2004-183FILE REFERENCE FORM 2004-183
X Additional File Exists
Additional File Contains Records Not Public, According to the Public Records Act
Other
FILES Date Initials
Amended by Ordinance No. 2008-156 07/15/08 JR
ORDINANCE NO. 2004-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS UPDATING IMPACT FEES BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 26, "UTILITIES," SECTION 26-210 THROUGH 26-232 OF THE
CITY OF DENTON CODE OF ORDINANCES; ADOPTING REVISED LAND USE
ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS FOR WATER AND
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING NEW SERVICE AREAS FOR
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES; ESTABLISHING NEW MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES PER
SERVICE UNIT AND IMPACT FEES TO BE COLLECTED; CREATING SCHEDULES FOR
THE ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES; AMENDING THE
DEFINITION OF "NEW DEVELOPMENT" CONTAINED IN SECTION 26-213(9); ADDING
THE DEFINITION OF "UTILITY CONNECTION" TO SECTION 26-213(14); ADDING
CLARIFYING LANGUAGE TO SECTION 26-221 (a) AND (h); ADDING SECTION 26-221 (i)
WHICH CLARIFIES THE POWERS OF THE DIRECTOR RESPECTING THE
ENFORCEMENT, ASSESSMENT, COMPUTATION OR COLLECTION OF IMPACT FEES;
REVISING PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTERING IMPACT FEES; REPEALING
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $2,000 FOR EACH
VIOLATION THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395 authorizes a city to adopt and
to amend impact fees for the purpose of financing capital improvements required by new
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas initially enacted water and
wastewater impact fees in accordance with Ordinance No. 98-301, dated on the 15th day of
September, 1998; and it is now appropriate and lawfully required that the City once again
address the issues of Land Use Assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan, as well as the
subject of Amended Water and Wastewater Impact Fees;
WHEREAS, the City Council in accordance with law desires to update its impact fee
program by amending land use assumptions, service areas, capital improvements plans and
impact fees for water and wastewater facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has duly appointed an Impact
Fee Advisory Committee by ordinance; has received written comments from such Committee;
and has adopted Land Use Assumptions and a Capital Improvements Plan for amended water
and wastewater impact fees all in accordance with the requirements of Texas Local Government
Code, Chapter 395; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has also received the
recommendation of the Denton Public Utilities Board, an advisory committee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, having complied with all
applicable substantive and procedural requirements of Texas Local Government Code, Chapter
395, finds it necessary and appropriate to establish amended water and amended wastewater
impact fees to pay the costs of certain capital improvements for new development; and the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas further finds and concludes it is necessary and appropriate
to make the administrative amendments to the two defirdtions contained herein in Sections 26-
213(9) and (14); the addition of clarifying language to Section 26-221(a) and (h); and the
addition of clarifying provisions contained in Section 26-221(i); in order to clearly express its
intentions respecting the administration and collection of impact fees, to the amended impact fee
Ordinance No. 2003-137 enacted on May 13, 2003, and effective as of May 29, 2003; NOW
THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That the facts, circumstances, and recitations contained in the preambles to
this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the Land Use Assumptions for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as if fully set forth.
SECTION 3. That the Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact
Fees hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as if fully set forth.
SECTION 4. That Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas,
entitled "Utilities," is hereby amended, which shall read as follows:
CHAPTER 26: UTILITIES
ARTICLE VI. IMPACT FEES
Sec. 26-210. Short Title.
This Article shall be known and cited as the "Denton Impact Fee Ordinance."
See. 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 facilities; or wastewater
treatment facilities that have a life expectancy of three (3) or more years, and are owned and
operated by or on behalf of the City.
(4) Director means the Director of Water Utilities for the City of Denton, or his or her
designee.
(5) Facility expansion means the expansion of the capacity of any existing facility for the
purpose of serving new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance,
modernization or expansion of an existing facility to serve existing development.
(6.) Impact fee capital improvements plan means the adopted plan for a service area, as may
be amended from time to time, which identifies the water facilities or wastewater facilities and
their associated costs which are necessitated by and which are attributable to new development,
for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part
through the imposition of water or wastewater impact fees pursuant to this Chapter 26, Article
VI.
(7.) Infill development means a single-family residence of less than 1,300 square feet on a lot
of less than 6,000 square feet.
(8) Land use assumptions means the projections of population and employment growth and
associated changes in land uses, densities and intensities for a service area adopted by the City,
as may be amended from time to time, upon which the impact fee capital improvements plan for
3
the service area is based.
(9) New development means an activity involving the construction, reconstruction,
redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure, or
any use or extension of land, which has the effect of increasing water or wastewater demand,
measured by an increase in the number of the service units utilizing the City's water or
wastewater system that are attributable to such activity, and which requires either the approval
and filing of a plat, or a re-plat pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations, or the issuance of a
building permit, or a utility connection.
(10) Service area means a geographic area within the City or within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, within which impact fees for water or wastewater facilities may be collected for new
development occurring within such area and within which fees so collected will be expended for
those types of improvements identified in the type of capital improvements plan apphcable 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 trait shall constitute the basis
for establishing equivalency within various customer classes based upon the relationship of the
continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a water meter of a given size and
type compared to the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a 3/4-inch
diameter simple water meter.
(12) Single-family equivalency ("SFE") means an equivalency factor, based on the demand
associated with the smallest water meter used in the City of Denton, Texas utility system. SFE's
are utilized to establish the number of service units to be allocated to various meter sizes used in
the City of Denton, Texas utility system.
(13) Site-related facility means an improvement or facility which is for the primary use or
benefit of a new development and/or which is the for the primary propose of safe and adequate
provision of water and wastewater facilities to serve the new development and which is not
included in the impact fee capital improvements plan and for which the developer or property
owner is solely responsible under subdivision and other applicable regulations.
(14) Utility connection means connection of an individual meter to the City's water or
wastewater system, or an increase in the size of an existing meter.
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 shall be issued nntil the applicant has paid the impact fee imposed herein.
4
Sec. 26-215. Land use assumptions.
(a)
Said land use assumptions for the City shall be updated at least every five (5) years
utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter
395.
Co)
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 (I0) year
period.
Sec. 26-216. Water impact fee service area.
There is hereby established an amended water impact fee service area, to include all land within
the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, as depicted in Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.
Sec. 26-217. Wastewater impact fee service areas.
There are hereby established two (2) wastewater impact fee service areas, the boundaries of
which are respectively described in Exhibits D and E, which are attached hereto and incorporated
by reference herein as if fully set forth.
See. 26-218. Determination of service units.
The number of service units for both water or wastewater impact fees shall be determined by
using the land equivalency table, which converts the demands for water or wastewater
improvements generated by typical land uses to water meter size, and which is attached hereto as
Exhibit F and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.
Sec. 26-219. Impact fees per service unit.
(a)
Maximum impact fees per service unit for each service area shall be established by
category of capital improvements. The maximum impact fee per service unit for each
service area for each category of capital improvement shall be computed in the following
manner:
(1)
For each category of capital improvements, calculate the total projected costs of
capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to new development in the
service area identified in the impact fee capital improvements plan;
(2)
From such amount, subtract a credit in the amount of that portion of utility service
revenues, if any, including the payment of debt, to be generated by new service
5
units during the period the capital improvements plan is in effect, including the
payment of debt, associated with the capital improvements in the plan;
(3)
Divide the resultant amount by the total number of service units anticipated within
the service area, based upon the land use assumptions for that service area.
(b) The maximum impact fee per service unit for water or wastewater facilities by service
area shall be as set forth in Schedule 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as if fully set forth. Schedule 1 shall be used to assess impact fees. Schedule 1 may be
amended from time to time utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Section 26-228.
(c) The impact fee per service unit which is to be paid by each new development within a
service area shall be as set forth in Schedule 2, which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth, and shall be an amount less than or equal to the maximum impact
fee per service unit established in Schedule 1. Schedule 2 may be amended from time to time
utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Section 26-228.
See. 26-220. Assessment of impact fees.
(a) Assessment of impact fees for any new development shall be made as follows:
(1)
For land which is unplatted at the time of application for a building permit or
utility connection, or for a new development which received final plat approval
prior to the effective date of this Article, and for which no re-platting is necessary
pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations prior to development, assessment of
impact fees shall occur at the time application is made for the building permit or
utility connection, whichever first occurs, and shall be the amount of the
maximum impact fee per service unit in effect, as set forth in Schedule I.
(2)
For a new development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the City's
subdivision, regulations on or after the effective date of this Article, or for which
re-platting results in an increase in the number of service units after such date,
assessment of impact fees shall be at the time of final plat recordation, and shall
be the amount of the maximum impact fee per service unit in effect as set forth in
Schedule 1.
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
fmal 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).
6
(d)
An application for an amending plat made pursuant to Texas Local Government Code
§212.016 V.T.C.A. and the City of Denton Subdivision Ordinance, and for which no new
development is proposed, is not subject to reassessment for an impact fee.
Sec. 26-221. Computation of impact fees.
(a)
Following the filing and acceptance of a written application for building permit or utility
connection, the City shall compute the impact fee due in the following manner:
(1)
The number of service units shall be determined by the size of the water meter
purchased using the land equivalency table incorporated as Exhibit F, or by
evaluation of the Director as provided in Section 26-218 or this section;
(2) Service units shall be summed for all meters purchased for the development;
(3)
The total number of service units shall be multiplied by the impact fee per service
nnit for water or wastewater service facilities using Schedule I then in effect as
established in Section 26-219;
(4)
The amount of each impact fee shall be reduced by any allowable offsets or
credits for that category of capital improvements, in the manner provided in
Section 26-223.
(b)
The amount of impact fee due for new development shall not exceed the amount
computed by multiplying the assessed fee for water or wastewater service by the total
number of service units generated by the development. The amount of impact fee due for
redevelopment shall not exceed the amount computed by multiplying the assessed fee for
water or wastewater service by the net increase in service units generated by the
redevelopment.
(c)
The developer may submit or the Director may require the submission of a study,
prepared by a professional engineer, licensed in the State of Texas, clearly indicating the
number of water and/or wastewater service units which will be consumed or generated by
the new development. The Director will review the information for completeness and
conformity with generally accepted engineering practices and will, when satisfied with
the completeness and conformity of the study, multiply the number of service units
determined by the study times the impact fee per service unit contained in Section 26-219
above to determine the total impact fee to be collected for the development. The Director
may also use recent historical water billing records for existing customers to determine
water demands and SFE equivalents in accordance with data from the most recent Capital
Improvements Plan.
(d)
Whenever the property owner increases the number of service units for a development,
the additional impact fees collected for such new service units shall be determined based
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
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.
In the event the property owner decreases the number of service units for a development,
the property owner shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fee for impact fees actually
paid, but only for the mounts 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.
If the building permit for the property on which an impact fee is paid has expired and a
new application is thereafter filed for the identical property and the number of service
units, the impact fee previously paid satisfies the requirements of this Article.
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.
No building permit or utility connection shall be issued if the applicant cannot verify
payment of the appropriate impact fee and other applicable fees or if existing facilities do
not have actual capacity to provide service to the new connection(s).
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.
Except as otherwise provided by contracts with political subdivisions, developer's
contracts, or wholesale customers, no building permit shall be issued until all impact fees
have been paid to the City.
(c)
The City may enter into an agreement for capital improvements with a property owner
pursuant to Section 26-229 that establishes a different time and manner of payment.
(d)
The owner of an existing single-family homestead housing unit, actually occupying said
homestead, may make payments of any water or wastewater impact fee required by the
Article in monthly installments over a period of not more than five (5) years f~om the
date payment of the fee is otherwise required by this Article. The owner of said
homestead must execute a promissory note, deed of trust, homestead affidavit, or other
documents to be prepared by the City Attorney sufficient to establish an enforceable lien
on the real property. All such installment payments shall be subject to interest at a rate
8
(e)
(g)
equal to a twelve-month average of the 5-year Treasury Note. The interest rate on such
note shall be adjusted annually, according to the most current twelve-month average.
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 fi'om 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.
Schedule 1 sets the assessment rate and establishes maximum impact fees as set forth in
subparagraphs (1) and (2) below:
(1) For a new development for which fmal plat recordation occurred on or after
September 15, 1998, but before May 29, 2003, the maximum impact fee per service unit
shall be $2,044 for the water service area, and $483 for the Zone 1 wastewater service
area.
(2) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred prior to
September 15, 1998, on or after May 29, 2003, or for any new development which is not
subject to paragraph (1), the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be as follows:
$3,155 for the water service area; $1,703 for the Zone 1 wastewater service area; and
$2,614 for the Zone 2 wastewater service area.
Schedule 2 sets the collection rate for impact fees as set forth in subparagraphs (1) and
(2) below:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), impact fees shall be collected and paid as
follows:
Water Service Area:
$3,155 per service unit
Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1): $1,437 per service unit (from May 29, 2003 tmtil
May 28, 2006)
$1,570 per service unit (from May 29, 2006 until
May 28, 2008)
$1,703 per service trait (fi'om May 29, 2008 until
May 28, 2013)
Wastewater Service Area (Zone 2): $1,437 per service unit (from May 29, 2003 until
May 28, 2006)
$1,893 per service trait (from May 29, 2006 until
May 28, 2008)
9
$2,614 per service units (from May 29, 2008 until
May 28, 2013)
Provided, however, Wastewater Service Area Impact Fees for Zone 1, for Single-Family
Residences of less than 1,300 square feet, that are located on lots of less than 6,000 square feet,
shall instead be charged, and the City shall collect a Wastewater Service Area Impact fee of 50%
of the adopted Wastewater Service Area Impact Fee for Zone I.
(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
Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1)
$2,044 per service unit
$483 per service unit
(a)
(e)
Sec. 26-223. Offsets and credits.
The City shall offset the reasonable value of any area-related facilities, identified in the
impact fee capital improvements plan and constructed pursuant to an agreement with the
City, except as otherwise provided therein, which are dedicated to and received by the
City on or after the effective date of this ordinance, against the amount of the impact fee
due for that category of capital improvement. No offsets or credits shall be provided for
required over-sizing of water and wastewater lines or lift stations not identified in the
capital improvements plan or for pro-rata payments to repay other developers for such
over-sizing pursuant to Chapter 35-Development Code; and Subchapter 21-Water &
Wastewater Standards.
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.
All offsets and credits against impact fees shall be subject to the following limitations and
shall be granted based on this Article and additional standards promulgated by the City,
which may be adopted as administrative guidelines.
(1)
No offset or credit shall be given for the dedication or construction of site-related
facilities.
(2)
No offset or credit shall exceed the impact fee to be collected from new
development as established in Section 26-219.
(3)
The unit costs used to calculate the offsets shall not exceed those assumed for the
capital improvements included in the impact fee capital improvements plan for
the category of facility within the service area for which the impact fee is
imposed.
10
(d)
(4)
If an offset or credit applicable to a plat has not been exhausted within ten (10)
years from the date of the acquisition of the first building permit issued or
connection made after the effective date of this Article or within such period as
may be otherwise designated by agreement for capital improvements pursuant to
Section 26-229, such offset or credit shall lapse.
(5)
In no event will the City reimburse the property owner or developer for an offset
or credit when no impact fees for the new development can be collected pursuant
to this Article or for any amount exceeding the total impact fees collected or due
for the development for that category of capital improvement, unless otherwise
agreed to by the City.
(6)
No offset shall exceed an amount equal to the eligible costs of the improvement
multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the impact fee per service unit
due for the new development as computed using Schedule 2 and the denominator
of which is the maximum impact fee per service unit for the new development as
computed using Schedule 1.
(7)
Offsets or credits for area-related facilities dedicated to and accepted by the City
for a development prior to the effective date of this Article shall be prorated
among the total number of service units within such development and reduced by
an amount equivalent to the number of existing service units within such
development and shall be further reduced by the amount of any participation
funds received t~om 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 roles 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.
Unless an agreement for capital improvements is executed providing for a different
manner of offsetting or crediting impact fees due pursuant to Section 26-229, an offset or
credit associated with a plat shall be applied to reduce an impact fee at the time of
application for the first building permit or at the time of application for the first utility
connection for the property, in the case of land located within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, and, thereafter, to reduce impact fees subsequently to be collected, until the
offset or credit is exhausted.
