The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-183FILE REFERENCE FORM 2004-183 X Additional File Exists Additional File Contains Records Not Public, According to the Public Records Act Other FILES Date Initials Amended by Ordinance No. 2008-156 07/15/08 JR ORDINANCE NO.2004- /M AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS UPDATING IMPACT FEES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 26, "UTILITIES," SECTION 26-210 THROUGH 26-232 OF THE CITY OF DENTON CODE OF ORDINANCES; ADOPTING REVISED LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING NEW SERVICE AREAS FOR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING NEW MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES PER SERVICE UNIT AND IMPACT FEES TO BE COLLECTED; CREATING SCHEDULES FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES; AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF "NEW DEVELOPMENT" CONTAINED IN SECTION 26-213(9); ADDING THE DEFINITION OF "UTILITY CONNECTION" TO SECTION 26-213(14); ADDING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO SECTION 26-221(a) AND (h); ADDING SECTION 26-221(i) WHICH CLARIFIES THE POWERS OF THE DIRECTOR RESPECTING THE ENFORCEMENT, ASSESSMENT, COMPUTATION OR COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES; REVISING PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTERING IMPACT FEES; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 FOR EACH VIOLATION THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 authorizes a city to adopt and to amend impact fees for the purpose of financing capital improvements required by new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas initially enacted water and wastewater impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 98-301, dated on the 15th day of September, 1998; and it is now appropriate and lawfully required that the City once again address the issues of Land Use Assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan, as well as the subject of Amended Water and Wastewater Impact Fees; WHEREAS, the City Council in accordance with law desires to update its impact fee program by amending land use assumptions, service areas, capital improvements plans and impact fees for water and wastewater facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has duly appointed an Impact Fee Advisory Committee by ordinance; has received written comments from such Committee; and has adopted Land Use Assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan for amended water and wastewater impact fees all in accordance with the requirements of Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has also received the recommendation of the Denton Public Utilities Board, an advisory committee; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, having complied with all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 1 395, finds it necessary and appropriate to establish amended water and amended wastewater impact fees to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for new development; and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas further finds and concludes it is necessary and appropriate to make the administrative amendments to the two definitions contained herein in Sections 26- 213(9) and (14); the addition of clarifying language to Section 26-221(a) and (h); and the addition of clarifying provisions contained in Section 26-221(i); in order to clearly express its intentions respecting the administration and collection of impact fees, to the amended impact fee Ordinance No. 2003-137 enacted on May 13, 2003, and effective as of May 29, 2003; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the facts, circumstances, and recitations contained in the preambles to this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct. SECTION 2. That the Land Use Assumptions for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. SECTION 3. That the Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. SECTION 4. That Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, entitled "Utilities," is hereby amended, which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 26: UTILITIES ARTICLE VI. IMPACT FEES Sec. 26-210. Short Title. This Article shall be known and cited as the "Denton Impact Fee Ordinance." Sec. 26-211. Statement of Purpose. This Article is intended to assure the provision of adequate public facilities to serve new development in the City by requiring each development to pay its proportional share of the costs of such improvements necessitated by and attributable to such new development as related to water and wastewater capital improvements. See.26-212. Authority. This Article is adopted pursuant to Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code and pursuant to the Denton Charter. The provisions of this Article shall not be construed to limit the powers of the City to utilize other methods authorized under state law, or pursuant to other City powers to accomplish the purposes set forth herein, either in substitution or in conjunction with this Article. The effective date of this Article is September 15, 1998. See.26-213. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, as used in this Article, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: (1) Area -related facility means a capital improvement or facility expansion which is designated in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan and which is not a site -related facility. Area -related facility may include a capital improvement, which is located offsite, within, or on the perimeter of the development site. (2) Assessment means the determination of the amount of the maximum impact fee per service unit that can be imposed on new development pursuant to this Article. (3) Capital improvement means any water supply; or treatment facilities; or wastewater treatment facilities that have a life expectancy of three (3) or more years, and are owned and operated by or on behalf of the City. (4) Director means the Director of Water Utilities for the City of Denton, or his or her designee. (S) Facility expansion means the expansion of the capacity of any existing facility for the purpose of serving new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization or expansion of an existing facility to serve existing development. (6) Impact fee capital improvements plan means the adopted plan for a service area, as may be amended from time to time, which identifies the water facilities or wastewater facilities and their associated costs which are necessitated by and which are attributable to new development, for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part through the imposition of water or wastewater impact fees pursuant to this Chapter 26, Article VI. (7) Infzll development means a single-family residence of less than 1,300 square feet on a lot of less than 6,000 square feet. (8) Land use assumptions means the projections of population and employment growth and associated changes in land uses, densities and intensities for a service area adopted by the City, as may be amended from time to time, upon which the impact fee capital improvements plan for the service area is based. (9) New development means an activity involving the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, or any use or extension of land, which has the effect of increasing water or wastewater demand, measured by an increase in the number of the service units utilizing the City's water or wastewater system that are attributable to such activity, and which requires either the approval and filing of a plat, or a re -plat pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations, or the issuance of a building permit, or a utility connection. (10) Service area means a geographic area within the City or within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction, within which impact fees for water or wastewater facilities may be collected for new development occurring within such area and within which fees so collected will be expended for those types of improvements identified in the type of capital improvements plan applicable to the service area. (11) 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 capital improvements or facility expansions. For water and wastewater facilities, the service unit shall constitute the basis for establishing equivalency within various customer classes based upon the relationship of the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a water meter of a given size and type compared to the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a 3/4-inch diameter simple water meter. (12) Single-family equivalency ("SFE') means an equivalency factor, based on the demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the City of Denton, Texas utility system. SFE's are utilized to establish the number of service units to be allocated to various meter sizes used in the City of Denton, Texas utility system. (13) Site -related facility means an improvement or facility which is for the primary use or benefit of a new development and/or which is the for the primary purpose of safe and adequate provision of water and wastewater facilities to serve the new development and which is not included in the impact fee capital improvements plan and for which the developer or property owner is solely responsible under subdivision and other applicable regulations. (14) Utility connection means connection of an individual meter to the City's water or wastewater system, or an increase in the size of an existing meter. See. 26-214. Impact fee as condition of development approval. No new development shall be connected to the City's water or wastewater system within the service area without the assessment of an impact fee pursuant to this Article, and no building permit shall be issued until the applicant has paid the impact fee imposed herein. 4 Sec. 26-215. Land use assumptions. (a) Said land use assumptions for the City shall be updated at least every five (5) years utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395. (b) Amendment to the land use assumptions shall incorporate projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population for the service area over at least a ten (10) year period. Sec. 26-216. Water impact fee service area. There is hereby established an amended water impact fee service area, to include all land within the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, as depicted in Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. Sec. 26-217. Wastewater impact fee service areas. There are hereby established two (2) wastewater impact fee service areas, the boundaries of which are respectively described in Exhibits D and E, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. Sec. 26-218. Determination of service units. The number of service units for both water or wastewater impact fees shall be determined by using the land equivalency table, which converts the demands for water or wastewater improvements generated by typical land uses to water meter size, and which is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth. Sec. 26-219. Impact fees per service unit. (a) Maximum impact fees per service unit for each service area shall be established by category of capital improvements. The maximum impact fee per service unit for each service area for each category of capital improvement shall be computed in the following manner: (1) For each category of capital improvements, calculate the total projected costs of capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area identified in the impact fee capital improvements plan; (2) From such amount, subtract a credit in the amount of that portion of utility service revenues, if any, including the payment of debt, to be generated by new service units during the period the capital improvements plan is in effect, including the payment of debt, associated with the capital improvements in the plan; (3) Divide the resultant amount by the total number of service units anticipated within the service area, based upon the land use assumptions for that service area. (b) The maximum impact fee per service unit for water or wastewater facilities by service area shall be as set forth in Schedule 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. Schedule 1 shall be used to assess impact fees. Schedule 1 may be amended from time to time utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Section 26-228. (c) The impact fee per service unit which is to be paid by each new development within a service area shall be as set forth in Schedule 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if fully set forth, and shall be an amount less than or equal to the maximum impact fee per service unit established in Schedule 1. Schedule 2 may be amended from time to time utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Section 26-228. Sec. 26-220. Assessment of impact fees. (a) Assessment of impact fees for any new development shall be made as follows: (1) For land which is unplatted at the time of application for a building permit or utility connection, or for a new development which received final plat approval prior to the effective date of this Article, and for which no re -platting is necessary pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations prior to development, assessment of impact fees shall occur at the time application is made for the building permit or utility connection, whichever first occurs, and shall be the amount of the maximum impact fee per service unit in effect, as set forth in Schedule 1. (2) For a new development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the City's subdivision, regulations on or after the effective date of this Article, or for which re -platting results in an increase in the number of service units after such date, assessment of impact fees shall be at the time of final plat recordation, and shall be the amount of the maximum impact fee per service unit in effect as set forth in Schedule 1. (b) Following assessment of impact fees pursuant to subsection (a), the amount of impact fee assessment per service unit for that development cannot be increased, unless the owner proposes to change the approved development by the submission of a new application for final plat approval or other development application that results in approval of additional service units, in which case a new assessment shall occur at the Schedule 1 rate then in effect for such additional service units. (c) Following the vacating of any plat or approval of any re -plat, a new assessment must be made in accordance with subsection (a)(2). 0 (d) An application for an amending plat made pursuant to Texas Local Government Code §212.016 V.T.C.A. and the City of Denton Subdivision Ordinance, and for which no new development is proposed, is not subject to reassessment for an impact fee. Sec. 26-221. Computation of impact fees. (a) Following the filing and acceptance of a written application for building permit or utility connection, the City shall compute the impact fee due in the following manner: (1) The number of service units shall be determined by the size of the water meter purchased using the land equivalency table incorporated as Exhibit F, or by evaluation of the Director as provided in Section 26-218 or this section; (2) Service units shall be summed for all meters purchased for the development; (3) The total number of service units shall be multiplied by the impact fee per service unit for water or wastewater service facilities using Schedule 1 then in effect as established in Section 26-219; (4) The amount of each impact fee shall be reduced by any allowable offsets or credits for that category of capital improvements, in the manner provided in Section 26-223. (b) The amount of impact fee due for new development shall not exceed the amount computed by multiplying the assessed fee for water or wastewater service by the total number of service units generated by the development. The amount of impact fee due for redevelopment shall not exceed the amount computed by multiplying the assessed fee for water or wastewater service by the net increase in service units generated by the redevelopment. (c) The developer may submit or the Director may require the submission of a study, prepared by a professional engineer, licensed in the State of Texas, clearly indicating the number of water and/or wastewater service units which will be consumed or generated by the new development. The Director will review the information for completeness and conformity with generally accepted engineering practices and will, when satisfied with the completeness and conformity of the study, multiply the number of service units determined by the study times the impact fee per service unit contained in Section 26-219 above to determine the total impact fee to be collected for the development. The Director may also use recent historical water billing records for existing customers to determine water demands and SFE equivalents in accordance with data from the most recent Capital Improvements Plan. (d) Whenever the property owner increases the number of service units for a development, the additional impact fees collected for such new service units shall be determined based on Schedule 1 and applicable offsets, credits, and discounts then in effect and such additional fee shall be assessed and collected at the time the additional meters are purchased. (e) In the event the property owner decreases the number of service units for a development, the property owner shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fee for impact fees actually paid, but only for the amounts represented by the decrease in service units based on the assessed fee and offsets, credits, or discounts applicable at the time the fee was paid. (f) If the building permit for the property on which an impact fee is paid has expired and a new application is thereafter filed for the identical property and the number of service units, the impact fee previously paid satisfies the requirements of this Article. (g) The impact fee shall attach to the property for which the impact fee was paid and shall not be transferable to other properties or service units. (h) No building permit or utility connection shall be issued if the applicant cannot verify payment of the appropriate impact fee and other applicable fees or if existing facilities do not have actual capacity to provide service to the new connection(s). (i) All matters pertaining to the enforcement, assessment, computation, or collection of impact fees provided for herein shall be determined by the Director, or his or her designate. Sec. 26-222. Collection of impact fees. