2003-137
%(+$1$%$1$-"$%.1,
2003137
7
AdditionalFileExists
AdditionalFileContainsRecordsNotPublic,AccordingtothePublicRecordsAct
Other
%(+$2#§º«(´¯º¯§²¹
AmendedbyOrdinanceNo.200418307/20/04JR
AmendedbyOrdinanceNo.200815607/15/08JR
AmendedbyOrdinanceNo.201332611/19/13JR
ORDINANCE NO. 2003- /~ q
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 IM?ACT FEES PER
SERVICE UNIT AND IMPACT FEES TO BE COLLECTED; CREATING SCHEDULES FOR
THE ASSESSMENT AND 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 Pubhc Utilities Board, an advisory committee; and
WHEREAS, 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; NOW THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That the facts, circumstances, and recitations contained in the preambles to
this Ordinance are hereby found and declared to be true and correct.
SECTION 2. That the Land Use Assumptions for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as if fully set forth.
SECTION 3. That the Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact
Fees hereby are amended as set forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as if fully set forth.
SECTION 4. That Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas,
entitled "Utilities," is hereby amended, which shall read as follows:
CHAPTER 26: UTILITIES
ARTICLE VI. IMPACT FEES
Sec. 26-210. Short Title.
This Article shall be known and cited as the "Denton Impact Fee Ordinance."
Sec. 26-211. Statement of Purpose.
This Article is intended to assure the provision of adequate public facilities to serve new
development in the City by requiring each development to pay its proportional share of the costs
of such improvements necessitated by and attributable to such new development as related to
water and wastewater capital improvements.
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 mount 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 fi:om time to tin, e, 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 fzom time to time, upon which the impact fee capital improvements plan for
the service area is based.
(9) New development means a project 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 the requirements for capital
improvements or facility expansions, measured by the service units to be generated by 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.
(10) Service area means a geographic area within the City or within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, within which impact fees for water or wastewater facilities may be collected for new
development occurring within such area and within which fees so collected will be expended for
those types of improvements identified in the type of capital improvements plan applicable to the
service area.
(11) Service unit means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge
attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally
accepted engineering or planning standards, for a particular category of capital improvements or
facility expansions. For water and wastewater facilities, the service unit shall constitute the basis
for establishing equivalency within various customer classes based upon the relationship of the
continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a water meter of a given size and
type compared to the continuous duty maximum flow rate in gallons per minute for a 3/4-inch
diameter simple water meter.
(12) Single-family equivalency ("SFE") means an equivalency factor, based on the demand
associated with the smallest water meter used in the City of Denton, Texas utility system. SFE's
are utilized to establish the number of service units to be allocated to various meter sizes used in
the City of Denton, Texas utility system.
(13) Site-related facility means an improvement or facility which is for the primary use or
benefit of a new development and/or which is the for the primary purpose of safe and adequate
provision of water and wastewater facilities to serve the new development and which is not
included in the impact fee capital improvements plan and for which the developer or property
owner is solely responsible under subdivision and other applicable regulations.
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 until the applicant has paid the impact fee imposed herein.
Sec. 26-215. Land use assumptions.
(a)
Said land use assumptions for the City shall be updated at least every five (5) years
utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Texas Local Government Code, Chapter
395.
(b)
Amendment to the land use assumptions shall incorporate projections of changes in land
uses, densities, intensities and population for the service area over at least a ten (10) year
period.
Sec. 26-216. Water impact fee service area.
There is hereby established an amended water impact fee service area, to include all land within
the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction, as depicted in Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.
4
Sec. 26-217. Wastewater impact fee service areas.
There are hereby established two (2) wastewater impact fee service areas, the boundaries of
which are respectively described in Exhibits D and E, which are attached hereto and incorporated
by reference herein as if fully set forth.
Sec. 26-218. Determination of service units.
The number of service units for both water or wastewater impact fees shall be determined by
using the land equivalency table, which converts the demands for water or wastewater
improvements generated by typical land uses to water meter size, and which is attached hereto as
Exhibit F and incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth.
Sec. 26-219. Impact fees per service unit.
(a)
Maximum impact fees per service unit for each service area shall be established by
category of capital improvements. The maximum impact fee per service unit for each
service area for each category of capital improvement shall be computed in the following
manner:
(1)
For each category of capital improvements, calculate the total projected costs of
capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to new development in the
service area identified in the impact fee capital improvements plan;
(2)
From such amount, subtract a credit in the amount of that portion of utility service
revenues, if any, including the payment of debt, to be generated by new service
units during the period the capital improvements plan is in effect, including the
payment of debt, associated with the capital improvements in the plan;
(3)
Divide the resultant amount by the total number of service traits anticipated within
the service area, based upon the land use assumptions for that service area.