11
Sec. 26-224. Establishment of accounts.
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.
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 can'y 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 fi.om the date the fee is deposited into the
account.
(d)
The City's Department of Finance shall maintain and keep adequate financial records for
each such account, which shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, which
shall account for all monies received, the number of service units for which the monies
are received, and which shall ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account
shall be used solely and exclusively for the provision of projects specified in the impact
fee capital improvements plan as area-related capital projects. The City's Department of
Finance shall also maintain such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are
appropriately made in accordance with this Article. The records of the account into
which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and copying during
ordinary business hours. The City may establish a fee for copying services.
Sec. 26-225. Use of proceeds of impact fee accounts.
(a)
The impact fee collected pursuant to this Article may be used to finance or to recoup
capital construction costs for water and wastewater facilities identified in the impact fee
capital improvements plan and for any purpose authorized in Texas Local Government
Code, Chapter 395, V.T.C.A. as amended. Impact fees may also be used to pay the
principal stun and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other obligations
issued by or on behalf of the City to finance such capital improvements or facilities
expansions.
(b)
Impact fees collected pursuant to this Article shall not be used to pay for any of the
following expenses:
(1)
Construction, acquisition, or expansion of capital improvements or assets other
than those identified for the water and wastewater utility in the impact fee capital
improvements plan;
12
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or
facilities expansions;
Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve
existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or
regulatory standards;
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
Administrative and operating costs of the City.
See. 26-226. Appeals.
(a)
The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the following
decisions to the City Council: (a) the applicability of an impact fee to the new
development; CO) 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.
Co)
The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the amount of the fee or
the amount of the offset, credit or rebate was not calculated according to the provisions of
this Article.
(c)
The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the City Secretary within thirty (30) days
following the determination of the amount of the impact fees to be paid by the
development. If the notice of appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety
satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount equal to the original determination of the
impact fee due, the development application may be processed while the appeal is
pending.
See. 26-227. Refunds.
(a)
Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Article which has not been
expended within ten (10) years fxom the date of payment, shall be refunded, upon
application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid, or, if the
impact fee was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity,
together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the
statutory rate as set forth in Vemon's Ann. Civil Statutes, Title 79, Art. 1C.002, or any
successor statute.
13
(b) Upon the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the
City shall refund such fees iff
(c)
(d)
(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.
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 trait differential of the two (2)
meter sizes and the fee per service unit at the time of the original fee payment.
A petition for refund under this section shall be submitted to the Director on a form
provided by the City for such purpose. Within one (1) month of the date of receipt of a
petition for refund, the Director must provide the petitioner, in writing, with a decision on
the refund request, including the reasons for the decision. If a refund is due to the
petitioner, the Director shall notify the Assistant City Manager of Finance and request
that a refund payment be made to the petitioner.
Sec. 26-228. Update of plan and revision of fees.
(a)
The City shall update its land use assumptions and capital improvements plans at least
every five (5) years, commencing from the date of adoption of such plans, and shall
recalculate the impact fees based thereon in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395, or in any successor statute.
Co)
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 trader Schedule 1.
(c)
If, at the time an update is required pursuant to Subsection (a), the City Council
determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan or
impact fee is needed, it may dispense with such update by following the procedures in
14
(d)
Texas Local Government Code, Section 395.0575.
The City may amend by resolution the land use equivalency table (Exhibit F) at any time
prior to the update provided for in Subsection (a), provided that the number of service
units associated with a particular land use shall not be increased.
Sec. 26-229. Agreement for capital improvements.
An owner of a new development may construct or finance a capital improvement or facility
expansion designated in the impact fee capital improvements plan, if required or authorized by
the City, by entering into an agreement with the City prior to the issuance of any building permit
for the development. The agreement shall be on a form approved by the City and shall identify
the estimated cost of the improvement or expansion, the schedule for initiation and completion of
the improvement or expansion, a requirement that the improvement be designed and completed
to City standards and such other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the City. The
agreement shall provide for the method to be used to determine the amount of the offset to be
given against the impact fees due for the development or any reimbursement to the owner for
construction of the facility.
Sec. 26-230. Use of other financing mechanisms.
(a)
In addition to the use of impact fees, the City may finance water and wastewater capital
improvements or facilities expansions designated in the impact fee capital improvements
plan through the issuance of bonds, through the formation of public improvements
districts or other assessment districts, or through any other authorized mechanism, in such
manner and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
(b)
Except as otherwise provided herein, the assessment and collection of a impact fee shall
be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or
assessment which is lawfully imposed on and due aga'mst 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 ord'mance, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
See. 26-232. Reserved.
15
SECTION 4. That any person violating any provision of this Ordinance shall, upon
conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000. Each day that a provision of this Ordinance is
violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION 5. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or
word in this Ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it
would have enacted such remaining portions, despite any such invalidity.
SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall repeal any conflicting ordinances and resolutions
to the contrary; it being the intention of the City Council to fully amend all provisions of Chapter
26 of the City of Denton, Texas Code of Ordinances dealing with Impact Fees.
SECTION 7. That this Ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the
date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this
Ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in
the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the~day of ~,~/,~, 2004.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
16
EXHIBIT "A" - Land Use Assumptions for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
EXHIBIT "B" - Capital Improvements Plans for Water and Wastewater Impact
Fees
EXHIBIT "C" - Amended Water Impact Fee Service Area
EXHIBIT "D" - Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area- Zone 1
EXHIBIT "E" - Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area- Zone 2
EXHIBIT "F" - Land Equivalency Table
S:\Our Documents\Ordinanccs\04~Amendment to 2003 Denton Amended Impact Fee CTd-Draft #3-071304.doc
17
2003-2013
C~PETA£ IMPROVEMENTS PLAH
FORWATERAHD WASTESA~ATER [MPACT FEES
E)ENTON,. TEXAS
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..........
Leg~ P,~-~work ..........
Gzow t~ Context ......................
T,~'.~ U~¢ ~,~m~.oB .................
Sc~ice U~im .....................
Sc~ic~ Unit~ .........................
D~m.~a Pmj~ions ...................
Water Tzc~tm~nt ......................
Wo*. S~pl~ .......
Cost per Setwir. e Unk ..................
N~t Cost pc Sereicc Un/t ...............
Net Coa Sckxhl~ .....................
Sezvic~ Unim .......................
T~ca~t l~m~ ............................ ...
I~ Smtkms ~n~ Force A&';m .................
Co~: pe~ Setvk: Unit ...........................
Net Cost l~ Se~wice U~it ........................
Net Cost S~,~e ........................... ...
LEST OF TABLES
T, ble 5:
Tahk 6:
T*hI~ 7:
T~' 10:.
T~ 11:
T;~ 12:
Tuh~ 13:
T*~,)~' 14:
Table 15:
T~/~le 16:
POPULkTION GROwIH. 1970-2002 .................................. 2
N~I'~ 'RQUIVA T,~NC~ FACTOI~S .................................. 6
WA~S~~I~ ~ .. . .. . .... 7
WA~S~~S 200~2013 ...... · · .... . 8
A~GE D~Y W~i'~ PRODU~ON. 198~2001 .................. 9
P~ D~Y WA~ D~ 198~2~1 ................. 9
A~GE~ ~T~ WA~D~, ~3-~13 ......... 10
~T.TG~ P~NT O~ ~Y ~OB~ ~T COST ............... 11
~.tG~ P~T OF ~ ~Y ROBES COST ................ 12
~ ~Y ROBEKTS CO~ .. . I2
WA'I~ COST P~ ~ ~, ~2013 ........................
W~D~TS~~IT. .. ...... . . 14
WA~ ~T COST t'~ S~ ~T . 15
WA~R ~ COST SC~ ..... 16
CO~~ WA~ ~S ............. 16
W/~'TEWA~ S~,RVICE UNITS, 2002 ...............................
PF.~R CAPITA wAST~WATN, R DEMAlqD ........................ .....
AV///IL&G~. DEMAND P~K SERV'ICE UNIT .......................... 20
W~'~wA~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 200~2013 ........ 21
W~i~WA~ SER~ ~, o~.~ ~ 2003-2013 ............ 21
W~~ D~ ~ SER~ ~ S~Y, ~2013 ..
~~ P~T D~D ~D ~A~, 2003 .............. .
W~'l~w~ ~ COS~, ~O~Y ~ ~13
W~l'~wA~ COST ~S~ ~, ~03-~3 .................
W~W~I'~D~T S~ ~ ............................
W~WA~ ~T COST P~ SER~ ~T ...................... 27
W~WA~ ~ C~T SC~ ............................ . 27
~~ W~A~ ~, 2~5-~13 ............... 2B
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
~ City o£ De~o~ ~lop~A ~ --,~ ~te~at~ im?~et £e~s i~ 1998J Th~ eu=eat fee~ o-ly cov~
cost of c.-~li~ed f~ilifies. ~n~l ~duc~e llne costs.
LEGAL I:RA~SWORR
~mi. sc: ~ i~ Teras mus~ bc developed in ~ccora.-~e ~ith Chapter 395 of tke T,~. Loc~l
C-owm~ent Coc~, The st~t~ hw ~ out very speeLfic :eq~ts for the technical dev~1opme~
ofthcsc ~ ss well is the precedings nec~sss~y fo: ~amcnt of such i:e pmgrsms.
T~e Te~s legisl~u~ m2de some sig~a,~-t ~e.:lme~ ~o ~.p~ 395 ~ ~013 ~ ~
~ is co~d b~ed on ~,~1 costa ~d ~ o~h.~ f~ ze~ E ~e ~d fees
ex~&ed the fees beinff ch~xi by mom ~'~.n t:~ perceat was ~limi..~d. ~.dly, the number of
~-viscdimpac~ fccs I~sed on ~ studywilt ~t ap~ m bis ~ ~ ~ &e s~ ~
~ phce. ~.~ 395 ~s ~t ~e ~ fee s~ed~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e ~e l ~t ~ pl~ is
~s ~ "~scs~" ~sessm~ m~ ~ at ~e ~e ofp~t z~i.~ ~, ~r pmp~
~y ph~d ~ not ~d ~ ~ ph~ at ~e ~ of ~pm~t app~ ~ ~,fld;ng ~g
~ ~r ~e d~dopm~
10r~-.-~c 98-~01, adop',:~ on Sep~bet 15.1998, w'~ b.aa~:l on
~ P&~ ./ar l~mr ~d tlra. c~ar ~ P~, ~Y 1
2 $~.~. Bill 247 w~ ai~ by the ~ on hrmy 26~ 2001 ~xt bec.~me eff~c~.'~ on ~.pt~nb~ it, 200t
DEN~rON, TEXA~2003-2013 Capital Improvements ~nn F~bru~ry 17, 2003, Page
GROWTH COHTERT
Table 1
POPULA'rZON GROWTH, I970-2002
cry of Dentan
D~nt~n
Stare of
Texas
2000-02 6.1%
Texas Slate Data Center (grow~ rates are compounded).
1.8%
Pi~ur~ 1
The ?m?os~ o£ ~ ~ Usc
A doc~m,~'tt meefir~g*-he ~.bove xequit'eme~.ts 'was comtiet:ed by Cky p~.nnin~ ~in December 2002.
~x'cpo~:co~., 2003-201~ pzojectious fo~:popula.fion, dw~lllngunks,nonteside~*i,I squa.te foot:age,
DENTON, TEX~kS%200:~-2013 Capita[ Improvements Plan Februa~ 17, 2003, Page 2
SEK¥1CE AREAS
395 lays clow~ s numbe~ o £mxtuLmmeaats rega~i,g service a~as. The r ~d U~s~p~s
~fion o~ ~I ~prov~n~ ~fl ms~ for e~ s~ ~ b~ed on ~ app~fl ~ ~-~
~e s~e ~e~
~ Texis imtm~ fee embling acg hx Sec. 395.00~(9),
pla~ .... The ~ai~e amsJ~r ~)e2~m'2~s ~tfil; chq~r~ faa2/in~vde all orpar~ ~ tbe laml ~i&'~
'The. CLry l:m eoxmklem, ble discretion in ehe cle~ign~fi_on of service a~eas ~i. i~ ju~efiom Aa a
geaemI nde, the ~eme~ dae namb= o~ service roms, ~he bevcer, si,~e ~fi~ rnllected from a s emdce ~tea
xesefict flae flexfl~aity o£spmdlng knpaet fee zevemue~ *-,~ m~y make it 8~¢u1~ accumulate mfffieient
C~,x4~ in some service ax'ea$ ~.thin the five ye~s dlowefl by h~r to spend them. I~.e st:ate statute
spe~ffcal~ auflao,Azes %ystemwide" hn~l gse assumptions C~rwat~ and was~tm' fitcilitics.
'~e servi~e a~eas a~e req~ed to be deli.~d itt ~e T~-d Use ~s~pfi~. ~ ~ Use
~ C~ ~7 ~ as a ~ s~ce ~ otit ~y be ~ ~o two or ~e se~ce
~. ~e ~U C~ ~,~ bas~ ~ ~ F~ 3, ~ ~e ~ Cr~ ~i..~ ba~ ~
This x'epo~t w~ calcula~ wastewat= fees under three scnfice a~ea options:
e~enmlmssing ~e Pecan Cnm.3& l~vl~oty Ca~ek and Cl~v Creek b~4n~; (2) cwo set'vice at'eas:
Peom/Hieko~ ami Clea~ C~e.k; mad (3) three service a~as: Pecan Creek, I4'icl~o~ Creek
I~NTON~TEXA$~20D3-2013 C~plt~l ImprDvem~nts Plan Febr~aw 17, 2003, P~a 3
Figure 2
WATER AND WA~TEWATER CCNs
DEN'roi,I, TE~b~.,~'~20D3-ZOJ.3 Capital [mpmvemerfai Pla~ February 3.7~ 20[33, Page 4
, Figure 3
HZCKORY CREEK DRAZNAGE BASZN
Figure 4
CLEAR CREEK DRAZNAGE BASZN
~EHTOH, TF. NA$~0O3-20~3 Cml:sEat 3[nnproveman'cs Plan February :17, 2003, Page
SERVICE UNIT~
To calcu]zm impact fees ia accordance with C.h~pter 395. the growth in demsnd for capital fia-~ifies
oyez thc pl,n,;ng horizon must be ex-pressed i~ %eh,ice units," whirl, are d~nM iR Sec. 395.001(10)
~miee unit, forster and ~aslz'~r~r impact fees are typically based upon the capacity attffbutablo
a~ater metm~ in the mility aysterm The r~ou fix tl~ i~ that,~zter mm are phydcal .l~ment~ that
m nnt-]~r ~ ¢cm.trol of the ll~41ity alld ~ limiv the morxqm~llll
.......................................... T~iblgl"2 ........................
METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS
Currant Factors Proposed Factors
Ca~a~il~ ~1~1 ~1~ S~/
~r~e roam) H~r (gpm) ~r
~a ~0 ~.0 ~5 ~.g
115.0 3r~0 3~.0
~: Cu~t ~pac]r[e~ a~ ma~mum ~n~nuo~ du~ flow rat~ ~n ~a~lons
am a~ra~ no~l npe~Ung ~d~ ~r T-10 ~identlal m~ and
Tm~ =~au~d ~mm~;a; m~ ~m me ~rune Technology Group.
Dr~ITON, TEXA~',2003-2013 Capit:al lmproveme, n~ Plan February '~7, 2003, Page
WATER
t~i~tetest costs ~ssoci~t~t ~ith 5mdi~g capital projects fftroug~ rcv~ bonds,
SERVICE UNITS
As ~sed i~ the i~roclm:tio~, the ~t sv_~vic= ~t ~ D=~Ws ~ ~pa~ fees
~ ~ ~ 6~w~ ~ Ta~ 3. ~o~s~ ~m~ ~ hem ~h,~ ~ ~se ~o~
b~,e ~y =e lo--ed oumide ~ ~ s~ ~
Table 3
WATER .~,ERV?CE UN?TS, 2002
Ex~dng SFEs/
He~er S~ze Connecthms Meier
SFr--
To~l
by meter size from the ~ of Denton, October 2002; SFEs
~r matar from Tab~ 2.