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the impact fee for the new development shall be collected at the time the City issues a building permit, or if a building permit is not required, at the time an application is filed for a new connection, to the City's water or wastewater system or for an increase in water meter size. (b) Except as otherwise provided by contracts with political subdivisions, developer's contracts, or wholesale customers, no building permit shall be issued until all impact fees have been paid to the City. (c) The City may enter into an agreement for capital improvements with a property owner pursuant to Section 26-229 that establishes a different time and manner of payment. (d) The owner of an existing single-family homestead housing unit, actually occupying said homestead, may make payments of any water or wastewater impact fee required by the Article in monthly installments over a period of not more than five (5) years from the date payment of the fee is otherwise required by this Article. The owner of said homestead must execute a promissory note, deed of trust, homestead affidavit, or other documents to be prepared by the City Attorney sufficient to establish an enforceable lien on the real property. All such installment payments shall be subject to interest at a rate equal to a twelve-month average of the 5-year Treasury Note. The interest rate on such note shall be adjusted annually, according to the most current twelve-month average. (e) In the event that a property owner agrees to construct or finance capital improvements in the capital improvements plan pursuant to Section 26-229, the costs of which are to be reimbursed to the owner from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such facilities, the City may collect impact fees from such other new developments at the time final plats are recorded for such development. (f) Schedule 1 sets the assessment rate and establishes maximum impact fees as set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) below: (1) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after September 15, 1998, but before May 29, 2003, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be $2,044 for the water service area, and $483 for the Zone 1 wastewater service area. (2) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred prior to September 15, 1998, on or after May 29, 2003, or for any new development which is not subject to paragraph (1), the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be as follows: $3,155 for the water service area; $1,703 for the Zone 1 wastewater service area; and $2,614 for the Zone 2 wastewater service area. (g) Schedule 2 sets the collection rate for impact fees as set forth in subparagraphs (1) and (2) below: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), impact fees shall be collected and paid as follows: Water Service Area: $3,155 per service unit Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1): $1,437 per service unit (from May 29, 2003 until May 28, 2006) $1,570 per service unit (from May 29, 2006 until May 28, 2008) $1,703 per service unit (from May 29, 2008 until May 28, 2013) Wastewater Service Area (Zone 2): $1,437 per service unit (from May 29, 2003 until May 28, 2006) $1,893 per service unit (from May 29, 2006 until May 28, 2008) 9 $2,614 per service units (from May 29, 2008 until May 28, 2013) Provided, however, Wastewater Service Area Impact Fees for Zone 1, for Single -Family Residences of less than 1,300 square feet, that are located on lots of less than 6,000 square feet, shall instead be charged, and the City shall collect a Wastewater Service Area Impact fee of 50% of the adopted Wastewater Service Area Impact Fee for Zone 1. (2) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after September 15, 1998, but before May 29, 2003, and for which no new service units have been added, impact fees shall be collected as follows: Water Service Area $2,044 per service unit Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1) $483 per service unit Sec. 26-223. Offsets and credits. (a) The City shall offset the reasonable value of any area -related facilities, identified in the impact fee capital improvements plan and constructed pursuant to an agreement with the City, except as otherwise provided therein, which are dedicated to and received by the City on or after the effective date of this ordinance, against the amount of the impact fee due for that category of capital improvement. No offsets or credits shall be provided for required over -sizing of water and wastewater lines or lift stations not identified in the capital improvements plan or for pro-rata payments to repay other developers for such over -sizing pursuant to Chapter 35-Development Code; and Subchapter 21-Water & Wastewater Standards. (b) The City shall credit any new development that occurs subsequent to the effective date of this Article, any amount of capital recovery fees which have been collected by the City pursuant to duly adopted ordinances and any impact fees collected by the City pursuant to this Article. (c) All offsets and credits against impact fees shall be subject to the following limitations and shall be granted based on this Article and additional standards promulgated by the City, which may be adopted as administrative guidelines. (1) No offset or credit shall be given for the dedication or construction of site -related facilities. (2) No offset or credit shall exceed the impact fee to be collected from new development as established in Section 26-219. (3) The unit costs used to calculate the offsets shall not exceed those assumed for the capital improvements included in the impact fee capital improvements plan for the category of facility within the service area for which the impact fee is imposed. 10 (4) If an offset or credit applicable to a plat has not been exhausted within ten (10) years from the date of the acquisition of the first building permit issued or connection made after the effective date of this Article or within such period as may be otherwise designated by agreement for capital improvements pursuant to Section 26-229, such offset or credit shall lapse. (5) In no event will the City reimburse the property owner or developer for an offset or credit when no impact fees for the new development can be collected pursuant to this Article or for any amount exceeding the total impact fees collected or due for the development for that category of capital improvement, unless otherwise agreed to by the City. (6) No offset shall exceed an amount equal to the eligible costs of the improvement multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the impact fee per service unit due for the new development as computed using Schedule 2 and the denominator of which is the maximum impact fee per service unit for the new development as computed using Schedule 1. (7) Offsets or credits for area -related facilities dedicated to and accepted by the City for a development prior to the effective date of this Article shall be prorated among the total number of service units within such development and reduced by an amount equivalent to the number of existing service units within such development and shall be further reduced by the amount of any participation funds received from the City and by any payments received from other developments who utilize the system facility. (8) The City may participate in the costs of an area -related improvement to be dedicated to the City, including costs that exceed the amount of the impact fees due for the development under Schedule 1 for that category of capital improvements, in accordance with policies and rules established under the City's subdivision regulations and when incorporated into an agreement for capital improvements pursuant to Section 26-229. The amount of any offset shall not include the amount of the City's participation. (d) Unless an agreement for capital improvements is executed providing for a different manner of offsetting or crediting impact fees due pursuant to Section 26-229, an offset or credit associated with a plat shall be applied to reduce an impact fee at the time of application for the first building permit or at the time of application for the first utility connection for the property, in the case of land located within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction, and, thereafter, to reduce impact fees subsequently to be collected, until the offset or credit is exhausted. 11 Sec. 26-224. Establishment of accounts. (a) The City's Department of Finance shall establish separate interest -bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvement (i.e. water facilities and wastewater facilities) within the service area for which the impact fee is collected. (b) Interest earned by each account shall be credited to the account on which it is earned and shall be used solely for the purposes specified for impact fees as authorized herein. (c) The City's Department of Finance shall establish adequate financial and accounting controls to ensure that impact fees disbursed from the account are utilized solely for the purposes authorized in this Article. Disbursement of funds shall be authorized by the City at such times as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this Article; provided, however, that any fee paid shall be expended within a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed ten (10) years from the date the fee is deposited into the account. (d) The City's Department of Finance shall maintain and keep adequate financial records for each such account, which shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, which shall account for all monies received, the number of service units for which the monies are received, and which shall ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account shall be used solely and exclusively for the provision of projects specified in the impact fee capital improvements plan as area -related capital projects. The City's Department of Finance shall also maintain such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are appropriately made in accordance with this Article. The records of the account into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. The City may establish a fee for copying services. Sec. 26-225. Use of proceeds of impact fee accounts. (a) The impact fee collected pursuant to this Article may be used to finance or to recoup capital construction costs for water and wastewater facilities identified in the impact fee capital improvements plan and for any purpose authorized in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395, V.T.C.A. as amended. Impact fees may also be used to pay the principal sum and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance such capital improvements or facilities expansions. (b) Impact fees collected pursuant to this Article shall not be used to pay for any of the following expenses: (1) Construction, acquisition, or expansion of capital improvements or assets other than those identified for the water and wastewater utility in the impact fee capital improvements plan; 12 (2) Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facilities expansions; (3) Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; (4) Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development; provided, however, that impact fees may be used to pay the costs of upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements in order to meet the need for new capital improvements generated by new development; or (5) Administrative and operating costs of the City. See.26-226. Appeals. (a) The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the following decisions to the City Council: (a) the applicability of an impact fee to the new development; (b) the method of calculating the amount of the impact fee due; (c) the availability or the amount of an offset, credit or rebate; (d) the application of an offset or credit against an impact fee due; or (e) the amount of a refund due, if any. (b) The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the amount of the fee or the amount of the offset, credit or rebate was not calculated according to the provisions of this Article. (c) The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the City Secretary within thirty (30) days following the determination of the amount of the impact fees to be paid by the development. If the notice of appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount equal to the original determination of the impact fee due, the development application may be processed while the appeal is pending. See.26-227. Refunds. (a) Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Article which has not been expended within ten (10) years from the date of payment, shall be refunded, upon application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid, or, if the impact fee was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity, together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Vemon's Ann. Civil Statutes, Title 79, Art. 1C.002, or any successor statute. 13 (b) Upon the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the City shall refund such fees if: (1) Existing service is available and service is denied; or (2) Service was not available when the fee was collected and the City has failed to commence construction of facilities to provide service within two (2) years of fee payment; or (3) Service was not available when the fee was collected and has not subsequently been made available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in any event no later than five (5) years from the date of the payment. (c) The City shall refund an appropriate proportion of impact fee payments in the event that a previously purchased but uninstalled water meter for which the impact fee has been paid is replaced with a smaller meter, based on the service unit differential of the two (2) meter sizes and the fee per service unit at the time of the original fee payment. (d) A petition for refund under this section shall be submitted to the Director on a form provided by the City for such purpose. Within one (1) month of the date of receipt of a petition for refund, the Director must provide the petitioner, in writing, with a decision on the refund request, including the reasons for the decision. If a refund is due to the petitioner, the Director shall notify the Assistant City Manager of Finance and request that a refund payment be made to the petitioner. Sec. 26-228. Update of plan and revision of fees. (a) The City shall update its land use assumptions and capital improvements plans at least every five (5) years, commencing from the date of adoption of such plans, and shall recalculate the impact fees based thereon in accordance with the procedures set forth in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395, or in any successor statute. (b) The City may review its land use assumptions, impact fees, capital improvements plans and other factors such as market conditions more frequently than provided in subsection (a) to determine whether the land use assumptions and capital improvements plans should be updated and the impact fee recalculated accordingly, or whether Schedules 1 or 2 should be changed. Schedule 2 may be amended without revising land use assumptions and capital improvements plans at any time prior to the update provided for in subsection (a), provided that the impact fees to be collected under Schedule 2 do not exceed the impact fees assessed under Schedule 1. (c) If, at the time an update is required pursuant to Subsection (a), the City Council determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan or impact fee is needed, it may dispense with such update by following the procedures in 14 Texas Local Government Code, Section 395.0575. (d) The City may amend by resolution the land use equivalency table (Exhibit F) at any time prior to the update provided for in Subsection (a), provided that the number of service units associated with a particular land use shall not be increased. Sec. 26-229. Agreement for capital improvements. An owner of a new development may construct or finance a capital improvement or facility expansion designated in the impact fee capital improvements plan, if required or authorized by the City, by entering into an agreement with the City prior to the issuance of any building permit for the development. The agreement shall be on a form approved by the City and shall identify the estimated cost of the improvement or expansion, the schedule for initiation and completion of the improvement or expansion, a requirement that the improvement be designed and completed to City standards and such other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the City. The agreement shall provide for the method to be used to determine the amount of the offset to be given against the impact fees due for the development or any reimbursement to the owner for construction of the facility. Sec. 26-230. Use of other financing mechanisms. (a) In addition to the use of impact fees, the City may finance water and wastewater capital improvements or facilities expansions designated in the impact fee capital improvements plan through the issuance of bonds, through the formation of public improvements districts or other assessment districts, or through any other authorized mechanism, in such manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. (b) Except as otherwise provided herein, the assessment and collection of a impact fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or assessment which is lawfully imposed on and due against the property. (c) The City may pay all or part of impact fees due for a new development taking into account available offsets and credits pursuant to duly adopted criteria. Sec. 26-231. Conflicting ordinances. All ordinances or parts of ordinances that are in force when the provisions of this ordinance become effective, which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Sec.26-232. Reserved. 