The URL can be used to link to this page

2013-326ORDINANCE NO. 2013-326 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS UPDATING IMPACT FEES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 26, "UTILITIES," SECTION 26 -210 THROUGH SECTION 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 WATER AND 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; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING FOR 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 in accordance with State law, initially enacted water and wastewater impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 98 -301, dated on the 15th day of September, 1998; and WHEREAS, the City Council, in accordance with State law, then enacted water and wastewater impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 2003 -137 which was adopted by the City Council on the 13th day of May, 2003, and effective as of May 29, 2003; and then enacted Ordinance No. ,2004 -183, nunc pro tunc on July 20, 2004, and effective as of August 4, 2004 in order to properly recite several provisions that were inadvertently omitted or misstated from the above - referenced Ordinance No. 2003 -137; and then enacted Ordinance No. 2008 -156 which was adopted by the City Council on the 15th day of July, 2008, and effective as of July 29, 2008 establishing new maximum fees and establishing a new service area for Water impact fees; and WHEREAS, five (5) years has passed since the Council considered impact fees, 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; and 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 a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (the "Committee ") by Ordinance No. 2013 -066 on the 19th day of March, 2013; the Council has received written comments as required by law from such Committee, on the 23rd day of October, 2013; 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 unanimous recommendation of the Denton Public Utilities Board (the "Board "), an advisory Board, in favor of the impact fees and the zones set forth below in this ordinance, which recommendation was obtained in an open meeting of the Board on the 26th day of August, 2013; and WHEREAS, on the 5th day of November, 2013, after due notice being issued in accordance with State law, a public hearing of the City Council was convened during the regularly called City Council meeting regarding the subject of the land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and amended impact fees; at the said public hearing it was announced into the record by Pete Kamp, Mayor Pro -Tem, that the public hearing would be continued to the City Council's 6:30 p.m. regular meeting on the 19th day of November, 2013 in order to conduct further proceedings; 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 395; considering the comments of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee; considering the recommendation of the Public Utilities Board; and after due deliberation and consideration finds it necessary and appropriate and in the public interest to establish new service areas for water and wastewater impact fees, and to establish amended water and amended wastewater impact fees to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for new development; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The facts, circumstances, and recitations contained in the preambles to this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct. SECTION 2. The Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees is hereby amended, as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herewith. SECTION 3 The Land Use Assumptions for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit `B," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herewith. SECTION 4. Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, entitled "Utilities," is hereby amended, which shall hereafter read as follows: 2 CHAPTER 26: UTILITIES ARTICLE V1. 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. Sec. 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. Sec. 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, transmission, pumping and storage facilities; or wastewater treatment and conveyance 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 or General Manager 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. 0 (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) 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. (8) 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. (9) 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. (10) 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. (11) 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 Water and Wastewater utilities system. (12) 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. 4 (13) Small residential housing unit means a single - family residence of less than 1,300 square feet on a lot of less than 6,000 square feet. (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. Sec. 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 or request for service shall be issued until the applicant has paid the impact fee imposed herein, except for those entities that are expressly exempt from impact fees as set forth in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395. 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 are hereby established three (3) water impact fee service areas, to include all land within the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, the boundaries of which are depicted in Exhibit C, which Exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Sec. 26 -217. Wastewater impact fee service areas. There is hereby established one (1) wastewater impact fee service area, to include all land within the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, the boundaries of which are depicted in Exhibit D, which Exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 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 use and service unit equivalencies table which converts the demands for water or wastewater improvements generated by typical land uses to water meter size, and which table is attached hereto as Exhibit F and is incorporated by reference herein. 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. 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, 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 in all of the Denton Water and Wastewater Service Areas 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, rol 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). (d) An application for an amending plat made pursuant to Texas Local Government Code §212.016 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 Use and Service Unit /SFE Equivalencies table incorporated as Exhibit F herein. The service units for multi - family apartment projects with eight (8) or more units shall be determined by multiplying the number of bedrooms in said apartment project by 0.26 SFE; (2) Service units shall be summed for all meters, or for all bedrooms within a multi- family apartment project with eight (8) or more units purchased for the development; (3) The total number of service units shall be multiplied by the impact fee per service unit for water and/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 and/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 and /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 single - family equivalents ( "SFE ") 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 or 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 for a building permit is thereafter filed for the identical property and the identical number of service units, the impact fee previously paid satisfies the requirements of this Article, unless the earlier impact fee was refunded to the applicant at the expiration of the previously- issued building permit, or is otherwise refunded. (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 to Staff 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), except for those entities that are exempted from impact fees as are specifically set forth in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395. (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 due and owing 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) 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. (e) Schedule 1 sets the assessment rate and establishes maximum impact fees as set forth in subparagraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) 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 wastewater service area. (2) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after May 29, 2003, but before July 29, 2008, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be $3,155 for the water service area; and $1,703 for the Zone 1 wastewater service area. (3) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after July 29, 2008, but before December 3, 2013 the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be as follows: $3,400 for the Zone 1 water service area and $4,000 for the Zone 2 water service area; and $1,700 for the Zone 1 wastewater service area and $1,760 for the Zone 2 wastewater service area. (4) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after December 3, 2013, or for any plats filed prior to September 15, 1998, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be as follows: $3,167 for the Zone 1 water service area, $5,250 for the Zone 1B water service area, and $5,753 for the Zone 2 water service area; and $2,851 for the wastewater service area. (f) Schedule 2 sets the collection rate for impact fees as set forth in subparagraph (f)(1), (f)(2) and (f)(3) below: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) below, impact fees shall be collected and paid as follows: Water Service Area (Zone 1A) Water Service Area (Zone 1B): Water Service Area (Zone 2) Wastewater Service Area: $3,100 per service unit $3,900 per service unit $4,500 per service unit $2,200 per service unit 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 3) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after May 29, 2003, but before July 29, 2008, and for which no new service units have been added, impact fees shall be collected as follows: Water Service Area (Zone 1) $3,155 per service unit Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1) $1,703 per service unit 4) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after July 29, 2008, but before December 3, 2013, and for which no new service units have been added, impact fees shall be collected as follows: Water Service Area (Zone 1) $3,400 per service unit Water Service Area (Zone 2) $4,000 per service unit Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1) $1,700 per service unit Wastewater Service Area (Zone 2) $1,760 per service unit Provided, however, if the service unit is a "small residential housing unit" as defined herein, which consists of a residence of less than 1,300 square feet, which is also located on a lot of less than 6,000 square feet, that service unit shall be assessed and charged a 0.5. SFE charge, no matter in which Zone it is located in, and no matter when the lot is platted. 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 10 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 Subchapter 21 of the Denton Development Code. (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. (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 11 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. 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 12 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, 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; (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. Sec. 26 -226. Appeals. (a) The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the following Staff decisions and determinations to the Denton Public Utilities Board: (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. The Property Owner or Applicant shall notify the City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas in writing, of its desire to appeal any such decision and determination to the Public Utilities Board, no later than thirty (30) days following the date of Staff decision or determination. This notice shall be untimely if it is received by the City Secretary more than thirty (30) days following the date of Staff decision and determination. 13 (b) The Owner and /or Applicant 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 by city Staff. 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 of the impact fee is pending. (c) The written notice to the City Secretary requesting an appeal shall contain the following information: 1. The name of the Owner and/or Applicant of the Appeal; and 2. The business address and telephone number of the Owner and/or Applicant; and 3. The specific decision or determination of Staff which Owner and/or Applicant are complaining of, and the date of issuance thereof, and 4. State specifically the grounds regarding Owner's and /or Applicant's application for appeal; and 5. State specifically what amount of money that you believe is owing the City, as well as your basis therefor; and 6. The name and address of any legal counsel who will appear before the Public Utilities Board to argue on your behalf; and 7. The signature of the Owner and/or Applicant regarding this Appeal. (d) The burden of proof shall be on the property owner and/or applicant 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. Upon submission of the case and the hearing held before the Public Utilities Board (the "Board "), a decision shall be made by the Board, upon Public Hearing, which shall constitute a formal recommendation to the Denton City Council. The Board shall submit all of the materials that it receives as evidence from Staff and all of the materials that it receives as evidence from the Owner and/or Applicant to the City Council for its final consideration. All evidence as well as the record shall be closed by the Public Utilities Board. A record shall be made of the Public Utilities Board hearing and shall be forwarded to the City Council. The City Council shall then make its decision on the record produced by the Public Utilities Board and upon the oral arguments that are limited to not more than fifteen (15) minutes each for the Owner and /or Applicant, and the City. The City Council shall then determine the appeal and issue its written decision. Sec. 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 Texas Local Government Code, Section 395.025(d) which states that Texas Finance Code, Section 302.002, or any successor statute applies. 14 (b) Upon the written 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 - Administration 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 15 Texas Local Government Code, Section 395.0575. (d) The City may amend by resolution the Land Use and Service Unit /SFE 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 an impact fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or assessment which is lawfully imposed on and due against the property. (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. 16 SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not to exceed $2,000. Each day that a provision of this Ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. 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. 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. 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 .fib day of 2013. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY 1 0 ...:w� 17 M 1 ,�. 