The gto~b.i~ ~rz~e~ service units ov~ the 2005-2013 ~ ~d is d~d ~m ~e V~nd Use
~ons. T~ p ~n ~ ~ ~ se~ce ~ ~m &e L~ Use ~p~m
~&e e~d p~c~ of homeho~s ~t ~e co~c~ m &e D~ma ~mr
DENTON, Trd~.'$~.0C]3-2.0:13 Capital i'mpmvemants Plan February 3.7, 2003, Page 7
Table 4
WATER SERVICE UNZTS,. 2003-2013
Fb;cal Total Percent Served Pop,/
Year 8;FE SFEs
'1,97
$otmm: Teta! population roi' wa~r ;~'vlca araa from CIb/of Dentan, J. and
A..ssumptions~ December 4, 2002; percent served gm m C;Ly rff Dar, b3 n Municipal
Ut~li~:tes; populaUon per SFE Is 2002 garved pt3pulatlon clivld~l by 2002
from Tabl~ 2,
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
T~ typ~s ofx~.x dean.nd ~cc rdcv~xt foz wg£~ ~mp~ct fees. Wa~ex lxe~tmem~ systems ~ si~cd to
Avc~g~ ds~y pc~ c~pim ~a~.r dema~ c~ ~c d~t~i~ed b~sed on historic ~y~Lem-wide d~m~qd, in
~,~m of g~ ~ d~y (raga) o~n l~sto~ic se=~ic~ ~e~ pop~tio~ ~h~sc p~r c~pi~ es~ima~s
tapir, scm bo~ residential a~d ~om-~id~tia~ dcmaz~ and axe useful fo~ pm]~ring f~mre sysmm
~ai~mP~ pa~d~l~qy~rhen no sign~cam ~hi~s o£h~d ~sc ratios ate expected.
DEIqTON, TF.~A$%2003-Z013 Capital :~mprovements Plan February t7, 2003, Page 8
Table 5
AVERAGE DA~LY WATER PRODUCI~ON, 1988-2001
water Producl:bn (mad) Ratio ~ ~11
Whol~ T~I Tml ~w ~ h~ hma~
-- 1.051,
o~ DenOn HunldpM U~I~~,
day demand u,~ the hst 14 ~eaes ~s compazed to zvet'age daily demand i~ Table 6, These d~m
iadicam thru: peak &y demand in Denton's wan~ system averages L9 times ~vemge chty ~q~-d.
Table 6
PEAK DAY WATER DEMAND, ],988-200],
.............. Peek,Day ....... Average
Iq~m[ D~mand Dema.d
Year Ratio
1.9
1997 24,76 12.79 1.9
21~1 26.48 13.61 1.~
Cl~ or ~n Munid~l Uflliti~; flgur~
mptes~t ~1 finlsh~ ~ter pmdu~on.
]DENTON, TEY, AS~7.0O3-2013 Capital Irnpravemants Plan February I7, 2003, Page
~ot the 2005-20~3 pl.~gpeaiod ir: T~I~$~ 7.
Table 7
AVERAGE AND PEAK RETA/L WATER DEMAND, :Z005-2013
Av~. R~tel! ~0 ~w
~ Dema~ D~and ~ ~ W~ of ~k~
Rnl~
Peak
Day
167
New Demanc~e 2003-2D13
So~rce: Served papuiaUan from Table 4; average day p~r caprm demand and roue of raw to finished
wa~er pmducUen fmmTable 5; re'cio af peak ~ayto average day flnlshe~l water pmducUon from Table
6; mw water and peak day demand exclude demand due to wholesale customers.
'WATER TREATMENT
~'~ct :te~lmc~t facilities =c ~ ~ Figure 5
~mo&~ p~ ~ ~c~;n~. ~c TREATMENT ~PAC~ AND DEMAND
....................................
~ ~t ~ ~ 28.9 ~
~b~ p~t ~ a ?c~ ~pad~ of 20 m~.
~T~ ~ ~ ~ d~a p~s ~s~
of the Calmcity ~d,~-d by ~c construction of thc 0
m~r 20-mg~ 1~y Rnbcrts plant. 1~S
DENTON, TEKA'F~O03-2013 Capital ~mpmvement:s Plan Februar~ 17, 2003, Page 10
Table 8
El 'rGI'BLE PERCENT OF RAY ROBERTS PLANT COST
radon ~.~1 Avmlable m. . .
Percent Needed [or {3rowth~ 2003-2013 95.40%
Seun~: 2'003 retail peak day demand and 2003-2B!3 new retail
peak day demand from Table 7; 2.003 wholesale peak day
demand and plant capacl~es from CIW of Denton Municipal
WA'I~ R SUPPLY
The Cites '~at~:: suppl~ comes prim.~ly from ~wt~
~ ~ ~s~ ~ c~ed by ~ U.S. Co~s of E~s ~ h~ ~ ~ of 436,000
~ oR ~ s~e ~ of 90.2 ~ ~e ~W ~c~s 4.~
]~ost of the Ck~s ~ 'w~=r needs m~: suppIi~l by T,~I~e Ray Robe-ts. 'Ibc z=sc:rvok ~
~'mbt.~*cted by the U.S. Co'~s of ~n~i~'neets, ,~th the dries of Demo~. ~nd D0110~ beipg the loc~
spoason =d tw]~:~l~ ~.~% and 74%
~sl:~ctively) £or tep~fi~g 50 pe~',~* of the tot~.
The City h~s ~=t~t ~ts of 19.8 mgd
Figure 6
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
DENTON, T~.003-2013 Capltal Improvements Plan February 17~ 2003, Page
Table 9
E[/G[BLE PERCENT OF LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST
19.76
Source: 2003 C~paclLy from City of Danton Hunlclpsl Ut~l~e~; 2003 total
average ~ey dernsnd Is r~mll raw watar demand from Tabln ? pins n.2~;
WholeSalt dpanafld from Ci'cy of' Dentnn Hunlclpal UtiliZes; 2003-2013 needed
rapacity from Table 7.
Thc oz~.~.11986 cost to ~ Gky for its pardcip~ffon in thc coastr~cffon o£r A~e P~y Rohe:~ ~ams $;ZD
~qllna. In tochT's dolhrs, the cost o£the Ciq/s .1~.,c is $107 m;l~ion, ss s,.~m.~i~d in T~hIc 10~:.
Table 10
LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST
[ I~ClII~ Cost In Currant Dollars ~106t677~808
Source: Odglna[ cost from Dant~n Municipal UUl~es,
January lSt 2003; cast inflaUee factor based on
Engineering News-Record Co ns~'uctlon Cost Index f0r
January 2003,
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
DEHTON,T~003-20:L3 Capital Improvements Plan · Fabruary 17, 2003, Page 12
la ~adifon co those costs directly m~ibumble to ~w~ ~m ~ ~e ~ ~ ~so~md ~
~-~d b~ on ~ mo~ ~ ~V ofD~n u~ bond ~s~.
step ~ demrm~.ing Re cost pe~ s~rice t~it ~s co ~ ~e m~ ca~ cost ~bum~e ~
~ is ~ co~ of ~5,4~ p~ ~ ~-~y o: e~l~t ~eg ~ shuw~ ~ T~ble I1.
Table 11
WATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT~ 2003-2013
Year In Attrlbu- Tel:al Attributable
,'uproveme~ ,~ , Send~e table ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0 Sham 1~9 47.32~ 106~677 808 ~ 50 4~ 939
~ Reid ~ag ~r Pump ~Uon ~ln~ n/a n~a , n/a ,
~ Boo~ ~mp ~on 3.7 m ~ 2003 SO. O0~ $3 0 000 ~ 740 000
~ Ele~mg~nk (1.0 ~g} 2003 50.0~ (;1,890,000 $g4S,~0
288 Wa~r Line - Sh~an ~ U~ . 2003 50.00% $2,8g0~00
~ -5~ Wa~r Uno Phase ~ .................. ~003 .... 50,00% ........ $t,500 ~00
~ Wa~r Une 20~ ..... ;5~% ._$~,~10,~ $589,500
per S~ice Un~, ,, $5~450
~: C~) Inm~m~d i~ ~e high s~l~ pump ~on at ~e Ray Robe~ ~ and no longer ~ul~
~1~ by ~e R~awn ~ Tank.
~: Man Plum~ ~ "Wa~r impr~en~ ~ Appll~ble ~ Impa~ F~' D~m~r 4~
~ Rey ~ ~ Table 20; o~bu~ble pe~t ~ Ray ~ ~ ca~ from Table 8; a~Ibu~ble per~t
~ ~ Robe~ cos: ~m Table 9~ a~lbu~ble pe~nt ~ ~im ~n~ml~lon Rne ~m ~? Robe~ ~ bused
~-20~3 share of OIU~ SO mgfl capaci~ a~bu~ble ~ of o~er imp~e~n~ ba~d on ~r p~d
~ (y~ remaining in 2003-20~3 pe~od ~id~ by ~ y~ ~ t~r~ co~ ba~d on Inm~t m~s ~ S~les
~ UUII~ ~ R~enue Bonds.
D£NTON, TEXA~%2.003-2013 Capital I~provemenl:s Plan February 17, 2003t Page 13
~ET COST PEK SERVICE UHIT
~'w~.t~ customezs ~ help p~ o5 outst~lfng d~bt: ~d ~z ~s~ ~ci~ ~h ~e~
~n~y ~s. To ~ ~ n~ ~om~ ~ p~y ~ ~r ~i~ ~fies, once ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mm p~m, ~ ~p~ fees sho~ be ~d ~ ~o~ ~ debt
~ ~g w~l~ ~s. Thc me~od~ ~ ~ to ~ c~ ~s &bt s~ p=~t by
~ ~s~t ~u= of ~e ~,m ~e~ of debt s~c ~=~ is ~c ~ s~ ~&t p= ~c=
Table 12
WATER DEBT SERVTCE CREDIT
Fl~a[ Debt Servl(~ Water Credit/
2004 11,728,618 47,776 $245
2012 . 10,983.30~ 72,408 ~-52
~7~61.2016 11 27'2 ~.75 86 761 ~.30.1130 __
2D18
202,6
N~t Present Value $2r295
~ource: Wa'mT system debt: service pa~'nent from cro/of Desitin
Hunicip=l U~lIIties; water SFEs f~r 2003-2g:~3 fi'om Table 4; wel~'
SFEs far succeeding yse~ baaed an percent gmw~ from 2~02 water
system ~=recas~; net pn~ont value based en 4.8% dlsa~unt rat~
wMch is 1/~ ave. raga leter~.~t rat= un 2D-year AAA municipal bonds
=if~l an bloomba~.c~m, bondsonLIne.com end frnsbonds.:om
~onuary 30,
DENTON, T'EXA~2.O03-20~.3 Cap,al ~mpmvements Plan February 3.7, 2003, Page 14
a ~r~ta~rth~2~'~ ofadvalomm tax a~lut~/y service mmm~rgtntmt~d ~y ~ serv~
Note th~ the credits calculated above differ in cer~in respects from theliteralwading of ~h¢ stye l~w.
~ost signifi~nfly, the e~edie has bern wleul~ted for out.~ .a~.g debt for existing faeil;eies, rather eh..
ft~,~e debetlmtw~ql be issued to implement tlm projects in the capitalimprovem~ts plato It would
.,~t-,-li~le ~ense tn cslcaht~ a c:~dit:Eot:th.eimpmv~ in the capiu~limpmv~,mmts
developmen£ will be paying f~r s.rh eom through impact £ces, ~d atle~stin theory no
~hnukl be ~ to ~ such improvements. On the othe~ 'ho,,-1. ne.~ developme, n~ ~ he p .~Fing
~r flae ~oi.g debt se~wice on past impmvem~, and if no c~edits
~ paying £or its costs through impact fe~s ~d some o£ cxL~4ng devd~pn~nff~ co,ts d~cougk the
portion o£its rotes that go to deb~ ~eS~em~ The otber ~¥/n ~ rim cced~ts d;~r is ttmt they
~'e pmviclM fo~ fui~e debt service p~ymmt~ beyond the temTear plom~i.g period. Both o£ these
,1-'~.renc~s x-molt :in. czccli~ that ~m l~r~.r th~. ff ~hcy were calcuht~l acconting
l~e state act:
Table 13
WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Calmllaffion l~ltmrnat~
Iq~od Ha~
~urm: ~st ~r S~ ~m ~ble 11; ~nue ~dlt per S~ ~r
~l~l~n ~=d from Table 12; ~enue =~ ~r al~maEive
m~od Is on~hal[ o~ ~ ~r S~
NET COST SCHEDULE
The two methods fo~ c~mhfing ~ne credits give si~.q~ zesults, mcl thc City Councilcoukt enact
~ impact fees st either of these leveLs, o~ st a red~ level The following ne~ cos: schedule
xepl:e.s~-~ th~ m~x4mum impact fees that troy be eh*~ged by the City .for ~aee~ system fsufilifies, b~ad
oathe ~topmd Y~-a Use Assumptions, t~e utility s~st~m evab~tion "-d ~p/ml knpmvcment cost
c~m~t~s ~cd by City ~u~icip~l Utilities sm~mad 3~ Plun~ner Associ~te_~ end thc ~a~;*4on~.
E~SNTOH, TEXA$~.003-20~.3 Capital Improvemen~ Plan February 17, 2009, Page
~ ~md oo~,~s p~:scntmcl in this study. The City could udop: ~e fees
~:,..~s sh~ ~p~se ~e ~scs ~ ~ a p~od of ~e. ~ Ta~
~ ~ m~ed ~ ~e n~ cost p~ s~ ~t d~ ~ ~e
~o~ ~ d~i~e ~e ~t ~st per~
Table 14
WATER NET COST SCHEDULE
SFE~/ Net cost Net
Meter ~ze Me,er M~r
200.0
Source: ~FEs per m~a~r fi'om Table 2; n~ cost per
from Table 13,
'I~e:m~. ~ ,um~vatct~mpa~t ~ees c~k~,l.~d abo~e a~: compared, to ~e City's ¢,H,~ag ~u~et ~pact fees
Table 15
COMPARATZVE WATER FEES
Potmltial Current
100 209%
8" $63 L,OOO $163,~20 286% I
Sours: P~tenUal ~ f~m ~ble 14; cu~nt ~ from
~n~n CIW Code.
D~N, TEaG~%2003-20:13 Capital Improvements P]afl February 17, 2003, Page 16
~ on the g~o,~ ~ projectionS in thc v ~d Us~ Assumptions, powaafict mveat~s ov¢¢ flac next ten
~ ~es, m show~ ~ Tgb~ %. ~e ~ pro~o~ s~ bc ~d cau~7, ~ ~c
~p~ of $5.8 ~nl~oa ~=~ c~t ~ s~e ~ co~id~b~ ~r+h.n ~e
~-u m~ ~ ~e O~ ~ ~01. It sho~ ~o be ~ ~t ~e up~ ~s ~ ~t ~pl~ m
~es ~a ~r ~e p~us ~p~ ~e
Table 16
COHPARATTVE WATER IMPACT FEE RBV'ENUES, 2003-2013
200~ New 03-1~ Po~al
Sor. r~: 2003 connections egdmatec[ based on 2002. connectiens from Table 3 end percent growth
b~ SFEs 2002-2003 from Table
SFre ft-om Table4; po~nL'ial and c=rrent revenues based on new connec~ues end potenUal and
current f~e.s from Table
PEHTOH, Tr:XA~Z003-2013 C~pltal Improvements Plan February 1,7, 2003, Page 17
WA~TEWATER
SERVICE UNITS
Tim ~ servi~ -~' for Deaton's ~ms~-watex impact ~s
~ ~ ~s~ o~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ m~, ~ is ~om~ ~ ~ ~m i~ aot
~e-~y ~ ~ ~ o~ e~ ~ me~s c~
Table ;17
WAgTEWATER SERVZCE UNZTSt 2002
ExisU~g SFEs/
l~le~er gl=a Conn~iong M~er 5~
1" 792 2.5 i,gs0
4" 60 50.0 3,0D0
To~[ ~876 37~619
SOu~: A~mge numar of a~ n~n-w~o~le
~w~ c. nne~ns ~ m~ s~ ~r ~1 ymr ~02
~m ~e Ci~ of DenOn, O~bar 2002 (bas~ an water
~1 ~am~ ~ no ~ ~r; ~ ~r m~r
~m Table 2.
