Prop. Tax Tax Impa Varlable CredW (Sq. Ft.1 I ql ft.1 s C~ Fiats Foe Rau Unlno rated San M el Co 634.1,032 634 41.17 $742 00 $1.43 1,033.1653 1,033 10.96 1992 1571 $4.16 1,554-2,598 1 554 11.31 12,036 12,739 $3.40 2,599+ 2,599 11.34 13,483 46 295 $2.38 1999 size Ran Avy Prop. Tax Pr ppezrty Base Variable Isq. PLO laq~tt.1 Croft Croft ~N Fee Rate sq, ft. Wine rated San M uaI Coon tv, ;34-1,032 034 11.14 1723 10 11.51 1 033.1 653 1,033 $0.93 1961 $602 14,19 ' 1 564.2 698 1,654 $1.26 $1 889 42 786 $3.43 2 699+ 2 599 11.31 03,406 10,373 12.40 MOMMONNNOWN 2000 Ske Range Avg. Prop. Tax Property Base Tax VarlabN ISq. Ft.1 (w ft .1 aQe k1 Until ~ct Fee Rau Uri" seed San Mkwel C 634-1032 $34 11.11 1704 10 11.56 • 10331653 1,033 00.91 $940 $823 4.27 1 654.2 698 1 654 41,24 $1,927 02.848 $3.45 O, I 12,599+ 2 699 11 26 !3 327 $0,451 12.42 f School Exactions Administrative Manual 13 32X 1 1 ~ l V' ~ 1 h1 I tl/YIPAl ^ O l; 4 e~eese • I I I I 2001 Property Site Range Croft Size Avg. Prop, Tax Tax Impact a ac Variable (Sq. Ft.) q. q. . Crad81 t Fee Rate (sq. k.1 a k. unit Fw Unlno sled San MkKW C f , I 834-1032 634 11.08 $685 00 11,81 1,033-1,553 1,033 $0.89 $919 1644 04.32 1,554-2,590 1,564 $1.21 $1,880 02,896 $3.48 26699+ 2,599 11.25 13,24a 16,529 02.44 2002 Site Range Avg. Prop. Tax Prop" 1me* Variable (Sq. Ft.l (q~N.1 sC Chew ~t Fee Rata , ft. unit Unlno orated San Coon 634.1032 834 11OS 1866 40 11,68 1033.1653 1033 10.67 $899 1864 14.37 d 1,554-2,599 1 554 et.18 $1,034 12,941 13.51 2,599+ 2 699 $1.)2 03,171 $6,607 $2.46 i 2003 SUe Range Avg. Prop. Tax Prop" haw YarlabN IBq, Ft.l IW h,l a CU"M ~t Fee Rate unime atod San Q 1134.1032 634 11.03 1663 $0 $1,72 1033.1653 1,033 $0.86 $879 1685 14.42 1,554-2,59 8 1,6114 11.15 $1,787 $2,903 13,54 2,592+ 2 699 11.19 63,093 40,685 12.48 I I School Exactions Administrative Manual 14 ci I ~ 32 x I O v I r 1. r r , 0 y~ x r ♦ f f 1 v ♦ f I `a I ' ' j M .I „ a . i I accessory uses ♦ 5 administrative ♦ ♦ . ♦ . 1, 8 alteration 4,5 appraised 6 bond 7 4 building permit abandonment ♦ ♦ ♦ 9 construction ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . , ♦ ♦ 3.5, 7-9 y credit a gfeement 7,8 credits ♦ ♦ 1.2,6-8 Deposit 8 destroyed dwelling 5 Encumbered 9 exempdons...♦ 4 form of payment ♦ 3 Interest 8.10 land dedications . ♦ ♦ ♦ . ♦ ♦ ♦ 1, 2.6 fetter of credit.♦ 7 Liability ♦ ♦ ♦ , , ♦ 8 Notice of Refund 9 payment 2-6.8. 10 reNnd.........♦♦,,....,,....♦...♦ ......................♦......•4,9,10 rounding 3 schedule 3 Security ..........................................................1,7,8 size ................♦♦.................♦...2.6 timing of credit ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ . , . ♦ 7 transfer of credits 8 Use of..........♦.....♦........♦.♦..♦ 8 l , ~ School Exactions Adminiltrstlvs Manual 18 } r - - r? er~J.: is 25 x Q 32X 10 , r ~ ~ t! I Yr ~ ~ n i , e , , r 4 i r I ' ATTACHMENT 3 i i o • I ~ 4 ~ I ~q lt~ 1 25 x 10 : 2X . 4 ,y , , •nt ~ I ~r r' •I r 'I I r " E i r a " l I ri ( q r Y ~1 ~ r r 9 t r I '1 0 I iy~} r li Y , "r 'irros' ~ r J I r~4~ dunoan associates Y 13276 Reseolch BW, Suite 208 Ausrln. Texas 78750-3238 rr I Eduoatlonal Facility Impaot Fees ` Methodology and Technical Report Prepared for The School Board of Dade County, Florida . I d&r I i 11 ; ~r 3 I r° James Duncan and Associates Craig Richardson ` Dr, Jaynes Cr Nicholas 1 April 7. 1995 s.a r µ 2 5 x 10 32X i " ElIf~V ( i Py t P i V ♦ " O 1 • I S CONTENTS PART I: CALCULATING LOCAL EDUCATN1NAL FACILITY COSTS . . . I Cat Comyaw+t No, h Capitol Fodlity Cosa per Student . . . . . . . . . . . I Feucational Facilities . . . . . 1 3 School Buses Portable 9uildings 4 Transpcrtation and Maintenance Facilities 5 5 Total Capital Facility Costs 6 CostComponaA N& L. Craditt 6 State Funding Local Optional Millage Levy !LAME) . . . . . . 7 Bond Debt Service . , 8 Toted Credits and Net Local Capital Cost Per Student . . . . . . . 9 PART II: ASSIGNING LOCAL CAPITAL FACIL M COM TO NEW DEVELOPMENT , , 10 Cakulstiq Edutsdood FaclNy Impact To. . . . . . . 11 PART NI: DESCIIPTION Of EDUCAMNAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE . . . Q 13 findinp Impakion d lmpad fof . . . • . . Eumptlent . . . . . 14 Cndltt , , . . 14 E4nsOt %trIm 14 Ut4 of Funds 14 Appeals of Admin WW" Declslar . . 15 PARiIY:INTERLOCAL AGREEMEIR 16 AMENDW A: COMPAIATTTE SCHOOL DISTIIfT CNARACTERISTKS . . . . 17 i 1 Dada County Eduesdenai facillty Impact f"WethodobIlyy and Technkai Reparl A" 7, 1995 75x10 32x10 4 i i i 1 r 1 r, v~~ r r e 0 l r t i r ' k y LIST OF TABLES I Table k UwA dorsal Faculty Coots FM Student . . . . 2 Table 3: tJ AWWon factors arwd Musted Educ bend Facility Coots . . . . . . 3 Table 3: Woh ftW Avwgo Coot for FuMk School Student . . . 3 j ' Table 4: WeVitad Avwge khool but Coats For Sk*m . . . . . . 4 Tanta S: Portable ladldky Cats Fw Student . . , , . , 4 Table 6: Transportation and Mainteame Fxilky Cosh Per Student . . . . 5 ' Table T: Total Capital Fadky Cat he Student . . . . 5 i Table k State and Local School FociNty Capital Mocadons . . . . . . 6 Table local Dpefoaaal MHMV levy Crsdit . . . . . . 7 Table lfh {ond Debt Service Crsdk . . . . 8 I % Table ll: Not local Studs aat CapW Coots . , , , , , , 9 Table M Student Coo nden #Y Naanbe of ledrooms and MsiderKW Structure Type , 10 Table 0:SamplaS4a•iwdImpost: Fm lI t • We A-I: CenaparatM School DbVkt Clwaetselstkt 17 t I Dade County Educademl faclNty Impact Foacme:nxology and Technical Repot a AM 7, 1995 ii { 7. 10 '32 x I O 1 1 PART I: CALCULATING LOCAL EDUCATIONAL FACWTT COSTS The first step In calculating equitable, technically sound and legally defensible school impact fees is to establish the local cost per student of providing new educational facilities. Doing so requires an analysis of two basic factors: (1) educational capital facility costs per student and (2) credits due to fee-paying developments to accout.' for their other contributions to school capital facility finance, This section presents the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's recommended methodology for calculating local educational facility costs in the Dade County Public School District. Cost Component Me. I: Capital Facility Collis per Student The capital cost of accommodating each new public school student is the first critical piece of information needed to calculate legally defensible school impact fees. The methodology used to calculate the capital cost of providing each new unit of student capacity within the Dade County public school system involved an examination of four cost components: (1) educational facilities; (2) school buses; (3) portable school buildings; and (4) transportation and maintenance foeditles. 1 Umatioma }uilitill The educational facilities cost component represents the average cost of new niternativelvocaltonal schools within the Dade high and elementary, middle senior County school6irtrict, The costs included under the "educational facilities" umbrella are as follows: ' 1. Land - acquisition, surveys, legal fees, site preparation, etc. 2. Construction - architect uraUengir issang and professional fees; infrastructure costs: building materials and Ivoor; etc. 3. Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) - furniture, library books, educational equipment (e.g., audio-visual, food service, vocational shop), eta Educational facility costs comprise the bulk of the total capital cost of providing new p student capacity. The average per-sludent cost of providing new educational facilities in Dade County are summarized in Table 1, Dade County Educational Facility Impact fees\MethcdokV and Techn cal Report ♦ April 7, 1995 1 g" 1 32 X r 'r r i t O Table I Educational Facility Costs Per Student Dade County, Florid% 1994 Year Suildinl hand Total Dui{n Cost Pot Facility Built Cost Cost Cost Capac~y Student M. S. Dou 1as EL 1990 $9260,630, $1,750,000 $11,010,630 885 P. Ruth Miller EI. 1993 $6,916.163 $778.750 $7,694,913 _ 885 lack Gordon El. 1992 $8,772,757 $1,930,250 $10,703,007 885 FEhelBeckham El. 1994 $9,750,100 $1,926,750 $11,676,850 885 ,W. Mathews El, 1994 $9,656,331 $1,748,500 $11,404831 885 Ernesl Graham EL 1994 $16,154,490 $2,275,000 $18,429,490 1,495 Hialeah Gardens El. 1992 $7,386,212 $1,935,000 $9,311,212 885 Elementary Schools $67,196,68) $12,334,250 $1110,21111,933 6,805 $11790 Paul Bell Mid. 1113 $16,026,486 $3,150,000 $19,176,466 1,583 Ruben Dario 1989 $14,492,241 $3,150,000 PS47~103,093 1,427 Middle Schools S30 511,727 $4,)00,000 3,010 $12,232 ~B. Goleman Sr. 1994 $42,121,869 $4,981,224 3,006 Northwestern Sr, 1993 $61,090,000 $1,527,000 2,887 tSenlor MN% Schools 5103 211,069 $6,$01224 S,89) $11619 Wm. Turner V.T. 1993 $35,117,083 $5,950,000 $41,067,083 2,062 1. Mann Opportunity 1994 L$525224 6,000 $4.200,000 $13,166,000 452 COPE South Alt. 1991 76 $2,450000 $7,702,476 370, AlterntthelYoc. Scheole 149.33S .Silt $12,400 000 1419$$ $S9 2114 $21476 i Source. Dade County Public Schools, 1994 Notes' "Bwldzg Coat" represents construction plus Fr&E, adjusted to 1994 dollars, per Engineering News-Record (ENR) construction cost index "hand Cod" for Barbara Goleman and Northwestern Senlor Highs based on actual costs; other land cod ligurei based on actual land area per school and es11ma1od cost of S 1 MOW per acre. As shown in Table 1, average educational facility costs range from $11,790 per student for elementary schools to $21,476 per student for alternativehrocalionol schools. These figures represent the average cost to provide a unit of student capacity based on the design capacity of the referenced school facilities. They represent the cost of accommodating new public school students when the school system H operating in equilibrium-when the number of students matches the "optimum" number and mix of student stations available within the system. In reality, elementary, middle and senior high student populations within the Dade County 0 school system exceed the respective design capacities of elementary, middle and senior high school facilities. } Oads County Educational Facility Impact Foss\Methodoiogy and Tt6nkal Report & April 7. 1995 2 , x { 0 wa+vn. In order to avoid charging imract fee payers for the cost of providing a level of service that does not exist, the focility costs from Table 1 have been reduced by a school "utilization" factor of L25, which represents the systern-wide ratio of students to student stations, counting permanent and portable classroom facilities. Applying this utilization factor yields the "adjusted" cost of providing new educational facilities at the current level of service. Table 1 i Utilization Factors and Adjusted Educational Facility Costs Dodo County, Pbrlda H91 Facility Utilisation Coat Per "one factor o Adjusted Elements Schools 1.25 $11,790 $9,432 Middle Schools 1.25 $12,232 $9,786 Senior High Schools _ 1 25 $18,619 514,895 KternativeNocationalSchools 1125 $21,476 $17,181 Source; Average system wide"Utilization Factor" based on data from Region, Feeder School Usting, October 17, 1994, Dade County Public Schools. "Average" coat per student figures from Table 1. The final step In computing the educational fatuity cost component is to calculate the weighted average cost per student based on the each school type's share of the school system's total student station design capacity. As shown In Table 3, this step produces a weighted average educational faclhty cost of $11.012 per student. Table 3 WelEhtW Averajp Cost Per Public School Rodent Dade Coun , Fkrfda 199/ Facility Dest=n Percent Total Cost for StWene Capachy C81. Ad u We hted Elemenla Schools 116,090 52.34 $9,432 $4,937 Middle Schools 46,472 20,95 $9,7861 $2,050 Senior High Schools 54,889 24.75 $14,895 $3,687 • AllernaflvoNocational Schools 4,361 1.97 $17,1811 S3 +A iTotal 11 812 111,012 Source "Design Capacity" from Region. Feeder School Usting October 17, 1994. Dade County Public Schools. "Adjusted" cost per student from table 2. "Weighted" averoge cost per student represents "Adjusted" cost muluplied by percent total capoOty lotto', • O • Dade County Educational Facility Impact fesWethodology and Technical Report & April 7, 1995 3 1 sloom lchooi lush School bus costs comprise the second cc mponent of the capital cost equation. For the purpose of attributing school bus costs to different typos of educational facilities, typical bus ratios (per school type) were multiplied by the district's average bus cost estimate o($42,000. Total school bus cost figures, by facility type, were then divided by school facility design capacities to compute an average school bus cost per student. As in the case of educational facilities, average cost figures were adjusted by the school system's current average "utilization" factor (1.25), and a weighted average school bus cost per student was then calculated on the basis of each school's share of total student enrollment. The result of these calculations-a weighted average school bus cost of $257 per student-h: presented in Table 4. Table 4 Wehhted Average Schaal Ius Costs Per Student Dade County, Florid 1994 sales Total Design Cost Per Student { facility Mumber Cost Cott Cepuky Averse Ad usted Weighted Elements 5.1 $42,000 $214,200 885 $242 $173 $°0 Middle 17.3 $42,000 $726,600 1,425 $510 $3@4 $76 Senior 34,3 $42,000 $1,440,600 3,006 $479 $342 85 IAIr c NIA NIA N/A NIA ` NIA $293 -:16 TL oui f 2S1 Source: Dade County Nblic Schools, 1994. Now Average of elementary, middlo and senior high adjusted costs used for ailernauvelvocauonalschools. Parable 9uildinp In addition to its stock of permanent educational buildings and facilities, the school district maintcins an inventory of nearly 2,300 portable classroom facilities. Al an average unit cost of $101,575, these portable facilities represent a sizeable capital investment. The average per student cost of these portable facilities represents the third component of total school facility costs. A • Based on a total student population of 312,000, the average per student cost for portable buildings was calculated to be $747, No utilization adjustments or weighted averages (by school type) are used, since portable facilities are used to address over. capacity situations and because portable facility costs are calculated on a system wide basis. The formula used to tabulate total portable facility costs per student are presented in Table 5. Dodo Cou;rty Educational fullity Impact Fees\Methodolc)v And Technkat Report April 7, 1995 4 --~rre< Eel sum' ~ v tR .i, 7 r7 K * © 32X i r' v ~ r i+. i'i f 'X I n 'S u, p' O Table S Portable suildins Costs Per Student Dade County, Florida 1994 Number of Average Total Total Average Cost Unite Unit Cost Cost Students For Student 2,296 $101,575 $233,216,200 312,000 $747 Source: Dade County Public Schools, 1994, Trsnsparuion tnd Maintemnu Fscilitin Transportation and maintenance facilities comprise the final ingredient in the school facility capital cost mix. The per student cost estimate presented in Table 6 is based on the actual cost of the Southwest Transportation Center and the South Maintenance Facility. Table A Transportation and Maintenance Facility Costs Per Student Dade County. Florida. 1994 Facility suildins !at I I land Cost Total Total Cost Per Cost students student Transportation $6,513,645 $1,641,600 $8,155,245 312,000 $26 Maintenance $3,649,000 $518,400 $4,167,400 312,000 $13 Total _ fN Source: Dade County Public Schools, 1994, based on cost of Southwest Transportation Center and South Main!enance Facility. Tout (apiul facility (era Having computed the average per student cost of the four types of capital facilities recognized by the Advisory Committee as cornprlstng impact fee capilai costs, it Is possible to calculate the gross (pre-credit) school facility cost per student. This computation, which yields an average facility cost of $12,055 per shident, is presented in Table 7. A Table T • TOW Capital FUNNY Cat For student Dade County, Flerlida,1994 Ca" Cat Component _ Table Cat Per Student EducationalFaciLitiea 3 11,012 School Buses 4 $257 j • Portable Facilities 5 $747 Trans Motion and Maintenance Facilities 6 $39 • • ToW $13,055 Dade County Islocatienal Facllity Impact Feet Me.h,:4ology and Technical Report a April 7, 1995 5 7 Ifs 32xlQ , O Cost Component "0. 2: Credits In order to satisfy well-established legal principles, school impact fees must be structured to credit fee-payers for tax payments used to finance school capital facilities. Moreover, the courts have held that impact fees must be discounted to account for the role of state funding in the local capital revenue equation. The theory behind impact fee credits is simple: new development should not have to pay twice for the expansion of capital facility capacity-once through impact fees and again through property tax payments and other financial contributions. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee recommended fee calculation methodology includes three forms of credit: (1) credit for state funding of school capital facilities, (2) credit for property tax payments pursuant to the district's Local Optional MWage Levy (LOML); and (3) credit for property tax payments on school bond issues. Explanations of these credits are presented below, Spit funding The state's share of local capital facility funding comes in two forms-Public j Education Capital Outlay (PECO) funds and Capital Outlay and Debt Service Funds (COWS). The state's average share of the total school capital funding warn the Dade County School District was calculated on the basis of historical trends in funding. Since the 1990-1991 fiscal year, state lunding has accovnted for lust over 45 percent of total capital outlay. This percentage factor is applied to the total capital facility cost per student (Table 7) to account br the role of utate funding in the capital funding picture (See Table 8). It amounts to a credit of $5,559 per student. Table / State and Local School facility Capital Allocations Dade Coun Florid 1994 _ State Raanw Leal 11i Teal Final Tear CODS PICO 1989.90 $7,708,720 530,949,909 $49,516052 $88,174,681 1990.91 T $5.000000 536,188,496 $59,593,046 $100,781,542 1991.92 56,000,000 555,538,458 $80,097,735 5121636,193 0 1992.93 $14,865,839 $62,603,763 $52,802,183 $130,271785 1993.94 $5566,941 $16,535,077 559,660,115 $81762.133 Total $39,1411500 $201815,703 3281,669,131 $522,626,334 Percent of TOW _ 7.:94 +3142%■44.11% L_ 12.H% 100.00% Source Dade County Public Schools, 1994, lames Duncan and Associates, 1994. Notes: "Local Revenue" includes payments on Certificates ol Purticipation ICOU, Debi Service e"riditur@a and LOML funds used for capacq -expanding capital expenditures. O Dods County Educational Facility Impact fetWethodology and Technical Report 6 • April 1, 1995 32 x r '.A 1 ~ •tA iV 4 A ~1i1 ~ y 0 G Local Optimal Mdlrtr levy (101111) Under Florida law, school districts have the authority to impose a local optional millage levy of up to two mills. In Dade County, the LOML is currently set at two mills, having been increased from 1,8 mills in FY 1993-1994. Credit for LOML properly tax payments that are used to fund capacity-expanding improvements is the second form r of credit to be calculated under the proposed impact fee approach. Revenue generated by the LOML goes to fund a variety of things, including remodeling, renovations, furnishings, equipment and debt service. Credit needs to be given, however, only for the share of LOML revenue that goes toward funding capacity-expanding capital improvements. Historically, only debt service on certificates of participation (COPs) have been used to %ind such capital expenditures. I The first step in computing an LOML credit is to calculate a capital millage rate based on the amount of LOML revenue that historically has gone to fund capital expenditures. This derived capital mWage rate Is then applied to the average taxable value per public school student to calculate the annual LOML tax payment that goes toward capital expenditures. The net present value of this estimated annral per- student tax payment represents the total LOML credit Tabu 9 t "al Optional Millgs Lary Credk Dads Count Florida 1911 You LOML memos Capita Foment CepfW _ 6 nditum C N1Mate 1989.90 1.80 5101,123,777 $1,576,719 1.56% 0.028 1990.91 I.BO $105939,517 54,302,546 4.06% 0.073 I 1991.92 1.80 Si MI,744 $4,755,896 4.25% 0.077 1992-93 1.80 $113,891,365 $1,730,018 1.52% 0.027 1993.94 2.00 5125,070,462 $3,198,890 2.56% 0,051 Averse 0.051 1994.95 2.00 5148487000 $16,350000 0.223 ToW 0.27) Avg. Tax Value Per Student x LOW Cap. Millage Annual Tax Pmt. per Student $64,011,982,651/312A00 x (0.214/1,000) $205,167 x 0.000274 is 556.21 kPresent Value, $56,21, 5.64%, 25 years Total LONL CrdIt ■ $143 Source: Dade County Public Schools, 1995. cw► I Dade County Iducadenal Facilhy Impact FooAMethodoloffy and Technical Report AApril 7, 1995 7 WIN : 0 (end Debt Service Property tax revenue generated by development throughout Dade County is used, in part, to retire general obligation school bonds. Under the methodology presented here, new development will receive full credit for future property tax payments that will go toward retL-ing that GO bond debt. In order to ensure that all potential capital revenue sources are adequately credited, a credit has also been calculated for the Motor Vehicle flcense Tax Refunding Bond issued in 1972, even though property tax revenue is not used to retire that debt. i The total debt service credit presented in Table 10 was calculated by computing a constant annual debt service payment based on the amount of bond debt outstanding and the average Interest rate paid on those bonds. A per student debt service mlllage was then calculated by dividing the annual debt service by total value of taxable property within Dade County. This debt service millage was than applied to the average taxable value per student figure of $205,167 to yield an annual tax payment per student of S162.90. The net present value of this estimated annual per- student tax payment represents the total debt service credit. As shown in Table 10 the bond debt credit is S1,924, Table 14 land Debt Sorirke Credit Dade County, f IerWs,19t14 Bond Type larks Original Interest Amount Amount Isle Outstandl MV Lcenoe Tax Refunding 1972 510,605,000 5,6250 $1,700,000 GeneralObliallon 1989 $200,000.000 6.8250 $51,200,000 General Obh ation 1992 $20000,000 6.3750 $194,325.000 GeneralQbhgation 1993 $152,855000 4.6250 $152,855,000 General Obli anon 1994-A Sl50000,000 5.4500 $150000,000 Genera lObh ation 1994-B $50,090,000 4,9125 550,000,000 Total _ 171) 440 000 Avg, 3,6354 1111100!0_90,000 lAnnual Debt Service on fi60Q08Q000(5.6496, 20 years) $50,799,154 -All L$205, ated Debt Service Millago - Annual Debt Servicelrotal Assessed Value 9,1541564,01 1,982,651 a 0.000794 w 0.794 Debt Mill • axable Value Per Student x Debt Millags a Annual Tax Pmt. per Student 67 x 0.000794.5162,90, Present Value, 5162,90, 5,64%, 20 ynvs ebt !teaks CWN 914 Source: !Bade County Public Schools, 1994. lames Duncan and Associates, 1994. i Dade County Educational Isciky, Impact hes\Methodology and Technical Report a April 7, 1995 8 2E~ 32XI❑ v VJ i k r' ! Y A} v NF ! f II v d i .J 4 R,~ , 1 f f S f' Y i 1 l4 1Y y 1 ~f S M 0 r r 6 F ~ .t r T j i rl Y ~ f ~ a~. " ~i'4 i 5 P. w 'C i ti ~ r e. i n,_ 1e' rt 1bM ~ o ~ t "r71 r 1. f,~ 1 ~ :i P ' 4n R I '`~a 1 ~.4~"i♦ rr l,' , "yti `A~f. lA ~ ~l1 i i` Y1 xt Y A 5 f f % ~ 1 • A ~ A 1 . Avoid" 1 l f 1 vl r J Y , ~ f Y ~ Y it f r , t 1 lead (nditt sad Not Will Gpial (tit for Noll E Three forms of credit have been calculated in this section, The first--credit for state funding-has the effect of discounting the capital cost per student (as calculated in Table 8) by 46.11 percent. The second-credit for the share of LOML that goes toward capital funding-amounts to an additional 8138 reduction in the net local cost per student. The third and final credit--for local bond debt payments-reduces the L net local student cost by another $1,924. raffle I1 presents the net effect of the capital cost and redit calculations presented in the preceding sections. It shows that in Dade County the net local student capital cost is $3,829. ' Table If Not Local Student Capita Costs Dodo Coen , F"s,1994 Fiscal To" Table Total Total Capital Facility Cost Per Student 7 $12,055 Credit for State's Share of Capital Funding 46.1196 8 55,559 Gress Local Cost For Sttdant $6,496 LOMLCapital Mille a Credit 9 $743 Debt Service Credit 10 $1,924 , Not Local Capkal Cost For Student - $3,0291 f I a, ~ A t ,e t 1 ~Y I , Dade County Educisdanal Fecllity Impact FooWethodolM and Technical MW f o Apn7 7, 1995 9 k - 7 'K 10 ° 32x10 . . u 1/ ' 1 MILAN= + S PART 11; ASSIGNING LOCAL CAPITAL FACILITY COSTS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT The preceding section explained the Impact Fee Advisory Committee's I recommended procedure for calculating the local cost per student of providing new educational facilities in the Dade County public school district. This section sets out the recommended foundation for assigning to new development its proportionate share of those capital facility costs, based on the number of new public school students expected to be generated by new residential construction. In the case of educational facility impact fees, demand for capital facilities is measured in terms of student generation per housing unit. These student generation rates represent an estimate of the average number of school children who can be expected to reside in each new housing unit. Student generation rates have a a!.rnificant influence on the school facility costs attributable to different types of housing units, i Data provided by !ho Metro-Dade County Planning Department indicate that larger housing units (i.e., those with more bedrooms) generally house more school-age children. Table 12 shows that as the number of bedrooms increases so too does student generation potential. This holds true for all structure types and housing units as a whole. A dwelling unit's structural characteristics (i.e., detached, attached or apartment) are not an extremely reliable indicator of student generation potential. Table 12 shows, fcr example that a one-bedroom single-family detached dwelling unit, on average, generates nearly two and one-hall times as many school-age children as a garden apartment of the same size, Conversely, a three-bedroom apartment can be expected to generate one and one-half times the number of students as a single- family ,nit of the same size. Table 12 Student Geeorstlon By Number of Dedrooma and Resldentlal Structure Type Dade County, Florida, MOO _ Structure Number of ftedreoms SuAmt Gwiersden AN _ Type I v 2 f 4+ Unix Sin to-FamilDetached 0.4312 0,4315 0.5217 0.7673 0.5366 Single-Family Attached 9A t_14 0.4448 0.6242 0.9396 0-5115 • Multi-Family (2-4 Unit) _0 3393; 05302 0.6929 0.9590 0.4465 Multi-FarnO (5+ Unit) 0.17441_ 0.2930 09727 0,9293 0,2357 All Units 02446 0.38751 0.5516 0.7787 Source, School-age children from U S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population, Public Use Micro Data Sample (rive Percent) tot Dade County, Melro-Dodo Planing Dopatment, 1994. • Public school enrollment factors from Dade County Public Schools. StatlrtlcalAbetract, lM-J 994. Note: Overall achoc)aye children generoiien rakes !from U S, Census) reduced by 12.5 percent to account for private school enrollment. Dade County Educational Facility Impset Foes`Metnodoiegy and Technical Report A April 7, 1995 10 10 32 X I O 40 MOM Calculating Educational Facility Impact Fee The net local capital costs and student generation rates presented in Parts I and fl of this report provide the essential foundation for the recommended educational facility impact fee program. This section explains the Advisory Committee's recommended method for combining net cost and student generation data into a valid impact fee formula. The Impact Fee Advisory Committee explored several impact fee assessment methods, including foes based on the number of bedrooms contained within dwelling units, fees based on the size range to which a dwelling unit belongs and fees based strictly on an individual dwelling unit's size, Based on a number of factors (e.g., ease of administration, revenue generation potential, fee incidence. etc.,), the Advisory Committee recommended that the School Board adopt an impact fee program that assesses school impact fees based solely on housing unit site, The Committee's recommended size-based approach is based on dwelling unit size data obtained from the Dade County Appraisal Office and the student generation rates presented in Table 11. The appraisal offica data base contained information on unit size, type and bedroom count for 54,084 dwelling units that came on to the Dade County tax rolls between 1989 and 1993. Some clean-up and minor editing of the appraisal office data base was necessary to correct for dwelling type misclapadications and typographic errors. Since the data I set was too large to be analyzed using available software, a sample consisting of 2,917 units (over five perce:lt) was constructed. Dade County student generation rates were then used to project enrollment•per-unlt for the sample. Regression analyses were then performed on the resulting series, yielding the following formulae: LINEAA 74.6 11.5 Students ■ 0.440205 + 0.00006917116 x Sq. FL A' Ad) ■ 0.2542 F ■ 914 LOGE Students ■ -1.2!7419 + 10.24M9 x Ln(Sq. Ft.)] A' Adi ■ 01720 F ■ 1721 The Impact fee advisory committee was presented with four possible options for use of the regression equations. The option were as follows: 1I1 use of the "pure" linear equation; (2) use of a simplified formula that is based on an approximation of the gy linear equation; (3) use of the "pure" logarithmic equation; or (4) use of a simplified formula that is based on an approximation of the logartthn le equation, The Osde County Educadar.tl Facility Impact Fees\Methodology and Technical Report A April 7. 1995 I I I y -x K 32X I r s 1~ a s Y 0..~ it ` ~7C I J.. a 4t~~r y I F D ~ I I ~ ~envew 1 J i I . ( \T i I ~ y A 0 V ~ i i ro' ~ v r : st M ,r I s f Committee selected option lour, a simple ? formula that is based on an approidmation of the Table u ' logarithmic regression equation (LOGS). 11sm M 11121-llssod Impact fool owslllUnh She Impact I" rive the impact fee calculation formula, the To de SW $1,071 LOGS equation was first used (with net local x , cost data from Table 11) to assess irr~c -1r and ' .255 calculate hypothetical impact fees for 700 ....v 800 $1,346 housing unit sizes. The range selected for analysis was 500 square feet to 3,800 square 900 $1,438 feet. The range's lower end (500 square feet) 1,000 $1,530 was imposed because units under 500 square 1 l0CAD 0 $I 622 feet are very rare. The hypothetical impact fees 1200 $1,714 yielded by the logarithmic equation can be l 300 $I 665 approximated by charging a "base" impact fee of $600, plus $0.90 per square foot of dwelling 1,400 $1,697 unit size. Table 13 presents sample impact fee 1,500 $12989 levels (every 100 square feet) produced by use of 11600 S2,061 this recommended method although in f,700 $2 l73 administering the proposed impact fees, the actual formula would be used: 1,800 $2,264 1,900 $2,356 ($800 + 150,90 x Unh Me)) x 1.02' 2,000 S Z448 ` ' 1,02 two percent administrative charge 2,100 $2,540 ' 2.200 $2,632 300 $4723 2400 $2,815 2,500 $2,907 2,600 $2,999 2,700 $3,091 2,8W _ $3182 o 2900 131274 ) 3,0W 113,3M 3,100 _ S-3,4-58- j • 3,200 550 3,300 ,641 1 3,400 733 r q 3,500 $3,825 a 300 $3,917 • 3,700 009 i 3,800 100 • • Note. Sample fea for 100 sq. fl, increments of unit size. Includes two Me County Educldeeal Facility Impact FesWethodology snd Technk4 Report a A01 7. 1995 12 t , { 0 ?12x10 ".32, D ,6 I ~ ° rn rv i ~ 'n r s 1 k PART III: DESCRIPTION OF EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE The proposed educational faci14 impact fee will be implemented through an ordinance to be adopted by the Metropolitan Dade County Board of County 1 Commissioners. A proposed educational facility impact fee ordinance has been prepared by the consultant team's attorney, Craig Richardson in consultation with the County attotney's office. I I The proposed Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance includes 16 sections, the I most important components of which are outlined below. Findings The Initial portion of the Ordinance outlines the relevant findings to support the County's imposition of the educational facilities impact lee, Specifically, these findings spell out the fact that new residential growth and development in Dade County will generate a substantial number of new school agA children to whom the Dade County School Board will be required to provide public educational facilities, including capital educational facilities; that the School Board of Dade County has determined that the existing revenue generated by this new growth and development j will not be adequate to support the capital educooonal facilities needed to accommodate these new school age children, and therelore the Dade County School Board has requested Metropolitan Dade County to adopt an educational facilities impact fee. The imposition of the educational facilities impact fee is linked to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan for Dude County; additionally, the State constitutional and statutory authority for Dade County to adopt the Ordinance is spelled out. Finally, the report prepared by James Duncan and Associates and Dr. Nicholas which sets forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determination of the Impact fee is cited and Incorporated into the findings. Imposiden of Impact Fes After outlining the releva,A definitions and rules of construction, Section S of the Ordinance expressly imposes the educational facilities impact lee on all residential development within Dade County. The impact fee Is required to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit for all residential development reasonably expected to place students in Dade County public schools. Section 6 of the Ordinance sets out a fee schedule that will be used In imposing the impact lee onto specific development. It also addresses such issues as how Impact • fees will be computed upon mixed residential use developments, how impact fees will be imposed on land development when there is a change in use, and how an impact fee will be determined when the land use is not included in the fee schedule, This Section also requires that the Board of County Commissioners adopt concurrent with the Ordinance a Metro-Dade Educational Facibiles Impact Foe Manual. • Section 7 of the Ordinance states that the impact fee will be paid to the County Public O • Works Director, and that the County Public Works Director, in omoultation with the Dads County Educational Facility Impact Fm\Met"doioptr and Technksl Report A April 1, 1995 13 32 Io I +IY I.i 4 } I o f. 1 Dade County School Board will be responsible for administering the educational facilities impact fee program, 'I Exemptions Section 8 of the Ordinance provides for specific exemptions. The most prominent include developments for which applications for building permits were received prior to the effective date of the Ordinance il the building permit is issued within 120 days of the effective date of the Ordinance. A second involves governmental or public facilities. Also, any applicant who can demonstrate that a proposed land development activity is incapable of creating capital educational facilities demand during its useful lifetime is also exempted. Credits Credits against the impact fee are provided for in Section 9 of the Ordinance. Credits will be provided for monstary contributions, land dedication, or contribution of i educational capital facilities. Benefit Districts Section 10 of the Ordinance estabifshes benefit districts. Use of Funds Section I I of the Ordinance spells out that the educational facilities impact fees can only be used lot the provision of capital educational facilities. After collection of the , fees, the County Public Works Director is required to promptly deposit them into a trust account; a separate trust account is required to be set up for each of the benefit districts, and fees collected from a benefit district are required to be deposited Into the trust account for that benefit district. The County is allowed to keep two percent of the impact fee monies collected for administrative costs; to ensure that this amount is appropriate, the County Pubhc Works Director is required to conduct a study every two years to determine whether the administrative costs should be increased or decreased. Alter collection of the fees and deposit into appropriate the trust accounts. the County Public Works Director is required to periodically transfer the fees to the Dade County School Board who will likewise establish separate trust funds for each benefit district, The Ordinance requires that the specifics of these periodic transfers be established by lnterlocal Agreement between the Dade County School Board and Dade County. d in the discussions to date between the School Board and Dade County, it has been suggested that the collected fees will most likely be transferred on a quarterly basis, The Ordinance requires that the Dade County School Board expend or encumber the funds within six yeas or return the funds to the County. In the event that funds are returned, they are to be redeposited Into the County's trust fund account. This Section also requires that a financial and management report be prepared fA , annually by the County Public Works Director in conjunction with the School Board that outlines the activity in the impact fee trust accounts. Dade County Educ&d" Facility Impact FeeeMethodobQy and Technicst Report April 7, 1995 14 32 X 1 ~a 1 M a~+ w + yv ,+,.y Awr y , k ~i 1 l f l 4! bad A` ~ k Y~Vi „ , y, i{k fof Y frY ~.y`it ~•'f ~ e fri try FA rp'.. rl ~ 1' i 1 '•A, Y 'y r ry ~ ' lY 0 p r f L A I y+ d + R 4 r w ( t y t l } l 5 yr.. f t r~ n t~f F. IYt i 1~ \ r r •'t u t i r i+O~Fi ~ + r S ~ y + r r ri. •e I h.a e.M.4wi,aNfWeW.^.afw✓r s«.. 1 y> :~~.Lj~ Y }r 4.{i ~ .I. ...a»:°.~ i ~yi ~ I 4. Appeals of Aomin(stratira Dahlons Section 14 of the Ordinance provides that any feepayer or the School Board may appeal a decision of the County Public Works Director to the Developmental Impact Committee (DIC) Executive Council; the decision of the Executive Council may then be appealed by either the feepayer or the School Board to the Board of County Commissioners. The County Public Works Director's decisions include determination of the impact fee amount, the determination of any credit amount and general interpretations of the Ordinance. 7 yin 'y t y• Dada County IdwAds l faeNity 4% 4N IasiMesnodotoly and TKN*O Report ♦Aprl7, 1995 45 dr y x f:f 2 x r) 32XI d C.~ 61. 1 '4 I 6, y Y I p ~ A!- J 1 , I i y 1. Y % I v'' ^ v ~ r I I ,1 I I I r ! I r t t ~ " , C 11 1 I r. :.t C x 'AlbrM1~ ' ! I I : A JJ r 1 •1 I. I S t! 1j , c PART IV:11MRLOCAL AGREEMENT The School Board and Dade County will be entering into an Interlocal Agreement that spells out the relationship between the County and the School Board in admtnistertng and Implementing the impact fee ordinance. Under the Interlocal Agreement, the School Board will have a number of responsibilities. The Board will be consulted by the County's Public Works Director before making Interpretations, determining exemptions or identifying land development activity that Is not identified in the schedule of applicable impact fees. The School Board will be the entity responsible for initially dealing with impact fee credit applications, although the County Public Works Director is responsible for making final decisions on credit matters and fee determinations. In order to ensure that the School Board has S opportunity for full participation in the process, the Interlocal Agreement will provide that the Board may appeal decisions of the Public Works Director on Interpretations, fee determinations or credit decisions. Appeals will be taken to the DIC Executive w Council. 6 The Interlocal Agreement should also state that when the DIC Executive Council or Board of County Commissioners does not accept the School Board's recommendation on fee determination, Interpretation or credit matters, any legal challenges arising as a result of such matters will be the sole responsibility of the County. The School Boa: d would be held harmless in the event that Its recommendations on such matters were ignored by the DIC Executive Council or ' Board of County Commissioners. Finally, the Interlocal Agreement will spell out the timing for periodic transfers of impact fee funds from Dade County to the Sch^ol Board and impose restrictions on the School Board's expenditure of impact fee funds. Discussion with Dade County indicates that the transfer of funds will likely be carried out on a quarterly basis. In order to ensure that funds are spent for authorized purposes, the Interlocal Agreement will require that the School Board spend collected impact fee revenue only for capital facilities, as defined in the Ordinance. To ensure that funds are spent in a timely manner, the School Board will be required to encumber funds within six years or return them to the County. k f • 1 1 S I 1 Dods County Edtrutlensl Fedlky InII FssslMethodob;y &M Technksl Report ' AAI7. MS 16 ,t 10 32 X M •1 0 i 1 l I x , 1 1 • 1 ,G•7. vv'ir. . rum n - . } Y I APPENDIX A. COMPARATIVE SCHOOL DISTRICT CHARACTERISTICS d and Palm comparison of the Dada, 8rowar summary table provides a The following Beach County school districts, based on selected demographic and impact fee-based characteristics. r Table A-1 Compmatlw School District Charactedstics Dade, Browam and Palm Beach Countles,1994 Dada Breward Palm Beach Population 1.954,000 1,325,363 918,119 Growth Rate (1985-1993) 32% 43% 52% Households 699,636 498,257 390,034 Persons/licusehold 2.75 2.66 2.35 Students 312,000 179,975 115,547 Students/Household 0.43 0.36 0.30 Enrollment Projections 1994-1995 322,512 198,690 120,533 1995-1996 333.058 205,761 125,783 1gg61gg7 343,949 215,041 131,033 1997-1998 355,196 223,070 136,283 1998-1999 366,811 232,842 141,533 1999-2000 378,799 242,156 146.283 New Students 1994-2000 56,297 43,466 25,750 Student Growth Rate (1994-2000) 17,5% 21.9% 21.4% School Capital Costs/Student Educational Facilities $13,765 513,757 $10,414 Buses $257 N/A N/A `Portables $747 NIA NIA (Transportation and Maintenance Facilities $39 N/A NIA Gross Cost Per Student 544,808 $13,757 $10,414 4, Credits $8,226 $9,312 $8,432 atCost/Student 56,582 $4,445 $1982 N Source: I=&@ Duncan and Associates, 1995. • Now Dads County "Coplial Cost" figures based on 1.0 uhllzabon factor, the same figure used in Broward and Palm Beach Counties O • Dade County Eduutknal 1racNNy Impact F"W ethodology and TechnU Report A Apnl 7. 1995 17 10 32x10 ~ r r 1 q i°l ~ r}h > l ~ A,~ rA 'Yk v~ T± tt5 o.~r :i p1. 1 ~ ~ ~1 k # l~ ( I ait ~ l~~ ~ 17 ~ r"r ~ .1t~J '•~i 1 ~ f 1 1 1 r ~T, ~ r' 1 -''1 11 w Y I 11 ~ I .1. Y i J JIB ~ ~ 1. C ;11 1 • t V ~ ~ IV f I 1 :r +.r' ' c I 1 L. $V :n 5 IC v i ~I 1 a 1 r~ A 1 r'I 7~A1,RO ~ I ~ ~ x641 ` A d' 1 f l y I / pf 4 ~ ~ e c ~ i . ~ Itr' ?+L •i a I t I r h l W v T' - 1 1 , a 1 n ! t n ~ ~ ..~wv.. ~,~...w..«r~wd1 ~ w._.,- 4 ! Y 1 IC's - I ATTACHMENT 4 I t' l ~I i ni I ~ 0 1 A' i L ,r I 1 . -n 32 X r:~ 1 •L r nr..W ! ui, n ,1 i•'<r0 y , i 5 , s r r r. r .5 i i , 1 r P I duncen associates 13276 Research M, Sute 209 Austin. Texos 78750-3238 f CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Existing Development Exactions . I " Impact Fee Calculation Methodology . 1 Land Dedication Requirements . . . . . 2 Projected Impact Fee Revenue and Land Dedications . . 3 INTRODUCTION 4 i CAPITAL FACILITY FINANCE S } Use of Development Exactions . . . . S - School Exactions In San Miguel County S Impact Fees and Lard Dedications Since 1984 . . 6 E I "ACT FEES 7 Fee Component No. 1. Demand for School Facilities . . . . . 8 Demand Calculations . . . 9 Fee Component No. 2: Capita Cost per Student . . . . . . . 12 Fee Component No. 3: Credits 14 Credits for Future Property Tax Payments . . . . . . . . 14 ' Credits for Past Property Tax Payments . . . . . . . . 17 Credits for Real Estate Transhr Tax Payments . 19 Credit Cakulatim Summary , . , . . 20 Calculation of Maximum School Impact Fees . . . . . . . 20 Hedtoom•Based Fee Cakuladom . . . . . . 21 Fixed-Rate Approach . . . . . . . 22 Variable Rate Approach , , , 23 LAND DEDICATION REQUIJIEMENfS . . . . 26 PROJECTED IMPACT FEE REVENUE AND LAND DEDICATIONS . . 28 ` Impact Fee Revenue 28 Land DediAd m . . 29 APPENDI7L , 30 School Impact Fee Schedule•-Town of Telluride , , A•1 School impact Fee Schedule-Vaincorporsted San Miguel County . . . A-12 TaeuAdo A•1 4cAed tM.tAct - dan Cyltal P.eAty ftntna ane t3eheat tTo.ot P.. tiport m { j James Damn MA A$WiMes November 30, Isla 10 X10 . r Noonan 7 0 1 a , x I LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table I ` EXISTING SCHOOL IMPACT FEE AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS San Miguel County. Colorado. 1992 6 Table 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS BY STRUCTURE TYPEINUMBER OF BEDROOMS U.S. Mountala Region. 1980 B Table l DWELLING UNIT INVENTORY Telluride R-1 School District 9 Table 0 DWELLING UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND BEDROOMS Telluride R•1 School District. 11-1-91 . 10 Table 3 PUBLIC SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS BY STRUCTURE TYPE/BEDROOMS U.S. Mountain Region. 1980 11 Table 6 PUBLIC SCHOOLAGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS BY STRUCTURE TYPE Telluride R-I School District I Table 7 PUBLIC SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS BY BEDROOMS Telluride R•I School District I1 i Table A SCHOOL CAPACITY AND ENROLLMI'NT I Telluride R-1 School District 12 h Table 9 EXISTINO AND FUTURE STUDENT CAPACITY Telluride R-I School District 13 Table W MILLAGE CREDIT FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS (Applicable to New Development in 1992) 13 Table CREDIT FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS Town of Telluride and Sao Miguel County 17 Table I I • MILLAGE CREDIT FOR PAST PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS 18 O • TokMo A-1 Sch" Dlatdal - Drat capful Faewy Finance Nate School It ood F« +l.W Jams Duncan and Aaaoetat" Nav~ 30, 1992 a ,~C~ ~ax'0 9h°r 1 y i! a ( it 1 y S( 'hy ` " 1 u+.h X, r? yA 1 I C I 4 l 1 I I ~ ~9 .t , 0 i Y 4 '1 t~ I. t i e~~ n t T i.. fiaY.iaexs I 'I 5 Table 13 CREDIT FOR PAST PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS Town of Telluride end San Miguel County 19 ` Table 14 CREDIT FOR PAST REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX PAYMENTS Town of Telluride l9 Table 15 TOTAL CREDITS BY BEDROOM COUNT Town of Telluride and San Miguel County 20 Table 16 DWELLING UNIT SIZE BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS Telluride R-I School Mutt . . . ^ ^ ^ ^ , 21 Table il FIXED-RATE IMPACT FEES Town of Telluride and San Miguel County . ^ . ^ 22 Table 10 VARIABLE RATES 24 BASE FEES AND Table 19 { FIXED-RATE AND VARIABLE-RATE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Town of Telluride PM Sao Miguel County ^ ^ ^ 25 Table 20 SCHOOL OWNED LAND Telluride R- I School District ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ , ^ 26 I Table 21 ' MAXIMUM LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT PER DWELLING UNIT Telluride R-1 School District . ^ ^ . , , , ^ ^ , . ^ 21 Table 22 PROJECTED IMPACT FEE REVENUE ' Telluride R^1 School Dtatrla, 1993.2012 ^ , , 2g I , Table 23 PROJECTED LAND DEDICATIONS Telluride R-1 School Dbakl, 1993.2012 . . . . . . . 29 Figure I FIXED-AND "ARIABLE-RATE IMPACT FEES ^ ^ . . . . . . . ^ . , , . 23 Te9urlde 111-1 tlohool Obtdet - Dreh Capdal Facility FNenae rM 60" It o n Fee NW l ~ JWell Ourle*n and Auodet" NawmWl 30,1692 1 + I - 2.5 r 10 32 x 10 Samoa JUL~ss t l } ( ! r' 4 i ~ ~ ~f 5., P J 1 r is f f I ~ t I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I A number of factors contribute to the need for a re-examination of area school facility needs and finance at this time, These include changing demographic characteristics, areawide development conditions and anticipated expansion of the Telluride R-1 School District facilities, as expressed in the Master Plan. In recognition of these factors, the School District's 1942 Long-Range Plan called for an analysis and update of existing impact fee and land dedication requirements. In addition to providing a technically sound framework upon which revised San Miguel County exaction requirements can be based, the examination will also provide information for the Town of Telluride to use in deciding whether to impose school-based development exactions. Exist" Davsloprr*M Exactions The Town of Telluride d :s not currently impose impact fees or land dedication requirements as a means of funding the constriction of area school facilities. San Miguel County imposes two forms of development exactions as a means of financing the growth-ielated needs of the School District: land dedication requirements and impact fees. The County's existing school impact fee and land dedication requirements are assessed on new residential development on a per capita basis, based on projected residential population. The current impact fee is based on a charge of $136.20 pet person, while the land dedication requirements require 300 square feet per person. The County's current $543 school impact fee for single-family dwelling units (a standard impact fee d measure) is very low compared with national data. On the other band, a survey conducted by the County planting staff suggests that the land dedication standards may be among the highest in Colorado. The most fundamental flaw in the County's current impact fee ordinance is the fact that it imposes school impact fee requirements on hotel, lodging and dormitory units, none of which are likely to generate demands on public schools (i.e., students). In order to address this deficiency, it is recommended that ! future school impact fees be levied only on 'residential" uses. A sa.,nd shortcoming of the existing impact fee methodology is that, even if it were limited to "residential" uses, it would not provide the most accurate measure of scbod facility demand. It b, rasher, the number of bedrooms within a dwelling unit that represents the most reliable predictor of school facility impact. It is recommended. therefore, that revised impact fees be based oo the number of bedrooms contained within a dwelling unit, although for purposes of administrative simplicity, bedroom counts have been converted to dwelling sizes, Invaet Fats CaWatlon Meftdoloyy The proportionate, fair-share fo. nuns for calculating school impact fees is straightforward. First, the capital cost to construct a new unit of student capacity is multiplied by the estimated number of student to be generated by a dwelling unit to determine the cost pet dwelling unit. Second, a property tax ctedit per dwelling unit, which represents future tax payments that will be used to construct new capacity, is O subtracted from the total capita cost to determine the net impact cost. TolhoWo R-1 $dsW tylaWa - Oran Caphat Fscaity Finance and ieMal Impact FOG RapoA t Janos Duncan and Associates NovemNw M 1991 FJ 32 x lo. ~dY f 4~.. ♦ t ~ o I i t i v t E The cost of constructing an additional unit of student capacity in the School District has been calculated by dividing the total capitd improvement cost of planned improvements (SI 1,152,250, excluding the cost of furnishings and miscellaneous items) by the new student capacity (405) that can be accommodated by the improvements. The resulting figure of $28,425 represents the cost to construct an additional unit of student capacity in the School District. Impact fees must be structured to credit fee-payers for other taxes or fees generated by development that will go toward constructing new capital facilities, Two forms of credit have been calculated for development in the Town of Telluride and the unincorporated County-credit for past and Future property tax payments used to fund capacity-expanding improvements. One additional form of credit has been calculated for the Town-credit for real estate transfer tax revenue really used to purchase the quoruel but site for the School District. Adding these credits together yields a total credit ranging from $1 V ?o ! $1.51 per square foot in the Town of Telluride and from $1.05 to $1.47 per square foot in the remairuler I of the County. The impact fee calculations commended for use in the School District are based on capital cost data, property tax credits and estimates of student generation. The calculations yield the following proposed impact fees. lft*M Cost j Dwsinq Slag MWmum Maximum Average Town of TalMrlda 0.800 NA 1189 NA 801.1,200 6190 41,107 4458 1 201.1 900 $1111 $3,601 $2.401 1 901 + t3 8G5 NA 15 854 Undrwo sod San coup 0.800 NA 1199 NA 801.1200 1200 61137 4478 1 201.1 900 $1,141 03,668 $2537 1 901 + 13 871 NA $6.268 The Town a.