Co) 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 lbrth 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 fi.om time to time
utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Section 26-228.
Sec. 26-220. Assessment of impact fees.
(a) Assessment of impact fees for any new development shall be made as follows:
(1)
For land which is unplatted at the time of application for a building permit or
utility connection, or for a new development which received final plat approval
prior to the effective date of this Article, and for which no re-platting is necessary
pursuant to the City's subdivision regulations prior to development, assessment of
impact fees shall occur at the tune application is made for the building permit or
utility connection, whichever first occurs, and shall be the mount of the
maximum impact fee per service unit in effect, as set forth in Schedule 1.
(2)
For a new development which is submitted for approval pursuant to the City's
subdivision regulations on or after the effective date of this Article, or for which
re-platting results in an increase in the number of service units after such date,
assessment of impact fees shall be at the time of final plat recordation, and shall
be the amount of the maximum impact fee per service trait in effect as set forth in
Schedule 1.
(b)
Following assessment of impact fees pursuant to subsection (a), the amount of impact fee
assessment per service trait for that development cannot be increased, unless the owner
proposes to change the approved development by the submission of a new application for
final plat approval or other development application that results in approval of additional
service units, in which case a new assessment shal! occur at the Schedule 1 rate then in
effect for such additional service units.
(c)
Following the vacating of any plat or approval of any re-plat, a new assessment must be
made in accordance with subsection (a)(2).
(d)
An application for an amending plat made pursuant to Texas Local Government Code
§212.016 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.
See. 26-221. Computation of impact fees.
(a)
Following the filing and acceptance of a written application for building permit, 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;
6
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(0
(g)
(h)
(3)
The total number of service units shall be multiplied by the impact fee per service
unit for water or wastewater service facilities using Schedule 1 then in effect as
established in Section 26-219;
(4)
The mount 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.
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.
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.
Whenever the property owner increases the number of service units for a development,
the additional impact fees collected for such new service units shall be determined based
on Schedule 1 and applicable offsets, credits, and discounts then in effect and such
additional fee shall be assessed and collected at the time the additional meters are
purchased.
In the event the property owner decreases the number of service units for a development,
the property owner shall be entitled to a retired of the impact fee for impact fees actually
paid, but only for the amounts represented by the decrease in service units based on the
assessed fee and offsets~ credits, or discounts applicable at the time the fee was paid.
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 shall be issued if the applicant cannot verify payment of the
7
appropriate impact fee and other applicable fees or if exist'rog facilities do not have actual
capacity to provide service to the new connection(s).
Sec. 26-222. Collection of impact fees.
(a)
Except as otherwise provided in this Section, the impact fee for the new development
shall be collected at the time the City issues a building permit, or if a building permit is
not required, at the time an application is filed for a new connection to the City's water or
wastewater system or for an increase in water meter size.
(b)
Except as otherwise provided by contracts with political subdivisions, developer's
contracts, or wholesale customers, no building permit shall be issued until all impact fees
have been paid to the City.
(c)
The City may enter into an agreement for capital improvements with a property owner
pursuant to Section 26~229 that establishes a different time and manner of payment.
(d)
The owner of an existing single-family homestead housing unit, actually occupying said
homestead, may make payments of any water or wastewater impact fee required by the
Article in monthly installments over a period of not more than five (5) years from the
date payment of the fee is otherwise required by this Article. The owner of said
homestead must execute a promissory note, deed of trust, homestead affidavit, or other
documents to be prepared by the City Attorney sufficient to establish an enforceable lien
on the real property. All such installment payments shall be subject to interest at a rate
equal to a twelve-month average of the 5-year Treasury Note. The interest rate on such
note shall be adjusted annually, according to the most current twelve-month average.
(e)
In the event that a property owner agrees to construct or finance capital improvements in
the capital improvements plan pursuant to Section 26-229, the costs of which are to be
reimbursed to the owner from impact fees paid from other new developments that will
use such facilities, the City may collect impact fees from such other new developments at
the time final plats are recorded for such development.
(f)
Schedule 1 sets the assessment rate and establishes maximum impact fees as set forth in
subparagraphs (1) and (2) below:
(1) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after
September 15, 1998, but before May 29, 2003, the maximum impact fee per service unit
shall be $2,044 for the water service area, and $483 for the Zone 1 wastewater service
area.
(2) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred prior to
September 15, 1998, on or after May 29, 2003, or for any new development which is not
subject to paragraph (1), the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be as follows:
$3,155 for the water service area; $1,703 for the Zone 1 wastewater service area; and
$2,614 for the Zone 2 wastewater service area.