1 l Jnf OUG14: , MAYOR ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A — Capital Improvements Plans for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees — Duncan and Associates EXHIBIT B — Water Impact Fee Utilization Calculations — Freese and Nichols; Wastewater Impact Fee CIP — City of Denton Engineering Department EXHIBIT C — Amended Water Impact Fee Service Areas — Zones 1, 2 & 3 EXHIBIT D — Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area — Zone 1 EXHIBIT E — Land Use and Service Unit /SFE Equivalency Table 18 EXHIBIT A l associates PUBLIC EEW Mug F'repared for the Cuty of Denton by [Durican Assodates CUancy Muflein, F'roject Manager 360 NUeces 3t .p Surte 2701, Ausdin, TX 78701 5122587347 clancy@dLAir)caiiiassoc,uates.cory) EXECUTIVESUMMARY ................................................................................. ............................... ".1. LEGALFRAMEWORK . ......... .................. .. ............................... ......... ..o,...., .,..,.......,3 Table 3. Water Total and Served Population by Service Area, 2013 - 2023,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12 SERVICEAREAS.. ......... ......... ......... ................ .... . ........ ................ ... , ....._ _______5 Table 4. Wastewater Total and Served Population by Service Area, 2013 - 2023...,...., ............. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS-- .................. ......... .................. ,........ ,.,,,.,..12 Table 5. Meter Capacity Ratios— ..................... . ....... ,...... ,,...,.......,, .. ........,.14 SERVICEUNITS ................................................................................................ .............................14 Table 6. Water Service Units, 2013 ........ ......... ...................... ..... .... ................. .........15 WATER.................................................................................................................. .............................15 Table 7. Water Service Units, 2013 - 2023 ........ ........ ..... ...... ..........16 ServiceUnits....__ ......r,. ,.,........... ........ , , .......,..,....,.,, ..,,,.... ......... .... ,... ..,.,..,,..,..,..,,...15 Table 8. Summary of Water Service Unit Growth, 2013 -2023 ..................... .............................16 Demand Projections.. .. ........ ......... .............. .,.......,16 Table 9. Average Daily Water Production, 2007 - 2012 ................................... .............................17 WaterTreatment ............................. ...... ...... .............. ............... ..,,... ......... ,...... ,..18 Table 10. Peak Day Water Demand, 2007 - 2012 ....... ......... ............................... .. ....... ............ ,....,17 WaterSupply—, .. ........... ................... .....,,, ................ ,, ... ...,,.... .,.,,..............19 Table 11. Average and Peak Day Retail Water Demand, 2013 -2023 ........... .............................18 Cost per Service Unit ................ ........... ........ .............. ...... ......,,,.20 Table 12. Water Treatment Plant Utilization, 2013 -2023 .............................. .............................19 NetCost per Service Unit ............................................................................... .............................23 Table 13. Water Supply Utilization, 2013 - 2023 ............................................... .............................20 NetCost Schedule ..................... ........... . ........ .......... .. ...... ... ... ........... ..... ........ ...........25 Table 14. System -Wide Water Growth Costs, 2013-2023- ....... ............ __ .... WASTEWATER---, ... __ ........ .... .... ..... . ...... ............ ..... ..... ..... a ........ ,........ ,..,....,.27 Table 15. Water Growth Costs by Service Area, 2013-2023— ........... ... _22 ServiceUnits ...................................................................................................... .............................27 Table 16. Water Cost per Service Unit by Service Area._. ... ......... .........23 Demand Projections ..... .................... ......... ... ...... ......... .,. ....,,.,.,28 Table 17. Percent of Water Debt Related to Excess Capacity,....,... ....... ... ___ ............ Wastewater Treatment.. ...,...,a . ........... . ...... ... ............................. ....... ..........29 Table 18. Outstanding Water Debt Related to Excess Capacity......__ ................. ........ ____24 WastewaterConveyance .................................................................................. .............................30 Table 19. Water Revenue Credit per Service Unit ........................................... .............:,..,..,........24 Costper Service Unit ....................................................................................... .............................32 Net Cost per Service Unit ........ ........... ... ........ .......,.. . , ........ ... — ...... ,.,.. ...... .33 NetCost Schedule ............................................................................................ .............................35 APPENDIX: INTEREST COSTS .................................................................... .............................37 o Table 1. Current Adopted Impact Fees ............................................................. ..............................1 Table 2. Updated Impact Fees per Service Unit ................................................ ..............................2 Table 3. Water Total and Served Population by Service Area, 2013 - 2023,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,12 Table 4. Wastewater Total and Served Population by Service Area, 2013 - 2023...,...., ............. 13 Table 5. Meter Capacity Ratios— ..................... . ....... ,...... ,,...,.......,, .. ........,.14 Table 6. Water Service Units, 2013 ........ ......... ...................... ..... .... ................. .........15 Table 7. Water Service Units, 2013 - 2023 ........ ........ ..... ...... ..........16 Table 8. Summary of Water Service Unit Growth, 2013 -2023 ..................... .............................16 Table 9. Average Daily Water Production, 2007 - 2012 ................................... .............................17 Table 10. Peak Day Water Demand, 2007 - 2012 ....... ......... ............................... .. ....... ............ ,....,17 Table 11. Average and Peak Day Retail Water Demand, 2013 -2023 ........... .............................18 Table 12. Water Treatment Plant Utilization, 2013 -2023 .............................. .............................19 Table 13. Water Supply Utilization, 2013 - 2023 ............................................... .............................20 Table 14. System -Wide Water Growth Costs, 2013-2023- ....... ............ __ .... 21 Table 15. Water Growth Costs by Service Area, 2013-2023— ........... ... _22 Table 16. Water Cost per Service Unit by Service Area._. ... ......... .........23 Table 17. Percent of Water Debt Related to Excess Capacity,....,... ....... ... ___ ............ 23 Table 18. Outstanding Water Debt Related to Excess Capacity......__ ................. ........ ____24 Table 19. Water Revenue Credit per Service Unit ........................................... .............:,..,..,........24 Table 20. Water Net Cost per Service Unit by Service Area. °....................... .............................24 Table 21. Water Net Cost Schedule........ ............. .................. ----25 Table 22. Comparative Water Impact Fee Revenues, 2013-2023................. .............................25 Table 23. Water Growth Costs and Revenues, 2013-2023 ............................ .............................26 Table 24. Wastewater Service Units, 2013 ... -- ... ...... ..... - ....... ......27 Table 25. Wastewater Service Units, 2013-2023 ........................................................................... 28 Table 26. Per Capita Wastewater Demand .................................................................................... 28 Table 27. Projected Wastewater Demand, 2013-2023.,... .... ...... -------29 Table 28. Wastewater Treatment Plant Utilization, 2013-2023 ..................... .............................30 Table 29. Wastewater Conveyance Capacities and Flows, 2013-2023 ......... .............................31 Table 30. Wastewater Growth Costs by Service Area, 2013-2023 ................ .............................32 Table 31. Wastewater Cost per Service Unit by Service Area ........................ .............................33 Table 32. Percent of Wastewater Debt Related to Excess Capacity ............. .............................34 Table 33. Outstanding Wastewater Debt Related to Excess Capacity ............ ......... ......... --34 Table 34. Wastewater Revenue Credit per Service Unit .............................................................. 34 Table 35. Wastewater Net Cost per Service Unit by Service Area ............... .............................35 Table 36. Wastewater Net Cost Schedule ....... .......... .............. --- .... --35 Table 37. Comparative Wastewater Impact Fee Revenues, 2013-2023 . . — . . - — . ..... ............... 36 Table 38. Wastewater Growth Costs and Revenues, 2013-2023 . ° � - . ........................ ... --36 Table 39. Outstanding Utility Debt Service ...... ... - .............. ... — .... .......37 1030ALI= Figure 1. Water CCN and Wholesale Customers ............. ......... ........... ................ 6 Figure 2. Wastewater CCN and Wholesale Customers ....... 7 Figure 3. Current Water Service Areas, . ......................... .......... ...... 8 Figure 4. Current Wastewater Service Areas—, ................ ............... ...... ...,. - -...9 Figure 5. Potential Water and Wastewater Zone 1A Service .......... ... 10 Figure 6. Potential Zone 1A Service Area and Water CCN ........................... .............................11 NUIUIUIWWUUUUI I I I 1 1000000 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f I I P I I N0000fffPPPPPPP0P0P0PON [NJ NMNNNN! MNIMNMMINIONOINPHPHPHWIWWWIOPIP101OIOIOIOP0000000P00101010000000 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 OIYOIWMIWUNUWWISH AN1000WWIIIIIIIII010101010101000 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110 IYNN1 110 10010 lY 1 IN IONYYIYI I I I I P I I I I II I I I I I IOOOI Duncan Associates has been retained by the City of Denton to update the City's water and wastewater impact fees. Land use assumptions that provide the planning basis for the impact fee analysis were prepared by the City of Denton Planning Department and are provided in a separate document. This report provides all of the analysis for the impact fee Capital Improvements Plan required by Chapter 395, the Texas impact fee enabling act. It is based on cost and demand /capacity analysis prepared by Freese & Nichols engineers and City staff engineers. The City's current water and wastewater impact fees are summarized in Table 1. In the last update of the City's utility impact fees, which became effective on August 1, 2008, the City moved from a single service area for both water and wastewater to two service areas. The two service areas are somewhat different for water and wastewater. The maximum fees calculated in the 2008 study were adopted at somewhat different percentages for the two service areas. For water, the fees were adopted at 94.6% of the maximum amount in Zone 1 and 94.4% in Zone 2. For wastewater, the fees were adopted at 91.1% in Zone 1 and 99.9% in Zone 2. Water Impact Fees 5/8" x3/4" $3,594 $4,237 $3,400 $4,000 94.6% 94.4% 3/4" $5,391 $6,356 $5,100 $6,000 94.6% 94.4% 1" $8,985 $10,593 $8,500 $10,000 94.6% 94.4% 11/2" $17,970 $21,185 $17,000 $20,000 94.6% 94.4% 2" $28,752 $33,896 $27,200 $32,000 94.6% 94.4% Wastewater Impact Fees 5/8 "x3/4" $1,867 $1,762 $1,700 $1,760 91.1% 99.9% 3/4" $2,801 $2,643 $2,550 $2,640 91.1% 99.9% 1" $4,668 $4,405 $4,250 $4,400 91.0% 99.9% 11/2" $9,335 $8,810 $8,500 $8,800 91.1% 99.9% 2" $14,936 $14,096 $13,600 $14,080 91.1% 99.9% Source: Fees calculated in 2008 study from Duncan Associates, 2008 -2018 Capita/ Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees, April 2008; adopted fees from City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Sec. 26.22. The City Council has the option of retaining the current two -zone structure or moving to a three - zone structure that includes an "irif11P' zone by splitting Zone 1 into Zone 1A (infill) and Zone 1B (remainder). Table 2 below compares the current adopted fees to the updated maximum fees calculated in this study for both of these options. NINNUNNUNONONONWNOWNNNN010101010101010111111111111101010 uuum uuum 010101 00001 IIIIIIIIMMMIMOOOOOOONNMMIIMIONNNWNNNNNPWWNI! U! MIINNNIIOONOYYOYYIUMOOp001001010101010101010000pMMIMIMI mNNNMMMMMM4 "WGMiN�NNM,%PNM ( "IIt ° Of III')e1llttoill, "'I'X PUDIIC BEVMW DRM dru!nc7ai u ossoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 1 August 15, 2013 Executive iiiiiiiiiiiiii i iiuuumoioiouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuouum0000000i�wmwiimiwwwwwwwwioiwuwwmmiowiomwwoioioiwwuoioioioioioioioiowioiwowumiwiwwwiwwwwoummmmmmmmmuwmiwwm wmmmwmmwwmw�wuowwwuwowwwwmwmmmulu�w�ulvluwowuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuwuwuuwuowouuuuuwuoowwowi mmmmmwwuwuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuowoi0000uouwiuiwuwiwiorwwioiwuwwwwmm »»»»»»iuuuuuuuuumoiouuu Table 2. Ur)d, tod Irr ola t Fees ver Service Unit Zone 1 Water Service Area $3,400 $4,563 35% Zone 1A (Infill)'Water Service Area n/a $,'3,167 -7"r'" Zone 1 B (Remainder) Water Service Area n/a $5,250 54% Zone 2 Water Service Area $4,000 $5,753 440/6 Potential Water Fee Revenue ($ millions), 2013 -2023 $401 $55.0 37% Zone 1 Wastewater Service Area $1,700 $3,175 87% Zone 1A (Infill) Wastewater Service Area n/a $1,285 -24% Zone 1B (Remainder) Wastewater Service Area n/a $4,010 136% Zone 2 Wastewater Service Area $1,760 $1,400 -20% Potential Wastewater Fee Revenue ($ millions), 2013 -2023 $16.5 $27.5 67% Source: Current fees per service unit are adopted fees for 5f6 " x 3/4" meter lrom Table 1; updated maximum fees per service unit from Table 20 (water) and Table 35 (wastewater); revenues from Table 22 (water) and Table 37 (wastewater). In the adoption of updated water and wastewater impact fees, the Council has three main sets of options: ❑ The Council may retain the current two Zone 1 and Zone 2 service areas, or split Zone 1 into infill (Zone 1A) and remainder (Zone 113) service areas. ❑ The Council may, by policy, adopt the updated maximum fees at a percentage less than 100 percent. In addition, the adoption percentage could vary by service area, as in the 2008 update. ❑ The Council may adopt different Schedule 1 (maximum) and Schedule 2 (collection) fees. Schedule 1 fees are those that are assessed at time of final subdivision plat recording and determine the maximum fees that may ever be collected from lots within the plat. Currently, the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 rates shown in the impact fee ordinance are identical. In this update, the schedules could be different, with Schedule 1 fees being the maximum fees calculated in this report and Schedule 2 fees being fees adopted at some percentage less than 100 percent. Adoption percentages may vary by service area, as was done in the 2008 update. However, the fees should be adopted at a uniform percentage for all meter sizes within a service area. The last option was less important in the 2008 update, since the lowest adoption percentage was 91% of the maximum fee. However, if updated fees for any service area are adopted at a significantly lower percentage, it is recommended that the Schedule 1 fees represent the maximum fees. This would give future Councils the option of increasing the collection rate for lots that were platted at a time when the collection rate was significantly lower than the full net cost to serve a new customer. wwiwowioiwuwiowiuwmiwuwmuanumiowwwwom�wwwwwwwouwuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmiwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwu' u' u" �uwo�wwwiwwwwuwuouwoi�wwuwwwa�uwwwwwwwwwu www; uwwuwwwwwwww ,w,w,wu�w�w�w,wmw City f Denton, TX 1PUB1IICR11VMDRAFT' str�im °��ts ��snrhoft�� 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 2 August 15, 2013 Impact fees are a way for local governments to require new developments to pay a proportionate share of the infrastructure costs they impose on the community. In contrast to traditional "negotiated" developer exactions, impact fees are charges that are assessed on new development using a standard formula based on objective characteristics, such as the number and type of dwelling units constructed. The fees are one -time, up -front charges, with the payment usually made at the time of building permit issuance. Impact fees require each new development project to pay its pro - rata share of the cost of new capital facilities required to serve that development. 