^d Loutty may adopt impact feet that ate lower than the net impact coal but not be higher. If fees are adapted at titer lower than the maximums established in thin at*. they sWtW be reduced proportionately acrou the bard in order to retain proportionality between the Impacts of different types of development and fee leveb. Tok-Ads R•1 edaot 019Ae1- tkah Cwkd Facahy Ftnenea and Sot" Mnpaet Fee Ra$ort James Duman and Aasocistes Nevembr 10, 1992 2 t 10 32XIO M f k'S c + a , kld ftd t r icy ~~1 k~i n a 51 .fti i. ~'~~+~1~~ a d a L Ivli' M w •h~,,' ( f n 5 r .l r F 1 a r} „r 1 l . S, ti 1 f Y 1 l l 5 I + 1 h k'' -,f w . i R ro ~ , + L ~ f ( rl a JI yI 4 ~y HIV ~ ~ ~ 1 • - + ' ^ 1 1 , ( 1 ~ y I: IY \j l ~l M1 1( ~ 1 1 y V •a~ I , ~i s` k ~ r` ~ ~ ~ f , f I , ~ b I + k v f , ~ C I :MIS ' ~ r H I I5( I ( I 1 I Y µr I ♦ . I • 1 ! rr r + r I ~..ti. t w i +r r r ,..ia..ucw Js.. msN..::+. 1' " ~ a t.•t ,P~v ,i."-_" ~1.„...»+~... 9 ~~4, .g Land Dedication Requirements " a } h As a result of specific statutory authority and the County's long history of using land dedication standards to meet school-related needs, continued use of impact fees and land dedication standards is recommended in the County. Such aD approach is also recommended for the Town of Telluride. Based on calculated student multipliers and the amount of land area Dow owned by the School District, recommended land dedication requitat ants an 524 square feet for a singk-family unit and 224 square feet for a multi-farnily uniL Since the size of dwelling units cannot generally be determined until building permit stage, land dedication requirements must continue to be based on structure type. Projected Impact F" Rev~ and (.arsd Dedkatlona r ' , Assuming that the mix of new duelling units constructed between IM mW 2012 is simile to due mix r constructed between Jamtary 1990 rod August 1992, the School District (through the Town and County) could expect to receive approximately $4,5 million in total impact fee revenue over the next 20 years. i During that period the District could also expect to receive 901,300 squutre feet (203 acres) of land from i ' dedications. In other words, now growth and development will pay for almost half of the $11.5 milIioD cost to expand and upgrade bcal educational facilities. , r i r c ~ ~ 'l4e trwae. tt•t ttd,oot tst.tner - oalt c.gtr meaty A,•M• ena tieao•t tnpeet F•e tt.pn James Duncan V4 A."Oft a Newman 30, 5697 3 i 1hr , 2~x~(~32x~~.~. IJ ~~~~.I, ..I I ..Y ~1 n I IYt•~'4'11j 1 rl p ~l ES 1 i L" I al 9 I r~ i v ~ i A X11 . i ] ti I 1 1 t< J 0 r b , I I f '~1 wlr V `Y INTRODUCTION This report hs% been prepared for the Telluride R• 1 School District, the Town of Telluride and San Miguel County as part of two-phase work program that began in February 1992. During the rust phase of the work program a proposed Master Plan for School! District Facifides was prepared by the Leschet and Mahoney/LDR Group. In July 1992, as a result of that planning effort, the School District Board formally adopted a school facility Master Pkm that included a number of recommended improvements and additions j to the School District's physical plant. The adopted Master Plan calls for the following actions: j Acquisition of "quonset but" site for addition to the elementary school: Thfa &aft report Is hhndled to provfda auve dookkn-onsko M With up-to-&IS MdrilAlEl1 I Remodeling of existing elementary school fn formdW nayortXW Me coat of pmvk,%V 1 buildm' and conversion of vacated s 8 ~ tl►o myor aehoar Iii sssvai9d to a'CCOnr I into classrooms , modale growth in t/N Ti/lokr r+Dbrr. a Coattruction of new middie\high school i facility housing grades 3-12 and I demolition of the existing structure; Conversion of vacated areas of middle\high scboot-expansion of open space and play fields--consolidation of parking and vehicular circulation areas. The estimated cost of improvements and additions called for in the adopted Master Plan btals nearly $11,3 million, On November 3, 1992, voters in the Telluride R-1 School District approved an $11.3 million I bond issue as a meats of financing the recommended package of improvements. As the first deliverable product for phase 2 of the school facility finance work program, this draft report is intended to provide area decision-makers with up-to-date and reliable information regarding the cost of i providing major capital facilities needed to accommodate future population growth in the School District. The report builds on the foundation established by the recently adopted school facilities Master Plan and j focuses specifically on the fornwLtion of a technically sound and legally defensible frarnework for the imposition of school Impact fees and laud dedication requirements. The report Iegim with an overview of current sebool impact fee ant. land dedication requirements in the District. It then goes on to set out in great detail the methodology and uanprioos wed In formulating * proposed revised Impact fee and laud dedication standards, The report eooohsdd by Pmennog "timtea - f of projected impact fee reveaw and land dedication roetributiau, ti TaauMs R•1 Sehool OWeld - Dratt Cophat Fetft FWanea and gd*W hrr.or Fan ttapart Ja+Ha fhmcan one braUpti, NowmDtr 30,1292 4 I I I i , 2S x .12X❑ e t O t~~ :arrars~ CAPITAL FACILITY FINANCE Use of Development Exactions In the past, most major community facilities were financed by tax revenues end user fees. Declining federal financial assistance and statutory and political limitations on taxation haw however, resulted in growing awareness of the need to adopt more "businesslike" methods of financing services and capital improvements. As a result, communities have begun to shift more and more of the responsibility for providing new and expanded facilities away from the community as a whole to new development itself. That shift has been accomplisbed largely 'irough the use of development exactions. Development exactions come in a variety of forms. In addition to the long-standing practice of DeciniM WOW Rrssndd esatatence end requiring that land be dedicated for streets, parks sea tutoryendpokk4s1A7afte0omon toxaumt and schools, developers are increasingly called have mt&fted it yrowft ewsrerress of the upon to construct public improvements and pay need to edopffiWe 'busbassl4 ft'rrrethods impact fees to off•xt the cost of new facilities. of Rrsancbry suvfces end eep/tel kWmvo• Most communities now use exactions of one type rents. or another. In fact, according to a 1987 survey, f nearly 90 percent of Ali cities and counties use development exactions as a means of financing and providing necessary community facilities,' School Exactions In San Miguel County The Town of Telluride does Dot currently Impose impact fxs or land dedication requirements u a means of funding the construction of area school facilities. San Wriel County imposes two forms of development exactions u a mans of financing the growth-related needs of the Telluride R•1 School District: land dedladou requirements and Impact fen. The County's land dedication and impact fee requirements are intended to address separate needs. The impact fee ordinance, which was originally adopted in 1983, is designed to recoup the cost of capital facilities needed to accommodate new students in the School District. The land dedication requirements, originally adopted in 1971, us intended to address the District's land needs. % San Miguel County's existing school impact fee and lard dedication requirements are assessed on new residential development on a per capita basis, turd on projected residential population. The current • impact fee is based on a chuge of S 136.20 per pe two, while the land dedication tegnitenseats tall for 300 square feet per person. The impact fox is pegged to doe coawrner price index and Increases every year; ,arid dedication requiremenu main comm. Existing County Unput fees and land dedication requirements for varim types of residential units are sum urized in roble 1. • O ! ' 1an>ea E, Fruit std lloben M. RAodn, G ,rebyntrN Erorlfaru (Cakap, Il.: F'luaen Fran, 1917), P. i. TeOu Ads 11.4 getod datOld - Dist CWW FbcMv Ruses and Id" Mpu1 Foy Manna James Duncan and Aswesatsa NooffAw 30. 1997 1 .ri !l i 32xID ~OI■■1 1 ~ ~ I t J a ~ a e ♦ ( s, pi • ( F { 0 r e r i J 1 ' t Table 1 EXISTING SCHOOL IMPACT PEE AND LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS San Miguel County, Colorado, 1992 Structure Typo P * d k"d Pee Oadeadon' Single-family or Detached Condominium 4.0 1544.80 1 200 s . h. Msior Duplex 4.0 1544.80 t 200 . h. Attached Condominium or Multi-family 3.0 1408.60 900 . ft. Minot Duplex 2.6 1340.50 750 • . ft. Efficiency or Dormitory 2.0 1272.40 800 S Q. ft. Hotel or l e L5 1204.30 460 114. h* as epecdW N deflnitlon of 'population done"' in Article a of the County Code. Wben viewed in W context of national data, the Cocary's current $545 school impact fee for singk•family ' dwelling units (a standard Impact fee measure) is very low. In fact, according to a survey conducted by the University of Florida's Hoiiand Law Center in 1991, the national average school impact fee for a singk•f"y unit was f 1,899. On the other hand, a survey umducted by the San Miguel County planning staff suggests that the County's land dedication stattdards nay be among the highest in Colorado. According to the staff survey, only the Windsor School District, wit'a a standard of 1,350 square feet per singk-family unit, impoea @ higher land dedication requirement than San Miguel County' Impact Fees and Land Dedications Since 1984 According to the County planning office, over 570,100 in impact fee payments have been collated since adoption of the Impact fee ordinance In 1983. By the end of 1992, over 12 acres (includiag cash in-lieu equivalents not yet converted to land holdings) will have been received by the County. 0 ! i I ' Sea MIrA Canty Planning Depertmeta. 'Memoranjum io Board of Corey Coreeshtbeert.' F&vuy 20, 1992. • , i TaMtrWe R•1 ttcAoot DMtrlef - Oren Cephal FecehY Finance and fcAeel iettpeet Pea Rpen James Duncan W Aaeocislo Novemaan 30, 1$ 9 J { I ~ PS 32x I A tvuwdm r 3. r} t' ''r .i i r , O t IMPACT FEES Background impact fees are one-time, up-front charges assessed on new development to generate revenue for the construction and expansion of capital facilities needed to serve that developmeat. Impact fee charges are typically based on a standard formula, with fee payment required at the time of development approval. At least 16 states have enacted specific enabling legislation authorizing the imposition of impact fees, In states without explicit authorizing legislation, such as Colorado, impact fee requirements have generally be-n upheld as a valid exercise of local governments' brad "police power" to protect the health, safety and welfare of community residents. Over the yea:s, the croru have gradually developed guidelines for constitutionally valid impact fees. Those guidelines can be loosely grouped Into a three-Pan test: 1) The need for mew facilities must be created by new development: 2) The amount of fee cb..rged must not exceed a proportionate, fair-share of the cost of serving new development; and 3) Revenues must be spent within a reasonable period of time to benefit fee-paying developments. One of the most prevalent themes emerging from the Colorado Supreme Court's recent development exaction cases Is the requirement that exactions be based on defined, rational standards. In the 1983 Beaver Meadows case, the court determined that the Larimet County Board of County Comind sinners had imposed off-site access rod improvement requirememts without sufficient afatVtahta nd of Hard! "to ensure that county action .(was) rational and consistent." In 1990, amplifying on the Beaver Meadows decision, the state Supreme Court gave tacit approval to development exaction that are based on specific standsid If 'It is within the police power of a municipality to impose on a developer the burden of providing ressotui improvcmerts to public facilities :rude necessary by a development as a cooditloo of approval of that development. The exeteive of power, bowever, ttmu be guided by land use regulations which are sufficlendy specific to guide the city council's discretion." In sum, the formulation of equitable, technically sound and legally defensible impact fees requires an analysis of three basic factor: (1) the public facility demands associated with new development; (2) the capital costa of meeting that demand; and (3) credlb due to fee-paying developments to account for their other contributions to capital facility fituttce. These three impact fee components are examined below. Unless otherwise noted, the recommended methodology and data apply to bah the Town of Telluride and unincorporated San Miguel County. armver Mrodows r. fmtatrr Comry, 709 F. td 926 (Cob. Ins). y ' Cherry Hilb Resort Dtwkpmw Cospaty t Cherry Hills 1,74W, M l,2d 127 (Colo. 19901. W Tokoide R-1 OchW Watdd - Omh Caphd Foc*V Ftnana and 111,01114101111 t 0 F« IM9ert 7 Jamas tTmean aM Asocial" Navameat s0, f 992 ~yx10 22XIO s C ~aevrx*n Fee Component No. 1: Demand for School Facilities One of the most important principles advanced by the courts in their evaluation of impact fees is that of , "proportionality." The proportionality test requires that impact fees be directly related to demand for public facilities that will be generated by new developments. Li the case of school impact fees, demand must be measured in terms of the number of school-age children who will be attending public schools. The County's existing impact he methodology The calculates demand on the basis of structure type nwst furmf4owfel Now in the County's ns*aV hrsAect fee ondHseace is ks htrposl- (i.e., single-family, duplex and multi-family don of fees on hotel, lodphrQ and doors wy units). While this approach attempts to account units, ff b meonsivasnded dof future school generation characteristics for varying student lmpecf fees be 1avNd only on reshlendel' associated with diffesem types of dwelling units, it usa falls short of satisfying the p: oportionality test. The most fundamental flaw In the current impact j fee ordinance Is the fact that it imposes school impact fee requirements on hotel, lodging and dormitory units, none of which are likely to generate demurrtds on public schools (i.e., students). In order to address this deficiency, it is recommended that future school Impact fees be levied only on "residential' uses, which could be defined as "Group R, Division I" or "Group R. Division 3' uses, as classified by the Uniform Building Code. Hotels, motels and all nonresidential uses would be excluded from such a defiaidoo. A second sboncominS of the existing Impact fee methodology is that, even if it were limited to "residential" uses, it would not provide the most rcuraw measure of school facility demand. As noted above, the existing County orditunee calculates demand on the basis of structure type. It is, however, dwelling unit site, measured In terns of number of bedrooms, that represents the most reliable predictor of school facility impact. Data contained in Table 1 confum that W. Table 2 PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS SY STRUCTURE rVK/NUMBER OF BEOROOMS U,S. Mountain Region, 1980 Suvetum Numbs of 8adreonr AS T 1 2 7 S Units . Si 1a-lamtl NA 0.224 0.660 S_ 1 0.809 Mobile home 0.148 0.220 0:867 NA 0.601 l1xl4- fax 0.074 0.241 0.640 NA 0.348 Townhouse 0,101 0.131 0.396 NA 0.294 Garden Apartment 0:031 0:208 0.634 NA 0.156 Roben W. Burchell, a. al., fat New ProrNdour's Grdda to lied lxpen Anal Ceram for Uraan Policy 0 Raarcli Cesar, IM, B Teau"s R•1 Schod Dhadet - Draft Capital FaeShT tlnanee and Sahool linoeec Fos Raper) s camas Duncan and Aaaocletu Novombn 30, 14)7 I 1 " • now" A wig .Derived from 19WCensus ofPopulan'onandNoutfng-Public Use Samp&(rive percent sarthpledauupes). Data , is best available; 1990 data for U.S. Mountain Region will not be tvaitable unti11993-94 As shown in Table 2, a single-family unit, on Because the number ofbedroom$confahred average, generates more than twice as many public w/tMn a dwaft unit Is beievied to repro- sctml•age cbildren as a duplex unit and more than sent the most aocwate measure ofpotendal " four times as many as a garden apartment. student g►enent/en chareetedstYcs,a bad- apartment unit a unit two- generates Rte lwost room exactly the duplex same or room-beied sAlemch to measuft school number a of students a singly ngle t ft laelify demand is used In tic r9coinowded same size-a clear indication dicetion that sw tructure unit of type the is school hrepect fea n»thodx*Y not an Ideal measure of demand. While a bedroom-based impact assessment methodology often a very accurate measure of the school facility demands associated with different dwelling tat.. types, it has at least one drawback-"bedroom- based" Impact fees can be difficult to administer. Bedrooms have no tangible, permanent characte ristks, and, in the absence of a clear definition of what a "bedroom" is, plan reviewers would be forced to rely on the representations of builder in determining what is and isn't a bedroom. As a meats of overcoming this administrative obstacle, dwelling unit size (square footage) can be used as a proxy for different housing (bedroom) configurations.' _ Because the number of bedrooms contained within a dwelling unit is believed to represent the most accurate measure of potentisS student generation characteristics, a bedroom-based approach to measuring school facility demand's used in Rte recommeaded i school impact fee methodology! In order to permit Table 3 full evaluation of both demand measurement DWELLING UNIT INVENTORY options, structure type and bedroom-based student TeOurtde 0-1 School Dlatrlet 11.1.01 generation estimates in presented below. Structure T Unlta Peecam Single-family 1,263 61.8 Condominium 697 38.9 Demand Calculations Du exf4- lax 61 2.6 A artment 192 7.9 Although the student gearrationdata summurited In Mobire home 26 1.1 Table 2 are among the best available, they must be Total Z 429 100.0 adjusted before being used as the basis for revised impact fees in San Miguel County. Adjustments SZM:Total usumeatimatedbyCounty KamingDepartnen are necesury, for two reasons: (1) the student from 19% Cruces and permk records (6-16-92 ktw from " generation figures In the table are now over ten Hlaniq D;rocar w Lacher add MahisM); diwilhaion of years old (a period during which the number of units by stnrctrrt type derived from 3.23.91 to asaecuma • students per dwelling unit has declined nationwide) teCDfm ' A complete description of the Died ed of convening bedrom w dwelling unk site can be forted is the "lintsm Fee Calculation"section on page 21. ' since that site of dwellirt units earshot accurately be determined us4l the building patinas NW 0(the &-eeiopmns i roceu, • lard dedication requirmsmts, if rosined by the Co a ry and adopted by she Town, weold be bued on strscmre type. (%-,a page O 261 Telluride R4 ached gathkt - Graft Capital feeMey Fhanee ark 0chool Mnpaal Fee Repon a lames Durxan and AsthecNtes November 30, 1992 ti.;,, 7h , 32 x 1 D s I raae~oee ~ , i 4 and (2) the figures are based on samples from the U.S "Mountain" region, which are unlikely to be representative of the resort housing characteristics of S-.n Miguel County, i i As indicated in Table 3, there were 2,429 dwelling units within the School District at the start of the 1991 school year. To pfoduce a breakdown of those units by number of bedrooms, it was necessary to analyze 1990 U.S. Census data and 1942 real estate sales information for the District. While the information from these sources is not strictly comparable to the 1991 inventory data, it does provide a basis for ro2sonable estimates. The bedroom-based dwelling unit inventory estimates produced from Om analysis are presenied in Table 4. Table 4 DWELLING UNITS BY STRUCTURE TYPE AND 9EOROOMS Telluride R-1 School Diatrtcl. 11.1.97 Number of Sedroome Number Percerd Number Percent Number Percent 1 46 3,7 378 32.2 424 17.5 2 304 24,2 466 39.6 770 31.7 3 574 45.8 201 22.2 Safi 34.4 4 256 20.6 63 5.4 321 13.2 5 71 5.7 8 0.7 :r9 3.2 Total 1 253 100.0 1.178 100.0 2,429 100.0 Note: Units with no bedrooms Included with one-bedroom unite; units with more than five bed gams included with five-bedroom units. ,%Wm: Total unite estimated by Son Miguel County Manning Department based on 1990 Census and building permit records in Juno 15, 1992 letter from PlwN Director to Leather and Mahoney; total units by structure type derived from May 23, 1992 tax sunsment records for assessment districts comprising the Telluride N•1 School District; distribution of units by structure type and number of bedrooms derived from information on 512 singfrfamify and condominium unity said from January 1990 to August 1992, pnpvod for the San Miguel Manning Department by Tsllurlde Consulting, I Having estimated the distribution of single-family and could-family dwelling units by slumber of bedrooms, the regional multipliers in Table 2 tube "weighed' to calculate a local average student multiplier. Since the 'multi-family" category used in this report consists of condominium, apartment, duplex and mobile 0 horne units, the muidplien that apply to the four categories were avenged to derive regional "muld- family" multiptien. Weighting the tgkmal single-family and could-[amity multipliers by the distribution of units results in multipliers of 0.732 students per single-family unlit and 0.321 students per rfuld•farttily unit. (Set Table J. below) f ToStrAde R•1 School DIAA I - Craft Capital fatlNy Finance and Halted Yrtoect Fee Repo .betel Duncan and Associates W. amber 30, 1992 10 10 I•+!' 32x e k E .i Table 8 PUBLIC SCHOOL-AOE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS BY STRUCTURE TYPEIBEDROOMS U.S. Mountain Region, 1980 Ingle-Fam!tf m Multil-familly Number of R•boat Adjusted Rptenet Adjusted Bedrooms Mhi Weight M r M par L.32 Multiplier 1 0,089 0.037 0.003 0.089 0.029 2 0,224 0.242 0.054 0.200 0,079 3 0.660 0.458 0.302 0,634 0141 4 1.325 0.208 0.273 1.326 0.072 5 2.113 0.057 0.120 .007 0.000 Total 0 752 0.321 Source; 1980 regional multipliers from Table 2 (multi-family multipliers are the average of mobile home, duplex, townhouse and garden apartment multipliers, one-bedroom single-family multiplier uses the multi-family multiplier; tour-bedroom multidemily multiplier uses the single- family multiplier); weigh0to factors are the distribution of housing units from Table 6. jL912: Regional student multipliers are best available; 1990 date for U.S. Mountain Region will not be available until 1993-94; unavailable for Telluride/San Miguel County. Although the "adjusted multipliers" calculated in Table 3 reflect the distribution of units by number of I bedrooms, they roust be funber calibrated to accurately predict current enrollment. Application of the adjusted regional multipliers to 1991, bousing data yields an estimate of 1,319 students in the District. Yet, in November 1991, the District had an enrollment of only 346 students. To adjust the overestimate of students produced by application of the regional figures, a local multiplier was calculated by reducing the adjustrA regional multipliers by a factor of 0.162(346 + 1,319). (See Table 6) As Indicated in Table 6, a sin`le-family dwelling unlit built in the District can be expected to generate an average of 0.191 public school students, Muld-family housing types-including condomWums, apartments, duplexes and mobile hones-will generate an average of 0.084 students per unit, Table 6 PUBLIC SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS BY STRUCTURE TYPE Telluride R-1 School District 1 Stnmttro 1992 Adjusted Projected Actual Loch T Units Mu per Students Btudeelta M 51 la-Femir 112-5-3- 0.752 942 247 0.197 Multi-famil 1176 0,321 377 99 0.084 Total 2 429 1 319 345 Source: Dwelling unhs by structure type from Wit a. adjusted r"lonel mahlpae s from rabh d: student yve enrollment as ct November 1, 1991 from Distr ct Supermtendsnt's Orrice. Q Q y T@WM* R•1 hhuol Mould - Oreh Cochal Focauy finance and School k"W Fee PA"4 Jemes Duncan and Associates November 30, t991 11 _t IM 32 X p Asa means of calculating local student multipliers by bedroom count, regional multipliers for single-family and multi-family units for each bedroom category (shown in Table 5) were averaged, then multiplied by the number of dwelling units estimated to exist in each bedroom-count category, Amain, application of the unadjusted multipliers to the 1991 housing inventory yields an estimate of far more students than are actually enrolled in the District (1,333). As a means of accounting for the overestimate, local multipliers have been calculated by reducing the adjusted regional multipliers by It factor of 0.25956 (346 + 1,333). The resulting bedroom-based student generation (demand) estimates are shown in the 'Local Multiplier" column of Table 7. Table 7 PUBLIC SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN MULTIPLIERS BY BEDROOMS Telluride R•1 School District Number of 1992 Regional Projected Actual Local Bedrooms Unite Mu Iler Students Students Mutdoler 1 424 0.089 38 9.9 0.023 2 770 0.212 _ 163 42.3 0.055 3 835 0.647 540 140.2 0.168 4 321 1.326 42S 110.3 0.344 5 79 2.113 167 43.3 0.648 Total 2,429 1.333 346 Source: Owelling units by number of bedrooms from WAN 4; regional multipliers represent average of single-family and multifamily multipriws !rom rsb4 5. Fee Component No. 2: Capitol Cost per Student i During the first phase of this work program a study of existing and future capital facility needs was prepared for the School District by the Lescher and MahoneylLDR Gratin. The resulting Master Plan for Telluride School District Facilities identified some deficiencies in the Dlstrkt's existing physical plant, such as small classroom sizes and limited cafeteria space in the Table 4 elementary school. However, SCHOOL CAPACITY AND FXWXLMENT when student capacity was Tekgw* R•1 School Distrfct calculated on the basis of a variety of factors, such as square feet per tkvo61r1ent A stulent andstudents perclassroom, Foe" F 2000 the &xWysis revealed that, overall, Fac Y 1981 1setl691 992 I eel existing facilities are adequate to accommodate current enrollment Elem. School K-5) 212 205 222 276.295 levels. Existing capacity is Mi; dlalH.S. (6.12 182 142 162 335.386 compared with current and Tot at 394 347 384 810-660 O projected enrollment levels in Q Table 8. s 1 Telluride P-1 Wool VWrld - Draft Caphsl Fecahy Finance wW Ichool Imaeat Foe R@W t 2 !emss Duncan end Aseocistes ;iovember 30. 1192 362 X e w ;S 0 1 eeencn While the Lescher and Mahoney Master Plan revealed some excess school facilitycapacity, the study also concluded that most of that surplus will be needed to accommodate increases in enrollment for the 1992.93 school year, To address school facility reeds associated with future growth, the Plan recommends completion of well over $11 million in major capital improvements by September 1995: o Acquisition of community building (quonset hut) from Fite District ar18 replacement with addition to elementary school, housing a library, gymnasium, multipurpose classroom and kitchen; Remodeling of existing elementary building and conversion of vacated spaces into - classrooms; The cost of constructing on additional unit of school capacity Is calculated by dividing • Construction of new mlddlcVhigh school for the total capital Improvement cost by the grades 6-12 (possibly Including 5th grade) and student capacity of the Improvements. The ; dernolition of existing structure: and resulting fVuro-528,426--represents the 1 cost to construct an oddtional unit of ca-i• Conversion of vacated areas of nWdlelhigh pacity. school site, expansion of open space and play fields, and consolidation of parking and vehicular circulation areas. Recommended Master Plan improvements will result in new building space capable of aaorntrMiiting 405 students. However, 182 of those new student stations would replace capacity lost as a result of demwlishing the existing middle/high school. Consequently, the net Increase in student capacity is 223, as shown in Table 9. Table 9 EXISTING AND FUTURE 37JDENT CAPACITY Teeurlde R•1 School Diatrict Student Ce set Facility Exbtkty Future Not New New Replaced" Total _ Elements School (K-5I• 212 41 0 253 41 Middle/Hi h school 6.12 ' 182 364 •102 384 162 Total 394 400 102 11 223 • In the hrturs, eterowlary becomes K•4 and middle/ho school becomes 5.12. • • Roosted a lost thorough demolition. The test of consmKLing an sWitiooal unit of capacity is calculated by dividing the total capital Improver.xnt cost ($11,152,250, excluding the cost of furnishings and miscellaneous items) by the new student opacity (405) that cam be accom n odated by the improvements. The resulting figure of $20,423 represens the cost to construct an additioml unit of student capacity. 0 'aeudde R•1 School 01stAM - Drell Capital Faeaety Finance end so"brtpect Fee Repot Jamaa Duncan and Auoculse November 11102 13 1 i ,Q 32XIO 0 l Fee Component No, 3- Credits Impact fees must be structured to credit fee-payers for other taxes or fees generated by development tfat will go toward constructing new capital facilities, Since impact fees are designed to charge o:w development the full cost of constructing additional capacity, new development should not hav: to ,ray twice for that new capacity--once through impact fees and once through property tax payments and otb,-r financial contributions that are used to retire bonds. Two forms of credit must be calculated for development in the Town of Telluride and the unincorporated County-credit for past and future property tax payments us;,: to fund capacity-expanding improvements. One additional form of credit must be calculated for tie Towo--credit for real estate transfer tax revenue recently used to purchase the quonset but site for the School District. Credits for Future Property Tax Payments Sknce fnrpaet tips ses dplgned to charge for Credit should be given to all tee-payers in the the W cost of consitrtr bW9 a"t/orr+f ea- School District to account for future property tax pacify, newdevolopmsnfthoutderot haw to revenue that will be generated by residential uses. ay twks for that new cspadty--once Since, impact fees should be used only to fund through hnpact fees and one through prop- Facilities needed to serve new development, fee- arty tax payments and other eonhibum"s payers cannot be charged for replacing existing, that wN be used to ndn bonds, obsolete car acity. The cost of replacement, AS aaaeasase well as th, s ost of maintenance and repairs should be borne by the entire community through general taxation. Therefore, property tax credits should be designed to provide credit only for that share of debt service that goes toward the creation of new school facility capacity required to accommodate growth. Future property taxes generated by new development throughout the Town and unincorporated County will help retire the $2,595,000 in bonds issued in 1987 to rehabilitate the historic elementary school. Since the elementary school had not been in use for many years prior to its rehabilitation, the 1987 bond package has, in fact, been used to create new school capacity. Consequently, new development should receive credit for future property tax payments that will go toward retiring the 1967 bond debt. New development will also help retire the $11.5 million bond issue approved by County voters in November 1992, to Implement the School Faeifiry Masser Plan. The plea oils for demolishing the existing rWdletbigh school, with a capacity of only 182 students, and replacing it with a new middlelbigb school with twice the capacity. Improvements to the elementary school will accommodate an additional 41 • students. The portion of the total cost attributable to a net Increase in capacity, as opposed replacing obsolete existing capacity, is 55.06 percent (223 + 405), or $6,140,429. The property tax debt millage that will be required to repay the general obligatioa bonds depends on future growth in the School District's overall tax base, According to the San Miguel County Tax Assessor, the District's total assessed valuation increased 18 percent from 1989 to 1990 and 3i percent from 1990 to • 1991. These valuation Increases cannot, however, be expected to continue in the future. A much more O • p► Tdkntde act nchoot ftbl s - rah CWhet faelnty Ananee Will 60" Impact Pee %W ismes OwK in and Auoaletee Nowmbet 70, 1997 1 a I 3 2 x 1 0 • a { conservative rate of increase-seven percent--has been used as the basis for projecting district-wide assessed valuation increases over the next 20 years. The amount of property tax paid by a unit of new development will depend not only on the capital improvement debt millage, but also on future increases in assessed value due to inflation. According to the Consumer Price Index for 1987.1990, housing prices (nationally) have increased an avenge of four percent annually for the last three years. This inflatiaa factor has been used to project future increases in property value in the proposed impact fee methodology. Finally, annual property tax payments beyond the upcoming 1992-93 school year must be reduced by an appropriate "present value' factor to determine their equivalent in terms of a cuttent' lump sum" payment. The projected interest rate on the $11.5 mi:;un bond issue-between 6.0 and 6.5 percent-is a reasonable discount rate to represent the "time value of money.' To be conservnive, the lower figure of six percent has been used to calculate property tax credits. The appropriate property tax millage credit for new development occurring in 1992 is $49,73 per $1,000 of 1992 assessed value, as sht wn in Tabk 10, The bond issue to fund needed capital Improvements will be paid back over a 20-year period. Since development occurring in years beyond 1992 will be paying off the bonds over a shorter period, credit arnounts will decrease every yen. A comprehensive re- evaluation of the credit calculations should, therefore, be performed periodically, althougb it is not necessary to do so every year, Instead, credit for succeeding years can be easily calculated by deiedng the previous yens millage credit and recalculating the table with the present value for the current year at 1. Credit millages for future years will tie provided with the draft impact fee ordinances prepared for the County. Table 10 MILLAOE CREW FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS IAppilcoble to Now Development in 19921 1987 1992 CaphaI Present Property Debt Toil 00 Bond 00 Bond Total Debts Vdus Vellum MiOage year Assessed DOW Debt Debt Miepe IP.V,) kfttlon Cndh Value Swvket Services Service 44110001 Feota' Factor' IP.VI° 1992 182 085,065 317 600 0 317,600 1.9E 1.000 1.00 1.96 1993, 173 431,020 313,726! 674,001 887,725 5.12 0.943 1.04 5.02 1994 185 571 191 314,275 572,073'i 886,348 4.78 0,890 1,08 4,60 1995 198 551 174 13,035 572,480 888,321 4.46 0.840 1.12 4.22 O 1996 212,460,456 317,365 572,280 889,045 4.19 0.792 1.17 3.88 1997 227,33 2 688 314 445 671,454 885.899 3.90 0.747 1.22 3.54 1998 243,245,977 315,405 572,762 888,167 3.65 0.706 1.27 3.28 1999 260 273 195 _314.605. 673,243 888,040 3.41 0,065 1,32 2.99 2000 1279,492.319 317,690 570J46 807,036 3.19 0.627 1.37 2,74 2001 1297198,11781 _ 310 600 $69,1031 $87,703 2.98 0.592 1.42 2.51 ` 2002 318.84 5 BS0 317,5001._ 570,1451 887,746 2.78 0.668 1.48 2.30 t~✓ leou"s R-1 Set" DicWt - Dish cphr Fac*y FM+rxe en0 School Impoct Fee PAW 1 Jamst Duncam v4 Aimemes Novsmea 30, 1993 1S µ Y~ y r*1M1 ~If®I ~ ri 3 2 x 0 I atrwa Table 10 n MILLAOE CREDIT FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS IAppBcabte to Now Development In 19921 Total 1997 1992 Total Cootat Present Property Debt Year Assessed Topl 00 Bond 00 Bond Debt Debt Value Value Millage t Date Debt Mllfage 1P.V.1 Inflation Credit Vrfue Serv{w1 Service3 Service {1110001 Factors Fa-;-x' 1P.VI' 2003 341,185,068 31-0,650 572830 867,480 2.60 0.527 t,t4 2.11 2004 365,048 620 0 744,962 744,982 2.04 0.497 1.60 1.82 2005 390,599,983 0 748,132 746,132 1.91 0.469 1.87 1.49 2008 417,941,876 0 145,031 745,031 1.78 0.442 1.73 1.37 2007 L47,197,807 0 747,164 747,164 1.67 0.417 1.80 1.28 2006 478 501,653 0 752,120 752,120 1.57 0,394 1.87 1.16 2009 511,996 769 0 746,132 746,132 1.46 0.371 1.95 1,05 2010 647,836,543 0 745,512 745,512 1.36 0.360 2.03 0.97 2011 588,185,101 0 744,649 744,549 1.27 0.331 2.11 0.88 2012 1627,219,058 0 745,789 745 788 1.19 0.312 2.19 0.81 Total 3,472,39 18M797,989. 49.73 I Nsis9 i 1. Total 119921 Assessed Value in the Telluride R. 1 School Di strict is 1182,085,111 according to the San Miguel County Assessor's Office. Total $$soloed valuation for future years aseuma'Oven percent annual growth, which is much lows then uperienced in recent yeas, This conservative growth rate assumption is supported by data on recent reseasssments and growth polls observed In other resort maltiate, UN of 4ow growth rata results in higher property tax credits for fee-paysrs. 2. Hanifen, Imhoff Inc., September 23, 1987. 3, Fifty five 155.t;6i percent of proiected debt service payments for facility capital Improvements totalling I 111,152, 152,250 a Identified in the Mutes Alan for TeNuride School Dr'sIM FaelG'ffes prepared by Loscher and Mahoney/1.0R Group, July 1992. Projected debt service Ilrcm Stan Bernstein, October 12, 19921 was reduced by 44.94 percent to estimate portion of debt required to increase capacity to sans new development. 4. School Capital Debt M51189e derived by dividing Total Capital Facility Debt Service for each you by total 6,sessed value for that year, than multiplying by 1,000. ` S. present Value Fedor asau'nes discount rats of six percent. Stan Bematein estimates that the 1992 bonds wig own an interest rata of between 6.0 and 6.5 percent. 8. Property Value Inflation Factor reflects protected annual approctatlim in property valwa of existing dwelling unite. The over ago annual Increeso in the Consumes Price Index, AR Clrles Arorapa for SAolter rat Iasi three years available 11987.19901 of four percent was vied (US Department of labor, eursw of labor Statistics). This inflation boor assumes 1992 evaege property values. i 7. Debt Mteege Credit 1P.V.11e tho present value of future property tax peyrMnta that will go to ret've bonds used t~5 for expanding school capacity, expressed m terms of dollars per 11.000 of assessed value. It is derived by e Telluride 1111 School OMtdas - ash CapRal Facdht Finance and School M+tped Fee Row 16 James Duncan and Aswciatss November 30. 19 tl ?h ~E 3;2x0 y t ' } % . r 1~ t+~aaax"Ie ~:.I:. Notes to Table 10 continued: multiplying the Capital Facility Debt Millago by Present Value Factor and Property Value InItbion Factor fat each year. Total represents property tax milloge credit applicable to new development in 1992. For ad valorem tax purposes, real property in San Miguel County is assessed at a matt of 0.1434 times its estimated full market value. The average price of ill dwelling units sold in the School District in the last three years was $169 per square fool'. However, since the recommended impact fee trethodology is based on unit size (as an approximation of bedroom cont;guration) credits, too, must be calculated on a square footage basis. These calculations are presented in Me 11, Table 11 i CREDIT FOR FUTURE PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS Town of Telluride and San Mlguel County Sadroome Valw Par Tax Assess. Assaaaad Value Future Tax Future Property Tax • . ft. Role e! ea, k Ceadk MM Rate CredN er a . ft. 1 1162.45 0,1434 123.30 49.73 $1.16 2 1133.67 01434 119.15 49.73 10.95 3 1182.21 0.1434 126.13 49.73 11.30 4 r 1187,33 0.1434 128.88 49.73 $1.34 If Credits for Past Property Tax Payments As noted above, property tax revenue from the ~i Town alyd County has arltn will continue to be used In sdaYlfon to the efealiff fuf Mine property Io retire the $2,395,1000 in bonds issued in 1987 to tar peyf ill CAlle t Should Sao be given rehabilitate the historic elementary school. f" Pest PsymeoN ITIMM to nNn tM 1887 Therefore, In additioa to the credit for future schod bonds. Mae efedtle ►xN sPPH to property tax payments calculated above, credit dievdoprtisnt in the Town sod County. should also be given for previous payments nude Ire retire the 1987 bonds. These credits, like those for hJture to payments, will apply to development in the NPn and County. tnfornmow in 214 single-fancily and 291 condominium dwellint, edu add is ills Dittrld, Ianrry 1990 to August 1971. O Prepared by Telluride Camultina Ibr San Mttpnei Planeung Deparcmeat. 1972. Telluride R• 1 8ehoot Dletoid - Draft C"h•t facalry Finance and School Ingest Fee Ill"ont James Duncan and Assocutea November 30, '997 tt „ 32XI❑ 10 ,naxrea O I, aashn, I j The methodology followed in calculating millage credits for past property tax payments is nearly identical ` to the one used in estinuting credits for future payments-the main difference is the use of historical data f rather than projections to derive the debt millage credit. As shown in Table 11, the property tax millage that accounts for past property tax payments is $14.71 per SI,OW of 1992 assessed value, table 12 MILLAGE CREDIT FOR PAST PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS 1997 Capital present Property Debt Year Aasar, f d 00 Bond Debts Value Value MWaye Debt Mituge 4P.V.1 InRatson Clam Vah Services 1110001 f°0tef wtor° IP.V ° 1987 78839790 88057 1,10 1.338 0.820 1.21 1988 78891770 317488 4.00 1.282 0.850 4.29 1989 88228280 317488 3.80 1.191 0.880 _3:7 1990 1041900.40 317488 3.00 1.124 O.1 20 3.10 1991 138487343 318300 2.30 _ 1.080 0.960 2.34 Total 1383821 14.71 Notes t Table 12: 1. Historical Assessed Value Date ITelluride R•1 School District) from Son Miguel County Assessor, Telephone conversation, October 1, 1992. 2. Henifen, Imhoff Inc., September 23, 1987. 3. School Capital Debt Millsgs derived by dividing Total Capital Facility Debt Service for each year by total assessed value for that year, then multiplying by 1,000. 4. Present Value Factor assumes discount rata of six percent, Sloes Bernstein, the School District's bond consultant, estimates that the 1992 bonds will earn en interest rate of between 8.0 and 8.5 percent, 5. Property Value Inflation Factor reflects projected annual appreciation in property values of existing -41 dwelling units, based on Consumer Price Index, All Cities Average for Shelter (U.S, Deportment of w Labor, Bureau of labor Statistics). O S. Debt Millaga Credit IP.V.1 is the present value of future property tax payments that will 90 10 retire bonds used for expanding school capacity, expressed In terms of dollars per 11,000 of assessed value. It is derived by multiplying the Capital Facility Debt Millege by Present Value Factor and Property Value Inflation Factor for each year. Total represents property tax miltegs credit _ applicable to new development. O Credits for past property tax payments should be based on land value only, since It Is reasonable to assume that land was vacant prior to the time that future impact fix payments will be made (building permit O ToPurlde 0•1 school Dlrtr6l - Draft Caehat FeeNhy Mans and Scheel trnpaet Fee Report 1a James Duncan and Aswc,stss November 30, 1202 F, 2 ~i K 32 Y, nomemm ~ r ,r f ' • approval), To calculate average assessed land values, a land value asses<tnent ratio has been established based on 1992 tax assessment data for the School District. Land values made up 36.13 percent of the School District's residential (developed) assessed value in 1992. Using this ratio, it can be estimated that the district-wide average assessed value of land (as a component of dwelling unit cost) is 58.76 per square foot, but again since the recommended impact fee methodology is based on unit site (as an approxinultion of bedroom configuration) credits must be calculated on a square footage basis. Table 13 provides a complete summary of the methodology used in calculating per-squares foot credits for past property tax credits. Table 13 CREDIT FOR PAST PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS Town of Teflurlds and San Miguel County Bedrooms Total Aaussed Land Value Assess. Past Tax Cndh Past Property Tax Value per sq. ft. Asussmant Land Value MM Rata Crom Per sq. ft, Rath Par .ft. 1 123.30 0.3813 $9.42 14.71 $0.12 2 $19.15 0.3813 $6.92 14.71 $0.10 3 $28.13 0.3813 $9.44 14.71 $0.14 4+ 128,64 11 $9.70 14.71 $0.14 4 Credits for Real Estate Transfer Tax Paynnents in the Town of Telluride credit should be given for dw $100,000 in real estate transfer tax revenue that was used to fund acquisition of the quorw but site on behalf of the School District. As one of the specific i recommendations of the school facility Master Plan, acquisition of the quonset but is best viewed as s { capacity-expanding improvement for which credit should be gives. Since this is the only time that real estate transfer tax revenue bas been used to fund School District facilitks, credit should only be given for the $100.000 amount. To calculate tcal estate transfer tax credits, the $100,000 amount Is divided by the tool aaseased value of residential property in the Town-$100,0001528.697,810. Performing this calculatloo yklda areal estate transfer tax credit millage of 3.5 per S i,000 valuation. Multiplying this mWage credit by average assessed land values yields estimated real estate transfer tax credits of approximately SA per st:law foot for residential development in the Town, (See Table 14, below) I Table 14 CREDIT FOR PAST REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX PAYMENTS Town of Tequrke ' i Tabwlde R•1 School oleekt - alt Canal fedahy Ftnanee and So" Impact fee 111109001 lamas 0%MAM and Asax(atn No"mW 30, 102 r 25 ~,1❑ 32x10 staffiataINNOWAW~ 111111111110 4. I a R 0 S r % y r I Bedrooms Total Assessed Land Value Assess. Real Estate Real Eststa Value per sq. ft. Assessment Land Value Transfer Tax Transfer Tax Credit Ratio Para . h. Cram MIN Rate era . h. 1 123.30 0.3613 18.42 3.6 00.03 2 119.16 0.3613 08.92 5 6 10.02 3 126,13 0.3813 19.44 36 10,03 4+ 128.86 0.3813 19.70 3 5 10.03 Credit Calculation Summary Three forms of credit have been calculated in this section: 1) credits for future property tax payments; 2) credits for past property tax payments; and 3) credits for real estate uInskr tax payments (applies only in Town). Aiding these credits together yklds a WW credit ranging from $1.07 to $1.51 per square foot in the Town of Telluride and from $1.03 to $1.47 per square foot in the remainder of the County, as khown In Table 15. Table 16 TOTAL CREDITS BY BEDROOM COUNT Town of Telluride and San Miguel County Creek Type Bedrooms lper sq. h.1 1 2 3 4+ Town of Telluride I Future PropertyTex 11.16 10,96 11,30 11.34 Past Property 10.12 10.10 10.14 1014 Real Estate Transfer Tax 10.03 10.02 10.03 10,03 Total Town 11.31 11.07 $1.47 11.61 i Uninco ated San Miguel Coun Future Property 01.16 10,96 11.30 61.34 Pest Property 10.12 10.10 10.14 10.14 Real Estate Transfer Tax NA NA NA NA Total Unincor . Count 11.28 11.06 01.44 1.47 • Cr!culetion of Maximum School Impact Fees ft to hnporfurt to note that the Town and The proportionate, fair-shore formula for County may adopt Impact 100 tot an calculating school impact fees Is straightforward, lower than the net kolasot coat but not First. the capital cost to construct a new unit of NOW. • student capacity is multiplied by the estimated fD • number of s,,,udenu to be it oersted by a dwelling ` Ts%dde 0•1 Wool McAd - Draft Cwhel FaeYlry Finnee and 8sbe01 kr4w t Fee PM*d Jsmu Duncan xne Associmm Nowmbsr 30, 1922 20 M:11 2X1(3 32x![7 r • I 1 O n I unit to determine the capital cost per dwelling unit. Second, the property tax credit per dwelling unit, which represents future tax payments that will be used to construct new capacity, is subtracted from the total capital cost to determine the net impact cost. It is important to note that the Town and County may adopt impact fees that are lower than the net impat t cost but not be higher. If fees are established at rates lower than the maximums established pursuant to this study, they should be reduced proportionately across the board in order to retain the proportionality between the impacts of different types of development and the level of the fees. Bedroom-Based Fee Calculations As discussed earlier, impact fees based solely on the number of bedrooms contained within a dwelling unit are difficult to administer. For the purpose of calculating impact fees, different housing (bedroom) configurations have been convened into average dwelling unit ranges and sizes (square footage:). To convert bedroom categories into house size ranges, data on the size of and number of bedrooms in all dwciling units sold in the School District between January 1990 and August 1992 were analyzed. Based on that analysis, bedroom categories were translated into the following average sizes and ranges: one bedroom unit - 0-500 square feet (634 average) two-bedroom unit - 901.1,200 square feet (1,033 average) d three-bedroom unit - 1,201.1,900 square feet (1,354 average) four+ bedrooms - 1,901 square feet and above (2,599 average) As shown in Table 16, the majority of all units in each bedroom category fell within specified ranges. Table 16 OWELLINO UNIT SIZE BY NUMBER OF BEOROOMS Telluride R-1 School Dlatr(c1 Number of Average Sig* % Urgta % Ue1ts % Unhe size Range Vile" f001f1e to . ft') U . h.l Smaller 4 1 634 0-800 91.4 NA P •1 2 1033 8011,200 62.4 16.8 1:.d 3 1,564 1,2011,900 65.6 24.4 17.1 4+ 2,699 1,901 ♦ 86.5 31.1 NA $gum: Information on 212 single-family and 299 condominlum dwell" units soldin that School O DisVkt from January 1990 to August 1992, ofaoared by Tallurlda Consulting Ior that San Miguel 0 . yy, Planning DaDnvtment, T@NM* R•1 School Distiller - Dish Cali Faeahy F'Mance and School lmpaet Fate Raper Jamaa Dinar and associates Novemw 30. 1912 21 30 4 1' XWAMIX I it Rased on average dwelling unit saes in the School District, the maximum impact fee that could be charged in the Town of Telluride would range from $0 for a one-bedroom unit (smaller than 800 square feet) to 55,854 for a four-bedroom or larger unit (1,901+ square feet). Impact fees for the remainder of the " School District would range from f0 for a one-bedroom unit to $5,958 for a four-bedroom or larger unit, as shown in Table 17. Table 17 FIXED-RATE IMPACT FEES Town of Te6urlda and San Mlqual County i I Tax erty, Bedroom""" Student Capital Caphal Avg. Prop. Tax Prop httpect Category Muhl Coati Coat! Slae GedW CrsdW Fee feq. ft.I Student Unh lent, h.l sq. ft, Unh Town of Telluride 1 /0.800 0.023 $28,425 1654 634 $1,31 1830 t0 2 / 801.1200 0.055 $28 426 61563 1,033 $1.07 01,106 1458 3 1 1201.1900 0.168 $28,426 $4,775 1,554 11.47 02,284 $2,491 4+ 1 1901 + 0.344 $28.425 $9,770 2,599 $1.51 13,924 $5,954 Unineo rated Son M wl Coun 1 ! 