15 SECTION 4. That any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000. Each day that a provision of this Ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this Ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions, despite any such invalidity. SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall repeal any conflicting ordinances and resolutions to the contrary; it being the intention of the City Council to fully amend all provisions of Chapter 26 of the City of Denton, Texas Code of Ordinances dealing with Impact Fees. SECTION 7. That this Ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this Ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the"day of 2004. e A ok ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY I: Evil, /i l /.,/.Ilim APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: EULINE BROCK, MAYOR 16 EXHIBIT "A" — Land Use Assumptions for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees EXHIBIT `B" — Capital Improvements Plans for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees EXHIBIT "C" — Amended Water Impact Fee Service Area EXHIBIT "D" — Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area — Zone 1 EXHIBIT "E" — Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area — Zone 2 EXHIBIT "F" — Land Equivalency Table 5:\Our Documents\Ordinances\04\Amendment to 2003 Denton Amended Impact Fee Ord -Draft #3-071304.doc 17 2003-2013 CAPITAL, IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FAR WATERAND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES ®EI.ITON, TEXAS preparedby : 4dunceniassociates February 2003 CONTENTS LeFrsmewotk........................................................... 1 GrowthContext ........................................................... 2 Land Use Assumptions...................................................... 2 Service Areas.............................................................. 3 Service Units.............................................................. 6 WATER.............................................................. I......... 7 Service Units.............................................................. 7 DemsndProjections........................................................ 8 Water Treatment.......................................................... 10 WaterSupply............................................................. 11 Costper Service Unit ...................................................... 12 NetCost per Service Unit ................................................... 14 Net CostSchcdvle......................................................... 15 WASTEWATER................................................................ 18 ServiceUnits ...... ......................................... I............. 18 Treatment Plants.......................................................... 22 LiftStations and Force Mains.................................................23 Interceptors.............................................................. 23 Costper Service Unit ...................................................... 24 Net Cost per Service Unit ................................................... 26 Net Cost Schedule......................................................... 27 APPENDIi - TEXAS EMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT ............................... 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: POPULATION GROWTH,1970-2002.................................. 2 Table 2: METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS .................................. 6 Table 3: WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002....................................... 7 Table 4: WATER. SERVICE UNITS, 2003-2013.................................. 8 Table 5: AVERAGE DAILY WATER PRODUCTION,1988-2001 .................. 9 Table 6: PEAK DAY WATER DEMAND, 1988-2001 ............................. 9 Table 7: AVERAGE AND PEAK RETAIL WATER DEMAND, 2003-2013 ......... 10 Table 8: ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF RAY ROBERTS PLANT COST ............... 11 Table 9: ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST ................ 12 Table 10. LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST ........................................ 12 Table 11: WATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2W3-2013 ........................ 13 Table 12: WATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT ................................... 14 Table 13: WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ............................. 15 Table 14: WATER NET COST SCHO'DULE.................................... 16 Table 15: COMPARATIVE WATER FEES ..................................... 16 Table 16: COMPARATIVE WATER EffACT FEB REVENUES, 2003-2013 ......... 17 Table 17: WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002 ............................... 18 Table 18: PER CAPITA WASTEWATER DEMAND ............................. 19 Table 19: AVERAGE DEMAND PER SERVICE UNIT .......................... 20 Table 20: WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 ........... 20 Table 21: WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, HICKORY CREED 2003-2013 ........ 21 Table 22: WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013 ............ 21 Table 23: WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY, 2003-2013 .. 22 Table 24. TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND AND CAPACITY, 2003 ............... 22 Table 25: WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 ........... 24 Table 26: WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 ...:.... 25 Table 27: WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2.013 ........... 25 Table 28: WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003 2013 ................. 26 Table 29. WAST,EWATERDEBT SERVICE CREDIT ............................ 26 Table 30: WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ...................... 27 Table 31: WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE ............................. 27 Table 32: COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER PEES ............................... 28 Table 33: COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER REVENUES, 2003-2013 ............... 28 LIST OF FIdU RES Figure 1: DENTON POPUTATION GROWTH.....................................2 Fgare 2: WATER AND WASTEWATER CCNs.................................. 4 wore 3: HICKORY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN ............................... 5 yw=+ CLEAR CREEKDRAINAGE BASIN .................................. 5 Am= 5: TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND ........................... 10 __.. _ -.. —_ _....--- .-....___.._..-...__........... — __ Figam 6: WATER SUPPLY AND DEMA1�fiD .............-:...........-- -- �- Agme 7: WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY .......................... 22 INTROPUMON The City, of Denton adopted water and wastewater impact fees in 199R.1 The current fees only cover the cost of centralized fiicilities, and exclude line costs. ibis studyupdates the water and wastewaterimpact fees, and adds the cost of water transmission lines and sewer int erceptors. It also includes interest costs, which are eligible for impact fee funding under stare law, but were not included in the original impact fee study. Finally, it develops options for possibly dividing the wastewater service area into two or three impact fee service arras. LEGAL FRAMEWORK impact fees in 'Texas must be developed in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, The state law lays out very specific requirements for the technical development of these fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment of such fee programs. The Texas legislature made some significant amendments to Chapter 395 in 20012 The revised statute, higblightingthe changes, is included in the Appendix. The major change was on the issue of avenue credits. Credits against the impact fees for other taxes or fees that would be paid by new development and used for capital improvements of the same facility type as the impact fee are now squired. As an alternative to performing a reveaue credit calculation, cities can simply reduce the impact fees by fifty percent Another change was to increase the time between mandatory updates from three to five years. The aquiretnent that the fees be recalculated aftet the Capital Impmvements rl= is completed based on actual costs and any overlarge fees refunded if the recalculated fees exceeded fees being charged by more than ten percent was eliminated. Finally, the number of pubh earings required before impact fees could be npriatie3 cone educed fcoia' iavo to uric (teem aze --`-- still required for initial adoption). Revisedimpactfees based onthis studywilluot applyto lots plattedwitile the current fee schedule was in place. Chapter 395 states that the impact fee schedule that is in effect at the time a lot is platted is the one that applies to the property, regardless of when development occurs. This occurs through a process called "assessment." Assessment must occur at the time of plat recording, or, for property already platted or not required to be platted, at the time of development approval or building permit; whichever occurs first The statute makes cleat thatno action by the local government is required for assessment to occur. Msentially, impact fee assessment locks in the fee schedule do place at the time assessment occurs. Any mbsequentrevisionmtheimpactfee schedules does uotaffecttheimpact fetes owed for the development 1 Ordinance 9"1, adopted on Sepmnber 15,1999, was based on Dssacan Assodatea, et A, C4i&i k Plantar, meta• turd ]PariewahrLr¢ac1 Pur, May 1998. 2 Senate M 247 was signed by the governor on May 26, 2001 and became effective on September 1, 2001. PENTON, TEKAt12003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 1 4ROWTH CONTEXT Im rtfeesaremostapproprkteforcommunitieseaperiencingrapidgrowth. Dentonhasexperienced significant growth in recent pears. The City's population has grown by about two percent annually since 1970. Dewou County has grown significantly faster than the state average, and was the fourth Ewtest growing county, in Texas during the last year. The City's growth bas matched the very rapid growth of the county since the year 2000. Table 1 POPULATION GROWTH, 1970-2002 City Of Denton stag Of Source: Texas State Data Center (growth rates are compounded). LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS --Aland-Use Assumptions is the term -used -in Chapter.395.to-- Rhim refer to growth projections. It is defined as a "description of taOAa the service area and projections of changes in land uses, chnsEes,intensitis and population in the service area over at _ least a 10-year period." The purpose of the Land Use Assumptions is to project the demand for capital improvementstbatwMbeneededwserveantcipatedgmwth. N, The Imnd Use Assumptions must cover at least a 10-pear period. The Capital Improvements Plan. on which tihe impact Sxs are cahcuhated must contain the projected demand for capiitalfadlities required over apeuod not to exceed tenyears. Soce the two must be compatible, both the Land Use Assumptions andthe CapitalItmprovements plan should cover a 10-7earperiod. Figure 1 POPULATION GROWTH PRNTO14,Ta1rAS0003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 2 SERVICE AREAS Chapter 395 rays down a number ofrequirements regarding service areas. The Iand Use Assumptions most be prepared for each service area. The Capital Improvements Plan, in tum, must include a description of the capital improvements and costs for each service area, based on the approved Land UseAssumptions. Finally, impact fees collected from d.evelopmentmithina service area mustbe spent with the same service area. Tlae Texas impact fee enabling act; in Sec. 395.001(9), defines "sendoc area" as: tbeareaMANN the MOM* hortndareeroreudrahrritorialjxrrrdicifon...oftbepoli&edSubdlsurion to be rand by & a#tal dr*roa+ansentr orfaciktirr aorrnaronr .rpacfied in the capital impme+erirentr ptan.... The amra areas jnr ihepeaparec eth& c,6*kr, sway inchrde all orpartef ibe Imrd zA a AepolikarlrxbdiW.*x oriirOdA%eniAWdjnaskd fkfi. 'lice City his considerable discretion in the designation of service areas within its jurisdiction. As a general role, the fewer the number ofservice areas,the better. Since funds collected from a service area must be spent within the same service area, the creation of a large number of small service areas will zestrlct the flexibility of spending impact fee revenues and may make it difficult accumulate sufficient fords in some service areas within the five years allowed by law to spend diem. The state statute specifically authorizes "systemwide" land use assumptions for water and wastewater facilities. A Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) must be approved by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (formerly the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission) before services may be provided to properties within the designated arm The City's water and wastewater CCNs include all of the area. within the City of Denton, phis different areas of the City's Mxt&-Terrih)iial juiisdiction'�LM)= The -wastewater -service-axes includes all of the- area -within -the — vvater service area, plus two additional areas that are in the Qqs wastewater CCN but not in its water CCN. The water and wastewater CCNs are Mustmted in Figure 2. The service areas are required to be delineated in the Land Use Assumptions. The Land Use Assumptions identify the City's water CCN as the service area for water .impact fees. The City's wastewater CCN may designated as a single service area, orit may be divided into two or three service =n& the three potential service areas are the Pecan Creek, Hickory Creels and Clear Creek drainage basins. The Hickory Creek drainage basin is shown in Figure 3, and the Clear Creek drainage basin is shown in Figure 4. The remainder of the City's wastewater CCN comprises the Pecan Creek drainage basin. This report will adculate wastewater fees under three service area options: (1) a single service area encompassing the Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear Creek basins; (2) two service areas: Pecan/Hickory and Clear Creek; and (3) three service areas: Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear Creek. DEHTOX,TE%A6%20034013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 3 SERVICE UNITS To calculate impact fees in accordance -with Chapter 395, the growth in demand for capital &Cilities over the plattning horizon must be expressed in "service units," which are defined in Sec 395.001(10) as: ...a sAmdardl*meorarre of wAmVdor,, i&eneration, ord whinge aA4batabk to an xdmdmd xvt of ,*m(pmwtA%&u red in aawdow ojdhgmm1# accepted a g0*rrzngorpl w%ogstw dardr fir ap w0c adarratgory of opitadi* mmirats orf dk emxparudow. Service units fnrwater and wastewater impact fees are typically based upon the capacity atm'butable to water meters in the utility sysberrL The reason for this is that water meters are physical elements that are under the control of the utility and that limit the maximum demand of various users. The euueDt service unit for Denton'swater andwsstewater impact fees is the "single-family equivalent" RlF , which is based on the site of the water meter. An SFE is the water or wastewater demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (3/4' , which is the metes typically used bya single-famApresidence. The ratio of each largermeter's capscityto the capacity of the base meter determines the SFE multiplier applied to each larger size meter. The City's n corn water impact fees are based on meter capacities from the American Water Works Association. In the opinion of the aty's water division sta3$ the capacities as rated by the manufacturer that supplies the City s meters are more accurate forhugerttneters, andwill be used in this study. Cutsent and proposed service units per meter are compared in Table 2. METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS Currant Factors Proposed Factors Capacity spFs/ Capaelty SFEa/ Source: Currentcapadtles are maximum =ntlnuous duty flow rates In gallons per minute for simple and compound meters from American Water Works Association, AWWAStandards C700, C701, C702, C7D3; proposed capacities are average normal operating capacities for T-10 residential meters and Trudfb compound commercial meters from the Neptune Technology Group. DENTON,TEW\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 6 WATER The City s current water impact fees, adopted in 1998, cover only the costs of water supply and irnatoxent. This study updates the fees and adds the costs of water transmission mains. It also adds the interest costs associated with funding capital projects through revenue bonds. SERVICE UNITS As discussed in the introduction, the current service unit for Denton's water impact fees is the a fm-ayequivalent"(SFl3),whichisbasedoatbesizeofthewatermeter.Thenumbero£service units associatedwithmeters ofdifftrentsizeswas calculated earlier. Multiplyingthenumber ofexisting connections with each meter size by the service units permeteryields total service units far that meter size. Summingfarallmeter sizes yields thetotalnumber of water service units connected to the City s water system, as shown in Table 3. Wholesale customers have been excluded from these calculations because they are located outside the water service area. Table 3 WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002 EftMl9ng SFES/ Source. Number of active non -wholesale water connections by meter size from the City of DerKan, October 2002; SFEs per meter from Table 2. The growth in water service units over the 2003-2013 planning period is derived fmm the Imnd Use Assumptions. Total population in the water service &reefromtheLandUse Assumptions ismultiplied by the estimated percent of households that are connected to the Denton. water system to derive an estimate of the population served by the water system. The served population in 2002 is divided by the current number of service units from the previous table to detemine the population per service unit Using this ratio, the estimated number of service units are estimated for each year through. 