DEHTOH, TEX~",2003-20/3 Capital Improvements Plan February 17,, 2003, Pmge 18
Table 18
PER CAP/TA WASTEWATER DEMAND
~mm! A~I~. Znflue~t~ Ser¥~l Per ~pl~
Y~r F~w [m~d) PotlatCh Flow (g~)
1~8 11.55 ~.791 1~.47
1~
~: C~ o~D~n Munidpal U~l~s, ~ In ~an Plumm~
Assocla~ me~randum, De.tuber 11, ~02 (a~m~e in~uent
~clud~ ~hoi~nle flows).
~ ~ in ~astewst~r service units ~-8 xc'~. customer ~ dem.-d ~ ~e 2~13
pl.--ingp~od is d~ed ~m ~e ~d Usc ~p~m.
~ p~ s~e ~t ~ ~ be ~p~d m d~.-a ~je~om m pmjcm ~ ~ ~ s~ce
Total2002 populationin ~hc Pecan Cee& ~.d Hie&ory Ceck basins ~rom the r .~.a Usc ~s~o~
.~ m.d~c~.~ o~c2002 p~u~o~
~ s~ po~on ~ ~ m~p~d by
~ (see TaNe
'5~emot, mdm ~m myra j~, P.B., Al,, Plummet .Asm'ma, to P.8. Az, om of C~ cd Den.ton. M, au kipal
lLr, uTlfim~ Decembm' ill, 2002.
DENTON,TEXA$%2003-~O:L3 Capl~] Improvements PMn February :[7, 2003, Page 19
Table 29
. .AVERAGE DEHAND PER SERVICE UNIT
Tot:a[ PopulaUons Westaummr ~:N (exCl. Clear ~eek), 20~)2 91,086
AverBgeWasL*ewa~r Demand.per sF(~ ~gpd) 348
$ourcP.: Total papulatinn f~am /.and Use ,4.qs-umptloA~, Decamb~ 4, 2002
[excludes 2,531 in C)ear Creek basin where na eervlce Is available); percent:
sewed from Atari Plummer,e~aclates~ December'/2, 2002 memarandum;, per
c~plm demand from Table 28; 2002 8FT:s from Table I7.
Table 20
WASTEWATER SERVZCE UNITS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013
I~er Caplta Relulll Demand/
Fmcal Total percent Served Demand Demand SFE
Year Populaffion Served Populatlo~ (gpc~) ('mgd) i'gPd) ~l~s;'
2004 64.965 97% 63,016 148, 9.33 348 26,010
"2006 ........ 69;249 ......... 97% ....... 67,172 ......... 148 ......... 9.94 ....... -348 ......... 28,563
2oo~ :~4 szo 97~ ~~ :L48 ~74 _ 348 .... 3__o~_8~g_.
·. -
~..~ ~ ~7% .~,,,~.~ 5..~.~4 ~/~4~ 12.45 :348 35,776
New DamaT~d and ~"F~r 2003-2D23 ' 3,95 J. 1~3 0
~f.,rc~: T0~al population fi*om La,'?d Use ,~.~umpf:far~, December 4, 2002; perc:~nt s~rverl [rom Alan Plummet
,~S~r'~5, December 12, 2DD2 memordndum~ per caplL-a dsmand from Table 18.~ demand per 5F~ from Tabl~ 19;
~FEs Is t~taL demand divided b~ demand p~' SFE.
i)ENTO}4, TEXA$~.O03-20/3 Capita[ Improvements Plan February 17, 2GO3, Page 2n
TabJe 21
WASTEWATER SERV/CE UN:iTS, H:[CKORY CREEK, 2003-2013
Per Capita Retail Demand/
Tab:al P~'cent Served Dnmnnd Demand S~
PoDula~n ~d. PopCOrn (g~) {mad1 (;~} . SF~
39 ~0 97% , 37 ~30 1~ 5.~ 3~ 16 092
~ ~8 97~ 41 708 1~ E.17 3~ 17 730
~ 405 ~ 45 983 ,1~ 6.81 3~ 19,569
De~ and S~ ~-~3 2.76 . 7r931
T~I popula~on ~m ~nd U~ ~ump~ons, De~m~r 4, 2002; p~t s~ from Nan Plummet
D~mber 12, 2~ m~omndum; ~r ~p~ demand ~m Table 18; d~nd ~ S~ fram Table
demand d~ded ~ demand p~ 5FE.
The demznd ~-a s~:vice unit proicctions in the Clear Ctee-k d~;n%~e b~sin ~re d~wdin sir~ilo~ ~ghion
ia Tsl:~ 22, /-Iowcvcg thc pe~ccm commctivi~ .,~a pc~ ~pi~ dc~.d assumptio~ arc scrmcwh~c
lower, fo:: thc x'd. sons dcsc-dbcct c~,~;~'~*~ .~ ~Iditioz~ th=c is cu~e.~t[¥ p_o set'red pol:ml~.tion, '~e~qs~
the proposed ~ Creek treatment plant ~RI ~nt be constmcmd until July 2004.
Table 22
WASTEWATER SERVICE UN/:TS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013
I~' Ci~ ~lt~ ..... ~11 .... D~eil~a-nd 7 .........
Fiscal Total Peraaar: raerved DemamJ Demand SFE
year Sewed
SFEe
90% 100 1,4Z
Demand and gFEe, 2003-2013 1.63
348
Emro:e: Total papulat/nn f'mm Land U~e Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent: sewed by ;zo.t3 end per capita
ds~-nand from Nan Plummet Associates, December 12, 20G2 memn~ndum;, demand per S~ from Table 29; Si=Es
demand d[vlded Iv/demand per SFE.
DEHTOH, ~.003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February :L7, 2003~ Page 21
l~ecmd 2003-2013 rem~ ~;w~ter H~m~nd and ~asmwater sexvicc urdts a~c ~mm~efl fo~ ~c
d~ree d~;~age b-~. iaTable 23 below,
Table 23
WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UN]Er SUMMARY, 200:3-2013
Retail Demand (mgd) Service Units
Dr,'~rtage ~tn 1~,~ 2D13 New 2~003 201.2, Mew
[~n C~r~k 9.02. ~2.97 ? 3.~ 25,920 37,270 11,350t
JToml Wa~r ~N ~3~41 21.75 8.34 38t535 02,500 23r965 J
~: Ta~ 20, 21 and 22.
TREATMENT PLANT~
Table 24
TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND AND CAPACFTYr 2003
]Available Excess Capacity (mgd) 0.09
Source: PmJecl:ed 2.003 mt:all demand from Table 23; project:ed
wholesale demand Is 110% of whole, sale demand in FY 2002 fi`om
Ob/of Denton Nunl,4pal Utilities, "FY 2002 Wastewator Cust=mers
and Volume Summary."
The corse oEthe Hidro~ Creek plant is five years or so away, Currently, the flows from fire
Iala~ry Creek b~n a~e coaveyefl to the Pe~n Creek ~Tst~rn by a~ existi~lift station- I~ order to
~ed,~ flee use of the Pecan Creek pl.~e expansion already u~le:wa.y, it i~ mficil~te8 ttmt a
-~,~.~ portion o~the ~ capacity eequLred by gro~h ia ~he ~F_mkox7 C~ek b~;~ ovexthe tea~yeaz
l~fincl~fillbemet bythat p].~ Come~,~ntly, ne0tdevelopmeatiathe I-EiekotyCreekbasha~Ih~tve
~t~ ~stm~te~ minted by both ~e Pe~- Creek plant ezpaas~n ~.a the new Flielroty Creek phmt.
DBHTON, TE~i*.$'X2.003-'2013 Capitol Improvements Plan February 17, 200:3, Page 22
T~e~m~mt capacity to ser~¢ thc Ck~ Creek b.i~
~ltbe co~semct~/a c~,o ?l~ses. The/kst ?h.~
Figure 7
WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACZTY
July 2004. Lat~rin the tm-y~tphnnlngho~zon. ~
m e~p~-~qou of'the ph.~ ~ ~ake ~ toi 20
pmv~ the mtditional 0,68 mg~l of required
aty.
0
1~? 2~t ~OG ~ 2n'1.3
£1 FT STATIONS AND FORCE M~I
~,~at~ m.~r phn, thr~ lift s~tion projcc~
mticip~md for the ~en-3n~r plo..;ng period. The Coop~ C~& ~ Station ~.-~on N m~y
of 2005 ~ ~s~E F~ ~ p~j~ ab~ ~ ~s~pfion~ ~de ~ ea~ ~ sm~n
com~d m ~ 20~ ~. ~ .aa~o~ it m ~smed ~t ~p~n ~w ~ ~
~ ~ o~ ~ s~e p~o~
INTERCEPTORS
~ new Jntcu:epto~ aze discussed in the C.~ o£ DenWn W~a~'M~t~r P/an, ~any of '0~alch
~e~e considexecl clevelope:-xelated projects. Ma~y o£these pzojects ~ere uot included in ~e update
Sue to uaeer~i-~es O£the ~equi~ed *im~.g. Theinctusion o£the listed projects ~as ba~ed on mat
reeds ~.a hp~ ~ Ciey pe~somo, eL
North Hieko~ Czeek Interceptor ~ serve both the City of ICa~n, ~4~h is a wholesal~
w~t~w.~- custom~, ~xi a ne~ly developing arm ~i*l,;. the Flickory Crce2 basin. The City o El~trn
troy £or the equivalent cost o£ a 15-inch linc, .-~ the City o£ Deaton is ~spons~le for the cost
above the 15-;n.h size, which ~:anges ~om 21 to 27 inches.
I~ENTOH0 TEXA~\Z003-20X3 CapI~el Improve~effcs Plan Februaw 17, 2003, Page 23
COST PIER SI; RVlCE UN IT
capital imp~.menm idend/icd by City ~-~icip~l Udlidcs sr.d~ ss necessary to
~r~rnmo&tc gm. th over tt~ next tr~ yeats £0~ ~ch off thc thxec dr~n~g~ 5asins ~¢ surn,~ed in
26 .~a ~7. The po~ons o£ the costs o£ the Pcca~ C~eek
~e ~s of ~e ~ a~b~ w ~ ~ based oR ~e ~ ~t ~e ~ is
The m~l cogs of pl...~d c~pit~ improvemcms at~ibumble to grow~ in ~ of the thre~ dr~m~e~
~ ;ze pzesented in the fo]lo, ag d~ee rabies.
Table 25
WASTEWATER CA, PETAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK~ 2003-2013
Capacity (mgd) Attrlbu- Total
T~I Need~l Y~Br bble ~/~ Cos~
A~dbu~Me
V~can Creek. In~rce~r 2003 50.00% $3,000,000 . $1,~00.0130
~lDir~ct~Att~butable C~ 17 575 866
T~ A~b~ble C~ ~27~945~627
~- ProJe~ ~s~, ~1~ and I~s~l~ ~m Nan Plum~ocla~, ~a~r Improvement C~
i~ble m l~a~ ~" De~b~ 4, 20021 ~1 ~pec~ n~d~ and n~s~l~ un~ ~er ~03-2g13 pefi~
~m ~ble 23; a~db~ble per~tof Coe~rC~ka~ ~lew l~=~Eon/~ malns~su~ ~ ~ ~l~ uUl~d
~ ~2D, ~ p~ent based on y~ remaining ia 200~20~3 ~god divided ~ r~malnlng yee~ b~re 2020;
~ ~bie ~et ~ o~]mprovemen~ w~ I~s~ da~ sh~n ~sed on ~a~ ~ainfng In 2003-2013 p~od
~ by 2g y~;; In~m~ ~ bas~ on in~ ra~ of Sed~ 2~ ~IIW S~m R~nue Bonde,
DENTON, Trdfa~X2003-2013 ~.,ap]~l Improvements Plan Pebruary 17, 2003, Page 24
Table 26
WASTEWATER CAPZTAL COSTS, HZCKORY CREEK, 2003-2013
Capacity (mgd) A~r|bu- To~al Attrlbu~bl[G
:lmprmmm~nt Total Needed Year table ~b Cost , Cost
J~_ca~ Creek W._RP__.E~p_._aesiae . 6.00 1,~/* rv*a 30,17% $19j4:LS,015
.Subt°tal Trea.,t~est Piast , . 2.76 n a $25 4~5 015 11 8S7 812
2005
~m~,ce: Pro, ct costs, ca padb/and in-service da~es from Nan PI"miner Associates, "Wastawstar Improvement Costs
Applicable ~o Impac~ Fees," December 41 2002; total capacity needed end new serVice units over 2003-2013 perio~
~ Table 23; at~Ubutable percmlt of improvements wlb~ In-service date shown based on years remaining in 2003-
20/.3 period divided by 20 years; interest cos: based on interest reta~ of Serles 2002A U ~llb/System Revenue Bonds.
Table 27
WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CLEAR CREEI~ 2003-2013
Capacity (mind) Att~lbu. Total
Tote[ Needed Year table % CoSt
Phase !
Attrlbutabta
CoL
$o~"e: Pro~ect: costs, capacL'y end In-~wl~
~l~ble ~ ~m~a~ F~,' D~em~r 4, 2002; m~l ca~d~ n~ and n~ sew[~ un~ over 2~3-2013 ~rlod
Table Z3~ ~ble per~ ~ [mpmve~ w~ In-se~l~ d~ ~n based on yea~ mmai~i~ g In 2003-
pe~od d[~ by 20 y~m; 1~ co~ ~s~ on
d~op~ be m~ cost~ m s~ ~c Pc~ C~ b~ duc
cost ~ sc~ ~ ~ ~ ,~i, ~ ~ be z~c~d b ~ fees
DENTOH,TEXA~2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 25
Table 28
WASTEWATER COgT PER SERVICE UNZT, 2003-2013
AttHbutabla New
era1 ~n~,~ge ~=]n . ~; SF~ BFE
O~r C~. ~ ~17~7~5ffi 4, fi84 $3~785
~: A~bu~b~ co~ fmmTa~ ~, 26 ~n~ 27; new S~s fmmTable
HET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
lqew ~atcr custom~ ~ help pay off otm~fl;ng debt incm:r~ fo: ~dsfing ~l~es rJ~ox~
thd: monfltly x~tes. The net p~e~ent val~e o£the fim,m strum of &~ se:vice payments is dae debt
Table 29
WASTEWATER DEBT SERVI'CE CREDVT
Racal Oebt Service waste~ater Cradle/
~r . Pay~e_n..t . SFT~ ~. see
2016 $3.984,fi28 71,3Z2 $56
~2022 ~'1r~'73 SOO 8gr380 $15
Net Present Value
Source: Wasi~water debt service payments fT~m City of DentDn
Municipal UOlrdes; wastewater SFEs for 2003-2013 from Tables 20,
21 and 22; wastewater SFBs for succeeding years based on percent
growth from 2002 water system fo recast; n~ present value based on
4.8% discouM: rote, whlcb is the average Interest rate on 20~yser
AAA munldpal bonds cited on bloomberg.com, bondsonllne.c~m and
fmsbonds.com on .]anuary 30~ 2003.
DENTOH, TEY~kS~.0O3-2013 Capital Improvements Plan F=brua~/17, 2003~ Page 26
The net cost l~er sereice unit is calcuktcd by subtm~,~ thc ~ credit calctfla~cd 9.bov~ :from thc
u:,SL per sczvicc unit. As d~scussccl in *.he 'w'~,' section, however, stm~ Lsur pr~scn'bcs un ~tern~t~ve
metho& ofc~loalst~ the n~c cost per Service unit, which is to divid,· the cost pe: scrv/ee unit by two.
These Lw,, methods ofde~,~,'m;,~;-~ thc net cost pcr s~ricc -,,~t ~c prcs~n~dinT~hl~ $0. As with the,
Table 30
WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNrr
Cout~ Credit/ Net Cos~! AIt:ern&t:lve Alt.
~i~ ~n ~E ~FE BFE ~x, ~e of N~
~ Co~t ~r ~ ~om Ta~e ~; cmd~ p~ S~ ~m Table 29; a~rfl~e ma~mum f~ Is ~ ~r S~
N ET COST $CH El)ULE
~ ~C~ ~ a~o~ hy ~ ~ ~es ~e nnmher of pos~ ~c s~es
~ s~c ~u ~ Tabk 31, ~ ~cc ~ p~ m~ ~c ~phcd ~ ~ ~ ~ per
Table 31
WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE
SI'Es/ Net Cost Net
M~ter size M~tmr p~r SFE Meter
2" B.0~ 1 881 ~
~: SF~ per m~r ~m Table 2; net co~ per SFE
~m Table ~3.