0.800 0.023 $28,425 1554 634 $1.28 (811 10 2 / 801.1200 0.055 $28426 $1.503 1.033 11.05 61.085 $478 3 / 1201.1900 0.168 129 425 14,775 1,554 $1.44 12,235 $2 637 4+ 11901 + 0.344 128,425 19,778 2 699 11.47 03,820 05,958 Fixed-Rote Approach The fixed-rate, bedroom-based approach to cakulating Impact feet has two striking features, one of which is potentially troublesome. First, the approach would result in no fee requiremat for very small dwelling units (i.e., those smaller than 800 square feet). Second. It produces great disp&Aty in fees among sae cateanres. A three-bedroom unit, for example, could be charged a fee that is more than five times as high as a two-bedroom unit ($2,491 versus $458). , The fact that small units would be exempt from school impact fee requirements should not be viewed as a shortcoming of the bedroom-based approach to fee calculatlota. In fact, such exemptions may offer strong support to local affordable housing objectives, Moreover, the approach satisfies the full measure O • Tenurtde 11.1 School Dletrlet - Dreh Ceptd FacW1V Flnanee and School Inrpect Fa R.poA James Duncan and Aeaaiares Noremtwr 30• 129 2 22 ears V +~l>i[ e ' 4 i 32X111 1 ~ ~ I' .y i ~ i ] i ~ Er •If r , is 1 tl 1 ~S 4 ' q 1, , i k 4 4 ; stn 1 ~ u 1 ~ 1 F . r; tl '~is „ I ~ I IY .,Y"A ei •f V tl r l.s... Y ,b„ Yn vwn~ YeJ,-. rv i.i 4 , of the proportionality test, since the exemption for small units is based merely on the fact that school- related demands (student generation) associated with such units does not warrant upfront fee paymenu. t " The disparity in fee levels among different dwelling size classifications lea much more significant problem. The reason for the large jumps in fee levels between house size (bedroom) ategorles can be traced to rvo central factors. The first is student generation potential. Little can or should be done to correct fo variations in fee levels caused by different student generation characteristics, since existing data and common sense confirm that student generation potential increases as the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit Increases. The other factor that works to create large jumps between fee levels can be corrected. Whilethe avenge ' size sages shown in Tablt 16 provide the bestfit that as be achieved with existing data, coavenions from bedroom counu to size ranges lack absolute precision. As a result, average size rules include some E dwelling units that do not correspond to respective bedroom counts. A 773 square foot unit would, for example, be classified as a one-bedroom dwelling. Yet, such a unit could conceivably contain two or state bedrooms. Conversely, a 1,200 square foot or larger unit could cootAla ottly one bedroom. The fixed-rate approach to setting fee leveh rneifess this problem In the form of sometirm charging too little or too much, particularly for units In the high- and low-ends of rat ranges. Vadabla•Aate Approach I _ The problems ax,ociated with fixed-rate impact fees can be corrected by converting to a variable- Under i vorfibAarsfa approach, dweft rate approach. Under a fixed-rate approach. I susib an atasub o 1N pitta a pu• 2,10D square foot dwelling unit's Impact fee is agran-kof AN Mr at pow op"S h► #Neaas based on the fee for the average site four-bedroom of tM Use also. ! or larger unit. Under a variable•rate approach, the same dwelling would be assessed a base fee quit ` to the average size three-bedraam unit plus a per- square-foot fee for ail floor apace to excess of the ` base size (average size three-bedroom dwelling). The per-square-foot, variable fee rate would be set at the level necessary to 'connect' the avenge three-bedroom fee amount with the avenge four•plus bedroom feeamount. In essence, the variable -rate approach produces a fee curve whkch claely flu average fixed- rate fee levels and smoothes the trusitioa between fee categories. A visual comparison of the two 4 approaches is depicted in figure 1, below. , r.at,na. e•t ttct,eat tlbtrtet - waft caplet raeanr fw,ai+n ane gannet tngael f« ftavert » Jan+as Duncan and Asaoclataa Nov~ 20. 102 r r V x ° ' 25 x Q 32 x I O r~t; I 1 rr 1~ F'i 1 ~ a ~ 1} ~M q1 I r i C p•a [ ! y; i f.i I 1 t r ~ r I 1 t a yx~ y d 1 rY ~ l' r I v ti. C♦ a • 1 I ~ 1 1 ~ ~J , \ ! ) 1. S I It r r t t l 1 1 i r Amour r I ~ r r, r I ~ I j I I . Flom# I FIXED-A140 VARIAKE•RATE IMPACT FEE! I i ) ( .r r ' t ; t J I `41 , ro%"s R•1 •etka Daukt - Dnh Cykr FUMY Flow OW mol 01 knPod FN IMOeit J~m~~ Ounun &M Amcieu NOWMEN 30, 1M 14 . - r w~~ ~rk~ ,yl! r 2 5 dQ 32 x In tI r , , S 4 r A I ~ R t ,y I t a ~ ! 1 .I t. l ) ~ t `i • ~i i t i. r I r t , I 1 1 1 I MalwaLal _ , Variable-rate levels at.- established by calculating square foouge and cost differences between average impact fee levels (e.g., between 1,033 and 1,544 square feet and between $458 and $2,491), and then dividing the increment of increased cost by the increment of increased floor area ($2,033 + 321 - $3.90). This variable-rate is then multiplied by the amount of floor area in a dwelling unit wbkh exceeds the base size. Finally, the variable amount is added to the base fee level to yield the net impact fee. Base fees and variable-rates for all sizes of dwelling units are presented in Table 18, below. Table 18 BASE FEES AND VARIABLE RATES Sias Flanpa Bow W~ Boa FW F" oar $4. ft. it.l Above M Wtr ly 3 Town of TaSurido 634-1,032 634 _ 10 01.14 1 033.1 653 1,033 1458 13.89 1,654-2,698 1,554 12,491 13.21 2 699+ 2.599 15 B54 12.25 tam" oroorated San M county 634-1,032 634 10 IIr20 1 033.1 653 1.033 1478 13.95 1,554-2,598 1,654 $2,537 13,27 2,599+ 2,599 16,958 12.29 the formula for calculating net impact fees under the variable-tale a)proach is as follows: Variable Difference Between Dwelling BASE NET Fee Rate X Unit Size and Base Sits + FEE IMPACT FEE EXAMPLE: 1,676 Sewn Foot DwoSlnp Unit (Town) r F53.21 X 1,673.1,334(13q_ + $2,491 ® $2,879 j Maximum impact fns by dwelling unit size under the fixed-rate and variable-rate appracbes are compared „ in Table 19. ' ratwnda A•1 Smear 111atAei - note eager Faatlty Ftnanea and Saber Ingaal Fan +t.we Jana Ovttan W Aaaocilua Noram`u 30, 149a elf I 25 k ~C] 32xID ` r a !'i i r•> ~~'i ~ A ~1 r r .Ad , ~41r~ ~r, , i ran V t ;,i ¢ H t, I; t rr 1t"~ ;i X ~ A! I 5 , Y1Y1a.~ 10 { ) e1 i t + i q'aWlOe , i , ~ 5 . i r. r Table 19 FIXED-RATE AND VARIABLE-RATE SCHOOL IMPACT FEES Town of Telluride and San Miguel County r $44 flxb Raid Vedebfe-Rate Approach r aRa Approach Mknirtxrns Mexlmum Average T Town of Telluride i 0.800 NA NA 1189 NA r $01-1,200 1458 1190 11 107 1468 I ' 1,201-1 000 $2,491 $1 111 13 601 $2 .,491 1 901 + /6 864 $3,005 NA $5,854 Unhu ted San M ei Covn i 0.600 NA NA 1190 NA 801.1 Z00 1478 1200 11137 1478 1,201-1,900 02,537 $1,141 )3,668 12,637 1 901 + $5966 $3,871 NA $6,968 1 The variable-rate approach to Impact fee calculations is recommended forum in the Telluride R-I School District. The approach has the effect of eliminating large variations in impact feet for units whkh, though ' similar In square footage, fall within different bedroom categories. At the same time, the approach mitigates problems associated with dwelling units that are considerably larger or smaller than district-wide average house sixes. A complete listing of maximum impact fees that could be chuged in the Town and County under the variable-rate approach has been included in Appendtr A of this report. rr r16, i I. r ?4i TeNurlde R-1 1.1 Nobid - Draft Cphr Foe My Finance and Scheel ky*W Fee Bepert James Duncan and Auoe{uH IlovMnen 10. 199t at t `+a' i' .I I Sir .'r L ~ r f`' t logo I, 25 32 x~ d • Q t 1 f I LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS Impact fee programs are often oesigned to recoup the cost of both capital facilities and land. In Colorado, however, state statutes specifically authorize counties to impose school land dedication requirements. As a result of that specific statutory authority and San Miguel County's long history of using dedication standards to meet school-related land needs, this study recommends continued use of impact fees and land dedication standards in the County , Such an approach is also recommended for the Town of Telluride. Currently, 11.4 acres of land is used for school purposes in the School District. The total consists of the elementary school site (LS acres), the quonset but site (0.4 acres) and the middle/high school site (9.7 acres). In addition the School District owns another 1. l acres of land In Sawph and Placerville which are not currently being used for school-related purposes. By the end of 1992 the School District will have received the equivalent of 504,342 square feet of land (11.57 acres) through land dedications and fees in. lieu of dedications.' The total inventory of District-owned land and equivalent land holdings is shown in Table 20. Table 20 SCHOOL-OWNED LAND AND EQUIVALENT ASSETS Telluride R•1 Schaal Olstdct Loestlon Ara (Acres) EAtstin Land At Elements School 130 Ouonset Hut 0.40 Middle/High School 9.70 Sawpit 0.11 1 Placerville 1,00 11 Subtotal 12.61 I E alert H s from Dodkatlona and F"o-In-LJau Aldasoio Ranch PUD 4.83 Lawson Hill PUD _ 0.92 Preserve Phase 1.11 0.40 San Bernardo PUD 0J2 * Telluride Mountain Ville a PUD 4.69 The Falls 0.11 S Subtotal 11.61 I Grand Total 24.08 ' Although fers WIAU of dediculoe were accepted fa to vur mayoriry or this lad tin, rata reutved have been converted • to tut tin rued co dedkstion reguuameas Ie place ate time tw piaa vote rid. such u Approach e$WPizer taw fee-in-lieu Q , revenue repments unrealded cspaclry (WA, TMurlde A-1 School Dls M - Draft Coooll Fecalty Mace and School kneaet Fee F&W tar I lames Duneen and Aeeocletee November 30, 1017 I i 10 u ".^4. 7 aL x 32x111 % ! Y ~ Y . 1 1 ~ • ^ k j del ~ t .lad . r r ~ ~~j p ~•,r ! '',I i ' ' ! a• ly r r.,• y- t I , 1 ~ .1 J sir ~ ~ 1 , r ~ 0 6 ~ rl I ' e ! c: , is 1r i a , S c sl ! , t . ~ r r 1 f a 1 Ir q 1 ~ i a , I ;r The District's current level of service for school land is determined by dividing existing school land holdings by the total capacity of existing'chool facilities. The total capacity of existing school facilities a1', is 394 students (see Table 8, p.12). The current level of urvke for school land is therefore 0.0611 acres ` or 2,662 square feet per unit of student capacity (24.08 acres + 394 students). This level of service standard has been used to cakulate revised land dedication requirements. It is important to note that the validity of this level of service standard as the basis for future load dedication requirements hinges on the School District's use of previously received fees•in-lieu and other revenue to acquire the full amount of land used as the basis for the level of service standard within a reasonable period of time (i.e., five years). tr.tn load dedication requirements Based on the student multipliers calculated in Table 6 (p. 11), the maxh would be 324 square feet for a singledamily unit and 224 square fat for a mull- amily unit, as shown in Table 11. Since the size of dwelling units cannot generally be determined until building permit stage, land dedication requirements must continue to be based on structure W. Tab;. 21 i MAXIMUM LAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT PIA DW6LLIN0 UNIT 1 TokuWta R•1 School District 1 Lund Pa Ds"don tu EtudKSt Stnrert. i Muftow StudaM Rpukanlanl Ty" a . k. • . k. Si to-Family 0.197 2,682 824 Multi-family 0.084 2 662 224 I Because the maximum land dedication requirements recommended here are significantly lower than the County's existing requirements of 1,200 square feet per single-family unit and 900 equate feel per multi- family unit, the County should allow for os ma (sometimes referred to u erMts) for prevlous excess land dedications against impact fees that would otherwise be due. Since the County maintains detailed records on past land dedications this should not present a problem. I c i r I I r I t •~6, J{ W;r A TaluAda 1114 Id" D1AAet - Drift CaWts! Faelltr Flnarrea ►~A Sdteat Ynpaat Foe RapA Jomos D^an and Al60aia186 Nawmbo 30, 1992 . + ' ! I . F a. _ P Y , - I, rv 4 32X whim s t. r 7a0Jfiq < ~ r O' r . j 1 f I , PROJECTED IMPACT FEE REVENUE AND LAND DEDICATIONS This section of the report presents estimates of projected impact fee revenue x-d land dedica on contributions within the School District over the neat seven years (1993.2000). Several important assumptions have been made in preparing these projections: 1, The recommended impact fee levels for the Town of Telluride will be adopted in the both the Town and County; 2. Population and housing unit growth within the School District will approximate the levels projected in the Martyr Plan for 7'rllurfde School District Facilities;, I 3. The mix of dwelling unit types constructed will approximate the mix constructed over the last three years; s 4. The mix of single-family and mulu-family dwelling units will apptximate levels reported in the 1990 Census. Impact Fee Revenue There were 2,429 dwelling units within the R. I School District near the scan of the 1991-:942 school year (11.1-91), The adopted Master Plat projects a toW of 3,233 dwelling units within the District by the year 2000, yielding an average annual (simple) growth rate of slightly over 4.7 percent (or 113 units) per year. The impact fee revenue projections are founded on the assumption that the District's housing stock will grow by 115 units per year to the year 2012. Assuming that the mix of new dwelling units constructed between 1993 and 2012 is similar to ;lie mix constructed between January 1990 and August 1992, the School District could expect to receive an average of uvcr 5226,000 per year over the next 20 years, or approximately $4.5 miillon in WW fee revenue. i Tab1a 21 PROJECTED IMPACT FEE REVENUE Tallurida R-1 School Watrict, 1993.2012 Dw T Unho Aver site Total Rev~ 1.8edroons 402 2-Bedroom 729 1458 $333029 3•Sedroom 791 62,491 01,970,879 44 -Bedroom 378 06,854 12,217,176 R Total 2 300 14 621 987- 1`t ~ Q r~ I Tsaurlda R•1 9ehW 01~ - Orsh Capital Fee" Finarrea wW Scheot Mpaet Fee Rapers 29 Jamar Duncan and Aaaoehtaa Noram er 30, 1902 1 rh 10 i. D 32XIII 14 j i ; f 7 r i 1 ' V. , o-~lr f r~ r~ l t c t r - r Ti , ~~ir T ; f +r i1191~ + 1"i' . `r ; It is important to note that the projection methodology used here does not account for the fact that property tax credits will be decreasing each year and net impact fee levels will be increasing. Thus, while actual growth in the housing stock could be higher or lower than assumed, the impact fees that will be applied t l in coming years will almost certainly be higher. The net effect of this conservative assumption is that if growth rates equal of exceed those projected in the Master Plat impact fee revs ,tes will exceed those projected above. ` As shown in Table 10(p. 15), the District's annual bond debt payments over the next 20 years will average I $824,000. Revenue projections presented here indicate that over 25 percent of the average annual debt pay meat could be met by impact fee revenue. Land Dedications The dwelling unit projections presented above were also used for the purpose of projectior the & m aunt of . land to be received from lutd dedicatiom in the Scbool District. The mix of single-family r 1 mttid-famlly dwelling units reported by April 1992 Tax Assessor's data was used to project the mix - r unite L ver the nett twenty years. As shown in Tablet 23, the District could expect at receive about 901,300 square feet (20.7 acres) of land from dedications over the next 20 years. Table 23 PROJECTED LAND DEDICATIONS Ta9urida R•1 School District. 1093.2012 ' I Dedication Ilsoil ernent Total Dweilmtq TYPO Units isa. It.l . ft. Si le-Fame 1,287 624 674,308 Multi-farm 1 013 224 226,912 Total 2 300 901,300 k r. ' I f ,r Talwms R•1 Soheol OmAet - Oran Capital Facility Finance and School M bW fee NPmt 11 Jamie Dw an and Au,odaua Nov~ 30, 1 30 ~ i r I v" v 3 2 x I❑ i i 1 6 ..i f r +Fa Y f y ~ LF~ r I I 4. : L r A 1 + ~ d ky I~ r I.r 9_" 1 I ~ Y J 1 1 ^ I F~ r i ti "aasawr: r `tali V... .YM^l. Fast 4n..:._:.... ...»r a. x 1 T. i .Y i 4N APPENDIX f " [This Appendix contains a schedule of School Impact Fee requirements for the Town of Telturlds end Unincorporated San Miguel County, The schedules list spplicaCle school Impact fee requirements for eli sizes of I dwelling unite up to 2,600 square feet in size,! k i I I as I ~ { i Tdludde 141 hhool Oht4d - Draft Cashel Facov Finance and tlchool In"d Fee Masse isms$ Duncan and Aaaoclates Nowmeat 90, t 99 t I. 2 .5 32X 10 IA t School Impact Fees - Town of TNludde squats Faat Impact FN Square Faat act FN S an Foot lmoact F« E an Feat 6n act Fie 0-634 $0.00 680 152.44 728 1104.88 772 $157.32 635 11.14 681 153.58 727 $106.02 773 1158.48 636 12.28 682 $54.72 _ 728 $107.16 774 $159.60 637 $3.42 683 155,88 729 1108.30 775 $160.74 638 1418 694 157.00 730 1109.44 776 $16188 639 $5.70 685 158.14 731 $110.58 777 $183,02 640 $8.84 686 15928 732 $111.72 778 $184,18 641 $7.98 681 160,42 733 $112.86 779 1165.30 642 $9.12 688 181.56 734 1114.00 780 1166.44 643 110.26 689 162.70 735 1115.14 781 1187.58 844 111.40 690 $63.64 736 $11610 792 1168.72 645 112.54 691 $64.98 737 1117.42 783 $159.96 646 113.68 692 186.12 738 $118,55 764 4171.00 647 114.92 693 167.26 739 1119.70 785 $172.14 840 $15.96 694 466.40 740 $12041 786 1173.28 849 117.10 895 169.54 741 1121.99 787 $174.42 650 118,24 696 $70,68 742 1123.12 789 $175.56 651 $19.38 697 $71.82 743 1124.26 789 0178.70 _ 652 $20,52 696 $72.96 744 1125.40 790 $17114 653 121.86 699 $74.10 745 1126.54 791 1178.91 654 122.80 700 175,24 746 $127.68 792 1180.12 655 123.94 701 176.38 747 112812 793 1181.28 ' 658 125.08 702 $77.52 740 $129,96 744 1192.40 851 12612 703 178.66 749 113110 795 1$8314 658 127.38 704 $79.80 750 11132.24 796 1184.61 659 128.50 705 180.94 751 1133,38 797 1115,82 660 429,64 708 $62.08 752 $134.52 799 $106.96 681 130.78 707 183.22 753 1135.68 799 1180.10 662 $31092 708 $84.36 754 1130480 Boo 1189.14 683 133.06 709 48950 755 1137494 801 1190,31 664 134,20 710 $88.64 756 $13800 802 1$91.52 665 $35.34 711 187,78 751 $14012 803 $192,86 886 136.48 712 118.92 758 $141.30 804 1193 60 667 $37462 713 690.06 759 1142.50 805 119494 868 $36076 714 691,20 760 $14364 806 1196.08 . 869 $39,90 715 1092.94 701 1144.78 807 $19712 610 14104 716 19341 762 114542 BOB 1191.38 671 L42.11 717 194.62 103 $147.00 809 1199 50 672 143.32 718 00.76 794 114010 110 $200" 673 141.48 719 $96.90 765 $14834 111 1201.78 674 045.60 720 !98.01 760 1150.48 812 1202,92 675 146.74 721 199.16 707 1161.62 813 1204.08 676 147489 122 1100.32 761 1152.70 814 120920 0 671 149.02 723 1101.46 760 1163.10 815 120634 676 150.16 724 1102.60 770 1115.01 810 4207.40 1 671 01,30 729 1103.74 771 15 1 817 120842 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Aaport A'1 trM . 32 x~❑ ' r t ti'. M1 Omura i School Impact Fees - Town of Tsllut1de r 5 w Feet kn eat Fee b w FM kn sO Fee Swam Feet Im Fee 8 w Fat Im ect Fee SIB 1209.76 864 $26220 910 4314.64 958 $367,08 819 1210.90 865 1128134 911 131578 957 $368 22 820 $212,04 866 $261,68 912 $316,92 958 $36936 821 1213,18 Be? $26562 913 $318,08 959 $370.50 622 $214.32 868 $:66.76 914 $319420 960 $371.84 823 $215.46 869 $267.90 915 1320 34 961 $372.78 824 $216 60 870 k26 916 $321.48 982 $373.92 82S $217.74 871 917 132282 963 $37506 826 1218.68 072 919 $323.70 964 1376.20 827 1220.02 673 919 $324.90 965 $377.34 628 1221.10 674 920 132604 966 1378.48 829 1222.30 675 921 1327.18 967 1379.62 830 1223.44 676 922 $326.32 968 1380.76 831 $224.58 877 1277.02 923 1329.46 969 1381.90 832 1225.72 878 1278.11! 924 1330.60 970 1383.04 933 $220.96 879 127930 925 6331.14 971 1384.18 634 1228.00 980 128044 920 $332.88 972 1385.32 635 1229.14 g511 $28158 927 $334.02 973 1386.46 836 $23028 892 1282.72 928 1335.16 974 1387.60 _ 637 1231.42 883 1283.86 920 133630 97S 1389.74 838 1232.50 894 1265,00 930 1337.44 970 1380,88 839 1233.70 883 $296.14 931 $338.58 917 1391.02 ' 840 1234.84 986 1287.28 932 1339.72 978 $392.16 841 1235.98 887 1288.42 933 134010 970 1393.30 812 $237,12 888 $289.56 934 1342.00 080 1394.44 843 $238.20 889 $290.70 935 $343.14 091 1395.58 844 $239.40 890 $291.94 936 13" 29 982 1396,12 845 1210.54 891 1292.98 $37 $345.42 983 $397.80 040 1241.68 092 1294.12 930 1346456 984 6399.00 847 1242.82 993 1295,26 939 $347,70 985 $400,1 849 $243.90 894 1296.40 940 1348.84 968 1401.28 849 1245,10 8911 /29714 941 134919 987 1402.42 950 1248.24 090 $29856 942 6351.12 086 1403 56 851 $247.38 897 1299.82 943 $352.26 999 6404.70 832 1248.52 898 1300 96 944 $353.40 990, 1405.84 j 853 1249.60 999 1302.10 945 1351,91 991 1406 08 854 1250.80 900 $303.21 946 1355.68 992 1406.12 855 1291.04 901 130436 947 1350.82 993 1109.26 958 $253.00 902 1305.52 048 1397.90 994 1410.10 657 $254.22 903 1300,60 049 1359.10 905 1411.94 858 $255,36 904 $307,90 950 1360.21 996 1112,88 1 i 859 1256.60 905 130844 951 1301.38 991 1413.62 800 $257.64 906 131008 952 4302.52 998 $414.90 0 Bel 1258.78 907 1311.22 953 1363,66 009 1416.10 862 125991 _ 008 1312,36 951 1364410 1000 1417.24 863 026100 900 $31350 955 1366 94 1001 1118.38 i Cepital Facility Finance and Impact fee Repoli A•2 10 A. ~yM e ra 32X i nra~nu, School Impact Feu - Town of Telluride Square Fool Impact Fa S ara Foot Imp a I F@* Square Fast Impact Fee 6guare Feet Impact Fu 1002 1419.52 1049 1516 35 7094 $695.29 1140 $874 23 1003 11420.68 1049 $520,24 1095 $69916 1141 1878.12 I` _ 1004 $421.80 1050 1521.13 1098 $703.07 1142 $882,01 1005 $422,94 1051 152802 1097 4708,96 1143 $865.90 1006 $424.08 1052 $531,91 1098 $710.85 1144 $689.79 1007 $42S.22 1053 $535,80 1099 $714.74 1145 $893.68 1008 $426,36 1054 $539.69 1100 $716.63 1148 1897,57 1009 _ 11427.50 1055 $54356 1101 1722,52 1147 1901.46 1010 $428.64 1058 $547.47 1102 1726,41 1148 1190515 1011 4429.78 1057 1551,36 1103 1730.30 1149 $909.24 1012 1430.92 1058 1555,25 1104 $734.19 1150 $913.13 1013 1412.06 1059 $559.14 1105 $738.08 1151 0917.02 1014 1433.20 1060 $563,03 1106 1741,97 1152 1920,91 1015 1434.34 1061 1566.92 1107 $745.86 1153 1924,93 1016 4435.46 1082 1570.81 110E 1749.75 1154 1928 69 _ 1017 1436.62 1063 $574.10 1109 $753 84 1155 1932.58 101E 1437.76 1084 11578.59 1110 $757 43 1158 1936.47 1019 1438.90 1065 1582,48 111', 1761.42 11.17 1940.36 1020 1440.04 1068 4588,37 1112 $765.31 1150 1944.25 1021 144118 1067 459026 1113 $769.20 1159 1948.14 1022 $442,32 1068 IS94.15 1114 1773.09 1160 1952 03 1023 $443.46 1069 $598.04 1115 1776 98 1181 $95592 1024 $444,60 1070 $601.93 1116 1160.97 1182 $259.81 _ 1025 114,11514 1071 $605,82 1117 $784.76 1163 $963.70 1026 1446, E8 1072 $60971 111E $788.65 1164 11961,59 1027 1448.02 1073 $61380 1119 E792 1165 1911.4E 1028 `$449.16 1014 $617.49 1120 1168 $975.37 _ 1029 1450,30 1075 $621 3E 1121 1167 $979,26 1030 $45144 1076 1625.27 1122 1188 $983.15 1031 $452458 1077 $629.16 1123 1169 $987.04 1032 145372 1078 $633.05 1124 1170 $990.93 1033 145800 1079 $83694 1128 1171 11994.82 1034 $461.89 1080 1640.83 1126 1819.71 1172 199671 1035 $465,78 1091 4644,72 1127 1823.66 1173 11.002 60 1036 1469.67 1082 $818.61 1128 682155 1174 $1006.49 S 1031 1173,56 1083 163250 1129 (831.44 1176 11010438 1038 1477.45 1084 1656.39 1130 1838 33 1176 11 014.2 7 1039 $461.34 1085 $86026 1131 4839,22 1177 H 018.16 1040 1485.23 1066 $664.17 1132 $843.11 1176 $1,022 05 1041 _$489.12 1081 166EA6 1133 $047.00 1179 $102594 1642 1493.01 1088 1671.95 1131 165019 1180 161,020,83 . 1043 1496.90 1089 1875,84 1135 $854,78 1181 11 033.72 , 1044 1500.79 1090 $679,73 1136 1858.61 1182 11037.61 p 1045 4504,61 1091 166312 1137 $862,56 1183 1111,0411 50 -Z;M° 1046 1508.67 1092 168711 1138 1668.15 1184 11 tl45.39 1047 4512,46 1093 4691.40 1139 $ 10.31 1186 11049,28 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Foe Report A•3 32A El ~ r 1 I~ I 0 I O N61a " i School Impact Fees - Town of Telluride Square Feet Impact Fee 8 ara Feet Impact Fn Square Feet Impact Fee Square Feet Impact FN 1186 $1,053.17 1232 $1,232.11 1278 11,411.05 7324 $1.589,99 1187 11,057.06 1233 $1,236.00 1279 11,414,94 1325 11,593.88 f _ 1188 11,060.95 1234 $1,239,89 1180 01,41883 1326 11,597.77 11E9 1 164,84 1235 $1,243.78 __1281 $1122.72 1327 $1,601.66 1190 11,068.73 1238 $1,247.67 1282 $1426.61 1328 11605.55 1191 11,072.62 1237 $1,251.56 1283 $1,430.50 1329 $1,609.44 1192 11,078.51 1238 11255.45 1284 01434.39 1330 1151133 1193 $1,080.40 1239 $1,259.34 1285 11438.28 1331 $1617.22 _ 1194 11,084.29 1240 $1,263.23 1288 $1442.17 1332 11,621.11 1195 11,088.18 1241 11267.12 1287 $1,446.06 1333 11625,00 1196 11 092.07 1242 11,271.01 1288 $1,449.95 1334 I7 828.89 1 197 $1095.98 1243 $1.27490 1289 $1,453.84 1335 41,632.78 1198 $1,099.85 1244 $1278.79 1290 $1,457.73 1336 11636.67 1199 $1,10374 1245 $1,282.68 1291 $1461.82 1337 $1,640.58 1200 $1,107.63 1246 11,28611 _ 1292 11165.51 1338 61,644.45 1201 $1,111,52 1247 $1,290.46 1293 $1469.40 1339 $1,64814 1202 11,115.41 1248 11,294.35 1294 $1,47729 1340 11852.23 1203 $1119.30 1249 $1298.24 1295 41,477,10 1341 01668.12 1204 11,123.19 1250 $ 1 302.13 1296 11 481.07 1342 $1 660.01 1205 11 127,08 1251 $1306.02 1297 11,484.96 1343 11663.90 1206 $1130.97 1252 11 309.91 1298 11 188.85 1344 $1 667.79 1207 $1.134,86 1253 11 313,80 1299 01,4 92.74 1345 $1 671.68 i 1208 $1,13875 1254 11,317.69 1300 $1 496.63 1348 $1 67557 1209 $1,142,64 1255 11,321.56 1301 11500.52 1347 11679.46 1210 $114653 1256 07325.47 1302 11,604,41 1348 $1,683.35 1211 $1,150.42 1257 1132836 130311508,30 1319 $1887.24 1212 $1,154.31 1258 $1 333.25 1304 11 512.19 1350 $1,691.13 1213 /115820 1259 11,337.14 1305 $1516.08 13SI 11,69502 j 1214 $1,162.09 1260 11 341.03 1306 11 519.97 1352 at 698.91 1215 11 185.98 1261 11,344.92 1307 11 523.86 1353 $1702.80 1216 11.169 07 1262 11,34M 1308 11 527.75 1354 11,70869 1217 $1 173.76 1263 61,352 70 1309 11531.64 1355 $1710.58 1216 11 177,65 1264 11 356.59 1310 11 515.53 1358 11 714,47 1219 11 161.54 1265 11 360, 48 1311 11,539.42 1357 11 718.38 1220 11185.43 1268 11364.37 1312 1154331 1358 $1,72225 1221 11189.32 1267 $1368,26 1313 11541.20 Mill $1,726.14 1222 I1 19321 1268 61,372 15 1314 I1 S51 09 1360 11 130.03 1223 1111,197.10 1268 11,376,04 1318 01,554.96 1361 11,733.92 1224 I1 200.99 1270 $1379.93 1316 1111,56S.87 1362 $1737.81 1225 $1 204 88 1211 $136382 1317 01,5e2.78 1363 11 741.70 1226 $1208.77 1272 11387.71 1318 11666.65 1364 $1,745,59 1227 41212.66 1273 $1,391.60 1319 01570.51 1365 11149.48 ' 1228 11,218.35 1274 11395.49 1320 11514.43 1366 11733.37 1229 41 220.44 1215 111399 39 1321 I1 576.32 1387 It 728 1230 $1,224.33 Y 1276 $1,403.21 1322 01,582-21 1388 1.15 1231 11 228.22 1217 41 407,16 1323 11 586.10 1369 5.04 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report A•4 O t ZWWI Vi School Impact Fees - Town of Telludda s 1 S we Feet tm act Fee S ne Fw Im act Fee Square Not Impac-c FN 6 wo Feet I act Fee 1369 $1,76504 1416 11,947.87 1462 12,126.81 1508 12,305.75 1370 $1,768.93 1417 11951.76 1463 12,130.70 1509 12,30964 1311 11,772.82 1418 {1,955.65 1464 12,134.S9 1510 12.313.53 1372 {1,776,71 1419 11,959.54 1465 12,138.48 1511 12.317.42 1373 11,780.60 1420 61,963,13 1466 12142.37 1512 12,321,31 1374 11 784.49 1421 11,987.32 1367 12,118.26 1513 12,325.20 1375 11,788.38 1422 {1,971,21 1468 12,150.15 1514 $2.32909 1376 11,792.27 1423 61975.10 1469 {2,154.04 1513 12,33298 1377 11 796.16 1424 11,978 99 1470 $2,15713 1516 $2,336,67 1378 11 800.05 1425 11, 982, 88 1471 42, 161.92 1517 $2,340,76 1379 $1.803.94 1428 01,986 77 1472 {2 163.71 1518 62,3441S 1380 $1,907 03 1427 01,990.56 1473 61 169.60 1519 $2,348.54 1381 61 911.72 1426 11 994.55 1474 {2 173.49 1520 12 352.43 1382 11 81561 1429 11,998.44 1475 12 177.38 1521 $2.359 32 1383 61,819,50 1430 12,002,33 1476, {2 161.27 1522 12 36021 j 1384 61,823.39 1431 12 006.22 1477 $2r185.18 1523 $2,364,10 1385 61,927.28 1432 12,010.11 1478 12,189.05 1524 12387.99 1386 $1 831.17 1433 12 014.00 1479 12 19294 1525 $2,371 04 1387 61,835.06 1434 12.01 7.89 1480 11 196.93 1526 $1,375.77 1389 61,113825 1439 12,021.78 1481 12 200,72 1527 12 379.68 1389 61,942.84 1436 12 025.67 1482 62 204.61 1528 12,383.55 ` 1390 11,846.73 1437 12,029,56 1483 $2,208.50 1529 $2,387.44 1391 11,850.62 1439 12 033.45 1484 $2,212.39 1530 12 391.33 1392 61,85411 1439 12,037.34 1485 12 216.28 1531 02,39S.22 1393 _$1 859.40 1440 12 041,23 1486 62 220.17 1532 $2,399A 1 1394 1186229 1441 12,045,12_ _ 1487 112,224M 1533 12,403.00 1395 61,88618 1442 12,04901 1488 12,227-95 1534 12,406.89 1396 $1,870.07 1443 12,052.90 1489 12 231.84 Ki 535 I9 110.78 1397 $1,673 90 1444 12,056.79 _ 1490 12 235.73 536 02.41467 1398 11,877.65 1445 $2,060.88 1491 12.23942 531 $21418.50 1399 11, 881.74 1416 12,061, 57 1492 11 243.51 538 112422 .45 1 1400 11 68563 1447 $2,060.46 1493 {2147.10 539 62 426.31 1401 11, 692 A 2 1448 12,072 3S 1494 12 251.29 S40 12 430, 23 1402 I1 993.41 1449 12,076,24 1495, 12,255.18 541 02,434.11 1403 $1897.30 1450 {2,080.13 1496 62 259.07 1542 $2,430.01 1404 11 901.19 1451 $2,094 02 1497 12 2- 62.96 1543 12 441.90 1405 11 90!.06 14!2 12 087 9} 1198 12,260.6s 1544 62,443.70 1406 $1 908.97 14!3 /709} 80 1419 12 270.74 1545 11449.66 1407 11 91260 1431 12,09! 691 1300 12 274.63 1546 1$2.453.57 408 11 916.75 1455 12,099 S9 L 1501 12 27832 1547 12 467.48 1409 1 920.61 1456 12,103 47 1501 12 202.41 1548 02.461.35 • 1410 11924,63 1457 $2,t07.~0. 1503 12286.30 1511 1146514 1411 11,920.42 1458 1].111 15 1504 $2,290A 1560 12 469.13 1412 $1 932.31 1459 I2_1 t5 16 1505 $2,294.00 1551 12,47302 1413 61,936,20 1460 12.119 03 _ 1506 42,297.97 1552 12 476.01 1414 $194049 1461 12,112 92 1501 12 301.86 1653 11480.80 Capital Facility Finance end Impact Fee Repon A'S 1. ~hf7 32X~Q P. a. a r son" School Impact Feet - Town of Telluride Square Feat Impact Fee Square Feet I MOM Fn 8 we Foot tm tat Fee Scpu we Feat Impact Fee 1554 $2,491.00 1600 12,638.66 1646 12,786.32 1692 $2.933.98 1555 12,494.21 1601 42,641.87 1647 12,789.53 1693 $2,937.19 1554 12,497.42 1602 $2.645,08 1648 $2,792.74 1694 $2,94040 1557 $2,500.53 1603 112-16- 48,29 1649 $2,795 9S _ 1695 $2,943.61 1558 12,50164 1604 $2,651.50 1650 12,799.15 1696 12,948,82 1559 $2,507.05 1605 12,654.71 1651 $2,802.37 1697 12,950,03 1560 12.51026 1606 $2,657.92 1652 12,80918 7698 $2,953.24 1561 $2,513.47 1607 $2,651.13 1653 12,608.79 1699 /2,958.45 1562 12,510.68 1608 $2,664.34 1654 $2,612.00 1700 12,959.66 1563 02,519 69 1609 $2,667.65 1655 $2,915.21 1701 62.962.87 j _ 1564 $2523.10 1610 $2,670.76 1656 12818,42 1702 $2,986.08 1565 12,520 31 _ 1611 12 67397 1657 12 821,63 1703 $2 969.29 1566 $2,529.52 1612 12,677.18 1658 02,124.04 1704 62,972.50 1567 $2,532.73 1513 $2680,39 1659 12828.05 1705 12975.71 1568 $2,535.94 1614 12 683.60 1660 $2,831.26 _ 1706 I2 976.92 1569 $2,539.15 1615 $2686.81 1661 112.834.41 1707 62982.13 1570 $2,542.36 1616 $2,690.02 1662 62637.68 1708 12965.34 1571 $2,545.57 1617 12,693,23 1663 $2640.89 1709 12986.55 1572 62 548.78 1616 12,696.44 1684 12,644.10 1710 62,99 1 .76 1573 $2,551.99 1619 12 699.65 1685 12 847.31 1711 $2,994.97 1574 12,555.20 1820 12,702.86 1686 $2,850,52 1712 $2,998.10 _ 1575 12,558.41 1621 12 706.07 1667 $2.953.73 1713 13 001.39 1576 12,551,62 1022 12709.28 1668 $2650.84 1714 $3,00460 1577 12 584.83 1623 12 112.49 1689 $2,860.15 1715 13,00711 1578 12 560.04 1624 12 71S 70 1670 12,06135 1716 43,011.02 1579 12,571.25 1625 12,71891 1871 $2.066.57 1717 13 014.23 1500 12 574.48 1026 62.72 2.12 1672 12 069.70 1718 13 017,44 1561 12,571.07 1827 12.725 33 1673 $2 872.99 1719 13 020.65 1582 12 580.86 1628 12,728.54 1674 $2.870.20 1720 13 023.66 1583 12 584.09 1629 $2,731,75 1675 1287941 1721 13 027.07 1584 $2,581.30 1630 $2,734.06 1016 12,082.52 1722 43030.20 1585 $2,59051 1031 $2 736,17 1677 12 60983 1723 13,033.49 1586 02593.72 1632 62,141.38 1870 $286804 $124 1303670 1587 02,696.93 1533 12 144.59 1079 12 092.25 1725 13039.91 .46 1726 13 043.12 1588 $2,600.14 1634 12 747.80 1680 12,895 • 1569 12 603.35 1635 12,751 01 1601 $2,89M 1127 03,046.33 1590 12 606.58 1636 12 75422 1662 12,901,60 1728 13 04954 1591 12 609.77 1637 12 757.43 1663 12 905.09 1720 $3,052,75 1592 $2.612.08 1630 12.760.84 1664 $2 906.30 1730 $3,055.96 1593 12,61U9 1039 $2 763.65 leas $2,0111`1 1731 $3059.17 1594 12 61840 1640 12 767.06 1666 12 914.72 1732 13 062.36 . 1595 12 622.61 1641 12 770.27 1687 $2 917.93 _ 1133 13 065.59 15941 12 625.02 1642 12 773.48 1661 12 921.14 1734 $3 0418.60 Q 1597 12 629.03 1643 12 776,89 1069 02.024. 35 1735 63 072.01 1598 12 032.24 1544 12,77990 1090 $2 927.66 1738 $3075 22 1599 12 635.45 1646 12 783.11 1691 $2 630,77 1737 13 078.43 Capital Facility Finance end Impact Fee Repon A.0 32,x GINNIE! . O 1 MISS Ri School Impact Fees - Town of Telluride S are Feet Impact Fa Square Fat Impact Fee Square Feel Im act Fee $ guars Feel Im act Fee 1738, $308114 1784 13,229.30 1830 $3,37696 1676 13,524.62 1739 $3,084.85 1785 $313211 1831 13,380.17 1877 13,527.83 J 1740 13,088.06 1786 $3,235.72 1832 13,383.38 1878 13,531 04 1741 13,091.27 1787 13,238.93 1833 13,386.59 _ 1879 13,534.25 1742 13,094.48 1188 13,242.14 1834 13,389.60 1890 13,537.46 4 _ 1743 13,097.69 1789 $3,24535 1835 13 393.01 1881 1167 1744 13,100,90 1790 13,248.58 1836 13,396,22 1882 $3,543.88 1745 13,104.11 1791 03,251.77 1837 $3,399.43 1883 $3,547.09 1746 13,107.32 1792 $3,254.98 1638 $3,402.84 1984 $355030 1747 13110.53 1793 $3258,19 1839 $3,405.85 1985 $3,65351 1748 $3,113.74 1794 13 261.40 1840 13.409.06 1886 $3.550.72 1749 $3,116.95 1795 $3,264.61 1841 $3.412.27 1887 63.559 93 1750 13,120.16 1796 $3,267.62 1842 63,415.48 1889 13 563.14 { 1751 13 12337 1791 $3,271.03 1843 $3,418.09 1889 113,56015 1752 13.12658 1798 $3,274.24 1844 $3,421.90 1690 $3.569.50 1753 $3,129.79 1799 13 277.45 1645 $3,425.11 1691 13 572.77 1754 $3,133,00 1600 $3,260,65 1846 13 428.32 1892 13 575,98 1755 $3.13d,21 1801 $3,283.87 1847 IS 431.53 1693 13 579.19 1756 $3,139.42 1802 13,287,08 1848 $3,434.74 1894 13 582.40 1757 13.142.63 1903 13,290.29 1949 $3,437,65 1895 13 595.61 1756 $3,145 84 1804 $3,293.50 1950 $3,441.10 1898 13 568.82 1759 13,149 0S 1805 $3,290.71 1651 $3,444.37 1997 $3 592.03 f 1760 13,15226 1806 13,299.92 1952 $3,447.58 1898 $3 595,24 1761 63,155.47 1807 13.303 13 1653 $3,450.70 1899 13,599.45 176 2 13,1 SB.68 1808 13,300 34 1854 13,454-00 1900 13 601.66 1763 $3.181-69 1809 13,309,55 1855 13,457.21 1901 $3,604 07 1764 13,165.10 1810 13,V2.76 1856 13 460.42 1902 13 008,08 1 1765 13,198.31 1611 $~3 15,97 1957 13,46163 1903 $3,611.29 1766 $3,171.52 1812 $3.319.16 1859 $3,466.84 1904 13 614.50 1 1767 $3,174.73 1813 13,322 39 1859 47 470.05 1905 1113,617,71 1769 $717714 1914 $3.325.60 1860 13473.20 1906 13020.92 1769 113,161.15 1815 17328,61 1861 13476.47 1907 113024.13 _1770 $3184.38 1616 13,332.02 1962 13479.65 1906 63,627.34 1771 $3,107.57 1917 63,335 23 1863 $3,492.82 1909 13,63015 1772 43 190.78 1515 13 338.44 1964 13 486.10 1910 13 633.78 1773 13 19399 1819 $3,341.65 1865 13 489.31 1911 143.638.97 • 1774 $3,197,20 1820 13,34466 1566 13,492 52 1911 13 640.18 1775 13 200.41 1821 13 349.07 1561 $349S.73 1913 13 643.39 1776 63,203.02 1822 13 351.20 lase 63,438,04 1914 113.646-60 1777 $3,20483 1823 17 354.49 1669 $3.502.15 1918 $3,649.01 1778 $3210,04 1624 $3357.70 1570 135011.36 leis 17653.01 • 1779 03,213.26 1825 03,36 -91 1071 $3606.57 1017 13 656.23 { 1780 $3,110.46 1826 $3,364,12 1872 131511.78 1918 13,611944 Q 1781 $3219407 1827 13,367.33 1873 13514.60 1919 $3682.05 6 i 1782 $3 222,88 1628 17 370.54 1614 13,610 20 1020 63,065.0 1783 13 216.09 29, 03,373 7S 161! 1] 521.41 1921 $3,609.07 j Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report A'7 t r 2l a~~z L~r p}yyiM A yr 'C 1I ~ JG LI ` _ J is 1 i • I i ,teal School Impact Faaa - Town of Talludda Square Feet Impact FN boyars FM Impact FN 9 aua Feet Im act Fee Square I'm Impact F is 1922 {3,672,28 1968 13,819,94 2016 13 967.60 2060 14,115 26 1923 13,675.49 1969 13,823.15 2015 13,97081 2061 14,118.47 1924 {3,678.70 1970 13,826.38 2016 13,974.02 2062 14,121,68 1925 13,681.91 1971 $3,829.57 2017 {3.977.23 2083 14,124.89 1926 !3,685.12 1972 !3,832.78 2018 43,980.44 2064 {4,128.10 1927 1134E88.33 1973 {3,835.99 2019 1398365 2065 14,131.31 I 1928 13,691.54 1974 {3,83920 2020 17,986.86 2066 14,134.52 1929 13,694.75 1975 {3.842.41 2021 13,990.07 2067 14,137.73 1930 13697 96 1976 13,8 502 2022 13 993.28 2068 14,140.94 1931 $3,701.17 1977 13,848.83 2023 13,996.49 2069 14,144.15 _ 1932 13,704.38 1978 13,852.04 2024 $3,999.70 2070 {4,147.38 1933 17707.59 1979 13,855.25 2025 14002.91 2071 6415057 1934 13710.80 1980 13,858.48 2026 14006.12 2072 {4,153,78 1935 {3,714.01 1991 $3,981 67 2027 14,00933 2073 14,15a 99 1938 03,717.22 1982 13,664,88 2028 0401254 2074 {4180.20 1937 13,720.47 1983 $3,06009 2029 14,015.75 2075 14 163.41 1938 {3,723.64 1984 13,871.30 2030 $4,0111140 2076 14,166 02 1939 13,726.85 1985 13874,51 2071 14022.17 2071 14,169.83 1940 17730.06 1986 13877.72 2032 14025,38 2078 14173.04 1941 13,733 27 198) {3,86093 2033 $4.028.59 2079 44176.28 1942 $3736.48 1988 13,884.14 2034 14,031.60 2080 14 179.46 1943 13,739.89 1989 13,887.35 2035 114035,01 2081 14182.61 _ 1944 17,74210 1990 13,890.58 2036 14038.22 2082 14185.88 1945 13746.11 1991 03,893.77 2037 14041.43 2083 14,189.09 1948 13,749.3 ^ 1992 $3,896.99 2038 14 044.64 2084 64192.30 1947 13!52.53 1993 4 3900.2039 {404765 2085 !4,195,51 1948 13755.74 1994 13903,40 2040 14051.06 2066 14,198.72 _ 1949 13,758.85 1995 V906 2041 04054.27 2087 V 1950 13782,16 1996 2042 14057.48 2088 1951 $3 765 37 1997 2043 11 060.69 2089 11 1952 17 78858 1998 2044 14 06390 2090 1953 13771.79 1999 2045 14067.11 2091 1904 {3 775.00 2000 2046 14 070.32 2092 1955 13 770 21 2001 .2047 14073.83 2093 1956 13 781.42 2002 03,0M08 2048 14070.74 2094 64,224.40 • 1957 13 784.63 2003 $3,932 29 2049 14 079,05 2095 14 227.61 1958 1$3.707.84 2004 13,935.50 _ 2050 64,083.10 2096 14 230.02 1959 $3,791 ,055 2005 43,938 7t 2051 114,08&37 2097 64 234,03 1960 13 79426 2006 $3,90,92 2052 04 009.56 2098 $4,237.24 1961 13 797.47 2007 13 945.13 2053 11092.79 2099 14 240.45 6 1962 13 800.88 2008 $3,24834 2054 11 096,00 2100 $4.243.6 1903 $3,03.89 2009 {7 051.55 2055 14 099.21 2101 14 244 67 1964 13 807.10 2010 17 954.76 2056 64,102.42 2102 $4,250.06 1985 17 81031 2011 13,957.97 2057 14 105.83 2103 14,253.29 t 1088 17 813.62 2012 q 961,1_6 -2058 14 108.04 2104 14,25C 50 1987 !3 81tlJ3 2013 13,004 39 2059 44112.05 2105 14,2L9.71 Capital Facility Finance end Impact Fu Report A•8 mr~.r r4-le Md, ULMWALjP- O School Impact Fees - Town of Telluride S an Feat impact Fee Square Feet Impact Fee S en Fast Impact FN S w Feet Impact Fee 2106 $4,262.92 2152 14,41056 2198 14,558,24 2244 $4,705.90 2107 64.26d.13 2153 14,413.79 2199 $4,5-6-1.45 2245 14,709.11 2108 $4.269.34 2154 114.417.00 2200 14,564.66 2246 14,712,32 2109 $4,272.55 2155 $1,420.21 2201 114,S07-81 2247 14,715.53 1110 $4,275,76 2156 $4,423.42 2202 14,571.08 2248 $4,718.74 2111 14,270.97 2157 14,426 83 2203 11 574.29 2249 64 721.95 21_12 i4,282.18 2158 14,42984 2204 $1,577.50 2250 14,725 16 2113 $4,285.39 2159 11,133,05 2205 $4,560.71 2251 14,728.37 2114 $4,26060 2160 14.438.26 2206 114,553.92 2252 14,731.58 2115 $4, 291.81 2161 $4.439.47 2207 I< 557.13 2253 14,734 79 2116 $4,295,02 2162 $4.442.68 2208 14 590.34 2254 44,738.00 2117 $4,298.23 2163 64.445.89 2209 14, 593.55 2255 14 741.21 2115 64,301.44 2161 64,419.10 2210 14 596.76 2256 14 744.42 2119 14,304.65 2165 14 452.31 2251 94 59997 1257 14 747.63 2120 $4.307.86 2166 $4,45552 2212 !4 603.18 _ 2258 14,150.61 2121 $4,351.01 2167 114,458.73 2213 114 60639 2259 14, 54,05 _ 2122 14,314.28 2168 11,461.94 2214 04,60910 2260 11757.26 { 2123 $4317.19 2169 $1465.15 2115 11612,91 2261 14,760.47 2124 04,320.70 2170 $4,46836 2210 $4,616M 2262 $4,763 68 2125 $4,323,95 2171 11 471.57 2217 $4,61023 2263 1176649 2126 $4,327.12 2172 14,474.78 2118 44,622,44 2264 $4,770-10 ` _ 2127 $4,33033 2173 14,477.99 2219 14 025.55 2265 14,773.31 2126 14,33354 2174 11 481.20 22,10 $4 626,06 2266 14 776.52 2129 14 336.75 1175 14 484.41 2221 $4,012,07 2207 14,779.73 2130 $4,339.90 2176 14 187.62 2222 14 03528 2265 14 182.94 2131 14,343.17 2177 $4,490.83 2223 14 630,49 2209 14,786.15 2131 14,346.38 2178 14,49144 2224 04641,70 2270 04,789.36 . 2133 $4349.59 2179 114,497.25 2225 14 644.91 2271 04,792.57 2134 $4,352 80 2180 $4,500.46 2216 14,648.12 2272 $4.795.78 _ 2135 64,356.01 2181 14.503.07 2227 14.6 1.33 2273 64,700.99 2136 04 359.22 2182 14 506.88 2228 64 654.04 2274 64,802.20 2137 04,362.43 2163 $4 510,09 2229 14 657,75 2275 $4,805.41 2138 $4 36564 2184 04,513 30 2230 14 660.90 2276 11 808.62 2139 64.368 05 2185 04,516.51 2231 $4.664.17 2217 14 611.83 2140 14 372.06 2186 14,519.72 2232 14 007.38 2275 14 815.04 2141 14,375.27 2187 1/ 512,91 2233 f1 670.59 2270 44,111111211 2142 $4,370.40 2188 04,526.1!L 2234 64 673.80 2280 64 821,16 21+3 $4361.69 2180 04,52935 2235 04,677V 2281 04,62447 2114 64 384.90 2190, 04,53218 2236 14 680.22 2202 $4,027.80 214S 1114,3811A 1 1191 $4,535,77 2237 $4 6113.43 2283 14,031-09 2146 01391,32 2191 01538.98 2238 646118.64 2284 14834.30 2147 11304453 2193 11542.19 2230 44,68005 2205 04,837,51 { 2148 11307.74 2194 11515.40 2240 11093.00 2186 61040.12 Q 2149 61 400.95 2199 14,549 61 2241 14,006 27 2247 04 843.03 2150 64,404.14 2106 64,551.02 2242 11 609.48 2268 $4.947-14 2151 11407.37 2197 $1555.03 2243 1470269 2269 11650,35 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report F'9 M x 3 2 , I l . n tr I i School Impact Fula - Town of T4lludde i 6 an Feet Impact Fee 8 are Fast Im act fee Square fast I wt Foe / w Fast Impact Fto 2290 14.853.56 2336 1500122 2382 15,148.88 2428 15,29654 2291 14,856.77 i 2337 15.004.43 2383 05-1152,.09 2429 15299,75 2292 04,859.98 2338 05,007.64 2384 40,155.30 2430 45,302.96 2293 11853,19 2339 15,010.85 2385 15158.51 2431 45,306.17 2294 14,866.40 2340 S5,01 4.Oa 2386 $5,151.7 2 2432 15,309.38 2295 14,869.61 2341 0501727 2387 15,16493 2433 15,312.59 2298 14872.82 231% 05020.48 2388 15,168.14 2434 15315,80 2297 14 675.03 2343 05,023,69 2389 15 171.35 2435 15,319.01 2298 14,879.24 2344 05 028.90 2390 05,174.56 2436 05 32222 2299 14 862,45 2345 45,030.11 2391 15 177.77 2437 IS 32543 2300, 14 8SS,66 2346 05033.32 2392 15 180.98 2438 15 32864 2301 14 988,67 2347 15,03613 2393 15 184.19 2439 05. 31.85 2302 11892.09 2348 65,039 74 2394 65,181.40 2440 .1,1 1,335.00 2303 04.6951t; 2349 65,042 95 2395 15 19061 2441 1S 336.27 2304 14 898.60 23SO 45,046.16 2398 15 193.82 2442 1S 341.18 2305 14,901,71 2351 $5,049.37 2397 14,191.43 2443 $S,344.69 2308 14,904.92 2352 $5,05218 2396 05 200.24 2444 1S 347.90 2307 04,908.13 _ 2353 15,055.79 2399 05,2-03.45 2445 $S.351.11 _ 2308 04,991,11-4, 2354 45 059.00 2400 15 206.66 2446 15 354.32 2309 14,914.89 2355 65,0 82 11 2401 15 209.07 2447 !5 357.53 2370 14 917.76 2358 !S 061_42 2402 $5,213.00 2148 15 360,14 ' 2311 14 920.97 2357 15,068 63 _ 2403 13 210.29 2449 69.303.95 1311 14,921.18 FM097 71 04 2404 $5,21150 2450 05,361-16 2313 14,921,39 75.05 2405 45,222.71 2451 15,370,31 2314 14 930.60 76,26 2406 $5,225 92 2432 15 373.50 1314 14,933.01 81.47 2407 !5229,13 2453 15,376.19 2316 14 937.02 84.68 2408 15 232,34 2454 $5.38000 _ 2317 14 940.23 87,89 2409 10 2;6,45 _2455 45 38321 2311 04,943 44 91.10 _ 2410 15,23876 2456 15 306.42 2319 $4,946.65 094 31 2111 1S 241.97 2457 15 380.63 2320 44 949.16 09752 _ 2412 $5,241,18 1458 19,302 84 2311 $4.95107 2367 115,100A 2413 !6 241, 39 2450 15 386.05 2322 14,956 28 2361 05,103 94 2414 15 241.60 2460 15 399.20 2323 04959.49 2369 15107,15 2415 $5,25481 2461 $3.402.47 2324 14 962.70 2370 !S 110 35 _ 2410 0b 268.02 2402 15,405.61 i 2329 14 065.91 2371 15,113 57 2417 05 261.23 2463 M408.89 2320 $4,000.12 2372 15,110 78 2418 15 261.44 2464 05 412.10 2327 14 972.33 2373 IS 119 99 _ 2419 15 261,65 2481 4S 415.11 2321 14 07864 2314 45,123 20, 2420 19 270.80 2416 1115,41012 2329 11 970.16 2375 16.126 41 2421 15 274.07 2407 115.421 ,7 3 2330 11 981.96 2376 15,129 62,4 2422 05,277.21 2468 65,424.04 • 2331 14 985 t7 1317 I5,132 83_' 2423 15 280.49 2469 $5,420.15 Q 2331 14 861.31 2378 15,135 04 ` 2424 05 213.70 2470 05,431.30 _ 2333 14091.59 2370 ±S>>925 2425 1528641 2471 15431,57 M 2331 14 891.80 1380 45 111 16 2426 05 290.12 2472 $5 431.70 2335 14 99801 1361 15 ta5 6) 2427 06 293,33 1413 1514099 Capital Facility Finance and Impact 1 60 Report A•10 All 32 x 0 i I Samoa" O 1 School Impact Faaa - Town of Tolludda Square Feet Im act Fee Sww FNt Wood Fee 8 w Feet Im M FN Square Feel Impact fN ` 2414 15,44 1.20 2520 19,S91.86 2566 I5 739,52 2475 IS 4.17.41 2521 15395,07 2567 45,742.73 E 2478 15450,62 2522 IS.S98.28 2568 $5745.94 2477 IS 453.63 2523 15.601.49 2589 05,749.15 2478 15,457.04 252,0 115,604.70 2570 I5 752.36 2479 15,460.25 2525 15 607.91 2571 IS 755.57 2480 15,463.48 _ 2526 15,511,12 2572 W756.70 2481 15,466.67 2527 15 614.33 2573 15 ,761-99 2482 15,469.88 2528 15 617.54 2574 15 765.20 2483 $5 ,473.09 2529 15,62075 2579 $5,768.41 2484 15,476 30 2530 15,623.96 2576 15 771.62 2485 $5 .479.51 2531 15,627,17 2577 15 774.83 2488 $5 482.72 2532 19.630.30 2578 15 778,04 2487 15 485.93 2533 05,633,59 2579 06,701.25 2486 19 469.14 2534 05,636 80 2580 05,764.48 2489 15492.35 2535 05.64001 2581 95.701,01 _ 2490 65 495.56 2136 15 643,22 2582 $5.790.88 2491 $5,498.77 _ 2537 15 646.43 2583 45 794.09 2492 15,901.98 25,38 1! 649,64 2584 45 797.30 2493 15 505.19 2539 $9,662 85 2585 $5 800.51 2494 65,S08.40 2540 05,650.06 2186 $5,803.72 2495 15 511.61 2541 15 659.27 2,687 4S80093 I 2496 15,514.112 2542 15,66148 2588 IS.810,14 2497 15 518.03 2143 15,065 62 2589 115,1111`13 35 _ 2498 65,521.24 2544 IS 66990 2590 05 ,1111646 2499 $5 ,624.45 2349 IS,672.11 2591 $511977 2500 $5,927.66 2546 65 67$.32 2592 W022411 2501 $5,53007 2547 $5,610 53 2193 65,010.12 M2S02 $5,634.00 2548 05,081 74 2594 15 829.40 2503 16,517.29 2549 15,66445 259S 46,032.81 2504 15,540.60 2550 69,680,16 2590 I6 03$.02 _ 2505 15,543,71 2551 15,691 37 2597 IS 039.03 2506 $5.948.92 2552 $5,694.00 2596 19,642.24 2507 65,550.1 3 2SS3 IS 027.79 2569 05,164.00 2500 15,553.34 2554 45,701.00 2600 16,854 ♦ 12.23 per W ft. fot math _ 14. h. Oaye 2509 15,556.59 2559 _19 ,704.21 .2 ,590 64. h, 2510 16,659.76 2556 65 ,707-42 2511 11S 602.91 2557 15 710,63 2512, IS 566,11 2$51 IS 71304 _ 2513 65,569.30 2SSO 65,711.05 e _ 2514 IS $12,60 2500 65,720.2e 2S15 1 S 97641 2561 15,123.41 2516 65,910,02 2502 19,720 68 ~l 2511, 15,682 23 2563 65,72069 2510 09,695.44 2504 05,733.10 2519 IS 56065 2167 $6,730 31 Capitol Facility FinanC4 and Impact Fu Report A•11 32XI El s 0 I School Impact Fees - Unincorporated Son Miguel County Square Feet Impact Fee 6 w Feet Im e0t FN 6 en Feet Im ae1 Fee 6 en Feet Im fit Fee 0-834 10.00 680 155.20 726 1110.40 772 1165.60 635 $1.20 681 $56.40 727 1111.60 773 1166.80 638 1140 682 457.60 728 6112.80 774 1158.00 637 1160 683 $58.80 729 1114.00 775 1169.20 638 14.80 694 $60.00 730 $11510 776 $170.40 839 16400 695 $81.20 731 $110.40 777 1171.60 640 1710 686 $52.40 732 $117.50 778 4172.80 641 19.40 687 $63.63 733 1119.80 779 1174.00 642 $9.60 688 $64.80 734 1120.00 780 1175.20 643 $10,80 689 $66.00 735 $121,20 781 $176.40 j 644 612400 690 $57.20 736 $122.40 782 $177.80 l 645 113.20 691 668.40 737 $123.60 783, 1176.8C ' 646 114.40 692 $59.60 739 $124.80 784 1190.00 647 115.80 693 $70.80 739 $126.00 785 $181.20 648 118.80 694 172.00 140 $127.20 788 4182.40 j 649 118.00 695 17120 741 1128.40 787 $183.60 650 $19.20 696 174.40 742 1129,60 786 1164.80 651 020.40 697 $75.60 743 113040 789 1188.00 652 121.60 698 $76.80 744 4132,00 790 119710 653 12210 699 $78.00 745 113320 791 1189.40 654 $2400 700 $79.20 746 $134.40 792 1189.60 655 $25,20 101 190.40 747 1135.60 793 $19010 f 658 126,40 702 181.60 748 113610 794 0192.00 857 12760 703 182,80 749 1130.00 795 6193.20 658 12810 704 18400 750 1139.20 720 1194.40 659 130.00 705 183.20 751 1140.40 797 1105.80 _ 660 131.20 706 IA8.40 752 $141.60 798 1190,60 eel 132.40 701 16710 753 6142.00 799 1188.00 002 13360 706 188,eo 754 1141.00 800 $199.20 463 134 80 709 600.00 759 $149.20 801 1200.40 064 138,00 710 191,20 756 1146.40 __A02 1201.60 r 665 $37.20 711 192.40 757 1141.60 003 420280 660 138,40 712 19360 758 6148.80 004 4204.00 667 139,60 713 694.80 759 1150.00 806 1205.20 666 $40.00 714 196.00 760 1111.20 806 $206.40 S 660 $42.00 11s 607,201 lei 1162.40 007 $201.00 670 $43.20 716 $08.40 702 115340 BOA 1208.80 671 144.40 111 619.60 763 4134,80 809 $210.00 672 145.60 718 $100 60 784 1136.00 810 1211.20 673 140.80 711 1102,00 71111, 111710 011 1212.40 074 148,00 720 $103,20 786 $151.40 812 1213.60 0 673 141.20 _721 1104.40 767 1151.60 813 $214.60 678 150.40 722 $10540 708 116010 814 1216.00 077 $91.60 723 1106 80 769 118210 $is 121720 ~yfa 878 152.e0 724 1108.00 710 $113.20 ate 12111.40 679 134.00 729 $109,20 771 $164.40 $1 1219.00 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report A-12 ii a!. A r . o School Impact Fees - Unincorporated San Miguel County b ue Fat lm act foe Square Fat I M F» 3 w Fat M~pw Fee 6 an Fat Impact No BIB 1220.80 864 1270,00 910 1331.20 956 1386.40 _819 1222.00 865 1277.20 911 1332.40 957 1387,80 820 1223,20 866 1278A0 912 0333.60 958 1380,90 821 $224.40 867 1279.60 913 133460 959 1390 00 822 1225.60 8S8 129010 914 133000 960 139110 823 1226.80 869 428200 915 1337.20 961 1392.40 924 1226.00 870 4283.20 916 1338A0 982 4393.60 825 $229.20 871 1284.40 917 1339.80 963 1394,80 826 $230.40 872 1285.60 910 134060 964 $39600 927 1231,60 873 128610 919 134200 965 1397.20 928 3232,80 674 1288.00 920 1343,20 950 1398.40 829 1234.00 875 128920 921 1344.40 967 139960 630 3235,20 870 $29040 922 1345.60 968 140080 831 3235.40 877 1291.60 923 1346,60 909 0402,00 632 $23750 878 1292,80 924 1340.00 970 1403.20 633 $238.80 079 1294,00 925 1349.20 971 1404.40 634 124000 880 120 20 926 1350.40 972 1405.60 835 124120 881 129040 927 1331.00 973 1408.60 836 1242.40 882 1297.60 929 1352.80 974 1408.00 837 1243,60 883 1298.80 929 135400 975 1409.20 838 1244,80 684 1300.00 930 135510 970 1410,40 839 1246 00 685 1301,20 031 1356.40 977 1411.60 ' 840 124720 $00 1302.40 932 1357,60 976 1412.60 841 1240.40 887 130360 033 1356.80 979 3414.00 _ 042 1249,60 808 1304.60 934 $360.00 980 1415.20 843 1250.60 089 1306.00 935 1361.20 981 1410,40 { 844 1252.00 890 $307.20 936 1362.40 982 1417.60 J 845 1253 10 891 $30040 937 130360 903 1418.80 840 1254.40 892 MOM 930 1364.60 984 142000 947 1255 00 893 1310,80 939 136000 965 1421.20 { 848 3256.60 694 112 00 940 1367,20 986 1422.40 849 1258,00 995 1313,20 941 1360.40 987 $423.60 _ 850 1259.20 896 1:1440 942 136960 960 1424.80 151 1200.40 897 1315.0 943 1370.60 901 1420.00 " 852 1261.50 090 1310.80 944 1312,00 990 142710 • 853 1262.80 699 131900 945 1373.20 991 1420.40 854 1264400 900 4319,20 946 1314.40 992 1429.60 056 126520 901 1320.40 947 1376 AO 993 1430.00 _ 850 1266.40 902 132110 948 131980 994 1432.00 057 1267.60 903 1322.80 949 1378.00 9911 143320 658 1260 B0 904 1324,00 _ 950 137920 996 1434.40 _ 859 1270.00 909 1325.20 951 $360.40 917 1435.60 860 1271.20 906 332040 952 131160 991 1436.80 0 861 121240 901 6327,00 953 082.110 991 1438.00 1+,ey 882 1273,60 900 028.80 954 061.00 1000 1439.20 883 127410 909 1330. 