2013 inTable 4. DFNTONJUAIN2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, page 7 Table 4 WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2003-2013 Source: Total population for water service area from C8V of Denton, Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent served from City of Dents n Municipal Utilities; population per SFE Is 2002 served population divided by 2002 SFEs from Table 2. DEMANA PROJECTIONS fees. Water treatment systems are sized to Average daily per capita water demand can be determined based on historic system -wide demand in rnglions of gallons per day, (mgd) and historic service area population. These per capita estimates represent both residmtial and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting fivnre system mulairements, pardcalady whenno significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Average daily per capita demands over the last 14 years are presented in the following Table 5. These data show that water demand for retail customers has averaged 167 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The dam also indicate that there is relatively little water lost in the process, with the raw water used exceeding finished water produccd by an average of only 5.1 percent. DENTON, TE%ASk2003-2013 Capital Improvements Flan February 17, 2003, Pape 8 Based onthesehistoricalfacmis,avmagcand peak daywaterdemandf omretailcustomersisprojected feu the 2003-2013 planningpetiod in Table 7. Table 7 AVERAGE AND PEAK RETAIL WATER DEMAND, 2003-2013 Avg. Astall Ratio Raw Ratio Peak Sbtm: Served population from Table 4; average day par capita demand and ratio of raw to finished water production from Table 5; ratio of peak dayto average day finished water production from Table 6; raw water and peak day demand exclude demand due to wholesale customers. WATER TREATMENT Water treatment facilities are sized to a poTmodate peak day demands. The 1m daily capacity of the spencer Road wafer treatment plant is 28.9 mgd. The City recently completed consttucton of a new water tteatmentpiaatnearlakeRay Robew. TheRsy Roberts plant has a peak capacity of 20 mgd. The City had originally planned to constmct the fin� �ilityin two 1.0-mgd phases, but subsequently determined that it was tdore cost-effective to construct the fiil120-mgd plant As Sta,�,,,,'e in Table % current retail demand plus wholesale wares sales almost exactly equals the capacity of the old Spencer Road plant New development over the next ten 7eazs will consume virtually all ofthe capacity added by the construction ofthe my 20-mgd Ray Roberts plant DENTON, TEXAS�2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan a Figure 5 TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND 45 40 t 3530 CepanEy I 25 �- 'n 15 ♦Actual acted �0 5 a 1080 IN3 sass 2M OW 2st3 February 17, 2003, Page 10 Table 8 Source: 2003 retail peak day demand and 2003-2013 new retail peak day demand from Table 7; 2003 wholesale peak day demand and plant capacities from City of Denton Municipal utlinks. Inadditionto constmctingtheplant inonephase, otherchangesweren ade fromthepreliminatyplar s far the Lake Ray Roberts plant. In partimlar, the planned Hattlee Field Road booster pump station End ground storage facilities were incorporated into the redesigned plant. Thus, while these capital improvements no longer appear as separate listings in the water impact fee capital improvements plan, their fractional equivalents are still there. WATER SIU PPLY 'The City's water supply comes primatily from water rights in Lake Lewisville and Lake Ray Roberts. The Lewisville Reservoir was constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to hold a total of 436,000 ----.acre-Erect of-tons��++++.srorage�of.which.the C,uy.hc�,1�,s.tlae�nght uti. 21,Q00 aue-feet of,staragei�_ Based on a safe yield of 90.2 mgd, the City receives 4.34 mgd in water rights from Lake Lewisville. Most of the atfs remaining water needs are supplied by Lake Ray Roberts. The reservoir was constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, with the cities of Denton and Dallas being the local sponsors and responsible (26% and 74% respectively) for repaying 50 percent of the total Figure 6 cost The City has water rights of 19.8 mgd WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND from this lake. 46: l°aastt$ttppy9 ,.. Additional water supple capacity tames in the ,H; � �+4.✓M»'s.auu --- a farm of credits for the portion of the City's : m.; aeastiewaterthatis returned to these waterbodies, sswell as contract sights with the City of Dallas The City's contract with Dallas reserves a a ivirumumofO.50mgd,regardlessofvhetherthe Q B City needs it, and the City also has the right to purchase additional water as needed. The City's 'W water supply is summarized in Table 9. After ecfee{: subtracting the City's current total average day �' 6 . .. ... ... . demand, including both retail and wholesale needs as well as lost and unaccounted for water,: ----- -r the City still has about 9.4 mgd available for SO 4l349 266 20119 *3 PENTON, T%X"\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 11 gmwth. Projectedgrwihovertheplanningpmdodmillconsumeallofthiscapacityandmore,meaning that additional waver will need w be purchased from the City of Dallas. Nevertheless, the City can recover the costs of the 47 percent of Lake Ray Roberts capacity that is currently available but will be amosamed by new customers over the planning period. Table 9 Source; 2003 capacity from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; 2003 total average day demand Is retail raw water demand from Table 7 plus 0.25 mgd wholesale demand from city of Denton Municipal Utilities; 2003-2013 needed capacity from Table 7. The original 1986 cost to the City forits participation in the construction o£LakeRayRoberts was $70 million In today's dollars, the cost of the City s share is $107 million, as s+*r++meriacd in Table M . Table 10 Source: Original cost from Denton Municipal Utilities, January 15, 2003; cost inflation factor based on EnginsetIng News-RecordCunstructlon Costrndexfor January 2003. COST PER SERVICE UNIT C.apit1 improvements identified in the City's water master plaa and by City staff as necessary to z=romodatn growth over the next ten years are smn assized in Table 11. The portinas of the costs of the Ray Roberts treatment plant; the Lake Ray Roberts reservoir and the main transmission line from the Rey -Roberts trrAtmentplant thatis attributable togrowth over the planningpetiod are based on the capacity of the facilities and the new demand generated by the anticipated growth over the period. For pump stations, water storage tanks and other transmissionlines, the portions of the costs attnloutable to growth are based on the year that the fullity is anticipated to be put into service. For these facilities, the simplifying assumptions are made that they will accommodate 20 years of growth and that gxowthwill be linear. In general these axe conservative assumptions, and they affect only 12 percent of the total directly attributable costs. D6MTON,TE%AS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 12 Its addition to those costs directly attributable to growth, there are the interest costs associated with fending capitalimpmvements-with revenue bonds or other forms of debt 'The City traditiona4 funds gRofhs major -water system capital improvements with bonds, and consequenfly incurs interest costs. According to state law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Interest costs are estimated based on the most recent l✓i y of Denton utility bond issue. The final step in determining the cost per service unit is to divide the total capital cost attributable to growth over the neat tea years by the anticipated growth in service units over the same time period. Ilse result is a cost of $5,450 per new single-family or equivalent customer, as shown in Tablc 11. Table 11 WATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 Year in Attrlbu- Total Attributable Sousse: Alen Plummer Associatas, "Water Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees,' December 4, 2002; cost of take Ray Roberts from Table 10; attributable percent of Ray Roberts WTP cost from Table 8; attributable percent of Lake Ray Roberts cost from Table 9; attributable percent of main transmission line from Ray Roberts WfP based an 2003-2013 share of ultimata 5o mgd capacity; attributable percent of other Improvements based on year placed 9n service (years remaining in 2003-2013 period divided by 20 years); interest cost based an Interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. DENTON,TE%Ai12o03-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 13 NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT New water customers will help pay off outstanding debt incatred for existing facilities through their Monthly rains. To avoid requiring new customers to pay twice for capital facilities, once through iunpact fees and again through rate payments, the impact fees should be reduced to account for debt servicepayments.Inthis section adebtservicecteditperservice ututiscalculated for outstanding debt om existing water facilities. The methodology used was to divide each year's debt service payment by the projected number of service units in that year to determine an annual credit per service unit. The net present value of the future stream of debt service payments is the debt service credit per service unit Table 12 WATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT Fisml Debt Service Water Credit/ Source: Water system debt service payment from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; water SFEs for 2003-2013 from Table 4; water SFEs for succeeding years based on percent growth from 2002 water sysbam forecast; net present value based on 4.8% discount rate, which Is the average interest rate on 20-year AAA municipal bonds cited on bloomberg.com, bandsonllne.com and fmsbonds.com an January 30, 2003. DENTON,TEW0003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 14 ` kerevenue credits calculated abovewere done uingthe same philosophy and methodology set fords iathe oaginal l998 impact fee study. At that time, the state impact fee enabling act made no mention ofreveaue credits. The revisions to Chapter 395 made by the Texas legislature in.2001 now prescribe the following alternatives for addressing revenue credits in 395.014(a)('7): (4) a asdttforthejmriiort of ad valorem tax w d uYBty moue reaenaarger n*d by netv.mrvfce umtr drrringibepmgramperiod that and fortbepVwvn ofimjirocementr, iuckr q the p.)wwtof debt, that ara iadm&d in the A pftal i#*rwwwtrplan or (B) in the a/krwdw, a nail# equal to 30.tenant of the ioAdpr jeekd cart ofk*kmen4ng the e*wk*rww"kpAVL Note that the credits calculated above differ in certain respects from theliteralreading of the statelaw. Most significantly, the credit has been calculated for o"tctsnding debt for existing facilities, ratiterthan forfumre debttbatwillbe issued toimplemeattheprojects in the caphelimprovements plan. Itwould rnake little sense to calculate a credit for the improvements in the capital improvements plan, since new development will be paying for such costs through impact fees, and stleastin theory no rate revenues should be needed to fund such imprav tents. On the other hand, new development mill be paying for the retraining debt service on past improvements, and if no credits were provided would be in effttt paying for its costa through impact fees and some of existing developmeneB costs through the portion of its rates that go to debt retirement The other way in which the credits differ is that they are provided for future debt service payments beyond the ten. -year plate period. Both of these d[f(iie =s result in credits that are larger than if theywere calculated according to a literal reading:of the state act The alternative to calculating a, revenue creditis simply to divide the costper service unkinhff, The jeer costs resulting from deducting the revenue credit from the cost per service unit are compared in -- Table 13:--Based- on the -debt- service -credit - Talc fated above, -the net -cost is-$3,155_per.semce.unit. —_ Usingthe alternative method authorized by state law, the net costwouldbe 16 percentlovver, at $2,725 per service unit. Table 13 WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT calculation Alternative Method Method lkA, '"it`-+'1� %�l`f �°�L'T�"�i��., �.(�75'W %"}+s `-0'i�ia�•��1 -ta wit tn7 Source: Cost per SFE from Table 11; revenue credit per SFE for calculation method from Table 12, revenua credit for alternative method is one-half of cost per SFE- NET LOST SCHEDULE The two methods for calculating revenue credits give sitmlar results, and the City Council. could enact water impact fees at either of these levels, or at a reduced level The following net cost schedule wpwsenrs the masitnum impact fees that may be charged by the City for water system facilities, based on the adopted Iand Use Assumptions, the utility system evaluation and capital improvement cost estimates prepared by Cup Municipal Utilities staff and Alan Plummer Associates, and the additional PENTON,7E%AS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 15 dam and analysis pcesentcd in this study. The City could adopt the fees at a lower level than the tmasanums shown, or pbase the increases in over a period of time. In Table 14, the service units per meter are taultiplied by the net cost per service unit derived from the calculated revenue credit methodology, to determine the net cost per metes Table 14 WATER NET COST SCHEDULE WEB/ Net Cost Net Cast/ 1" Source: SFEs per meter from Table 2; net cost per SFE from Table 13. 71temasimumwaterimpactfees calculated aboveare compared to the City's e3dstingwaterimpact fees k7able 15. The fees would increase by 54 percent for meters of two inches in diameter or less, and more for btger meters. Table 15 COMPARATIVE WATER FEES Source: Potential fees from Table 14; current fees from Denton City Code. DEMTON.TEKA5\2003-2013 Capltel Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 16 Based on the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential revenues over the nest roes gears would be 68 percent higber under the potential fees calculated in this report than under the entrant fees, as shown in Table 16. 'These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since the annual projections o£$5.8 milliou under the current fee schedule are considerably higber than die $3.4 =31ion collected by the City in 2001. It should also be opted that the updated fees will not apply to properties platted under the previous impact fee schedule. Table 16 COMPARATIVE WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES, 2003-2013 Source: 2003 connections asdmated based on 2002 eonnecBans from Table 3 and percent growth in SFE9 2002-2003 from Table 4; new 2003-13 connections estimated based on percent growth in SFEs from Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and amrnt fees from Table 15, PEN=H,TE%AS%Z003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 17 WASTEWATER The City's current wastewater impact fees, adopted in 1998, cover only the costs of wastewater treatment This study updates the fees and adds the costs of interceptors and force mains. It also adds dminterest costs associated with fmnding capital projects through revenue bonds SERVICE UNITS The current service unit for Denton's wastewater impact fees is the "single-family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. This is reasonable, since wastewater generation is not metered directly and tends to be proportional to water usage. An SFB is the water demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (3/4'j which is the meter typically used by a single-fslnvly residence. The ratio of each larger meters capacity to the capacity of the base meter deter^^nP9 the SFE multiplier applied to each lager size meter The numberofservice units associatedwith meters of different sizes was calculated earlier. Multiplying the number of existing wastewater connections with each meter size by the service units per meter yields total service units for that meter size. Summing for all meter sizes yields the total number of vasrewater service units connected to the City's system, as shown in Table 17. Wholesale customers have been excluded from these calculations because they are located outside the wastewater service area. Table 17 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002 Existing SPEs/ Source., Average number of active non -wholesale wastewater connections by meter ske for fiscal year 2002 from the City of Denton, October 2002 (based on water customers with wastewater service by meter size plus 115 residential customers with no water meter; SFEs per meter from Table 2. Average per capita wastewater demands can be determined based on historic system -wide demand in mel6ons of gallons per day (mA and historic service area populations. These per capita estimates represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system nequirrcinmts, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Wastewater treatment Gn1ities are primadiydesigoedto accommodate average daily flows. As summarized inTable lk per capita wastewater flows to the treatment plant have been remarkably consistent over the last five years, at 148 gallons per capita per day (gpcd . These calculations exclude wholesale wastewater flows from Corinth andArgyle. In addition, they represent flows per served or connected population, DENTO4,TEXMU003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 1S which. has been determined based on recent studies by the City of Denton to be about 97 percent of tonal population These factors will be used to project future demand and service units in the Pecan Creek service area. However, because the Clear Creek service area will have relatively little inSltration (dne to new lines) and little industry, Alan Plummer Associates has determined that 94 percent m»nectivity and 100 geed should be used for this area_' Table 18 PER CAPITA WASTEWATER DEMAND rocaf Avg. Influent Served Per Capita Source: City ofDenten Munidpal lldEttes, char) in Alan Plummer Associates memorandum, December 11, 2002 (average Influent excludes wholesale flows). The growth in wastewater service units and retail customer wastewater demand over the 2003-2013 pbsiningperiod is derived from the Land Use Assumptions. The first step is to calculate the average demand per service unit This will be applied to demand projections to project the growth in service units for each service area. Tota12002 populationin the Pecan Creek andHickory Creek basins from the Land Use Assumptions is waltiplied by the estimated percent of households that are connected to the Denton wastewater �----._systetnto..dcriPesu.eet{mate.ofthe20Q2popilationsez7vetby.