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. Since the 2001 amendments to Chapter 395, 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 required. As an alternative to performing a revenue credit calculation, cities can simply reduce the impact fees by fifty percent. A literal reading of subsection A above could be misleading, because it would make little sense to calculate a credit for the eligible improvements in the capital improvements plan. Since new development will be paying for such costs through impact fees, no rate revenues should be needed to fund such improvements if impact fees are adopted at the full calculated amounts. However, one can read the phrase "capital improvements plan" more broadly to include all existing facilities (Chapter 395 does require that the plan include an inventory of existing facilities). New customers will be paying for the remaining debt service on past improvements, and if no credits were provided they would in effect be paying for their costs through impact fees and some of existing customers' costs through the portion of their rates that go to debt retirement. To avoid this kind of potential double - payment, credit will be provided for the share of outstanding debt that is attributable to capacity that is serving existing customers. In addition, some of the planned improvements will also remedy some capacity deficiencies, and an impact fee credit is provided for rate revenue that new customers will generate that will be retire debt associated with remedying existing deficiencies. Revised impact fees based on this study will not apply to lots platted when a previous 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 clear that no action by the local government is required for assessment to occur. Essentially, impact fee assessment locks in the fee schedule in place at the time assessment occurs. Any subsequent revision to the impact fee schedules does not affect the impact fees owed for the development. The City's water and wastewater impact fees ordinance (Chapter 26, Article IV) provides two water and wastewater impact fee schedules. Schedule 1 contains the maximum impact fees per service unit, while Schedule 2 contains the impact fee per service unit that is currently being collected. When a property is subdivided, it is assessed at the maximum Schedule 1 rate, and the impact fees 1� "iit awt � ar�muntaou° R T�1t PUBLICSBFEWDRAF!' �t uui °rr.anassociates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 3 .�UgUSt 15, 2013 Legal Framework uwwoaw.... wwwwwwwwwuwuwuwuwuwuuu�wuwiwnmoownw !wioomo�..... iuuuuuuuwuwuu 'wiuuumwuuummmmmimmmuu iuui um uuuuuurwumu owwmwno�owwwwwwwwwuu wowwwwtww that are assessed at platting represent the maximum fee per service unit that can be collected from the subdivided property. The ordinance also contains the historical Schedule 1 fees that apply to property that was subdivided when the previous Schedule 1 fees were in place. Currently, the Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 rates are identical. In this update, the schedules could be different, with Schedule 1 fees being the maximum fees calculated in this report and Schedule 2 fees being fees adopted at some percentage less than 100 percent. Adoption percentages may vary by service area, as was done in the 2008 update. However, the fees should be adopted at a uniform percentage for all meter sizes within a service area. mmm..11t ii..... f .. iiiiouu0000nnnniwwiwuouou wmimimuw iwowu ouwwo ioNiwwu wm imww o.oui wo imwwwu wwwwwwwoNUm uimoouuwuuoowuoowuowouwwwwwuuuu uuuw i ruuuuuuuuu«« wimwww iwmR""'w wwwwiwwwu ww iwwwwwu wiow wuw iwuwuwowwwwiiiiiiiiiiiuuwuuuu uwuu uw wuowwoiomwwwwwwwwwuuuuuuuuuiui ouuuuuomoi ii uuumr. t'Ilt ��i III':�rutmu„ 'I'" PUBLICRSYIlBWDRAFT mr�r��rmnassoclates 20132023 Capital Improvements Plan 4 August 15, 2013 ww.NNN!NNNNU0I INONNIONPOOOONNJNNY... iNl �!NNiONONONININN SERVICE AREAS Chapter 395 lays down a number of requirements regarding service areas. The Land Use Assumptions must be prepared for each service area. The Capital Improvements Plan, in turn, must include a description of the capital improvements and costs for each service area, based on the Land Use Assumptions. Finally, impact fees collected from development within a service area must be spent with the same service area. The Texas impact fee enabling act, in Sec. 395.001(9), defines "service area" as: the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial juri diction... of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan.... The service area, for the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The City has considerable discretion in the designation of service areas within its jurisdiction. As a general rule, the fewer the number of service 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 restrict the flexibility of spending impact fee revenues and may make it difficult accumulate sufficient funds in some service areas within the five years allowed by law to spend them. 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 area. The City's water and wastewater CCNs include all of the area within the City of Denton, plus different areas of the City's Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The wastewater service area encompasses an area larger than the water service area. The water and wastewater CCNs are illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The CCN maps also show the location of the City's wholesale customers. No costs associated with providing service to wholesale customers have been included in the impact fee calculations. 0001 INOII COI IIOIOII 00001 N001 IIIIfIIIIIINNNNtiIIIIININNNNNNNN010101NNN91NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN111111llNONON010 NYYY NYO YIUUYN010101010101010101010101010100I1I0Immmmmuuuuuu wNNNNNGNNNNNNNNYN DINONINOIOWNNNNN!9N t fty of III wm,mnto i, 1 X PUBLIC REVEEW DRAFT' dtincnirm ossoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 5 ALi, aa'st 1 5, 2013 Service Areas Figure 1. Water CCN and Wholesale Customers I "Ifty OlDe,11110'ri, 1)( PUBUC REVIEW DRM 2013-2023 Capital Improvements Plan 6 AuguM 15, 2013 Service C t7 of Dermi�xiii„ 1 X 1PUBUC REVERW DRAFT' rt ricer �ssoc idle, 20132023 Capital Improvements Plan 7 August 15, 2013 Service Areas The City's water and wastewater CCNs are currently each divided into two service areas. The Zone 1 and Zone 2 water service areas are shown in Figure 3. For wastewater, the CCN is currently divided into two service areas, although there are as yet no City wastewater customers in Zone 2. Zone 2 is the Clear Creek drainage basin, while the rest of the City falls into Zone 1 (Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Cooper Creek basins). The current wastewater Zone 1 and Zone 2 service areas are shown in Figure 4. City of Vl e rhoµ, 1 PUBLIC S6YIIIIIIIIY DRAFT d�„�ntt7 =im assoclates 20932023 Capital Improvements Plan 8 AugLISM 15, 2013 Service �IOOOOOOOfllllllll uuum i��IIIIIIIIIl0000�M�M�M�M�M�f�f�f�f�f�f�f�0�0YIN0YINININININI! rt�l! rt�f�O�M�M�M�M�0�0�0�MINIM @PIIN�WW'INNNNNNIIIIIIIIIIll UUUYiUYiUUYiUUYYY�IY�lYN0101010101010101111ilililililililili1111111101000111111 10000 fIIIfI INYMMN0�0�0�OMI�WNWUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUNWUWWW !WI@WIWWWW!WW��VU This update provides the City with the option of dividing the current water and wastewater Zone 1 service areas into Zone 1A, which is the City's adopted Infill District, a special purpose zoning district, and Zone 113, which is the remainder of the current Zone 1 service areas. The potential Zone 1A service area is shown in Figure 5. t':'11111 IllemriNuuri„ .. iX PUBLIC RBYEOW DRAIT dun n associates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 9 �,� gList: 15, 2013 Service O��OO��NMNONW�NWOINOIOINN9UWWW9WN ➢UIIUIIUIOIOIOOIIOOODUUm IIIi0��000000�01tiI�NItiMNNI010NIYUlUODUUUUUUUUUUUUUl0101000000ililuuluummmmmuuuuuuumumuumuuu�WtiAYY��PM '�I��w Potential Figure 5. d Wastewater Zone 1A Service Area �wwwuiui0u0��00MMI0MWNWUNIWUIUA. !!!!!!!! Oty of III') rwil mi, TX PUBUC NET= DRAFT rt ri aunass ®clates 20132023 Capital Improvements Plan 10 August 15, 2013 The location of the potential Zone 1A service area is illustrated in the context of the City's water CCN in Figure 6. Clity of 111)entorii, rK PUBUC REVEEW DM" 41 7cm�s�o-cl�ajt�es; 2013-2023 Capital Improvements Plan 11 ALAgUSt 15, 2013 f01�OmImII�fI01fImImImINMININNNNNNNNNYItiNNN010010 �WOOWNOIOIOM! MIllNO11N0101010i10il0ipiUYiWOWOW01NI0i10i10101NUYiUW000UUUUYYiUUYYUl Ul0101WON10101111111 uuum IOOO�fffffffffff00�OM0�OW091NNNMNW�NNNOI�NNNNNNWil010101mmmUNI�NW9UlUNOWUIUIUIUIUIWOWONONO�NINNNNONIIIIIOODUm ilililili il0lillYNNYNNN�WIW9WN�W ^YWUIWi1WI01NNNNONI01Ul UUUYN0101ililillillWlpplNl LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS "Land Use Assumptions" is the term used in Chapter 395 to refer to growth projections. It is defined as a "description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities 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 improvements that will be needed to serve anticipated growth. The Land Use Assumptions must cover at least a 10 -year period. The Capital Improvements Plan on which the impact fees are calculated must contain the projected demand for capital facilities required over a period not to exceed ten years. Since the two must be compatible, both the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan should cover a 10 -year period. A document meeting the Chapter 395 requirements for Land Use Assumptions was prepared by City planning staff in July 2013. The report contains 2013 -2023 projections for population, dwelling units, nonresidential square footage, developed and undeveloped acres, residential densities and nonresidential intensities for the City's current and potential water and wastewater service areas. For the purpose of the Capital Improvements Plan, the key inputs from the Land Use Assumptions are the projections total population and served population (retail customer population connected to the City's water or wastewater systems). These are summarized in Table 3 for the water service areas. 2013 49,624 49,128 68,426 67,742 2,282 2,259 120,332 119,129 99.0% 2014 50,140 49,639 69,715 69,017 2,282 2,259 122,137 120,915 99.0% 2015 50,655 50,148 71,032 70,322 2,282 2,259 123,969 122,729 99.0% 2016 51,171 50,659 71,762 71,044 2,282 2,259 125,215 123,962 99.0% 2017 51,753 51,235 73,058 72,328 2,282 2,259 127,093 125,822 99.0% 2018 52,784 52,256 74,437 73,692 2,414 2,390 129,635 128,338 99.0% 2019 53,684 53,147 75,866 75,108 2,677 2,650 132,227 130,905 99.0% 2020 54,134 53,593 77,667 76,890 3,071 3,040 134,872 133,523 99.0% 2021 54,584 54,038 79,035 78,245 3,950 3,911 137,569 136,194 99.0% 2022 54,944 54,395 79,973 79,173 5,404 5,350 140,321 138,918 99.0% 2023 55,304 54,751 80,744 79,937 7,079 7,008 143,127 141,696 99.0% Source: City of Denton Planning and Development Department, "Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fee Assessments," July 2013; system -wide total and served population from Exhibit 1.C, Table 1; percent served is ratio of system -wide served to total population; total Zone 1A population from Exhibit 4, Table 1; total Zone 2 population from Exhibit 3, Table 1; Zone 1A and Zone 2 served populations are the product of total population and % served; Zone 1 B total and served populations are the residuals. Total and served population projections for the wastewater service areas are summarized in Table 4 below. Gill of Clio uru frmu, DiI: ]PUBLIC RBYEN DRAFT Ur °r��wrn r �ssacd'ots 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 12 Augr,ast 15, 2013 Land Use Assumptions w 00 YYYW w U WJW�N!NP OONPUOO�WWMOOOOOOOI�uww4W010W !!N�w.uN OWW! MIOM !MNNIOIOMWW01010000000000000101 um0u0u00 ��i Illfl flf IIII... iMMONN00MNNNNNNNNY�1�U01�!WW�� iiiii Iilili0�0�OMOMOMOMYNIWIMOMOMOMOM 2013 49,624 49,128 68,525 67,839 1,596 1,580 119,745 118,547 99.0% 2014 50,140 49,639 69,805 69,107 1,596 1,580 121,541 120,326 99.0% 2015 50,655 50,148 71,113 70,403 1,596 1,580 123,364 122,131 99.0% 2016 51,171 50,659 71,834 71,116 1,596 1,580 124,601 123,355 99.0% 2017 51,753 51,235 73,121 72,390 1,596 1,580 126,470 125,205 99.0% 2018 52,784 52,256 74,619 73,873 1,596 1,580 128,999 127,709 99.0% 2019 53,684 53,147 76,299 75,536 1,596 1,580 131,579 130,263 99.0% 2020 54,134 53,593 77,954 77,174 2,123 2,102 134,211 132,869 99.0% 2021 54,584 54,038 79,399 78,605 2,912 2,883 136,895 135,526 99.0% 2022 54,944 54,395 80,463 79,658 4,226 4,184 139,633 138,237 99.0% 2023 55,304 54,751 81,384 80,569 5,738 5,681 142,426 141,001 99.0% Source: City of Denton Planning and Development Department, "Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fear Assesnments," July 2013; system -wide total and served population from Exhibit 1.C, Table 1; percent served is ratio of system -wide served to total population; total Zone 1A population from Exhibit 4, Table 1; total Zone 2 population from Exhibit 2, Tables 1 -3; Zone 1A and Zone 2 served populations are the product of total population and % served; Zone 1 B total and served populations are the residuals. City iii��)f [�)entoirm„ '1 "'l ' PUBUCREVER YDBA" u u io�ssock" es 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 13 AU�JuSt 15, 2013 SERVICE UNITS To calculate impact fees in accordance with Chapter 395, the growth in demand for capital facilities over the planning horizon must be expressed in "service units," which are defined in Sec. 395.001(10) as: a standardised measure of consumption, use, generation, or di charge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance n4th generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements or facility expansions. Service units for water and wastewater impact fees are typically based upon the capacity attributable to water meters in the utility system. 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 service unit for Denton's water and wastewater impact fees is the "single - family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. An SFE is the water or wastewater demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (5/8" x 3/4 "), which is the meter typically used by a single - family residence. The ratio of each larger meter's capacity to the capacity of the base meter determines the SFE multiplier applied to each larger meter size. The City's original water and wastewater impact fees were based on meter capacities from the American Water Works Association. In the opinion of the City's water division staff, the capacities as rated by the manufacturer that supplies the City's meters are more accurate for larger meters, and have been used since the 2003 update. The current SFE equivalency factors are shown in Table 5. 