9SS 30520 1001 1440.40 Copilot Fecitity Finance SMI Impect NO Report A-13 h,.? ~ 7';, J t l 32 X 1. f 4 v o School Impact Fete - Unincorporated San Miguel County Square Foot Im ecp 1 Fee Square Feel Impact Fee i w Ftet Im ec1 Fee i m Fat 1 act FM 1002 $441.60 1048 $537.25 1094 !718195 1140 1900 65 1003 $442.80 1049 1541.20 1095 $722,90 1141 1904.60 1004 1444.00 1050 1545.15 1099 6726.85 1142 1908.55 1 1005 #445.20 1051 1549,10 1097 1730 60 1143 $912.50 -1006 $446.40 1052 1553.05 1098 1734.75 1144 1916.45 1007 $447.60 1053 1557,00 1099 1738470 1145 1920.40 1008 144810 1054 $560,95 1100 1742.65 1146 4924.35 1009 1450.00 1055 4554.90 1101 $74660 1147 $928.30 1010 4451.20 1056 4568.85 1102 175015 1148 $93225 1011 $452.40 1057 $572.80 1103 175410 1149 $936.20 1012 $453.60 1058 1576.75 1104 1758.45 1150 $940.15 1013 $454.80 IOS9 1580.70 1105 1762.40 1151 $944.10 i 1014 64S6,00 1060 1584AS 1106 1766.39 1152 $948.05 1015 1457.20 1061 #588.80 1107 177040 1163 $952.00 1016 1459.40 1062 Miss 1108 1774.25 1154 $955.95 1017 4459.60 1063 $596.50 1109 1771.20 1155 $959.90 1018 1460.80 1064 6600.45 1110 1782.15 1156 $063.66 1019 1462.00 1065 $604.40 1111 1786,10 1157 $967.80 1020 1463.20 1066 1608.35 1112 1790.05 1156 097_1,75 1021 1464.40 1067 1612.30 1113 1704.00 1150 1975.70 _ 1022 1465.60 _ 1068 $616.25 1114 1797.95 1160 19701 1023 1466.80 1069 $620,20 1115 1801.90 _ 1161 $983.60 1024 $468 00 1070 $62415 1116 1809.85 1162 0987,55 1025 146010 1071 $021.10 1117 ISOM 1103 1991.50 1025 1470.40 1072 $03205 Ills 1613.76 1164 1996.411 1027 1471.60 1073 1536.00 1119 1617.70 1165 1999.40 1028 1472.80 1074 1639.95 1120 1821.85 1108 61 003.35 1 1029 1474.00 t01S 1643.90 1121 6825.00 1167 $1007.30 1030 $475,20 1076 $647,65 1122 $020,55 116801,011,25 1031 $476,40 1077 165t,so 1123 4833,50 1160 111,015 20 it032 1477.60 1071 le66.76 1174 1837.45 1170 11 019.15 1033 1478,00 1079 $652,70 1125 1841.40 1171 11 023.10 1034 $461.95 1080 $863, es 1120 _ 1645.35 1112 [01.027.0% 1035 1465.90 1081 1667.60 1127 1840.30 1173 61 031.00 1036 $409.65 1082 $871,65 ills 1153.25 1174 $1,03445 1037 149180 1063 1676.50 1129 1167.20 tits 11 038.90 1030 1497,75 1004 1679.45 1130 $851.15 1170 $1042.85 1039 0501.70 1095 $08310 1131 1686.10 1177 11 048 80 _ 1040 IS05.65 1066 1687,35 1,132 6661.05 117i 1105015 1041 1509.60 1087 1691,30 1133 1173.00 1179 11,054.70 ' 1042 1513 S8 1000 109525 1134 ills.0 1160 11,059.05 1043 1517.50 1089 1609.20 1135 188040 tlel 11.062 60 1044 $521.45 _ logo- 1703413 1436 $00415 1112 $1.064.55 Q f 1045 !525,10 1091 1707.10 lU7 6888.00 1183 11070.50 r-. 1040 lS2035 1092 $111,05 1138 $892.75 1184 11074.4! 0 47 1633.30 1093 171500 1139 $696.70 1105 11 07840 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Repon A-14 / ttllY+tA.I RM 4 ' Q ratarw School Impact Fees - Unincorporated San Miguel County 6 we feat Im act Fee 6 we feet Im act FN 5 we Feet act Fu E en 1000 Im act Fee { 1188 11082,35 1232 $1,264,05 1278 11,445.75 1324 11,627.45 1187 {1,088.30 1233 11,268.00 1279 11449.70 1323 11831.40 1188 11,09025 1234 11,271.95 1280 0 1,453.85 1328 {1,635.35 1189 11 094.20 1235 11,275,90 1281 11 467.60 1 327 I 1839,30 1190 $1,098 15 1236 11, 219.85 1282 11,481, 55 1328 11, 643.25 1191 11,102.10 1237 11,283 B0 1283 !4165.50 1329 1164720 1192 11,10605 ?238 11,287.75 1284 11489.45 1330 11,651,15 1193 {1,110.00 1239 0t,291.70 1285 11473.40 1331 {1,655.10 1194 11 11195 1240 11 2956! 1286 It 177.35 1332 11 659.05 1195 It 117.90 1241 11,299.60 1287 11 481.30 1333 11,863,00 1196 11 121.85 1242 61 303.55 1288 11 4852! ?334 11 688,95 1197 $1 135.80 1243 11 307 50 1289 11.489,20 1335 11 $70.90 198 11129.75 1244 11311,1! 1290 11493.15 1336 11874,6! 110 11133.70 1245 {131540 1291 11497.10 1337 11678.80 1200 120 11 177.65 1245 I1 319.35 1292 41501.05 1338 61682.75 1 11 :11.60 1247 11 323,30 1293 41 $03400 1339 -1,684.70 1202 11,115.95 1211" $1327,25 1294 11606.95 1340 11,690.65 7203 It 149.50 1249 {1, 3a~.20 1295 11~512.Ou 1341 11694.60 1204 11 153.45 1250 11 335.15 1298 $1,61685 1342 61698.65 1205 11 157.40 1251 11 339.10 1227 11,620-80 134 3 01,702 50 1208 11161.35 1252 {1343,05 1298 11524.75 1344 11708.45 1207 11 165.30 1293 11 347.00 1299 11 528.70 1345 11 710.40 1208 111 189.25 1294 11350,95 1300 {183285 131E {1714.35 1209 11113.20 12SS {1,35490 1301 11,438.80 1347 ! 718.30 1210 61,177.13 1256 01,358.81 1302 11 540.55 1348 41,72225 1211 11,181.10 1257 1130280 1303 11544.50 1349 11726.20 1212 11 185.05 1258 11,360 75 1304 01 548.45 1350 11 730,15 1213 11189.00 1259 11,370.70 1305 11352.40 1351 11134,10 1214 $1,19295 1260 {1,374,65 1306 11,550 35 - 1352 I1 738.05 _1215 ! 196.90 1261 11,370,00 1307 11 660.30 1353 ! 742.00 1216 11 200.85 1262 It 38255 1300 K111114 26 1354 11 745.95 1217 11204.80 1263 11386,50 V 1309 11508.20 1358 01,74000 _ 1218 11,200.75 1264 11,390,45 1310 61,572.15. 1356 11 753.05 1219 11 212.70 1265 11 391 40 1311 11,576,10 1357 11 757.80 1220 11,210,65 126E 01,308.35t~ 1312 61850.05 1358'11.761.75 1221 $1,220,80 1207 $1,402 30 1313 $1584.00 1359 11~16l.10 1222 Ity22455 1268 {140625 1314 1111111 1360 11761.05 1223 11225.60 1261 1315 115!.90 1301 11773.60 1224 11 232.45 1270 11,414 15 j_ 131E 11 696.8E 1362 01 777.55 1225 11,236.40 1271 11 X18 10' till 111,59040 1363 61,781 50 1226 11 24035 1212 11,122 05 } 1310 11 603.76 1304 ! 185.45 _ 1227 11244.20 1273 11.426 00_ 1319 11,607.10 1365 11 781.40 _1228 11 21826 1274 11,429 95 1320 11 011,69 1366 1 793.35 1220 11 252.20 ?275 11,433 90 1321 11 $16.60 1381 11 797.30 1230 11 258.1! 1276 11,437 SS 1322 I1 619.55 1388 11 80125 1231 11 280. 0 1277 I t,441 80 1323 J1,62150 1380 11 80520 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fes Repon A•16 I iV L School Impact Fees - Unincorporated Son Miguel County Square FNt Wow Fee 6 we Peet W pact FN Squaws Fat Im ect Fee 6 ere Feet Impact Fee 1369 $1,805,20 1418 $1990, AS 1482 1217215 1508 12,35425 1370 $1809.15 1417 61,994.80 1463 12,176,50 1509 12,358.20 1371 11813.10 1418 $1998.75 1464 !2180.45 1510 $2362,15 1372 41817,05 1419 12,002.70 1485 12184.40 1511 12.366.10 1373 01 821.00 1420 1200645 1486 $2,188,11S 1512 112-13-7 0,05 1374 61,824.95 1421 12,01060 1407 12.192 30 1513 $2374.00 1375 $1,828,90 1422 12014,55 1468 12.190.25 1514 $2,377.95 1376 11,832.85 1473 12,018.50 1489 12 200.20 1515 12,381,90 1377 6163680 1424 $2022.45 1470 12,204,15 ISIS 12,385.85 1378 11,84075 1425 12 026.40 1471 12 208.10 1517 $2,30.80 1379 11 844.70 1426 12 030.35 1472 02,21205 1518 12 393,76 1380 11,848.65 1427 12 03430 1473 12 21000 +519 12 397,70 1361 11 85210 1428 12,038,25 1474 $2,219,95 1020 12 401.05 1382 11,85035 1429 112,042 20 1475 12,•'23.90 1621 12 40560 1383 11,66050 1430 $2046.15 1476 12217.85 1522 12409.55 1384 01,164.45 1431 $7 050.10 1477 $2,231.00 1523 12 413.50 1385 11 688.40 1432 17 054.05 1478 12 235.73 1524 02, 417.45 1386 11,872 5 31433 $2,058.00 1470 17 239.70 1525 12,421.40 1387 $1,076 30 1434 $2,081.95 1480 12 243.65 1528 $2,425.35 1388 $1,800.25 1435 12 065.90 1481 $2 247,60 1527 $2.429 30 1369 11 884.20 1436 12 089.89 1482 62,251.55 1520 $2,43326 ` 1390 $1.888 10 1437 62,073.80 1483 12 255.50 1529 1243720 1391 11,892,11 1438 12,077,75 1484 12259.45 530 12441.15 1392 $1,89603 1439 $2,081.70 1485 12 263.40 1531 12,445.10 1393 $1,90000 1440 $2.08S.05 1486 $2.207.36 1532 02,44905 _ 1394 11,903 05 1441 62 089.60 1487 $2.271.30 1533 02,45300 1395 11 9v' 00 1441 l2 093,5S 1488 62.275 25 1534 12,456.95 1390 $1,911,64 !443 !2091.50 1489 12279,20 1535 $2400.90 _ 1397J1915 90 1411 12,501,48 1490 12 263.15 1836 12184,85 1398 11,919.75 +445 02,105.40 1491 12 207.10 1831 12 408,80 1399 11 923.70 1446 12,100 35 1402 12 291,08 1536 62,472,76 1400 01 927.65 1447 $2,1+3,30 1493 02,299,00 1839 42,47&10 1401 11 931.60 1440 02,117 25 1494 42 296.98 1540 1412,480.155, 1402 11 935.55 1449 12 121.20 1405 12 30200 1541 12.4114 ,60 1403 $1930.50 +450 $212515 1490 12306.80 +542 12488.55 . 1404 41 943.45 1451 12A29.10 1497 12 310.80 1543 02 492,50 1405 11041.40 1452 $2133.05 1418 12314.76 1544 12496.45 !2 500.40 1406 11 05+.35 1453 12J37,00 1499 02 310.70 1648 41401 11 955,30 1454 12 140.95 1800 $2 322.68 1546 $2,604 35 14015 1+069,25 1455 121!400 1501 !2326.00 +547 12500.30 1409 11 903 20 1458 02,146.05 1502 12 330.59 1546 $2,612.2% • 1410 61 907,15 1457 12,152 80 1503 12 334.50 1549 12 518,20 +411 11071.10 1456 12156,75 $104 02331.45 1550 12520.15 Q 1412 01 975,05 1459 12 180.70 1505 12 342.40 t5S1 12.524.10 _ 1413 11 979.00 1460 1210465 1506 12 .35 +552 12 $2906 1114 11 992.96 1461 12 168.60 1607 2 3 3460,7 +65312S32A0 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Repon A•16 r~ 11 ~ ? v r r1 $1 32X ~ 1.1 aeoeeaa O i School Impact Fees - Unincorporated Son Miguel County k Squats Felt Impact FMS ato Felt Im 1 Fee ! w Feet Impact Fee S we Feet Impact Fee 1554 12 537.00 1800 12,887.42 1846 12,837,84 1692 $2,988 26 1555 12 540.27 1601 $2,690.69 1647 12,841.11 1693 12 991.53 1558 02,543 54 1602 12,593.96 1648 12,644,38 1694 $2,$24 00 1557 12,546.81 1603 $2,697 23 1549 12,647.65 1695 12,998 07 1558 12,550.08 1604 12,700.50 1850 12,850,92 1696 $3,00124 1559 0,553.35 1605 12.703.77 1851 12.854.19 1697 13,00411 1560 12,556.62 1606 12.707.04 1652 12 857.46 1896 $3,007.80 1561 12,559.8-99 1607 1-2,7, 10.31 1853 12 660.73 1699 13011,15 1562 12 563,16 1806 $2,713.58 1654 12 664,00 1700 13,014.42 1563 17 568,43 1609 12 716.85 1655 12 667.27 1701 63,00 89 1584 12 560.70 1610 02,720.12 1658 12 870.54 1702 13 020.96 1565 62,572 97 1511 12 723.39 1657 112,07341 1703 13 024.23 1566 02,570 24 1612 12,728.66 _ 1658 12,877.06 1704 63,027,50 _ 1567 12,57951 1613 12 729.93 1699 12,860.35 1705 63030 77 1568 12`68!.78 1614 12 733.20 1660 02,803.62 1106 11034.04 1569 12,58005 16111 12 736.47 1661 12 886.69 1707 11,2L 31 1510 12 589.32 1616 $2,739.74 1662 12 890.16 1708 $3,040-58 1571 $2,59159 1617 12 743,01 1663 12 893.43 1709 $3,043.85 _ 1572 $2,595,80 1618 $2,740.28 1664 02.09&70 1710 $3,047,12 1573 62,599,13 1519 S2,749.116 1665 12 899.97 1711 13 050.39 1574 12 602.40 1620 12 752.82 1666 12 90324 1712 13,053 60 D 1575 12 505.67 1621 12 756.09 1667 $2,9N 51 1113 14,056.93 1570 12 60094 1622 12,759 38 1686 12 909.16 1714 13 060.20 1577 $2,612,21 1623 1! 762.63 1689 12 913.05 1715 13 063.47 1576 17 615.48 1624 62,765 90 1070 1! 916.32 1716 13 006.74 1579 12 611.75 1825 12,759.17 1671 17 919.59 1111 13 070.01 1 80 $2,622.02 1026 12 772.44 1572 12422.66 1118 63,073 28 1581 12 625.!9 1627 12 775,71 1673 $2028.13 1719 13 076.55 1582 17 628.116 1026 12 778.98 1614 $2,929.40 1720 $3,079.89 1$63 $2,531 83 1629 62,712 25 1675 02,932.67 1721 $3,011109 1584 17 635,10 1630 12 785.5! 1076 12935,94 1772 03,0.1l 15IS 12,630,37 1631 102,780.79 1677 17 039.21 1723 13,08963 1586 62,641 .64 1632 12 70206 1870 12 942.46 1724 63 002.00 1587 $2,644.91 1833 L02.795.13 1619 17 645.75 1725 63,096.17 i 1508 $2,648.10 1634 12 798,60 1600 12 949.0 1120 13 099.44 . 1589 $2,651.45 1035 12 801./7 1601 12 952,20 1727 $3,10L71 11190 $2.664.72 1636 $2,805,14 1602 17 955.56 1728 $3,105.08 1591 12 651.09 1837 12 808.41 1603 12 958.83 1129 I3 109.25 1592 12 661,26 1038 12.911.08 1681 12 962,10 1110 13 112.5! 1593 42,864 b3 1630 12,014 to 1865 12 905.37 1731 13.115-70 1594 $2,6417,60 1640 12 016.22 1686 17 068.64 1732 13 11906 0 1599 12 611.07 1641 12 821.49 1687 12 971, 1 1133 13 12333 Q r 1596 17 074.34 1642 12 124.78 1681 12 975.18 1734 63,125.60 1597 12 677.61 1643 12 821.03 1669 12 970.45 1735 13,120 87 1598 112160 280,80 1644 12,63130 1690 12981.7! 1730 13,132.14 1599 4,15 1645 12,034 S7 1691 ! 081.99 1737 13 138.41 Capitol Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report A-17 RM"r t % e , C School Impact Feet - Unincorporated San Miguel County E ere Feet Impact Fee Square Feet Impact FN square Feet Impact FN square Feel Impact Fee 1738 13,138.69 1704 13,289.10 1830 $3,43952 1978 113,S89.94 1739 $3,141.95 1785 13,292.37 1831 13 442.79 1877 13,593 21 1740 $3,145.22 1786 13.29564 1832 $3,446.06 1876 13.596.48 1741 13,149.49 1707 13,298,91 1933 13,449,33 1679 13,599.75 1742 13,151.76 1788 13,302.16 1834 13 452,60 1880 13 603.02 1743 $3.155.03 1789 $3,305.45 1835 13.455 87 1881 $3.600.29 1744 13,158.30 1790 $3,308.72 1836 17,459.14 1882 13,609.56 l _ 1745 13,181.57 1791 $3,311,99 1837 17 402.41 1887 .13-16128 1745 13,164.84 1792 13,31516 1838 $3.465.09 1884 13 016.10 1747 13,168.11 1793 13 318.53 1839 $3,46845 1865 13 01937 1748 ±3,1 71.38 1794 13 321.80 1640 13 472.22 1880 13 622.64 1749 13174,55 1195 13,325.01 1641 1] 478.49 1067 13 625.91 1750 113.17142 1796 13 326.34 1142 $3,470.76 lose 13 029.10 1751 $3,181,19 1797 13,331,61 1043 $3,482.03 1809 $3,632.45 1752 13 194.46 1790 13,33188 1044 $346530 1890 13 635,72 1753 13_,187.73 _ 1799 13,336.15 1845 $3,408.57 1891 13,638.09 1754 $3,191 00 1600 13,341.42 1646 $3,491.84 1992 f3 042.26 1755 13,194 77 1801 13 344.69 1647 $3.495.11 1893 $3.045.53 1750 13 19754 1802 13347.90 1648 13 490. .78 1994 113,64010 _ 1757 13.2M 61 1803 13,35 1 .2 3 1649 $3,301.65 1095 $3,1152.07 1758 17,204.08 1604 13,354.50 1850 $3,604.92 1690 $3,656 34 ' 1159 $3,207.311 1605 13 357.77 1651 /7 608.19 1897 $3,558.01 1780, 113,210A2 1806 13,361.04 1652 $3,911.46 1898 13,W.89 1781 13 213.89 1807 13,364.31 1653 13 514.73 1899 131665.1$ 1782 13 217.18 1808 13 WAS 1654 13 518.00 1900 IS 668.42 1783,13 22043 1809 13 770.85 1855 13 521.27 1901 13 671 69 1764 17 22370 1810 03,374.12 1856 13,52 54 1902 13 874.90 1765 13,220 97 1811 $3,377 39too? 13 527,51 1903 13 678.23 _lies 13,230.24 1812 13 380.66 lose 13 531,00 1904 43,061.50 1767 $3,933.51 1813 $3,383 93 1859 $353415 1906 1113.664.71 1768 13,236.78 _ 1614 13 387.20 1660 $3,537,02 1906 13,088.01 1769 63 240.05 leis 1] 39047 1861 113,64019 1907 63,621,31 177063,243 32 1018 13 39374 1062 $3,544.10 1900 13,604.68 1771 13 2/659 1817 63,32101 1863 $3,547,43 1901 $3697.89 1772 $3,240.00 1815 13 400.28 Ill" 13 550.70 1910 13,701.12 • 1773 13 253.13 1819 $3403.5% lass 03,653.97 1011 $3,704,39 1774 03,256,40 1020 13.40682 1666 43657.24 flit 6370766 1775 13.252.07 1021 13 410.09 1867 113,560.51 1013 1371093 1116 $3,202.04 1022 13 413.30 1860 03,563.71 1914 $3,714.20. 1771 13 200.21 1023 13 4106] 1809 $3501.05 1916 $3,717.47 _ 1778 $3,260.48 1824 13 419,90 1870 13 570.32 told 13 720.74 O 1179 $3,272.75 1125 13 423.17 1071 13 573.69 1911 $1,724.01 1180 13 276.02 1026 13 426.44 1612 63 51e'so 11111 W 121,26 a 1181 13,270.20 1827 13 429.71 1673 163,560.131 1119 13 73055 c _ 1162 1413,202,11 1 e:e 13,432, 9e 1174 17 503.10 1120 13 73382 1075 I3 60 .61 192 3 7.77.09 1783 13 205.87 1029 $3,436 25 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Report A•10 s 0 W, rrV r,+. 4 6Gr School Impact Fee! - Unincorporated San Miguel County Square FeN Impact FN 1 w f"I IM PM foe 8 We Feet IME!Lt Fee 8 en Feet ImpM Fu 1922 $3,740 3e 1968 13,890,78 2014 N OIL2O 2060 $4,19 $ A2 1923 13,743.63 1989 13,894.05 2015 $4.044A7 2061 64 194.89 1924 01,740.90 1970 13,897,32 2018 14,047.74 2082 14,19816 1925 13,750.17 1911 13 8OU.59 2017 14 051.01 2083 $4,201.43 1926 $3,753.44 1972 13 903.86 2018 41054.28 2064 14.204.7U 1927 $3,756.71 1973 $3,907,13 2019 $4057,55 2085 11,207.97 1928 $3,759,98 1974 13910.40 2020 14,060.82 2066 !4211.24 1929 $3,763.25 1975 13.91367 2021 14064.09 2067 $4,214.51 1930 13,766,52 1976 13911144 2022 14067.35 2068 44217.78 1931 13,789.79 1977 03,920.21 _ 2023 64,070.03 2069 $4221.05 1932 13 773.06 1978 13 92348 2024 14,0 73-90 2070 14 224.32 1933 $3 77813 1979 17 926.75 2025 14 077,17 2071 14 221.59 1934 03 779.60 1960 I3 930.02 2026 11080.41 2072 $4.230,11 6 1935 $3,782.87 1961 $3,933.29 2027 1409371 2073 $4,234.13 1936 {3786,11 1962 1393616 2028 $4068,98 2074 11237.40 1937 13,799.41 _ 1993 $3.93983 2029 $4.090.25 2075 11 240.67 1938 t3,702.88 1984 $3,943.10 2030 64 093.52 2076 4424394 1939 03795.95 1985 0194617 2031 01096.79 2077 1424711 1940 13 799.22 1986 $394964 2032 $410006 2078 $4 250.48 1941 13 802.49 1987 $3,952.91 2033 14,103,33 2079 14 253,75 1942 13 805.76 1988 $3 95616 2034 14 106.60 2080 $4,257.02 1943 113,809M 1989 13 959.45 2035 NIL 09.87 2081 64,260.22 ' 1944 113,0121 1990 P969.26 2036 11113.14 2062 14,26156 1945 13,815,57 1991 2037 11 118.41 2083 14 266.83 1946 03,618.84 1992 2038 14 11901 2081 11 270.10 1947 13 822.11 1993 2039 N 122.95 2085 14273.37 1948 $3 625.31 1994 2040 N 120.22 2066 $4 276.64 1949 13 126.69 1995 2041 $4,12949 2087 44 279.91 1950 13 631.92 1996 .2042 14 132.76 2081 14,283.18 _ 1951 13 835.19 1997 $3 988.61 2043 41 138,03 2089 14286.45 1952 1181846 1998 $3,000.06 2044 11 139.30 2090 04.280.72 1953 13 841.73 Mill $3 902,13 2043 14 142,87 2091 14,202.00 1954 13 845.00 2000 13 991.12 2046 0414861 2092 14 296.26 19SS 13 048.27 2001 13 098.69 2047 114,140A 1 2093 04,299.53 _1956 131111.54 2002 11001.06 2048 14162.36 2094 14302.80 • 1957 IS 851.61 2003 04,00513 2040 N 111 66 2090 14 306.07 1938 13 858.08 2004 1100140 2050 11 168.91 2090 $4 30934 1959 13 861.31 2006 14 011.77 2051 $4162,11 2097 14 312,61 1960 13 164.61 2006 14 015.04 2052 $4160.46 2096 04 316.00 1961 03.867 ef 2007 44,01831 2053 04,160,73 2090 $4 319.15 1962 13 871.10 2000 14 021.58 2054 14,112-00 1100 14 32242 19^3 t3,074,43 2000 1402489 2060 14,176,27 2101 14 328.61 1904 13 877.70 2010 14 020.12 2050 14 171.04 2101 328.0 t _ 1985 13,880.9' 2011 64031.30 2057 11111.11 2103 14332,23 l _1965 13 80421 2012 04,034.60 2016 N 411.01 2101 t1 335.60 _ 1967 13,887 51 2013 11 031,93 2059 .11 180.35 1108 64 33 17 I I Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fa Report A-19 lav 3 2 WANM School Impact Fees - Unincorporated San Miguel County S we Feet Im M FN 8 ere FNt Impact FNSquare FNt Im Foe 6 are FNt Nl Fee 2106 14 342.04 2152 14 492.16 2196 04,642,88 2244 14 793.30 2107 14 345.31 2153 64A95.73 2199 04648 15 2245 14 796.57 2108 14 346.58 2154 14 499.00 2200 14 649.42 2246 14,79$14 2109 14 351.65 21SS $4,501.27 2201 14 652.69 2247 $4803 11 2110 94,355.12 2156 $4,50554 2202 14,855.96 2248 $4,806.38 2111 $4.358.39 2157 14,508,81 2203 $4.669,23 2249 $4,80915 2112 14,361.66 2158 $4,512.08 2204 $4,662,50 2250 14812.92 2113 6436493 2159 $4,515.36 2205 14,665.77 2251 1461619 2114 14,368.20 2160 14,516.62 2206 14669.04 2252 14819.46 2113 14371.47 2161 14,521,89 2207 141172.31 2253 14822.73 V I G 14 374.74 2162 $4,525 10 2208 $4,075.58 2254 $4,82600 2117 11 378.01 2163 14 52843 2209 $4,070,85 2255 14 620,27 2118 $ 4381.26 2164 14 631.70 2210 14652.12 2256 14 03254 2119 14 384.55 2185 64,534.97 2211 $4,60.39 2257 04.935 81 2120 11 387.82 2186 04.S38 24 2212 64.088.66 2256 14 639.08 2121 $4.391 092167 04,S41.51 2213 14,621.93 2259 11842.35 2122 04 394.36 2168 11 L44.78 2214 V-10-99 .20 2260 14,64562 2123 14 397.63 7169 14 54805 2215 14 698.47 2261 $4,04849 2124 $4,400.90 2170 14 651,32 2216 14 701.74 2262 $4652.18 2125 $1404.17 2171 $4,$54 59 2217 1112&01 2263 $4,855.43 2126 14 407.44 2172 14,S57#6 2210 04,700 28 2264 04,859.70 2121 14 410.71 2173 $4,1141,13 2219 $4.711.65 2265 $4861 91 2128 14,41108 2171 14 564.40 2220 $4,714,82 2260 04,6014 2129 14 417.25 2175 14 Sa7.67 2221 14 71803 2281 04.068 61 2130 $4.42012 2176 14 670.94 2222 14 721.36 22116 14 87 1 .78 2$31 14 423.79 2171 14,S74_21 2223 14 721.63 7260 11815.05 2132 11 427.06 2118 14 577.48 2224 $4 727.90 2270 11879.32 2133 64430.33 2179 $4,S807% 2225 14 731,17 2271 11881,59 j 2134 P14.43681 2180 64,584 2 02220 14 734.44 2212 44 861.66 2135 2181 64 58729 2227 64 737.71 2273 14 686.13 2136 2182 14 59058 2228 14 740.98 2271 $4 091.40 2137 2183 14$93 83 2229 14 744.25 2276 $1 89467 2138 2184 64 507,10 2230 64 711.52 2276 64 897.94 2139 2185 64 60037 2231 14 760.79 2277 14 90121 2141 .2186 64.603 64 2232 $47114.0d 2276 11904.48 2141 64 450.40 2187 11,606 91 2233 11 707,33 2279 14,907.75 • 2142 14 459.76 2188 14,610 It 2234 11 760.00 2280 14 911.02 2143 11403.03 2180 14613.45 _ 2235 04,783,81 2201 $491420 2144 14 464.30 2190 64616 72 2236 11707,14 2213 $4,917,66 2145 11 46081 2191 $4,U9 99 y _ 2237 1 710.41 2203 44.1120 ,03 2146 11 412.64 2192 04,623 26 2236 14 773.68 2264 04,024.10 • -2141 14,470, 11 2193 64,5261 2239 64 776.95 2285 04,021.37 O • 2148 14,472 30 2194 $4.629 60, _ 2240 64 760.22 2280 0403064 2149 04,402 65 2105 11,633 07 2241 11 183.49 2287, 44,933.91 2150 64.466 92 2194 14,678.3! 2242 11 186,76 228a 64 037,18 2151 A4,489.19 2197 14.6)9 61 . _ 2243 4 700.3 228 64 040.45 Capital Facility Pmenee and Impact Fee Aepan A•20 v~ (Y* NW 4-4- f `,1'. /9 1.1 L. School Impact Feet - Unint.c.rwtatad Son Miguel County $ gum* Fat Impact Fee 6 an Fat Impact Fa 8 an I'm as Fa E as Fat Impact Fu 2290 14943.71 2336 $5094.14 2382 $5244,56 2428 $5394,98 22y1 14 946.99 2337 15,097.41 2393 15,247.83 2429 65,39625 2292 14 950.26 2338 05 100.68 2384 35,251.10 2430 15,401,52 2293 14,953.53 2339 115,103.95 2385 $5,254.37 2431 $5.404,79 2294 04,959.80 2340 $5,107.22 238a 65,257.64 2432 115 ,40&08 2295 14,960.07 2341 15,110.49 2387 15,260.91 2433 15,411.33 2296 $4,963.34 2342 15,113,76 2388 15264.18 2434 $9,414.60 2297 $4,966.61 2343 15,117.03 2389 $5,207.45 2435 15 417.A7 2298 $4,969.89 2344 $5.120.30 2390 115,27072 2438 $5,421.14 2299 14,973,15 2345 $5,12357 2391 $5,27399 2437 $5 424.41 2300 14 97642 2346 65 12684 2392 $5,277.26 2438 15 427.68 5 2301 14,979.69 2347 65 130.11 2393 $5,280,63 2439 $5,430.9 2302 14 981.95 2? i8 65 133.38 2394 16 28310 244C 15134.22 2303 $4,98&23 2349 IS 136.66 2395 IS 267.07 2441 15 437.49 2304 04 989.50 2350 $S 139.92 2396 IS 290.34 2442 $5,440.76 2305 $4,992.77 2351 $5,143.19 ^2397 05 293.01 2443 $5,444. 3 2306 14,996.04 2352 05,146.46 2399 $5,290.88 2444 $5,447.30 2307 14,99911 2353 15,149.73 2399 15, 300.15 2445 $5450.61 2308 15002.58 2354 $5,15300 2400 15,303.42 2446 $5.453,84 2309 05 005.85 23$5 05 156.27 2401 $5,304449 2147 15 457,11 2310 05,009.12 2356 19AS9 54 1402 15 302 go 214a !5 460.38 1311 $5,012,39 2357 Is 162.81 2403 $5,313 23 2149 45 403615 ` 1312 15 015,66 2356 IS 156,08 2401 15 316.60 2460 15,46802 2359 $5,1093! 2405 15319.77 2451 15470,19 2314 2360 IS 17202 2406 05,32304 2452 1146 2319 2301 $S 17589 2407 16 326.31 2473 $S 476,73 _ 2316 2302 IS 179.10 2400 45.329.5111 2454 $S 480.00 2313 E.159_ 2317 2363 182.43 2409 IS 332.85 2453 $5 433.27 364 $S 105.70 2410 $S 334.12 2456 IS 4ea 54 2318 2 2319 236! IS 438.97 2411 $5 33939 2451 IS 48981 2320 $5,00.82 2368 15,192 24 2412 16 342.60 2450 45 493.08 2321 I! 04309 2361 15 1111 2413 16 345.93 2459 41 1,496,311, 2322 15,040,30 2363 IS 19810 2411 16 349.20 2400 $5,429.02 2323 15 051,63 2349 63,202.05 2416 $5,162.47 2461 $5,502.90 2324 IS 061.90 2310 $3 205.32 2114 09, 363.74 2462 16 50616 2325 15 056.17 2371 $9,206-59 2417 I6 35901 2463 $5.500.43. 2326 05 001.44 2372 15 ,241110 2418 $5.352.201 2464 15,512,701 _ 2327 16 064.71 2373 l 215,13 _ 2419 16 365.63 2456 05,515,97 232$ $5,067,98 2374 IS 213.40 2420 05,348,82 2466 $5,519-14 2329 15 ,071-25 2375 15 221.61 2421 $5371.09 2487 63,522.51 2330 65,074.62 2374 $5,224 94 2422 15 378.36 2408 $9,525,76 2331 15,077.79 2371 49.219 , 21 2423 115,37111 e7 2469 $9,920,05 Q 2332 49,001.00 2373 231.45 2424 15 311.90 2410 06,632.32 _ 2333 064.33 2319 45.2347! 2j 25 16 365,17 2471 15,535 99 2314 N$60.7.80 2300 05,23801 2426 Out 3.41 1112 $b 638,66 2335 145,090,81 2381 4S.2,111149 2421 3 171 2473 411642.1] Capital Facility Finance end Impact Fee Report Ar21 32 0 School Impact Fees - Unincorporated San Miguel County { Square Fat I act Fee 5 wa Fat Im act Fee S we fat Im act FseS w Fat Im ect Fn 2474 $5,545.40 2520 $5,695.82 2568 15,846.24 1 2475 $5,548.67 2521 !;5,699.09 2567 115,849.51 2476 15,551.94 2522 $5,702.36 2568 15,852,78 2477 $5,555.21 2523 15,705.63 2569 15,856.05 _ 2478 $5,559.48 2524 15,708.90 2570 15,859.32 2479 15,561.75 2525 15,712.17 2571 $5,862.59 { 2480'15,565.02 _ 2528 15,715.44 2572 15,865.88 I 2481 $5,568,29 2527 $5,718.71 2573 0,869,13 2482 $5,571.56 2528 15,72118 2574 $S,872.40 2483 $5,574,83 2529 $5,725.25 2575 $5,575.67 i 2484 $5,578.10 2530 15128.52 2576 $5,878.94 2485 $5,581.37 2531 $5.731.79 2577 $5,882.21 2486 15 594.64 2532 $5.735,06 2578 15,885.48 2487 $5.587.91 2533 65,738.33 2579 115,88L-75 2488 $5,591.18 2534 $5,141.60 2580 15,892.02 2489 15,594.45 2535 $5,744.81 2541 $5,895.29 2490 (5,597,72 2536 $5,748.14 2582 15,898158 2491 $5,600.99 2531 $5,751.41 2583 15,90113 2492 15,604.26 2538 $5.754.68 2584 15,905.10 2493 $5.607.53 2539 15,757 95 2585 15 908.37 2494 15,61080 2540 15,76122 2588 15,911.64 2495 $6 614,07 2541 $5,764.49 2537 $3,9t4 91 _ 2496 15,617.34 2542 $5,787.76 2588 $S 9!8.78 2497 115 620.91 2543 $5,771.03 2589 $5,921.45 2498 $S 823.88 2544 15,774.30 2590 $5,924.72 2499 65,627.15 2545 $5,777.57 2591 $5,927.99 2500 $5,030.42 2545 $S 7d0.84 2592 $5.931.26 2501 15,633.69 2547 $5.784.11 2593 IS 934.53 2502 15 636.96 2548 $S 787.38 2594 145.931.80 11 2503 15640.23 2549 115.790.15S 2595 165.141.07 2501 115643.50 2550 15 793.92 2598 1$5.944.34 2505 $5,646.77 2551 5797.1 9 2597 165.047.61 2505 /5 65004 2552 r65.803 2598 15 950.88 2507 15 65331 2553 2599 IS 958.00 ♦ 1229 per s4. h.1w each 2800 15,958 I 2508 $5 656.56 2554 2509 S 65985 2555 2 599 t h. 2510 $S 663,12 2556 2511 13 666.39 2557 2512 15 669.66 2558 _ 2513 $5,672.93 2559 15 623.35 2514 115,11171114 0 2560 115,82a 62 a2511 15 67947 2561 $5 929.89 $5682.74 2562 IS833.16 4S.S8601 2563 $5,836.43 $5 689.28 2564 $5 639.70 $5,692,59 2S6S 15,842,97 Capital Facility Finance and Impact Fee Fapon A-22 ".r ti Ia v ~ 11 L r l; 1 ~ Y v f S 1 r I ~ ~ 41 r 1 ~ v W r ~ N 1~~ 1 Iv f (I r ~ i L d 4 l . [ ATTACHMENT 5 E 1 1 F i 2i to 32x10, 'r f J i ® I rr I 17 1- lar~.11'Ir , h CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVEMMENT CODE SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS 395.1 Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Capital Improvement" means any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (A) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and (B) roadway facilities. (1) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this chapter that identifies capital improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. (2) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development, (3) "Impact Fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision 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 the 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. The term does not include: (A) dedication of land for public parts or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs: (B) dedication of rights-of-way or casements or construction or dedication of on-site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities, or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; or (C) lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines. However, an item included in the capital improvements plan may not be required to he constructed except in accordance with Section 395.019(2), and an owner may not be required to construct or delicate facilities and to pay impact fees for those facilities. (s) "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at p least a 10-year period. (6) ' ivew development" means the subdivision of land; 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. David Ist. Griffith & Assodates, Ltd. ii 32X El ,r~ , S.! I 17 h ° 1 S, •4A a,;" f's f a ey[ 1-ham. 1. li 1 1 A i~'A ~'l ,Ahl .~C 11°' ~ Nf i fit, iA ° ~ a n ; !x I J' ~ r t r 4 w•. I 1.13 r ~ 4 1' , I • "4 f ~ 1 I 1 L. A( y `r 1 •i i i 1 , 4 I . 4f r, a T!1. J 4 I r - I r , t • , r • _ . ,nM .S a'.rktiiYAL~•lti+b' Mwra+ii. n.. _ _ `r CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVEwNmENT CODE 01 (t) "Political subdivision" means a municipality, a district or authority created under Article III, Section 52, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, or, for the purposes set forth by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section. (s) "Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenance,. The term does not include any roadways or associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system. (9) "Service Area" means the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined under Chapter 42, of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan, except roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. The service are, for the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction,, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. For roadway facilities , the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed a distance equal to the average trip length from the new development, but in no event more than three miles, which service area shall be served by the roadway facilities designated in the capital improvements plan. For storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service arca may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, but shall not exceed the area actually served by the storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities designated in the capital improvements plan and shall not extend across watershed boundaries. (to)"Service unit' means a 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 I capital improvements or facility expansions. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), W. Aug. 28, 1989• Amended b Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 566, § 1(e), eff. Aug, 28, 1989. t ' I t y r t'_ I J)V- i j ! I' Lqevtd M. Griffith k Associates. Ltd. n.,. , a 25 K0 32x1❑ . i C M1 n r~rar C1LkPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SUBCIIAPTER B. AUTHORIZATION OF IMPACT FEE 305.11 Authorization of Fee (k) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee. (1) Political subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway facilities. (m) A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except roadway facilities, to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must comply with this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1. § 82(a), eff. Aug.28. 1989. 39$.12 Items Payable by Fee ' (a) An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the; (1) construction contract price; (2) surveying and engineering fees, (3) land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert Aitness fees; and (s) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (a) Projected interest charges and other financial costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions • identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (1)) N'otw'ithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay off a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under this chapter. O A (c) A municipality may pledge an impact fee as security of the payment of debt services on a bond, note, or other obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion if-, (1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvement plan; and David M, GHMI & Ass(Z-Wes. Ltd. n-. . Et ' -1 t ~ 1 t kr i ~ I 1 . y G .I ~ { 1? 1 I J. 0 1 I a gsra+r ~CIIAPTER 395 LOCAL COYERN,%IENT CODE (2) at the time of the pledge, the goveming body of the municipality certifies in a vvTitten order, ordinance, or resolution that r it of tLe impact fee will be used or expended for an improvement or expansion not identified in the he plan. (e) A certification of the subdivision (d)(?) is sufficient evidence that an impact fee pledged will not be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1,§82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74`h Leg., ch. 90,§ Leff. May 16'h 1995. 395,13 Items not Payable by Fee Impact fees may not be adopted or used to pay for: (1) construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets uther than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (2) repair. operation or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facilities expansion; ~ (3) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards; (s) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (5) administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards Underground Rater District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use fees to pay its administrative and operating costs; (6) principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed by Section 395.012, Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg. Ch.l,§ 82 (a). W. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.14 Capital Improvements Plan (n) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and }o calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items; (i) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safely, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional • engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of the capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; Uavid bl. GriH th k Associates, Ud, e N 32❑ a r - a v ^ti '~(v I ~i a , 0 ~ I r 1 ~ r Ir i n • I I CIIAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVF.RNNIFNT CODE I (3) a description of all or the parrs of the capital improvements or facility expansion and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new a development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state: (4) a definitive table establishing the specific Icvel or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansion and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial; (5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area based on approved land use assumption, and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; and (6) the prejectc,; demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time , not to exceed ten years. (a) The analysis required by subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on a systemwide basis within the service area for each major category of capital improvements or facility expansion for the designated service area. (b) the governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervising the implementation of the capital improvements plan in a timely manner. Added by Aas 1989, 71" Leg., ch. t.§ 82 (a), -ff. Aug, 28, 1989. 39s.I3. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (o) The impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements descnbed by Section 395.014(a)(5). (p) If the number of new services projected over a reasonable time period is less than the total number of new service unties shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements A necessitated by and attributable to projected new services described by Section 39,014(a)(6) by the projected new service units described in that section. Added by Acts 1989, 71't Leg., ch.l,§ 82 (a), eff Aug. 28, 1989. 395.16 Time for Assessment and Collection of Fee (p) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted and land platted before Jun- 20, 1987. For land that has been platted in accordance with Subchapter A. Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before June 20, 1987, or land on which new development occurs or is proposed without platting, the political rubdivision may assess impart fees at any time during the development approval and building process, Except as in provided by Section 395,019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision David M. Griff Ih d Associeles, Ltd. - t . 6 • Q 32 x I D . i S i 0 t % Y CIIAPTER 395 LOCAL COVERNMENT CODE Plat or connection to the political subdivision' water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (q) This subsection applies only to the impact fees adopted before June 20, 1987, and land platted after that date. For rew development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after thn June 20, 1987, the political subdivision may asses the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except as provided by Section 395,019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time ofrecordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate or occupancy. tr) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted after June 20, 1987. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee may not be collected on any service unit for which a valid f building permit is issued within one year after the date of adoption of the impact fec k (s) This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with Subchapter A, chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after adoption 4 . of an impact fee adopted after June 20, 1987.The political subdivision shall assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation of a subdivision plat or other plat under Subchapter A. chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting ordinance or procedures of any subdivision in the official records of the county clerk of the county in the tract is located. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. fU For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting, the political subdivision may asses the impact fees at any time during the development and building process and may collect the fees at either the time of ' recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. fu) An "assessment" means a determination of the amount of the imf act fee in effect on the date or occurrence provided it this section and is the maximum amount that can be charged per service unit of srch a development. No specific act by the political subdivision is required. • (v) Notwithstanding Subsections (a)-(e) and Section 395.017, the political subdivision may reduce or waive an impact fee for any service unit the would qualify as tp affordable housing under 42 U.S.C. Section 12475, as amended, once the service unit is constructed. If affordable housing as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section 12475, as amended, is not constructed, the political subdivision may reverse its decision to waive or reduce the Impact fee, and the political subdivision may assess an impact fee I ~ David M. GnMh d: Associates, Ltd, 32X111 iS ~ i f 4~ i,~iQ 1 q .f 1 e CIIAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVf.RNN1FNT CODE at any time during the development approval or building processor after the building process if an impact fee was not already assessed. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch.L§ 82 (a), elf. Aug, 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75`s Leg., ch 080, §52, eff. Sept. I, 1997. 395.17. Additional Fee Prohibited; Exception After assessmen, of the impact fees attributable tc the new development or execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increase in fees may not be assessed against the tract for any reason unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. In the event of the increase in the number of service units, the impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units, Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch.1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28. 1989. 395.18 Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment A political subdivision is authorized to enter into an agreemept with the owner of a tract of land fat which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees. Added by Acts 1989.71" Leg., ch.l, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28. 1989. 395.19 Collection of Fees if Services not Available Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed out may not be collected in areas where services are not currently available unless: (t) the collection is made -o pay for a capital improvement or a facility c%pansion that has been identified in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to commence construction within two years, under duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work required to provide service, and to have the service available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be A constructed, but in no event longer than five years; (2) the political subdivision agrees that the owner of a new development may construct or finance the capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or the funds advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development or agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such capital • improvements or facility expansions. which fees shall be collected and reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its plat; or 0ya? (3) an owner voluntarily requests the political subdivision to reserve capacity to serve future development, and the political subdivision and owner enter into a valid written agreement, Added by Acts 1989, 71 leg., ch,1, §82(a), ciT Aug. 28, 1989. David M. Griffith & Associates. l td 32 0 C7 t j t i;r 4! ! M1 % O t CIIAPTER395 LOCAL GOVEMNIENT CODF. 395.20 Entitlement to Sen'ices Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and benefit of the services for which the fee was exacted and is entitled to receive immediate servic_ trom any existing facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to •omplianee with other valid regulations. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch.1, §82(a), efl'. Aug.28 1989. 395,21 Authority of Political Subdivisions to Spend Funds to Reduce Fees Political subdivisions may spend funds from any lawful source to pay for all or a part of the capital improvements or facility expansions to reduce the amount of impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 715t Leg., ch.1, § 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989. 39122 Authority, of Political Subdivisions to Pay Fees Political subdivisions and other governmental entities must pay impact fees imposed under this chapter. Added by Acts 1989. 71" Leg., ch.l, § 82(a), eff. Aug.28, 1989. 395.23. Credits Againsl Roadway Facilities Fees Any construction of, contributions to, jr dedications of off-site roadway facilities agreed to or required by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited against roadway facilities impact fees otherwise due from the development. Added by the Acts of 1989, 71" Leg., ch.], § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.02'1 Accounting for Fees and Interest (eceeeeeeecceecee)The order, ordinance or resolution levying an impact fee must provide that all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in an 0 interest.bearing accounts clearly identifying the capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. (rrmrrfffffM Interest earned on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under this chapter. (gggggggg6gggg8gg)Impact fee funds may be spent only, for the purdose fur which the 0 impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital improvements plan and as p • ' authorized by this chapter. (hhhhhhhhhhhhMhh)1he records of the account into which impact fees are deposited shall ✓ be open for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. Added by Acts 1989,11Leg., ch.l, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.25 Refund% David M. Griffith R Associates. Ltd. D.7. s ~5 ~ 32X Y2 ~ a , q r fl,~^1 1 .i' ~ d 4 ` ' 1 r$.' X r H,k >S ~S r> c 4 a l l "ri ~a i 4 jl ~~t a$ r O ~ i u ~ `'Ir t ' L rl t'i1 k I'i' Yr +If+ A eX. ~ v r' : F ~ql• t, ~ I UWAIM r } I I. i~, ' r 2. 1 a a ,r t r 1 C A X~Yy~ ~ ~ 1 1 I v k • ` ~'r [ ll r Y ti =kr r . r I ' 7' t 'r S r 4 I+ r ~ i eI " T + i v a`~ a L L , 1t S r a r, 1 i I ,.t Il (t n]X ,vl a•r rl ,^r n ~ Y n v• L.J 1.. i.• A CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODF. , (a) On the request of the owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or the political subdivision has, after collecting the fee when service was not available, failed to commence construction within two years or service not available within a reasonable period considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1). (b) On completion of the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the " j capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall recalculate the impact fee ' using the actual costs of the capital improvements or facility expansion. If the Lnpact fee calculated based on actual cost is less than the impact fee paid, the political { subdivision shall refund the difference if the difference e.<cceds the impact fee paid by , more than 10 percent. (c) The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized by this chapter within ten years after the date of payment (d) Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection tr the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Article 1C.002, Title 79, Rev?,Y•J Statutes, or its successor statute. (e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at tt a time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or ; governmental enutY. 10 The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. 4 Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg„ ch.1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75N Leg., ch.1396, § 37, eff. Sept. 1, 1997, i 1 ,Y i r X r • p E n i 1r David M. Griffith & Aswciates• Ltd. v'..6 K 32 X10 4 • ~ E vwrecaes u . 0 - E CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNNIENT CODE C. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF AN IMPACT FEE 395.41 Compliance With Procedures kcquired I Except as otherv ise p: ovided by this charter, a political subdivision must comply with this subchapter to levy an impact fee, Added by Acts 1989, 71"Leg., chl, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. i 395.42 Nearing on Land Use Assumption To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or regulation establishing a public hearing date to consider land use assumptions within the designated service area that will be used to develop the capital improvement plan. Added by Acts 1989. 71"Leg,, ch.1. y5 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.43 Information About Assumptions Available to the Public On or oefore the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on land p use assumption:, the political subdivision shall make available to the public its land use assumptions, the 0me period of the projections, and a description of the general nature of the capital improvements facilities that may be proposed. Added by Acts 1989, 71"leg., ch,1, § 82(a), eff. Aug, 28, 1989. E 395,044 Notice of Hearing on Land Use Assumptions (a) Before the 30'h day before the date of the hearing on land use assumptions, the political subdivision shall send u notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision „ requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting the public hearing. • (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing once a week for three consecutive week„ the first notice t appear before the 30th day but on or after the 60'h day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation each county in which the political subdivision lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller O • • than one-quarter page of a standard-size or tabloid-size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be 18-point or larger type. (c) The notice must contain: (t) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC I !TARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS RELATING TO POSSIBLE David NJ. Griffith & Associates, 1.1d n... n1 ` 71 • Y' I . a O y CHAP77:R 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ADOPTION OF 11iPACT FEES" (2) the timer date, and location of the hearing (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions that will be used to lcvelop a capital improvements plan under which an impact fee may be imposed: (4) an easily understandable map of the service area to which land use assumptions apply; and (5) a statemert that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the land use assumptions. Added by Acts 1989. 71" Leg., ch.1, § 82(a), off. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.045 Approval of Land Use Assumptions Required (a) After the public hearing on the land use assumption, the political subdivisions shall determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance. order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions. I (b) Toe political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public tearing , shall approve or disapprove the land use assumptions. (c) An ordinance. order or resolution approving land use assumptions may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch.1, § 82(a), off. Aug.28, 1989, § 395.046, Capital Improvementb Plan Re uired After Approval of Ltnnd Use Assumptions If the governing body adopts an on inance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions, the political subdivisions -,hall provide for a capital improvements plan to be developed by qualified processionals using generally accepted engineering and pla..ning Added by Acts 19S9, 71" Leg , ch, I , § 82(a), off. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.047. Hearing rn Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee • On completion of the capital improvements plan, the governing body shall adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the adoption of the plan and imposition of the impart fee. The public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution adopting a capital improvements plan and imposing an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989.71 " Leg., ch.], § 81(a), eff, Aug. 28, 1989. • 0 • 395.08. Information About Plan Available to Public r~ On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the capital improvements plan and impact fee, the plan shall be made available to the public. Added by Acts 1989,71"Leg„ ch.1, § 82(a), off, Aug 28,'989. David m. r .iff"h & Associates, Ltd -'t too 32XI n. 'k c 1 i ~ ~ , l y 51 r 3 p i i ~ t , Q" r . r r CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE § 395.049. Notice of Hearing on Capital Imptovements PI-in and Impact Fee (a) Before the 301h day before the date of the hearing on the capital improvements plan and impact fee the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the munirpal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requeving notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision wall publish notice of the hearing once a week for three consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear before the 30`h day but on or after the 601h day before the set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision ties. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. The notice of public hearing may or may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one-quarter page of a standard-size or tabloid-size newspaper, and the headlines on the notice must I be in I9-point or larger type. (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the adoption of an impact fee; (4) an easily understandable map of the service area on which the proposed fee will be levied; (5) the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and (6) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the plan and proposed fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. t, § 3290, eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.0450. Advisory Committee Comments on Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fees The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written 0 comments on the proposed capital improvements plan and impact fees before the fifth O • business day before the date of the public hearing on the plan and fees. Added by Acs 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1. § 81(a), eff. Aug. 18, 1989 § 395.051. Approval if Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee Required David M, Gritlith & Associate, Ltd. PARR t) i ` ~ . r. 10 32 x IQ 2 r~ e 0 CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE (a) The political subdivision , within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the capital improvements plan and impact fce, shall approve or disapprove the adoption . of the capital improvements plan and imposition of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the capital improvements plan and imposition of ai impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. (c) Added by Acts '989, 71" Leg., ch.l, § 82(a),efP. Aug, 28, 1989. § 395,0515, Consolidation of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (a) In lieu of separately adopting the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for a service area, a political subdivision may consolidate the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan. and adopt both plans and the impact fee simultaneously, (b) if a political subdivision elects to consolidate the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan as authorized by Subsection ,a), the political subdivision shall first comply with Scciion 395.043 and foUaw the public notice and hearing requirements for adopting a capital improvements plan and impact fee, except (I) the headline for the notice by publication shall read as follows: "NOl ICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND IMPACT FEES"; (2) the notice must slate that the political subdivision intends to adopt land use assumptions. a capital improvements plan, and 'mpact fees at the hearing and does not intend to hold separate hearings to adopt the lane use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fees; (3) the notice must specify a date, which date is not earlier than 60 days alter publication of the first notice, and must state that if a person, by not later than the date specified, makes a written request for separate hearings, the governing body must hold separate hearings to adopt the land use assumptions and capital improvements plant (4) the notice must provide the tame and mailing address of the official of the political subdivision to whom a request for separate hearing shall be sent; and • (5) the certified mail notice, if applicable, shall contain the information in Suosections (b)(2)-(4). (a) In addition, the political subdivision shall comply with all of the other requirements for adopting land use assumptions, a capital improvements p!an, and impact fee. (b) If, within the date specified in Subsection (bx3), a person requests, in writing, separate hearings on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision may not utilize this section, In such event, the political , tD l subdivision may proceed with the public hearing for which notice has been published, but such hearing will address land use assumptions, and a second hearing as required by Sections 395.046.395.051 will be necessary to address the capital improvements plan and impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Lcg., ch, 566, § 1(c), eff. Aug 28, 1989. n,o,+Ir nrKra,/• been ba,.e Ir7 D-•',t Ike i 4VASM O , %%NN s . _ i CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNm NT CODE. 395.052 Periodic Update or Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) A political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every three years. The initial three-year period begins on the day the capital +rnprovements plan is adopted. (b) The political subdivision shall review and evaluate its current land use assumption and shall cause an update of the capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Subchapter D. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. I, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.053 Hearin; on Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Pla n The governing body of the political subdivision shall, NOhin 60 days after the date it receives the update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order setting a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether to amend the plan, Added by Acts 1989. 71" Leg„ ch. I, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.054 Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee A public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution amending Lnd use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, including the amount of qny proposed amended in pact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.055 Notice of Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital • Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee (a) Before the 30'h day before the date of the hearing on amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified meal to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated • official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years • • preceding the date of adoption of the onc!r or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing once a week for three consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear before the 300; day but on or after the 60'4 day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies, However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as Mvid At raifnlfi A- A,<nr;veq 11A 10 32x10 a! % P to V I CIM-rER395 LOCALGOVERNMENTCODE impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one. quarter page of a standard-size or tabloid-size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in 18-point or larger type. i (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE Or PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES' (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital impro~cmcnt5 plan and the imposition of an impact fee; - (4) an easily understandable description and map of the service area on which the update is being prepared: and (5) a statement that any member at the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the update. l Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), ef. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.056 Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments Added by Acts 1989, 71"Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug, 28, 1989. 395.057 Approval ofAmendments Required (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the amendments, shall approve or disapprove the amendments of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan and modification of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, cr resolution approving the amendments to the land use • assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by 'acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 39j-0575 Determination That No Updale of Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or Impact Fees Is Needed • O (a) 1f,at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the governing body determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is needed, it may, as an alternative to the updating requirements of Sections 395,052.395,057, do the following: (1) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon determining that an update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice under DavidM (iriffilhA AanriMn IIA D,..le iG.l 32XIO % t 4 :+~uara ' i l CHAPI ER 395 LOCAL GOVERNATENT 0001 this section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee by certified mail to ' any person who has, within two years preceding the date that the final notice of this matter is to be published, give written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of hearings related to impact fees. The notice must contain the information in Subsections (b)(2)-(5). k (2) The political subdivision shall publish notice of its determination once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies, However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one quarter page of a standard-size or tabloid- size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in 18-point or larger type. (a) The notice must contain the following: (2) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVFNfENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES" (3) a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determined that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is necessary; (4) an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the updating has been determined to be unnecessary; (5) a statement that if, within a specified date, which date shall be at least 60 days after publication of the first notice, a person makes a written request to the designated official of the political subdivision requesting that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body must comply with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057; and • (6) a statement identifying the name and mailing address of the official of the political subdivision to whom a request for an update should be sent. (a) Tha advisory committee shall file its written commmis. on the need for updating the land use assumptions, capital improvements plane, and impact fee before the fifth t business day before the earliest notice of the govcr^rncut's decision that no update is necessary is mailed or published. • (b) If, by the date specified in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land O • use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body shall cause an update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Sections 395,052.395.057, (c) An ordinance, order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. David ftr. Griffih k Attnriorrt I n1 I 10 32 X I a 4 K . , 1 a t CIiAPTER395 LoCM, G OVERNMENT CODE Added by Acts 1989, 7l" Leg , ch. 566.§ I(d), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.058 Advisory Committee (a) On or before the date on which the order , ordinance, or resolution is adopted under Section 395.042, the political subdivision shall appoint a capital improvements advisory committee. (b) The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members %sho shall be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdivision. Not less than 40 percent of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees or officials of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If the political subdivision has a planning and zoning commission, the commission may act j as the advisory committee if the commission includes at least one representative of the real estate. development, or building industry who is not as employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If no such representative is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the commission may still act as the advisory committee if at least one rich representative is appointed by the political subdivision as an ad hoc voting member of the planning and zoning commission when it acts as the advisory committee, If the impact fee is to be applied in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membership must include a representative from that nrea. (c) The advisory committee serves in a- advisory capacity and is established to: (1) advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumption; (2) review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; (3) monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (4) file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and (5) advise the political subdivision of the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. (a) 'Ihe political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any • professional reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan. (b) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural rules for the advisory committee to follow in carrying out its duties, > Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg„ ch. 1, ¢ 82(a), eff. Aug 28, 1989. rhoidAr r KnIhA. 6eouf1'ne r,A 32xO • ,ter asasari e C~ CIIAP'rER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SUBCIIAPTER D. OTHER PROVISIONS 395-071 Duties to be Performed Within Time Llmils If the governing body of the political subdivision does not perform a duty imposed under this chapter within the prescribed period, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land on which an impact fee has been paid has the right to present a written request to the governing body of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be performed within 60 days after the date of the request. If the governing body of the political subdivision finds that the duty is required under this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days after the date of the request and continue until completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Ixg., ch. 1, § 82(a), cff. Aug, 28, 1989. 395.072 Records of Hearings I i A r %ord must be made of any public heating provided for by this chapter. The record shall be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10 years after the date of the hearing. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg„ ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 391.073 Cumulative Effect of State and Local Restrictions Any state or local restrictions that apply to 'he imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision where an impact fee is propose] are cumulative with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1, § 82! W. Aug, 18, 1989. 395.074 Prior Impact Fees Replaced by Fees Under This Chapter . An impact fee that is in place on June 20, 1987, must be replaced by an impact fee made under this chapter on or before June 20, 1990. 1lowevcr, any political subdivision having an impact fee that has not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20, 1988, is liable to any party who, after June 20, 1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maximum permitted under Subchapter A by more than 10 percent for an amount equal to two times the difference between the maximum impact fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch, 1, § 82(a), off, Aug. 28, 1989. 395,075 Nu Effect on Taxes or Other Charges phis chapter does not prohibit, affect, or regulate any tax, fee, charge, or asscssmcnl specifically authorized by state law, r1auVi x1 Gri fish k A,mrlun. 1 ,r D. n. 1• r -7- t~ x ALI 10 32 ~Q ® i. J ' tD ,f f r CHAPTER 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE l I I Added by Acts 1989,71' Leg„ ch. 1, § 82(a), cff. Aug, 28, 1989. 395.076 Moratorium on Development Prohibited ' I A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of awaiting the completion of all or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update the impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71"Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395,077 Appeals (a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies within the political subdivision and who is aggrieved by a final decision is entit?rd to trial de novo under this chapter. ' (b) A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee. (c) Except for roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to specific performance of the services by the political subdivision for which the fee was paid. (d) This section does not require construction of a specific facility to provide the services, (e) Any suit must be filed in the county in which the major part of the land area of the political subdivision is located, A successful litigant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court cores. Added by Acts 1989, 7l" Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 395.078 Substantial Compliance With Notice Requirements An impact fee may not be held invalid iecause the public notice couirements were not complied with if compliance was substantial and in good faith. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. n i 395.079 Impact Fee for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous County (a) Any county that has a population of 2.2 million or more or that borders a county with a population of 2.2, million or more, and any district or authority created under Article XVi, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution within any such county that is authorized to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized O to impose impact fees to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control O • improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (b) The imposition of impact fees authorized by Subsection (a) is exempt from the requirements of Sections 395.025, 395,052.395.057, and 395.074 unless the political subdivision proposes to inctease the impact fee. (c) Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise contractually obligate all of pan of the impact fees to the payment of n. ' Aernes r.e 1,.1 r.,Jr6 R. rlnvid M , t;r,, • 'r ?5 K ~fJ 32XI❑ 1 + : CIIAPTER395 LockLGOVERINNIENT CODE principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued cr incurred by or on behalf of the political subdivision and to -the payment of any other contractual obligations. (d) An impact fee adopted by a political subdivision under Subsection (a) may no, be reduced if-, (1) the political subdivision has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part of the impact fees',) the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the pcduical subdivision; and (1) the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact fees during the term of the bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations. Added by Acts 1989, 71" Leg., ch 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 29, 1989. 395.080 Chapter Not Applicable to Certain 1Vater-Related Special Districts (a) Thi; chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions: i (1) paid by or charged to a district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution to another district crested under that constitutional provision if br .n districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; or (2) charged by an entity if the impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or { contributions are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (a) Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article 111, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution may petition the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for approval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The commission shall adopt r-iies for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shill require notice substantially the same as that required by this chapter for the adoption of impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected parties to participate. Added by Acts 1989, 7ln Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug, 28, 1989. Amended by • Acts 1995, 74° Leg., ch. 76, § 11.257, eff. Sept. I, 1995. 395.081 Fees for Adjoining Landowners In Certain Municipalities j } (a) This section applies only to a municipality with a population of 105,000 or less that constitutes more than three-fourths of the population of the county in which the 0 majority of the area of the municipality is located, 0 • (b) A municipality that has not adopted an impact fee under this chapter that is constructing a capita: improvement, including sewer or waterline or drainage or roadw3 facilities, from the municipality to a development located within or outside the mum7ipality's boundaries, in its dis etion, may allow a landowner whose land adjoins th,~ capital improvement or is within a specified distance from the capita! David h1 rrif A A, Ati uivr4 1 rd i - 25. x ❑ 32 X I O . .61 . nr«w r ~ . ~ 1. ~ F 1f Q.~ i A ~ ! t i A , I 4~ AK~y~i~d I . , I q u y • Y ' uyy. ~\tb 1 ~ V 4 l i i . .....CHAPTER , „ L 395 LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE improvement, as determined by the governing body of the municipality, to connect to the capital improvement if: (f) the governing body of the municipality has adopted a finding under Subsection (c); and (2) the landowner agrees to pay a proportional share of the cost of the capital improvement as determined by the governing body of the municipality and agreed to by the !andowner. (a<) Before a municipality may allow a landowner to connect to a capital improvement under Subsection (b), the municipality shall 7dopt a finding that the mur icipality will benefit from allowing the landowner to cc,Ymect to the capital improvement. The finding shall describe the benefit to be received by the municipality. (b) A determination of the governing body of a municipality, or its officers or employees, under this section is a discretionary function of the municip:,? y and the municipality and its officers or employees are not liable for a determb.ition made under this r section. h f Added by Acts 1997, 75'h Leg., ch. 1150 § 1, efT. June 19, 1997. j t, i I I i ! r. f $4 • David M, Cr flith k Mociateq 1 td Panr ~SK 10 36 X s ~A S ! . n 9 a t o r a` ~ d I y'i~ f• ~'r IY v M n~ln f n r [ •'~~rY: , n 'i•. ~ f.3 f.r ~ ~ 1,,, r1'. r • ~ r 1 . r. I r. ,r r.~. s1:,A ,.L Frp:ARA'bih„ u. •34'R.:; Ih ?.4°4:'i' ~~it`%'A~i'iY1dc T:1Y~3i"^'Ir'frYflJd.J'xh4V,AVRiMAtMIVw'.y wtwh'. r 1'i 'Ir' AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda NO-7 ' ol 'I Agenda Ire AGENDA DATE: April 17,1998 Date DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM/DCMlACM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT I Review and discuss the current joint use agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District for possible revision. g @4CK,GROUND y Or. December 20, 1983, the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District entered into a joint use agreement to provide for the shared nse of City and School District property for dvcational and leisure related activities. The agreement has served as a guideline for many successful joint projects. Review of the current agreement and possible revisions to provide a broader joint use agree tent that addresses facilities and servict s and the coordination of future joint efforts is needed. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT In order to draft the revisions end allow the City Council and Board of Trustees to review the proposed joint use agreement, an estimated six months would be necessary. F5AL INFORMATION ljwi Adoption of a revised joint use agreement would continue to provide the citizens of Denton the best services with the least possible expenditure of public funds. I EXHIBITS ,I Joint Use Agreement dated December 20, 1983 I Respectfully submitted: a Ted Benavides~,p, I " a City Manager ` f , 14 I t E r s' e< 1t, Je ^1 1 r' y A r 1fF' x e l' ~ f 1 .1 P , 1 t L ` i y , I 1 j. F Y I f ~'w f / In P ~ t rr r4 r 1 ~ f. 1 r I r. 'r { 4IN' 1 ~ I Y , I u 1 .1 , r! Y r i L fa71'~~t}},..~L•~:jP'S4r~t~'~lr+s~.FJ~R.+ -+TR~.l'Y~1~"~7'irC.a~:.~~fl ~ ~ ~YA. aj^y:r,;ie,fi, 1C1'S~~r w y.';eJ'} i ,n ria«. raY+~•••,=a♦an • .31L: !al a ...a^~} v ~~a~a++ 7 r.~..~w~ ...i.~.:4iV+..~+,il.rw:tunY+lAbid: akv "e7YF.li'.iF`~LL~;~1r a,i~ r i,►vaahV!'.ti,61mn. ,1. ' ze,a:a3s' N t ~ raassat~rat.,astr~ ~3,)i3 -~:r~tz`t'aarakl~asa w~re~ ' N S,A t s ~ P 3 S aI a ,~kfft(,, a ~y P ~t i f~ r ~y ~ I I 1 r.1 h ; ~ ' r I II ' ' it I AA~x`y' r I a - ti 1'r g' CITV of DCall Y, TEXAS v~naate ~ ?(v r. +(.t 4r. ra :~Cr Sr, Itl e•ca 'a I N_ P 1 P ll f_. t9: Pv Itv 1'.c rer n, 1eri tin' 1:I to ua,as•r FPTt; St•re .^r lnl •ar, Dlrt'ctnr, hrk5 and Pee r,a t!un p 4T:. _:<r l;. 1915 at+l. 5"11..... ,wnt ract vl th 0['• J + y ~yl; PIP A" f i o I at n h d a Co- a to nt reet vPl eh vt 11 ore rn ' la s r, tof rt J" of CL a,. nT [a..n it1 7hlI ' rrc+e,t Ir ah 1 1 r.. ~ vlti•'.~1. thli ry t'rli}~ 511d rl pn3n5 a 5311-,. t9 1 ]'er, r r i of J rtnn lhlch has ~ jy,~~+'f Stral hvnn d' r5 rr•d r k^~,/J a Thr a • l1 PL - •ea !on rev,nr by Fornan DI.-r n rl Sc ho 11 F. Inrat th. LISDthe cc It it tut 41 np as 't19 tv C.nter at that t Fa [:4 y~!S Ir,u et-n S•Sn,073r. Th. DI SD v1II also t!r eI It (roc u+i nq ar rr PA rk IF ur 1t. ff IIcal e:f .;rat[on pror rae ;t the new r. tat S: h. o1 Itnew nq thrv eoulI use the pa r1, the CISD . r})J,5 s5r tbt .n ^vr hr e5 arJ for •he 5; to. fg7a y.~`L 1-' ae a15 h.n•r it frry th11 a„r - ~r py hevi nq a pHCrlt/ uIAP0. any l h of vh.1t (o<II[II11 s d nv r Ifclrs the (vt... need (Sr puhi lC - a}~. I L,w rrr rr It Von hH11!!g5 dvr t, r: r•.n nr schnal fac 111 tl"fr `t ve`10 a t F; 0 1~ ~ ~ as 1 ':g~'~F~ qyy MJI I I ~ ~ ~ INS 1 r r r i.j (l A M a~ * +S 1 ~ t LY~~Fr') fr'~ e ~ • Y 1 IP'/ A s r ~,fid 1k LJf i/ + Lir at' Q1''r~S~'f h(aI :p T "E a 511 7;'i'" ~ rats,, t. 2r) 10 32XIO I + I I Ct41"w O :''td Jry re ar r u r 4ti, G ri 3~.'^, ~°9T tdY +i¢~ Q~ ~j.i~J~ ~~~yp~~~ S~~i! '.V ~Y~ y•, A ~.t°~f~ WY 'q}~{'~f a fY may. T~~~ai~~ I °d' ftid`Q,,i4'at t I{J~d b l~r llSli~~{' ~1 d r Y yi r l Leis OJ•r w n 1 yvn 'l . e x r a ° 3 d' 'Lo t'' F ¢ "dPr4 as 1 y. I ~ ~ r a e ti a ~ r rry'1. "t~ r.'t~ t'.i, ~'r♦ rr'6 S~ S~ r° r rap~}d w 't.y ~it~ rrl ~4'~.. ~~d+'. ~~t~w*$iy~ a 'ty ar, ,^{~,{r l~ La'a!"°" etei ~J• a~i 7~A'rl lat n rI fr.l Y.l t y,yi y '17r, , ti Y Vy CJ a i~4 `1'~'.wlit y"+r ~,r h; t ' }n411 Y 4 a p I I~ °I. 1 r ✓ ~ e 1 y r tK J 1 of t}~ i~ r ~ JrY.} ai t ~ ~ Y° ~ 1 ~ np ~ ~ ~ rd'.S+j ~ a~ a 'f~ a1 i 4 r fl~t Itf rd Yr,y i~iwJ-~~''~firl ,k~"~✓r1 f,yl."tldai~ ~~.r Ya rar f'~I tr w w r,J IJ 1/L i nyY~S a' t aI ~A4 y 1 A . r,$f 'ri I r(3n I..'~ I ~S:Y,..Jl ~ew.'6e('M..,R~..sr1i.>14`, ;+.L,Y: °~1 it~1.5G'i~ s~'~~P h^tti~l~{'~~'~~iS• l~ f til 1 k r „ I '•:J7Y-JI CtM'70~V, 7 EXAS,IYpt'R~A~yt'rlrt t`~ r ,a fr,d ,y ✓l w.~€~ ~.+~nr~ t C 3vw ~ rlj'~t ,tlwt~a i of J ~ J/1 I ~r~ ~4 ''^E. ~1✓~k~ ~fa~ ,y~. 4r Y t 7 J, f ° et qq ♦fa N l _~ly ~ K7 a~-0~d3 i~ 14~~'~y+9~rrr44`rb,.ll~7t r'; ~1"q°~'. g,"er s ~ q G r• Y r MYit#r 1 t r'. ApM w r r .!°,l 4 ~~~j e rfJ , e r~ N ,r, ~ 1+f° 7 r t , w e y S ~aJ. r I C'1'y~•i ~ !w ✓1'dan °E ~e~kT r r t ar ~ . r,~:,; Y I~'Vi t ~ (Y4 aye 11 r; A Y d r ~ if a r ' 1 ~e j w ' • rl r ~ i r;w •d.':~ rt a rift ~a•h' ~'+i~h ''1:' Irr,d . r s l i 1 s 1 4 r~ k~ y{,F 1{ 1 7 J i?t 51 i,r p rv} t 1 tr r'~';a dt 4 7~~ Y t ~ rTr ' ~e A C~ ~ ' 4 ~'J '.i l rr 4d, r ' a` ~T ti 1 'd a/l a" v ~r tihf~y~, i~ rw u, R,/ ~y ~f+1~' a 1# aL7' S~gg 'r k w ~ ~ 0 t ~J i f~A~ 1iR1 ~F ~ r Uwd ✓a~~~ of n, 7 4 ;1 1 n 'j 4 } +.r fY r°Y ,Ji~~r rtJ {t tr r~Y ~+`yµT~{~r yJ' art~~~ tl a`! 7 d 'r+ I.ft r 'r7w ~i °11I al Y:°, t d )t rya etl b'4'iF~ yy la~'i~~j"~ ~~~Tl t✓ ya~'1'iCaYyv +r,~a t`~ ° 1 e i a +Y~ 7a J ^ ~ ~ pe yp ~ /J ~ ~ Y ° . ri7 a7 ~ y 4 a ~f ~ 7tl ' r i~Ar (t'a~~~ t Jn rS'~ rye d tlYj -.114 '1"Y ~i~7}~i'~1 r e S~ 17 0) 1 ~r5".~t`'.}~!F 4+it ~11 ' o r ' r ~ S' ~Y ,•e 'j.i r• ~1'tr ~k,f, 1 7~gJ,~~~i1~~1e♦ f fYY K~ f. ~w 6~{ ' h ♦1,1'r i i il;'rs~q wlf~~' ~""'FH~~~+d 3f v~N r rwJ'~ t A: ;f rye yr b b. '~~r jr'+'dr a' }f t.{~.?y'~Ff .1c0 q r 1ta ~S ~ i 1} bal J' Ott 1J WSb + a.l,~•<5r'f ar'i~~ ~3 7:~L ~a, cc6.~~=Yr ~.1' - 5 rd fr err, rd:." 1 I } b',°D~' Y 4 <.4' ; i INA- o "A1a "'Y ~E `4 ° p,rh~'f~rlwVMf~L'l+IG.'CrJ'1 k~!'YiS~ K9y.°`~~ S"jj',r iC 4~~3rMZ sJ^J.~t°la1~h1 ti y VaWC' r , +~fm?t a'gU~~k A~46~'f{'F~iC;:t'~+~ i f µY7r ?w, fr' iJr r,~ y Y `'Tl.1a+~r i#A S Q["' r '~r r i~+Ylf'aA q7~ Y, j IM ,,M1[i,~'' ~ [~,?~,31 al v'^7''~1 w'. q I nrf ! 1 f,?S^ 5 ^1w q''J, ~'~~`j' T' n i j ` l.•) 14 f F S+ . i I! Y r Y a r b l q r ` 1 p J ~ R a e! q v ra n tY 4i',~" Yi'q'r~~r1`~'d~}Yi it 1,d ~YK 4r.A a°MK l~'r ~Akyi.r"'' d~ r ~,l h',Ck4 YF `yp"w. u ~f~q✓i r.,i ~'l a.r +!Y ' ~ kf'r fit n M P +7{, f-"~Y a ~ ~ + r^~ A+~' ~ • e Y~i w ~ ~ +5:♦ ..11.'.G~'.SS.. :~.Ha.A~ 'i]. Jn 1.~iq',JFi6~.4 ° , Y1 a f 4 r w , f „ ~ aps jA OiS, } i I ~ r'dE r' + ,A11' °x r 'J, J v or i 14 , ~4 t r S • Yf s 1 f r r r Y 't r n~ q.. J qrl w ^ v, r r I e " a , . Y 1 rl L 1'11 r r~x~ : " CSi. 7~.., ~l~# ' 1~K q f Ia+~ J isr^ it sly aYr~. Y ei1i, y.A ~~r lr ft"Y giMl~) >t~~ il' + r r i , e ^ 1 r + Yy I 1 I Y , "T. a ~ ,,E ~P. C~ 4 tr do ,M( 5 d J I r r°,Y~ ' f ,o y 'r 1 i f. Y 7-, f C ` 71 L rir X. 1 , Y t ( ~ f ','A .4 i ti §J,` Y I. ~aF'1a I I'll I l ~ Io f r ♦ r q. . A . ` I( `Y °r ti , S y a l r R~ ~ { e ~ i 3~ rril !a f + I^ ~ ~1 j Sp W~11 ~R:~{> Yi~~r~l", K- r ~PIT f. ~T a f 'G 7 ~~yy,`r Pa 1,i 7_ r ky~yny~~(,♦IJ'V+y~>1!~{/J1JI C~' IIi~M,~{' F •YlE i1~f NJ o a - M" . ° ~~;f J 32x1 Ci ~ 1.. 9 , A 1}u'~A 1 o f A l c f II ! ~;.r 1 7 t o '.Y 1 - I~~ I~ c n 1 i) 1~! I n ~A . I ~ ~ 1 1 ~ r • n ,1 '1 1 4~i t I ~ pJ ' I I O , . r f i 1h r V r • : rr 1 ' ~y~y Y. _w~~Y.1CMMS]!R4~l/YM~+~•-mac. '."t1Elli♦'1'~.+LYI k^ i'114LLF 4~`M7`~'R,lr~'yy1lG~. CW ~IPC J~ Jf 1'i. r ' a In IW! ~ I Milo, MU0.99. r.•yL~CS~Y~ac[.fRfD1Ri~wtsp~'., _ _ _ _ 1 1 i Y' 'f H { ~ ``III 1 r I ^iI + 1 Y 1 n .4 . nl' r : _ r I 91 r 4 "N!Y 2` //TI f u + t. f• t A , k v Sgy';Y SS M r y v n 75 X ~C~ 32x14 "IMNAPNI r r. 'C f L 'r t r f Y f 11 rr.,v r.~l ~ ,Y ~ I 9 r) ,1 I 1 1 . 1 I , , e Y, ( I V r \ 1. 1 I r ! l3 ` F 1 4n ~ 1' , • a r ~ 1 Y ;aM..arn 1 , yI • I r city of Denton city council minutes 01 Meeting of December 20, 1913 Page Three Consent Agendas A. Bide and Purchase Otderr n 1. Bid 09202 - Reciprocating Mater Chiller Unit 2. Bid 89206 - Tiffs and Tito Service 3. Bid 09213 - Paver Rescue Toole 61 Bid 09216 - Protective Clothing S. Purchase Order 060601 - JS Equipment in exceed or 13,000.00 6, Purchase Order 060936 - Bolain equipment in excess of 63,000,00 7. Purchase Order 061295 - Aimbal Audio-visual in C0 excete of 13,000.00 (n S. Plato and Replete Q 1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Snider Addition, (The Planning and toning Commission recommends approval.) 2. Consider vacation of final plat of the McAninch Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval,) 1. Consider quitclaim of fifty (50) feet of public right-of-way dedicated tot Continental Street in the McAninch Addition in the City of Denton, (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval,) 1. Approval of the preliminary plat of lot 10, block 1, Minter Addition (lhe planning and toning Commission recommends approval.) 1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Hickory Creak Park Addition, (The Planning and Zoning Conietion recommends approval.) C. Contracts y 1. Approval of an agreement with the Denton Independent School District and the City of Denton for joint usage and development of school and city facilities. (The Parke and Recreation Board recommends approval.) 2. Approval of tetsval of a maintenance contract with TRBS for the utility billing system. D, Tax Refunds , ® . i 1. Approval of a tax rotund to Vie. Life Title company of Denton tot erroneous payment of 1113 City of Denton taxes in the amount of 1570,61, t B. Paymentes 1, Approval of invoice for 1911 membership duet to the Texas Public Paver Alsoeiation. (The Public utility Board recommends Approval.) K X - 2 5 1 32 , eweo~ Moslem ..a1 iii . ~ a.i THE STATE OF TEXAS S KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTSt COUNTY OF DENTON This Agreement is entered into this "Ll day of 1957, between the City of Denton, Texas, a Municipal Corporation, herein referred to as "City", and the Denton Independent School District, herein referred to as "School District", to provide for the shared use of City and School District property on the terms and conditions herein statedi I WITNESSETH, WHEREAS, the governing bodies of the City and the School District are mutually interested in an adequate program of educational and leisure related activities which can best serve the citizens of Denton most effectively and sconomicallyl and WHEREAS, full cooperation between the City and the school District is necessary to achieve the best service with the least possible expenditure of public fundar NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, said City and said School District do now agree to cooperate with each other in carrying out the above purposes, and to that and do agree as follows 1. The School District will make available to the City for community leisure activities all school areas and facilities which are suitable for community leisure activities) these areas and facilities are to be selected by the City Manager, or his designee, subject to the approval of the Superintendent of the School District, or his designee. 2. The City will make available to the School District for school events, activities and/or programs all City parks and recreational facilities which are suitable for said events, activities ■nd/or programs. The areas ■nd facilities ars to be ` selected by the Superintendent of the School District, or his designee. 1. All area or facility rules and regulations will apply to the user of the area or facility. 4. A schedule of dates for the use of City e"sas or facilities will be worked out in advance by the School District, and this schedule will be submitted to the City for review on an annual basis, or more frequently, so that conflicts are avoided between ' City and School District usage. In the scheduling of City areas S and facilities the City will have first priority, school events , and programs will have second priority and other groups of y agencies will have third priority. 11~ S. A schedule of dates for the use of School District areas or facilities will be worked out in advance by the V ty, and this schedule will be submitted to the School District for review on PAGE 1 s ' p ~anm~ae~ I c an annual basis, or more frequently, so that conflicts are avoided between school District and City usage. In the scheduling of School District areas and facilities the School District will have first priority, City events and programs will have second priority and other groups or agencies will have third priority. 6. The user of an area or facility will iurnish and supply all expendable materials and supplies necessary for carrying out 1 the program. i 7. Non-expendable equipment or supplies can be arranged for use through the area or facility manager. S. The City and the School District will reimburse each other for any property damages arising out of the joint use of facilities provided for in this agreement. 9. The agencies agree to only those charges as llstedt (a) A charge for utilities which will be factored on the approximate cost of the utilities used f in the area or facility due to the program or event. (b) A charge for a person who is an employee of the agency supplying the area or facility to be there during the use to supervise the area or facility, if that person was not normally scheduled during that time. 10. Maintenance, custodial and clean-up costs for the area or facility will not be charged unless the area or facility was subjected to other than normal usage and wear or if the facility was used at s time when custodial services were not available and It was determined the facility needed custodial attention because of the use. 11. Cancellation notice of areas or facllltiee by the owner agency will be provided to the user agency not less than four (4) weeks nor more than ten (10) weeks In advance of the use. 12. Both agencies agree that all future land acquisition for parks or school sites will be discussed jointly as those needs w atiee so that cooperative development can occur. Final - determination of the school site rests with the School District. . Final determination of the City site rests with the City. 13. both agencies shall cooperate to make information about their respective and joint programs available to the public. 14. It Is agreed that the City and the School District shall continue to aesrch for new arses of cooperation and to that and shall meet regularly together, along with Interested community groups and appropriate City and School District administrative ' officials. 15. It Is agreed that the terms of this agreement may be y~ altered upon mutual consent of the City and the School District. f 16. It is further understood and agreed that either patty to this agreement may at any time terminate this agreement upon giving, in writing, to the other petty twelve (12) months notice of its intention to terminate same. PACE 2 25 ~u 32xI❑ .I,' rv r t r e tv y t~ .1 , . ti9/ tl~, is/ah~ t I i. P 1 r ~r 7 S r r 1 a i f I w ~ 1 1 to I J t r IJeewel\ 1. r r' ~ ~r r ~ YPI I l "1 ! r ~r 4 ' L I I l I 1 M1 oy e I I a ~ + I~..- ~ rr I . t 11 r I ~ i r r ...n. nM a.r. ~'I 1' . i,'.. i 17. This agreement supersedes all prior facility agreements + now in effect. ' EXECUTED this the 'u~ n ;i.t day of 198). i{ ~ fi'J11 % CITY OP DENTON, TEXAS DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT i Bye R RD T, ]it'~~1bA~~~ AhYTJR ATTESTi ATTESTi CITY SECRETARY CITY OP DENTON DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMi C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY CITY Or DENTON, TEXAS Bye l i ;I I! fi I I % I F r I I `2 X 10 3 10, I , tl f I ~ , e I , * I l e ~I ) ) 1. I 11 .t ..rll v I 4FAAWM { 4 ti , ~ p,a r r r i y• t. , I ) City of Denton city council minutes 497 1 Meeting of December 20, 1983 ` Page Three 1 Consent Agendat A. Bids and Purchase Orders! o 1. Bid #9202 - Reciprocating Water Chiller Unit 2, Bid #9208 - Tires and Tire Service 3. Bid #9213 - Power Rescue Toole 4, Bid #9214 - Protective Clothing S. Purchase Order #60401 - JS Equipment in excess of $3,000.00 6 Purchase Order #60934 _ 8olain Equipment in excess of $3,000.00 7, Purchase Order #61255 - Kimbal Audio-Visual in (Y) excess of $3,000.00 CO B, Plate and Replats Q 1. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Snider Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval,) 2. Consider vacation of final plat of the McAnineh Addition, (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 3. Consider quitclaim of fifty (50) feet of public j right-of-way dedicated for Continental Street in the McAninch Addition in the City of Denton, (The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval.) 4. Approval of the preliminary plat of lot lR, block 1, Hinter Addition (The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval.) S. Approval of the preliminary plat of the Hickory Creek Park Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) C. Contracts 1. Approval of an agreement with the Denton Independent School District and the City of Denton for joint usage and development of school and city facilities, (The Parks and Recreation Board recommends approval.) 2. Approval of renewal of a maintenance contract with TRES for the utility billing system. D. Tax Refund: 1. Approval of a tax refund to U.S. Life Title Company of Denton for erroneous payment of 1983 City of Denton taxes in the amount of $570.66. E. Payments, p 1. Approval of invoice for 1984 membership dues to 1M/ the Texas Public Power Association, (The Public Utility Board recommends approval,) n x ? 32X i " illpl/IfAI e ~ ` , THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTSt § ~ww~w This Agreement is entered into this day of f1 y? 1983, between the City of Denton, Texas, a Municipal Corporation, herein referred to as "City", and the Denton Independent School District, herein referred to as "School District", to provide for the shared use of City and School District property on the terms and conditions herein statedt WITNESSETHi WHEREAS, the governing bodies of the City and the School District are mutually interested in an adequate program of educational and leisure related activities which can beet serve the citizens of Denton most effectively and economicallyt and WHEREAS, full cooperation between the City and the School District is necessary to achieve the beat service with the least possible expenditure of public funds; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, said City j and said School District do now agree to cooperate with each other in carrying out the above purposes, and to that end do agree as'followsi 1. The School District will make available to the City for community leisure activities all school areas and facilities which are suitable for community leisure activitiest these areas and facilities are to be selected by the City Manager, or his designee, subject to the approval of the Superintendent of the School District, or his designee. 2, The City will make available to the School District for school events, activities and/or programs all City parks and recreational facilities which are suitable for said events, activities and/or programs. The areas and facilities are to be selected by the Superintendent of the School District, or his designee. 3. All area or facility rules and regulations will apply to the user of the area or facility. 4. A schedule of dates for the use of City areas or facilities will be worked out in advance by the School District, and this schedule will be submitted to the City for review on an annual • basis, or more frequently, so that conflicts are avoided between City and School District usage. In the scheduling of City areas and facilities the City will have first priority, school events and programs will have second priority and other groups or agencies will have third priority. , 5. A schedule of dates for the use of School District areas or facilities will be worked out in advance by the City, and this O schedule will be submitted to the School District for review on O • PAGE 1 2S El 32X i s . amass Y 1 an annual basis, or more frequently, so that conflicts are s avoided between School District and City usage. In the scheduling of School District areas and facilities the School District will have first priority, City events and programs will have second priority and other groups or agencies will have third priority. ' 6. The user of an area or facility will furnish and supply all expendable materials and supplies necessary for carrying out I the program. 7 Non-expendable equipment or supplies can be a;:.,:n9ed for use through the area or facility manager. 8. The City and the School District will reimburse each other for any property damages arising out of the joint use of facilities provided for in this agreement. 9. The agencies agree to only those charges as listed (a) A charge for utilities which will be factored on the approximate cost of the utilities used in the area or facility due to the program or event. (b) A charge for a person who is an employee of the agency supplying the area or facility to be there during the use to supervise the area or facility, if that person was not normally scheduled during that time. 10. Maintenance, custodial and clean-up costs for the area or facility will not be charged unless the area or facility was subjected to other than normal usage and wear or if the facility was used at a time when -qustodial services were not available and it was determined the facility needed custodial attention because of the use. 11. Cancellation notice of areas or facilities by the owner agency will be provided to the user agency not less than four (4) weeks nor more than ten (10) weeks in advance of the use. 12. Both agencies agree that all future land acquisition for parks or school sites will be discussed jointly as those needs arise so that cooperative development can occur, Final determination of the school site rests with the School District. Final determination of the City site rests with the City. 13. Both agencies shall cooperate to make information about their respective and joint programs available to the public. 14. It is agreed that the City and the School District shall continue to search for new areas of cooperation and to that and shall meet regularly together, along with interested community r groups and appropriate City and School District administrative offi.ials. 15. It is agreed that the terms of this agreement may be altered upon mutual consent of the City and the School District. 16. It is further understood and agreed that either party to this agreement may at any time terminate this agreement upon giving, in writing, to the other party twelve (12) months notice of its intention to terminate same. PAGE Z h~R f ~}Y r° r• Y. X10 32x14 . "i , .f i,, i r+ k t r i ~ ti'1 ~r:5 M71 I 1 i.l ,.r;:~r 1 r, A ,1~(y I • iv I r .r J , a r xweywe 17. This agreement supersedes all prior facility agreements now in effect. Yk- ( f EXECUTED this the IQ_ day of `L Iirov,lc!~ , 1983. CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 9 + By l BY; _ R HARD . ST R'1MAYOR 7 'IFItED HILL, PR PNTf ATTESTt ;sTTESTs CITY SECRETARY SEC TAR CITY OF DENTON DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT I , ' APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMI 4 C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS t BY \ f r r PAGE 3 s' d 1 101 32X f % O { Agenda No__29 0j_ Agenda it ' Date Denton Independent School District Student Assistance Program 0 b Larry Mankoff, Coordinator buy, ✓ 909 Linden Denton, Texas 76201 (940) 387.6025 STUDENT RESOURCE OFFICERS PROGRAM BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT In April, 1958, the Denton I.S.D. Student Assistance Program expanded it's concerns for safety by adding a Student Resource Officer to the staff. This position was funded through the local school budget. Through numerous meetings with Chlef Jez, the Director of Secondary Education, Ron Arrington, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Board reflecting district and community representatives, a program for drug prevention and safety was developed to include this officer. It was decided by all parties that this individual would have the following profile: • non-uniformed • unaffiliated with any law enforcement agency • an employee of the Denton I.S.D. • unarmed • supervised by the Director of Secondary Education Because the district was embarking on unchartered territory for drug prevention in North Texas, we found ourselves feeling our way through the process. While anecdotally, we can say several positives came from this effort, there were many lessons to be learned; 1) while it's Important for the officer to be friendly, an "officer friendly" was not effective in drug prevention and safety maintenance 2) having a single individual cover all. secondary campuses significantly diluted his exposure and potential effectiveness 3) being unaffiliated with a local law enforcement agency left him feeling disenfranchised from the support agencies 4) being unarmed and un-uniformed reduced his credibility to enforce the law, 1 At the end of the 1992 -'93 school year, the Student Resource Officer position was dropped through attrition. Concerns for school safety however, continue to be an issue for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Advisory Board. Annually, the Board ` recommends a revisiting of the SRO program. Most recently, with a review of the 32X1 El % .y.~ 1 1 ly S• f I~. tr i ' r , N , r r e 1 1 r t r , i • e, x , rrraarw r I; - , , ,a~aaaw I1 1 r 1994/1997 Student Drug Use Surveys and the annual Safe and Drug-Free Schools Evaluations reflecting campus violence and increases in police calls to the D.I.S.D. campuses, urgency to address these concerns through an SRO program are highly indicated. Below is a list of area school districts who currently employ an SRO program. Where possible, I have also attached contact names and numbers. They have offered to provide district and city representatives information regarding their programming, funding, and management protocols. I have also attached a couple of Memorandums of Understanding for your review. We have had several discussions with the Police Department regarding the development of job descriptions and lines of supervision. I believe that our working collaborations set the stage for an outstanding program and continued, positive t relationships with the Denton Police Department. 4 • Lewisville ISD Officer Jesse Flores-(972) 221.3535 EX7,110 • Coppe111SD Officer Le Day- (972) 471-2002 • The Colony ISD Officer Brockway - (972) 625-9000 EXT,137 • Carrollton/Farmers Branch i Officer Rosenipal • (972) 323-5700 I • Plano ISD { Officer Smithart - (972) 847.2463 • KellerlSD Debbie Steele (817) 337-3350 • NorthWest ISD (940)648.2611 • Grand Prairie ISD • Irving ISD I 0 • Dallas & Ft. Worth ISD r ~M -x 0. 32 x I ❑ ' ~ v f + r~r < ~s x 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ sY r i a tit n' { E 1 9"* r u ' w i ~ r, y y i~ ~ l r • D I„~ r'tkl d k -1 3~ 1 ~ r S r ~ r~ ~ r ~ar ~ rtf r ~ R ~,r ~1 f `rl % ,'}r r a+. Y f.~, Y w S if l~ yr 0 ^ s n. .4 1 P u ' 5 ,saws" r r, L F. " l•~ ~.1 r, r • 1.~ 1 t ~ fr i Il x I < i+1"J + ili art r u ..,nrwYK-..,i,r..e ...»..rw w...wr,rnr 4{, .4P-'.. ~u..~~.,. 1.4raN y,.' x2/19/1999 13:19 9723333943 MrELLHIGII SCHWX PAGE e2 ' i Yt FILE COPY I MEMORAPIDMI To: Cloy P b[LfPsr Deputy manager ct h' , From: David C. Miller, Police Chief , % Datet August 9, 1996 Subject: School Rcloarce Met The Police Depertosrnt in corJmcdon with the Coppell Independent School DbtrkI developed It School Resource Officer Program desillud for knpiementation duff the 119907 school year, This proposal was approved by dx City of Coppell several nsonths ago and forwarded to the CISD for budgetary consideration. The proposal requires the CISD to pay for the annual salary and benefiu of one full time police officer position that would primarily be usigned to the Coppell t" I High School. The mtnual salary end benefits computed es of 2/%would be $37,317; It b understood that this salary level m-11 Increase beginning October 11 1996 and would need to be re- computed. The Police Departmect would Wye, train, certify and equip this officer, CISD Superintendent Buddy Echols has notified me that the District would be willing to pay for salary and benefits of the officer for the time period that the officer Is actually assigned to the school, Le., August, 1996 thru Mcy, 1997 or 10/12's of the year. The cost orthe minty and benefits of the counter proposal would be $31,133. The remaWng 2112's of the year would be covered by the City at in expense of approximately $6,232. During this two month period (June d July) the offcer would be asstgned to supplement the patrol function. " The School District would lke to start this position as soon u possfbte to coincide with the ^ beginning of the school year. Ifth=s counter proposal meets with your approval we would Eke to I ' begin the hiring process for ibis offcer from our existing eligibility W. ~0 r. y: 32 10 r. • ~,;J Id• ,f r r. 1 x, r r r 9 r r 1 1r 1 ' r. . r 1 S r 02/19/1939 13:19 9723933043 CrlPELUaIGH 97MM PAX 09 Sch rol Resource OJ/tcer Program Proposed Agreement o de 1 I. Coppell Police Department (CPD) will provide one (1) police officer to the SRO Program for the 1 996-97 school year. This officer vdll be "signed primarily to the Coppell ngh School. The officer may be assigned to other C1SD schools at the discretion of CPl? end CISD Administrators. inistrators. S~Q1gAS11li1F48 3. CoppeU Independent School District (CISD) will pay tha annual salary and primary benefits orone (1) police officer. CISD will be responsible for ail overtime paid to the SRO at school related ftmrctions. P ~.tis11tC11 3. The SRO is an employee of the City of Coppell and the Coppell Police Department and shall be at the control and supervision of their polies supervisor. Complaints or problems with the SKO shalt be dir-cted through their supervisor, 4. SROs will use City vehicles and will carry City radios as well u beepers provided by CISD that will allow contact from CISD while on duty. S, CISD will provide, at no :ost to the City, office space in the high school or middle schools for the SR03 as a report miting/work station aside from their office at the police atadon. 6. The officer will work an 81A hour day and will be permitted a 30 minute lunch period. Like patrol oll'icers, the SRO will be subject to emergency calla during lunch. 7. SROs may be contacted by CISD to deal with law enforcement situations that exceed CISD's ability to handle alminlstrativeiy and/or emergency situations that require rapid police response and the special knowledge or expertise an SRO can oiler. The SRO will take permissible enformt ent action when necessary. ! 8 Nothing in this agreement shall limit or eliminate the need to utilize the 9.1.1 reporting system, or the use orCPD patrol efllcers to handle or rupplement calls for service. Use of 9.1 • l is encouraged rot piority calls even Von SRO Is also called, 9, SROs will be responsible for handling minor, non-priority Incidents typically handled by district officers These Incidents Include, but are not limited to, collisions, burglary/then 0 reports from CISD persornel or students, parking lot devils, Inffic or fife lane violations. ' however, if the SRO is busy patrol officers will respond. _f ~ti K I~ 32XIII i i Y r- I'. Y , l t' ` t v r .q Nai0alal i ( .fir ~ , u..rr.... r,wrv♦ YriMq M.nwr ,.w. _,.v.... I i ~.w...r . ..'