(g) Schedule 2 sets the collection rate for impact fees as set forth in subparagraphs (1) and
(2) below:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), impact fees shall be collected and paid as
follows:
Water Service Area: $3,155 per service unit
Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1): $1,437 per service
May 28, 2006)
$1,570 per serrate
May 28, 2008)
$1,703 per serrate
May 28, 2013)
Wastewater Service Area (Zone 2): $1,437 per serwce
May 28, 2006)
$1,893 per servme
May 28, 20O8)
$2,614 per sermce
May 28, 2013)
Provided, however, Wastewater Service Area Impact Fees for Zone 1, for Single-Family
Residences of less than 1,300 square feet, that are located on lots of less than 6,000 square feet,
shall instead be charged, and the City shall collect a Wastewater Service Area Impact fee of 50%
of the adopted Wastewater Service Area Impact Fee for Zone 1.
(2) For a new development for which final plat recordation occurred on or after
September 15, 1998, but before May 29, 2003, and for which no new service units
have been added, impact fees shall be collected as follows:
Water Service Area $2,044 per service unit
Wastewater Service Area (Zone 1) $483 per service unit
unit (fi:om May 29, 2003 until
unit (fi:om May 29, 2006 until
anit (fi:om May 29, 2008 until
unit (from May 29, 2003 until
unit (fi:om May 29, 2006 until
units (fi:om May 29, 2008 until
(a)
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
9
Co)
(c)
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 fi.om new
development as established in Section 26-219.
(3)
The unit costs used to calculate the offsets shall not exceed those assumed for the
capital improvements included in the impact fee capital improvements plan for
the category of facility within the service area for which the impact fee is
imposed.
(4)
If an offset or credit applicable to a plat has not been exhausted within ten (10)
years fi.om the date of the acquisition of the first building permit issued or
connection made alter 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 trait 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
10
among the total number of service units within such development and reduced by
an amount equivalent to the number of existing service units within such
development and shall be further reduced by the amount of any participation
funds received from the City and by any payments received from other
developments who utilize the system facility.
(8)
The City may participate in the costs of an area-related improvement to be
dedicated to the City, including costs that exceed the amount of the impact fees
due for the development under Schedule 1 for that category of capital
improvements, in accordance with policies and rules established under the City's
subdivision regulations and when incorporated into an agreement for capital
improvements pursuant to Section 26-229. The amount of any offset shall not
include the amount of the City's participation.
(d)
Unless an agreement for capital improvements is executed providing for a different
manner of offsetting or crediting impact fees due pursuant to Section 26-229, an offset or
credit associated with a plat shall be applied to reduce an impact fee at the time of
application for the first building permit or at the time of application for the first utility
connection for the property, in the case of land located within the City's extraterritorial
jurisdiction, and, thereafter, to reduce impact fees subsequently to be collected, until the
offset or credit is exhausted.
Sec. 26-224. Establishment of accounts.
(a)
The City's Department of Finance shall establish separate interest-bearing accounts
clearly identifying the category of capital improvement (i.e. water facilities and
wastewater facilities) within the service area for which the impact fee is collected.
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 fimds shall be authorized by the
City at such times as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and intent of this
Article; provided, however, that any fee paid shall be expended within a reasonable
period of time, but not to exceed ten (10) years from the date the fee is deposited into the
account.
(d)
The City's Department of Finance shall maintain and keep adequate financial records for
each such account, which shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, which
shall account for all monies received, the number of service units for which the monies
are received, and which shall ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account
shall be used solely and exclusively for the provision of projects specified in the impact
fee capital improvements plan as area-related capital projects. The City's Department of
Finance shall also maintain such records as are necessary to ensure that refunds are
11
appropriately made in accordance with this Article. The records of the account into
winch 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.
Impact fees collected pursuant to this Article shall not be used to pay for any of the
following expenses:
O)
Construction, acquisition, or expansion of capital improvements or assets other
than those identified for the water and wastewater utility in the impact fee capital
improvements plan;
(2)
Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or
facilities expansions;
(3)
Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve
existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or
regulatory standards;
(4)
Upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve
existing development; provided, however, that impact fees may be used to pay the
costs of upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements in order
to meet the need for new capital improvements generated by new development; or
(5) Administrative and operating costs of the City.
Sec. 26-226. Appeals.
(a)
The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the following
decisions to the City Council: (a) the applicability of an impact fee to the new
development; (b) the method of calculating the amount of the impact fee due; (c) the
availability or the amount of an offset, credit or rebate; (d) the application of an offset or
credit against an impact fee due; or (e) the amount ora refund due, if any.
(b) The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the amount of the fee or
12
(c)
the amount of the offset, credit or rebate was not calculated according to the provisions of
this Article.
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 determ/nation of the
impact fee due, the development application may be processed while the appeal is
pending.
Sec. 26-227. Refunds.