5/8" x 3/4" 1.0 3/4" 1.5 1" 2.5 1 -1/2" 5.0 2" 8.0 3" 22.5 4" 50.0 6" 100.0 8" 200.0 10" 325.0 Source: City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 26, Article IV, Exhibit F. When impact fees are collected, the amount due is calculated by multiplying the number of service units associated with each meter size by the impact fee per service unit. However, some additional rules apply. The developer may submit or the water utilities director may require the preparation of a study to determine the appropriate number of service units. Multi - family projects with more than eight apartments are assessed at the rate of 0.26 service units per bedroom. Infill development, defined as single - family residences of less than 1,300 square feet and located on a lot of less than 6,000 square feet in the water Zone 1 or wastewater Zone 1 service areas, is assessed at the rate of 0.50 service units per dwelling unit. ANN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNWOWONWWOWOWUUUOWOWONWOWIWWNNNOUOIIUI01010101010101010101010101010101010100000000000000000000011p111 010101 OONOI�N000��1. IOW��UWWUWWYIW� 1111111 i�mmIM�M001WONI101010MU101 @ONtlUMOWIYYYY11ll UIOONN001 U 1101111 Illlllllf � ,11iP:V of III e1r t mui °u, ^ PUBUCRETMDRAFT oftruunceom csssocl ®t ®s 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 14 ALIgLust 15, 2013 Denton's water system provides retail water service to all customers located within the CCN area, as well as some wholesale customers. The water impact fees calculated here only cover capital costs associated with providing water service to retail customers. As discussed in the introduction, the current service unit for Denton's water impact fees is the "single - family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. The number of service units associated with meters of different sizes was calculated earlier. Multiplying the number of existing connections for 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 water service units connected to the City's water system, as shown in Table 6. Wholesale customers have been excluded from the existing service unit calculations. 5/8" x 3/4" 28,943 1.0 28,943 1" 1,393 2.5 3,483 1 -1/2" 816 5.0 4,080 2" 1,309 8.0 10,472 3" 254 22.5 5,715 4" 64 50.0 3,200 6" 13 100.0 1,300 8" 11 200.0 2,200 10" 2 325.0 650 Total SFEs 60,043 Total Served Population, 2013 119,129 SFEs per Served Population 0.5040 Source: Number of average active non - wholesale water connections by meter size from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, February 13, 2013; SFEs per meter from Table 5; total 2013 served water population from Land Use Assumptions (see Table 3 above). The growth in water service units (SFEs) over the 2013 -2023 planning period is derived from the Land Use Assumptions. Total population served by the Denton Utilities water system for each service area from the Land Use Assumptions is multiplied by the existing service unit -to- served population ratio calculated in the previous table to determine the projected number of service units for each year through 2023 in Table 7. Service units are estimated by service area (including for the potential "infill" service area) as well as the entire system. i �� uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuooumouuoimimwiwiimiiwmiuimmmmmwmNiowmmmmw000imim00000000ummmmmoummmmmouuwmuuuuummmmmmm uuuuuuumuum mmuu 2013-2023 40ntoliltltG a to aioi oioioiuiro ®iVoemm memntSmmmPuimuaminwuUmUmimmmmmuuuuuuuuoioioioimouNioup 000 moCummmmmmii1� D��uuum wwll iiiii� N C9iSSC3C9Ck�' Cap p ,ugtast 15, 2013 Water mimuimiowwwwio» uiuiuiuiuimmumumomiououuimmmiiiimmiimuuuuumuuu i0000 ammo iiiiiiii i00000n ruioio�imomwwi�WWwuummmuuuuuuuuuu iiiuiuiuomuuuou rri0000000rrrr�u�. �uwoo�m�omm�i�uuuu�uu�wwwwwmwwwwwwwwmwmuu�uuu uuuu muououmumumuNiumiomomumNUrviuiuiuWWUUUw! wwwwWUUUUUmwmwwmwwwmwwwwwuu�wwwmmi Table 7. Water Service Units, 2013 -2023 2013 49,128 24,761 67,743 34,143 2,259 1,139 119,129 60,043 2014 49,639 25,018 69,017 34,785 2,259 1,139 120,915 60,942 2015 50,148 25,275 70,322 35,442 2,259 1,139 122,729 61,856 2016 50,659 25,532 71,044 35,806 2,259 1,139 123,962 62,477 2017 51,235 25,822 72,328 36,453 2,259 1,139 125,822 63,414 2018 52,256 26,337 73,692 37,141 2,390 1,205 128,338 64,683 2019 53,147 26,786 75,108 37,854 2,650 1,336 130,905 65,976 2020 53,593 27,011 76,890 38,753 3,040 1,532 133,523 67,296 2021 54,038 27,235 78,245 39,435 3,911 1,971 136,194 68,641 2022 54,395 27,415 79,173 39,903 5,350 2,696 138,918 70,014 2023 54,751 27,595 79,937 40,,288 7,008 3,532 141,696 71,,415 Sotrrco: Served population frorn C: ty of Denton, Land Use Assumptions (see Table 3); sovice units (Single- Family Equivalents or SFEs) is product of served population and 2013 ratio of SFEs /served population from Table 6. The projected growth in water service units over the 10 -year planning horizon is summarized in Table 8 for each service area. • • i ZZM1 OYX Two types of water demand are relevant for water impact fees. Water treatment, transmission and distribution systems are sized to accommodate peak day demand requirements. Water supply facilities are required only to accommodate average daily demand. Average daily per capita water demand can be determined based on historic system -wide demand in millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic service area population. These per capita estimates represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Average daily per capita demands over the last six years are presented in the following Table 9. These data show that non - wholesale water demand has averaged 158 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The data also indicate that there is relatively little water lost in the process, with the raw water used exceeding finished water produced by an average of only 3% percent. �dOWOW WWOlY0JY0JY0JY010101010101010101010000000000000 .....ill lmm� III VIII fI�01��MNfI IPYImOMMM�MMMMI�NNNNNNNW�WWUIWWWWWWW�� !U!@WWiPmmmmmmmmuu W�WW!�NV�WN�:WAM14; �iN �4tib tmuit7 aat 1111uwu °mtmn, ilf' PUBIICBBVI6IYDSAFI' uuu uirtcaasoaG� ots 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 16 August: 15, 2013 1 1 1 Zone 1A (Infill) 24,761 27,595 2,834 25% Zone 1B (Rest) 34,143 40,288 6,145 54% Zone 2 1,139 3,532 2,393 21% Total 60,043 71,415 11,372 100% Source: Table 7. Two types of water demand are relevant for water impact fees. Water treatment, transmission and distribution systems are sized to accommodate peak day demand requirements. Water supply facilities are required only to accommodate average daily demand. Average daily per capita water demand can be determined based on historic system -wide demand in millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic service area population. These per capita estimates represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Average daily per capita demands over the last six years are presented in the following Table 9. These data show that non - wholesale water demand has averaged 158 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The data also indicate that there is relatively little water lost in the process, with the raw water used exceeding finished water produced by an average of only 3% percent. �dOWOW WWOlY0JY0JY0JY010101010101010101010000000000000 .....ill lmm� III VIII fI�01��MNfI IPYImOMMM�MMMMI�NNNNNNNW�WWUIWWWWWWW�� !U!@WWiPmmmmmmmmuu W�WW!�NV�WN�:WAM14; �iN �4tib tmuit7 aat 1111uwu °mtmn, ilf' PUBIICBBVI6IYDSAFI' uuu uirtcaasoaG� ots 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 16 August: 15, 2013 Water u0W0lONNW III II fIm0000001 ....10000 ( 1111000 0000.ONII0.W ..... 1..109............W...... MW .... UIWWWWWWNWUWW ....YYYYW IYYY0pY 01010101010�uuuuummmmmmmmmuuuuuuuu W�kk. ',BW�M40 2007 15.679 0.214 15.894 0.002 15.896 1.000 108,674 144 2008 17.720 0.264 17.984 0.308 18.292 1.017 111,362 162 2009 16.704 0.311 17.015 0.714 17.729 1.042 113,464 153 2010 16.758 0.256 17.014 0.565 17.578 1.033 115,055 150 2011 19.638 0.298 19.936 0.961 20.897 1.048 116,206 177 2012 18.167 0.278 18.445 0.770 19.215 1.042 117,368 161 Average 17.444 0.270 17.715 0.553 18.268 1.030 113,688 158 Source: Average daily water production and 2007 -2010 total water CCN population from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, February 13, 2013; 2007 -2010 served population is 99% of total population; 2011 -2012 served population from City of Denton Planning and Development Department, "Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fee Assessments," July 2013; retail demand (gpcd) determined by multiplying retail consumption (in gpd) by ratio of raw to finished water, then dividing by served population. Peak day demand over the last six years is compared to average daily demand in Table 10. These data indicate that peak day demand in Denton's water system averages 1.86 times average day demand. ,• 1 �� N If f i Based on these historical factors, average and peak day water demand from retail customers is projected for the 2013 -2023 planning period in Table 11 on the following page. 41101 f I01011011R1 f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f I01011011R1 f l f l f l f l f l f l f I0101010101NIWW NNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN t it7 of III7eintoin. III "' ' PUBLIC R8YEIKW DRAFT u msoclafes 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 17 August 15, 2013 2007 30.24 15.89 1.90 2008 33.05 17.98 1.84 2009 31.01 17.01 1.82 2010 31.87 17.01 1.87 2011 37.52 19.94 1.88 2012 34.52 18.44 1.87 Average 33.04 17.71 1.86 Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities; figures represent total finished water production (includes wholesale use). Based on these historical factors, average and peak day water demand from retail customers is projected for the 2013 -2023 planning period in Table 11 on the following page. 41101 f I01011011R1 f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f l f I01011011R1 f l f l f l f l f l f l f I0101010101NIWW NNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN t it7 of III7eintoin. III "' ' PUBLIC R8YEIKW DRAFT u msoclafes 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 17 August 15, 2013 Water 2013 119,129 158 18.82 1.030 19.38 1.86 36.05 2014 120,915 158 19.10 1.030 19.67 1.86 36.59 2015 122,729 158 19.39 1.030 19.97 1.86 37.14 2016 123,962 158 19.59 1.030 20.18 1.86 37.53 2017 125,822 158 19.88 1.030 20.48 1.86 38.09 2018 128,338 158 20.28 1.030 20.89 1.86 38.86 2019 130,905 158 20.68 1.030 21.3 1.86 39.62 2020 133,523 158 21.10 1.030 21.73 1.86 40.42 2021 136,194 158 21.52 1.030 22.17 1.86 41.24 2022 138,918 158 21.95 1.030 22.61 1.86 42.05 2023 141,696 158 22.39 1.030 23.06 1.86 42.89 Source: Served population from Table 7; average day per capita demand and ratio of raw to finished water production from Table 9; ratio of peak day to average day finished water production from Table 10; raw water and peak day demand exclude demand due to wholesale customers. VA irM OTT= Water treatment facilities are sized to accommodate peak day demands. The maximum daily capacity of the Lake Lewisville water treatment plant (WTP) is 28.9 mgd. In June 2003, the City completed construction of a new 20 mgd water treatment plant near Lake Ray Roberts, bringing the total capacity of the two plants to 48.9 mgd. As summarized in Table 12, current retail demand plus wholesale water sales consumes the equivalent of all of the capacity of the Lake Lewisville plant and 38.3% percent of the existing 20- mgd Lake Ray Roberts plant. New water customers over the next ten years will increase the utilization of the Lake Ray Roberts plant capacity to 72.5 %. f ItlUIUIUIII IIII VIII II IIIIIUIIIIUII IIIIINIIGIIIIIIIIGNUGI! IN NIU 0110@ IGNUGIG@ INGIGNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNUNINNNUINUNIUIUIUIUIIIIIIIIIIIUUUUUUUUNUIUIUUIIIII II uuum Ntltltl luI GIIIIGIGIGIOUW! 1000GGINGGINGI0GI0NUIGNNNNMWGNNWWW010101010101010101010101010101010101plplplplplpllpp uuum IGIGGGGW..NIIUIINIWMUMNNNMAP IVWWIPU ",'WIW99UIW0001UGIUGIUUWYWNUWWY �n't�7 m��f I11I)em��utm��mmm�, 1 " PURUC RBY�N DRAFT t�,�fr��mwt rmr�exssoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 18 At,igust, 15, 2013 Water W! Mw' N! �NVWI�' P! N�4WOW! WA4�M�N�MfI000UUUUUWWWON010100001i0i0i0i0i0i ....10000 III lilillillilll I I III IIII...Ii0ili0. 1' • to � Retail Peak Day Demand (mgd), 2013 36.05 Wholesale Peak Day Demand (mgd), 2013 0.50 Total Current Demand (mgd), 2013 36.55 — Lake Lewisville Plant Capacity (mgd) -28.90 Needed Capacity from Lake Ray Roberts Plant (mgd) 7.65 Existing Lake Ray Roberts Plant Capacity (mgd) 20.00 Percent of Existing Lake Ray Roberts Plant Needed, 2013 38.3% Retail Peak Day Demand, 2023 (mgd) 42.89 Wholesale Peak Day Demand (mgd), 2023 0.50 Total Peak Day Demand (mgd), 2023 43.39 — Lake Lewisville Plant Capacity (mgd) -28.90 Needed Capacity from Lake Ray Roberts Plant (mgd), 2023 14.49 Existing Lake Ray Roberts Plant Capacity (mgd) 20.00 Percent of Lake Ray Robert Plant Capacity Needed, 2023 72.5% Percent of Lake Ray Robert Plant Capacity Needed, 2023 72.5% — Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2013 -38.3% Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2013 -2023 34.2% Source: 2013 and 2023 average day water demand from Table 11; plant capacities from City of Denton Municipal Utilities. hi�FTT�I .. The City's water supply comes primarily 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 -feet of conservation storage, of which the City holds the right to 21,000 acre -feet of storage. Based on a safe yield of 90.2 mgd, the City receives 4.34 mgd in water rights from Lake Lewisville. Most of the City's 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 cost. The City has water rights of 19.8 mgd from this lake, resulting in total water rights of 24.1 mgd. Additional water supply capacity comes in the form of credits for a portion of other user's wastewater that is returned to these water bodies ( "effluent credits "), as well as contract rights with the City of Dallas. The City's contract with Dallas reserves a minimum of 0.50 mgd, regardless of whether the City needs it, and the City also -has the right to purchase additional water as needed. However, these additional sources of supply will not be considered in evaluating the City's water supply. The City's water supply is summarized in Table 13. Projected growth over the planning period will consume most of the current excess capacity in Lake Ray Roberts. um um uu uuum uuum Ii0i00 i0i0i0 1 1 1 1111111111111fff000000000fIlffllffllNN01N10 !WIWMMNOl01W. WOG' POIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIONNNNOIN➢ UOiWiU01iU01iU01iU0101010101010000 uuum 11010111 II OI IYII IYiI iMMMOMONONIOUWNWOWNONWNOINVUwwWO fty ii.�f Denton, i X FURII1C R1 VERW DRAFT ssoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 19 August 15, 2013 iiii iiiii l i l t I I I WO OGIO Ii IGIGIGIGIGIGIGIGIilililililiGOiMIMIMiMY! VV. M�N�M. M. WMNGIGINNNGIGMINGIMMGMGMUINNGNNNNNNNW Water NNNMMNNUGINGNIGIGINGGIMMGIGIGIGIGIGIGIGNNUINGIGIGNNGIGIGIGIGUUUUUUUUUGIO IlllllllllllllllililililililililillllllllllllllllllllllllllGUUUU 00 00 UUUN VIII iOUIUNIIIIMUIIIIIMMMMMNNNNUINNNNNNIMNUUMMU�W .I MIW.IUU Total Average Day Raw Water Demand (mgd), 2013 19.65 — Lake Lewisville Capacity (mgd) -4.34 Needed Capacity from Lake Ray Roberts, 2013 15.31 Lake Ray Roberts Capacity (mgd) 19.76 Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2013 77.5% Total Average Day Raw Water Demand (mgd), 2023 23.33 — Lake Lewisville Capacity (mgd) -4.34 Needed Capacity from Lake Ray Roberts, 2023 18.99 Lake Ray Roberts Capacity (mgd) 19.76 Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2023 96.1% Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2023 96.1% — Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2013 -77.5% Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity Needed, 2013 -2023 18.6% Source: 2013 and 2023 average day raw water demand is retail raw water demand from Table 11 plus 0.27 mgd average wholesale demand from Table 9; lake capacities from City of Denton Municipal Utilities. r Capital improvements identified in the City's water master plan and by City staff as necessary to accommodate growth over the next ten years are summarized in Table 14. The capital improvements include both existing facilities with excess capacity to serve new customer demand as well as planned improvements. The portions of the costs of the Lake Ray Roberts treatment plant and the Lake Ray Roberts reservoir 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. For pump stations, water storage tanks and transmission lines, the portions of the costs attributable to growth are based on determination of existing and planned facility capacities and modeling of 2013 and 2023 demands performed by consulting engineers for the City of Denton. A portion of the cost of three of the planned improvements will serve existing customers, and these are identified as existing deficiencies. 