I~ENTON, TraV~A~2003-20~.3 Cap,al Improvements Plan Februaw 17, 2003, Page 27
Table 32
CoMPARATiVE WASTEWATER FEES
potential Cur~eflt Percent
Hebar Size Feee
4~
~ou,"~: Potential fees from Table 31; c~¢¢~,~, fees fi.om
Dent~n CIL'y Code.
Total 323%
Source: 2.003 connections estimated based on 2002 connections from Table ~.7 and percent: growth
~ SFEs 2002-2003 from Table 4; new 2003-:L3 connections esUmated based ee percent Erowth in
S~s from Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and
oarrent fees from Table 32.
DENTON, T£XA~Z00:~-Z0:[~ Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2(}03, Page 28
APPENDIX: TEXAS IMPACT FEE ENABLII G ACT
[Um~4~ ~nd s~out ~ndic~z ~o~s ~om SB ?-~7, ~c~iw September 1~ 2001]
~-~A'P;I"ER ~95. FINANC~G CAPITAL IMPROVElVlItl~I~ ~'~QUT~I~D BY NEW
Ditv ~ PMENT IN MUNICIPALg' i'.u:~S, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL
GOv~
S~B~RA. GE~N'~RAL PROVISlOHS
(1) 'Cspitatimp~ov~m~' m~m ~ay o£the ~ollowi~ iciliti~s tha~ h~v= ~ ~ expec~.,-y o£ ~ or
mo~ ye~'s .n~ ~ ,~w=ed --*~ opemt~l by' or on ]:-'h.l? o£ s. pccliffcal subdivision:
'w~'~..r supply, treaun~at, and dism%~on ~ciHtles; vrast=wst= collection s. nd U'e~unem:
~m:n']ities; ..,4 ston'n .w~te~, d.~i- .~. nr~ flood contr, oI f-~c~ffes; '~'het~e~ o~: not eheIs.~'e
tocated 'w~ the scndce ~ .~
improvements or thciliW ex-pans/oas for which ~ml~et fees miry 'be ~sesse,:l.
'~ldliv exp.~o:" n0~--, the e~p.-.~o: o~e cspacity of .~ e~sti~ f~cflit~ that se~es the
ssme b_u~onis sn otb=w/se necessary nc~ ~pits.t knl:n'ovemcnt, in o~1~ th~.t ~he ~-"~q-g
t~,~/l~y nm}, serve new developmen~ The ~ does ~ot ~uclude the repot. ~no~.~-,-.o~r~
mod~on, o~' ;xlmnsion ~£0" exL~ing ~.,-'~y ~o beu= serve ex~-g deve/opmem:,
"Iml:r~ct ~ee" means ~ cks.~e oz -ssess,'-~t imposed by a ~c~ ~b~ion ~.i.~t ~
~t ~ 0~ ~ g~ ~ ~r ~ing 0r ~0up~ ~e costa o~ c~pi~
~ ~es ~d ~% ~p-~ c~s, ~ ~co~ ~, con~o~
does ~=
(/~) dedic~ion of b-a for public p.rt~ or p~Irnent inlieu ofth~ d~tJc.*ion to serv~ park
dedics£ion of rights-of-~¥ or c~scmea~ or constraction o~: deddcztlon of on-sim o~
o~-sim ~,~te~ cl~s~Sutlon, ,w,~s~=,,~,mm: collec6on or dream. S: :6~dlkies, or st:re=ts,
~s, o~ cu~10s i~the dedication o~' conSUu,.-'~ionis ~'ec1~ked by ~ w.t;~l o~q['o.,~ce and
i.~ ncccsskatcd by .~] au:dl~mbl~ to the new development; [~]
I~£N~ON0 ~OD3-2D13 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003~ Page 29
(C) lot or acreage fees to be placed ~ trust fired, £or the purpose ofre~nbu~i-g
po 'L, dcal st~/ivisinm
use ~ssumptions~/ndude~ a descxiption ~£ the s=vicc
~o~ uses, d~-~q'des~ ~n~6cs, ~,~ popuh6on i~ the se=vice mca or= ~e le~e a 10-year
pex/od.
"New develapmeat" m~aas tl~ subdivision o£ h,3: the eomtmetioth reConsmaetion.
xedeve~pm~nr~ conversion, stn~al alteration, zdocat~on, or e,l*%gemem o£my stmctm~
or ~axy ~se or e&-ten~ion of the use o~eLumS; ~y o~aich ~t~creuses the mmaber o£ se~ice units.
· "Political subdivision" meres a munidpality, a district or authoxity crated .nder .~uti~le III.
Section 52, or Article XVI, Sec'don 59, o£the Tex~s Consdtution~ or, fo~ the purposes see £ofch
by Section 395.079. cer~- coumies described by that s¢ctiom
"Setv/ce ama" means the ~rea ~rhin the co~on~
~ ~-~d --~ C~t~ 42, o~ ~
~ p~os~ offs ~h~p~ ~yi~lu~ ~ or p~ of~c ~in ~e po~d~ s~n
co~l ~6~ d~ ~ ~e ~ ~m~ p~ ~n4 ~ n~ e~ across
"Sexwice unit" means a s~-a~i~e.d measure of con~rnptiom, use, gertemtion, or d[schatge
gt=ibumble to att ~ahrldu~l ualt o£ developme~ -~L~hted ~- accord~-~¢ ~eith gm,ally
~ccepted engineering or pl*nnlng sta. durds mhd b~ed on histo~c~l dsm md trends uppIic~ble
the politic~ subdivision in'which the inaMdtml ,,-~- of &welopment is lomted dining_ the
Dl~l'lqOM, ?EX.,~.003-7.013 Cap[t. al Impmvemen~ Plan Feb~ary :tT,. 2003, Page 30
~o~-~q~gER B. AUTI-~O~rZsTION OF IMPACt ~
395.01% Authorization o£Fee.
U.le~ oib=wise ~e~-i~i~11y ~u~cl~:~i~cd ~ st~ ]aw ox this ch~p~r.~ a gov~neuwl cm~-y or
polkic.1 subdivision ~y not ~ or/repose ~n ~c~ ~ee.
A mux~dp~flL~ =my conm~ ~o pmv~lc c~1~t~
~ outside its corporate hozm&des and ex~zatenitnxisl ju~sdiction ~ m~7 el~%ge m~imp~c~
fee unde~ ~hc conn~ but i~ ~n imp~c~
comply w/~ ~ ch~pt~. Added byAc~ ~989, 71stLeg., ch. ~ S~c. 82(~), e~ Aug~ 28,1989.
~ -~9].0~ Imam Payable by Fee.
An impact fee tomy be imposed only to pa7 the costs o£ constructing capkd knprovements or
[~) constn~on conm~t p,4cc;
.............................. ~t-e~e~r wheels
f:ccs se~uglly paid or cont~ct~l t~ be psid t~ un in?~cp~aclc~ 9~.l~ie~l engineer or
~-.-c~/consul~un p~epu~ng or upchdng the c~pi'm~improvemen~s phn who is not ~n
emploTe= of the poli~c~I subdivhiom
DF. t4TON, TE3r,:A~,Z003-2Ol3 Capital Improvemen'cs Plan l=ebrua'ry 17, 2003, Page 31
· t the time of the pledge, the go~m~ng bodF of tl~ mmnidl~ity mtt[fies q~ ~ ~rritte~
order, orai~, o~ ~olmio~ that ~o~¢ of the imp~:~ fee ~ be u~ed o~ e~e~ded
fo~ an improvement or exp.-~ion not ~Wd~ed ia~e plan.
A ceztiiicafio~ ,~.~r Subsectio~ (d) (2) is s- ¢~i~;~ evidmce that mim?a~ £ee ~ not
b~ used o~ expeaded fo~ ~ improvement ot expmdon that is m~t identified ia the mpimi
impmvemmm plan..adrlecl by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec, 82(t), eli A~g. 2.8, 1989.
Amended by Am 1995, 74th Leg~ ck 90, Se~ 1, eft. lVl~y 16, I995.
Sec. 595.013. I'ttmas lqot Payable by I=ee.
fees may not be adopted or used m pay for:
consm~fio~ ~cqaisifioa, or e~p~-~ion of public facilities o~ assets other
imptovements or ~H~i? expo-~qom i.t~r,i~ed iaOac capimI imNrovmae~ts pl~nz
repair; operatio~ or mai~*~.nce of e_xi.~qng or new c~.pitsl iml:m>~mments or facility
~rpmsious;
development i. c~der to meet saict~ safety, cflide~7, emrim~menml, or zegdamgr s~-ao-ds;
upgt,~in~ up&ang earlmmd~n~ or replacing evi.~ug mpital improvements to provide bet-mr
mmrice to eai~ng devdopmea=;
~') ~utminlccrative anal open,lng cusm of the po'lttical subdivision, except the F~lwards
Umt~g~us~Wate~ District ota fiver antlmzlty that is authorized els~where by state l~w to
................... ~h~ ~e fvem--fla~t-fimetiowas-imp~ct"fees~y'use impact-fees-m'pay-it~-~,'tmi*~im~tive-~ncl
prS'~6~l payments md interest o~ oth*r flnonce vh~,ges on bonds or other indebtedness,
except as ~llnwed by Section 395.012. Added by Acts 1989, 71stLeg~ ch. 1, See. 82(a), ell Aug.
28, ~089.
Sec. 395.0~4. Capital. Improvements Plan.
The political subdivision sh~l! rose q, alit~ed Nrofessiorads to prepare the capital imI~"'ovem~'n~
~,~em~n ~£ the following
a description ofthe existing capi~limpmv~m~ ~J~h;. the service a~ea md the cost*
to upgr~3% update, improve, expand, or replace the imlxov~m~ats to meet exi,ting
ncc& ,.a ~sag= ~ stricter safety, effiden~y, emvimnmmat~l, or reg~l~tmry smadaxds,
~aich shall he pt~paxed by ~ qu~li£ed professional e~ee~ licensed to perform the
professiorud e~ginee*ing services in'dais state;,
ma .'~.lysis of the tots1 cal~city, the level of cutest usage, .nd comraitmemts for ~
of~ of&e ~ng capi~v~% ~ s~ ~ p~d by a q,,~ll~ed
Capital Improve.,"nents ~lan February 17.. 2003, Page 32
~ clesctiption of:all o~ the pans of the c~pitul improvements o~ facility expansions
~hdr cost~ necessitated by and emib~t~bl~ tn new development in the sctvic~
professionul engine~_r lieemcd to perfmmthc professional cngir~4ng~wicesiu en~u
a definitive tune establishing the speei~e level or q~ntlty of use, consumption,
generation, or disrl~ ~org~ o£~ service unit for e~h c~tvgory off capimlimpmwa~ea~ o~
facility expo~t4om o~rt m ~quivulency o~ convenion table establishing th~ xmio o£ ·
vim total nmb= o£ l~oj¢ct~ scs'v/cc uz~ts necessitated by ..a ~ulbutable to nme
calculated in accordunce with ge-~flly aceet~d e.~.¢cring or ?]...i~ mitt~is; .nd
the p£ojectecl dem,nel for capitulim~ovem~n*~ or fmdlity expansions required by new
service units pro~ccted over ~ reazonable pe~cl o~ 6me~ not to ~xceed 10 yeaza: ~na
~di~ for the portion o£zd gq~]orem +aw and ,,HI~ service revenues _~etxe~ated
by new u~-~_ce ~mits ct,,dn~ ~che ~t~ro_urarn period thgtis used for the _Imvrnemt o£
improv~mt~, ind,,a;~g the ~vme~t of debt. that are ioc!,,d ed in the carr2~_
CB3 in the al~ ,~tive. a credit equal to 5,0 percent of the toud ptoieet~'d co~c of
................................... im?lement~_ ~he:cuniu~imtm~vements pl,m ..............................................................
The ,nulysis xequixed by Subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on ~ systetrmdde basis wiml. the
sereic~ area for each mu~or cumgo~ of cupital improvemm~ or ~q~ty expu.~ion for thc
The gov~mlnE body of the poli~rul sttbdivi~on is responsible fox st3perviuing thc
implememmion of th,; capital impxovem~*~ plan in g timely *~--er. ~aaed by Acm 1989,
71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. g2(u), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
Maximum ~'ee Per ~e~lce Unit
impact fr.e per service unit nmy not exceed ~.he smou~ de*~rn{-~ by ~
~ by ~n 3%.01~a)(3) ~nd ~din~ ~t ~o~t ~ ~ ~ nmb= of proj~d
~e ~ &s~cd by ~on 395.014Cg) (~.
If the nul~be~ of nme service uni~ l~ojec~l over g ~onuhle ~od of~c ~ l~s ~q~. ~e
~mt of&e s~ce ~ ~e mu~m~ ~p~ fee p~ s~ce nnle ~h~ be c~d
m pmj~ ~ s~e ~m desto%ed by S~ou 395.014(a)(6) ~ ~e ~j~d ~ s~ce
DEI4TObI, TE,~U~I~3-20'f3 CapfUl Improvements P~an February 17, 2003, Page 33
described in th~ section. Adder byActs 1989, 71st I22. ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug, 28,
1~89.
Sec. 395.016. Time £orAsse~mzmnt m~d Collemion of Fee.
This subsectio~applies onlyto impact fees adopted an~ }~ plattedbe~eJ~m~ 20,1987. For.
bna that l~s bern platted in accorrl,,ce ~rith Subchapter A. Chapter 212. or the subdivision
or pk~ting ptocedur*s of s political subdivision before June 20,1987, or l~net on which new
developm~ occ~s or is proposed ~thout phtting, ~he po 'lrdcaI subdivision may assess the
~ fi~* at any ~-~e d,,*i.g the developmmt approval and b,~ildln~ proc*ss, Except as
provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision m~y collect the fees at eithe~ the time of
zecor~n of the subdivisioR p~t or COnnection tO ~he political Sui~ivisioR's vza~z o~ ~
This subsec~don applies onlytoimpact f~es adop~t before J,,-- 20,1987. ~d !~n~ phtued after
that da~ For new developmeat which is platmd in accora,-ce with Subehapte~ A, Chapter
21~ rathe subdJ.x4siolz or pht~ag pmcedur*s of a poli6c~l ~bd~iaion ~June 20, ~987, the
poIiti~t subdivisiolx may assess tl~ iml:~'t fees Twaeore or at the time of mcotdazfiom Except
~s lxodded by Section 395.019, the political subdivisio~ may collect tl~ f~s at eithex the time
o£mco:dafion of the subdivisio~ pht or con- ~ion to the poliiesl sub divistoz~'s ~rate: o: s¢~ ~
systezn oz ~.t the time tim polltlml mabdlvisionissues ~ither thc b,,;I,qing permit or th~ cez0~c~te
of o¢cupmcy.
Thls subsection applies onlyto impact fees adopted afterJ--~ 20.1987. Fornew develolxnent
~lfichLs plaid i~ ~ccorflunce xdth Subc}mp~er A, O.h~er 212, or the subdivisioR or ph~ing
lxrocedugs o£ a political subdivision b~om the adoption o£m impact fee, anhnpaat fee
......................... not be'~ on-anyservicelmit-forzr~ch ~'vsiid-buil~n~p~rmitig'is~ued~Jvhin one y~ar
afmr the date of adoption of the i rnpact
This subsection applies oaly m la.a pl~4 ~ acc&zd..ce ~J1 Sub~pmr & Ch~ 212, or
a~ ~J~ ~, 1987. ~ po~6cal ~ ah.il ~sess ~ ~ ~s b~ or at
~ ~e of ~oa of · s~oa ~ or o~ ~t ,,- a~ Sub~ & C~ 2~
Se~ 395.019, ff ~ poEfi~ ~b~on h~ ~ aha ~s~a~ c~nad~ a~bl~
for l.~l pl~ on~iae t~ co~oxate boundaries of a mmiidlmlity, themxmicipdiw
l, hall collect the fees at the time an m. ?ru~ou for an individual meter connection to
the mtmidpali~s ~ater or ~a~tcw~tc~ _systemis Eded: or
DENTON, TEXA.~,2003-2013 Caplt~l Improvements Plan February 17, 2003.. Page 34
An "asscssme~' means it det~mdon of thc ~motmt o£thc impact
or occmzence provkled in th~ section ~a is the
~et~-~ unit of such developme~v. No specific get by the po)ificd s~bdivh~n is requited.