(a)
Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Article which has not been
expended within ten (10) years from the date of payment, shall be refunded, upon
application, to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid, or, if the
impact fee was paid by another governmental entity, to such governmental entity,
together with interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the
statutory rate as set forth in Vemon's Ann. Civil Statutes, Title 79, Art. 1C.002, or any
successor statute.
Co)
Upon the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the
City shall refund such fees if:
(1) Existing service is available and service is denied; or
(2)
Service was not available when the fee was collected and the City has failed to
commence construction of facilities to provide service within two (2) years of fee
payment; or
(3)
Service was not available when the fee was collected and has not subsequently
been made available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of
capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in any event no
later than five (5) years from the date of the payment.
(c)
The City shall refund an appropriate proportion of impact fee payments in the event that a
previously purchased but uninstalled water meter for which the impact fee has been paid
is replaced with a smaller meter, based on the service unit differential of the two (2)
meter sizes and the fee per service unit at the time of the original fee payment.
(d)
A petition for refund under this section shall be submitted to the Director on a form
provided by the City for such purpose. Within one (1) month of the date of receipt of a
petition for refund, the Director must provide the petitioner, in writing, with a decision on
the refund request, including the reasons for the decision. If a refund is due to the
petitioner, the Director shall notify the Assistant City Manager of Finance and request
that a refund payment be made to the petitioner.
13
Sec. 26-228. Update of plan and revision of fees.
(a)
The City shall update its land use assumptions and capital improvements plans at least
every five (5) years, commencing from the date of adoption of such plans, and shall
recalculate the impact fees based thereon in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395, or in any successor statute.
(b)
The City may review its land use assumptions, impact fees, capital improvements plans
and other factors such as market conditions more frequently than provided in subsection
(a) to determine whether the land use assumptions and capital improvements plans should
be updated and the impact fee recalculated accordingly, or whether Schedules 1 or 2
should be changed. Schedule 2 may be amended without revising land use assumptions
and capital improvements plans at any time prior to the update provided for in subsection
(a), provided that the impact fees to be collected under Schedule 2 do not exceed the
impact fees assessed under Schedule 1.
(c)
If, at the time an update is required pursuant to Subsection (a), the City Council
determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan or
impact fee is needed, it may dispense with such update by following the procedures in
Texas Local Government Code, Section 395.0575.
(d)
The City may amend by resolution the land use equivalency table (Exhibit F) at any time
prior to the update provided for in Subsection (a), provided that the number of service
units associated with a particular land use shall not be increased.
Sec. 26-229. Agreement for capital improvements.
An owner of a new development may construct or finance a capital improvement or facility
expansion designated in the impact fee capital improvements plan, if required or authorized by
the City, by entering into an agreement with the City prior to the issuance of any building permit
for the development. The agreement shall be on a form approved by the City and shall identify
the estimated cost of thc 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 fmance 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
14
Co)
(c)
districts or other assessment districts, or through an3, other authorized mechanism, in such
manner and subject to such limitations as maybe provided by law.
Except as otherwise provided herein, the assessment and collection of a impact fee shall
be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or
assessment which is lawfully imposed on and due against the property.
The City may pay all or part of impact fees due for a new development taking into
account available offsets and credits pursuant to duly adopted criteria.
Sec. 26-231. Conflicting ordinances.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances that are in force when the provisions of this ordinance
become effective, which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in
this ordinance, are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict.
Sec. 26-232. Reserved.