-t��.wa;3�seat��y�>r.(�?g-g9g�*�4n----____ in the Clear Creek basin is excluded because there is no wastewater service presently available there). The served population is then multiplied by the average per capita dettland to estimate total 2002 wastewater demand, exclusive of wholesale customers. Estimated demand in 2002 is divided by the cement number of service units from the previous table to determine the average demand per service unit (see Table 19). ;Mmiomndum from Srysn Jahn, P.L., Alan Plummer Associates, to P.S. Amin of Cap of Dcatou Mwudpal U itim, December 11, 2001 PENTON, T=A$\2003-2013 Capita] Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 191 Source: Total population from Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002 (excludes 2,631 in Clear Creek basin where no service Is available); percent served from Alan PlummerA4sodates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per npila demand from Table 18; 2002 SFEs from Table 17. Foreach service area, the tomlpopulationfromthe%andUseAssumptions is multiplied bythepercent served and the avenge per capita demand to determine total retalwastewater demand. The average demand per service unit is then divided into total demand to determine the number of wastewater SIRES. Usingthis approach, ffie numberoEserviccunits lathe Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek drainage basins are estimated for each year through 2013 in Tables 20 and 21. Table 20 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 Per Capita Retell Demand/ Fiscal Total Percent Served Demand Demand SFE Source: Total population from Land Use Assumptons, December 4, 2002; percent served from Alan Plummer Assortates, December 12, 20132 memorandum; per capita demandfrom Table 18; demand perSFEfrom Table 19; SFEs is total demand divided by demand per SFE PENTaM,TgXA$%2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 20 Projected 2003-2013 raced wastewater demand and wastewater service units are .summarized for the date drainage basins in Table 23 below. Table 23 WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY, 2003-2013 Retail Demand (mgd) Service Units (SPEs) Source. Tables 20, 21 and 22. TREATMENT PLANTS In 1994, the City completed a $9.5 million expansion of its wastewater treatment plant The Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant is now designed to treat up to 15 mgd, and is in compliance with all State and Pederal.dised=pepermits.'With aprojected demand in 2003 of 14.91 mgd, as shown inTable 24, the City has no existing capacity deficiencies with regard to wastewater treatment It also has virtually no excess capacity to accommodate new customers. Table 24 Source., Projected 2003 retail demand from Table 23; projected wholesale demand is 110% of wholesale demand in FY 2002 from city of Denton Municipal Utilities, °FY2002 Wastewatm*customers and Volume Summary.' To accommodate future growth is the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek basins, the City is currently buildings. 6.00 mgd expansion to the Pecan Creek plant; and will also construct a new 0.95 mgd plant in the fTickory Creek basin. The Pecan Creek plant expansion is being constructed in modules, and sermeadditional capacitywillbeavailable whentheStstnew treatment trainis completed inlateJanuary or early February 2003. The constmacrinn of the Hickory Creek plant is five years or so away. Currently, the flows from the Eiickory Creek basin are conveyed to the Pecan Creek system by an existing lift station. In older to naucimize the use of the Pecan Creek plant expansion already underway, it is anticipated that a sknificantportion ofthe new capacityltquiredbygmwthin theITickory Creek hannoverthe ten year Period willbemet bydtatplant. Consequently, new development intheMckoryCreekbasinvEhave its wastewater treated by both the Pecan Creek plant expansion and the new Hickory Creek plant. DENTQKT9XAf12003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 22 Treatment capacity to serve the Clear Creek basin villbecoustractedintwo phases. Thefirstphase is the construction of a 0.95 mgd wastewater uxestment plant, anticipated to be completed by July 2004.Later in the ten-year planning horizon, = expansion of the plant will take place to provide the additional 0.68 mgd of required capacity. LIFTSTATIONSAND FORCEMAINS Figure 7 WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY 25 f a AchW Demand --:rroigcbedtlemawt 0 Eased on information. in the Cityof Denton 1987 2009 2wm6 21104 2018 wastewater masterplan, three lift station projects are anticipated for the ten-year planning period. The Cooper Creek Lift Station expansion is currently uoderdesignandwillincrease capacity to12mgd. AIAkeviewRanch/ Grissom LiftStation and Force Maim is also anticipated during the planning period. While no capacities are known at this time, a startup date of 2005 is assumed. For the projects above, the assumption -was made tb ateachliftstation will be constructed to meet 2020 flows. In addition, it was assumed that population growth would accur at a linear rate over the same period. 20 Is 10 c� 5 To convey additionalwastemater resulting from growth in the Hekory Creek basin to the pecan Creek 0antwill create the need for a 2 rogd. capacity expansion of the current Mckory Creeklift station. The expansion of the existing Makory-Greeklift-station will occ- .-during.-the-planning-peaod-and..is------ anticipated to be fully utT=d by 2013. INTERCEPTORS Several new interceptors are discussed in the City of Denton 97artawaterMaMr Plan, many, of which vase considered developer related projects. Ivfany of these projects were not included in the update due to uncertainties of the required timing. The inclusion of the listed projects was based on current needs and input from City personnel The underlying assumption for interceptor p"ects was that all interceptors would bave a 20-year life. Inaddidon,eachinterceptorwasassignedanin-servicedatc. The in-service dates are anticipated. The applicable percentages were calculated based on the ratio of the number ofyears in-service during the pl2rwiog period to 20, which is the life of the line. The Notth Hickory Creek Interceptor will serve both the City of Krum, which is s wholesale wastewater customer, and a newly developing area within the Hickory Creek basin. The City of I{rum will pay for the equivalent cost of a 15-inch line, and the City of Denton is responsible for the cost share above the 15-inrh size, which .Tmges from 21 to 27 inches. DENTON,TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 23 COST PERSERVICE UNIT Wastewater capital improvements ideadfied by City Municipal Utilities staff as necessary to accommodate growth over the ne= ten year for each of the three drainage basins are summarized in Tables 25, 26 and 27. The portions of the costs of the Pecan Creek War= Reclamation Plant expansion, the new Idtckory Creek plant and the new Clear Creek plant that are attributable to growth over the planning period are based on the capacity of the facilities and the new demand generated by the anticipated growth over the period. Lift station and force main improvements included in the capital. improvements plan are idendfiedin the wastewater master plan, and the percent attributable to growth forthese projects is based Oil the assumptionthat the facilities will be faWutflizedby2020. For iaterceptors, the portions of the costs attributable to growth are based on the year that the facility is avri❑Epated w be put into service. For these facilities, the simplifying assumptions arc made that they sat. accommodate 20 years of growth and that growth will be linear. In addition to those costs directly attributable to growth, there are the interest costs associated with fimAn with revenue bonds or other foams of debt The City -traditionally funds all of its majorwastewster system capital improvements with bonds, and consequently incurs interest costs. According to state law,these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Interest costs are estimated based on the most recent City, of Denton unity bond issue. The total costs of planned cap1W improvements attributable to growth m each of the three drainage basins ace presented in the following three tables. Table 25 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 Capacity'(mgd) Attribu- Total Attributable: Source: Project costs, capacity and In-service datesfrom Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastawater Improvement Costs Applicable to impact Fees," December 4r 2002; total capacity needed and newservtce units over 2003-2013 period from Table 23; attributable percent of CooperCreek and Lakeview lift station/farce mains assumed to be fully utlilmd by 2020, so percent based on years remaining In 2003-2013 period divided by remaining years before 2020; alnibutable percent of otherimprovements with In-service date shown based on years remaining In 2003-2013 period divided by 20 years; Interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. DENTON, TE%AS12003-7A13 Capltal Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 24 Table 26 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 CapaciRy (mod) Attribu- Total Attributable. Source: Project costs, capacity and in-service lobes from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastawater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period Ilrern Table 23; attributable percent of Improvements with In-service date shown based on years remaining In 2003- 2013 period divided by 20 years; interestcost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds, Table 27 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013 Capacity (mod) Attribu- Total Attributable, Source: Project costs, capacity and In-service dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period Ilium Table 23; attributable percent of Improvements with In-service data shown based on years remaining In 2003- 2013 period divided by 20 years; Interest cost based on Interest rats or Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. The cost per service unit is determined by dividing the total andbutable cost over the 2003-2013 gamin gpenod by the new service units (SFEs) anticipated dating the same time period. The average costsperSFE are shown for each drainage basinand forthe entire wastewaterCCN inTable 28 below. Ftis apparent thatnew developmentwill be more cost-effective to serve inthe Pecan Creek basin, due bo the economies of scale at the large e=dng treatment plant Since much of the new development in the Hickory Creek basin w.illalso be served by the espansionof the existing plant, a reasonable case can be made for including both basins within the same service area and charging the same fee in both areas The ClearCreek basin, on the other hand, will be served by an entirely separate set of facilities, and the sigmTkantly higher cost to serve new custor>ets in this area could be reflected in higher fees i€itis designated as a separate service area. DENTON,TMA"003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 25 Table 28 WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, ZD03-2013 Sburue: Attributable costs from?abler 25, 26 and 27; new SFEs from Table 23. NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT New wastewater customers will help pap off outstanding debt incurred for e�dsting facilities through their monthly rates. `xhe met present value of the funrre stream of debt service payments is the debt service credit per service unit Table 29 WASTEWATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT Flawl Debt Service Wastewater Credit/ Source: Wasbawatar debt service payments from City of Denman Municipal Utllities; wastewater SFEs for 2003-2013 from Tables 20, 21 and 22; wastewater SFEs for succeeding years based an percent growth from 2002 water system forecast; net presentvalus based on 4.8% discount rate, which is the average Interest rate an 20-year AAA municipal bonds cited on bloomberg.com, bondsonline.rnm and fmsbonds.com on January 30, 2003. DENMN, TEXA5\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 26 The net costper service unit is calculated by subtractingthe revenue credit calculated above from the cost per service unit As discussed in the water section, however, state law presctibes an alternative method of calculating the net cost per service unit, which is to divide the cost per service unit by two. These two methods ofdeterm_ ining the net costper service unit are presented inTable 30. As with the water fee, the two methods yield very similar results for the wastewater fee for the Pecan Creek basin, ,nith.tihe alternative method resu Ldug in a maximum fee thatis only 5 percentlowerthan the calculated net cost Howeve; the alternative method would result in considerably lower fees for the other two drainage basins. Table 30 WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Cost/ Credit/ Net cost/ Alternative Alt. % Sbtirrw Cost per SIFE from Table 28; credit per SFE from Table 29; alternative maXmum fee Is cost per SFE divided by 2. NET COST SCHEDULE Because the City, has several options to choose from in teens of service areas, as many as five fee schedules could be generated for vzdcus geographic areas. The option of usingthe alternative method of calculating raveuue credits authorized by stair: law increases the number of possible fee schedules -- --- -- w-tare- Tor -simplicity, -the fee schedule presented will be -based on the maximum£ee forthe entire — - ----- vuast=ater service area In Table 31, the service units per meter are multiplied by the net cost per service unit derived from the calculated revenue credit methodology to determine the net cost per meter. Table 31 WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE SFEs/ Net Cost Net Cost/ Source: SFEs per meter from Table 2; net cost per SFE from Table 13. PENTON, TOWS2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 27 Thernasimum wastewaterimpact fees calculated above are compared to the City's esistingimpaet fees in Table 32. If adopted at the maximum level, the fees would increase by 289 percent for metes of Savo inches in diarncter or less. The increase would be greater for larger metes, reflecting the revised SM per meter based on the capacity data provided by the manufactiuer of the meters used by the CitY Table 32 COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER FEES Potential Current Percent Source: Potential fees from Table 31; current fees from Denton City Code. Based on the growth projections in the I=a Use Assumptions, potential revenues over the nest ten yeas would be 323 percent higher under the potential fees calculated in this reportthan under the caraeat fees, as shown in Table 28. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since the anneal projections of $1.1 million under the current fee schedule are considerably higher than the $0.8 million collected by the City in 2001. Table 33 COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER REVENUES, 2003-2013 2003 New 03-1.3 Potential Current Percent Source: 2003 connections estimated based on 2002 connections from Table 17 and percent growth to SFEs 2002-2003 from Table 4; new 2003-13 connections estimated based on percent growth in SFEs fmm Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and current teas from Table 32. DENTON, TEXAS%2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 28 APPENDIX: TEXAS IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT [Undedine and strike -out indicates cbanges from SB 247, effective September 1, 2001] �.: � �� rl ��•+ rot •• r€• .