A~d~ byAc~ 1987, 71st Leg., ch. ~, Sec. 82(~),
Sec. 3~5,017..~ta~nnu! Fee PmMbtmd; ]gacceptiom
of the imp~c f~cs .c~b~ m ~e ~ ~p~t or ~n of m ~.n*
offices, a~fi~ ~p~ f~s or in~cs ~ fees ~y mt be msessed ~-~ ~
~ss &e n~b~ of s~ ~m m be d~ped on &e ~ses. ~ &c
m ~-aa~ s~cc -ni~. 3 nam ~ 1989, 71 s~ ~ ~, 5~ 82{a), e~
~e. ~5.018. Agm~nent With Ownex I~garai~g Pay~mt.
Apoliticid sabflivision is authorized ~o e~ter late an ~l~Cnt ~rJt~ thc owner of it
which the pht has hem recorded pxovidk~g for the time ..a method o£ payment of the impact ~ees.
A~M~4 by z%-ts 1989, 71st I_eg., eh 1, See. 82(a), e~ A~, 28. 1989.
Sec. 395.019. C~n~cd~u oi'~ees ffSe~,~[ces
~mept for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but mgy not be collected irt areas where
semites axe not ema~ely ~ailable unless:
the collection is made to p~y for a c~piml impmvemeat or ~ ~on ~t ~ been
m owner vol~Hly xequesm the political sabdivision to reserve capacity to sexve famre
devdopmm% sad the poli//cd subdivision and ~ Cl~Cr iIlto u T~ll~I ~ a~ce~12~t
Added byActs 1989, 71st Leg~ eh. 1, Sec. 82(~), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
'DENTON,TEKA~,2003-2013 Capl~a[ ImpmVemenls PI~n February :17, 2003,, Page 35
395.020. ~iflement to Services.
Any new dcvclopmmt for which ~n impact £ee h~s bee~ p~id/~ ent~led to the p~m~em use md
~ o£thc scrv/~s fn~ ~nich th~ £c~ ~ ~ and is cn~tled t~ ~¢ccive ~m~e~'~ s=vicc ~
~m/existing fm41i~ '~ ~ cap,dry m serve the new se~wice ,,~'s, subject to compl~e ~ith
eSher wl;R reg~l~ons. A aa~d by Acts 1989, 71st I~g., ck 1, Se~ 82(a), et'E Ang. 28, 198~.
5ce. 395.02~. A~tho~ of Political Subdlv~ons ~o Spend Munt~ to Rzd~ce Fees.
]po~] subdivi~ona nu~7 sp~8 ~,~ R-om any ~ source to Fzy ~ sll o: a pat: of :he c~?it~l
impm~emems or facility expsasion~ W ~ed~e the ~nount of impact ~es. Adcl~d by As~ 1989, 71st
I~g. cb. t, Sm 82(~), ~ Ang. 28,1989.
Sec. 395.0~L _~m~ho~y o£PoHfl~al Subdiv/sion to Pay Fee~.
]~l ~ubdiv~sions.,d other government1 entities ma7 puyimp,et ~es imposect n-ae~ this chspt=.
.A,la~l. by Acts 1989, 71st L~., ch, 1, Sec. 82(s), e. ff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Se~ 39~;.02~. C~dits Agsinst Roadway Facilities Fe~s.
Any comlxu~don of, comuilx~tions to, ox d~llcmions ofoff-s~e mad~f fscih'ties s{~ed m or reqni~ed
by · political subdivision ~s z condition of dmrelopmem~ ~pproval vl~l be credited ~ai~st
· ,-~ties impac~ fees other~dse clu~ ~0orn thc developmcm. Mdzd by Acts 1989, 71stI.~g,, ch. i, Sec.
w-4s), 19 9.
395.024. Accoenttog For Pees and rmtetest.
Zu~t r~med onkap~t fees i~ considemrl B.-H~ o£t~e ~c~ount on~hich it is earned ~ is
subject ~o sll zesuictions p)a~ed on use of hntmct fr~s u-d~' this ~l,~pt~r.
]mpact ~e funds nmy be spent only ~0~ ~a~ pu:poses ~or which th~ knps~t fe~ ~r~s imposed
shown by the c~pimlimprovem~ ~ ~.a ss suthmized by this chsp*~.
The records of the accounts ~nW which impact f~s are deposimd ,h,ll be open for pablic
inspection ~.a cop~ag a,,~.g ora;-.? bnsi~ss hour. Added b~ _&c~ 1989, 71st ~g., cb. 1,
Sec. S2(a), e~. Aug. 28,
See. 395.0~. R~,-8*.
On the zeqtmst o£m own= of the property on~nich snimpact realms been paid, tim polklc~l
sutxlivision .1~o~1 t~6md th~ impact fee/resisting C~l~*ies u.m ~vail~hl~ and s~wiceis a~ied or
~he polli/csl subdivision b~% sf-tn~ collecting thc fcc whm smwice wss not ~tv,{1,ble, fulled to
¢ommeac~ con~struction within LwO y~za o~ so,ice's nnt av~l~bl~ ~d. tM~ I mmsonsble pe~od
ccm~.l~-g the type o£csf ~.! improvemmt or ~cglt7 ~ to he constmcmd, but i~ no
evem 1.t~ th~ ~ve 7mts from th~ ~.~e o£ psym~nt .ndez S~ction 395-017(1).
Capital Improvement~ Plan Februa~ 17, 2003, Page 36
The political subd~vi~o~ shmll ~eEund anyimp~ct ~.e o~ p~t o~it that is not spent as autho6ze~
5y ~ ,'~.l~r.r ~4~- 10 yc~r~ ~ ~e ~ o£ payment
A~ re6mds ~ be m.~. to tile ~eco~d own~ of th~ p~pe~7 st the time the re~nd is psicL
How ~u,i~thc imp~ ~es we~ Imid by mothc~ political m~bdivisioa or~ve~r~en~ entity,
p~yment sl,,~i bc ,~-~ to t~ poIitic~l s~bdivision or ~m~t~i m~.
The o~ o£ the pmpe~y on ~ an/mp~c~ £e~ h~ been p~id or ~nothe~ polkicd
snbdiv/~on ox ~e~ment~1 cmlty tt~ p~id the impact f%e h~s ~,~.~t~.E to sue £o~ ~ reA~.a
,,-a~-this sec'do,', 3aa,4byActs 1989, 71st I_~g~ ch. 1, Sec 82(a), eft._a_ag. 21), 1989.
SDBCHAFrER C. I'ROCED~$ FORADOPTION OF IIVIPACT
395.041. Compli~-ce W',th Pwcedures Required.
w.--~ept as o~,erwlse p~vided by this chapt~r~ ~ pohtic.1 s~bdivhion m~st comp17 ~rith h~
· -Added.by.Acts 198g~ 71st-~Aeg~.~-.-l~-Se~...B2(a)reff.-Aug..28,-l~989
~ :)95.042. I-Ie~i.~ on la.d Use Assumptions sad C~pi*~l rrr~rovements plan:
To impose an impact fi~, a political subdivi~en must ~dopt ~ o~, o~-.-~, oz ~solufion
S~ $93.043. l~-~rmaiion About land Use Assmmptions and Capital rm?ovemeats Plan
On or l~o~c thc d~t~ of tt~ first pubScafion o£the notice of the h,~g onthe l,n8 use sssumpdom
~ c%~i~l ~n_i~owr-~ pl.~ the political subd/vision shall ~ ava~able in the p,,l~llc it~ l.fl~ ~e
asmmapt/~ns, the time period of the F~ojecfiom, and a description o£ [LL~ ~'..~.~ o~ the capital
~m1~ovement facil~s that may be p~oposed,
D£NTON,TEt~A.~.003-2D;/,3 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 37
Notice o£ I-le~'ing on Land Use Assmnptions and C~pital Impzovemen~s Plum.
Before ~e 30th d~y before the c]~te o£the he~t~i.g o~ ~ ~ ~e ~p~ .~ c~
~ o~ o~e~
~ two ~s
The polifi, csd subd/vision sh~ puNim untic~ o£the heauing [~ ~. ~& ~. ,'.'.. ....... d. ~
· ~-~,. ~. ........ x,_,~.~] bcfore the 30tt clay [L,.~. ~ ,.,,. ~. ....... d~] before the
~1,~ set for the lxe~i-~ in one or more ru=w~lsapers of general ck~a in ~ch couuty ~
~nichthe poli*~e,l subdivision lies. ~owever, ~xiver autho~it7 fl~t is sueoo,ized else,~hexe by
~ law to cha~ £e~s that ~x~icm ~s impau-t fees my publish the requited newspaper notice
onlFin egch com~7 in w~ich ~e service s. rea lies' ~ ............
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC I~a~/NG ON LAND USE
ASS~ONS AND CAI~TAL IMI~ltO~ PLAN l~7r .&TI/qG
TO POSI~ilJ:~ r.~. ADOPTION OF
a smtem~ that the pm'pose of the b,-.,4,gis to consider the l,,~,d use assmnptio- s
and [a,~ ,.gl b~ ~I ~ ~.,~L,~ ~] eupiml improvement~ ?. mxler which
impac~ fee nmy be impose'd; and
[es/]
pzesen: evidence for or ugm;,ut the ].,~l use assumptions md c _mit~limptovemet~ts
~e~ 39~.04~. Approval of Lead Use ~s~t~ons ~md Capital Im_~lovel~enm
Thc political subdivision, ~i*~,i. 30 c~.ys ~ the c~ of the public b~ng, s/r~ll approve
DENTON, TEF. A$~.003-2013 Ceprca[ Improvements Plan February 17, 2003r Page
An o~m~ee, order, o: xesnlmion s.pprovJng thc 1~3 usc assumptions and cs.pitml
,{vn.v~oxremeaxt~ plmz m~y not be sdopt~d ~ ~ ~ meawarc~
~ 39-~.0455. 8,~nmm~le Land Use Assumptions.
In lieu cfi adopting 1../I use as~mptiom foz ~eh service ~ea, a political subdivision may.
emccpt fnr stm:m ~0~cr, d_min~ge, flood coutrol, aaa xoaclway facilili~, adopt systemwide
trod use assumptions, ~hich cover all of the area subject to thc jurisdiction o£the polifiml
subdivision for the purpose o£impo~ng impact fees und~ this chapmr.
pt~blic notice, b~-~ ~.a o~ ~equirements fi~r ~dopti.g 1,,nd me as~umpfiom.
Afar ~loptiou of sy~ ~ use sssmmptiorm, s ~i~c~ s~is not ~ ~
~opt .flfl~ hnd ~e ssm~om ~r s s~c ~a ~r ~ ~ply, ~m~ md
1989, 71st ~g., ~. 5~, S=. 1~), e~ A~. ~, 1989.
Seco 395.047. H~rlng on [C,,l~i~l L..t,/.-,,-,,,,--.-;o ~:--~- --;.,I] Impact Fee,
' ' .. ' ...... c~.pil~im~overnent~ plan, the
On ~o_ouou of the land use assum~uons ,,n,-I [.',~,io ......... j
go~,,',i-g body shall adopt an order or ~esolmion se~-g a public l~.g to d~nss th~
o;~ V"-' ' ~';' "1 ~-~posifion o~ the impuet £ee~ The public he~.i.g must be held by the
body of the political subtly/sion to discuss ~he proposed or~li.~ne% order, os xesolufio=
395.049. Notice of I~ on [C~,ii~i -~...~,i6,~;.~ FL, i, ~..,I] Imlva~t Fee.
the 30th day before the dute of the he~dng on the imposition of
DIHTOH,~"~.003-20:L3 Capital Improvements Plan Fsbraar~' 3.7t 2003, Page 39
~c) Ti= nnticc must con~- the ~ollow/ng:
O) ~ hemilin~ ~ ~d as
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC I-~KFdNG ON ADOPTION OF ]IVIPACT PEES"
thc tkne., d~t~ md locmion oft:he
a sts~eat t~ ~ pm~po se of ~he hem~Z is t~ comid~r thc adoption of sn Jtnp~ct
If3;] the ~mount o£ the proposed impact f~ per servlc¢ unig and
05'] [(6)] ~ statement that my memb= of ~e pubIie ]~s thc ~at to appear at th~ he-~;~g and .
.................................. isTr~t' ~ideiwc e-fox ~oral~'~ - ~t ~e- pl.*and p~posacl~ee;
']'he mivlsozy cOrem;trUe Cr~tu~ under SectiOZ: 395.058 d:~lI file its'wfitt~ COmmemm on thc
l~oposed t,.,,~ ..... .'...~,~,~,~ ~J~ ~_, imnacC, fees befo:~ ~ .fi~'h bus;n-~s --d~ bffom the ctlm
of thc pub~: b,~-~ on thc impoakion of ~c ~ ~ fees.
Sec. 395.051. Approval og [C./el;~ T..-r.o.~a/~ I'~= ~id] Impact Fee Requited,
TI~ po.Iii:leal m, bdivision, ~d*,i, 30 d~ after the date of'&c public he,ring on ~
impo,i,*m of m [~kA ;~v~,.. ,.,,-=L. ~,L~ ~;,..~ i~pact ~ shall appzov= o:.disu, pprove
thCL,,~,,,i:,=~,.~,,,.~.~....~g,~..,~,.,o,, ...... .~,.~,,~.i] ~_ osmonofanmrpactf~,
knposi~on of an impact fcc may not be adopted as an emexgency meamt~
DENTON. TEXA~2003-2013 Capital ll'n prov~ments Plan February 17, 2003, Page 40
Sec. 39S.0.~2. Pe~odie Opc~te o£Lanc~ Use Ass. mptlons and C~:f,t',m! Imlatoveraems P/am
~a~dc~ m~di~o~_im?osing an ;,-~-~ ~ shall up&a: the ~,~a usc assumptions and
capimtimpmvem~t~ pla st least cv=y ave [*h~-~] yc~s. The iai~t f~v~-yeaz [~.~-y~,]
begins on the day the capital improvements plan is ~cloptc&
The polidcd subdivision shall revic-v ~ evidut~ its cu~'~t hnd uae .~:nt~fiom ~nd shall
cam .a ttlxla~ of ttm ca~tal improv~nmts phu~ to be pz~c~ed ~ ~cor,qn-ee ~id~
Subc~pt~r B. Add~ by Ac~ !989, 71st I.~g, ch. 1, Se~ 82(~), eft. Aug, 28, 1989.
DENTON, TEXA,~OO3-20:~3 Capital Improvements Plan February ~.7., 2003, Page
~ ~95.0.~. He~rtn,g o'~ Upda~eA L,~d Use A~l~trn~ons ~d Capital Tm~r~oveme~t~ pl~r,~
body o£th¢ pol;~l sub&vision sh~ ~/+gs. 60 days u~eet the da~ it receiws ~he
}~n~ use 2Ssulnptions an~ the cgp]l~l impxOVem~ plan. ado~ m ~= se~ng a
i989, 71~g~ ~ 1, Sec. 82(~), ~ ~. 28, 1989.
Sec.. 595.054. Hem:lng on Amendments to Land Use AsSUml~Ons, Capttsi Improvements
1989, 71st ~., ~, 1, S~. 82(a), ~ A~. ~, 1989.
Notice of He~ing on Am,~ndments to L~nd Use ~s-mpt~, Capiu0.
lmptovutm~s plu.; or Impact Fee.
The ~o~cc of g hc~in? under thi~ section mu.st cc~- the ~
'NOTICE OF PUBLIC iHEA~ING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT
(2) &c time~ d~m~ ~c1 locaOon o£tl~ ~,,~,q-~
x statement d~c cbc purpose o£ flac he~,~-g is to consider the amenJmcat of
use assumptions .-a a capit~l iml:,~ovcmncnts im]~u ,,,~,~ uhc imposi6on o£ s~ imp~
I&ENTON, TEY,~.003-2013 CapM~l Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 42
[~5)] g ststement that my membez of the public has the gght m appear at the b~dng .ne~
Sec. 395.056..Advisory Committee Commw'n~s On _A_meadmellt$.