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 remain/ng
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 13th day of May, 2003.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
15
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECP~ETARY
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 Documenls\Ordinances\03~2003 Denton Amended Impact Fee Ordinance - WWW Draf/#7 042303 MSC.doc
17
2003-2013
CAPITAL IMPROVEMEhlTS
FOR V~ATER AND V~ASTE~¥ATER IMPACT FEES
DENTON, TEXAS
prepared by i~nl~a~ ~ssocic~tes
FebrUary 2003
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1
Legal Framework ........................................................... 1
Growth Context ........................................................... 2
l.~nd Use Assumptions ...................................................... 2
Service Areas .............................................................. 3
Service Units .............................................................. 6
Service Units .............................................................. 7
Demand Projections ........................................................ 8
Water Treatment .......................................................... 10
Water Supply ............................................................. 11
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................... 12
Net Cost per Service Unit ................................................... 14
Net Cost Schedule ......................................................... 15
WASTEWATER ................................................................ 18
Service Units ............................................................. 18
Treatment Plants ............................................. ' ............. 22
Lift Stations and Force Mains ................................................ 23
Interceptors .............................................................. 23
Cost per Service Unit ...................................................... 24
Net Cost per Service Unit ................................................... 26
Net Cost Schedule ......................................................... 27
APPENDIX: TEXAS IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT ............................... 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:
Table 16:
POPULATION GROWTH, 1970-2002 .................................. 2
METER EQUIVAI.RNCY FACTORS .................................. 6
WATER SERVICE UNITS, 20O2 ....................................... 7
WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2003-2013 .................................. 8
AVERAGE DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, 1988-2001 .................. 9
PEAK DAY WATER DEMAND, 1988-2001 ............................. 9
AVERAGE AND PEAK RETAIL WATER DEMAND, 2003-2013 ......... 10
ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF RAY ROBERTS PLANT COST ............... 11
F.I JGIBLE PERCENT OF LA_K~ RAY ROBERTS COST ................ 12
LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST ........................................ 12
WATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 ........................ 13
WATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT ................................... 14
WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ............................. 15
WATER NET COST SCHEDULE .................................... 16
COMPARATIVE WATER FEES ..................................... 16
COMPARATIVE WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES, 2003-2013 ......... 17
Table 17:
Table 18:
Table 19:
Table 20:
Table 21:
Table 22:
Table 23:
Table 24:
Table 25:
Table 26:
Table 27:
Table 28:
Table 29:
Table 30:
Table 31:
Table 32:
Table 33:
WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002 ............................... 18
PER CAPITA WASTEWATER DEMAND ............................. 19
AVERAGE DEMAND PER SERVICE UNIT .......................... 20
WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, PECAN CRF. F.K, 2003-2013 ........... 20
WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, HICKORY CllF. F.K, 2003-2013 ........ 21
WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, CLFr. AR CI1F. F.K, 2003-2013 ........... 21
WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY, 2003-2013.. 22
TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND AND CAPACITY, 2003 ............... 22
WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 ........... 24
WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 ........ 25
WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CI.F. AR CREEK, 2003-2013 ........... 25
WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 ................. 26
WASTEWATER DEBT SERVICE ClZF. DIT ............................ 26
WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT ...................... 27
WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE ............................. 27
COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER FEES ............................... 28
COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER REVENUES, 2003-2013 ............... 28
LIST OF FIGURES
F'~e 1:
' F~-uxe 2:
F'~me 3:
Figure 4:
F~mre 5:
Ytgure 6:
Ytgure 7:
DENTON POPULATION GROWTH .................................. 2
WATER AND WASTEWATER CCNs .................................. 4
HICKORY CIIF. F.K DRAINAGE BASIN ............................... 5
CI .F. AR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN .................................. 5
TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND ........................... 10
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ................................... 11
WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY .......................... 22
INTRODUCTION
The City of Denton adopted water and wastewater impact fees in 19987 The current fees only cover
the cost of centralized facilities, and exclude line costs.
This study updates the water and wastewater impact fees, and adds the cost of water transmission lines
and sewer interceptors. It also includes interest costs, which are eligible for impact fee funding under
state law, but were not induded in the original impact fee study. Finally, k develops options for
possibly dividing the wastewater service area into two or three impact fee service areas.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Impact fees in Texas must be developed in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local
Government Code. The state law lays out very spedfic requirements for the technical development
of these fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment of such fee programs.
The Texas legislature made some significant amendments to Chapter 395 in 2001.2 The revised
statute, highlighting the changes, is included in the Appendix. The major change was on the issue of
revenue credits. Credits against the impact fees for other taxes or fees that would be paid by new
development and used for capital improvements of the same facility type as the impact fee are now
required. As an alternative to performing a revenue credit calculation, dries can simply reduce the
impact fees by fifty percent. Another change was to increase the time between mandatory updates
from three to five years. The requirement that the fees be recalculated after the Capital Improvements
Plan is completed based on actual costs and any overcharge fees refimded if the recalculated fees
exceeded the fees being charged by more than ten percent was eliminated. Finally, the number of
public hearings required before impact fees could be updated was reduced from two to one (two are
sn]l required for initial adoption).
Revised impact fees based on this study will not apply to lots platted while the current fee schedule was
in place. Chapter 395 states that the impact fee schedule that is in effect at the time a lot is platted is
the one that applies to the property, regardless of when devdopment occurs. This occurs through a
process called "assessment." Assessment must occur at the rime ofpht recording, or, for property
already platted or not required to be platted, at the time of development approval or building permit,
whichever occurs first. The statute makes clear that no action by the local government is required for
assessment to occur. Essentially, impact fee assessment locks in the fee schedule in place at the time
assessment occurs. Any subsequent revision to the impact fee schedules does not affect the impact fees
owed for the development.
10rdln,nce 98-301, adopted on September 15, 1998, was based on Dtmtma Associates, et. al., Capital
ImIn~vera~nts Plan for IVat~r and llTastewater Impact Fees, May 1998.
Senate lYtl1247 was signed by the governor on May 26, 2001 and became effective on September 1, 2001.