�� • + : art %IBC14AT'MRA. GENERAL PROVISIONS Scr- 395.001. Definitions. In this chapter. (1) "Capitaiimprovement" means any oftbe followingfacilities tbathave alife expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (A) wager supply, treatment, and distnbution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment fa lities;andstormwater,drainage, and flood control facilities;whetherornottheywe located within the service area; and (13) roadway facilities. iin r1lan" means a lam xfinii<d _ t f_Mr dW Pn+;6Ps improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. (3) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same fnnctionas an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modemiaation, or expansion of an exMng facility to better serve existing development. (� "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 rhargcs, hump -sum charges, capital recovery Sees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that fimctions as described by this definition. The tram does notincludec (A) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; (B) dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of on -site 9_r off -site water distribution, wastewater collection or dri nage facilities, or streets, sidewal&s, or curbs ifthe dedicationor construcfwnis remiiredby avalid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; [or] DENTON,TF%At\20o3-2013 Capital Improvements Pian February 17, 2003, Page 29 (C) lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constmcdngwater or sewer mains orlines: or (5j "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of charges in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 10-year period (E7C "New development" means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, stnurtird alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use ofland; any ofwhich increases the number of service units. (7) "Political subdivision" means a municipality, a district or authority created under Article III, Section52, orAr cle XVI, Section59, of the Texas Constitution, or, forthe purposes set forth by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section. (9) "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 appurtenances. The term includes cite political subdivision's share of costs for [&es net imclucauy] roadways v§nd [vr] associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas (91) "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-fadlities expansions -specified in the capital improvements- plan; except---------_ roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control i'scilides. The service area, for the purposes of this chapter, mayinclude sR or part of the landwithinthe political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control fiaa'lities. Par roadway facilities, the service area is limited to an area widen the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed & [adistwee e4catftv ] ems[; sts-pbm]. For storm -water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service area 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. DEWMM,TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 30 SUBCHAPTER B. AUTHORIZATION OF 1MPACr FEE Sec. 395.011. Authorization of Fee. (a) Unless otherwise specifically autborized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee. (b) Politics] subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries or esttaterdtoxisl jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extmu rrito:dd jurisdiction for roadway facilities. (e) A municipality may contract to provide eapital.improvements, except roadway facilities, to an atmoutside its corporate boundaries and extratrixitoiudjuzsdictloilwdmay charge animpact 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, 71stLeg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), ei£ Aug. 28,1989. Sac. 395.012. Items Payable by Fee. (a) An impact fee may he 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,inrt�landpurchases,court awards and costs, ettomey's fees, ___.... _.._ .-.... and-expertwitness fees; and ..._. __- ................__ ...._..........._.........._....,_...... _...__..--- (4) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consult= preparing orupc' tftthe capitalimpmvementsplan who isnot an employee of the political subdivision. (b) Projected interest rhnges and other finance costs maybe included in detemoining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees am 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 capitalimprovementsplan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (e) Notwitbsmndingony other provision oftivs chaptey the Edwards Underground Water Distort or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state ]aw to charge fees that function as impact lies may use impact fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under this chapter.. (d) A municipalitymay pledge animpact fee as security for the payment of debt service on a bond, note, or othu obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion if (1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvements plan; and DMWN, TMAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2D03, Page 31 izJ at the time of the pledge, the governing body of the municipality certifies in a written order, ordinance, or resolution that none of the impact fee will be used or expended for an improvement or expansion not identified in the plan. (e) A certification under Subsection (d)(2) is sufficient evidence that anittpactfee pledgedwill not be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg, ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eft; Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg, ch. 90, Sec. 1, eff. May 16,1995. Sec. 395.013. 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 other than capital improvements or fadlity expansions idurtified in the capital improvements platy (� repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility expansions; (3) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capitol improvements to serve existing developmeatiaordertomeet stricter safety; efficiency,eaviroamentai,orregulatory standards; (4) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (5) administative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards Undetgcouad Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to ---- chotge feesyhsr-function-as impac-fees-map use impact -fees -to pay -its -a mrots mdve-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, 71stLeg, ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), efE Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.014, Capital Improvements Plan. (a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (1) adescriptionoftheexistn capital mprovementswithintheserviceareaandthe costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (2j an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements, which sball be prepared by a qualified profiessional engineer licensed to per the professional engutaering services in this state; DENTOM,TMA-A2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 32 (3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, wbich shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensedto perform the professional engineering suvices an this state; (4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a sexvke unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial; (5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; and (6) the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 yeataL a,_nd �.,ZP a plan for awarding f4 a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated improvements plan: nr in the alternative a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of .imblernentingthe 'capitalimprovements Ilan __.._.........._.._...._..._.______ (b) The analysis required by Subsection (a)(3) maybe prepared on a systemwide basis within the service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility expansion for the designated service area. (c) The governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervising the implementation of the capital, improvements plan in a timely* roanner. Added by Acts 1989, 71stIxg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), ef£ Ang. A 1989. Sec. 395.015. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit. (a) The impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by subtracting the amount in Section 395.014W(1) from [divaiingj the costs of the capital. improvements described by Section 395.014(a)(3) and dividing that amount by the total number of projected service units described by Section 395.014(a) (5). (b) If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units 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 necessitated by and attributable to projected new service units described by Section 395.014(a)(6) by the projected new service DeNTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 33 units described in that section. Added byAds 1989, 71st Leg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 19B9. Sec. 395.016. Time for Assessment and Collection of Fee. (a)MiissubsectionappResoolptoirnpactf6es adopted and land plattedbeforejune 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 subdivision may assess the impact fees at my time during the development approval and building process. 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 sews system or at the time the poli+ical. subdividomissues either the buildingpermit or the certificate of occupancy. (b) This subsectionapplies; only to impact fees adopted beforejune 20,1987, and landplatbed afi= that date. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, orthe subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after june 20,1987, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may tolled the Sees at either the time ofrecordation ofthe 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. (c) M subsection applies onlyto impadfees adopted afterjune 20,1987. Fornew development which is platted is 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 an serviceunitforwhich s:valid buil ' ermitis issuedwithin one Y �'P year----------_ after the date of adoption of the impact fee. (d) This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with. Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures ofapolitical subdivision after adoption 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, orthe subdivision orplatting ordinance or procedures ofanppolitical subdivisionin the official records of the county clerk of the county in which the ttad is located. Except as provided by Section 395.019, if the political subdivision has water and wastxmatrs cagadty available: the municipality's water or wastewater Wtem is fled-, or .M avolitcalsubdivision that lacicsauthoritytoissuebutldingpemtitsintheareawherethe DMMM,TEXAS0003.2013 Capital Improvements Platt February 17, 2003, Page 34 (e) For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development and building process and may collect the fees at either the tltne 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. (€(J An "assessment" means a determination of the amount of the impact fee in effect on the date or occurrence provided in this section and is the maximum amount that can be charged pet service unit of such development No specific act by the political subdivision is required. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg, eh. 1, Sec. 82(a), efE Aug. 28,1989. See. 395.017. Additional Fee Prohibited; Exception. After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed against the trace fur any reason. unless the number of service units to be developed on the tractincreases. 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 die additional service units. Added by Acts 1989,71 stLeg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), efE An& 28,1989. Sec. 395.018. Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment. Apolitical subdivision is authorized to eater into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land. for which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees. Added by Acts 1999, 71st Leg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), efE Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.019. Collection of Fees if Services Not Available. Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but may not be collected in areas where services are not currently available unless: (1) the collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion that has been ;,I.tifiedinthempitalimpmvementsplanandthepoliticalaubdivisioncommitsto commence construction within two pears, unties duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work zequired 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 constructed, but in no event longer than five years; (2) the politicalsubdivision agrees that the owner of anew development may construct or finance the capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees drat the costa incurred or funds advancedwin be credited against the impactfees 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 capitalimprovern mts or facility expansions, which fees shall be collected and reimbursed to the owner atthe tune the other new development records its plat; or (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, 71st Leg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), off. Aug. 28,1989. DENT014,TEICAS12003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 35 Sec. 395.020. Eudtlement to Services. Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and Benefit ofthe services 8lrwhich the fee was erected and is entitled to receive immediate service from any exi n facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to compliance with odieer valid regilations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), ef£ Ang. 28,1989. Sao. 395.02E 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, 71st Leg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eff Aug 28,1989. See. 395.022. Authority of Political Subdivision to Pay Fees. Political subdivisions and othergovemmentalentities maypayimpactfees imposed underthis chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug 28,1989. Sec 395.023. Credits Against Roadway Facilities Fees. Any construction a& coattibutions to, or dedications of off -site roadway facilities agreed to orrequized by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited against roadway 5wlities impact fees otherwise due from the development. Added by Acts 1989, 71 stlxg, ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eE Ang. 28,1989. Sec 395.024. Accounting For Fees and Interest ----- - (a7 - The oaler,-ordinance;-ormsolutionlevyingsnimpact- fee must provide-that-allfunds collected--._-- thmugh the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest bearing accounts dearly identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. (b) Interest esmed on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is subject to all restrictions placed an use ofimpact fees under this chapter. (c) Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital improvements plan and as authorized by this chaptez. (d) The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch-1, Sec 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,1989, Sec 395.025. Ref xuds. (a) Onthcreque&ofanownef of the property onwhich an impact fee his 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 constructionwithin two years or serviceis not available within a reasonable period considering the type ofcapital impfovemrntorfacility expxp nd= to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1). DENTON,TE%AS�2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 36 (c) The political subdivision shall refund anyimpact fee or part ofit thatis not spent as authorized by this chapter within 10 years after the date of payment (d) Anyrefvnd shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutnryraseasset f uthinArticle 1.03,T1de79,RevisedStatutes (Article 5069-1.03, Vernon% Texas Civil Statutes), or its successor statute. (e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, ift he impact fees were paid by another political subdivision orgovemmenial entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity. Q� 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 staff to sue for a refund Inn der this section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), et£ Aug. 28,1989. SUBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FORADOPTION OF III7PACT FEE Sec. 395.041. Compliance With Procedures Required. Enceptasotberwisepmvidedbythischapte;apolitical subdivision nas complywithdais subchapter tolevy-animpactfee:- Added -by Acts 1989,71stkegyrli-1;Seu-82(a),,eff,Avg:,28,-1989.- .... _._.._ Sec. 395 041L Capital Improvements Plan. Sec. 395.042. Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Immoveements Plan To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or resolution esmbls� a public hearing date to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan tr [ovida¢] the designated service area [ ]. Sec 395.043. information About Land Use Assumptions and Capital L nprovementa Plan Avagahle to Publie. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing onthe land use assumptions and ea ' impr—ovements the political subdivision shell make available to the public its land nee assumptions, the time period of the projections, and a description of [the: genexal "atae of the capital improvement facilities that may be proposed. p9NT0N,TgX"f 2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 37 See. 395.044. Notice of Beating on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Iminovements Plan (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on jhc land use assumptions and c improvements pl]a>L the political subdivision shallsend a notice oftheheaxing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or otherdesimatedofficial ofthepoWcal.subdivisionrequestinguodceofthehearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting the public hearing. M Thepolitical subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing [ ] before the 30th day ] before the data set for the healing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in whkhthe political subdivision lies. However, ariver authority that is authorized elsewhere by state lawtn charge fees that function as impact fees maypublish the required newspaper notice onlyin each county in wb ich the service area lies. (e) The notice must contain: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL BOROVEMENTS PLAN RELATING TO POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF IMPACT F13ES" statement .