1 °ulty of Dwitori, rK PUMC Bil l DRAFT dun rt r lcissoclotes 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 20 August 15, 2013 Water Table .Ss rn- i , Lake Ray Roberts $153,306,163 77.5% 96.1% 18.6% $28,514,946 $0 Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant $56,445,235 38.3% 72.5% 34.2% $19,304,270 $0 54" Transmission Line $9,590,299 30.0% 45.0% 15.0% $1,438,545 $0 Loop 288 Water Main, Sherman -UNT $4,361,849 25.0% 40.0% 15.0% $654,277 $0 Loop 288 Water Main, Sherman -380 $3,518,352 25.0% 40.0% 15.0% $527,753 $0 NW Elevated Storage Tank $2,339,988 30.0% 60.0% 30.0% $701,996 $0 SW Pump Station $5,912,002 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% $1,182,400 $0 SW PS Oversize Discharge Line (30 -36 ") $284,477 5.0% 10.0% 5.0% $14,224 $0 Vintage Oversize Line (12 -20 ") $254,269 25.0% 60.0% 35.0% $88,994 $0 North -South Water Line, Phase 1 $6,038,601 25.0% 35.0% 10.0% $603,860 $0 Roselawn Elevated Storage Tank $6,299,440 75.0% 85.0% 10.0% $629,944 $0 Roselawn Water Line $1,797,363 30.0% 55.0% 25.0% $449,341 $0 Masch Branch Rd Water Line Extension $645,781 15.0% 30.0% 15.0% $96,867 $0 US 380 Urban Utility Relocation $1,519,926 25.0% 30.0% 5.0% $75,996 $0 Rayzor Ranch Oversize Line (16 -20 ") $133,226 10.0% 25.0% 15.0% $19,984 $0 Subtotal, Existing Eligible Projects $252,446,971 na na na $54,303,397 $0 North -South Water Line, Phase II $5,380,772 0.0% 35.0% 35.0% $1,883,270 $0 1 -35 Parallel Line Crossing $1,959,552 15.0% 30.0% 15.0% $293,933 $293,933 High School Booster Pump Station $4,704,000 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% $1,411,200 $0 Elm /Loop 288 Water Lines $3,832,013 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% $1,149,604 $0 Alfred /John Paine Water Line $4,298,515 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% $859,703 $0 Southwest Elevated Storage Tank $5,376,000 10.0% 20.0% 10.0% $537,600 $537,600 McKinney Water Line and PRV $987,840 10.0% 25.0% 15.0% $148,176 $98,784 University Water Line and PRV $1,724,083 0.0% 30.0% 30.0% $517,225 $0 New McKenna Booster Pump Station $8,064,000 0.0% 65.0% 65.0% $5,241,600 $0 1 -35W Water Line $4,466,650 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% $893,330 $0 1 -35W /Corbin Water Line $1,781,472 0.0% 20.0% 20.0% $356,294 $0 South Central Transmission Lines $10,583,731 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% $1,587,560 $0 Subtotal, Proposed Eligible Projects $53,158,628 na na na $14,879,495 $930,317 Total $305,605,599 na na na $69,182,892 $930,317 Source: Total costs in 2013 dollars and utilization percentages (for improvements other than Lake Ray Roberts and Lake Ray Roberts water treatment plant) from Freese and Nichols, "Water Impact Fee Utilization Calculations," May 31, 2013; utilization percentages for Lake Ray Roberts WTP from Table 12; utilization percentages for Lake Ray Roberts from Table 13; deficiency cost is total cost times 2013 percent utilized for planned improvements. U 000 Imml I fI PI�NMMOINYMMMMMMMIti�i�OWOWONNNNNNNNN010101YUlUlUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUIUlUU1UllUlUIUIYYYWOWN0i0➢ WNOONNWUIYiU01iU01iU01iU0101010000000000000111111 10000 IOOOOIIfI fI fIII��m000MMNIN�WWUIUIUIUlUl0UMW0UWOWUUU01iU0101010101010101010101WWmmmmmuuuuuu IWW'IWWWVW,&'M'IW City i1 I1turtrwm u, T PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT' vl%iiiiv, nxi associates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 21 August 15, 2013 Water The system -wide growth costs shown above are allocated to service areas based on projected service unit growth and /or hydrologic modeling, as shown in Table 15 below. Table r Growth Costs yr Service Area, Lake Ray Roberts $28,514,946 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $7,128,737 $15,398,071 $5,988,139 Lake Ray Roberts WTP $19,304,270 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $4,826,068 $10,424,306 $4,053,897 54" Transmission Line $1,438,545 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $359,636 $776,814 $302,094 Loop 288 Water Main, Sherman -UNT $654,277 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $163,569 $353,310 $137,398 Loop 288 Water Main, Sherman -380 $527,753 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $131,938 $284,987 $110,828 NW Elevated Storage Tank $701,996 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $701,996 $0 SW Pump Station $1,182,400 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% $0 $709,440 $472,960 SW PS Oversize Discharge Line (30 -36 ") $14,224 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% $0 $8,534 $5,690 Vintage Oversize Line (12 -20 ") $88,994 0.0% 45.0% 55.0% $0 $40,047 $48,947 North -South Water Line, Phase 1 $603,860 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $150,965 $326,084 $126,811 Roselawn Elevated Storage Tank $629,944 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $157,486 $340,170 $132,288 Roselawn Water Line $449,341 25.0% 54.0% 21.0% $112,335 $242,644 $94,362 Masch Branch Rd Water Line Extension $96,867 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $96,867 $0 US 380 Urban Utility Relocation $75,996 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $75,996 $0 Rayzor Ranch Oversize Line (16 -20 ") $19,984 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $19,984 $0 Subtotal, Existing Eligible Projects $54,303,397 na na na $13,030,734 $29,799,250 $11,473,414 North -South Water Line, Phase 11 $1,883,270 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% $0 $1,129,962 $753,308 1 -35 Parallel Line Crossing $293,933 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $293,933 $0 High School Booster Pump Station $1,411,200 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $1,411,200 $0 Elm /Loop 288 Water Lines $1,149,604 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $1,149,604 $0 Alfred /John Paine Water Line $859,703 0.0% 35.0% 65.0% $0 $300,896 $558,807 Southwest Elevated Storage Tank $537,600 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% $0 $322,560 $215,040 McKinney Water Line and PRV $148,176 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $148,176 $0 University Water Line and PRV $517,225 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% $0 $517,225 $0 New McKenna Booster Pump Station $5,241,600 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% $0 $3,144,960 $2,096,640 1 -35W Water Line $893,330 0.0% 35.0% 65.0% $0 $312,666 $580,665 1 -35W /Corbin Water Line $356,294 0.0% 45.0% 55.0% $0 $160,332 $195,962 South Central Transmission Lines $1,587,560 0.0% 60.0% 40.0% $0 $952,536 $635,024 Subtotal„ Proposers Eligible Projects $14,879,495 na na na $0 $9,844,050 $5,035,446 Total $69,182,892 na na na $13,030,734 $39,643,300 $16,508,860 Source: System -wide growth costs from Table 14; service area utilization percentages from Freese and Nichols, "Water Impact Fee Utilization Calculations," May 31, 2013. In addition to those costs directly attributable to growth, there are interest costs associated with funding capital improvements with revenue bonds or other forms of debt. The City traditionally funds all of its major water system capital improvements with bonds, and consequently incurs interest costs. According to State law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Based on the analysis provided in the Appendix, the direct costs should be increased by 12.4% to account for interest costs. The final step in determining the cost per service unit is to divide the total capital cost attributable to growth over the next ten years in each service area by the anticipated growth in service units over the same time period. The results are shown in Table 16 below. City of Illtert:wn, 711' PUBIICR8Y119WDELM oitvrv?ma associates 2013-2023 Capital Improvements Plan 22 August 15, 2013 Water wwwuww�mu�mimmu�u�mimu�mimu�mmmmmmmimNN�ioimmmmmmmr�mWUwWUUimmmmmmmmmmmmuuuuuuuuuuuuuouuouu uu mouuuuum .....moon Direct Growth Costs, 2013 -2023 $13,030,734 $39,643,300 $52,674,,034 $16,508,860 Debt Service Interest Cost $1,615,811 $4,915,769 $6,531,580 $2,047,099 Total Growth Costs, 2013 -2023 $14,646,545 $44,559,069 $59,205,614 $18,555,959 New SFEs, 2013 -2023 2,834 6 „145 8,979 2,393 Cost Der SF[ $5.168 $7.251 $6,594 $7,754 Source: Direct growth costs from Table 15; debt service cost is growth cost times real interest cost factor (0.124) from Table 39 in the Appendix; new SFEs from Table 8. New water customers will help pay off outstanding debt incurred for existing facilities through their monthly rates. To avoid requiring new customers to pay twice for capital facilities, once through impact fees and again through rate payments, the impact fees should be reduced to account for such debt service payments. A simple and reasonable approach to calculating the credit is to divide outstanding debt by current service units, and use this figure as the credit per service unit. The rationale behind this approach is simple to explain and understand. Existing customers are being allowed to pay for a portion of their capital costs through their rate payments; reducing impact fees by this amount puts new customers on an equal footing with existing customers. All customers will be funding the same share of their capital costs through rate payments. Credit does not need to be provided for the share of current debt that is attributable to past improvements that still have capacity remaining to serve future growth. In fact, this portion of debt could be retired by future impact fees. The percentages of original bond issues related to improvements with excess capacity to serve future customers are shown in Table 17. 7 Lake Ray Roberts Water Rights 35.20% Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant 48.99% 10.50% 900 Pressure Plain Tank/NW Elev Storage Tank 2.14% Loop 288 Wtr Main - Sherman to Hwy 380 1.18% Southwest Booster Pump Station 4.58% 54” Transmission Line 4.49% Loop 288 Wtr Main Sherman to UNT 1.46% US 380 Urban Utility Relocation 0.17% 0.12% Roselawn Elevated Storage Tank 1.89% North -South Water Line Phase 1 5.96% Dania - Roselawn Water Line 1.53% 0.15% SW PS Oversize Discharge Line 0.06% Rayzor Ranch Oversize Line 0.18% Total 35.20% 60.41% 12.04% 4.80% 6.14% Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities, July 29, 2013. The outstanding water debt attributable to excess capacity is derived by multiplying the outstanding debt associated with each bond issue by the percentages calculated above, as shown in Table 18. roioioimom�mmmoimioioioioioioioioimoimmoimmoiolumwumm�wim�oiomuou00000uuomuuuuuumumuuimiiiioio uuum City of II1)e1nt01n, y' ]PU ac RBYiW slim du es 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 23 August 15, 2013 Water ai�a�oa�wwwwwwwwwwww�u'w'w'w' u' u' u' u' ullumwim�mmmmmmmmmuwolwwwuwvlvlvluw�m��wom�wwmowiiuuuuuuuumuu iooioi 000mmuwwuwwwoimmw�muloluwmulolwwowoumwwwwmwwwuuuwwwmwwwmwwwwwwwmwuuWUUUVUVUVUWUUwu�wiuuioiuioiuioiuuvinl> !Iflrrrwo�owolvlvlWw�uuuuuiuwuim iouuuu uuumiii« nioouououmiuNmNiuimimm�wwiouwioiaaaowwwwwwowmw 2005 - Refunding of 1998 A $15,764,132 35.20% $5,548,933 2005 - Refunding of 2000 $9,280,868 60.41% $5,606,537 2007 - Refunding of 1998 A $15,284,296 35.20% $5,380,032 2007 - Refunding of 2001 $10,020,704 12.04% $1,206,115 2007 - Original Bond Issue $7,630,000 6.14% $468,524 2010 - Refunding of 1998A/B $1,062,990 35.20% $374,170 2010 - Refunding of 2000A $1,852,530 60.41% $1,119,106 2010 - Refunding of 2002A $13,699,480 4.80% $657,211 2011 - Refunding of 2001 $1,780,000 12.04% $214,245 Tota 1 $20,574,873 Source: Outstanding debt from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, July 29, 2013, percentages from Table 17. In addition to outstanding debt on existing facilities, there are also some existing deficiencies that will be remedied by the planned improvements. The sum of outstanding debt and deficiency costs represents the future cost to serve existing customers. The credit is calculated by dividing total existing customer costs by existing service units, as shown in Table 19. iame'm waxer Kevenue ureami per oervice Total Outstandina Water Debt $126,540,000 — Outstanding Debt Associated with Excess Capacity - $20,574,873 Outstanding Debt for Facilities Serving Existing Customers $105,965,127 Deficiency Cost $930,317 Future Existing Customer Cost $10605,444 x Interest Cost Factor 1.124 Total Existing Customer Cost $120,150,479 Existing Service Units (SFEs) 60,043 Credit per SFE $2,001 Source: Total outstanding debt frOr'n runty Of Deiaon Municipal utilikies as of September 30, 2012; debt attributable to excess capacity from Table 18; deficiency cost from Table 14; interest cost factor from Table 39; existing SFEs from Table 6. The calculated net cost per service unit is the cost per service unit less the revenue credit per service unit. An alternative to calculating the revenue credit, provided by Chapter 395, is simply to divide the cost per service unit in half. The net costs derived from these two alternative methods are compared in Table 20. Cost per SFE $5 „168 $7,251 $6,594 $7,754 — Revenue Credit per SFE .$2 „001 - $2,001 - $2,001 - $2,001 Calculated Net Cost per SFE $3,,167 $5,250 $4,593 $5,753 Alternative Net Cost per SFE $2,584 $3,626 $3,297 $3,877 Source: Cost per SFE from Table 16; calculated revenue credit per SFE from Table 19; alternative net cost per SFE is one -half the calculated cost per SFE, per State law. C NNNNNNNWONUI vu uW UVUVUVUVUVUU ? VVVVO' UUQWODVVVOWMWNOIOMOINNYUIUIUIUIWWUUUUUOY001010� 10000 IllfI IIIIIIIOOOOOOMMMOMOMOIN910101010101010101010101NONUIUIUOWO ➢WONIOIIWWIIIIIIIIIOOIIIIIIIIII 10101 WIO OIOUIUIUI UIONWINUIUIUIOIUIUIUIUINNNNN R t �� Denton, "111( PUMC RETM DEM” da ir ossoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 24 August 'i5, 2013 Water The City Council could enact updated water impact fees at either of the alternative net costs shown above, or at a reduced level. The following net cost schedule represents the maximum impact fees that may be charged by the City for water system facilities, based on the Land Use Assumptions, the utility system evaluation and capital improvement cost estimates prepared by City of Denton Municipal Utilities staff and engineering consultants, and the additional data and analysis presented in this water impact fee Capital Improvements Plan. Updated Net Cost /SFE $'3,167 $5,250 $4,593 $5,753 Current Fee per SFE $3,400 $3,400 $3,400 $4,000 Percent Change -7% 54 % 35% 44% Source Updated net cost per SFE from Table 20; current fee from City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Sec. 26 -222. Based on the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential system -wide revenues over the next ten years would be 37% higher under the potential fees calculated in this report than under the current fees, as shown in Table 22. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since they depend entirely on the growth projections. It should also be noted that the updated fees will not apply to properties platted under the previous impact fee schedule, a fact that is not accounted for in these revenue projections. Updated Net Cost per SFE $3,167 $5,250 $4,593 $5,753 na x New SFEs, 2013 -2023 2,834 6,145 8,979 2,393 11,372 Potential Revenue with Updated Fees $8,975,278 $32,261,250 $41,240,547 $13,766,929 $55,007,476 Current Fee per SFE $3,400 $3,400 $3,400 $4,000 na x New SFEs, 2013 -2023 2,834 6,145 8,979 2,393 11,372 Potential Revenue with Current Fees $9,635,600 $20,893,000 $30,528,600 $9,572,000 $40,100,600 Percent Change from Current Fees -7% 54% 35% 44% 37% Source: Updated net cost per SFE from Table 20; new SFEs from Table 8. If the impact fees are adopted at 100% of the full net cost, new customers, system -wide, would pay 71% of their attributable cost of capital improvements through impact fees, and the rest through future rate payments that will be used to (a) retire existing debt associated with existing improvements that are serving existing customers and (b) retire future debt issued to fund planned improvements that will remedy capacity deficiencies for existing customers. The percentage of costs covered through impact fees varies by service area, because the utility debt is paid by all customers, regardless of service area, and the debt credit is a larger part of the gross fee per service unit in service areas with smaller fees. The percentages of growth- related costs paid that would be through impact fees are shown in Table 23. uumui uuuuuuuuuuuiiuiuuiuuiuuiuuiuuiuuiumouuN, uowoiNiuuiuuuummummmmmmummummummmmiommuuummmmmmiiiiiiiiiuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuoiiiii uuum 0000i ioimimunnnuoowm�wm�mm�mmmm�vmuw�Wwummummmuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuui uuum w000uni mumuwm w��uuuuwaaaaaru!uu�!w :it "7 of III ie intu in, TAT' PURIIC REVEK P DRAFT 11171!zvoon Gcai S 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 25 August 15, 2013 N. - wwwwwwwwwwwwll19w09w01w0w00000100110 1100100 0 0 0 0 111111111111111111 0 0InPPP Table 23. Water Growth Costs and Revenues, 2013 -2023 Impact Fee Revenues, 2013 -2023 $8,975,278 $32,261,250 $41,240,547 $13,766,929 $55,007,476 Total Growth Costs, 2013 -2023 $14,646,545 $44,559,069 $59,205,614 $18,555,959 $77,761,573 Percent Paid by Impact fees 61% 72% 70% 74% 71% Source: Impact fee revenues from Table 22; growth costs from Table 16. lwuwwwwwuuuiuiuiuiummluiuiuluuowolwwmmmuuuu oow oouuou 111 luouuuuuu« rrrrr�imowmvuilwiimilwiimimwlolmmmmmmmmmmomlommmuolwowowowowlumlumluummmmmmmmmmmmmuuuuuuuull uuum PO1uo111wmwwwmwwwmwoioioioiowwouuuwuuuuuuuuuuuululuuuu uuum 4 l0000wm�000iwuvuvmamwiPUlwmmmmmP rty of II" ointm in, 't"„ PUBLIC B8Y1 W BBAFP r t r w� ro c�ssoclates y i 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 26 August 15, 2013 I�O��Iffffffffffffffff00000M�0�0�0�0��M000M9�MNNNNN! MIOINONIOINMMNIOIOIiIiUUliUliUl0101WINWW00WONINWWWY��NWWW�0YWY0pOpOp010101010101010101010000010101i0ili0ilili0il I lil�lill� I f OMIWN!MNIllWWWWmO. WASATER The City's wastewater system provides retail wastewater collection and treatment to customers within the CCN area, as well as wastewater treatment to three wholesale customers — Corinth, Krum and Argyle. The impact fees calculated in this report exclude costs to serve the City's wholesale customers. 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 SFE is the wastewater demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (5/8" x 3/4 "), which is the meter typically used by a single - family residence. The ratio of each larger meter's capacity to the capacity of the base meter determines the SFE multiplier applied to each larger meter size. Multiplying the number of existing retail wastewater connections (i.e., excluding wholesale customers) 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 wastewater service units connected to the City's system, as shown in Table 24. Service Table 24. Wastewater i , 5/8" x 3/4" 28,367 1.0 28,367 1" 1,035 2.5 2,588 1 -1/2°" 659 5.0 3,295 2" 946 8.0 7,568 3" 113 22.5 2,543 4" 54 50.0 2,700 6" 13 100.0 1,300 8" 10 200.0 2,000 10" 2 325.0 650 Total 31,199 51,011 Total Served Population, 2013 118,547 SFEs per Served Population 0.4303 Source: Active non - wholesale wastewater connections by meter size from the City of Denton, February 26, 2013; SFEs per meter from Table 5; 2013 served population from Table 4. The growth in wastewater service units (SFEs) over the 2013 -2023 planning period is derived from the Land Use Assumptions. Total population served by the Denton Utilities wastewater system for each service area from the Land Use Assumptions is multiplied by the existing service unit -to- served population ratio calculated in the previous table to determine the projected number of service units for each year through 2023 and for each service area in Table 25. , " ell "YO YII "� um mmmmuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ioioio iooioiorrrrrrrmm�m0000mmmmiuimomiuimomiuim rrrriomnouimu�mimwuwmo�wwuuuuuuuuulluuuuuuu uuum rrrruu00000uouimiuiuiminw��vvu�iN[ MVNNmioimumioimomimuimuimuimomioimum¢ ��W��NOOnuiulluummwuiummmmmmmmmm i u 2013-2023 Capital IPUBUCRRVI�NDn" tturtt it ;cr, ;soclates p° al Improvements Plan 27 .August 15, 2013 Wastewater Table r Service Units, 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 49,128 49,639 50,148 50,659 51,235 52,256 53,147 2020 53,593 2021 54,038 2022 54,395 2023 54,751 21,140 67,839 29,191 1,580 680 118,547 51,011 21,360 69,107 29,737 1,580 680 120,326 51,776 21,579 70,403 30,294 1,580 680 122,131 52,553 21,799 71,116 30,601 1,580 680 123,355 53,080 22,046 72,390 31,149 1,580 680 125,205 53,876 22,486 73,873 31,788 1,580 680 127,709 54,953 22,869 75,536 32,503 1,580 680 130,263 56,052 23,061 77,174 33,208 2,102 904 132,869 57,174 23,253 78,605 33,824 2,883 1,241 135,526 58,317 23,406 79,658 34,277 4,184 1,800 138,237 59,483 23,559 80,569 34,669 5,681 2,445 141,001 60,673 New SFEs, 2013 -2023 2,419 5,478 1,765 9,1 Source: Served population for wastewater service areas from City of Denton, Land Use Assumptions (see Table SFEs is product of served population and SFEs /served population from Table 24. Average per capita wastewater demands can be determined based on historic system -wide demand in millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic served population. These per capita estimates represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Wastewater treatment facilities are primarily designed to accommodate average daily flows. As summarized in Table 26, per capita wastewater flows to the treatment plant over the last eight years have averaged 124 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). These calculations exclude wholesale wastewater flows. In addition, they represent flows per served or connected population, which has been determined based on recent studies by the City of Denton to be about 99 percent of total population. These factors will be used to project future average daily demand in the service areas. � = 2005 13.67 102,525 133 2006 11.71 105,754 111 2007 15.02 108,674 138 2008 15.05 110,818 136 2009 13.31 112,910 118 2010 12.52 114,494 109 2011 13.80 115,639 119 2012 15.02 116,795 129 Average 124 Source: Average influent flows (excluding wholesale) and 2005- 2010 wastewater CCN total population from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, February 13, 2013; 2005 -2010 served population is 99% of total population; 2011 -2012 served population from City of Denton Planning and Development Department, "Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fee Assessments," July 2013. �I- OOOOOOOOf�ff�00�M�MMM�M�M�I010101NMININMININNtiItiItiltiltil0101010101W01010WUlUlUIUIUIUlUU1Ull00000000N01N10101010100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 OODUUm II IOiI�O�IIIfIIIIII��m000M01010101010101NMWUlUIUIUNNIWWWWIWUV� !W�PWWWWWWWUUUU �� «��MININ!NiR!MIOIOIOYWYiUUY�101 uuum III IIIIiIIiIIi�IIIIIIIIIIIMMMMNIOINONIMM�MIW City of Denton, rK PUBLIC REVERW DRA1T trtrrt�et.o ossoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 28 August 15, 2013 Wastewater ONiWiO�MNI01010101Y0pY0pY0W0101010100000i0i0iIIIIIIIIIIIII00i0u0u OOOOIIIIIIIUppululi00 10000 I fl fl fffffff000000000MMNNNMIWMM90W01NWil01WUWNUl010YWNUlUlUlUODUWUIUIYYYYYYYYllllllllYYYYYiUUY0pOp0101010101�uuummmmmmmuuuu If�m0001mIMNI�MNMININ! MfINMiINMil010W0111111ll010U��lilulululu u� 10001 VIII IIIIIf 100001 Projected wastewater demand over the next ten years is summarized in Table 27 for the two current service areas. A projection of demand from the proposed infill service area is not necessary, since these customers will be served by the existing Pecan Creek treatment plant that will also continue to serve the remainder of the current Zone 1 area. 2013 116,967 124 14.50 0.56 15.06 2014 118,746 124 14.72 0.56 15.28 2015 120,551 124 14.95 0.56 15.51 2016 121,775 124 15.10 0.57 15.67 2017 123,625 124 15.33 0.57 15.90 2018 126,129 124 15.64 0.57 16.21 2019 128,683 124 15.96 0.57 16.53 2020 130,767 124 16.22 0.58 16.80 2021 132,643 124 16.45 0.58 17.03 2022 134,053 124 16.62 0.58 17.20 2023 135,320 124 16.78 0.58 17.36 Zone 1 Growth, 2013 -2023 2.28 0.02 2.30 2013 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2014 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2015 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2016 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2017 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2018 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2019 1,580 124 0.20 0.00 0.20 2020 2,102 124 0.26 0.00 0.26 2021 2,883 124 0.36 0.00 0.36 2022 4,184 124 0.52 0.00 0.52 2023 5,681 124 0.70 0.00 0.70 Zone 2 Growth„ 2013 -2023 0.50 0.00 0.50 8ystern itfe Growth, 2013 - 2023 2.78 0.02 2.80 Source: Served population irorrt Tablo 25„ per capita mU,'il dorriani horn Table 26; wholesale flows from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, Wastewater Treatment To accommodate future growth in the Pecan, Hickory and Cooper Creek basins, the City built a 6- mgd expansion to the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant in December 2003. The plant is now designed to treat up to 21 mgd, and is in compliance with all State and Federal discharge permits. This plant provides adequate treatment capacity to serve projected growth in the Pecan, Hickory and Cooper Creek basins for the next ten years. Treatment capacity to serve the Clear Creek basin will be provided with a new 3 -mgd Clear Creek wastewater treatment plant. The new wastewater demand from Zone 1 (including the proposed Zone 1A infill service area) will be served by excess capacity in the existing Pecan Creek plant. The original capacity of the Pecan Creek plant (15 mgd) prior to the 2003 6 -mgd expansion has already been consumed by existing customers. New development in Zone 1 over the next ten years will consume 38.0% of the capacity of the 6 mgd expansion. New wastewater demand from Zone 2 will be served by the new 3 mgd : � unoian olotes (m hy 2f I1srt��; rt, � PUB1C RBi�Y DHAFI tt a 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 29 August 15, 2013 Wastewater ! IiI10101010WWW0iUNU0Y0iWNIWW01010100000pINlililililililili10101010101010101010101010101010111 III 000 uili0ili0ili0i10011001 10000 OOIfWI�MiW�MI010VUN010NI0N010WW10�IOIOIOIOIOIIIIIIOI000OOiODUUU IOOI��NM�ff000001WNNN! MIOINONINOINONNNNNYYYY�I4�YWIUiU��000! ��WUUm��uwiuiuiOMOMONWWUWUWU0NI01010101NONI01010U1U1000UUIWW !WWWUIY!WVWU'WI0.W!W'uWiU1WWW Clear Creek plant. New development in Zone 2 over the next ten years will consume 16.7% of the new Clear Creek plant, as shown in Table 28. Table 28. Wastewater ii i , New Retail Average Day Demand (mgd), Zone 1, 2013 -2023 2.281 Ca acit of 2003 Pecan Creek Plant i x ansiorr (m d) 6.00 % of 2003 Pecan Creek Plant Capacity Expansion Needed to Serve Zone 1 Retail Growth 38.0% New Retail Average Day Demand (mgd), Zone 2, 2013 -2023 Capacity of New Clear Creek Plant (mgd) 0.50 3.00 of Clear Creek Plant Capacity Needed to Serve Zone 2 Retail Growth Source: New retail demand in Zone 1 and Zone 2 from Table 27; capacities from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, While the capacity and demand on treatment plants are appropriately measured in terms of average daily flows, other wastewater facilities must be sized to accommodate peak day flow. Peak flows for 2013 and 2023 were projected by City engineers utilizing the wastewater model. Wholesale flows have been excluded from the calculation of the shares of treatment plant improvements attributable to customer growth over the next ten years. However, it is not possible to separate out increased demand from wholesale wastewater customers in the model. As can be derived from the data in Table 27 above, growth in demand from retail customers accounts for 99.30% of total projected growth in average day flows. Projected 2023 peak flows for non - treatment -plant improvements have been adjusted by this factor to remove the cost attributable to accommodating an increase in wholesale demand from the impact fee calculations. Some of the interceptor improvements are replacing existing lines that do not have enough capacity to accommodate current peak flows. In such cases, some of the cost of the new line is attributable to replacing the capacity provided by the current line, to adding capacity to remedy the existing deficiencies, to providing new capacity for growth over the next ten years and to providing additional capacity to serve long -term future needs. The shares of all eligible improvements included in the Capital Improvements Plan that are attributable to remedying existing deficiencies and accommodating growth over the next ten years are shown in Table 29. n Imp rovements tuW�yf cmtilatut, iii' PUBLIC S16Y�NDBAFIP ulmtrtror „9s 2013 -2023 Capital I rove ents Plan 30 August 15, 2013 Wastewater 111F ,M Existing Zone 1 Improvements S Wet Weather Lift Station /Detention Pond 6.72 6.72 1.93 2.60 10.0% 0.0% Cooper Creek Outfall (Loop 288) 18.50 18.50 13.38 13.61 1.2% 0.0% Krum Sewer Line 10.02 10.02 1.04 3.82 27.7% 0.0% Graveyard Branch Interceptor 21.15 21.15 1.05 1.47 2.0% 0.0% Pecan Creek Interceptor (Ph 1 17 2) 35.55 35.55 33.34 35.55 6.2% 0.0% Pecan Creek Interceptor 1 37.49 37.49 34.61 37.49 7.7% 0.0% Roark Branch Interceptor 7.24 7.24 0.00 3.81 52.6% 0.0% State School Interceptor 1 34.68 34.68 24.07 25.03 2.8% 0.0% Proposed Zone 1 Improvements Carroll Ave Interceptor 3.61 5.87 3.84 4.33 21.7% 10.2% Cooper Creek Interceptor 1 10.16 18.42 15.64 17.16 18.4% 66.3% Cooper Creek Interceptor II 5.62 14.56 11.89 13.00 12.4% 70.1% Cooper Creek Interceptor III 4.53 14.49 9.72 10.37 6.5% 52.1% Cooper Creek Interceptor IV 0.00 3.39 0.00 1.89 55.8% 0.0% Cooper Creek Lift Station /Detention Pond 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.29 38.7% 0.0% Dry Fork Hickory Crk Trib. 1 Interceptor 2.90 6.56 5.93 6.48 15.0% 82.8% Elm Street Sewer Replacements 1.44 4.23 1.67 1.86 6.8% 8.2% Hickory Creek Interceptor 1 9.32 43.22 19.74 30.60 32.0% 30.7% Hickory Creek Interceptor II 7.17 33.48 15.99 26.93 41.6% 33.5% Hickory Creek Interceptor III 4.56 20.41 11.61 19.46 49.5% 44.5% Hickory Creek Interceptor IV 1.09 4.30 2.25 3.29 32.4% 36.1% Hickory Creek Lift Station /Detention Pond 0.00 4.04 0.00 2.81 69.6% 0.0% Hickory Creek Outfall 11.30 34.56 11.93 12.21 1.2% 2.7% Pecan Creek Interceptor II 8.09 37.47 23.43 26.74 11.3% 52.2% Pecan Creek Interceptor III 5.81 24.71 23.24 24.82 7.8% 92.2% Pecan Creek Interceptor IV 4.03 25.50 14.24 17.01 12.9% 47.6% Pecan Creek Interceptor V 8.51 21.61 21.13 22.39 3.7% 96.3% State School Interceptor II 13.70 61.88 23.42 24.34 1.9% 20.2% US 380 Utility Relocations 1.08 4.41 3.66 4.47 22.5% 77.5% West Peak Flow Lift Station/ Det. Pond 0.00 6.24 0.00 3.63 58.2% 0.0% Westgate Heights Interceptor 1.15 3.60 2.89 3.60 29.0% 71.0% Woodhaven Interceptor 0.76 1.46 0.80 0.88 11.4% 0.0% Proposed Zone 2 Improvements Clear Creek Interceptor 0.00 3.00 0 0.34 11.3% 0,0% Source: Capacities and ilowr, lin nifl'd except Wr detention facilities, which are in mg) from City of Denton Munknpal URihtwes; deficiency percentage is the ratio of the difference between 2013 demand and 2013 capacity to 2013 -2023 growth in capacity; growth percentage is ratio of new 2013 -2023 flows to 2013 -2023 growth in capacity, unless 2023 capacities are insufficient for 2023 flows, in which case it is the ratio of 2018 capacity less 2008 flow to 2018 capacity. 