DENTOH, TE~\2003-20t3 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page i
G RO~V'rH CONTEXT
Impact fees are most appropriate for communities experiencing rapid growth. Denton has experienced
significant growth in recent years. The City's population has grown by about two percent annually
since 1970. Denton Cotmty has grown significandy faster than the state average, and was the fourth
fastest growing county in Texas during the last year. The Cites growth has matched the very rapid
growth of the county since the year 2000.
Table 1
POPULATION GROWTH, 1970-2002
City of Denton
Denton County
1970 Population (Census, 4/1/70) 39,8~4 75,633
1980 Population (Census, 4/1/80) 48,063 143,126
1990 Population (Census, 4/1/90) 66,270 273,525
2000 PopulaUon (Census, 4/1/00) 80,637. 432,976
2002 PopulaUon {Estimate, 1/1/02) 89,379 .478,968
State of
Texas
11,198,665
14,2_29,~91
16,986,335
.20,85.1,820
21,518,555
Annual Growth Rate, 1970-80 1.9% 6.6%
Annual Growth Rate, 1980-90 3.3% . 6.7%
Annual Growth Rate, 1990-00 2.0% . 4.7%
Annual Growth Rate, 2000-02 6.1% 5.9%
Source: Texas State Dat~ Center (growth rates are compounded).
2.4%
1.8%
2.1%
1.8%
LAND' USE ASSUMPTIONS
'Land Use Assumptions" is the term used in Chapter 395 to
refer to growth projections. It is defined as a "description of
the service area and projections of changes in land uses,
densities, intensifies and population in the service area over at
least a 10-year period." The purpose of the Land Use
Assumptions is to project the demand for capital
improvements that will be needed to serve anticipated growth.
Thc Land Usc Assumptions must cover at least a 10-year
period. The Capital Improvements Plan on which the impact
fees axe calculated must contain the projected demand for
capital facilities required over a period not to exceed ten years.
Since the two must be compatible, both the Land Use
Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan should cover
a 10-year period.
Figure 1
DENTON POPULATION GROWTH
75,000
50.000
25,000
0
19~0
1980 1990 2000
A document meeting the above requirements was completed by City planning staff in December 2002.
The report contains 2003-2013 projections for population, dwelling units, nonresidential square footage,
residential densities and nonresidential intensities for the City's water and wastewater service areas.
DENTON, TENA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 2
SER¥ICEAREAS
Chupter 395 lays down a number of requirements regarding service areas. The Land Use Assumptions
must be prepared for each service area. The Capital Improvements Plan, in mm, must include a
description of the capital improvements and costs for each service area, based on the approved Land
Use Assumptions. Finally, impact fees collected from development within a service area must be spent
with the same sendce area.
The Texas impact fee enabling act, in Sec. 395.001(9), defines "service area" as:
the area ~ithin the co,orate boundaries or extraterri~orialjudsdiclion. ..of the po~tical subdidsion to
be served 47 the capital it~roveraents or fad~aes expansions ~ecifted in the capital improvements
plan ....The sengce ama, for the pu~oses of this chapt~ mqy include all orpart of the land Mthi#
the po~tical subdivision or its exlralerdtodalj~isditlion.
The City bas considerable discretion in the designation of service areas within its jurisdiction. As a
general role, the fewer the number of service areas, the better. Since funds collected from a service area
must be spent within the same service area, the creation of a large number of small service areas will
restrict the flexibility of spendingimpact fee revenues and may make it difficult accumulate sufficient
funds in some service areas within the five years allowed by law to spend them. The state statute
specifically authorizes "systemwide" land use assumptions for water and wastewater facilities.
A Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) must be approved by the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (formerly the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission) before
services may be provided to properties within the designated area. The City's water and wastewater
CCNs include all of the area within the City of Denton, plus different areas of the City's
Ex-ua-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The wastewater service area indudes all of the area within the
wate~ service area, plus two additional areas that are in the City's wastewater CCN but not in its water
CCN. The water and wastewater CCNs are illustrated in Figure 2.
The service areas are required to be delineated in the Land Use Assumptions. The Land Use
Assumptions identify the City's water CCN as the service area for water impact fees. The City's
wastewater CCN may designated as a single service area, or it may be divided into two or three service
areas. The three potential service areas are the Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear Creek drainage
basins. The Hickory Creek drainage basin is shown in Figure 3, and the Clear Creek drainage basin is
shown in Figure 4. The remainder of the City's wastewater CCN comprises the Pecan Creek drainage
This report will calculate wastewater fees under three service area options: (1) a single service area
encompassing the Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear Creek basins; (2) two service areas:
Pecan/Hickory and Clear Creek; and (3) three service areas: Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear
C~eek.