• h purpose of the hearing is to consideru..n and ftlast will be used to deudop capital improvements plan imcle which an impact fee may be imposect- and [(5}] a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the heating and present evidence for or against the ]and use assumptions and capital improvements AILL Sec. 395.045. Approval of Land Use Assumptions and Cag1t:al improvements Plan Required. (a) After the public hearing on the land use assumptions and ca" imBoy=nts n1m the political subdivision shaU determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance, order, or resolution . r • • - assumptions• r w glAq (b) The political subdivig within 30 days after the date of the public heating; shall approve or disapprove the ]and use assumptions and cal&9 improvements glen DENT0N,TEKA$\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 38 (c) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions andea "tat improvements plea may not be adopted as an emergency measure. See. 395.0455. Systemwide Land Use .Assumptions. (s) In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service area, a political subdivision may, except for stoma water, draingg% flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter. (b) Prior to adopting systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision shall follow the public notice, hearing and other requirements for adopting land use assumptions. (c) After adoption of systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision is not required to adopt additional land use assumptions for a service area for water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities or wastewater collection and treatment facilities as a prerequisite to the adoption of a capital improvements plan or impact fee, provided the capital improvements plan. and. impact fee are consistent with the systemwide land use assumptions. Added by Acts 1999, 71stf-eg, ch. 566, See.1(b), eE Aug 28,1989. lEapital Phall Re-jaireclAfict Approval of Land Us uap�tions. Sec. 395.047. Heating on [eapital Implovem=ts Man an] impact Pee. On adoption of the land use assumptions and [mmpktion afy3ie] capital improvements plan, the governing body shall adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the [adoption. imposition of the impact fee The public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution. [udopt inga imposing as impact See. Set: 395.049. Notice of Hearing on [Capital Emptovenzents Ph= an] Impact Fee. (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the heating on the ijuosition of an [mpital impact £ee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the beating by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal seemaxy or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the heating within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order or resolution setting tine public hewing. DENTON,TUMN2003-2013 capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 39 (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the heanng [ consactitiv, weeks, d2cfhatmotice to] before the 30th day L clay] before the date set for the heating, 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 impact Sees may publish the required. newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. [The (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follow. - "NOTICE OF PUBLIC PMARiNG 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) [ [f5}] the amount of the proposed impact See per service unit; and a statement that say member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and . present evided'ce fm-olf agaiastthc plan -sad proposed feer Ser. 395.050. Advisory Committee Comments on [ ] Impact Fees. ... ..A IMTI 51.. Sec. 395.051. Approval of jeapibadfixtrove=nts Plan Impact Fee Requited. (h) An ordinance, onicr, or resolution approving the ] imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. PENTON. TFXAA2003-2013 Capital Improvements Man February 17, 2003, Pape 40 Sea 395.053. Hearing an Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan. Mic governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days after the date it receives the update ofthe 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, 71stLeg, cb.1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,1989. Sea 395.05C Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee. A public heating must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, ordeS or resolution amending land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication o£the notice of the heating on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, inrin� the amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public. Added byActs 1989, 71st I.eg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eff Aug. 28,1989. Sea 395.055. Notice: of Heating on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital improvements Plan, or Impact Fee. (2) N .... ,2..• .. ..... ... . .,. ,. (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC f MAMNG ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES" (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition. of an impact fee; and PENTON,TEXM%2003-2013 Capflal Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 42 (4) n] a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the heating and present evideace for or against the update. Sec. 395.056. Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments. 7be 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, 71st Leg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), ett^ Aug. 28,1989. See.395.057. Approval ofAmendmentsRequited. (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 as impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or 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 emergeneymeasure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug 28,1989. Sec. 395.0575. Determination That No Update of Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or Impact Fees is Needed. (a) 9 at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the governing body de nixiiin s -- ----that no the to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or -impact -fee is- needed, it may, as an altemative to the updating requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057, do the faaaiog. (1) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon determiniug that an update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice under this section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee by cert icd 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). (2) The political subdivision shall publish notice ofits determination once a week for three consecutive weeps in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each muntyin 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 rot 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. DENTON, TEX"\2003-2013 LapItal Improvements Plan February 17, 2n03, Page 43 (b) The notice must contain, the following. (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF DET ERM NATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES"; (2) a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determineA that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is necessary; (3) an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the updating bas been determined to be unaecessaty; (4) a statement that if, within a specified dates which date shall be at least 60 days afar publication of the first notice, a person makes it 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 govem4 body must comply with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052,395.057; and (5) 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 (e) Tine advisory committee shall file its written comments on the need for updating the land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the earliest notice of the government's decision that no update is necessary is mailed or published. (d) If, by the date specified in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land 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. (e) An nrdinsnr a order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions, a capital improveuhents plan, or as impact fee may not be adopted as an Mn tgency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, Sec.1(d), eE Aug. 2% 1989. 9= 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 committer_ (b) The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members who 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 tine real estate, development, or building indust ies -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 as the advisory committee if the commission includes at lest onq representative of the real estate, development or building industry who is not PENTON, TgVWA VM3-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 44 an employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If no such xzprescnt%tiW is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the commission may stilC act as the advisory commitue if at least one such representative is appointed by the political subdivision as an ad boc voting member of the planning and zoning commission when it acts as the advisory commi+hsr If the impact fee is to be applied in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membersbip must include a representative from that area. (c) The advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: (1) advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions; 0 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- (d) The political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any professional' reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan. (e) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural Hiles for the advisory committee m-Ulow in carrying out its dutiesrAdded byActs-4989; 71st Leg:; ch.4,-Sec,-....-- 82(a), ef£ Aug. 28,1989. R D. OTHER PROVISIONS See. 395.07L Duties to be Performed Uritbin Time Limits if the goveming 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 flee has been paid has the right to present a vtitten request to the governing body of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be pedorrned vvitbin 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 sball casse the dmty to commencewithln 60 days after the date of the request and continue until completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., cb.1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,19B9. Sec. 395.072. Records of Hearings. A record must be made of say public heating provided for by this cbapt rr. The record sball be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10 gears after the date of the bearing. Added by Ads 1989, 71st Leg., eh.1, Sec 82(a), ef£ Aug. 28, 1989. PENTON,TgX^5\2003.2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 45 Ser- 395.073. Cumulative Effect of State and Local Restrictions. Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision where an impact fee is proposed are cumulative with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71stLeg, ch.1, See.82(a), efEAug. 28,1989. See. 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 as impact fee made under this chapter on or before June 20,1990. However, any political subdivision having as impact fee that Ems not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20,1988, is liable to any party who, after jtme 20,1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maxi elm permitted under Subchapter B by more than 10 percent for as amount equal to two times the difference between the -- - .-- impart fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. AddedbyAtts 1989, 71stLeg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), efE Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.075. No Effect on Taxes or Other Charges. Mis dbapter does norprohi* affect, or regulate say ts, fee, charge, or assessment specifically amdtnrized by state law. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), ef£ Aug. 28,1989. See. 395.076. Moratorium on Development Prohibited. A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of swaitingthe completion of ail or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update the impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71stLeg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eff Aug. 28,1989. -Sem-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 entitled 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. (d) Eacept f6r roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property onwhich 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 fadlity to provide the services. (e) Any suit mast be filed in the county in which the major part of the land arm of the political subdivision is located. A successful Itil,� shall be emitted m recover reasonable attomey's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), eft: Ang. 28,1989. Sec.395.079. SubstantL Compliance' With Notice Requirements. An impact fee may not be held invalid because the public notice requirements were not complied with if toanpliance was substantial and in good faith. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg, ch. 1, Sec. W2), efE Aug. 28,1989. DENTON, TWAS0003-2013 capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 46 Sea. 395.079. Impact Fee for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous Calmty. (a) Any county that has a population of 2.2 million or more or that borders a countywith a population of 2.2 m0on or more, and gay district or authority created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution widen any such county that is authorized to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized to impose impact fees to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control 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 increase the impact fee. (c) Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise contractually obligate all or pare of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued or incurred by or on behalf of the political subdivision and to the payment of say other contractual obligations. (d) An impact fee adopted by it political subdivision under Subsection (a) may not be reduced if (1) the political subdivision has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision; and (2) the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact -- _ ._. -fees _du iug.the term of -the -bonds notes; or other contractual obligators: A,dded.. - by Acts 1989, 71st Leg:, ch.1, Sec. 82(a), efE Aug. 28,1989, Six. 395.080. Chapter Not Applicable to Certain Water -Related Special Districts. (a) This chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions: (1) paid by or ckazgcd to a district cad under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Teas Constitntion to gnother district created under that constitutional- provision if both districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; or f� charged by as entity if the impact fees, rh_a_a s, fees, assessments, or contributions are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (b) Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution may petition the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for oppmval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The commission shall adopt rules for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shall 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 pardcipaty—, Added by DENTOH, TMAf\2003-2013 Capral Improvements Plan Febnmry 17, 2003, Page 47 Acts 1989, 71st Leg., cb.1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., cb. 76, Sea 11257, ell Sept 1,1995. Sac. 395MZ C.ettificatiota of Compiianee Requited. fd A political subdiPittioa that imposes an impact fee shall submit a mattm ceftification ift 4d PXNTON,TP%AS\2003-2013 Capitol Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 48 Capital Improvements Plans for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees EXHIBIT B Summary Presentation on 10 — Year Water Capital Improvements Plan Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee Update Evaluation. 10-Year Water Capital Improvement Plan Background: Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code outlines the legal authority and procedures to be followed for municipal utilities to adopt and implement impact fees. The City of Denton first implemented impact fees for water and wastewater on with the adoption of Ordinance 98-301 (adopted September 18, 1998 with and effective date of September 29, 1998). This action was prompted by the following: • The rapid growth rate projected for Denton —Service population increases of 61% for water and 57% for wastewater from 1999 to 2009. The significant cost of developing new water supplies associated with the Lake Ray Roberts Reservoir project. The significant construction cost for building the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant. • Community resistance towards increasing water and/or wastewater utility rates to pay for new infrastructure to.support the rapid growth mtes�rojected._,. • General acceptance by other communities in the DFW area to use impact fees as a means to help pay for new utility infrastructure necessary to support growth. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code as amended in 2001 requires that cities that adopt and implement impact fees update their population projections, land use assumptions and capital improvements plans every five years. The planning period that impact fee update studies are based upon is a ten-year period. FY 199810 Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees: The ten-year capital improvements program for water utilities that was adopted as a part of the development of Ordinance 98-301 is shown in Exhibit I -A. This plan included nine growth related capital improvement projects for water utilities that covered the following categories of improvements: • Water treatment plants (3 projects). • Water pumping stations with or without ground storage tanks (2 projects). 