1010101010101010101010101011111010 uuum 00001 DONMMMOMOMOMOOOOOMOMOMOMOIti010N !MfIN�IMfIfiN�IN!MNIOINONIOINO tlII�NI�I�I�I�I��p� .b�lV�J�@4NrtiNrtil@N IU4' U' U' U' UlOp0101010101010100101010101010100101010101010101001010101010100010101010101001 t aii �� of Ill fmtuttr ut, III" '. PUB11C HSYI�W DRAFT tftmmrl z i �amo � la tM- 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 31 Augrtst 15, 2013 <A pPH N N N N P 0 P P N I I I I P 10 10 10 11111110 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1110 110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 110 110 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 f I I I I I I I f INOOOOOOOOOOOINONIUINNNNNNNN0UN00UN00UNN000000000011U101010101011NNNNNNNNNN I INNIPNll01111111ll010100000oo 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 P IIIIINNNNAININNONNNNNNNNNONIOINONIOINNNNOWOWOWOWOIOWNNIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIIOIIN { Wastewater capital improvements and costs identified by City of Denton Municipal Utilities' staff as necessary to accommodate growth over the next ten years, along with the shares of project costs attributable to existing deficiencies, are summarized in Table 30. Pecan Creek WRP (15 mgd) $39,528,174 0.0% $0 30.6% $0 $0 Pecan Creek WRP 6 mgd expansion $30,005,125 38.0% $11,401,948 30.6% $3,488,996 $0 S Wet Weather Lift Station /Detention Pond $1,552,898 10.0% $155,290 0% $0 $0 Cooper Creek Outfall (Loop 288) $3,898,807 1.2% $46,786 0% $0 $0 Krum Sewer Line $398,450 27.7% $110,371 0% $0 $0 Graveyard Branch Interceptor $5,004,952 2.0% $100,099 0% $0 $0 Pecan Creek Interceptor (Ph 1 £r 2) $3,363,189 6.2% $208,518 55% $114,685 $0 Pecan Creek Interceptor 1 $1,975,672 7.7% $152,127 91% $138,436 $0 Roark Branch Interceptor $854,774 52.6% $449,611 0% $0 $0 State School Interceptor 1 $1,660,869 2.8% $46,504 0% $0 $0 Existing Improvements Subtotal, Zone 1 $88,242,910 $12,671,254 $3,742,117 $0 Carroll Ave Interceptor $472,799 21.7% $102,597 100.0% $102,597 $48,225 Cooper Creek Interceptor 1 $608,498 18.4% $111,964 0.0% $0 $403,434 Cooper Creek Interceptor II $1,293,395 12.4% $160,381 0.0% $0 $906,670 Cooper Creek Interceptor 111 $1,239,878 6.5% $80,592 0.0% $0 $645,976 Cooper Creek Interceptor IV $249,528 55.8% $139,237 0.0% $0 $0 Cooper Creek Lift Station /Detention Pond $1,543,050 38.7% $597,160 0.0% $0 $0 Dry Fork Hickory Crk Trib. 1 Interceptor $2,294,968 15.0% $344,245 0.0% $0 $1,900,234 Elm Street Sewer Replacements $204,515 6.8% $13,907 100.0% $13,907 $16,770 Hickory Creek Interceptor 1 $4,494,098 32.0% $1,438,111 0.0% $0 $1,379,688 Hickory Creek Interceptor II $6,497,359 41.6% $2,702,901 0.0% $0 $2,176,615 Hickory Creek Interceptor III $7,247,205 49.5% $3,587,366 0.0% $0 $3,225,006 Hickory Creek Interceptor IV $2,361,574 32.4% $765,150 0.0% $0 $852,528 Hickory Creek Lift Station /Detention Pond $8,293,840 69.6% $5,772,513 0.0% $0 $0 Hickory Creek Outfall $466,857 1.2% $5,602 0.0% $0 $12,605 Pecan Creek Interceptor II $3,114,198 11.3% $351,904 80.0% $281,523 $1,625,611 Pecan Creek Interceptor 111 $1,899,937 7.8% $148,195 77.0% $114,110 $1,751,742 Pecan Creek Interceptor IV $1,436,302 12.9% $185,283 53.0% $98,200 $683,680 Pecan Creek Interceptor V $3,124,089 3.7% $115,591 55.0% $63,575 $3,008,498 State School Interceptor 11 $4,551,156 1.9% $86,472 0.0% $0 $919,334 US 380 Utility Relocations $1,378,425 22.5% $310,146 26.0% $80,638 $1,068,279 West Peak Flow Lift Station/ Det. Pond $3,846,360 58.2% $2,238,582 55.0% $1,231,220 $0 Westgate Heights Interceptor $405,713 29.0% $117,657 0.0% $0 $288,056 Woodhaven Interceptor $256,016 11.4% $29,186 100.0% $29,186 $0 Proposed Improvements Subtotal, Zone 1 $57,279,760 $19,404,742 10.4% $2,014,956 $20,912,951 Zone 1 Total $145,522,670 $32,075,996 17.9% $5,757,073 $20,912,951 Clear Creek Interceptor $8,496,199 11.3% $960,070 0.0% $0 $0 Clear Creek WRP $20,482,310 16.7% $3,420,546 0.0% $0 $0 Zone 2 Proposed Improvements Total $28,978,$09 $4,,380,616 $0 $0 Sour'ce' 'Tatal cost In 2013 dollars from City of Denton Municipal UtlOitkas, June 24, 20'13; treatment plant growtn snares from ime za; conveyance facility growth shares from Table 29; share of Zone 1 costs in proposed Zone 1A infill area from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, June 19, 2013; deficiency cost is cost times deficiency share from Table 29. NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNUUUNNNNNNNNN NNNNwNOwNUNNNNUNINIWN »»»»NUUNUNUNUUNUNUUUUUUUUUU uuuN ommlr ruuun.. uuNMUwuaNwawwwwwuNwww! N'! wNwNwN'! wNNNNNNNN w'w'w'w'w'w'w'w'w'w'w'�'"'w".N City of III eIrlum, -rX MMUCFM WDRAFT' diulrnonsiinassoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 32 August 15, 2013 Wastewater IrtJpppppiUUY11ll0101UU1�1Y1010101111 uuum i��llllllfl fffffffffff000000000ffffffffffff0000M0��M000M, MMWMW�Wil01mUNI�NWi101010101UlUlUIIUIIOWONI01WUlUNOWOWONINY�OW10101110 0 0 0 0 0 i�� Ifl WWI�mN�MNOWNNPWWI�@ IiUUIULLWUw�! u' WiW�010iwN. ON. 01: N@ LINOIOMNNOINONUIOImUNWM@ MY�YY�YYN01010101010101010101010100000 uuum uuuul In addition to those costs directly attributable to growth, there are interest costs associated with funding capital improvements with revenue bonds or other forms of debt. The City traditionally funds all of its major wastewater system capital improvements with bonds, and consequently incurs interest costs. According to State law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Based on the analysis provided in the Appendix, the costs should be increased by 12.4% to account for interest costs. The final step in determining the cost per service unit is to divide the total capital cost attributable to growth over the next ten years in each service area by the anticipated growth in service units over the same time period. The results are shown in Table 31 below. Wastewater Cost per Service Unit Direct Growth Costs, 2013 -2023 $5, „757,073 $26,318,923 $32,075,996 $4,380,616 Debt Service Interest Cost $713,877 $3„263,546 $3 „977,423 $543,196 Total Growth Costs, 2013 -2023 $6,470,950 $29,582,49 $36,053,419 '$4,923,812 New SFEs„ 2013 -2023 2,419 5,478 7,897 1,765 Cost per SFE $2,675 $5,400 $4,565 $2,790 Source: Direct growth costs from Table 30 (Zone 113 is difference between Zone 1 total and Zone 1A); debt service cost is growth cost times real interest cost factor (0.124) from Table 39 in the Appendix; new SFEs from Table 25. New wastewater customers will help pay off outstanding debt incurred for existing facilities through their monthly rates. To avoid requiring new customers to pay twice for capital facilities, once through impact fees and again through rate payments, the impact fees should be reduced to account for such debt service payments. A simple and reasonable approach to calculating the credit is to divide outstanding debt by current service units, and use this figure as the credit per service unit. The rationale behind this approach is simple to explain and understand. Existing customers are being allowed to pay for a portion of their capital costs through their rate payments; reducing impact fees by this amount puts new customers on an equal footing with existing customers. All customers will be funding the same share of their capital costs through rate payments. Credit does not need to be provided for the share of current debt that is attributable to past improvements that still have capacity remaining to serve future growth. In fact, this portion of debt could be retired by future impact fees. Credit does not need to be provided for the share of current debt that is attributable to past improvements that still have capacity remaining to serve future growth. In fact, this portion of debt could be retired by future impact fees. The percentages of original bond issues related to improvements with excess capacity to serve future customers are shown in Table 17. MOMWi! WM9MIIMMMMOMOMOIOIOIOIOIOINOWNNW! WW�NIDNWOWOWOWOIUIUIIUIIUIIOIOIililililililililillllll Oti00��i IIIIfIII��m�01010101010101MIUlUIUIUIUlUNW0Yi0Ul UlYN0101010101010111111ililimmmmmuuuuuu N�' 40WONWWWO�UIUIUIUI000UUU1010.11 I.. ilililili IIIIIIililililiN City of Denton, TX PUBLIC RAN DMIT t��tm��uu�rtw�cs� t °t associates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 33 August 15, 2013 N . 1 PoONNNNNNNN! MIOINONNN�NINMR! M09MM�lilmf! MN�MNNIOINONIOIN! MIOINNNNNNONIOIOIOIOIOIOIOWWN9WOWOWOWWNOWOWOWOWOWONNWWN9WWN9WOWOWOWONIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOI000IIi00000uuuu000 Illillill YWOWN�MUMMiWWINNNNONIW��WIliIl010101ililili1111111111111111010000 uuum DIWOGGGGMMIN�WI�MWINIOINUIWWNWWWUIUIWNUNWWWY�UY�I�I�IY�UIYYYYiI�UI�1�1�U014�liWililWl�lUIOU f f z111, Ir H f Pecan Creek WRP (6 mgd) 18.33% 37.93% 31.52% 3.09% 2005 - Refunding from 1998 South Wet Weather Lift Station 1.57% $192,420 2005 - Refunding from 2000 $8,473,800 Pecan Creek Interceptor (Ph.1£t2) $2,886,593 2007 - Refunding from 2001 $4,450,000 0.99% Cooper Creek Outfall (Loop 288) 2010 - Refunding from 1998 $132,947 18.33% 0.18% Krum Sewer Line $472,313 18.33% 0.49% 2010 - Refunding from 2000A Graveyard Branch Interceptor 0.43% $560,051 2010 - Refunding from 2002A $6,860,788 Roark Branch Interceptor $259,356 6.45% 0.27% 38,44% State School Interceptor 1 0.53% $5,,489,310 Pecan Creek Interceptor 1 0.62% 0.46% 0.67% Total 18.33% 41.09% 38.44% 3.85% 1.84% Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities, July 29, 2013 The outstanding water debt attributable to excess capacity is derived by multiplying the outstanding debt associated with each bond issue by the percentages calculated above, as shown in Table 18. f • f I. f f f 2003 - Original Bond Issue $784,652 1.84% $12,605 2005 - Refunding from 1998 $1,266,200 18.33% $192,420 2005 - Refunding from 2000 $8,473,800 41.09% $2,886,593 2007 - Refunding from 2001 $4,450,000 38.44% $1,322,321 2010 - Refunding from 1998 $132,947 18.33% $23,915 2010 - Refunding from 1998B $472,313 18.33% $84,960 2010 - Refunding from 2000A $1,388,951 41.09% $560,051 2010 - Refunding from 2002A $6,860,788 3.85% $259,356 2'011 - Refunding from 2001 $495,.000 38,44% $147 „090 Total $5,,489,310 Source: Outstanding debt from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, July 29, 2013, percentages from Table 32. In addition to outstanding debt on existing facilities, there are also some existing deficiencies that will be remedied by the planned improvements. The sum of outstanding debt and deficiency costs represent the future cost to serve existing customers. The credit is calculated by dividing total existing customers costs by existing service units, as shown in Table 34. Table s tewater Revenue Credit per Service Unit Total Outstanding Wastewater Debt $47,639,019 — Outstanding Debt Associated with Excess Capacity - $5,489,310 Outstanding Debt for Facilities Serving Existing Customers $42,149,709 Deficiency Cost $20,912,951 Future Existing Customer Cost $63,062,660 x Interest Cost Factor 1.124 Total Existing Customer Cost $70,882,430 y Existing Service Units (SFEs) 51,011 Credit per SFE $1,390 Source: Total outstanding debt frmn Cily of Denton Municipal Utilities as of September 30, 2012; debt associated with excess capacity from Table 33; deficiency cost from Table 30; interest cost factor from Table 39; existing SFEs from Table 24. f "iity of U�uetitori III'y ' PUBLIC RBYERW DRAIT da�inco lossoclates 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 34 August 15, 2013 Ar 0� WAM OWN�NNNNNNNIOINY01�1�00000000000 III 000OiI�ilYM01.... WWWUWWI@ NYOpYOU�UU�UU�UIW1Y01pOpOpOpW !�WIYYYI The calculated net cost per service unit is the cost per service unit less the debt credit per service unit. An alternative to calculating the revenue credit, provided by Chapter 395, is simply to divide the cost per service unit in half. The net costs derived from these two alternative methods are compared in Table 35. Table 35. Wastewater Net Cost r Cost per SFE $2,675 $5,400 $4,565 $2,790 — Revenue Credit per SFE - $1,390 - $1,390 - $1,390 - $1,390 Calculated Net Cost per SFE $1,285 $4,010 $3,175 $1,400 Alternative Net Cost per SFE $1,338 $2,700 $2,283 $1,395 Source: Cost per SFE from Table 31; calculated revenue credit per SFE from Table 34; alternative net cost per SFE is one -half the cost per SFE, per State law, 1 The City Council could enact updated wastewater impact fees at either of the alternative net costs shown above, or at a reduced level. The following net cost schedule represents the maximum impact fees that may be charged by the City for wastewater system facilities, based on the Land Use Assumptions, the utility system evaluation and capital improvement cost estimates prepared by City of Denton Municipal Utilities staff and engineering consultants, and the additional data and analysis presented in this water impact fee Capital Improvements Plan. Updated Net Cost /SFE $1!,285 $4 „010 $3,175 $1,400 Current Fee per SFE $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 -$1,760 Percent Change -24% 136% 87% -20% Source: Updated net cost per SFE from TdWp 35; current tee from City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Sec. 26 -222. Based on the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential system -wide revenues over the next ten years would be higher under the potential fees calculated in this report than under the current fees, as shown in Table 37. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since they depend entirely on the growth projections. It should also be noted that the updated fees will not apply to properties platted under the previous impact fee schedule, a fact that is not accounted for in these revenue projections. f;mmf7 of III 1Ii;)uml0ut„ 7'. PUBLIC BBir[BN DRAFT ttr�°t��0irt t1qS0c Rcsfer5 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 35 August 15, 2013 Wastewater uuWwwwwuuuuu�wi�wi�wi�wi�wi�wiummuuuuuuuuumwwwwwwwwwwwuaiwwwwwuaiwwwwwuaiww�uummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmuuumuuuummumummmmmmmmmmmmmmuuuuomoiiiiiiiiii uuum uuu��mN UUUUUUUUmummu mmwi® mwowNOmoioioioim�uioiwuWWW »iuuuuuuuuwuw wwo��awaa� .uvr�ra�rov�dw�d�d�m�imm Updated Net Cost per SFE $1,285 $4,010 $3,175 $1,400 na x New SFEs, 2013 -2023 2,419 5,478 7,897 1,765 9,662 Potential Revenue with Updated Fees $3,108,415 $21,966,780 $25,072,975 $2,471,000 $27,543,975 Current Fee per SFE $1,700 $1,700 $1,700 $1,760 na x New SFEs, 2013 -2023 2,419 5,478 7,897 1,765 9,662 Potential Revenue with Current Fees $4,112,300 $9,312,600 $13,424,900 $3,106,400 $16,531,300 Percent Change from Current Fees -24% 136% 87% -20% 67% Source: Updated net cost per SFE from Table 35; new SFEs from Table 25. If the impact fees are adopted at 100% of the full net cost, new customers, system -wide, would pay 67% of their attributable cost of capital improvements through impact fees, and the rest through future rate payments that will be used to (a) retire existing debt associated with existing improvements that are serving existing customers and (b) retire future debt issued to fund planned improvements that will remedy capacity deficiencies for existing customers. The percentage of costs covered through impact fees varies by service area, because the utility debt is paid by all customers, regardless of service area, and the debt credit is a larger part of the gross fee per service unit in service areas with smaller fees. The percentages of growth- related costs paid through impact fees for each service area are shown in Table 38. � � • r 1 1 Impact Fee Revenues, 2013 -2023 $3,108,415 $21,966,780 $2,471,000 $27,546,195 Total Growth Costs, 2013 -2023 $6,470,950 $ 29,582,469 $4,923,812 $40,977,231 Percent Paid by Impact fees 48% 74% 50% 67% Source: Impact fee revenues from Table 37; growth costs from Table 31. iiiiuuiiuuiuiuuuuuuouuomii 0000i iinnniommumiw�ooimomioiNUrviwi uiuiuuuuuWWm��iiiuuuummmmmmuuwuuumuum ( "Aty u1III'f��infa.oiut,TX PUBUCB1B�'EMDMUM tfvw�. �tassociates 2013-2023 Capital Improvements Plan 36 August 15, 2013 Interest cost on debt consists of three components: an anticipated inflation rate, a return on investment and a risk premium. No borrower is going to loan money at less than the rate of inflation, since the dollars paid back will have less buying power than the dollars loaned. The residual interest rate after subtracting the inflation rate is referred to as the real interest rate, which consists of the rate of return plus risk premium. Over the past ten years, the rate of inflation has been about 2.48 %. The City's outstanding utility debt service payments, including both general obligation and revenue bonds, are summarized in Table 39. The net present value of the City's outstanding debt service payments, discounted at the long -term inflation rate, is about $196 million. The real cost of interest is the difference between the net present value of the debt service payments, discounted at the inflation rate, and the principal. As shown in Table 39, the real cost of interest that will be paid on the City's outstanding utility debt is about $22 million. This indicates that real interest costs are equivalent to an additional 12.4% of the amount borrowed. �; • Net Present Value, Total Debt Service $195,793,420 —Total Outstanding Principal - $174,179,019 Real Interest Cost $21,614,401 Ratio of Real Interest Cost to Principal Amount 0.124 Source: Utility