DENTOhI,TEX~S\2003-2013 Capital Improvemenl-s Plan February 17, 2003, Page 3
Figure 2
WATER AND WASTEWATER CCN$
LEGEND:
[---] ci~' Um~s
CCH Boundw:
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 4
Figure 3
HICKORY CREEK DRAINAGE BASZN
Figure 4
CLEAR CREEK DRAZNAGE BASZN
DENTOI~I, TEY~\2003-20:L3 Capital ]mprovements Plan Februa~' 17, 2003, Page 5
SERVICE UNITS
To calculate impact fees in accordance with Chapter 395, the growth in demand for capital facilities
over the planning horizon must be expressed in "service units," which are defined in Sec. 395.001 (10)
...a standar~ged measure of censumption, use, generation, or discharge atttibutabk to an individual
unit of develq~m~nt calculated in accodance with general~ accqted enooinee~ng orplanning standards
j~r a particular category of capital improvements or fad~y expansions.
Service units for water and wastewater impact fees are typically based upon the capadty attributable m
water meters in the utility system. The reason for this is that water meters are physical dements that
are under the control of the utility and that limit the maximum demand of various users.
The current service unit for Denton's water and wastewater impact fees is the "single-family equivalent"
(SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. An Si:rE is the water or wastewater demand
associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (3/4"), which is the meter typically used
by a singleffamily residence. The ratio of each larger meter's capacity to the capacity of the base meter
determines the SFE multiplier applied to each larger size meter.
The City's current water impact fees xte based on meter capacities from the American Water Works
Association. In the opinion of the Citfs water division staff, the capacities as rated by the
manufacturer that supplies the City's meters are more accurate for larger meters, and will be used in this
study. Current and proposed service units per meter are compared in Table 2.
Table 2
METER EQUTVALENCY FACTORS
Current Factors Proposed Factors
Capacity SFEs/ Capacity SFEs/
Meter Size (gpm) Meter (gpm) Meter
3/4" lO 1.0 10 1.0
1" 25 2.5 25 2.5
.1-1/2" 50 5.0 50 . 5.0
2" 80 8.0 80 8,0
3" 160 16.0 225 22.5
4" 250 25.0 500 50.0
6" 500 50.0 1,000 100.0
8" 800 80.0 2,000 200.0
10" 1,150 115.0 3,250 325.0
Source: Current capacities are maximum continuous duty flow rates in gallons
per minute for simple and compound meters from American Water Works
Association, AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703; proposed capacities
are average normal operating capacities for T-10 residential meters and
Tm/rio compound commercial meters from the Neptune Technology Group.
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 6
WATER
The City's current water impact fees, adopted in 1998, cover only the costs of water supply and
treamaent. This study updates the fees and adds the costs of water transmission mains. It also adds
the interest costs associated with funding capital proiects through revenue bonds.
SERVICE UNITS
As discussed in the introduction, the current service unit for Denton's water impact fees is the
"single-family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. The number of service
units associated with meters of different sizeswas calculated earlier. Mnltiplying the number of existing
connections with each meter size by the serdce units per meter yields total service units for that meter
size~ Summing for all meter sizes yields the total number of water service units connected to the City's
water system, as shown in Table 3. Wholesale customers have been excluded from these calculations
because they are located outside the water service area.
Table 3
WATER SERVICE UN/TS, 2002
Existing SFEs/
Meter Size Conne,~ions Meter
SFEs
3/4"
1"
.1-1/2"
2"
3·
4"
8.
10~
21,012 1.0 21,012
999 2.5 2,498
620 5.0 3,100
1,149 8.0 9,192
99 22.5 2,228
67 50.0 . 3,350
8 100.0 800
4 200.0 800
I 325.0 325
Total 23t959 431305
Source: Number of active non-wholesale water connections
by meter size from the City of Denton, October 2002; SFEs
per meter from Table 2.
The growth in water service units over the 2003-2013 planning period is derived from the Land Use
Assumptions. Total population in the water service area from the Land Use Assumptions is mnlfiplied
by the estimated percent of households that are connected to the Denton water system to derive an
estimate of the population served by the water system. The served population in 2002 is divided by
the current number of service units from the previous table to determine the population per service
unit. Using this ratio, the estimated number of service units are estimated for each year through 2013
in Table 4.
DENTON,TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 7
Table 4
WATER SERVTCE UN/TS, 2003-2013
Fiscal Total Percen~ Served Pop,/
Year Population Served Population SFE SFEs
2002 90,280 94. S6% 85,369 1.97 43,305
2004 99,5.33 94.56% 94,118 1.97 47 776
2005 104,510 94.56% 98,825 1.97 50,165
2006 109,736 96.00% 105,347 1.97 53,476
2007 115,222 96.00% 110,613 1.97 56,149
2008 120 983 97.00% 117 354 1.97 59 571.