0 Elevated storage tanks (2 projects). • Major transmission lines (2 projects). One of these projects (Spencer Road Water Treatment Plant) was an existing capital improvement that had some available excess capacity at the time the study was done. A portion of the costs for this existing facility was therefore eligible for recovery through impact fees. The remaining eight projects were new projects that were either in the existing Water Utilities 5-year capital improvements program (approved by the Public Utilities Board and City Council) or identified in the utility master plan as capital improvements needed to support new growth during the next ten years. The total cost of these nine capital improvement projects was estimated to be $ 100,617,000 with $ 43,604,000 identified as eligible costs for impact fees to support growth during the ten- year planning period. The projected increase in new water customers during this period was 19,138 Single Family Equivalents (SFEs). FY 200310 Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees: The ten-year capital improvements program for water utilities proposed for the FY 2003 impact fee program update is shown in Exhibit 1-13. This plan includes sixteen growth related capital improvement projects for water utilities that covered the following categories of improvements: • Water treatment plants (1 project). • Water pumping stations with or without ground storage tanks (2 projects). • Elevated storage tanks (3 projects). • Major transmission lines (10 projects). Six of these projects were either recently completed (Bernard/James 20" Waterline), or under construction (Lake Ray Roberts WTP, W' Finished Water Transmission Line, Loop 288 Waterline -Sherman to Hwy 380, Loop 288 Waterline -Sherman to UNT, and the Northwest Elevated Storage Tank and Supply Line). One project is currently under final design (Southwest Booster Pump Station and Ground Storage Tank). Eight projects are in the adopted FY 2003 — FY 2007 Water Utilities CIP (North -South Waterline Phases 1, 11, III & N, Roselawn Waterline, Roselawn Elevated Storage Tank, Robson Ranch Elevated Storage Tank and the High School Booster Pump Station). One additional project (Loop 288 Waterline — UNT to I-35) is planned to be included in the FY 2008 CIP during the upcoming budget cycle. During the design phase of the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant project, the decision was made to build the initial plant with a capacity of 20 Million Gallons per Day (MGD) rather than build the plant in two 10 MOD phases as originally proposed in the FY 1998 impact fee capital plan. Additionally, the decision was made to relocate the Hartlee Field Road Booster Pump Station and Ground Storage facilities from the originally proposed site up to the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant site. This also resulted in an increase in the size and pressure rating of the Finished Water Transmission Line and. the Booster Pump Station Tie -In Line. The total estimated cost of these proposed projects from the FY 1998 impact fee CIP was $ 50,775,000. The revised cost of the modified facilities that are currently under construction that are included in the FY 2003 impact fee CIP totaled $ 47,930,000. Additionally, the location of the new elevated storage tank for the southwest side of the middle pressure plane has been moved from a site proposed near the UNT Campus to the Roselawn area south of Denis. Park. During the FY 1998 impact fee study process, the growth demands for the far southwestern portion of the water service area was not projected to occur to any major extent during the ten-year planning period. However, the Robson Ranch development coupled with the Country Lakes North development resulted in two new projects to be included in the FY 2003 impact fee CIP (Southwest Booster Pump Station and Ground Storage Tank and the Robson Ranch Elevated Storage Tank). In addition, the population projections that resulted from the FY 1998 impact fee study were significantly higher than those that were projected in the Utility Department's FY 1996 Forecast. This more conservative forecast from the mid 1990's was used for the 2-0- year Water Distribution Master Plan Study that was performed in 1997. With the revised population projections that came out of the FY 1998 impact fee study, it was determined that the 1997 Water Distribution Master Plan would need to be revised prior to including any _major transmission lines,in., -_impact fee-.capital.plan.other.than.the.major lines...---.--__.-_..._..._. associated with the initial connection of the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant. As a result, the proposed FY 2003 Ten -Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees includes nine new water transmission line projects that were identified in the FY 2000 Water Distribution Master Plan update that are necessary to support the capacity of the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant project and the expansion of water system demands over the ten year planning period. A detailed listing of the proposed FY 2003 Ten -Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees is shown in Exhibit III. The total cost of these sixteen capital improvements projects is $ 75,995,000 with $ 53,549,500 identified as eligible costs for impact fees to support growth during the ten-year planning period. The preliminary estimate for new water customers during this period is approximately 25,000 Single Family Equivalents (SFEs). 10 — Year .Water Capital Improvements Plan Prepared by Alan Plummer and Associates Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee Update Evaluation. City of Denton Water Improvement Costs 2003-2013 Improvement Cost (Dollars) Percent Applicable to Impact Fees' Applicable Cost (Dollars) Treatment Plants 1. Ray Rehab WIT (phase I & U-10 MGD ea.) 341,320,000 100.00% $41,320,000 Spbrofal Trraaeautr2arrrs $41,320,000 841,320,000 Pump Stations & Tanks 2. Hartlee Field Road BNOW Pomp Station so - 0.00% so 3. Hartle° Field Rod BoosterPmap Station so 0.0o% so Tie-in bnprovemeaa� 4. Hartle° Field Ground Storage (6h4G)' $0 0.00% s0 S. Southweat Booster Pump Station S3,480,000 50.00% $1,740.000 6. Northwest Elevated Storage Tank 31,890,000 50.OD% $945,000 7. Roselawn Elevated Tank S2,830,000 45.OD% S1,273,500 S. Robson Ranch Elevated Tank $1,140,000 35.OD% $399,000 9. H15b School Boaster Pump Station 32,460,000 30.00% S738,000 10.. University. Elevated-Tadr'.... ............. _........ _. .___.. _..._.._.... __...... _—So.........__. -.. ....._... .... 0.0095._.. ......._--... .._.... _..._Sa...... .... _. Sab9maf1WaVMWana&T4nks $11,808,M0 $5,895,soo Transmission Lines 11. MamTransmission Una From Ray Roberts WTP to System $6,610,000 40.00% $2,644,000 12. Loop 288 Water Line- S6ermm to Ilwy. 380 S2,430,000 50.00% 91,215,000 13. Loop 288 Water Lint -Shermm to UNT $2,890,000 50.00% $1,445.000 14. Barnard -James 20"Wafer Line $1,420,000 50.OD% S710,000 15. North- South Water Line Phase I $1,600,000 50.00% $suopa1 16. North -South Water Line Phase II $1,580,a00 45.00% $711,000 17. Rosakm Water Line $1,310,000 45.00% $589,500 19. North- South Waxer Line Phew III $1,530,000 40.00% $612,000 19. North. South Winer Um Phase N 32.140,000 30.00% 5642,000 20. Loop 288 Water Liu -UNT toIi-35 31,365,000 30.00% $409,500 Srbfatal Trmasralarlon Leer =875,000 $7,134,000 Total Water ExpauskoraftProvement Capital Costa - $75,995 000 Total plicable Costs - $53 549 5D0 I, Par applicable percentages, sea warkaheets attached. 2. Included as part of the Ray Roberts WTP 3. ReplacedwithRoselawaBlevatedTank 0 m �I a H N H A R q e C, cc A �N i O d Fq�i q d a 4 H i C gym' '� W 011yy" N cwPn W y E mz ca$ m e w iim33 ,E mca 5CC v Ea v Eo. �f, 2a A �W �i W z W C � ; � � C 9 �> d QS� o m O 8o mom �'C oaa W G mt m U q�. m g W e s W W C '� O m N �'Q O L c C C �m3j c� c� 9 9 � a5 mm � P3 2 c�i .BE�Wa C mb 4� .M- WN m C W E W C .:2pper 7 WN m WN9 W _ r, mNJq mm1 om �d aS.co 2ma, W 0 C �-i m o g C m" {mew m C" a c aE-p mmgW � � m p t a @oc 'c @Q >' E'c��mcNr„�.=�e$��=W `o`d � � dr b o a w R E i �8 E 'S1`5 nv ma LBeLY m a'�rLiJw ��m g. �3m �r3�a�31L-3� m dy W i� a d m e ._..._. .._........,. __.___ ... _......... _ _.. _........� ....... _..... ._ .`. _O ._ G N o 0 0 •: Ln o .-i Q, c ti .. o c4 W V im. N O O O G C G l� M1 Oy v� N O oe cl O fV E g 2Ci v W3 Tn ra tie N 0 z City of Denton Water Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees Transmission Lines 2003-2013 Improvement In -Service Date Years Applicable Percentage Transmission Lines _yUrt 1. Main Transmission Line From Ray Roberts WTP to System 2003 10 40.006/0 2. Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to Hwy. 380 2003 10 50.00% 3. Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to LINT 2003 10 50,00% 4.Bematd-James20"Water Line 2003 10 50.00% 5. North - South Water Line Phase I 2003 10 50.00% 6. North - South Water Line Phase n 2004 9 45.00% 7. Rosclawn Water Line 2004 9 45.00% B. North - South Water Line Phase III 2005 8 40.00% 9. North - South Water Line Phase 1V 2007 6 30.00% 10.-.Lpop 288 Kgw;ine-UNTto 1H-35 _ .._........ .- .-. ---• -•---.-2007 6 30.00% 1. In service dates are anticipated and were provided by the City of Denton. 2. Transmission lines will have a 20 year rda. Years applicable to CIP Is calculated by taking the In-service date from the year 2013. The percentage Is the ratio of the years applicable to 20, the assumed project Ilfa. 3. Main Transmission Una from Ray Roberts WTP to System based on utilization of 20 mgd of the designed 50 mgd capac[ty Summary Presentation on 10 — Year Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee Update Evaluation. 10-Year Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan The Phase -I Impact Fees were approved by the City Council in August 1998. For wastewater, this phase included impact fees only for the expansion of the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. The existing plant has a treatment capacity of 15 million gallons per day (mgd) average daily flow. With the implementation of the Phase -I Impact Fees, the construction for expansion of the plant capacity to 21 mgd is currently under way and is scheduled for completion in December 2003. The cost of expansion of the water reclamation plant to 21 mgd is included in Exhibit IV. This cost includes engineering, construction and construction management costs. During the adoption of the Phase I Impact Fees, the wastewater collection system master plan was not complete. So the Council had decided to move ahead with adoption of impact fees for the water reclamation plant construction. Since then, a new wastewater collection system computer model based on the 1999 population projections and measured flow data has been developed. The pipe sizes required to carry the wastewater flows for the Year 2020 .conditions have been modeled. The construction cost of these major sewer lines has been estimated. In this update of the impact fees, the cost of construction of these major interceptor sewer lines is included to allow recovery of the capital cost from new development that impacts the existing collection system and creates the need for these projects. The construction cost of each of the projects is shown in Exhibit IV. The major interceptor sewer projects are listed below and shown in the attached map. • Cooper Creek Litt Station and Force Main • Lakeview Rancb/Grissom Lift Station and Force Main • Pecan Creek Interceptor • Hickory Creek Interceptor • Graveyard Branch Interceptor • Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Interceptor • Roark Branch Interceptor • North Hickory Creek Interceptor Three major projects have beenproposed in the Clear/Milam Creek Basin, which is north of the Loop. 288. The existing collection system south of the Loop 288 can not accommodate flows from these proposed developments. The Planning Department has prepared the Land Use Plan and Population Projections for this basin. The population projections show an estimated population of 16532 in Year 2013. To provide wastewater service for the projected growth in the Clear/Milam Creek Basins a new wastewater treatment plant and interceptor sewer to convey flows to the plant has been approved by the Public Utilities Board and the City Council. The Clear Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the interceptor sewer are shown in Exhibit IV. These projects are currently under design and scheduled for construction in the summer of 2003. The initial plant capacity is projected at 0.95 mgd that will serve approximately 9500 persons. To accommodate projected growth in the sewer basin the plant capacity will be expanded in the 10-year time horizon. The cost of this expansion is included in Exhibit IV. The sewer line will be designed for a minimum of 20 year projected wastewater flow capacity requirement. The population projections prepared by the Planning Department for the Hickory Creek Basin forecast a population of 49,775 by 2013 and 70,039 by 2020. Currently all wastewater flows from the Hickory Creek Basin are pumped to the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. The existing Hickory Creek Lift Station used to pump the Hickory Creek Basin flows to the plant is fully utilized during wet weather conditions. The southwest part of the city is a high growth area and is expected to grow most rapidly within Denton. The Graveyard Branch Interceptor and the currently under design Roark Branch Interceptor sewer to serve the Vintage Development and the Roark Branch Basin have created the need to expand the wastewater infrastructure in the Hickory Creek Basin. To accommodate the wastewater flows from projected populations one option is to construct a new pumping station at the intersection of the Graveyard Branch and Hickory Creek Interceptor sewers, and pump all flows to the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. The new pump station and the approximately 9 miles of force main to carry wastewater flows to the plant is a substantial project. If all flows from the hickory Creek Basin are pumped with the new pump station along with the existing Hickory Creek Lift Station, then growth in the Hickory Creek Basin will use up the capacity of the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. This will require construction of a new plant at the existing plant site to allow for this growth. _......._._ .- The --Water Department -is currentlydeveloping and...expanding. the wastewatertreated effluent reuse system in the city for supplying irrigation and industrial use water to large users. To minimize the pipeline and pumping costs to supply the reuse water it is beneficial to locate the source of this water, the treatment plant, close to the users. To accommodate growth in the Hickory Creek Basin and provide impetus for reuse in this basin, the option of locating a new wastewater treatment plant in the Hickory Creek Basin in lieu of a new large pumping station is proposed. An in-house study is currently underway to evaluate this option. The dollars required to construct the new pumping station will offset the cost for the new wastewater plant construction. The estimated construction cost of a 3 mgd plant in the Hickory Creek Basin is included in Exhibit IV. 10 — Year Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan Prepared by Alan Plummer and Associates Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee City of Denton FY 2003 Water(Wastewater Impact Fee Update Evaluation. City of Denton Wastewater Improvement Costs 2003-2013 Feest Pecan auk WRP Er IMS Capacity (15 MGI)f $23,436,540 13.60% $3,187,369 Pecan Creak WRP 13xpe vion (6 MGD)? $19,41015 83.67% $16,244,733 EhkDryC=kWWTP (.95MOD)? $6,000,000 100.00% $6,000,000 Clear CreekwwlP (95MM) $5,950,000 100.00% $5,950,000 am Creek WWTP Bxpaoaion(.68 Mt3D� $2,700,000 100.00% $2,700,000 SubiwaIrredrmentplanta 157,50$555 $34,982,292 Stations & Force Maims I ickory Creek Lift Station Improvements $300,000 100.00% $300,000 Cooper Creek Lift Station & Force Main $1,650,00o 59.92% $970,530 Lakeview Ranch/Oriasom Lift Station &Fora Main 51,633,000 53,33% $870,879 Sabrorallift Seadvar a Borers Mabrr 83,243,11M 521841,409 r e't2'ep ors" -` _' .._........ ......._....,._ ..._....__..,........ Cooper Creek lnrercephur Pecan Credo Interceptor HickoryCreekluterre"rPhase I Hickory Creak ratereeptarPhase H GraveyedIlmoch L9illRancb/Gria con lmerceptor . Clear Cmek/)Edam6aek3meneptor RosrkEbso? North Hickory Creek? Sabromf rRearcepmrs $1,500,000 50.00% $750,000 $3,000,000 50.00^% $1,500,000 52,900,000 40.00% $1.160,000 $1.873.000 40.00% 3749,200 $3,652.440 50.00% $1,829,220 51,753,282 40.00% $705,313 $5,000,000 40.00% 52,000,000 $750,000 50.00% $375,000 S2,000,000 50.00% $1,000,000 $22,444,72Z $10,968,733 1. Far applicable percentages, am wod:aheets attached. 2. Treatment Plant cepaclties were not adequately addressed In the 2001 Master Plan. Information regarding treatment plant construction and capacities, both total and required, were provided by P.S. Aroma - City of Denton per telephone conversation on December 10, 2002, Capacities were based on current City or Denton population projections published in November 2002 3. Oversize Participation Only - Information provided by P.S. Atcra - City of Denton SSSSSS q N8 a8 m n 0 E N o t G2�4G ocyo $�gttc EV{� �_ m$e 6S 1[yTTj1j[pp�� nip aR s� (fyyfCCp�p�� ryry m N q CC m 8 O O � V1 Y1 a d e V c no in y m 8 m � s � a �• � S T g 8 City of Denton Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees Interceptors 2003-2013 Improvement In -Service Date year, Years Applicable Percentage nierceptors 9. Cooper Creek Interceptor 2003 10 50.00% 10. Pecan Creeklnteroeptor 2003 10 50.00% 11. Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase I 2005 8 40.00% 12. Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase 11 2005 8 40.00% 13. Graveyard Branch 2003 10 50.00% 14. LakeviewRsnch/C3rissomInterceptor 2005 8 40.00% 15. Clear Creek / &Islam Creek Interceptor 2005 B 40.00% 16. Roark Brench3 2003 10 50,00% 17.- North Mrkory..Cmek3 ._.._ ._......- ..... _.. ,....._..._.... -....- ..,...2003...... 1Q........_ _. 50.00% 1. In service dates are anticlpated. 2. Interceptors will have a 20 year life. Years applicable to CIP is calculated by taking the inservlce date from the year 2013. The percentage is the ratio of the years applicable to 20, the assumed project life. 3. Oversize Participation Only i19 id EXHIBIT F LAND USE EQUIVALENCIES WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES METER TYPE METER SIZE r TYPICAL LAND USE SERVICE UNITS Residential - Single Family Positive Displacement 3/4" (less than 1,300 sq. ft./lot size less than 6,000 s . ft.) 0.5 Positive Displacement 3/4" Residential - Single Family 1.0 Positive Displacement 1" Residential / Commercial 2.5 Positive Displacement 1-1 1/2 Commercial 5.0 Positive Dip lacemen 2" Commercial 8.0 Venturi 3" A arhnent Complex 17.5 Compound I 3" Commercial / Industrial 22.5 Turbine 1 4" Commercial / Industrial 50.0 Source: City of Denton Approved Meter Manufacturer's Specifications EXHIBIT F