.:i 82/19/1999 13:19 9723933943 CDVEL"C" SCHOOL PASS to , 1. r Page 2 r Proposed Agreement School Resource Officer Program a i' 10. SROs shall maintain a close ualson with the patrol officers around their assigned schools. They shall exchange information regarding suspects, incidents, and potential proglems to ensure reasonably coruis:cn enforcement from officer to officer to the extent permitted by law, 11. SROs shall be scheduled to attend and participate In mandatory training set out by law or policy, and in reasonable training programs that d'uecdy impact their ability and skills as 'G SRO. I r 12, The Copped Police Department reserves the right to assign SRO to a police function in the event of an emergency or situation that calls fora call-up of pcesonnei as directed in police oeneral Orders. i; 13. The police department and the school district both reserve the right to limit Binding and/or limit or cancel the SRO Agreement and shall provide 30 days written notice of such intent to the other party, 14. The agreement outomaticdly expires at the end of the 1994-91 school year, and may be renewed annually as agreed upon by the pantes, r' 13. SROs may work part-time off duty jobs at school approved fhnotlorts, subject to departmental guldetnes and the wishes of the officer. The SRO may be given the right to first refusal for school activity of duty-work. Said off-duty employment will be subject to the requirenMnts, if any, of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The panics agree that the employer for these purpors will be the CISD and that the CISD will assume responsibility for any overtime payments, if any, 16. Nothing herein extends or confers legal ctiddement to the officers of the Coppel] Police Department or otherwise affect their relationship a employees of the City of Coppelb•the agreements between the CISD and the City being between the two entities and not a contract witrt the employees ofthe City of Coppell, t • • t r • l i - 25 x ~d 32x~❑ t k' 'i byYw tl t !t" ' + d' z i e r 7 I r.l + ,.w i •02/19/1990 13:19 9723933043 COPPELLHIGH SCHOOL PAGE 11 ` i.1 x PROPOSED 1996-97 S.R.O. PROGRAM PACKAGE u (AS OR 02/2206) r . $al uY ......rrr...,r.,.....rr....,r.,., $70,031.00 r I LongeAty ....r ......r S 80.00 Worker's Compensation r r , r , $ 1,586,00 { a ~ 1 Retlremens r r , $2.715.00 1 Disability DUUMCe r . , , r r S 100.00 Insurance (HWth & Life) . . . . . . . . $2,442.00 1 Medicare . . . , , $ 415.00 Tool Amount To He Funded By C.LSA. ....-$37,387.00 ` I ! 1 tt If a d dr Y b Y,'~+1~' 25 ,,x LJ 2x v i s c I 1997-98 MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING PLANO POLICE DEPARTMENT - PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES The following operational guidelines are adopted for scheollpchca operations during school year 1997.98: 1. Incident - Class C misdemeanors (smoking, consumption or possession of a E alcoholic beverage, fighting or other disorderly conduct) that are Dot observed by a police officer. Guideline - The schools may obtain complaint forms from the City Attomey's ' office. The school employee observing the Incident can fill out the fonts and , deliver h to the municipal court cleric The clerk will have the form revlewed by the city prosecutor who will make the decision to accept the case for prosecution or not. If the case is accepted, the complaining witness will be notified to report to the municipal court where they will sign the complaint in the clerk's presence. 2. Incident - Class C misdemeanors that are observed by the officer. Guldeline - N the officer observes a subject in possession of an alcoholic beverage on school property a citation will be Issued, if the officer observes a subject (under the age of 17 years) consuming an alcoholic beverage on school property the officer will transport the juvenile to the police department where a notice will be issued and a parent will be notrfted to pick the student up. If the officer observes a subject (17 years or older) consuming an alcoholic beverage on school property the officer will arrest and jail the student. If the student Is believed to be Intoxicated; the school administrator will call the 0 police, The responding officer will determine whether the elements justifying an I arrest for public intoxication are present. If the elements exist, the officer will arrest and remove the student. If the officer determines the elements are not present, the school administrator will handle the matter. In the event of a fight the school employee may call an officer who will determine A whether the elements justifying an arrest for disorderly conduct or assault are O present. In the event the officer rinds that these elements are not present, the school employee may file a complaint using the complaint forms provided. Remember, do not sign the complaints except in the presence of the court clerk. t i i Y x I s2 I a J r i t i. 4 AlI1i47AY { r 0 l 1997-98 Memo of Understanding Operatlonal Guldeltnes Page 2 3. Incident - Students found in possession of any controlled substance Guideline - The schcol administrator will call the police wtto will make the decision to arrest or issue a citation. Police officers are not able to arrest on misdemeanors unless that misdemeanor occurs In their presence. 4. Incident - Student found in possession of a (rearm, il!wgal knife or prohibited weapon and that possession is listed as a felony in section 46,03 of the Penal I Code. Guideline - The school administrator will call the police. Once the officer determines that the weapon is listed in the above section, the student will be arrested and charged under section 48.03 of the Penal Code. See 46.03 (f), School administrators are encouraged to involve a liaison officer rf trite situation ~ ~s hazaLus 5. Incident - Students, employees or other witnesses inform the school administrator that an individual had possessed a weapon on school property in the recent past (no longer than rive days). Guideline - The school administrator will call the police who will take the information and ocmplete an offense report. The assigned detective will invesligate the offense. 6. Incident - Trespasser on school property. Guideline - The school administrator will ask the trespasser to leave. H the trespasser refuses, the administrator will rill the police. The responding officer will follow departmental guidelines in handling the call. 7• Incident - A police officer, probation officer, child wetiare officer or other public safety officer reports to the school and requests the administrator to produce a • student for an interview or so that the student may be arrested or taken Into custody. Guideline - Once the school administrator is satisfied with the identfication of the person as an officer; the administrator shall produce the student for the officer, The administrator may request but does not have the right to sit In on an Inlerview. Remember, the student can always refuse the interview, The adminislralor wdl make a reasonable attempt to notify the student's parents that officers are at the school to interview their child If unable to immediately 10 32XIO M+ ' , 1997.98 Memo of Understanding Operational Guidelines Page J 11 - I contact the parent, keep trying until that contact is made. Be sure to explain that the earlier attempts to contact them were made 1 i Remember, school administrators do not have the authority to deny police j officers, juvenile probation officers or child welfare officers access to students: Explain this to the parent if questioned about why you allowed the interview. it you are able to contact the parent and they say that they do not want the police to interview the student, tell them that you will convey their wishes to the officer or allow them to talk with the officer on the telephone: However, you are not required to become an arbitrator between parent and officer, If the parent i comes to the school, let the parent and the officer resolve the Issue. Do not become involved. S~oel administrators not able to notify parents of an err cannot delay or impede the student being removed from campus. When a student is arrested and removed from the school, the school administrator will call the parent to inform them of the arrest, the officer's name and department and the destination of the student, i.e. Plano Police Department or Collin County Juvenile Detention Center In McKinney, The officer shall follow departmental policy regarding the notification of parents following an Interview or arrest. Finally, in some interviews the student's best interest would be served by not calling the parent, i.e. the parent is accused of physical or sexual abuse of the student. If you have a question about such a situation, call your supervisor, Ken Bangs, Keith Sodmell or the Superintendent's office. 8. Incident - A teacher, school counselor or administrator Is assaulted. Guideline - The school administrator shall immediately report the assault to the police, If satisfied that probable cause and staMory authority exists to arrest, the officer shall arrest and remove the student from the campus. Citations will not be Issued for an assault on teachers, school counselors or administrators. g• Incident - Indecent exposure or other sex-ial offenses. Guideline - The school administrator shall notify the police. If satisfied that probable cause and statutory authority exists to arrest, the officer shall arrest and remove the student from the campus. Citations will not be issued for an 0 Indecent exposure on school property. ID -2. X P ~ ~ Y b I! 'y 7 r ~..r i~ , dl 1~ I• 1 ~ ~ K I , Y,' K I. ..7Mi0{~ w.' \ y ~ u R ' F v sy~S l `:ALYMOtr Y i , Y 4 r p ty' ` i F 1997-98 Memo of Understanding ti >i Operadonal Guidelines Page 4 t at 10. t - f3omh Thre s , -y. inciden Guideline - Department Administrative Directive 112,003 will he followed when f ` r officers are responding to bomb threats within the Plano Independent School District. Officers are to remember that the victim or complainant will be responsible for determining what action he or she wishes to take with rasped to the evacuation, searching the building or disregarding the threats. 11. Incident - Drug Interdiction Program Guideline - Plano Independent School District has an active drug Interdiction program. This Is usually done by contract with the private sector. Officers when K, called to the scene of a drug interdiction Incident will take appropriate actlon according to state law and department policy. The Texas Code of Education allows school administrators to conduct searches on school property. School administrators must realize that once the police are called to the scene of an incident, they are In charge of that scene and will make the decisions they feel,are appropriate. As far as possible the oflicers will attempt to follow the proposed guidelines. However, not all lnddents cart be handled the same. I Additionally, please remember that their actions and options are govemed by law and police department policy, 1 i I Date race D. la Chief, Plan lice Department ~ I / I 0: gL Q~199'~ Keith Sockwell~ Date Asst. Superintendent for Admin. Servlces and Human Resources F I 1 ~1 ' I }rli ,7 ! J I L,I y~y`'C$ ' 1 . 4\~, 25 x 32) " ! v 0 1 1 ;I Attachment "1" t I 1997.98 MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING PLANO POLICE DEPARTMENT • PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT i ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES I The following administrative guidelines are adopted for the School Liaison Officer program during school year 1997.98: 1. The School Liaison Officer (SLO) program is provided with the understanding that each school has different needs. School Liaison Officers will provide an approach that is most appropriate for the school they work and the circumstances they encounter. Officers and supervisors will coordinate with school Y; inc N. is and prioritize their work so that 9 helps both the school and the Department reach their stated goals. 2. At the beginning of each school year, the SLO supervisor shall meet with each school principal to determine the most effective hours for the SLO assigned to that school 3. The assignment and scheduling. of offioers to speaic campuses will be coordinated with PISD administrators to ensure the best working relationship possible is maintained. 4. SLO vacancies will be filled according to the procedures of the Plano Police Department. Prforitles for filling these vacancies will be determined by the staffing requirements of the Department in relation to the need for SLO's at the time the vacancy occurs. I S. The Police Department will make every effort to minimize mandatory absences by SLO's from the school campuses. However, there may be occasions due to • mandated training requirements, court attendance, or other situations beyond the control of the SLO which will require their absence. The SLO will keep the principal informed of any of these absences when they occur. s• SLO's atter'Ing school extracurricular activities at the request of principals or other PISD staff in conjunction with their SLO assignments will be compensated • at their overtime rate by PISD. • • I 2 5 x 32 x~1~ , i~ O 01 , t . 1997-98 Memo of Understanding Administrative Guidelines Page 2 7. At the end of each school year, the principal of a school will be asked to comment on the effectiveness of the assigned officer on a form provided by the Police Department. The SLO supervisor will be responsible for providing these evaluations and collecting them. 8. All comments, criticisms, suggestions and recommendations for SLO assignments or performance will be immediately referred, without decay, to the SLO supervisor. The supervisor will be given the opportunity to take the appropriate action to resolve problems or Investigate complaints prior to any other action or decision. I ? 9. The Police Department shall have the final authority In all criminal matters SLO's become involved in as directed by the Plano Police Department policies and procedures, as well as federal, state, and local laws. 10. School administrators must realize that once the police are at the scene of an incident, they are in charge of that scene and will make the decisions they feet are appropriate. Nothing in this memo of understanding or contract should be construed to prevent a police officer from acting solely as a law enforcement peace officer, and, when so doing, the officer shall not be subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement. Nothing In this agreement or the contract shall override any policy or procedure of the Plano Police Department, Please remember that their actions and options are governed by law and Police Depar ant policy. ruce D. ss Data Chlef, PlanoPobbe Department i, } Keith Sockwell Date , Asst. Superintendent for Admin. Services and Human Resources Z i t ' - 25x10 32XIO ' ' 4. 1, 1 L r , r 1 e 0 , i . Agenda No. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/DISD MEETING Agenda !I DATE: April 17, 1998 Date FROM: Howard Martin, Assistant City Manager/UL:.'ties SUBJECT: Elm Fork Nature Project in conjunction with developing the Greenbelt Corridor, the City of Denton realized that opportunities existed through a federally sponsored program (Section 1135) to develop a project combining environmental restoration aid wildlife management activities. (See attached description.) The City of Denton and the Corps developed project objectives compatible with Greenbelt development, defining various restoration and enhancement components to be included in an initial project appraisal. At that time, the estimated cost of the project was $800,000, The City's share of the project would be 25%, or $200,000, and the Corps would pay the remaining 75% of the project costs, or $600,000. The University e, North Texas expressed an interest in the project and committed to providing on-going operatio,t and maintenance associated with the project. (The Denton Independent School District also expressed an interest in the project. DISD believes that an Outdoor Education Center could enhance the project as well as provide DISD students a unique opportunity to apply classroom knowledge in the field. (See Dalton Gregory's attached proposal.)) On February 19, 1996, the public Utilities Board approved conducting a feasibility study for the proposed project, now called the F.Im Fork Nature Project ("Project"), The Corps has completed that study and submitted it to the city of Denton for comments. (See attached Corps letter,) After conducting the feasibility study, the total estimated cost for the Project was reduced to $488.370, reducing the city of Denton's share to approximately $123,000. Of that $123,000, the Corps will permit up to 800,10 of Aork-In-kind. After consulting with the University of North Texas, staFl' proposes to respond to the Corps' feasibility study with a proposal to provide up to 80% of the costs through work-in- kind, (See Memo from Dr, Ken Dickson.) Though staff cxi vets to spend only $25,004 and use work-in-kind for the remainder of the balance, staff may need the flexibility to spend more should the Corps not accept the City of Denton's proposal in its entirety for work-in-kind, A the City is currently evaluating the existing railroad depot, located adjacent to Ilickory Street and the railroad tracks, as a possible structure that would be suitable for the Elm Fork project. The railroad depot must be moved from the current location to an alternate location as soon as possible, The City is currently moving forward with an architectural evaluation of the costs associated with the relocation and renovation of the historic structure. "is evaluation should be complete in the next 30 to 43 days. • I lie University of North Texas will pay the annual maintenance costs. Water Administration Q • (40450) budgeted $150,000 in FY98 for the project. r HM rshiM 1 Corps 1 etkt %Ith ('urrent I)CUrlpliOn of Pm)rd 04 COO PrnJeclloe t'%hihh r ur xen Ni "'s Mew rehihh r. t)BD's Prnltxsl rthih8 4. Presenua,n (rerhrwh 1 ' 2.') •,10 32xIO i l t a y I s r ~ ~ r 4 I Lr ovum O 9 rAr hGA1N 1(146 r6+OT o~00 ~ lanuary 20, 1991 f Programs And Project Management Division I W. Howud Martin Assistant City Manager of Utlidea 215 Eat McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 Dear Mr, Martin: 11 am pleased to forward you a copy of the draft Eeooyttem Restoration Report (ERR) on the { I..ewisville Lake Wildlife Habitat Reatorstion Project, The recommended plan consists of the reforesution of approximately 609 acres, and the construction *(two, wetland calls totaling 91 acres, The total project cost it estimated at 11181,210. i i In order to complete the bnal ERR. two anions are required tom the city of Denton. The feat is the Identification of any material or servieu to be provided by the city of Denton during project implementation. The value of the materials or seMou count as pan of your shoe of the IoW project con as work-in-Und The type and value of the worlc•in kind a ut1 be included in the Mal EPJL Secondly, a Ietter of Intent must be received by this oft3a. The letter of intem must auto in clew terms, without quAP4iions, the following, (1) that you hAve reviewed the draft ERR cad support the recommended p1Li, (2) that you have reviewed the draA model Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA), and understand and soup) Its provisions, Including con shouting and oividon, maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation OfvO R res nsib1as fl ( 3) u wie total project cost and non•Fedtrd shore, irncludie OMR& and 1go ct estimated 1 R; O your W.-At to act ss the non. ' Federal partner during project implementation and execute the PCA. In the event a ash contribution is required, the letter of intent must include a brief deudpdon on how the Rrndt witl be budgeted TAis dtuAption must include the tyro of &M to be used, and its Wroorial and &Nre IW;ng levels. I request you thoroughly review the dnA report and provide any feedback by FebNwy 21, 1991. The Anal ERR cannot be forwarded to our higher authority for approval unless the above . items are included in the report. EXHIBIT I 2 ,h x ~El 32XIQ. } r ` xai "Tr'~~'~ "Vey I -c I y Y ~ 1 a`,x it . i1 A. i •g r r. c ~ ~ i, w ~r ~,i rc r x t r Y v 1 I\ s ~ s.4 i I ~f.n ~ e , h'r 1 r1 ~ ~ , r , 0 1 . e~ i I 1 1 r. - *r ri ~ I vJ 1+ 10 5 ~iti hllvy~,2_ ,„.J«Y6~ P;I~ w rLn rlrn.f 1.. aJ . .A.W.. MS4+r o'n 11 nM'.w+~n ~4 ~ , , s IU Fon Worth District oontinua to look t'orwud to wprldnl with the city of Dalton in tha x' Implementation of tM Lewisville Lake Wildlife Habitat Reatontion Project, if VW haw any Questions reludinl this matter, please contact tM project manala, Mr, Eli Kanµs, u t (111) 971•~7f7. ~ • . i x Sincerely, x:: is cr.. ~k~r 1r. J1 Director, CIV9 WO&S I4 Enclosure J f 1q 1 I l 1 1 ~ I i ' 1 1 I S' t =A ` f 4' 1 ~ 1. r \ 1 n f, I • ~ O rl , . r I d r 'i I 25 10 3zx0 r i SYLLABUS This Ecosystem Restoration Report (ERR) presents the «sulu of a study conducted under the authority of Section 1133 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1966, as amended (33 USC 2201). The purpose of this study was to identify the environmental degradation caused by the construction and operation of Lewisville LAke and subsequent development activities, evaluate measures to Improve the functional subility and integrity of important ecological resources located at the lake, such As wetlands and riparian and boitomland hardwood forests, and recommend an environmentat restoration project, if one can be identified which meta the applicable project criteria. The study was conducted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Fort Worth District with the City of Denton, Texas, Lewlsville Lake is located approximately 10 milts southeast of Denton, Tetas, And IS miles north of Dallas, Texas, in Denton County. Prior to the impoundment for Lewisville Lake, the Elm Fork of the Trinity River had subsuntially more sta of wetlands, bonomIW and upland forests. In 1966, the operation of the lake was modified to raised the elevation of the conservation pool, rwult,ni in flarther environmental degradation. The study arts, 2,736 acres of old fields, remnant riparian And bottomland hardwoods, Imustrine wetlands and open water located at the northem end of the like, was teviewed and found to be suitable for the purposes of habitat restoration. The purpose of this proposed project Is to restore wetlsnd and bottomland communities to bentf~t wildlife utiliaing elk project lands, including migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, perching and migratory songbirds And predatora, such as Cooper's hawk (Arcipre.' coopireh), which would benefit from increased site and ` quality of woodlands in the upper end of Lewisville [eke, The project would alto bcnefrt resident species of wildlife such is squirrels, rabbiu, various reptiles and amphibians. E The recommatdtd plan as described in this ERR consisu of the reforestation of approximately 609 acres within selected openings to provide linkage among existing riparian and bo iomland hardwood habitat and the construction of & Medand complex comprising a tout of 96 acres. The tout project cost Is estimated at $191,100. For the mcommtnded plan, lands will be made available by lease to the city of Denton a the non. federal sponsor. The city of Denton will also be responsible for all operation, maintenance, replacement, and repair costs. Both Texas Parks And Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are supportive of this Section 1133 project, An Environmental Assessment (EA) was integrated into the ERR to assess the possible Impacts that • could occur if this Section I OS were implemented. items marked with an uterisk (•I indicate information required to fulfill National Ensironmenul Policy Are requirements, A Finding of No Significant Impact if appropriate will be issued After reviewing comments on the EA. For more information, please contact U.S, Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. CESWF. • EV•EE, ATTN: Silly K. Colbert (117) 97!•3026 or CESWF•PM.C, ATTN: Eli Kangas, (117) 971• p • • 3733, gig Taylor Stria, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102.0300, i r~ . A f 4 I _ tl f • r' ' t I e t 1 JIkMIrY , . e i We Lewisville Wildlife Restoration Dnrto~ Co , . I 16 1 to ? r I i- i 1 ~ Jr ~ i :i I+,L• i , r A y,• 1~ rr r ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION e«suu+.c+ GENERAL STUDY LOCATION 0 /a+ ~aj Unaw is LEWISVILLE LIKE f4011 J t .1, . s 0' 3 3~ { % of ILA, .10 f 1 1 10 Kmrt N 00 Ob IA r. ECOSYSTEM AESTOAATION p • • vturr•tMutaasuCr STUDY AREA tDot "iii *Cdilw Jd LEWISVILLE LAKE fJGUAE2 B 32xld'. >y~aczn O Lewisville Lake ® Fa+st;ngForesfl Existing Landuse and Proposed t on Proposed Ecosyskm Restoration AiopoieE Welland Old Field Welu k j • • ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION ewtu 0.6,09+ RECOMMENDED PLAN • • NOW a ,i w ~d LE'WISVILLE LAKE FICURE 3 7 - '77. 1 1 nY I ~ Y4 ~1 1 SVLLARUS This Ecosystem Restoration Report (ERR) presents the results of a study conducted under the authority of Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 USC 2201). The purpose of this study was to identify the environmental degradation caused by the construction and operation of Lewisville Lake and subsequent development activities, e%aluate measures to improve the functional stability and integrity of important ecological resources located at the lake, such as wetlands and riparian and bottomland hardwood forests, and recommend an environmental restoration project, if one can be identified which meets the applicable project criteria. The study was conducted by the U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District with the City of Denton, Texas, Lewin Me Lake is located approximately 10 miles southeast of Denton, Texas, and 45 miles north of Dallas, Texas, in Denton County. Prior to the impoundment for Lewisville Lake, the Elm Fork of the Trinity River had substantially more area of wetlands, bottomland and upland forests. In 1988, the operation of the lake was modified to raise,i the elevation of the conservation pool, resulting in further environmental degradation. The study area, 2,156 acres of old fields, remnant riparian and bottomland hardwoods, lacustrine wetlands and open water located at the northern end of the lake, was reviewed and found to be suitable for the purposes of habitat restoration. The purpose of this proposed project is to restore wetland and bottomland communities to benefit wildlife utilizing the project lands, including migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, perching and migratory songbirds and ' predators, such as Cooper's hawk (Acciprer cooperfr), which would benefit from increased size and quality of woodlands in the upper end of Lewisville Lake, The project would also benefit resident species of wildlife such as squirtels, rabbits, various reptiles and amphibians. The recommended plan as described in this ERR consists of the reforestation of approximately 609 1 acres within selected openings to provide linkage amortgexisting riparian end bonomland hardwood habitat and the construction of a wetland complex comprising a total of 98 acres. The total project cost is estimated at $488,370. For the recommended plan, lands will be made available by lease to the city of Denton as the non• federal sponsor. The city of Denton will also be responsible for all operation, maintenance, replacement, and repair costs. Both Texas Puks and Wildlife Department and U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service are supportive of this Section 1133 project. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was integrated into the ERR to assess the possible impacts that could occur if this Section 1135 wete implemented. Items marked with an asterisk (4) indicate Information required to fulfill National Environmental Policy Act requirements. A Finding of No Significant Impact if appropriate will be issued after reviewing comments on the EA. For more information, please contact U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, CESWF- MEE, ATTN: Billy K. Colbert (8171978.3026 or CES'tYF•PM•C, ATTN: Eli Xenia, (8171978. O 9 3753. 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102.0300. I i I I C 1 O y t:, ,.Ir 3 ~t a aaaua , I ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION REPORT INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LEWISVILLE LAKE WILDLIFE HABITAT RESTORATION DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS INTRODUCTION • Location. Lewisville Lake is approximately 10 miles southeast of Denton, Texas, and 45 miles north of Dallas, Texas. It is located on the Elm Fork of the Trinity River in Denton County. The study area is located at the northern end of the lake project lands, north of U.S. Highway 380, Figure t shows the study area and its relation to the Dollss/Fon Worth metroplex, Figure 2 chows the specific area of the project in greater detail Existing Project. Lewisville Lake is a multipurpose reservoir which was authorized primarily for flood control purposes. The lake also provides water supply for the cities of Dallas, Denton, and other local municipalities. Construction of the reservoir began in 1948 with deliberate impoundment i of water beginning in November 1954, The operation of Lewisville We was modified in 1988 as pan of the construction of Ray Roberts Lake, resulting in a permanent increase of the conservation pool from elevation 515.0 National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NOVD) to the current 522.0 feet NOVD. The conservation pool at this elevation inundates 23,280 acres of land, At the peak controlled flood pool elevation of 532.0 feet NGVD, a total of 28,980 acres of land is inundated. The northern end of the Lewisville Lake project area also includes 2,756 acres of bottomland hardwcAs, polustrine and Iacustine wetlands, and old field and open water habitat, • Study Authority, The study is authorized undo the continuing authority provided to the Chief 1i of Engineers by Section 1135 (b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Is the lead agency for this study, by letter dated March 28, 1996. the city of Denton expressed their desire to participate in an environmental restoration study, A copy of the letter Is located in Appendix A. a Study Purpose, Area, and Scope, The purpose of the study was to determine the feasibility of modifying the Lewisville Lake project area to restore wetland and bottomland hardwood habitat value for wildlife. The study ores, identified In a 1994 reconnaissance phase survey of the lake as having the potential for restoration, is approximately 3 miles east of Denton Texas, on the upper end of Lewisville Lake. The area is located downstream of Roy Roberts Lake, thereby receiving controlled releases delivered along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River, uncontrolled stream flow from intervening streams nd sheet flow originating on or adjacent to proposed project lands. Clear Creek, a major uncontrolled stream enters the proposed project area from the west, near Hartley Field Road, Field investigations were conducted to determine existing vegetational coverage of the area. Site visits were conducted to evaluate the overall quality of the habitats for their ability to support , x fr~ 32x10 le i •1 rJ"~' ~ I 0 wildlife and meetings were held with resource agencies and the project sponsor to determine P potential wildlife habitat restoration initiatives. I! Existing Studies and Projects. There are two projects currently underway within the Fort Worth District relevant to this study. The first is the Lewisville Lake Aquatic Restoration Project, also being conducted under the authority of Section 1135. The operation of Lewisville lake for flood control and water supply creates widely fluctuating changes in the pool elevation resulting in the loss of aquatic plant communities. The Lewisville We Aquatic Restoration Project proposes to restore the foundation of the aquatic ecosystem by planting founder colonies of aquatic plants to serve as seed source for revegetation of the littoral zone. Implementation of this restoration project is scheduled to be Initiated In late spring of 1998. The second project underway Is the Ray Roberts Like Greenbelt Corridor project. The Greenbelt corridor includes the purchase of adjacent lands along the Elm Fork ofthe Trinity River between Ray Roberts Lake and Lewisville Lake and the development of public access and recreation facilities therein. Refer to Fgure E-1 in the Real Estate appendix fordelineation of project lands, including the Greenbelt Corridor. The original authorization for the Ray Roberts Lake project included adding recreadon facilities at Lewisville Lake to accommodate the additional needs afforded by the raise in the conservation pool. The Corps, in conjunction with the sponsors, created a plan for the development of the Greenbelt Corridor between the two lakes in lieu of additional recreation facilities at Lewisville Lake. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 subsequently revised authorization of Ray Roberts Lake to include development of the Corridor plan. The total Greenbelt j Corridor consists of 1,589 acres of land. A conservation easement was acquired on 491 acres and the additional 1,098 acres were purchased. Canoe launching acrd take-out points will be provided along with parking facilities at each access point. Equestrian and hiking trails am being constructed to link the access points. The Greenbelt Corridor and its trills will run along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River through the proposed project area, but will be limited to a relatively narrow area adjacent to the river. Construction activities associated with this project are currently underway, 1 P • EXISTING CONDITIONS Climate. The Trinity River watershed Is located in a region of temperate mean climatological P conditions, experiencing occasional extremes of temperature and rainfall of relatively short duration. 1 According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 1997) Sution at Fora * Worth, Texas, the 30 year mean rainfall amount is 33.7 inches per year with the nm0a1 recent tan year (1987-1996) average being 37.88 inches, The extreme annual rainfall values since 1887 are a maximum of 53.54 inches occurring in 1991 and a minimum of 17.91 inches occurring in 1921. The maximum precipitation in a 24 hour period was 9,37 inches in September, 1932. precipitation is 4 distributed fairly uniformly throughout the ytar, with the exception of a slight peak in the spring and a low in mid-to-late summer {Yelderman 1993), The mean relative humidity is 65 percent and the i average temperature is 65.86F. Recent temperature extremes range from •1'F in December 1989 to 0 I I5'F in June 1980. The average freeze dates are March 23, which is the list in spring and November 13, which is the first to occur in the fail. The temperature fells below freezing an avenge t i 10 . +L!tiar+Lfi ~ t ri 'tit i V -ae,ww 1, r ° of 41 days a year, but this drop is usually followed by daily thaws. The length of the growing season is approximately 235 days. , The major storms experienced in the study area are produced by heavy rainfall from frontal-type storms which generally occur in the spring and summer months, but major flooding can also be produced by intense rainfall associated with localized thunderstorms. These thunderstorms may occur at any time during the year, but they are more prevalent in spring and summer months. Soils. Two soil series are located on the proposed project area north of the railroad (Soil Surver_ot Denton County.TcAaa}, Soil Conservation Service 1990), The Frio scries is described as deep, clayey soils that formed in recent alluvium on bottom land. The Oven series consists of deep, clayey soils that also formed in recent alluvium. Slopes varies from 0 to I percent. Neither of the soils are classified as hydric soils but have sufficient clay to allow construction of wetlands. The soils also cover areas that are both currently vegetated by moderate quality forest and areas that have been m.intained as grassland which are now in the initial stages of converting from old field to, in a few places, young thickets that will eventually become bottomland hardwood areas. i Soils between Highway 380 and the Union Pacific Railroad line which bisects the study area include the Ovan series, Kaufman clay series and Bunyan fine sandy loam. The lowerelevations of this area are frequently inundated due to operation of Lewisville lake, making habitat restoration initiatives ' difficult and costly to establish, and costly to operate and maintain. I Surface Water. The northern portion of Lewisville Lake extends into the study area between Highway 380 and the railroad at normal conservation pool. Small depressions occurring throughout the study area occasionally hold water hom local runoff. Clear Creek is a major stream entering into the study area from the north and west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. Bollomland flardwood, The bottomland hardwood type is found in wet soils of the alluvial flood i plain and terrace flats. The common tree species include cedar elm, American elm, black willow, water locust, green ash, cottonwood, pecan, sycamore, and boil d'arc. Associated understory and ground cover plants include dewberry, coralberry, dallis grass, swiichgrass, bermudagrass, switch cane, rattan vine, poison ivy, and swamp privet. Wetlands. For the purposes of this study, wetlands are at least periodically saturated with or covered by water, and support plants and animals particularly adapted to life in water or in saturated soils. Wetlands can generally be thought of as transitional between aquatic and terrestrial systems and are frequently covered by water, or have the water table usually at or near the land surface. Wetlands may or may not have trees, and those trees present are species tolerant of prolonged i inundation, such as green ash and black willow. E%cn whcre trees are present the wetland ype has a moderately open canopy and understory vegetation of water tolerant sedges, grasses and shrubs. , Within the study area, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory shows cxisting vegetation as palustrine forest and shrubland and small, scattered emergent wetlands. However the soil survey inventories for this area indicate that the predominant soils are Frio sihy clay and Ovan 11 now 5 1 • • 1 5 clay, both of which are frequently flooded but are not hydric soils. Since there are no hydric soils, the areas are not jurisdictional wetlands. However, because of frequent flooding, many of these sites are subject to inclusion under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States." The sensitivity of the resources located within the study area warrant careful consideration of ` proposed projects, even restoration projects, to ensure that the projects are compatible with the f project area and will provide intended restoration benefits to wildlife. Old Field, Most of these areas represent open fields which were previously maintained by periodic mowing or grazing. These fields were used as hay meadows and pastures and have since been abandoned, Many are now In the early successional stages of conversion to shrubland because of invasion by shrubs and woody vegetation. I Wildlife, Wildlife species likely to be found in the study area are directly associated with the types and quality of existing habitats or vegetative cover. Common species at the proposed project include fox squirrel, cottontail rabbit, mourning dove, northern bobwhite, wood duck, mallard, pintail, green-winged real, opossum, grey fox, bobcat, and coyote. White-tailed deer although not numerous, have also been observed in the area. EndangeredorThreattaWSpecies. According to the USFWS,the following species haveutilirtd Denton County or similar areas as a migratory corridor primarily during fall andior sprint migrations. TABLE I • Endangered or Threatened Species American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinut ana'um Endangered Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus rundrltrs Threatened Bald eagle Hafiaeerur kucocephal4 Endangered Black-capped vireo Yireaatrirapillul Endangered lntedor least tem sterna anrillarunt Endangered Piping plover Charadrius melodw Threatened Whooping crane Cfur americans Endangered Aquatic. Lake Uwisville and the major tributaries, including the Elm Fcrk of the Trinity River • proper, provide fair to good habitat for certain fish species. The large expanses of open water along with a fair to abundant supply of forge fish (gitzard and threaditn shad) provide growth habitat for striped bass, sand bass and their hybrids. The Elm Fork and major tributaries, including Clear Creek, provide passage to spawning sites for large numbers of white bass. Habitat for catfish is sufficient to provide for recreational fisheries, • Recreational, Scenic and Aesthetic Resources. Lewisville Lake is one of several major aitrxtions ! O • in the local area dut, in pan, to the large surface area available to recreational boaters. The lake has a highly developed western shoreline long the main body of the lake. New development pressures in areas adjacent to the lake's project lands tend to increase the scenic and aesthetic resources of the !4 a~ ri ot., >"7 s i 32 X I O u i s a t 4 I study area due to the loss of such features elsewhere. The proposed project area is located north of the current major population areas and, due to the existing forest, adds a scenic component only 4 located along major drainages. The ongoing development of the Greenbelt Corridor between Ray Roberts Lake and Lewisville Lake will provide pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian access to the corridor undercontrolled conditions that would not negatively inr,)crsce the value of existing habitat or proposed habitat restoration values to wildlife. Culturd Resources. The current floodplain geology of the Trinity River has received increasing attention in recent years. Gmambeological studies have shown that Holocene-age alluvial deposits extend to great depths below the present floodplain surfaces and potentially contain deeply-buried archeological sites. However, the uppermost one to two meters of these floodplain deposits date to the historic period and have limited potential to contain significant cultural resources. ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION i In Texas it is estimated that more than 60 percent of batomland hardwoods and bottomland forested wetlands that existed in early days have been lost due to agricultural conversion, timber production, urban and industrial development and reservoir construction (Texas Center for Policy Studies 1995). Bottorrmlands serve several important functions. They contribute to the biodiversity of Texas. One hundred and eighty nine species of trees and shrubs, 42 species of woody vines, 75 species of grasses, and 802 species of herbaceous plants occur in Texas' bouomlands. They are known to support 116 species of frsh, 31 species of amphibians, 54 species of reptiles, 273 bird species and 45 species of mammals, At least 74 species of threatened and endangered animals depend directly on bottomland hardwood systems and over 50 percent of neotropical songbirds not listed as endangered or threatened are associated with these systems. Besides providing critical wildlife and bird habitat, bottomland hard wood systems 1) serve as catchment and water retention areas in times of flooding; 21 help control erosion; 3) cw.tribute to the nutrient cycle, and 4) play a vital role in maintaining water quality by serving as a depository for sediments, wastes and pollutants from runoff. Despite these important functions, bottomland hardwoods ecosystems are one to the most endangered ecosystems in the United States. According to the Texas Environmental Almanac (1995), the overwhelming loss of and threats to wildlife, plants, and natural communities are a direct result of habitat alteration and destruction. It • was noted earlier that the operation of Lewisvilte Lake at conservation pool inundates 23, 280 acres of land. This land was historically covered bya mixture of bottomiand hardwood and upland forests, i emergent wetlands and tall grass prairies (Covell and Johnston 1970,Gould 1975) and later, in areas suitable for planting, converted agriculture lands. j The construction and inundation of the take destroyed the existing habitat and subsequent shoreline O • • development activities further degraded the existing environment. After impoundment, additional forested project lands werc clewed and )eased for agricultural purposes. These agricultural activities directly degraded the project's botiomland hardwood and wetland habitats, Agticultural leases held t ,luring the early years of the lake project perpetuated the maintenance of cleared fields that were once a r , 32 x. anran~ +a'aerrs bottomland forests. Comparison of current conditions with aerial photographs of the area taken in the 79s indicates very little change has occurred in vegetational coverage. The major exception is that an area, not owned by the Corps until recently, was cleared of its forest and converted to grassland forcattle grazing during this period. Most of the trees initially inundated following construction of the lake have deteriorated and no longer provide key habitat. In addition, fluctuation of lake levels through water supply and flood control management have resulted in inadequate aquatic plant production needed to provide key 1 habitat for some spon fish species, including sunfish and largemouth bass. The lack of aquatie plant I production in the 'Ake also limits value of the aquatic system for migratory waterfowl, particularly diving ducks that forage the insects associated with aquatic plants for critical energy needs during migration. For all these reasons, bottomland and wetland ecosystems are of great environmental concern in the analysis of the proposed project area. The Lewisville Lake and Ray Roberts Lake Greenbelt Corridor, combined with the resources surrounding the two lakes, provide an excellent opportunity to improve the values of habitats within botlomlands located on Corps projects. • PLAN FORMULATION During field investigations, one site of approximately 230 acres in site was determined to be of significant interest because it was vegetated by a relatively mature stand of remnant bottomland hardwoods. A recent analysis conducted by the University of North Texas (Barry and Kroll 1997) on the site, referred to as the "Deep Bottom" by the author, confirmed that this site has features that . are characteristic of a mature forest. This site is located on the extreme north end of the study area, i west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River (Figure 2). Because of the relative intactness of this North Texas bottomland hardwood forest, it was referred toss unique. Another site within the study area, adjacent to Clear Creek, has similar values. ' The Deep Bottom contains characteristics that are indicative of its value to wildlife. In addition to forest, the site is crossed by dry channels, creeks, and wetlands. The Elm Fork border the tracts' eastem boundary. The forest itself is dominated by hackberry,cedar elm, and green ash trees. Two tracts were identified as being more mature and contained large burr oak, pecan and Shumard oak. FAsiem cottonwood is also prevalent along the bank of the Elm Fork. s Wildlife utilizing the Deep Bottom include raccoon, opossum, armadillo, beaver, bobcat, and coyote. Ducks, wading birds, egrets and herons were also observed, Other species likely to be encountered in the Deep Bottom include cottontail rabbit, squirrel, various rodents, toads, frogs, redtail hawk and other raptors and neotropical songbirds White-tailed deer although not numerous, have also been observed in the area. O , Vegetation and its overall diversity and condition have been shown to effect the diversity and ii richness of wildlife a wetland is able to attract and support because it provides cover and food for ld r fir, I 32 X r 1 ~ I i animals (Weller 1981). The degradation and loss of wetlands, including riparian and bottomland + wetlands, has been identified by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) as one of the major factors that lead to declining waterfowl populations. The plan is an historic agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada to assure the continued survival of abundant populations of ducks, geese and swans. Suitable habitat in Texas is known to be vital to waterfowl migrating along the Central Flyway (Buller 1964; Landrum 1996). The importance of constructed reservoirs in north Central Texas (Bates et al. 1998; Landrum 1996; Pulich 1988) and the development of artificial wetlands such as ponds, gravel pits, and floodwaterretaining structures (Bales et al. 1988; Christopheret al. 1988; Landrum 1996) have become increasingly significant in providing valuable wintering habitat. Aside from development of gradual side slopes and provision of a deep permanent water pool, the major characteristics of created wetlands which promote maximum ecosystem benefits are the ability to regulate water levels and provide flooding at proper i periods during the year in order to optimize vegetation management. Theexisting riparian and bottomland hardwood forest and wetland resources located within the study j area do not represent the maximum habitat quality that could be expected within the area. As such, plan forntualation was guided by a number of needs, opportunities, and constraints. First it was decided that proposed restoration altematives should be concentrated on the lands located north of the Union Pacific rail line to eliminate the possibility of any restoration efforts being ` damaged or destroyed by lake water level fluctuations or planned construction activities associated with the widening of Highway 380. Ecological factors guiding the development of restoration I altematives include the fragmented nature of the existing forest, a lack of mast producing trees, a lack of cavities suitable for nesting by brood rearing by ducks, and a lack of emergent wetlands in proximity to food and cover. Recent studies have indicated that breaks within a forested ecosystem, often referred to as "fragmentation", significantly affect the value of the system for several bird species, particularly neolropical birds which have experienced decreased populations during recent years. The lack of mast producing trees can be traced to the limited regeneration resulting primarily from the natural seeding process. Currently, given the tack of mast produuing trees in she study area. regeneration is limited to the invasion by light-seeded plants propogated by winds. Previous studies have concluded that seedlings of heavy-seeded oak species were most prevalent in areas where flood waters caused deposition of atoms and where duff was sufficient for regeneration. Currently there is an inadequate supply of atoms within the contributing watershed to provide natural establishment of forests dominated by hard mast producers. The restoration of wetlands will be limited to the area on the west side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River upstream of the railroad crossing. The remair ing study area was unsuitable for the restoration of wetlands due to the intrusion of shallow waters associated with the conservation pool elevations of Lake Lewisville, planned construction and mitigation activities associated with the widening of Highway 380, the identification of several small, existing wetlands, and seasonally flooded old iJ _ _ , J h 11/ ' r 1 1 channel scars which provide adequate aquatic and wetland habitat, restricted access and a lack of adequate trib<uary drainages those areas. Further, it was determined that options to mitigate these limiting factors, such as building water supply reservoirs or pumping from wells are inefficient and impractical. Most natural wetlands are unconfined areas that allow vegetation to adjust to changing water levels by growing up and down the banks and provide corridors and buffers as effective conduits for plants and animals that utilize the system, The steeper sides of confined systems, such as wetland cells, remove some of the potential for adjustment, thereby contributing to a decline in plant and animal species and habitats over time (Willard and Hiller 1990). The addition of water control structures which allow manipulation of water levels to optimize management activities should minimize this potential problem. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY I Reforestation. An overall evaluation of the quality of existing forest habitat in the proposed restoration area was conducted based on the assumption that the Deep Bottom tract represents the best quality forested habitat in the area. The evaluation procedure used was based upon the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. HEP utilizes determination of a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) which ranks the comparative value of habitat, either for a singular species, multiple species or on an ecosystem basis, Within the evaluation system, a minimum HSI value is 0.0 and the maximum HSI attainable for a site is 1r0. Therefore, habitats with in-between values would score within the 0 and 1.0 range. It was determined that the 1 HSI value for the Deep Bottom site should not exceed 0.90. The value was determined based upon the site's overall diversity, lack of mature mast trees in all but two tracts, relatively small size, and separation from other tracts of bottomland hardwood forest. As existing, young, hard mast j producing trees mature, the value of the site would increase. The development of bottomland hardwood forest in existing gaps that would tie the Deep Bottom more closely to other tracts would also increase its value to wildlife, HSI values were also determined for other pockets of existing bottomland hardwoods within the study area. The values for the other sites were determined based upon field reconnaissance, and included general characteristics such as dominant trees, relative age of the forest within the site, isolation from roadways and proximity soother features such as permanent water, The values assigned to the various tracts north of the railroad ranged from 0.90 (for the Deep Bottom) to 0.70. The results of all site evaluations were avenged and 0.76 was determined to be the I weighted average. This average indicates the existing forest is of relatively high quality and that i little is needed in the way of restoration other than to consider linkage of existing woodlands by reforesting pockets of old field that he in between the wooded tracts. Wetlands. After evaluation of several Habitat Suitability Index models for several species • associated with wetlands, it wasdetetmined that the Green Heron and the Wood buck models would p be most applicable to determining habitat quality that would be developed with creation of wetlands and provision of preconstructed nest boxes. Through use of HEP, it was determined that when t i 16 S .t O i i tland complex would provide average compared to "no action", development of a we and a gain o(93.2 a erage annual annual habitat units without the addition of wood duck nest boxes and a habitat units when wood duck boxes were added- • ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES of the existing forest, combined with a lack of emergent wetlands in The fragmented nature proximity to food and cover has reduced the habitat value to migratory waterfowl, resident nesting De purpose of wood ducks and other wildlife species comon 10 bott mild rid hmlwd d forests. ities to benefit all a restoration project is to restore Corp project wildlife, including migratory waterfowl and neotropical songbirds in the upper end of Lewisville Lake. Based on the problems, needs, and opportunities previously discussed, the following restoration objectives were developed, These objectives inclu(kd: 1) reforestation of open areas found between existing hardwood tracts; 2) optimizing fruit yield by including hard and soft mast producing trees species in reforestation activities; 3) restoration of waterfowl nesting, brood rearing and wintering habitat: 4) restoration of moist soil and emergent wetlands adjacent to existing riparianlbottomland hardwood forest; and 5) restoration of habitat for neotropical migratory birds. Utilizing the information available from the Deep Bottom investigation and from evaluations conducted on other bottomland hardwood sites in the North Texas area, several forest restoration scenarios were evaluated for their effectiveness in providing restoration values. Further, forest survey conducted by Barry and Kroll served as an indicator of the type quality of ripariarutotnornland hardwood forest that could be developed within the remainder of the study area stics of the study area which, with proper modification, could result , several key characteri In addition in restoration of valuable waterfowl, shorebird and wetland habitat were identified. Several plans were evaluated for their potential to restore ecosystem function and stability. Alternatives including reforestation measures to improve riparian and bottomland hardwood habitat wading birds, nd wildlife, a ale advealt r created w wereetland detedopment for the benefimultiple species of birds to benefit waterfowl, No Action. Under a ,no action" alternative, the proposed project lands would remain in the ownership of the Federal Government. Barring the future lease of any of these lands to agriculture the "no action" alternative interests who could potentially clear more of the existing forested tracts, would result in the areas of existing riparian and bottomland hardwood forest being preserved, The habitat value of these existing tracts would be expected to increase ace slightly h e quality tha could i stands mature, but due to their fragmented nature they will never 0 be achieved with restoration efforts. Cleared areas would move through a slow succession from old tD • ing gees, not reach the current level of the existing the lack of habitat t quality field to boots because lend forests. but the fie 17 ~~1•Ittif ~l MM;L y~ `l ~~.I 32 ^ LI ~ ti., r 1 n, is '4 ~ s O xuaaw Reforestation Alternatives. In order to simplify the formulation of plan alternatives because of the E large number of openings of various sizes found north of the nil line, the area was divided into those located either east or west of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. A total of 41 I acres on the east side and 199 acres on the west were identified for possible reforestation. Reforestation alternatives were further broken down to different levels of reforestation efforts. n l: 40- one inch caliper containerized trees and 26- one gallon containerized shrubs per acre. Plan 2: 10- one inch caliper containerized trees; S- one gallon containerized shrubs; and 100 seedlings per acre. a": S- one inch caliper containerized trees; S- one gallon containerized shrubs; and 200 seedlings per acre. Plano: 300 seedlings per acre. Plan 5: No action, other than natural improvements in the existing forest and some natural reforestation. Welland Restoration Alternatives. As noted above, another proposed restoration measure to be I evaluated was the development of a wetland complex. The wetland complex will improve wildlife, waterfowl and fisheries habitat. The alternative restoration plans were developed baud upon extensive input from USFWS, literature on wetland development in the Trinity River Basin and consultation with other USACE biologists familiar with development of wetlands within this ! ecoregion for promotion of fish and wildlife benefits. Wetlands proposed for development would be located in areas that are currently fringed by areas of existing forest. The wetland complex as proposed would consist of two separate cells. The upper, or northern cell, would total 43 acres and inundate 14 acres of existing forest. The lower, or southern cell, would inundate approximately 37 acres of existing forest and total approximately 33 acres. The cells, created by the construction of compacted, earthen levees, would have different hydrologic ! regimes. The upper ail would be a shallow impoundment with maximum water depth of one foot M while the lower cell would be a deeper impoundment with a maximum water depth of three feet. J S Each would have inlet and outlet structures to allow for collecting available runoff from overland and out of bank flows and provide the ability to manage water levels to maximize management options, Since it was determined that a lack of cavities for nesting was one of the factors limiting the quality r of the boitomland habitat in this ecosystem, the addition of nesting boxes was added as a restoration 1 0 measure with the wetland development plan analyses. For evaluation purposes the wetland f Q development alternatives were broken down as follows: t F 18 fi, ! r~ 32X I o v ~ u c' ~ • r "Boom 7 r : E Plan : Construction of an upper wetland cell for a shallow impoundment of approximately 43 acres, 14 acres of which would be seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods leaving the remaining 29 acres dominated by emergent wetland vegetation. Plan 2: Construction of a lower wetland cell with a deeper impoundment of approximately 55 acres. 37 acres of which would be seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods leaving I8 acres dominated by emergent wetland vegetation. Plan : Construction of both the upper and lower wetland cells with a combined size of approximately 98 acres, 51 acres of which would be seasonally flooded botiomland hardwoods leaving 47 acres dominated by emergent wetland vegetation. E an Construction of bah the upper and lower wetland cells with a combined size of approximately 98 acres, 51 acres of which would be seasonally flooded bottomland hardwoods € leaving 47 acres dominated by emergent wetland vegetation. This plan includes the addition of duck nesting boxes at the rate of 2 boxes per forested acre. Plan : No action INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSES Cost effectiveness analysis techniques (Robinson et al. 1995) were used to determine the most cost effective plans and levels of restoration in terms of costs per habitat unit gained. Appendix B contains the complete incremental analysis. All the alternative plans and/or levels of plans identified above were evaluated using annualized habitat unit gains versus annualized costestimates (including those for operations and maintenance). Reforestatlon. Results of these analyses revealed the most cost effective plan and level of forest restoration measure is reforestation of bah east and west silks of the Rlm Fork of the Trinity River, a total of 609 acres, with 300 seedlings per acre. This result is based'.'n the assumption that the sites will be replanted with a variety of native mast and fruit-bearing trees and shrubs. Table 2 depicts the various plans and combinations of management treasures for reforestation and summarizes the a° results of the combinations for final incremental analysis. It shows that reforestation of selected areas on both the east and west side of the Elm Fork of the Trinity River using 300 seedlings per acre will increase the avenge annualized habitat units by 265.72 at an avenge cost of $85.16 per unit gained over the no action alternative. The table shows that various of the other alternatives as outlined above would increase habitat unitseven higher, but it was decided that their relatively small gain in units was overshadowed by their large increases in costs per unit gained. • O • 19 s 0 .rte • I TABLE 2 • Reforestation Final Incremental Analysis i Management Costs Output Incremental Incremental Incremental Measures Cost Output Average Y EO WO $0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 50.00 i ! E4 W4 522,629.00 265.72 $22,629.00 265.72 585.16 I ! E3 W3 544,026.00 277.90 $21,397.00 12.18 $1,756.73 I E3 W I $90.407.00 287.80 546,381.00 9.90 $4,684.95 ' El WI $186,829.00 308.35 $96,422.00 20.55 $4,692,07 E -east side of river, W • west side 0 • no action of river, Numbers refer to alternative plan numbers; ' I l i I Wetland Development. Results of these analyses indicate the most cost effective wetland development plan is one that includes an upper and a lower wetland cell in which wood duck nesting boxes are added. The result is based on the cost of wetland construction and the addition of two wood duck nesting boxes per acre of forest within each wetland cell. Table 3 depicts the various plans and combinations of management measures for wetland development and summarizes the results the combinations for final incremental analysis. It shows that creation of bah an upper and d lower wetland cell, coupled with the addition of duck nesting boxes would increase avenge ' annualized habitat units by 93.1 for an avenge cost of $204.18 per unit gained over the no action alternative. The other alternatives as outlined above were determined by the cost effective and incremental analysis (Robinson et al, 1995) to be less cost effective in terms of habitat units gained for the costs of implementation of those measures. TABLE 3 • Wetland Development Final Incremental Analysis [NI agement Costs Output Incremental Incremental Incremental asures Cost Output Avenge 1 O BO 0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 50.00 . 181 S 19,009.00 93.10 $19.009.00 93,10 $204,18 N - north wetland « li; S • south wetland cell; B • addition of duck nesting boxes; 0 • no action • RECOMb1ENDED RESTORATION PLAN Description. The recommended restoration plan consists of reforestation and the development of wetlands (including the assembly of wood duck boxes) in the area north of the Union Pacific Railroad line. In order to provide linkage of all major components of the existing riparian and borlomland hardwood forest in this area, reforestation will be completed within selected openings. f ` 20 32XIO .v of , ,TC. 9S •M I Q I totaling approximately 609 acres, at a rate of 300 seedlings per acre. The sites will be replanted with a variety of native mast and fruit-bearing trees and shrubs. Recommended species include red oak, bur oak, pecan, deciduous holly, coralberry, Mexican plum, hawthorns, and water oak, if commercially available for this ecoregion. A second component of the recommended plants the construction of a wetland complex which will improve wildlife, waterfowl and fisheries habitat. The wetland complex consists of a 43-acre, shallow impoundment upper cell, and a 55•acrc,deeper impoundment lower cell. The cells will be created by the construction of compacted, earthen levees. Each cell will have a water control structure with a system of flash board risers to provide a means of collecting water from creek flooding and local runoff and allow water levels to be managed for maximum wildlife habitat benefits. The final component of the recommended plan is the addition of duck nesting boxes to help restore waterfowl nesting habitat. Based on the recommendations of USFWS biologists, wood duck nesting boxes would be added at the rate of two boxes per acre of forested wetland habitat. Since the two proposed wetland cells would inundate a total of approximately 51 acres of existing forest, costs used in incremental cost analysis (Appendix B) for the addition of wood duck boxes, were based on the assumption that 102 boxes would be added. Table 4 summarizes the details of the recommended plan. Figure 3 displays the reforestation areas ` and the location of the wetland cells. TABLE 4 - Recommended Plan Details Restoration Measures Levels of mtors don Reforestation of 198 acres east of river 300 seedlings per acre Reforestation of 411 acres west of river 300 seedlings per acre Upper wetland cell - 43 acres 28 wood duck boxes (21wooded acre for 14 acres) Lower wetland cell • 55 acres 74 wood duck boxes • (2/wooded acre for 37 acres) Importance of Project Outputs. The recommended plan has restoration of important wildlife resource habitat as its purpose. It would increase average annualize habitat units gained by approximately 360 habitat units over the no action alternative that looked at natural succession and j regeneration. The project as proposed would result in the restoration o(609 acres of botiomland I • hardwood forest and would further increase the value of the adjacent 1,012 acres of bottomland • • hardwood forest through defragmentation benefits. Recent research has indicated the value of decreasing patchiness and providing condors for wildlife migration primarily for fall and spring i i 21 ` 32X1[1 Now r r 1 A P W r i i 0 :.YAWfiN migrants such as neotropical songbirds. The reforestation would also provide significant increased habitat value for local wildlife species, The proposed wetland development would result in seasonal inundation of about 51 acres of existing woodlands. The upper, or northern cell would inundate about 14 acres to a depth no greater than I foot. Since the trees that would be inundated within this E cell are mature and of high quality, management criteria would be developed to prevent Im of these trees. Flooding during a prolonged period would be limited to the non growing season. About 37 acres of lower quality locust, cottonwood and willow would be flooded by the lower, or southern cell. Management criteria would be developed to optimize wetland values in this cell. A provision for elimination of the lower quality tms might be necessary to promote optimum habitat conditions within the cell. The overall project would provide significantly increased areas and values of bottomland hardwood forest and therefore any slight loss of forest within the wetland cells is M insignificant. Hydrology and Design • Welland Cells. The upper wetland cell is located west of the Elm Fork j of the Trinity !fiver approximately 5,500 feet north of the union Pacific railroad tracks. The cell is situated within a v-shaped area delimited by the Elm Fork of the Trinity River on the east and Clear Creek on the west. Clear Creek is a major right bank tributary of the Elm Fork with a drainage area of approximately 350 square miles. Over 50 Soil Conservation Service type dams are located in the Clear Creek watershed, which effectively controls runoff from 150 square miles. The remaining 200 square miles is absent of any runoff control. This fact, combined with the backwater effects from Lewisv ilk Lake, cause overbank flows to occur frequently. These are most likely to occur during d the spring and autumn seasons which are prone to extended wet cycles. Due to the location of this all, rewetting will be dependent on the overbank flows as described above, While this condition is not expected each and every year, it could be reasonably expected to occur at least 7 out of every 10 years. 'I The lower wetland cells strategically located in an area where surface runoff is easily captured from a hillside totaling approximately 450 acres. Some diversion structures such as terraces or ditches may be necessary. Reweiting in this manner could occur at any time of the year, because it is dependent on only short duration rainfall of sufficient intensity to produce runoff. Failure to meet the required runoff demands on an annual basis would be rare, The upper cell consists of an embankment approximately 3,237 feet in length, about one foot in height, and includes an inlet and outlet structure. The lower cell consists of an embankment M • approximately 2,868 feet in length, about 3 feet in height, and includes in inlet and out structure. Both embankments have a 10 foot crown to allow access for maintenance vehicles. The inlet structures consist of an aluminum stoplog mcture with an attached beaver guard, The outlet structures consists of a standard galvanized metal end section for round metal pipe. The inlet and outlet structures are connected by a 24 inch galvanized metal pipe culvert. Appendix C contains the k • `1 project plans. 4 • ' i 4 zz N W 10 32XIII I a! i 4 1/goal" 'i t O nnes l f Constructlon Cost Estimate. The construction cost estimate was developed by using equipment and forestry management prices. December 1997 price levels are used. Project construction costs are presented in Table 5. TABLE 5 • Construction Cost Unit 1 Project Feature Unit Qantity Price Total Reforestation AC 609 $ 250.00 $ 152,250 Wetlands Fill CY 6600 $ 2.20 $ 14,520 Topsoil CY 2300 f 2.90 $ 6,670 Excavation CY 7600 S 3.60 S 27,360 Stripping CY 2300 S 2.90 S 6,670 Remove Vegetation AC 10 $ 172.00 $ 1,720 Turfing AC 2.8 S 2,640.00 $ 7,390 24" Concrete Pipe LF 50 S 50.00 $ 2,500 Flashboard Risers EA 2 $ 925.00 S 1,950 Outlet Structures EA 2 S 575.00 S 1,150 Riprap CY 8 $ 113,00 S _ 9W ' Sabtotal Wetland S 70,730 Wood Duck Boxes EA 102 S 50.00 $ 5,100 Fence 78 1 $10,000.00 S 10.000 $ 238,080 The total project cost is comprised of all expenditures related to the completion of the Ecosystem Restoration Report, plans and specifications, construction, and construction management. The recommended plan will cost $488,370 which is summarized in the Table 6. TABLE 6 • Recommended Plan Total Project Cost Estimate + Ecosystem Restoration Report S 80,000 • Plans and Specifications S 92,300 LERRD's (Access easement) S 8,470 ' Construction: Construction Contract S 238,080 Construction Management (10%) S 23,808 Monitoring S 10,000 Contingency (15%) S 35712 600 6 Subtotal Construction S 307, Total Project Cost S 488,370 23 25 K ~ ~ 32 x ~ ❑ , O I ' ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Soft. The recommended plan would utilize the qualities of existing soils to develop forested habitat 1 and wetlands. The reforestation would be accomplished through commercial forestry techniques using seedlings which causes minimal disturbance to soil. The construction of the two wetland cells would result in disturbance within the footprint of the cell levees, a small area along the levee on the upstream side where borrow would occur for the material to construct the levees and a small area downstream of the Levees to facilitate drainage throug''a the water control structures. Less than five acres of soil would be disturbed through construction of the wetland cells. It would not be necessary ` to develop a storm water pollution prevention plan for the project. Safeguards to reduce soil erosion E will be implemented as needed during construction. The disturbed soils along the earthen levees would be stabilized with native vegetation. No significant adverse impact to soils would occur from implementation of the proposed project. Wetlands. The recommended plan would not adversely impact any existing wetlands. Provision of forest replanting should improve the values to existing wetlands on the east side of the Elm Fork, The proposed construction of the two wetland cells would fall in Amu currently regulated by Section f 404 of the Clean Water Act. There are no hydric soils in the aura and therefore no jurisdiction wetlands exist, however, the sites flood on an annual basis and are therefore waters of the United States. The proposed project meets criteria of Nationwide Permit Number 27, Wetland and Riparian p Restoration and Creation Activities. This Nationwide Permit applies to restoration projects that serve the purpose of restoring "natural wetland hydrology, vegetation, and function to altered and degraded non•Udal wetlands and "naural" functions of riparian areas. The State of Texas has issued a water quality certificate for this Nationwide Permit and no further coordination is required under k Section 404. Surface Water. The proposed wetland cells would capture diffuse surface water runoff as well as overflow water from the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and Cleu Creek. The maximum amount captured at anyone time would be less than 150 acre feet of water. Most storage would occur during the fall and winter months when water supply from runoff is in excess of reeds of dov,,nstreamt water supplies. This small quantity of water would have minimal effect on water supplies and would not 1 effect flood storage capacity of the Ray Roberts-Lewisville Like system. The project would be submitted ioTexas Natural Resou rces Conservai ion Commission (TNRCC) for determination during the Design and Specification phase of the project. If it is determined that a water rights permit is required then one would be obtained. Recreational, Scenic, and Aesthede Resources. The recommended plan is in an area managed by the Corps of Engineers. Typical recreational use of the area includes hunting, fishing. canoeing, bird watching, photography, and some power boat usage 'there are no developed camping facilities. 0 however it is probable that some pr,.'nitive camping; occurs, The Ray Roberts- LewisviIIt lake 4) • i Greenbelt Corridor has a recreational trail, currently ur*r construction. which tracks along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River through the proposed pfojecr and lease area. The implementation of the Greenbelt is limited to an area 100 linear feet cast of the trail to the top of the west bank of the Elm 24 ;l 1 -,~i. I 32 x I D a. r . p • e Fork. No environmental restoration has been proposed within the confines of the Greenbelt Project. Other recreational uses of the area should not be adversely affected by the restoration proposals. The development of the lower wcilaod cell will provide better access for bank fishermen along the Clear Creek near the confluence with Elm Fork. Hunting would be prohibited within the Greenbelt, however this impact is attributable to the recreational use of the Greenbelt rather than any changes associated with ecosystem restoration activities. There might be a need to modify the conditions under which hunting could occur on the west side of the Elm fork near the proposed wetlands. Presently, the Lewisville Lake Pro;Y.ct Office oversees the hunting permit system; however, the proposed sponsor may eventually assume responsibility. I Cultural Resources. The recommended plan consists of excavations within the Elm Fork floodplain to create wetland ponds. The surface of the proposed project area is recent alluvium. Excavations less than one meter would have insignificant impact on these resources. The Texas State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this assessment. A cultural resources survey employing systematic backhoe trenching would be required for any areas where excavation would penetrate deeper than one meter below the present floodplain surface. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Project Management Plan. This Project Management Plan (PMP) d"ribes the activities to be undertaken during project impler+entation, beginning with the final design, plans and specifications, and continuing through construction and monitoring. During design, the following tasks would be ~ performed; a topographic survey of the expected impoundment and immediately adjacent area, a hydrologic study of the contributing drainrge area to confirm sufficient water inflow, evaluation of altemadve levee heights and locations, selection of an optimized plan, and development of plans and specifications. In addition, the PMP would include a planting design for the seedlings to ensure that the various species of trees and shrubs are planted in appropriate locations and with appropriate spacing to optimize their survivability and future habitat values; documentation of a forestry management plan to maximize the habitat values of the existing forested tracts and to meet the objectives of regeneration of higt: quality riparian and bottomland hardwood forests into the future; and a management plan for each wetland cell to maximize their wildlife habitat benefits. To ensure the continued success of the project. a monitoring schedule will be developed to document management measures taken and to provide feedback on the response of the ecosystem and its • resources. This would be done because, without being able to connect ecosystem responses to management measures, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to maintain a successful management plan and make adaptations and adjustments to the project as may be necessary and feasible. Because of the relative newness of restoration science and uncertainty in ecosystem restoration planning, theories and tools, success is not guaranteed, An im;--xunt component in assuring the success of restoration measures is to monitor effectiveness until reasonable stabilization • is achieraa. Monitoring will be accomplished as a project cost through two years into the operational life of the project. It is also imporunt to improve the knowledge base regarding 0 panicular restoration approaches or ecosystem components to determine which is significant to the 25 F 32JO s ' u~ew _ , oil overall goal of adaptive management. Using monitoring and adaptive management protocol would provide a means to evaluate the restoration measures and make recommendations for changes that should be made to this project or to future projects. Table 7 is a schedule of the plans and , specifications phase. Table 8 displays a breakdown of the estimated cost of the plans and specifications. TABLE 7 • Implementation Schedule Approval of Ecosystem Restoration Report March 1998 Initiate Plans and Specifications April 1998 95% Plant and Specifications August 1998 ~ l Roquest Project Approval August 1998 Execute Project Cooperation Agreement November 1998 Execute Rea) Estate Lease January 1999 Acquire Real Estate April 1999 Advertise Construction Contract May 1999 Initiate Construction July 1999 Complete Construction April 2000 Complete Monitoring April 2002 TABLE 8 • Estimated Cost of Plans and Specifications Engineering and Design, ~t Field Survey S 39,000 Hydrologic Analysis S 3,000 Planting Plan $ 10,000 Plan Layout/Quantities/Cost $ 11,000 Prepare Drawings and Specifications S 8,000 Environmental Review, Coordination do Compliance $ 7,500 Real Estate Lease $ 8,800 N Supervision and Administration S 5.000 Total S 92,300 I i Project Cooperation Agreement. The Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) is a contract between the Federal Government and the non-federal partner describing the rights and responsibilites of each party during project implementation, including cost sharing. Appendix D is a copy of a draft model j agreement. The PCA will be executed after the receipt of Federal project approval and prior to the • advertisement of a constriction contract. 0 • 2G .'f It 32xIC, 0 0 Cost Apportionment, As described in the PCA, the total project cost will be shared between the Federal Government and the non-Federal partner on 175% and 25% proportion, respectively. The non-Federal partner's 25% share is comprised of a credit for the value of all lands, easements, rights. or-way, relocations, and disposal areas (LERRD's), and a credit for the value of any work-in-kind (W(K) services performed by the non-Federal partner or its contractors. In the event the sum of the values for LERRD's and WIK is less than the 25% contribution, the non-Federal partner will contribute the balance in cash. In the event the value of the LERRD is greater than 25%, the non- Federal partner will be reimbursed in cash in order to reduce the total contribution to 25%. Credit for work-in-kind is limited to 80% of the total non-Federal partrier's contribution, and cannot result in a reimbursement. Further, with regard to work-in-kind, the non-Federal partner will comply with applicable Federal and state laws and regulations, including the requirment to secure competitive bids for all work to be performed by contract. Contributions of cash, funds, materials or services from other than the non-Federal partner or their contractor(s) may be accepted; however, such contributions will not be credited to the non-Federal partner's share, but rather will be applied io the entire goal project cost and therefore reduce both the Federal and non-Federal share. Table 9 displays the current estimate cost apportionment. TABLE 9 - Cost Apportionment Total Project Cost S 488,370 Federal Share (75%) S 366,278 Non-Federal Share: LERRD's S 8,470 Work-in-Kind $ 0 j Cash S 113.622 J Total Non-Federal Share (25%) S 122,092 Workdn•Kind. Work in kind arc services or materials provided by the non-Federal fanner during post-feasibitity phase design. The local sponsor's work-in-kind contribution will bp defined and its financial value estimated prior to the finalization of this report. Real Estate Plan, The majority of the real estate necessary for this project t: currently owned in fee by the United States of America and is under the primary jurisdiction of Ot Corps of Engineers. The • land is part of two, contiguous, multi-purpose water resource development projects known as Lewisville lake and Ray Roberts Lake, Texas. A total of 2,756 acres of project land is propoeed to be leased to the City of Denton as the Non-federal Sponsor, These lands are shown on the Real Estate Map (Figure E-I in Appendix E). Approximately 2,570 acres are from Lewisville Lake and 186 acres are from Ray Roberts Lake. The draft lease is in Appendix D, along with the Project Cooperation Agreement. It will also be necessary to acquire a road easement for construction and • maintenance of some of the restoration features. The Non-federal Sponsor will be responsible for ] 0 O obtaining this easement. Real Estate aspects of the project are fully developed in Appendix E. 27 32 X c I Operation and Maintenance. The non-Federal partner is responsible for all project operations, maintenance, repairs, replacements, and rehabilitations. Estimated annual operations and maintenance costs totaling $21,200 were calculated with the restoration costs in the incremental cost analyses in Appendix B. Breakdown of the costs is as follows: $10,000 per year associated with reforestation operations and management; S 10,000 per year associated with wetland management and operations; $1,000 per year for fence maintenance and $200 per year for maintenance and cleaning of wood duck boxes. COORDINATION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN Views of Sponsor. The city of Denton has been identified as the non-Federal partner. They have ? reviewed the draft Ecosystem Restoration Report and concurs with its findings. The city supports I the recommended plan and intends to participate in the implementation of the recommended plan. A letter of intent stating the city's position is located in Appendix A. Results of Agency Coordination. As noted in the cultural resources section, the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the preliminary proposed ecosystem restoration plans and concurred that excavations of less than one meter in depth, such as those needed to create wetland cells within the project area, would have insignificant impact on possible cultural resources. A USFWS biologist participated in HEP analysis and vegetation cover surveys of the area and served as it member of the tram whose recommendations of restoration measures appropriate to the d proposed site and existing resources were the basis for the restoration measures proposed in the recommended plan. A letter documenting USFWS support of the proposed project is provided in Appendix A. The draft Ecosystem Restoration Report was reviewed by the [LIST THOSE AGENCIES WHO REVIEWED ERR • DESCRIBED CONTENT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED). Regulatory Requirements. The proposed project has been reviewed in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Se.tion 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. In addition, Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands and Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, were considered during the development of the proposed project. The recommended plan would impact waters of the United States and is subject to provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project would meet the conditions of Nationwide Permit 27, Wetland and Riparian Restoration and Creation Activities. The State of Texas has issued a water quality certificate for Nationwide Permit 27 end therefore no further coordination is required under Section 404. There are no feasible alternatives to conducting the proposed project within the floodplain since the project as proposed requires siting within the floodplain to meet its intended purpose. However, the proposed activities would not induce development in, alter boundries of. or significantly impact the 100-year floodplain in any way. The proposed project is in compliance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. The proposed project would neither adversely impact or results in any loss of wetland areas so the project is in comliance with Executive Order 11990, An Environmental Assessment (EA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) O have been completed. The FONSI is expected to be signed by the District Commander in February 1998. 28 d , `N > C~ 32 x O f / 1 4 1 t I r d y f ' 6'A9OCMm r r . a" r I' i CONCLUSIONS This Ecosystem Restoration Report (ERR) documents the results of a study conducted under the r authority of Sectim 1135 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as emended (33 USC 2201)• The purpose of the study was to identify the environmental degradation caused by the construction and operation of Lewisville [Ake and subsequent development activities, evaluate measures to improve the functional stability and integrity of important ecological resources located at the lake, such as wetlands and riparian and bottomland hardwood forests and recommend an environmental restoration project. The recommended plan consists of the reforestation of approximately 609 acres within selected ' openings to provide linkage among existing riparian and bottomland hardwood habitat and the construction of two separate wetland cells comprising a total of 98 acres. The total project cost is estimated at $488,370• The report identifies positive benefits on wildlife habitat given the implementation of the recommended plan, T'}e City of Denton has been identified as the non-Federal partner. They have been presented with the findings of this report. The city has indicated their support for the recommended plan, including cost sharing, and agreed to assume responsibilities for all operation, maintenance, replacement, and repair costs. A lease for the project lands will be entered into by the city. Further, a review of the ` information provided by Denton regarding its financial capability to meet the cost sharing i requirements has been completed. The city of Denton has the authority and the financial capability to provide the required non•Federaf items of local cooperation. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was integrated into the ERR to assess the possible impacts of the recommended plan. A public mice will be released in January 1998, disclosing the availability of the EA. A Finding of No Significant Impact, if appropriate, will be issued after reviewing comments on the EA. Both Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife ' Service are supportive of this Section 1135 pro*t. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department are both supportive of the Section 1135 project. The proposed recommended plan is consistent with State and Federal government initiatives to conserve and increase declining wetland acreage. It is also consistent with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan with its goal of preserving and increasing North America's waterfowl population. II 29 ii + 25 X 32xI0 • o Kea Dickson PIMWa WW ldatee ►ropsnt univ«sily Of Morth Tema i Dwao% Taw 76207 rblttary 6,1991 Memo to; Howard Mania From: Ken Dkktoa SUN": In Kind Contrlbuliom to the 11) 1 propoul Howard, sorry for the slow rspoose to tM *A A&AIUty tdudy raw. t Kw lookd cwt the tepont sod watt to spedsady armrned on the bWjej. I beaws titers we (the City and tNn ttltotdd WW on some 14 MW cadhe Iowatd N portion of the buds w to be pdd by the City. I bOM that wo&lq lojethw we an get In KIM ort4t. for reforestation on tM Weot aide oftle e1vw, There us 411 sae dalgaged to be reNreslod wU 700 sedllagllatt on the West aids of the rWa, TNI 4 the side wbwe we WIN Uldowsly loato OW Demon Now" &MV. 1 boom that Ws rtvegotatloo effort stn be woompt]OW whit volunteer. The 002 fat dloaSed i $153,230 for the tool brat resiorstloo Mon Croble 1), 411 out of 609 sera out watt 6(tie rlvw accordinj to the sport (Table 4 pye 14), The 0011 atlnwes the per acre coo to be 1IS0, Thus to tefora the welt 411 sap would colt SIAM. 1 belkve that we dwuld do Ural ~s ork udog volunteers. tt would be a greet commuahy basil project iovolving • that w01 be the l~tonn Natur CenterkW to sealor dtUarw, , The toot of modlinip is a wmM vv sal buU equity In w the Iwa oou, The COR r ulru 300 seedflgs ' put the ovasl eq o of a w4dfdi mfx per we. We would need d w yurolte,re 000 X 411 X 2) 946,600 #mO[ js (double the nts of reoommeoded y(amng to imum dw we mom the ewvlval cA&%o tbt aeCdlinp). Ptvs vol ur m" can Cully pfu t sa saw with coo ee044W In S hours (aversp 5 INnuta per tree). Rdrapok lLng We out to 411 woo e"u Iiwt rte Would Mod 25 volunteer lrout,I per sere or (IS X 411 010,275 volunteer hour). 7Ws could be WAnds too a toga onr 6w. but if property pmffwd and m-t td k wwld not be hard to ftkk Pot example $00 people warklng 5 boon each wotdd tuts. E out 100 6000. If $00 vohmteers could be rtwnued out on four (4) days the refora udan could be uco olshd. The In Wood value of 10,273 vofuntoer bourn at((t 1 O.00mr). h to cry u nd" many that Ow cog • allows up to 112.OWhe) than could jet to KM contrUdoo credit ufSt4l,lS0, Our cost wouW be modest • project manyameae and ooordfadoo, suppna and tree. A second small arse vAen we art jet amt to Kind credit Is In U+e buiMag twd d wwod duck house. The project cds for purtLarhy 102 to be plaed nest 14 wedurds, P.sA is eetlmalad to cost 130.00. J believe that we cm got volunteen to build and plea the woad dusk 30 EXHIBIT II 3 2 X I L J i 7 L i r V i i i L ; Y ~F r ! V 0 J • I f 1 1 ~ i 1 1 t ! f1 r ♦ qr iv` ~ nzt ~ F~w r ,ly y , .r iP~ f' 'i . 1 i ' Y I~ i t L ( 1 1 r r Y; ♦ 1 ' n r i 1 f 1 Ll~L ~'1 1 L `f 1mil, ~r 3 r r y r ...nr v..✓ . ♦w. var.' .:I.i. Y b doltr we would INt Ondk fiat lop. Actual 00x1 would be Nowar4 I bdtew t6,t b~ 1 tM" at uNr in ooeabm&n wltb b;ap ovau"e amdd be" Oj ty t4 am r04 1 low b l •don c«Kr A difrd Bea w lwr kl WW /rovWe in K[nd to le d1 %Wjank We 8oatbne, ! baUwa tlrt up the d"e0~t of tN one shidlow to do v PWa' y 4uaart~ UNT ° dQOd to be ~wolwd l4 tbn Mal dael~ ortAe % doep aooa~ ptaDG v~ in drd~fom oe.+ua ' bog" ,000 boa *AvW be lotynl~ vet6 L tbb soda . 1 Wow p~~ ea1 ael ah oout iop+toaay o Two w%Q Rum d Co. +U~t hu N eaVtf~yp10t~ ee e,e«y~ g1; t low" JA; L-W fdt * dW44 b" eoeeeidend to im W4 ,016e l do. Htw 1L++nbo Nd W44 Bob 1^ w'm awY I b64" {R Oarbout da 11 f/,1 SO shun" Dmtoa lw was}, "A PMWdf by In Kind of bbll.w > w e +ha'1Q pm"" to My tie rote teat wwt H Idnd~it ry'd~* f l ~2, t30 of done " avnd b be wad ltrr uwouw P(OA& wdn wfn ~A, w0A` In-kl woum a boom Am 00fp to d Two Pw1a. It patio t 14++dt M++dh,. and Malad ptr4o d aeMrttld chq WW bmaj t tW le "o" haw quatloN bow then <daA sfw me a call. 1 r~ r • 1 31 l ~L 75 K ~ ~ 32x • Wwal MEMORANDUM TO: OR. ALBERT THOMAS FROM: DALTON GREGORY REGARDING: OUTDOOR EDUCATION CENTER PROPOSAL DATE: FEBRUARY 10, i9m This memorandum is attached to the latest revision of a proposal for the creation of an Outdoor Education Center developed by a task force of Denton Independent School District staff. With the proposal you will also find a tentative time line for implementation, You have asked for a copy of these documenls to share with the DISD Board of Trustees so that they may have time to study the proposal before we meet with them in a workshop tentatively, sc "Iisd for March 10. As our task force began Its work I discovered that the City of Denton Utilities I Department has been working on the development of the Elm Fork Nature Project located on the west aide of the Elm Fork Greenbelt which nxa between Lake Ray Roberts and Lake Lewisville. Howard Marlin, Director of the Utilities Department, is very interested in working with the District in a joint venture so that we could use this I area for our Outdoor Education Center. The DISD OEC Task Force considered several sites and believes that the Elm Fork Nature Project location meets our needs. The site has a number of excellent points Including: • convenient location for day or half day field trips; • excellent ecological diversity; i • reduced development costs since we have the opportunity to pool our j resources with the City; • expanding our partnership with the University of North Texas which is already providing technical assistance to the City in developing the Elm Fork Nature Project. Howard Martin will be meeting with the City of Denton Utilities Board on February 16, • to discuss the Elm Fork Nature Project. In his pfesentation he will inform that group that he has been waking with DISD staff on including the Outdoor Education Center as a part of that project. He will also be meeting with the Denton City Council on February 24, to inform them about the project. • We have a great opportunity to work in partnership with the City of Denton and The 0 • University of North Texas to provide a wonderful educational experience for our children 32 32X1[ e r • 1 1 IMPLEMENTATION TIME LINE Denton Independent School District Outdoor Education Center (revised 2.9-98) March 1992 Lee School Elementary gins taking sixth grade students to YMCA Camp Grady Spruce for an annual, one week residential camp for outdoor education t Wigs. January 19% Hodge Elementary begins annual trips for sW grade students to Grady Spruce. June 1997 0. Gregory meets with A Thomas to discuss concept of DISD operating its own residential camp. Ideas and possibilities are discussed and it is agreed that forming a task force to develop a proposal would be appropriate. 1997-98 Lee and Hodge transition comp program to ft grade to sooorrmodsts new middle school grade coift ration. Each school takes both sixth and frith graders to camp. October 1997 D. Gregory works with Vicky Christenson in identifying persons who would be Interested in serving on an outdoor education center task force. October 29, 1997 First meeting of the task force, Work begins on defining goals, creating a mission statement and developing a preliminary drag proposal for an outdoor education comer. Tentative site selection made that conforms to criteria established by the group. February 1998 DISD School Board receives written preview of the OEC proposal. March 1998 OEC Task force presents a preliminary draft proposal to the OISD Board of Trustees. Requests permission to proceed In developing a more comprehensive proposal and begins developing memoranda of understanding with potential partners in the project (City of Denton, UNT, US Army Corps of Engineers). Spring 1998 Task Force refines proposal, works with partners on facility 0 master plan and develops working agreements in the form of 0 t J memoranda of underotandiT. ~ta*33 ` V v b ~ ,r ~ r? x 32x ❑ C r June IM OEC Task Force returns to School Board with a refined draft of the proposal and drags of memoranda of understanding with i partners. August 1998 School Board considers action to approve memoranda of understanding with proiect partners and lease agreement for land use. 1998-99 lee and Hodge take fifth grade students to Camp Grady Spam for the residential outdoor education program. September 1998 Portabto building (for classroom. storage, staging arse) and portable restrooms are placed on site. Trail development begins. E October 1998 OEC opens for day trips. DISD student volunteer groups work with UNT In habitat development (tres planning, prairie IIII restoration, wetland restoration. Fall 1998 Task force works with architect on master plan for site development and basic building floor plans. January 1999 Sits plan, building plans, estimates for building costa are reported to School Board. Spring 1999 ? As DISD begins planning next facilities bond vote proposal some portion (25% to 33%) of the OEC project is Included as part of the package for voters consideration. May 1999 ? When bond packege Is approved begin work in seeking grants and donations to fund OEC build out. August 1999 Begirt second year of OEC day use operation using portable facilities. • Spring 2000 Begs' work on phase two of OEC development. Put in utility infrastructure, start construdion d permanent buildings that support day use. Spring 2001 Start collecting grants and donations. Begin words on permanent buildings to support residential camp operation. I{ Fell 2001 or Begin residential camp operation. Spring 2002 u 34 A10 32X Q WIM& Jolla 4 7 C . PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT r OUTDOOR EDUCATION CENTER (nvfaed 2 9 as) Purpose: The purpose of this proposal is to outline a plan to provide outdoor education experiences to all Denton Independent School District students. To best accomplish this, we propose that the Denton Independent School District i cons" an outdoor education oerwer within a 30 minute drive from town. The center would be designed to facilitate Interdisciplinary studies to all ape groups with an i emphasis on hands-on activities. We will provide opportunities for students to go on 1R day and full day field trips to 1 experience ecological diversity. The center will provide all frhh grade students in the DISD the opportunity to attend an outdoor education residential camp. Mission: The mission of the Denton ISO Outdoor Education Center Is to provide i Interdisciplinary outdoor classrooms where students can develop a greater awareness and appreciation of the natural environment through direct experiences while promoting a better understanding of conservation, preservation and individual responsibilities as an integral part of that environment. "AN Rationale: Outdoor education is based upon experiential leaminp. Effective inslrvctiorl ties j abstract concepts to concrete experiences. A Chinese proverb states t I hear and I forge' I see and I remember 1 do and I understand I tD ti V 35 I I t,Ji S. 4 ! , 32 X ~ ~ ` C Ye Outdoor education is based on 'real-Ida' situations. As a result, the !essons or leaming activities require the learner to use observation and problem solving skills. Problem solving enables the ra mer to struggle with basic concepts fundamental to truly understanding specific issuos and a more global picture. A facility located within 30 minutes of Denton would serve all Denton students. It would provide opportunities for all DISO students to participate in field trips during regular school hours. Students could observe various ecosystems and participate in numeroA activities and experiments. They could visit the same site several times during the year to note seasonal differences. The pedagogical experiences would extend and complement the classroom curriculum. i i A facility designed to socornmodate a residential camp would ellorv all Denton fifth grade students a chance to attend a week" environmental camp. Furthermore the district would also be able to conduct camps for other school distriet:r generating revenue that would significantly offset the operating expenses. The fac !ity would also 111 have the potential to generate, avenue through rentals on weekend and during the summer. Why Should DISD Build its Own Facility? Currently, two Denton schools participate in an Outdoor Education Camp at YMCA Camp Grady Spruce. That camp began outdoor education programs seven years ago, then doubled its capacity and is now substantially booked. All Pla w and Lewisville ISD fdtl grader;m go to camps in southern Oklahoma. Those camps are " also operating at capacity. Residential o+.tdoor education camps are part of the basic elementary curriculum in many other Texas schools, Several districts operate their own residential facilities including Houston, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Tyler. Many classroom teachers report that making a major change in the teaching 0 environment has many positive advantages. O • j • Ir an outdoor setting, new leadarrs emerge among students. 