T~e sl~visoxy comm~ee created under Section 395.058 ehull ~e i~ ~ ~mm~m on ~e
See. 39S.0~'/. Approval o£Ame~lments l~-<ptited.
The poliflc~l suMivisioa, ~{- ~0 aoys after the &re of the public h~4~ on ~e
amenet~en% eh~11 spplove or disapprove :he sm~a,~ts of the laud use assuml~om md
the capitol imptovemamm plsn md mo~h~.c.u, tiou. of~ ~,-np~-t fee.
aka ora~u~ or~ or resolution approving the amendments ±o the ~ use assumptions,
~he Cal~l impmvem~neu plar~ ~.A impOS~fio~ of un ~npact fee m~y not be adopted us mi
eme~geney'measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., eh. 1, See. 82(,,), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
~ $9&0575.. l~-,~n.~a,m That No UI~Ia~ of Land Use Ass~npfions~ Capital
ln~tuv~-~ts pl~ or Impnct Fee~ is Needed.
(a) Lf. at fine time m up~*n- ureter Section 395.052 is xe~ the govex~i~g body de'c~{-~u
..................... thnt ~o .~u.g= m the luna use assumpllons~-c~pi, ml ~npro~.me~ts pl.-r.or.impas.~.fee is-.....- .....................
x~'~_~_, it may, as ma sJ.~K, rem tb.e upc~tfing tequimmeat~ o£ Sect[om 395.052,-395.057,
The gov,.~i-g body of the political sub,vision s~I, upon det=m;,i-g that
update is ,,e~eeessa~ o~fl 60 du.7~ before pttbliuhlng tee fi,~l no~ce 11n~lf~"~ ~
section, senrl not[ce of its deferminu~ic~ ant to update *fine 1uneq ~C
car~ul improv~a~ts plan, --,~ impact fi~e by ce~4~ed mail.'to u=y perso~ ~ho
~hlo two ye~s preeed~ the date r~ue the fin.! notice of ~ matmr is m be
published, g~re w~ktm notice by cer~fi~i or xegistere~ ma~ m the mm~cip~
~ec~xy ox trinet d~igna~ed ofl~cisI o£ the pollen1 suhdMs~on reques~g ~o~ee of
heatings ~v. latefl to impact fees. ~e notice must contain the iufoxmgfion ~a
The pnli~c~ subdivision sh~]] pabl~uh mofice Oflts d~e~na~ o~ · ~k
au~o~ ~h~ ~ ~ ~ m eha~ fees ~t ~ ~ ~p~ fees
DENTON, TE~/~'~.003-2013 Capital Improvement= Plan February 17~ 2003~ Page 43
The notiee must eot, r.{n the following:.
'MOl'ICE OF DET~Li~NATiON NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMFIION$,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OK IMPACT FRwg";
~ sta~emen~ thae the govern;-g body o£ the political subdivision lms dev~rn;~ed that.
no change tn the ~na use sssumption~ c~i~iilimp~ovcmcms plan, or impact fee is
an e:MI¥ undets~.~.hle description and a map of thc service at~ in ~hich the
upda~g has bern d~;~ to be ,,n~messary;
a ststement ~t if. wj~hin a spe~itied date, which dam shall be a~least 60 days aff-~z
publicstion of the first notice, a p=son m~l~es a wzitlvax zequest to the designated
offufi~l o£ the political subdivision tequese~g th~ the to.a use assumptions, capitol
jrnl~ov~m~ pl..~ o£ impac~ fee be ~pdmmd. the gowning body muse comply
with the x~m~st by fulk,~iog the requi~emems of Sections 395.052-395.057; a~l
st $~tellaet~ ide,~ ~lg t~te ..rn¢ mac~ m;;1;f~ .Ach-~ss O£the o:[~dal o:~ ~he politic_id
subdiviZ, mon to whom · t~93mse for an update shoul~l be sene.
The aclvJsoz~ committee ~N.I! ~ its wtltten commemis on thc need £oz updating the 1.net'
before flag ~'a~t'~. nO~CC O£flae gOVtgnnmellt~s dt~iCua ~l~tt: IlO upditte is neecssa_ry is m~iled
If, by the date ~pec~ed in Subs~ion 0a) ~4-), a p~son requests in w~ili~g thst ~he land use
assumptions, eapiealituprovements plan. o= irnpace fee be upchmd, the governing body
~ acco=~ance with Sections $95.052-595.057.
An nrfl,n.nc% oxder, oz zesolufion dct~m'nqng thc need fox up&ting 1..~ use assumptions,
s c~piml hmp~ ..... ~ phi4 oz au ;mpaee ~ee may ~ot be actopt~d ss an v~n eege~cy
messu~. ~elaed by Acts :~989, 71st Leg., ck 566. Sec. l~d). elE Aug. 28. 1989.
On o= be~m'e the date on.ich the o.fl~, o~;-~m, ~resoh~n~ ~op~
The ad~sory committee is composed o£ not ~ss ~m fi~ me~e~ ~o ~h.ll be appo~t~
~ x ~ofi~ ~ of ~e ~mi~g body of ~ p~ ~b~om Not ~s ~m ~
~ d~mg or ~lfliflg~cs ~o ~ n~ ~p~s or oFff~;~ o~ a
I~ENI'OH, lrl~,A$\200'q-2013 Capi~l lr~rovemen'es Plarl F=bmaSt ~7, 2DO3j PaD'~ 44
advisory commitme se~ves in an adv/s~y mpadty ,nd Js established to:
0) ~h~se,o~ ~s~t the political subdiv~on i~ ~dopting 1,~ ~se ~s~mp6ons;
review the c~pitsl impmvc~,,,~ plan ,-d fi~ ~ten comments;
O) monies md evaluzt= implcmenta~ic~ o£ the capitol improvements ?~"m
file s,'m~o--,~1~epo~ts with xtspcct t~ thc progress of thc c~piml imptovcments
the 19,n o~ imposing eheimpact fee; and
the politic~ subdivision, of the need to updam oz revise the lo.a use
assumptinm, cspi~ improvements 71o-. at~cl imp~c fee.
The polRic~ subdivision s~,ll make ~waihble to ~he ~Ivisory cora'mltl~e ~ny l~ofesslomd'
........................ ~,~,~itt:c.to-follow ia cat~ing?u~ it~ dnties~bxlded b¥-Acts--1989~-71st-ieg,~.ch,.1.,-Sec~ ..............................
82(a), ef~ Aug. 28, 3.989.
Sec~ 395.0TL Duties to be
Ifthc gow,~-g body of the poli~icsl subdiv~ion does not pe~-oma a dm-yimposed undez*h~
~ ~h;~ the F~zib~xt period, a person ~ho has paid an. impa~t f~ oz an owner of land on
~Mch ,n iml~ct fee has been pmid has the ~ight to l~zesexlt a ~z[tt~n request to the ~ove ~,1~ bo~y
of the polifc~l s~bdivision s~,~ng the mmre of the unper£o~ned duty and ~cque~ing tlmt it bc
p~,~-I ~;::.~,. 60 d~j~ ~Ee~ the d~te o£the ~eqttest. [[the gov~n;~body of the politic~
· ~,,,.~, thc duty m Cnmme~C~irhi, 60 d~ys ~ ~ac dam ofth~ request ~ continue tm~
mm~ Added by Acts 1989. 71st Leg.. ch. I. Sec. 82(a). e~. An~ 28. 1989.
.~,~95.072. ~ o~Heazings.
A ~ must be made of any public b~ving provided for by thi~ chzpt~r. Thc zcco~l ~h~ll bc
maiamin~ -n~ be mad~ ~v-~-~l~ ~o~ public inspection By the political subdivision fo~ g~ l~st 20
~.~ af~the da~ ofthe ~-g. ARded byActs i989, 71 stLeg., ch- 1, Sec. 82(a), ere Ang. 28,
1989.
I~WNTON, TF...~e~.2003-2013 C~plta[ Improvements Plan February 17~ 2003, Page 45
A~y ~ or ioeaI rcst~ct~m th~ ~1~ly to the imposition of m impAc~ ~r~ ~ ~ polities1 subdivisio~
w~ ~- k~pac~ fee ~s proposed a~c com-bHvc with the resections in th~s r~..r~cr. 2~H~d by Acm
1989, Tls~ Leg~ c~ l, Sec~ 82(a), ~Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. ~5.074. Pr~r Impact Fee~ Replaced by Fees Under TI~ C,h~ptez.
Sec. $9~.075. No Effect o~ T~xes or Od]e~ Cbzrges.
~,.fl.n~ized by s~te L,c~..A~,.,t~ by ~-~ 1989, 71st Leg~ cl~ 1, Sec. 82(~). e~ Aug. 28, 1989.
~ S~5.076. Mora~-~', on Development l'£.,hibitecL
mol-aCmi~m tomy not be placed oa ~ew development Eot the purpose o£ ~w~ngthe completi6n
o~dl or ~ny ~ of~e pzoc~ss n~cessary to develop, ~dopt; ot update the impact ~ee. Added by
1989. 71stI, t~ cE 1, Sec 82(~), eff~ Aug. 28, 1989.
A p~r~on who 1~ ~Tl~ust~d al~ oa~-;~rative ~medics ~ithin the politicsl subd~ision .-a
who is sggdevecl by · ~.~1 decision is en~tled to .,.i.I de novo ..a~- this chapter.
A suit to co-~c ~ imp~c~ ~'e must be ~Ied within 90 clays z~ft~t the ao~ o£ ~4option o£ the
or~-.-~-, o:dcr, or ~csolu~on e~lql~hi.$ the impact ~e~
R~t ~t :oaa~,s7 5u:ilifies, a p~somwho h~s p~l ~n ~mpact fee or ~n Ow~r of p~pcV:y
o~ch ~n impact fcc t~s bccn p~id is moiled to specific pcr~0r~-~ of the scrdccs by
the polklc~l sul~d~o= for wkich
(~) This s~ction do~s not ~guL~c consU'uctiom o£ a sp¢ci~c ~h't7 to provide ~b~ services.
~ s~it must be t~ed i~ thc court
~s *~ ~ ~sm. ~ed ~ 19B9, 71st L~ ~ 1, S~. 82(a), ~ ~. 28, 1989.
An ~mlmmt f~ may m~t be 1~18 i~valicl bccaosc thc public notice :eClUkCments ~remc not complied
~ith i~co~pl;*-~ ~s s~bs~.~*] ~di~ good faith. A&ied by Acts 1989, 7tsC Leg. ch. 1, Sec~
S2(0, e~ Ang. 28,1989.
DENTON, TEK, ILl',2003-2013 c;epItal Improvements Plan February 17, :2003, Pege 46
~eo ~gF..O~. Iml~aC~ Fee fo~ S'ml~n Water, D~. ~no.~oe, m~d Plood Control in Popuious
The knpositlon o£Stapact £~es authotlzed by Subsection (a) is exempt from the
xextuitem~ o£Sectio~s 395.025, 395,052-395.057, artc1395.074 ~m~ess the pcfliOcal
s~/~ioa proposes to iacxease the imp~ ~e~
An imp~ fee u~loptexI by a polifieal subdivision n.~e~ Subsection (a) may not be red. ed
the politi~ subdivision h~s pledgefl o~ oth~eise contrgmmlly ahligat~ $1I or part
o£ the impact f~s to the paym~t o£pziuclpal ~-d [uterest on bonds, ~ot~s, or
osh~ obli~iom issued by or on b~* o£the poli~ratl subaivisioa;
(2) the pon*~c,l sub~vlsloa sgr~e~ ~a the pleclge or contract aot u~ rea,,-e the imp~at
....................................... ~%es d~qng~he(~wof-~he-botu~;~otes;.or other contmcuml-obliggtions;
by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, $~c. 82(a), e~ Aug. 28, 1989.
~ ~$,080. (~pte~ Not At~plteable to ~ Wate~.l~uted Speri=~ Dismicm.
(~) ~a~ ~ho?ex does not apply m impact fees, -h.~ges, fees, asees~aem~, oe contributions:
pe~ b~ oz -~-%g~cl co a cllst~ ~ ,,~ ~ Az6de XVI, Seatlon 59, o£the Texas
Com~a~m~c~ m mother dlst~c ~reamd uncI~ thgt com~u~ior~ prm~on i~ both
c~st~cts u~e r~quimt by ~twto obta~ approval o£ ~ bonds by thc'rems Natural
R~sotm:e Coasetwsfion Commi.~siorg or
~ by a~ emi~ i~the imps~: fi~s, ~ho~s, ~s, ass~-_~m, ox coat~butiom
~ a~roved by d~ T~u-~ Na~I Resoume Ccr~serva'd. on Commlusioa.
Au.¥ dis~ct cm~ecl uackr-&~_'c!e XVI, Sectio~ 59, or ~-~ ~ ~oa 52, of~e T~
~;~ ~ ~pt ~s ~r x~ ~e ~n ~a may ch~ ~e ~fi~ ~s
~,.~ ~ ~ ~e cost of ~es~ nna cons~ ~e pefifi~ ~ ~es shall
~e ~fi~ ~s~y ~ s~e ~ ~t ~d ~ ~ ~ ~or ~e ~o~o= oE
DENTON, TEXA*'~.003-2.013 Caplt~[ Zmprovement~ Plan Febrtm~, 17, 2003, Page 47
~ 1989. 71st Leg. eh 1, Sec. 82(a), eft. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg.
76, Sec. 11,257, eft. Sept. 1, 1995.
subdivi,i~ that imposes mx im~ ~e shall submit a
with this eha_t~er to the ittome~r ~m:~,al each ~ear not la~..r ~an ~e
political suMivisio~'~ £scal
D~ITON, TI~'~2003-2r~I3 Capl~[ Improvements Plan Fabruary :17, 2003, Page 48
EXHIBIT B
Capital Improvements Plans for
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
EXHIBIT B
Summary Presentation on 10 - Year Water Capital
Improvements Plan
Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee
City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Update Evaluation.
10-Year Water C~apital Improvement Plan
Back,round:
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code outlines the legal authority mud
prooeduras to be followed for munioipal utilities to adopt and implement impaot fees.
The City of Denton first implemented impact fees for water and wastewater on with the
adoption of Ord/nsuce 98-301 (adopted Svptember 18, 1998 with and effective date of
S~ptember 29, 1998). This action was prompted by the following:
· The rapid growth rate projected for Denton - Service population ham'eases of 6I %
for water and 57°% for wastowater from 1999 to 2009.
· The sS~ificant cost of developing new water supplies associated with the Lake
Pay Roberts Reservoir project~
· The si~ificant' C0mtmction cost for building the new Lake Pay l~oberm Water
Treatment Plant.
· Community resistance towar& inoreasing water and/or wastewator utility rates to
............................ p ay _fgr_. _n_e._w. !~.~ _.t~_.~. _t~'.~ .t_o...~pp_o_ff_¢._e. _..rap. ,i.d._ ~ _v~,.h_ _rat e ~ p~oj c__~_te_d_. ............................................
· General acceptance by other communities in the DFW area to use hnpaet fees as a
means to help pay for now utility infrastruetttm noeessa~r to support growth.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code as mended ha 2001 requ/.res that
cities that adopt and implement impa~t fees update their population projections, had use
ass,,mpfions and capital impmvcanents plans every five y~ars. Tho pl~n~i~g pemiod that
in, pact fee update studies are based upon is a tm-year p~.ri6d.
FY 1998 10 Year CUP for Water Utilities Impact Fees:
The ten-year espital improvements program for water utilities that was adopted as a part
of the development of Ordinance 98-301 is ~own in Exhibit I-A. This plan included
nine growth related capital improvement projeet~ 'for water utilities that covered the
following categories o~/mpmvements:
· Water treatment pianos (3 pro~¢cts),
· Water pnmping stations with or without ground s(orage tsnlr~ (2 projects).
· Elevated storage tanks (2 projects).
· Majortransmissionlines (2projects).