revenue bond debt service payments from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, February 13, 2013; net present value based on 2.48% discount rate, which is the average annual inflation rate over the last ten years (2002 -2012) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Customers, U.S., All Items, 1982 - 1984 =100. t :iiity of Deritiixin, iii ; IPIIBIIC R18YIIIEN DRAFIP 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 37 t ^f r�,�r: °uu0"an iM411iL�7 2013 $11,639,368 $7,857,167 $19,496,535 2014 $12,269,652 $7,201,525 $19,471,177 2015 $12,345,000 $6,649,681 $18,994,681 2016 $12,705,000 $6,073,406 $18,778,406 2017 $13,215,000 $5,453,825 $18,668,825 2018 $13,575,000 $4,814,425 $18,389,425 2019 $14,065,000 $4,163,450 $18,228,450 2020 $14,735,000 $3,494,188 $18,229,188 2021 $12,065,000 $2,869,978 $14,934,978 2022 $10,450,000 $2,327,950 $12,777,950 2023 $7,430,000 $1,896,672 $9,326,672 2024 $6,745,000 $1,566,528 $8,311,528 2025 $7,070,000 $1,254,084 $8,324,084 2026 $4,945,000 $995,950 $5,940,950 2027 $5,160,000 $789,609 $5,949,609 2028 $4,635,000 $583,319 $5,218,319 2029 $4,535,000 $383,513 $4,918,513 2030 $4,750,000 $181,497 $4,931,497 2031 $905,000 $55,525 $960,525 2032 $940,000 $16,450 $956,450 Total $174,179,019 $58,628,742 $232,807,762 Net Present Value, Total Debt Service $195,793,420 —Total Outstanding Principal - $174,179,019 Real Interest Cost $21,614,401 Ratio of Real Interest Cost to Principal Amount 0.124 Source: Utility revenue bond debt service payments from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, February 13, 2013; net present value based on 2.48% discount rate, which is the average annual inflation rate over the last ten years (2002 -2012) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, All Urban Customers, U.S., All Items, 1982 - 1984 =100. t :iiity of Deritiixin, iii ; IPIIBIIC R18YIIIEN DRAFIP 2013 -2023 Capital Improvements Plan 37 t ^f r�,�r: °uu0"an iM411iL�7 4055 Wernedo al Mza, Suke 200 a Fort Wowt , Texas 75109 a 617 -735 -7300 a fox 817 - 735.7491 "'J °Om Tim Fisher, P.E., City of Denton Joel Nickerson, City of Denton FROM- Scott Cole, P.E., Freese and Nichols, Inc. Stephanie Neises, P.E., Freese and Nichols, Inc. S 18C°'Tw Water Impact Fee Utilization Calculations DATE: August 19, 2013, " PROJECT: Water Impact Fee Assistance FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F -7144 The City of Denton contracted with Freese and Nichols, Inc. to update the Water Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The City provided updated land use assumptions and the current hydraulic model to be used for the Impact fee analysis. Projects included in the Impact Fee CIP consist of Improvements Identified in the 10 -year CIP as well as existing infrastructure with excess capacity. The Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan is shown on Figure 1. The portion of each project associated with growth that will be utilized within the 10 -year timeframe is Impact fee eligible. Utilization percentages were calculated by evaluating the existing capacity and future capacity of each project. The hydraulic model was used as a tool to determine the utilization of the pipeline improvements. For the recently constructed projects, the 2013 percent utilized was calculated by dividing the flow observed In the existing system model runs by the ultimate capacity of the pipe. The ultimate capacity of a pipe was assumed to be the capacity calculated in the 2032 system analysis as part of the 2008 Water Distribution System Master Plan. The 2013 utilization for proposed projects indicates the portion of the project that will be used to address deficiencies in the existing system or improvements that serve existing customers. The 2023 utilization percentages were calculated by taking the flow observed in the 10 -year model runs and dividing it by the ultimate capacity of the pipe. 1 4 � pv 4d ✓ 11 :48,711R.1111ells .,.. „,. 7r Lake Rey Roberts c4ilwwwP $153,308,163 p " r Water YX'aR�unnlrvp ".n. �I jl $5n 445,235 ge J, ». �r 111 r j 64" Finished W$8atd e72nlml .590.20 Lln �,� 1I 1 � y „ � ✓ �Vt CIFI ttr � � jf » LOnv eI t Loop 2SS Water Mein I I 1.0 ffi%q Northwest 6 $3208 013 ea Sherman to U T C$.70N fgMLOO 208 Water Lines �: }e va �° w""n„w""kt �, ,.... Sherman to HWV 380 JJ % $3,518 352 L, t- Cil, le urt.� ale rossing r �, 8 YB 4,704,000 o tl r PH V Yl 'q sAH - °M � w C Yt I 5 P I w s lel Lin C H... w ty f� U.S. 380 Urban Utlllly Relooetlon.... 59,552 / Rayzor Ranch Oversize Line (18 to 2 ') v ' University $1Water Line / North3outh $133,226 Llne Phase l 4 » Unlv4 R $1,352088 eExtenalon fmm i +, "r ;ti,.ierrr h $6038,001 4 e neandP m 5845751 "'� + e" I, .u� f't M ?•, "� 9i - -� $5054'000 x McKinney Water Line and PRV Mesah Branch Weler In p "y waW MEflIY„mrtwrvq Umma�dgtl N °armP Stns lleen k $987840 �n $5,360,772 F91 m^ North-South r Line Phase " - app 136W1$1,7B1,472 Llnem a � m RueirCewaY&lovatltl Stomgm Trmk p �'�„ „._.;,._4 1„ 1Jk V. m II w11 avdPo1l $8,299440 !r9 `J H e (72 $1,vM 300 py "(, w6 °" "`� lTeJkrsd,retd Vlntege Water Lln to 20 "I ! 2u 24 Flur4 ellwn yYA41r Li a n d Storage Tank o f tun- r c o k 010- ,,. 1 •^^r• pa4;, ep Elevated St "376000 9fSmltl 1 f I-36W Water LIne r/� `" $4,488,850 / µm I „1'5 1 n,ilrndY,d mle Pelne Water Line / F T $4,295,515 /f 24 ' W s "t, j D. Lines gddph Cenh5e0551, 3.7 31 5. 1l° o J P ' � l v ° 3 FS SHARDIi DR ON,a n EW OP r6 ,. 11,11 ge Line (30" o 3 $284,477 PO ,,.. � I 24” 2�, u u ¢✓dim;a4�owN».urenm M" � M � ^ �w �„ TEASLEY LN iiewen Ewa „rti Xirvrrm ' J Southwest Pump Station $5,912,002 1 " /DNORY HILL RD v' CITY OF DENTON 2013 WATER IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN LEGEND am Prdprullyd Pump slatirrn Piopsas�ad Ei'"M'vn1059 Toxlk� ' EsVxt111g N°wuenp Station �. Ground Storage Tank Existing Water Line Existing Eligible Project Elevated Storage Tank Water CCN Boundary m, a Clty Limit ® Water Treatment Plant ® ETJ r - -m x,500 SCALE IN FEET ireeee w1 Mbhab Utilization percentages for water system facilities (i.e. water treatment plants, pump stations, storage tanks) were calculated based on the recommended capacities developed as part of the 2008 Water Distribution System Master Plan for the existing and projected demands. The 2013 percentages account for existing system deficiencies or projects designed to serve existing customers while the 2023 percentages indicate the portion of the capacity that will be utilized within the 10 -year timeframe. The following provides example calculations for each type of project:. ■ Pipe (42 -inch Loop 288 Sherman to UNT) Existing Flow = 10.7 mgd 10 -year Flow = 16.5 mgd Ulimate Flow = 42.0 mgd 2013 % Utilization = 10.7 mRd = 0.255 = 25% 42.0 mgd 2023 % Utilization = 16.5 mRd = 0.393 = 40% 42.0 mgd Eligible % = 40% - 25% = 15% ■ Water Treatment Plant (Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant) Existing WTP Capacity (LLWTP) = 30.0 mgd Recently Constructed WTP Capacity (RRWTP) = 20.0 mgd Existing Maximum Day Demand = 42.2 mgd 10 -year Maximum Day Demand = 51.2 mgd 2013 % Utilization = 42.2 mRd - 30.0 mRd = 0.610 = 60% 20.0 mgd 2023 % Utilization = 51.2 med = 1.024 4 100% 30.0 mgd + 20.0 mgd Eligible % = 100% - 60% = 40% 3 ■ Pump Station (Southwest Booster Pump Station) Existing Firm Capacity = 6.05 mgd Existing Peak Hour Demand (criteria with no elevated storage) = 1.33 mgd 125% of 10 -year Maximum Day (criteria with elevated storage) = 2.03 mgd * 1.25 = 2.54 mgd 2013 % Utilization = 1.33 msd = 0.220 = 20% 6.05 mgd 2023 % Utilization = 2.54 mgd = 0.420 = 40% 6.05 mgd Eligible % = 40% - 20% = 20% ■ Storage Tank (Roselawn EST) Existing Storage Capacity (Central Pressure Plane) = 3.0 MG New Storage Capacity = 3.0 MG Existing Storage Requirement (from Master Plan) = 5.2 MG 10 -year Storage Requirement = 5.5 MG 2013 % Utilization = 5.2 MG — 3.0 MG = 0.733 = 75% 3.0 MG 2023 % Utilization = 5.5 MG — 3.0 MG = 0.833 = 85% 3.0 MG Eligible % = 85% - 75% = 10% ZONE PERCENTAGES The City divided the water service area into three zones: ■ Zone 1 — the area north of Hickory Creek and the Robson Ranch, Country Lakes, Meadows at Hickory Creek, and The Vintage developments ■ Zone 2 — the area south of Hickory Creek, with the exception of the exacted developments that are included in Zone 1 ■ Infill Zone — the area bounded to the west by Bonnie Brae Street, to the north by Windsor Drive, to the east by Old North Road, Mockingbird Lane, and Woodrow Lane, and to the south by 1 -35E and Willowwood Street After the utilization percentages were calculated, each project was evaluated to determine the zone percentages. Percentages for projects that improve the entire system equally (such as water treatment 4 plants) were calculated based on growth in population over the next 10 years. Approximately 54% of the 10 -year growth occurs in Zone 1 while 21% occurs in Zone 2 and 25% in the Infill Zone. Table 1 shows the population for each zone. The model was utilized as a tool to assign various percentages to the remaining improvements based on the hydraulic relevance to each zone. For example, the new High School Booster Pump Station provides no benefit to the customers in Zone 2 and therefore is 100% attributable to Zone 1. Similarly, projects that offer more hydraulic benefit to Zone 2 customers were given percentages higher than 21% for Zone 2. Table 2 presents the utilization percentages, as well as the zone percentages for each project. Table 1: Water Service Population by Zone Note: The populations were provided in the Land Use Assumptions report provided by the City. The Infill Zone population is from the Table 1 of Exhibit 4. The Zone 2 population is from Table 1 of Exhibit 3.The Zone 1 population was calculated based on the water service population presented in Table 1 of Exhibit C and then subtracting the population from Zone 2 and the Infill Zone. 5 Table 2: Cost Allocation for Impact Fees ENGINEERING SERVICES Memorandum To: P.S. Arora, P.E., Assistant Director of Wastewater Utilities From: James Wilder, P.E., Engineering Services Re: Wastewater Impact Fee CIP The City of Denton wastewater impact fee rates were generated from an update to the Impact Fee 10- Year Capital Improvement Plan, which in turn was generated by an update of the Wastewater Collection System hydraulic model. The update of the model included utilizing revised population projections and land use assumptions furnished by NCTCOG and the City's planning department. The model was also updated to take into account more recent wet weather flow metering data. The results of the model simulations indicated the improvements required to handle the future flows. These improvements are the basis of the Impact Fee 10 -Year Capital Improvement Plan. Exhibit 3A shows the locations for the Impact Fee projects for Zone 1. The majority of the projects are located on or adjacent to the three main interceptors located in the Cooper Creek, Pecan Creek, and Hickory Creek basins. This Is an expected result as the collection system funnels the bulk of the wastewater flow for the entire system into these interceptors. Therefore, existing capacity deficiencies and future capacity enhancement are concentrated along these interceptor routes. JAMES E. WILDER ................., 83438 (VII J13 1 Exhibit 3B shows the locations for the Impact Fee projects for Zone 2. These projects address future planned growth in the Clear Creek Basin. Table 1 is a summary of the Impact Fee projects by cost and zone. Costs are presented for the project total as well as the portion attributable to growth during the 2013 -2023 time frame. The cost impact of Infill Zone growth has also been taken into account for those projects impacted by growth In that zone. The deficiency cost is the portion of the project cost attributable to bringing capacity up to meet existing conditions; it is an indirect way to determine how "deficient" the existing facility is to handle existing peak flows. Zone delineation for each project was straightforward as the project location determined whether they were in Zone 1 or Zone 2. The Infill Zone percentage was determined for each project by comparing the base flow from the Infill Zone to the total base flow for the project location. 4 Table 1 Wastewater Growth Costs by Service Area, 2013 -2023 5 Zone 1 -2 Infill Infill Zone Total Cost Zone 1 -2 Attributable Zone Attributable Deficiency Pro ect Name (2013$) Percent Cost Percent Cost Cost Pecan Creek WRP (15 mgd) $39,528,174 0.0% $0 30.6% Pecan Creek WRP 6 mgd expansion $30,005,125 38.0% $11,401,948 30,6% $3,488,996 $0 S Wet Weather Lift Station /Detention Pond $1,552,898 10.0% $155,290 0% $0 $0 Cooper Creek Outfall (Loop 288) $3,898,807 1.2% $46,786 0% $0 $0 Krum Sewer Line $398,450 27.7% $110,371 0% $0 $0 Graveyard Branch Interceptor $5,004,952 2.0% $100,099 0% $0 $0 Pecan Creek Interceptor (Ph 1 & 2) $3,363,189 6.2% $208,518 55% $114,685 $0 Pecan Creek Interceptor 1 $1,975,672 7.7% $152,127 91% $138,436 $0 Roark Branch Interceptor $854,774 52.6% $449,611 0% $0 $0 State School Interceptor 1 $1,660,869 2.8% $46,504 0% $0 $0 Existln im rovements Subtotal„ Zone 1 9 p $88,22 „910 12,871,254 $3,742,117..... Carroll Ave Interceptor $472,799 21.7% $102,597 100.0% $102,597 $48,225 Cooper Creek Interceptor 1 $608,498 18.4% $111,964 0.0% $0 $403,434 Cooper Creek Interceptor II $1,293,395 12.4% $160,381 0.0% $0 $906,670 Cooper Creek Interceptor III $1,239,878 6.5% $80,592 0.0% $0 $645,976 Cooper Creek Interceptor IV $249,528 55.8% $139,237 0.0% $0 $0 Cooper Creek Lift Station /Detention Pond $1,543,050 38.7% $597,160 0.0% $0 $0 Dry Fork Hickory CrkTrib. 1 Interceptor $2,294,968 15.0% $344,245 0.0% $0 $1,900,234 Elm Street Sewer Replacements $204,515 6.8% $13,907 100.0% $13,907 $16,770 Hickory Creek Interceptor 1 $4,494,098 32.0% $1,438,111 0.0% $0 $1,379,688 Hickory Creek Interceptor II $6,497,359 41.6% $2,702,901 0.0% $0 $2,176,615 Hickory Creek Interceptor III $7,247,205 49.5% $3,587,366 0.0% $0 $3,225,006 Hickory Creek Interceptor IV $2,361,574 32.4% $765,150 0.0% $0 $852,528 Hickory Creek Lift Station /Detention Pond $8,293,840 69.6% $5,772,513 0.0% $0 $0 Hickory Creek Outfall $466,857 1.2% $5,602 0.0% $0 $12,605 Pecan Creek Interceptor 11 $3,114,198 11.3% $351,904 80.0% $281,523 $1,625,611 Pecan Creek Interceptor III $1,899,937 7.8% $148,195 77.0% $114,110 $1,751,742 Pecan Creek Interceptor IV $1,436,302 12.9% $185,283 53.0% $98,200 $683,680 Pecan Creek Interceptor V $3,124,089 3.7% $115,591 55.0% $63,575 $3,008,498 State School Interceptor II $4,551,156 1.9% $86,472 0.0% $0 $919,334 US 380 Utility Relocations $1,378,425 22.5% $310,146 26.0% $80,638 $1,068,279 West Peak Flow Lift Station/ Det. Pond $3,848,360 58.2% $2,238,582 55.0% $1,231,220 $0 Westgate Heights Interceptor $405,713 29.0% $117,657 0.0% $0 $288,056 Woodhaven Interceptor $256,016 11.4% $29,186 100.0% � $29,186 $0 Proposed improvements Subtotal, Zone 'I $57,279,760 $19,404,742 10.41° $2,014,956 $20,9'12,9 '1 Zone 1 Total $145,522,670 ---' $32,075,986 1 7.9% $5,757,073 $20,912,951 Clear Creek Interceptor $8,496,199 11.3% $960,070 0.0% $0 $0 Clear Creek WRP $20,482,310 16.7% $3,420,546 0.0% $0 $0 "one 2 Proposed Improvements Totals $211,978,508 $4 „380,616 $0 0 5 *:1:11 :119 LAND USE AND SERVICE UNIT /SFE EQUIVALENCIES WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES METER TYPE METER SIZE TYPICAL LAND USE Single Family Equivalents (SFE) Residential - Single Family Positive Displacement 3/4" (less than 1,300 sa. ft. /lot size less than 6,000 sq. 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 Displacement 2' Commercial 8.0 Single Jet Spectrum 175/3" Commercial / Industrial 17.5 Compound 3" Commercial / Industrial 22.5 Sinele Jet Spectrum 260/3 " /4" Commercial/ Industrial 26.0 Single Jet Spectrum 440/4 " /6" Commercial / Industrial 44.0 Compound 41' Commercial / Industrial 50.0 Source: City of Denton Approved Meter Manufacturer's Specifications NOTE: The total service units for multi - family apartment projects with eight or more units shall be determined by multiplying the total number of bedrooms in the multi - family apartment project by 0.26 Single Family Equivalents (SFEs).