30 10, LIL s , o I m The 'Outdoor ctessroom' lends itself :o practical and authentic problem solving ectivitfes that can not be easily replicated indoors. This results in increased motivation and task focus. ' The outdoor classroom is more activity oriented and relies less on lecture, textbooks, and use of videos. As a result it add. esses the needs of tactile, kinesthetic, and multi-modality learners, ' Lessons in the outdoor classroom allow students to canrod concrete experiences to abstract voiuabt,.,ay and concepts. The leaming is given more meaning and results f in greater retention. In addition to our own facility, we should encourage our students to use other facilities that are convenient for field trips. These facilities include the outdoor tab at Cam,' •oun Middle School, park sites in both Southlakes and NorVi ekes parts, the outdoor lab under oonstru tlon with the UNT Environmental Education, Scler" and Technology building, state parks associrted with Lake Ray Roberts, the Summer Summits Challenge Course, and the Lake Lewisville wetlands lab. Programing I Curriculum j The curriculum and the instructional strategies developed for the DISD Outdoor Education Center will not stand alone, but rather will complement and be an integral component of our K•12 curriculum. The new alignment of the K-12 core curriculum and the Identification of grade Jovel significant student learning objectives and student performances will be at the core of the OEC curriculum development The OEC programs will emphasize envfronmental studies, development of key science process skills, problem-solving, and the strong connectivity of all of the disciplines. 0 The new science Texas Essential Knowledge and Skulls (TEKS) have a new key component for all grade levels which requires field experiences, data collection, and field studies, The OEC will provide an ideal setting to meet these new mandates. • There has been much written and a number of research studies documented, to 4) support the premise that the more personal experiences a student has, the greater 37 s 7h 32X! o I tror" his/her ability to make connections to the looming process. The OEC will offer a multitude of experiences for all students by providing a variety of fnfordisofpfinary, I hinds-on, and thematk ectividos that connect what they are learning in the classroom to what they are experiencing at the Center with reel-life applications and meaning. Be1c,w is a preliminary outline of the kinds of topics and activities that will be developed far the OEC and integrated into our K-12 curriculum. These topics f address objectives and allow students to develop skills in all of the major disciplines. i Field Trips Elementary - Primary grades Animal Observations: Students will observe signs of animal life such as animal tracks, animals droppings and other evidence of animal homes. Plant Ob at'ons: Students will observe plant life and classify plants into various groups (I.e., color, texture, size) 01mate and Weather. Students will study the effects of the weather on Indigenous plant and animal life. Seasonal Observalions Students will observe the changes in the plant life and animal activity in the orea from season to season. Elementary - Intermediate Water CvcW Students will understand the Importance of water conservation and purification by observing the process or evidence of of the water cycle. Pond Study: Students will collect samples of plant and animal life from the wster and observe the different levels of activity from season to season. w Math and Measurement Students will use a variety of instruments to measLIre area, heights, lengths, and volumes. Students wUl construct and use measurement devices such use an angle-"eter which measures the approximate height of trees. Wino S+mole. Machines: Students will work in groups to discover ways that simple machines are useful In helping make work easier. They will use machines used by settlers to simulate building a small structures. C 0 38 10 rE q i!, S' p ' Y FF 1. Y J 10 Y X r Avg=" • Middle School Orienteering: Students wail loam the key concepts and skills of orienteering. They will apply these skills to better understand the topography of the area, the development of topogrnphical maps and general map skills. They wail also apply various math skills in de-,eloping and plotting an orienteering course as veil as participate in orienteering competitions. Aouatic Studies: Students will strengthen their undeManding of an aquatic ecosystem and participate in field collections and study of aquatic organisms. They wUl develop the skills necessary to scientifically coiled specimens and to quantitatively and qualitatively observe and record data about the specimens. Rocks and Minerals: Students will collect specimens that an be examined at the Cenlur or taken back to their classroom for fuller a". They will loam to kiontify, the key characteristics of rocks and minerals and how these characteristics give insights Into the geological development of the area. Fossils: Students will loam the processes of and identifiatlon of fossilization, colled and identify key fossils of the area They will loam that fossils tell a geological story p and also learn to interpret, using the fossils, the geological history of this region. Students will make molds and ci+ats of area fossils for fuxther examination and analysis in their classroom. Taxes Geoloav: Students will loam the geological development of the area and how k relates to the geological history of Texas and the Noll American continent. They will loam to recognize the results of such geological forces as erosion, weathering, and deposition and haw these forces have shaped the landscape 1 initiative Games'. Students will loam self-confidence, leadercnip skills, and collaborative team work by participating in Initiative games and simulations. They vdll • develop skills that will help them learn how to cooperate, respect others perspectives, build consensus, and be a productive and effective member of a team. 39 25 10 10 11. 132 X I • r O High School Geoloav Studies: The center can offer a wide variety of geology-based programs including soil creation, fossil hunting and erosion studies. Students can study the underlying bedrock of the Denton area from the exposed Woodbine Sandstone strata and the accompanying Washita Group located at the site. Chemistry students would be able to focus on the chemical processes that lead to the identification and erosion of local limestone. Aquatic S ies: Students will have the opportunity to study the effects of erosion, siltation and the creation of flood Mains. Hydrology studies may include stream loading, sheet erosion and the effects. of seasonal flooding on steam beds and river paths. The biological aspects of aquatic science will focus on steam entomology, microbiology and aquatic botany. Entomoloov: The varied microeNmates on the property will allow students to study all forms of terrestrial and aquatic insects and their roles in the environment as Indicator species may be studied by students in AP oowses, Bolgpy; High school students will be able to study the various local plants from bottom land hardwoods to marsh grasses. The diversity of topography and associated plants at the Center will allow teachers to focus on macroscele environmental systems. Biology I students may study plant sure and function while Biology II AP Gasses focus on plant biochemistry and genetics. Taxonomy: The DEC, will allow all biology students to study taxonomy by classifying unknown plants and animals using the same procedures as field biologists. This 'hands-Ono work with teachers will give the students a greater appreciation for species diversity and classification than can be learned in tt.+ classroom, FIB , rorimental Science: Environmental programs will cover a broad spectrum of • Interdisciplinary subjects and skills. Students will study soil toxicity, water quality, species Interrelations, biodiversity, community succession, and other environmental topics. High school students could also be used as resident educators for elementary programs in which younger students help collect environmental data. I i I i i 40 {I f. L~} h K 1 ~7 32X soot" 1 ) ~ • . 0 i VKAV Y Residential Camp This component of the Outdoor Education Center will be a five day program for rfih grade students which will fnctude numerous activities that foster growth of the whole child: cognitive, emotional, physical, and social. . CoMitive and Physical growth - The curriculum from which teachers can choose may include hikes on several trails focusing on the local ecosystems, arts and crafts, canoeing, sports activities, group building Initiative gem", journal writing, observation skills and a variety of applied math and science activities. ` Social and Emotiogul groitAh - As a part of a group, students M11 experience the value of working together to accomplish common tasks such as preparing the dining hall for meats, eating family style, paddling a canoe, and keeping cabins and resWoms dean. Spending a week away from home with classmates In a residential setting allows students develop unique bonds with their peen, adult chaperones, and teachers. teaming In a different setting allows new leaders to emerge and addresses seaming styles that are sometimes overlooked in the classroom. Wtlhout E the distractions of TV, radio, and other electronic applianoos, students will come to appreciate the unique entertainment that Is provkded by nature and their peen, Daily Schedule, The camp day will begin at 7:45 AM, and end at 5:45 P.M. l Activities will be divided between morning and afternoon learning blocks. Evening activities and a snack time will be conducted by the visiting staff and will conclude about 9:30 P.M. Meals will be provided at 8:00 AM., 12,00 noon, and &DO P.M, with an afternoon snack at 2:00 P.M. s Facility Needs: The DEC task force has located a site owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers at the north end of Collins Road and east end of Hartley Field Road where Clear Creek and the Elm Fork of the Trinity River converge. This location Is convenient to all Denton schools and Is within the DISD attendance boundary. It Is close enough to i f 41 j 32 / 10 ~ 6 1 0. t + t ~ • 0 t i allow for half day field trips. The property provides access to two wcterwvays, forested bottom land, open fields, wetlands, and the Elm Fork greenbelt. The site contains a variety of plants and wildlife. Office building / Visitor Center This would provide space for administrative offices, Instructors offices, teacher workroom, restrooms, health • first aide room, a conferenoe/classroom, a small AV. auditorium (capacity 50), exhibit area, and girt shop. Maintenance building This would house grounds and maintenance equipment, a small workshop, and i storage. Study Shelters Pavilions would be strategically located along traits. The dimensions should be approximately 20' x 30,' roofed, and have partial walls on the north and west sides to provide shelter during inclement weather. The pavilions will also have provide storage closets for instructional equipment. Dining Hall This facility would be designed for multi use functions such as large and small group activities. It should be able to seat 150 for a most have a kitchen for on site meal preparation, restrooms, AV. storage, multi purpose classroom for labs, crafts and use during inclement weather. 0 Cabins for residential camp Slx duplex cabins with each side large enough to steep 12 people (counting 2 adult chaperones). Floor space would need to be adequslo to that no bunk beds would be E used. Restrooms with showers would be needed for each side of the cabin. Total capacity would handle 120 students and 24 adults. 0 f 42 10 32XIO "NOW" O MRAM" Residences Typically, residential camps include private residences for the maintenance supervisor (camp caretaker) and the director. This provides continuous supervision and security for a facility that is somewhat remote and used for overnight programing. The staff living In on-site residences are on call after regular working hours, Each residence would be from 1,600 to 2,200 square feet. I Outdoor Amphitheater This would be an outdoor gathering place with bench sealing for day or night programs and campfires that could accommodate 300 people. It would have an area to accommodate a campfire but also have lighting for programing after dark. Infrestnkturs The facility could either be into a community water system or drill wells and operate a sell-sufficient water source. The facility will require a waste water disposal system that meets the local zoning requirements. When possible, all infrastructure facilities 1 should be designed to allow for Instructional opportunities and should incorporate alternative energy souroes such as solar power to demonttrate 'earth friendly options In construction. Plan to phase In the development and operaflon of a DISD DEC facility 1. Phase one would include the development of a master plan for the faOity oonsidering all uses and programing. Basic facilities needed to accommodate day field trips would be established. These could be as basic as a portable classroom, portable reslrooms, and bottled water. Initial layout and construction of trails would be • done to provide access to outdoor features and study sites y 2. Phase two would include development of the infrastructure needed to support the master plan and construction of permanent Wliti-is needed to support day trips (using 19497 bond money). It would also include xnstnuction of the study shelters to b • support day field trips and improvement of trails for ADA accessibility. 43 ~h rQ 32 x~❑ f i ~f ~ l ~ f t r,I I O, ref l ' rl 5 3. Phase three would involve the construction of facilities to support the residential camp using money secured from grants and donations. j i Staffing i Staffing would be phased In as the facility grows in its scope, When the center is fully I functioning the staff would probably include the following: I Djt4gg to live on site, supervise and coordinate the programs and activities that odour at the DEC. The director would supervise the staff and have responsibilities to the center similar to those of a principal to the campus. The director would also market the facility to other districts and organizations to generate revenue that would I offset operating costs to the district. The director would also be on call during off duty hours to support groups using the facility end provide supervision and security. 1 Caretaker to live on site, supervise facility maintenance, supervise housekeeping needs. The caretaker would be on call during off duty hours to handle facility needs (such as plumbing problems) and provide a degree of security for the facility. 2 teachers to support visiting teachers through ste!f development, creation of outdoor lessons and teaching some lessons requiring special skills or background. Food servioe staff - adequate stsfiing to prepare meals for those attending the residential camp, Development Costs I Issues • not available at this time Annual 03M Budget i The Outdoor Education Center could be open for rssidential camp sessions about 31 i • weeks during the school year. Ten of those weeks would be scheduled for Denton O 0 schools. The other 21 would be available for other schools. j a y~","` rr; ry`.~. 5x10 32 x~l~ Now i . 1 erg I i 21 weeks for outside schools averaging 100 students @ $430 each = $273,000 10 weeks for Der;on schools averaging 100 students a $60 each $80,000 operating a this level the total revenue generated would be $353,000 ' Fxyroll costs (based on ave. 1997.98 salaries in DISD with benefits) . Director 1 a $65,000 (based on pisndpaudiredor salary ® 210!240 days) 565,000 Teachers 2 $32,00 (eased on 1a7 days) $64,000 Caretaker 1 $23,000 (based on head custodian 260 days) $23,000 Secretary 1 ~ $20,000 (based on elementary sec, celery 210 to 220 days) $20,000 Housekeeper 1® 517,000 (Used on custodian Mary26o days) $17,000 Food service staff paid from the food budget Total payroll costs for residential camp program $189,000 Electric costs $1,08 per sq. ft, per year ® _ sq. feet • $75,000 '(this is based on the avenge util" costs for Los School over the past 3 years) Other utilities (trash, water, etc.) Food costs (including staff) $24 per student per week Q 100 students for 31 wks $74,400 Materials % supplies 3100 res. stu. Q $ 6.50 per stu. $20,150 i Total residential camp cults $358 550 0 Note • It should be understood that the OEC will probably not be operating at full capacity during the first year. Furthermore, the current figures show the( even at full capacity, other revenue sources will be necessary to fully fund the operation. , However, the facilities and staff that operate the residential program would also provide the basic support necessary for operating the day trips. B ~J ' ~ ` 25 x 10 32 X I 0 , ~ r P yi "i I 1 1 ;1„ y / r h~ f f.q 1 fi (YOMIl~ ~ loo Y ~r ~ , l , r • ~,'r I r f , e I t l t f , } i i vlt r r e I ' } t Cv. Other Programing and Revenue Opportunities As the facility Is developed there are other programing possiblAies that can be addressed. These would need to be evaluated based on their correlation to the basic mission of the facility. Some of these programs can also generate additional revenue to support the operating budget Potential programing could Include the following: Working farm - This could be used to help children understand the source of many of our foods and fibers. The farm might also serve as a laboratory for FFA and agriculture students who do not have access to appropriate facilities. It might also be a sight for students involved in alternative school programs. Live materials center • Thir operation could provide small animals and plants for use In classrooms on a library loan basis. Teachers could 'check our a cage of hamsters, an aquarium with a salamander, or a pot of perennial or annual plants. Staff development ! retreat center • The Center oould socommodals professional staff development acilvitles designed to help teachers use the Center with their students or simply as a location for general training, team building, planning, etc. Weekend and summer uses - Some areas of the center (trails, access to rivers) would probably be open to the public during weekends and the summer. The residential facilities could be made available on the weekends and in the summer by contracted arrangements so that additional revenues could be generated. The i additional use would also Incur additional costs but would need to be offset by the 0 fees charged to the groups. 40 } 25 x~❑: 32 ~p . r o , ,xaea~a ' o iVIWAA,I Lewisville Lake ® t.,,t,~q►o~„~ Existing Unduse and rropos~e Proposed EcMskm R~ro~uuco~ Rrslaalion CJ N POW WItlama OW-Old N Wolfe i . 1 1 I ECOSYSTEM RESTOAATOON H I w. ne CA blire+ RECOMMENOED PLAN #oA I oo a+;a w IEWI$ ME LAKE FIGURE 3 47 II 211 32XI El LL R . .t 2i o V S a Yi I _ y ~ '`I~ • j I :I I 'a 1 i f' y r j ~ ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 1 STUDY AREA s pa *04t,co«.us a fK3URE7. .r *CAP" " Wf ,,w IEWISYIIIE LAKE i 48 I 4k ,4 , x o 32 x i D r h~ j Y <r t M i t IMPLEMENTATION I SCHEDULE Approval of Ecosystem Restoration Report March 1998 Initiate Plans and Specifications April 1998 95% Plans and Specifications July 1998 Request Project Approval August 1998 I Execute Project Cooperation Agreement November 1998 • Acquire Real Estate January 1999 Advertise Construction Contract February 1999 • Initiate Construction April 1999 Complete Construction April 2000 Complete Monitoring April 2002 32XI❑ , e e y ~ „r i♦ I 1 n 1 I. 1 1 1 I 1 I norm COST APPORTIONMENT Total Project Cost $ 488,370 Federal Share (75%) $ 3669278 Non-Federal Share LERRD's $ 89470 G Work-in-Kind $ - o-Cash622 Total Non-Federal Share (25%) $ 122,092 I~; 1 r K 75 ~0 32 x!❑ F , v A l , . t . Al I ~ ' 11 ~ • O l ~ tl 1 ~ t Agenda No Agenda Ire Dale CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Econorrrk Development • 215 E. McKinney • Denton, Texes 78201 Telephone (-W) 34M35 a FT MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1998 TO: Mayor and City Council Members Denton Independent School District Board Members FROM: Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development THROUGH: Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Finance SUBJECT: Tax Abatement Policy Attached is the final draft of the tax abatement policy. The Joint Committee on Tex Abatement last met on April 2, 1998 to discuss the policy, and a copy of this document has been mailed to them for final approval The Committee solicited input from City Council and D1SD Board Members which have been incorporated into this document. The major changes to the policy are as follows: ♦ The minimum valuation threshold has been increased from $5 million to $10 million. ♦ The new document allows for a great deal of flexibility in the percentage of S abatement granted. The policy has a 15% to 25% base percentage and allows for additional increments of 5% for certain project factors (pages 3 and 4 of the policy), The highest percentage an applicant could receive is 50"/0. ♦ The policy also provides some flexibility in applying the abatement. For example, ei business may qualify for 25% abatement for four years. The policy would now allow • the City or School District to consider granting 100% for one year. 0 0 The City and School District may participate at different percentage rates and different terms, IWIAl I r,l !u (,Tualdy : an ire" r. " 25 R 32 X I IJ r x J ~e rt 5 R.ii i 4 L I l• d L .i ~a k J 1 i t 14 r i ' . " i. n r • N1J".1tV:YX wTI^.": k•.f~ ,SZb^I. « v ~ k 4.«.. i •y . xw.nxrY..ti f r r ~ . w J.. J. • is • The policy addresses the fact that Denton County tax abatement applications are considered separately. Denton County is still represented on the Committee and will still review the same materials presented on the project. However, since the County has adopted a separate and independent policy, the terms of the County's policy will apply. r>" • The City has the right to require the project to purchase electric power from the City ~y of Denton (if the project is located In a City of Denton certified uea). 7°;I • Much of the application information has been removed from the policy document and i included in the formal tax abatement application. The applicant must now provide the following additional information: • List of any other inccntives for the project 1 • List of any environmental permits required by the project • Record of compliance to all environmental regulations nw„= • Description of any offsite Infrastructure requirements. <k ; Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the proposed changes to the tax r abatement policy. , k y. r r I r r --.asp f;, K la ~ZXlci 5 r 1 i DENTONPOLICYFOR TAX ABATEMENT 4 a 1. GENERAL PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The City of Denton (City) and the Denton Independent School District (DISD) are committed to the promotion of high quality development in all parts of the city and to an ongoing improvement in the quality of life for its citizens. Insofar as these objectives are generally served by the enhancement and expansion of the local economy, the City and DISD will, on a case-by-case basis, give consideration to providing tax abatement as a stimulus for economic development in Denton. It is the policy of the City and DISD that said consideration will be provided in accordance with the procedures and criteria outlined in this document. Nothing Iperein shall imply or suggest that the City or DISD are under any obligation to provide tax shatementto any applicant, Denton County ad valorem taxes may also be abated; however, applications will be considered separately under the guidelinesof the Denton County tax abatement policy. All applicants shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. Abatements will be considered only as inducements to generate development that would not otherwise occur. Abatements will not be considered if construction of a project has already begun. Also, an abasement will not be considered if the requesting busirtssisindirect competition with anexisting Denton business. fax abatements, as described in this policy, will be available for new and/or existing facilities and i 1. structures and for businesses wanting to locate, expand or modernize basic industries, corporate office headquarters or distribution centers except as this policy may be limited for property described in Section 1 )IMAsuar1u.arms?rmVppnc,1ANArcMW t"11 ttt.er4rAAAriknaira.xVI" _ 10 0 32 tllf I 1 1' I r,. r I 0 r Y I 1 • 312,21 l(a) of the Texas Property Tax Code (Vemons Texas Civil Statutes Annotated, hereinafter referred to i as "Tax Code." IL JOINT TAX ABATEMENT COMMITTEE Requests for tax abatement shall be reviewed by the Joint Committee on Tax Abatement, said Committee being comprised of two elected officials each from the City, the DISD and Denton County One additional staff person from each jurisdiction shall be appointed to serve as a nonvoting, ex officio member of the committee. The Joint Committee on Tax Abatement serves as a recommending body to the taxing entities regarding whether economic development incentives should be offered in each individual case. It's recommendation shall be based upon an evaluation of information submitted in the tax abatement application and any additional information requested by the Committee or presented to the Committee. The Trx Abatement Application is presented as Exhibit A of this policy. All meetings of the Joint Committee shall be held in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas OovtmmentCode. 111. VALUE OF INCENTIVES The criteria outlined in the Application will be used by the Joint Committee on Tax Abatement in determining whether or not it is in the best interests of the affected taring entities to recommend that tax abatement be offered to a particular project. Specific considerations will include the degree to which the ' 1 individual project furthers the goals and objectives of the community, as well as the relative impact of the project. New, expanding and modernizing businesses may be considered for abatement if the minimum threshold, as described in Table 1 below, is met. c, 2 VA. AA VOX I AHAAEDDt rD\5%V tAY 04 t"4W COMMITtErW MIAIEMEW IOM ICY halls ' 1x10 32x10 a o f' r i ! r aJ.~f S ' , 5 a , i ~ , e ' r I OiIrRA ~ ' 4:" r' r ~ . 0 % 1 r i i Once a determination has been made that tax abatement should be offered, the value and term of the + abatement may be determined by referencingthe folIowingtable: TABLE L• Establishes a framework for considering the length of abatement according to assessed real I property value of improvements and of tangible personal property located on the real property. VALUEOFSTRUCTURE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY YEARSOF PERCENTAOEOF IN MILLION DOLLARS ABATEMENT ABATEMENT 100 10 15-25% 80 9 15.25% 65 8 15.25% 50 7 15.25% 35 6 15-25% 20 5 15.25% 15 4 15.25% 10 3 15.25% i To qualify, companies must meet the minimum threshold of the policy in the first 24 months from the execution of the agrccment or as specified in the tax abatement agreement I If upon initial application a project qualifies for tax abatement under the guidelines set forth in this policy, the taxing entities may consider granting an additional 5% abatement for each one of the following factors may be offered to applicants provided, however, the total tax abatement does not exceed 500/a or ten cars. No applicant may receive credit for more than five of the following factors: ° The project will occupy a building that has been vacant for at least two years; i ° The project will create high-skilled,high-payingjobs as documented by the applicant; t ° The project will involves partnership with one of the two universities in Denton; T ~ 1 3 ~A'H il' ifH. I SHiR.o rm- I%CTAk.U irEMEM C0MMI1RC74\ MHrEiffKC KI"I"" i 5 32X10 11 1 1 ' 1 9 r 1 4/ 1 I r 0 Ir r , i r... ..n ...fir. 41 .n WRi.}ri ~ ■ The project will provide knowledge-based jobs (at least 25 percent of jobs require college bachelors degree at entry level); ■ The project will donate significant public art to the community. (To qualify, donation must be approvedby Greater Denton Arts Council and City Council); ■ The project will donate significant materials/equipment to the public schools (To qualify, donation must be approved by DISD and City Council.); • The project will create improvementsto the Denton Central Business District; ■ The project is capital intensive; a The project will result in the formation of a business park; The project is an international or national headquarters facility. The total tax abatement may not exceed 50% for ten years. Ali abatements are subject to final approval of the City Council and DISD Board of Trustees, or the County Commis<ioner's Court Even though a project may meet the criteria as set forth in this policy, an application may be denied at the discretion of the City Council andlor DISD Board of Trustees. The tax abatement shall not apply to any portion of the land value of the project. The thresholds as described in Table I are considered guidelines for establishing the Tax Abatement Agreement terms. However, the City and DISD may determine that a lower or higher percentage and/or a shorter or longer term of abatement may be more appropriate for an individual project. If abatement is approved, the City and DISD may consider applying all or a portion of the abatement in the first) car or during any shorter period within the term of the tax abatement agreement. For i example, an approved abatement of 25 percent for four years may be applied as 100 percent abatement for one yrear. • • • J14 To rece've lax abatement from the City, the owner of the project must enter Into a contract with g 'nfNAl1'OLI'f11AI1CDD[PPDVf10T1%Al~iCA6VC COAMIttCE'rtAM A11AM17Y~\t PCRKT 4MKb '1R1r ?5 10 32nD a i , 1 , ~ i r P 1~,T 1~n Yx . r I r 4 ~ y I 0 `1t I I r I I OVUM I 1 I I Denton Municipal Electric Utilities to provide electric service for a period of not less than five years and I maintain performance of contractual obligations for the full period of the contract, unless located in an area in which the Denton Municipal Electric Utilities is not certified to serve. Upon recommendation of Denton Municipal Electric Util ties, this requirement maybe waived. ;I Preliminary Application IV. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES I Any person, organization or corporation desiring that the City or DISD consider providing tax abatement to encourage location or expansion of facilities within the limits of the jurisdictions shall be required to comply with the following procedural guidelines. Nothing within these guidelines shall imply or suggest that either the City or DISD is under any obligation to provide tax abatement to any applicant. A. Applicant shall complete the attached "Application for Tax Abatement." B, Applicant shall prepare a map or other documents showing the precise location of the property and all roadways within SOO feet of the site showing existing uses and conditions of real I property, and proposed improvements and uses, any proposed changes in zoning, the Denton Development Plan as may be amended, applicable buildingcodes, and City ordinances. C. If the property is described by metes and bounds, a complete legal description shall be provided. Applicant shall complete all forms and information detailed in the Application and submit all information to the City Manager, City of Denton, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, TX i 1 76201. D. All information in the application package detailed above will be reviewed for completeness j ' r and accuracy. Additional information maybe requested as needed. s 1 'Y" 0 Y'M P 3114 Kf"LFr0%SYVIO 4/AW aM l01."tIrE TA.t UATEWVT I0.K Y I AI A" I I I I I I 5 x 32 x~C. r J ,s ti'~E'iYlllU . 0 ' SAM r i E. The application will be distributed to the appropriate City and DISD departments for internal review and comments. Additional information may be requested as needed. F. Copies of the complete application package and staff comments will be provided to the Joint Committee on Tax Abatement. 0. Fiscal agents of the City, DISD and County will review the application for comments and recommendation. Additional information may be requested as needed. Considerationof the Application H. The Joint Committee on Tax Abatement will consider the application at a reguly or called meeting(s). Additional information maybe requested as needed, 1. The recommendation of the Joint Committee on Tax Abatement will be forwarded, with all relevant materials, to the chief administrative office of each taxing entity. J. If the City Council of Denton decides to grant a tax abatement, it shall call a public hearing to consider establishment of a tax reinvestment zone In accordance with Section 312.201 of the lax Codc and meeting one or more of the criteria of Section 312,202 of the Tax Code K. 'fhe City Council of Denton shall hold the public hearing and determine whether the project Is "feasible and practical and would be of benefit to the land to be included in the zone and municipality in accordance with Section 312.201," Special consideration shall be given to policies noted in the Denton Development Plan as may be amended %ben designating a tax reinvestment zone. L. The City Council of Denton may consider adoption of an ordinance designating the area • described in the legal description of the proposed project as a commercial/industrialtax O • 6 iK&1S WO VMUI OLPTD1S1 Cfk%klArEMEN1COWME? 4i OMMEN1 POLICY IM&. i 32 x~a 1 IOYi[irJO - 0 r i f r t abatement zone. M. The City Council may consider adoption of an ordinance or resolution approving the terms and cond:bons of a contract between the City and the applicant governing the provision of the tax abatement and the commitments of the applicant including all the terms required by Section 312.205 of the Tax Code and such other terms and conditions as the City Council may require. Should the commitments subsequently not be satisfied, the tax abatement shall be null and void (unless the tax abatement agreement provides for a recapture of the property tax revenue lost proportionate to a partial failure to meet the minimum thresholds set forth in the agreement) and all abated taxes shall be paid immediately to the City of Denton and all other taxing j urisdictions participating in the tax abatement agreement. Provisions to this effect shall be incorporated into the agreement, N. The goveming bodies of Denton County and DISD may consider ratification of and participation in the tax abatement agreement between the City of Denton and the applicant. 0. The City and DISD reserves the authority to enter into tax abatement agreements at differing percentages and/or terms as set forth in the guidelines of this policy consistent with the requirementsof the Tnx Code. Any tax abatementagreemcntwill address various issues, including but not limited to, the following; I. Oencrai lescriplionof the project; 2r Amount of the tax abatementand percent of value to be abated each year; 3. Method of calculating the value of the abatement; 4. Duration of the abatement, including commencement date and termination date; s 5. Legal descriptionof the property; IKH 41MIS'I"Et, EIL"D11W MA.% ARATE14M COWMT ITA% AlkltWNT EDLKY IM ke _ -in 32 X - I , m • t y~'1 rl 4 a r r. QlN7Uf,t• i ~ I rr's +P,I I .n tf 6. Kind, number, location and timetable of planned improvements; r 7. Specific terms and conditions to be met by applicant; 8. The proposed use of the facility and nature of construction; a, 9. Contractual obligations in the event of default, violation of terms or conditions, delinquent taxes, recapture, administration and assignment I y r , Annual Evduado f : L I r Upon completion of construction, the Joint Committee on Tax Abatement shall receive an annul " evaluation of each application receiving an abatement from the City Manager to insure compliance with the } i agreement to report possible violations of the agreement to the taxing entities. After new tax base numbers are received in July of each year, the City Manager and his staff wdll have ninety (90) days to review and f, prepare a breakdown of those figures. Transfer or Asslyomenl A contract for tax abatement maybe transferred or assigned by the original applicant to a new owner f; r; upon approval by the various taxing jurisdictions after such a recommendation is made by the Join! Committee on Tau Abatement. 47V0.15NARFIT(Y1TL11'A1'C'SA%Al1iENEMCtlMMl71F£1A%1lAT£E6,M 10lkYlMlo, 1 r• ~~V k r t tFf' 25 10 0 ' AaFraaas ` . l I SPOCRe7At M1' h EXHIBIT A The City of Denton Tax Abatement Application About flit Application.,, The Tax Abatement Application provides the City with specific information on the project. The information requested in the Application is designed to address the criteria developed within the City of Denton's Tax Abatement Policy. The information serves as the basis for final analysis and overall project evaluation. This evaluation is provided to Council Members and serves as a source document during City Council deliberations, The Application And The Agreement... Specific information from the Application (like value of new Investment and employment commitments) is incorporated Into the Abatement Agreement. In fact, the Application Is an attachment to the Agreement. Since the agreement is a binding contract, it is important that each question on the application be answered in.r ~_Jj and a realistically as possible. Simply put, the application is part of the process from start to finish so you'll w~ nt to make sure you're comfortable with the contents. When is The Application Final? The answer to this question Is very simple: When you tell us, "It's final." It Is not uncommon for a property owner(s) to submit numerous Applications as drafts for informational and evaluative purposes only, As conversations continue, the property owner will submit a finalized version of the Application that includes all of the commitments agreed to during die discussions. What About ConJfdentialiry 7 Section 312.003 of the Texas Tax Code makes information provided to the City as a part of this application that L describcsthe specific processes or business activities to be conducted or other property to be located on the property for which tax abatement is sought confidential, Such information may not be subject to public disclosure until the tar abatemert agreement Is executed. The City is subject to disclosing most records and documents upon request under the Public Information Act. Accordingly. please clearly indicate and mark any proprietary Information, trade secrets or other matters you consider confidential information in your application. Who Is Authorized To Sign the Application? 1 Because the Application itself is non-binding, Its signatute need not be the property owner or even an individual ' duly authorized to sign on behalf of the property owner. However, if an Agreement is reached, the Application will p be an attachment to the Agreement and Its contents will be binding through the authorized signature required on the Agreement. 9 A 11 AA Va VNRIDNPt tM 51(0 Al AR A TFAII StCIHM11It F. 1A% AB A1El7R1 POLK' V 1910 4v f r , ~rotnrcra I , I • p► ply ~ , i A ♦ p 0 ' rp M OWa' 1 City of Denton Tax Abatement Application City of Denton City Manager's Ofike . Denton, Texas 76201 (940) 349-8307 O • (940) 349.8596 FAX u 1 10 t14 ti V% WA 1 98 AACt,br.?'r M n C f49 ANA tFWVT CMI W M t A\ AOATTWN1 NlX V lwl k i ' 2f) x 10 32 x I Q s h i ! ,i 1~ Vt~ 4 1 r' 4•~ c r r l! rrausrx L i r , APPLICATION FOR TAX ABATEMENT CITY OF DENTON 1. Property Owner: Company or Project Name: Mailing Address: Telephone: Fax: Company representative to be contacted: Name and title. Malting Address: Telephone: Fax: _ 2. Provide a chronology of plant openings, closing and relocations over past 13 years: 3. Provide a record of mergers and financial restructuring during the last five years. 4. Will the occupants of the project ho owner or lessees? If lessens, are occupancy commitments already existing? r 0 _ t S. Is the project a relocation, expansion of existing facility, or new facility to expand operations? If relocation, give current location. _ r a 4 II i ,q It- 0% q I Y I U1FliM VtM I%[ 10 OVMNI CMNI IT414VIE St POLKV1,M8, 10 34, X 10 t , ~ ! y I ~ I I a 1 t 4 1 I r r ^I , 1 r I 1. . 1 I` 1 - ar. It r asanrroa S : ✓ I ` 1„ ~ I a r.v)i v o-rv ar t 6. If an existing Denton business, will project result in abandonment of existing facility? If w, the value of the existing facility will be subtracted from value of new facility to arrive at total project value. 7. Property Description: • Attach copy of deed (or surveyor's notes) detailing property's metes and bounds. • Artach map of project Including all roadways, land use and zoning within 500 feet of site. 8. Current Value: Attach copy of latest property tax statement from Denton County Appraisal District (include both real and personal property). 4. Increased Value- Estimated Total Cost of Project: it A. Structures $ C. Site Development S B. Personal Property $ D. Other Improvements S Briefly describe these Investments (I.e. building square footage, types of personal property, type of site development planned for this location, and other improvements); 10. For each taxing entity, Indicate the amount of tax abatement requested. City: % for years School District: % for years County: 96 for _years A. List any other financial incentivesthis projectwill requestltecelve: Estimated Freeport Exemption S_ Estimated Electric Utility Industrial Development Rider S. Estimated WaterNastewater Infrastructure Assistance S i I. Me a brief description of the activities to be performed at this location, including a description of products to be produced and/or services to be provided: 1 I • ~ O • 12 n'NL1\ULI AIIARI'UDE:1fb11V('1411MA1E1dEM I'OALN1 rifE'iAt MA1Eh1EY1M K1 Iwl At `{F 25 ❑ 32X t L ~ i ."e .qr f ~ Y' ~ pe t t~l S1 ♦.11 r, `tr + { + - r ' r+ I ar i~5t J; 1., r• r~'b 1 ~ y ps t • r r F 0 12. Project Construction Phase: A. Estimate percentage of project development and construction dollars to be spent with Denton based Contractors or Sub-Contractors: B. Construction Employment Estimates: 1, Start (Month(Year): 2. Completion Date (Month/Year): 3. Number of Construction Jobs: 4. Estimated Total Construction Payroll: _ C. Describe Any Off-Site Infrastructure Requirements: Water: _ Sanitary Sewer: Streets; Drainage: _ i Other: 13• Project Operation Phase, Provide employment Information for the number of years tax abatement Is re uesled. , Existing At Project At Term of EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION Operation or Stan Date Abatement Request applicable) _ (month) (year) A. Total number of Permanent, Full• time jobs 9. Employees Transferred From Outside Denton C, Net Permanent Full-time Jobs (A } minus B) D. Percentage of Net Jobs (C. above) filled by Denton residents" , E. Total Annual Payroll for all Permanent, Full-time Jobs (A. • above) p . y • Fech spplkadnn will he reviewed on its merlin However, absent ewaorduurycircumsuncee, r minimum or 25% of new employees sh0Uld he tknton residents. Company shall report annually and, if percemaar Is not met, a proms reduction of the abuemetu M occur, 13 ,Air As vL4 LXIhI o iraNR'c"TAN A11\T1,y1F%1CO 11TFF 1A1 U VILWNT MXK'• 1"Se ;2x10 i ' r"r ~i t , w _A ,4 • I wa~ane t ' rw a.~s r-MF. K. sne n i~ e.NaM.r~ ..3. 1' 1 i F. Types of Jobs Created (List the job titles and number of positions in each category that will be ' employed at the facility, Provide average wage for each category) I 0. Estimate annual utility usage for project: Gas, Electric: Water solid Waste. 14. Describe any other direct benefits to the City of Denton as a result of this project (e.g., sales tax revenue or project elements Identified in Tax Abatement Policy, Section 111): \ 15. Is Property Zoned Appropriately? Yes No Current Zoning: Zoning Required for Proposed Project.,_ Anticipated Variances 16, Is Property Platted: Yes No Will Replattingbe Necessary: Yes No 17, Discuss any environmental impacts created by the project. A. List any permits for which applicant must apply. Applicant will be required to provide City with copies of all applications for environmental permits upon completion of application(s). 8, Provide record of compliance to all environmental regulations for the past five years: L r T 14 ,K'N ATA0.ilillN IPDVTb\S167AX A~A1FM[M C014ATITk',tA%Al ITEAI[9T fQlN'Y lal lul 25 x 10 32 x 0. 111100= IONS i ~ s: a ~ 5: ^ s. r L s v Vr• ~ i , 9 '(qi t i ~i, i L bt't ,t ~ i 4 y 'yi ~Y♦ tl •y'.t j~ 2 ib L t t r N C i r a M. >i ~ :v I soarFav ~ A y 4 O i 18, Provide specific detail of any businesseslresidemsthat will be displaced and assistance that will be available from requesting entity. 19. Provide description of any historicallysignificantarea Included withinthe project's area as determined by Historic Preservation Officer. If any, give detail of how the historically significant area will be preserved. a 20. Justification for Tax Abatement Request (Substantiate and more fully describe the justification for this request. Include the amount of the abatement requested and show how it will contribute to the financial viability of the project. Submit attachments if necessary,) 21. List additional abatement factors to ce considered for this project as outlined on pages 3 and 4 of the tax abatement policy, 22. Financial Information Attach a copy of the latest audited financial statement or, In the case of a new project, a business plan. This tax abatement application Is submitted with the acknowledgement that additional certified financial information may be required. { t" 1 l Authorized Signature bate r I ' IS Cil,M1'fat` WOLVbrl M%1 C.TAI ANA CEW.41COWFtTCF' I M AaATF6fEA'EFGEK'Y IM69 Y `i` ? ~ 'i r . k to J~ ~ ♦iJ P Ir 1 , { `~"i 0 ~ J .1 r I'. y + . 1 1 1 J 1 'I .1 f P . (nl• r ~l {1 • / t~ 4'1 iJ. Q 1 ryi r fi r i Agenda No 0! Agenda Item_ " . Date. e 1Y', CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 713 E. rkNnn y sww apron. Y.w• ~sso~ coot >+saso i M office of the City Manager MEMORANDUM DATE: April 17, 1998 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council DISD Trustees FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: REMOVAL OF TRUCKS FROM U.S. 380 We have been working with TXDOT for a long time on this issue, Our Traffic Safety Committee recommended removal of the trucks from U,S. 380 back on April 18, 1997, The City Council reviewed that recommendation and approved an ordinance on June 17, 1997. 1 Since then we have been working with TXDOT in making sure all appropriate authorities were included and that we had all the appropriate parties Involved. Since that time, we've been working with TXDOT to facilitate this removal. About the first of this year we were notified that we would have to submit plans for all of the signage of U.S. 380 and on all major Intersecting roads, On February 3, 1998 we hired Cummins and Pruitt, consulting engineers, to do that work. They submitted finalized plans to TXDOT on March 23, 1998 and we are currently awaiting an official answer from TXDOTr As late as Tuesday this week, t talked with Buz Elsom about the truck routes and when we might get approval from TXDOT and when we might expect the signage to be up. I` • Buz Elsom has advised that he expects a response from the Dallas office by the and of next week. We would expect final approval some time in May. The signage could then be Installed this summer. If anyone has questions about any of this information, please call me at your , conven 1 I ick vehla I Deputy City Manager City*SD Joint Mlg Trucks ON NO ~ I 1'/k.~icwfr,~f. ~~rrul~fy.Cr~d{v" l 2r 32 10 X1 r , ' maw 1 AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL April 17, 1998 0 Joint meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Denton Independent School District Board of Trustees on Friday, April 17, 1998 at 12:00 noon at the Radisson Hotel, 2211 1-35E North, Denton, Texas at which the following will be considered: 1. Call to order, announce quorum 2. Denton's sub areas growth projections 1 Review of site plan for park, school and the C, H. Collins athletic facilities 4. Development activity 5. New bond program development and coordination 6. Impact fees 7. Collaboration activities a. New joint use agreement b. School resource officers 5 c. Outdoor Learning Center (Greenbelt Site) 8. Tax abatement update 9. Moving truck traffic off Highway 380 10. Special recognition 11. Adjourn CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the b . _Jn board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of , 1998 at o'clock (a.m.) (p,m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE THE RADISSON HOTEL IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE 0 SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TOD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE, rt' r 10 32Xfa OWN i r , low i, I- ~ 1"~~ i - L-~' : W T ~ r m•--~-yam L- _7 _ r )d 1 U r 1 S 1 LATSNNITS 1 Mllam to It Ran , Phase II 16 U U 3 B r y HIl a Este 1138 4 ~Iadows of ndy HIII 40 6 De~ewuoad Ph es III 1 6 Shuman 6a 47 r 7 Blue Sky Estates 17 9 C hairps n ghti, Phas IV 84 1 . Lawaw Rench 368 1 , Country Club Place 7 1 Oaks ii 1 . Win Rlwr Estates 43 . San Creek Estates, P see 1 108 . Su own Rench 433 Rid amontAddition 74 Est 1. 4AQ Hill 1 , Oaks of on echo 1 230 Damon ou ty CI Estates 186 20 1 kory r Helphts 94 21. a Par VIII pe ISummIt Oaks) 337 22 Th Pro r 1892 7 24 Alwr A y833 `li 26 Wolski ewlopment 126 28, Audre no Development 6 ,e - 27, Denton partments 164 28. Pebbleb ok Apartments - 29. The Hlg lands 32 30, Wsterfa 0 Spacer Oaks 240 31, Lubbm dltlon 1 f 33, Estates of rratrldpa X14 y 38, Oakmont 11 I 1 37. Rolling Mea 6 I Q. McDonnell I hiands, PII P 1 100 39. Davidson Un 20 100, 101. The Knoll, Phase II 09 102, Sommerset Addhlon 88 '-I 103. Briar Olen W. The Milos on the Fat 43 106. Falrwsy Estates $ Y~ 188. Windsor Ridge 14 107, lake Sharon Plate 493 108 Cyprus hlI"s Point ~Eet ~~8 110. Kenelnptofr 2d8` 130, Dap CnpDo a 109 L• 160, Estota of a Osk 48 A 1997 PLATTIM RED m CURREI f i 1 L. V r ~a, r LF ~r _ f v t7 - jr- i Y- ~ ~ f ti l_._-__ ~r i- J 1_ 4' T - 1 I ,I~ _ r~ _ + i ~ ~ _ r i F, CALIO Jl~.. 0 S I LOISA MITS 1 fdilem re k Ran , Phase II 16 totes 71 3 B ryHll Este 138 4 adows of ndy HIII 40 6 Dee Phas III 31 8 She men bmks 47 7 Blue Sky Estates 17 -0 Bellaire Heights, Pha IV 84 9 Ciov~ingpton 36 1, Cotuntry Club F ace 3y 1 n Oaks 77 r 1 . ~1 . 1ARhrer Estates 43 BNn Creak Estates, ae I 108 Sun own Ranch 433 Rid smontAddition 74 HIII vt~ 1146 1 , 0eks of onlecito 1 230 i Denton ou ty C1 Estates 186 20, 1 kory r Heiphbt 94 :mom 21, a Par VIN gel umm(t Oslo) 337 22 Th Pre 1,892 °i 23 HI 917 1 24. 26 Wobkl a eveiopment 833 1,26 Y 26. Audrs no Development 6 e~ 27. Denton partments 164 28. Pebbleb ok Apartments 0 29. The Hlg tends 32 30, Waterfo 0 Specs( Oake 240 31. Lubbers dition ' 19 33. Estates Uk rresMdge, S~o~ 4 39. Oakmont II 1 6 ~1~f 1 37. Rolling Ma ow 26 38. McDonnell I Wands, PII+9 P 1 100 r f9 Davidson Un 20 -wr 101, The MoN, Phase II 09 102, Sommereet Addition 68 103. Briar Olin 104. The Milu on the Fel 43 106. relrvwy Eetatu S 108. I 107 Uke She pe More 160 v ~ 108, Cypt"d inl Es 44993 1110 K orNln~-to2d~ 130. Deep Creed 109\ 160. Estates u e 0ek 46 - ~1 1997 PLATTING RED ■ CURREN S -f J F ' 1 I' ~ j I I I I