One of these projects (Spencer Road Waer Treatment Plant) was m existing capital
improvement that had some available excess capacity at the time the study was done. A
portion of the costs for this existing facility was therefore eligible for recovery through
impact fees. The rem~ning eight projects were new projects that were either in the
existing Water Utilities S-year capital ~mprovements pm~:am (approved by the Public
Utilities Board and City Council) or idantffied in the utility master plan as capital
impmwments needed to support new growth dur/ng the next ten years. The total cost of
these ~i~e capital hnpro{~h.' ent projects was es0mated to bc $100,617,000 with
$ 43,604,000 identified as eligible costs for impact fees to support grovrth during the t~n-
year pl~-i~§ period. The projected increase in new water customers during this period
was 19,138 Single F~mily Bquivalents (SFEs).
FY 2003 10 Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees:
The ten-year capital knprovenmnts program for water utilities proposed for the FY 2003
impaet fee program update is shown in Exhibit I-B. This plan includes sixteen growth
related capital improvement projects for water utilities that covered the foliow[ug
categories of improvements:
· Water treatment plants (1 project).
· Water pumping stations with or without ground storage re, ks (2 projects).
· Elevated storage tanks (3 projects).
· Majortransmisal~n Enes (10 projects).
S~x of these projects were e~ther recently completed (Bernard/James 20" Waterline), or
unde~ construction (Lake Ray Roberts wrP, $4" F~-~hed Water Tmusmisslon Line,
Loop 288 Waterline-Sherman to Hwy 380, Loop 288 Waterline-Sherman to UNT, and
the Northwest Elevated Storage Tank and Supply Line). One project is currently under
final design (Southwest Boost~ p,mp Station and Ground Storage T~nk). Eight projects
are in the adopted FY 2003 - FY 2007 Water Utilities CIP (North-South Waterline
Phases I, ]]~ III & IV, Roselawn Wa~line, Roselawn Elevated Storage T,nk~ Robson
Ranch Elevated Storage T~nk and the High School Booster ?ump Station). One
additional project (Loop 288 Waterline - UNT to 1-35) is planned to be included in the
FY 2008 CIP during the upcoming budget cycle.
During the design phase of the Lake Kay Roberts Water Treatment Plant project, the
decision was made to build the in/rial plant with a capacity of 20 Million Gallons per Day
(MGD) rather than build the plant in two 10 M~D phases as originally proposed in the
FY 1998 impact fee capital plan.' Additionally, the decision was made to relocate the
Hartlee Field l~.oad Booster ?nmp Stolon and Ground Storage £acilities from the
ori~.ually proposed site up to the Lake. Pay Roberts Water Treatment ?~ant site. This
also rasulted in an incxease in tho. size and pressure rafiag of tho. Fi~i~ed 'vVator
Tr~n~m~.~s/on Line anc~ the Booster Pump Station Tie-In Line. The total estimated cost of
these proposed projo.cts bom tho. FY 1998 impact fo.e C11~ was $ 50,775,000. The revised
cost of the mocl{6ed facilities that are currently under construction that are included in the
FY 2003 impact fee Cf? totaled $ 47,930,000. Additionally, thc location of thc new
elevated storage tank for tho southwest side of tho. middle pressure plane has be~n moved
from a site proposed near tho. UNT Campus ~o the Roselawn area south of Denia Park.
During thc 17y 1998 impact fee study process, the growth demands for the far
southwe~m portion of the water service area was not projected to occur to any major
e~tent during the ten-year planning period, ttow~ver, th~ Robson Ranch davelopmont
coupled with the Country Lekos North development resulted in two new projects to be
/ncluded in the FY 2003 impact foe CIP (Southwest Booster Pump Station and Oround
Storage. Tank and the Robson Kanch Elevated Storage Tank).
In add/tion, the popula6on projections that resulted ~-om tho. FY 1998 impact fee study
were significantly higher than those that were projected in the Utility Department's FY
1996 Fore.cast. This more conservative forecast from the mid 1990's was used for the 20-
y~ar Water Distribution Master ?l~n Study that was performed in 1997. With the revised
population projections that camo. out of the FY 1998 impact fec study, it was determined
that the 1997 Water Distribution Master Plan would need to be revLsed prior to including
.................. .~...v..n~ajo~ .~.s~s..mi'_s~ov 1/~rs ~.,th~.imp~ f~_..capital.~a~ .~ther.than.th~. majo~ line~ .........................
assoeiated with the initial connection of the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treaim~nt
71~=~. As a result, the proposed FY 200S Ten-Year CIP fo~ Water Utilities Impact Fees
includes ,~ine new watcr tm=.~mi,~sion line projects that were identified in the FY 2000
Water D[sWibution Master Plan update that am necessary to suppor~ the c~acity of the
new Lake Ray Robe,s Water Tre~ ~m~o.nt Plant project and the expansion of water system
damands over the ten year p]~=,~=g period.
A d~ailed listing of the proposed FY 2003 Ten-Year CIP for Water UtiliZes Impact Fees
is shown in Exhibit I~. The total cost of these sixt~an capital imprOv~n~nts projects ~s $
75,995,000 with $ 53,549,500 identified as o.ligible costs for impact fees to suppor~
growth during the tan-year p~n~ng period. The prelim~na'ry as6mate for new water
customers during this period is appro~m~tely 25,000 Single Family Equivalents (SFEs).
10 - Year. Water Capital Improvements Plan
Prepared'by Alan Hummer and Associates
Presented to the capital Improvements Advisory
Committee
City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Update Evaluation.
City of Denton
Water ]h)aprovement Costs
200~-2013
Improvement Co~t Percent Applieabl~
(~o~1~) impa~
F~eatment Plan~
Pump ~ & ~an~
8, ~bs~ ~oh EI~a~ T~ $1,140:000 ~5,0~ $399,~0
9. ~gh ~aol B~r 2~p 8~ ~0,~0 30.0~ ~738,000
~a~m~s~n L~
1, ]For applir~bl~ ~m-~al~ages, s~ workahaats ada~ad.
2. In cl~i. ed m~ par~ 0 f tl~ Ray Rob~ls ~"ll~
3. ~.e~la~ed ~ l~oaelawa ~l~vatad Tmak
City of Denton
Water Improvement Cos~ Applicable to Impact Fees
Transmission Lines
2003-2013
Improvement In-Service Date Years Applicable Percentage
Year! ~ ~
Transmission Lines
1. Main 'rransmisslon Line Prom Pay Pabmls WTt' to System 2003 10 40.0{3~~
L Loop 28{~ Water Line- Shern~n to Hv~y. 380 2003 10 50.00%
½. Loop 288 Wa~r Li~e - Sh~nn to LINT 2003 10 50.00%
S. 9~-,-~,d- Jame~ 20" Water Line 2003 10 50.00%
~. l~Ia~J~- South Wa~r Line Pha~e I 2003 10 $0.00%
L Nor~ - South W~ter Line Phase II ~004 9 45.00%
7. Roselawn W~ Li~e 2004 9 45.00%
L Nor~.- South Water Line P~.~se ]3I 2005 8 40,00%
). Nozth - South Water Line l>base IV 200~ 6 30.00%
10. Lop~ 288 W~ter Line- ~ to 3~-I-35 2.007 6 30.00%
1. In ssrvtoe dates am anticipated and were provlded bytha City of Denton.
2. Transmission lines vail have a 20 year IN~. Years applicable to CIP Ia calculated by talcing the in-service date
from the year 2013. The percentage is the ratio of ene years applicable to 20, the assumed project life.
3, Main Tranamlsslon Line f~om Ray Roberts WTP to System baaed on u61izetion of 20 rngd of the designed 50 mgd capac{ty
Summary Presentation on 10 - Year Wastewater
Capital Improvements Plan
Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee
City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Update Evaluation.
10-Year Wastewater Capital, ,Impr0yement Plan
The Phase-I ~knpact }:ecs were approvc~l by the City Council in August 1998. For
wastcwater, this phase included impact fees only for the expansion of the Pecan Creek
Water Reclamation Plant. The existing plant hss a tmstment capacity of 15 rn~llion
tallon~ per day (mid) average daily flow. With the implementation of the Phase-I Impact
F~.es, the construction for expansion of the plant capacity to 21 mgd is currently under
way and is scheduled for completion in Dec~mbcr 2003. The cost of expansion of the
water rec!aruation plaut to 21 mid is included in Exhibit IV. This cost inoludcs
e~gineering, construction md construction maua§~ment costs.
During the adoption of the Phase I Impact Fees, the wastewater collection system master
plan was not complete. So the Council had decided to move ahead with adoption of
impact fees for the water reclamation plant cons~'uctlom Since then, a new wastewater
collaction' system computer model based on the 1999 population projections and
measured flow data has been developed. The pipe sizes required to cra'fy the wastewater
flows for the Year 2020. conditions have been modeled. The cons~r,~cfion cost of these
major sewer lines h~ bc~n estimated. In this update of the impact fees, the cost of
construction of the~e major interceptor sewer lines is included to allow recovery of the
capital cost fi'om new development that impacts the existing collection system and creates
the need for these projects. The construction cost of each of the projects is shown in
Exhibk IV. The major Intercaptor sewer projects are listed below and shown in the
attached map.
· CooPer Creek Lift Station and Pome Main
Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Lh~ Station and Force Main
· Pecan Creek Interceptor
· Hickory C~ekinterceptor
Graveyard Branch Interceptor
· LzkeviewPumch/Grissom Interceptor
· Roark Branch interceptor
· North Hickory Creek Interceptor
Three. major projects have beenpropos~d in the ClearflvIilam Creek Basin, which is noxth
of the Loop. 288. The existing coHaction system south of the Loop 288 can not
accommodate flows from ~hese proposed developments. The planrfing Department has
prepared the Land Use Plan and Population Projections for this basiru The population
projections show au estimated population of 16532 in Year 2013. To provide wastewater
service for the projected growth in the Clear/Milam Creek Basins a new wastewater
h~atment plant and intea'ceptor sewer to convey flows to the plant has been approved by
the Public Utilities Board and the City Council. The Clear Creek Water Rec~a~n.tion
Plant and the interceptor sewer are shown in Exhibit IV. These projects are currently
under dcs~gn and soheduIed for construction in the summer of 2003. The initial plant
capacity is projected at 0.95 rngd that will serve approximately 9500 persons. To
accommodate prejeeted growth.in the sewer basin the plant capacity will be expanded in
the 10-year time horizon. Thc cost of this expansion is 'included in Exhibit IV. Thc sower
linc will be designed for a r~inlmum of 20 y~ar proj~ted wastewator flow capacity
The population projections pr~arcd by the pl~n~g Department for tho Hickory Creek
Basin forecast a population of 49,775 by 2013 aud 70,059 by 2020. Currently all
wastewater flows from the Hickory Creek Basin are pumped to the Pecan Creek Water
Reclamation Plant. The existi~E Hickory Creek Lid Station used te pump the Hickory
Creek Basin flows to the plant is fully ut/lized during we~ weather conditions. The
southwest par~ of the city ~s a high gro~h area and is expected to grow most rapidly
within Denton. The Graveyard Branch Interceptor snd the currently under design Roark
Branch Interceptor sewer to serve the Vintage Development and the Roark Branch Basin
have created the need to expand the wastewater infrastructure in thc Hickory Creek
Basir~ To accommodate the wastewater flows from projected populations one option is to
construct a new pumping station at the intersection of tho Graveyard Branch and Hickory
Creek Interceptor sewers, and pump all flows to the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation
Phmt. The new pump station an~ the approximately 9 m/les of force msiu to carry
wastewater flows to the plant is a substantial project. If all flows from the Hickory Creek
Basin are pump~.d with the new pump station along with the existing Hickory Creek L~
Station, then growth in the Hickory Creek Basin will ns; up the capacity of the Peeau
Creek Water Reclamation Plant. This will requi~e construction of a new plant at the
exis~ng plent site to allow for this growth.
-The;Water D~partment is currently developing and...cxpanding, the wastewater, treated
effluent reuse system in the city for SUpplying irrigs~on and indus~al use water to large
users. To wi~imize the pipeline and pumping costs to supply the reuse water it is
bene£cisl to loea~e the source of this water, the treatment plant, close to the users. To
accommodate growth in the Hickory Creek Basin and provide impetus for reuse in
basin, the option of locating a new wastewater treatment plaut in the Hickory Creek
Basin in lieu of a new large pumping station is proposed. An in-house study is currently
underway to evaluate this option. The dolhars required to construct the new pumping
station will offset the cost for the new wastewater p~-t eonsm~efion. The estimated
construction cost of a 3 mgd plant in the Hickory Creek Basin is included in Exhibit IV.
10 -Year 'Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan
Prepared by Alan Plummer and Associates
Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee
City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Update Evaluation.
Cit~ of Denton
Wastewator Improvement Costs
2003-2013
/mproveme~t Cost Percent Applicable to Applicable Cost
(Dollars) Tmpact Feest (Do~ars)
Tr~abnent Pl~nt~
1. P~m [~ak WRP B~dffing (~o ~ty (15 MOD)~ $23A~6,540 1~.~ $~,187.369
2. P~ ~ ~ ~i~ (6 ~D)z $19,41~015 83.~
3. ~ ~k ~ (.95 MOD)~ $6,~0,000 100.00%
L~S~ns & Force Mai~
7. ~ ~ L~ Sm~ & F~ ~n S 1,~0,000 58.~ $970,530
L ~ ~ssom ~ S~& ~ M~ S1,~3,~0 53,33% $870,~
~t~ ~ ~t~s & ~ M~ $~,~,0~ $I,~41,409
~I~te~to~s
[9. ~p~ ~ ~ $1,500,000 50.00% $750,000
L0. P~ ~ ~r SZ,~0,000 50.00~ $1f00,0O0
LI. ~ ~r P~e I ~00,0~ ~.00~ $l,160,0~
t3. ~ $~,~ffS.~ 50.0~
17. Hg~ ~~ S~O,O~ 50.~ '
To~l W~t~ ~p~vem~t ~p~l C~ * $83~0,277 To~ AppB~le Cos~ - $45,9~
1. For a~I{cnM= pm'cent~ se~ v~d~he~ au~he~t .
2. T~eatmeot Plant capacities ware not adequately addressed In ~he 2001 Mes~er P~an. Information regarding t~egtment plant construction and
cspa=tties, both total and required, were provided by P.S. Atom - City of Denton per telephone conversallort on December t0, 2002, Capac'~es
were based on currant City of Denton populaUon i=rojestions published in Nowmber 2002.
3, Oversize Pndtolpaflcn Only - I nformatio~ p~ovldnd by P.S. Atora - C[ly of Denton
City of Denton
Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees
Iaterceptors
2003-2013
Improvement In-Service DateYears Applicable Percentage
Yrzr' ~.
Intercet~tors
9. Cooper Creek Interceptor 2003 10 50.00%
10, ?ecan Creek Intereeptn' 2003 10 50.00%
11. ~ Creek Imercegtor Phase ! 2005 8 40.00%
11, I-Iiakery Creek Interc~tor Phaze r[ 2005 8 40.00%
13. Cn-aveyar~ Branch 2003 10 50,00%
14. Lakev~w Ranch/C-r~om Inte~cept6r 2005 8 40.00%
15. Clear Cr~.k / 3fal~n Creek Interceptor 2005 8 40.0{)%
16. Roark Bnmoh3 2003 10 50,00%
'1. In sew[ca dates are anticipated.
2. Interceptors will have a 20 yesr life. Years applicable to CIP is caP-ulated by taking the In-service date
fram the year 20'13. The percentage is the ratio ofthe years applicable to 20, the assumed pmJec~ life.
3. Oversize Participation Only '
Water CCN Boundary
EXHIBIT C
Wastewater CCN Boundary
EXHIBIT' D
Wastewater CCN Boundary
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
LAND USE EQUIVALENClES
WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES
METER SERVICE
TYP]~ METER SIZE TYPICAL LAND USE UNITS
Residential - Single F~y
Positive Displacement . ...3/4". (less than 1,300 sq. fl;/lot s~ze less th~m 6,000 sc~. ff.) 0.5
Positive Displacement 3/4" Residential - Single Fm-nily 1.0
Positive Displacement 1" Residential / Commercial 2.5
Positive Displacement l-1 1/2 .. commercial 5.0
Positive D..!.splac~neni2" Commercial 8.0
Venturi 3" Apartment Complex 17.5
Compound 3" Commercial / Indus~al 22.5
Turbine 4" Corem ercial / ~dustrial 5 0.0
So.ce: C~ty of D~nton Approved Meter Manufacturer's Spec~catiom
EXHIBIT F