2009 127,032 97.00% 123,221 ~ 1.97 62,549.
2010 133,384 97.00% 129,382 1.97 65,676
2011 140,053 97.00% 135,851 1.97 68,960
2012 147,056 97.00% 142,644 1.97 72,408
2013 154,409 97~00% 149r777 1.97 76e029
New SFEse 2003-2013 30~528
Source: Total population for water service area from City of Denton, Land Use
Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent sewed from City of Denton Municipal
UUlities; population per SFE is 2002 served population divided by 2002 SFEs
from Table 2.
DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Two types of water demand arc relevant for water impact fees, Water treatment systems are sized to
accommodate peak day demand requirements. Water supply facilities are required only to
accommodate average daily dernanck
Average daily per capita water demand can be determined based on historic system-wide demand in
millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic serdce area population. These per capita estimates
zepresent both residential and nonresidential demand, and axe useful for projecting future system
requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected.
Average daily per capita demands over the last 14 years are presented in the fo]lowing Table 5. These
dam show that water demand for retail customers has averaged 167 gallons per capita per day (gpcd).
The data also indicate that there is relatively little water lost in the process, with the raw water used
exceeding finished water produced by an average of only 5.1 percent.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 8
Fiscal
Table 5
AVERAGE DAZLY WATER PRODUCTTON, 1988-2001
Water Production (mgd) Ratio of
Whale- Total Total Rawto Sewed
Retail sale Finished Other Raw Finished Population
1988 11.31 0.86
1989 10.20 0.78
1990 11.28 0.93
1991 10.76 0.99
1992 9.83 0.95
1993 10;78 0.91
1994 10.23 1.10
1998 10.49 . 1.44
1996 11.95 1.59
1997 11.36 1.43
19~8 13.22 0.93
1999 12.91 0.16
2000 14.54 0.22
2001 13.43 0.18
64,184
64,564
64,817
65,013
65,435
65,944
67,145
68,025
68,905
69,883
.71,448
73,649
78,919
81r208
12.17 0.39 12.56 1.032
10.98 0.22 11.20 1.020
12.21 0.33 12.54 1.027
11.76 0.40 12.15 1.034
10~78 0.53 11.31 1.049
11.69 0.87 12.56_ 1.074
11.33 0.68 12.01 1.060
11.93 0.79 12.72 1.066
13.54 0.96 14.50 1.071
12.79 0.78 13,54 1.059
14.15 0.76 14.91 1,054
13.07 1.07 14.14 1.082
14.76 0.71 18.47 1.048
13.61 0.60 14,21 1:044
1,051
Retail
Demand
(gpcd)
176
158
174
166
150
163
152
154
173
163
185
. 175
184
165
Average 167
Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities.
Peak day demand over the last 14 years is compared to average daily demand in Table 6. These data
indicate that peak day demand in Denton's water system averages 1.9 times average day demand.
PEAK
Peak Day
Fiscal Demand
Year (mgd)
1988 23.17
1989 20.72
1990 22.47
1991 23.47
1992 18.98
1993 24.24
1994 . 20.31
1995 22.75
1996 25.81
1997 24.76
1998 26.44
1999 26.20
2000 27.85
2001 26.48
Table 6
DAY WATERDEMAND, 1988-2001
Average
Demand
(mgd) Ratio
12.17 1.9
10.98 1.9
12.21 1.8
. 11.75 2.0
10.78 1.8
11.69 2.1
11.33 1.8
11.93 1.~
13.54 1.9
12.79 1.9
14.15 1.9
,!3.07 2.0
14.76 1.9
13,61 1.9
Average 1.9
Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilibies; figures
represent total finished water production.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003 2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 9
Based on these historical factots, average and peak day water demand from retail customers is projected
for the 2003-2013 planning period in Table 7.
Table 7
AVERAGE AND PEAK RETAIL WATER DEMAND, 2003-2013
Avg. Retail Ratio Raw Ratio Peak
I~.scal Served Demand Demand of Raw to Water of Peak to Day
year Population (gpcd) (mgd) Finished (mgd) Average (mgd)
2003 89,637 167 14.97 1,051 15.73 1.90 28.44
2004 94,118 167 15.72 1.051 16.52 1.90 29.87
2005 98,825 167 16.50 1.051 17.34 1,90 31.35
2006 105,347 167 17.59 1.051 18.49 1.90 33.42
2007 110,613 167 18.47 1.051 19.41 1.90 35.09
2008 117,354 167 19.60 1.051 20.60 1.90 37.24
2009 123,221 167 20.58 1.051 21.63 1.90 39.10
2010 129,382 167 21.61 1.051 22.71 1.90 41.06
2011 135,851 167 22.69 1.051 23.85 1.90 43.11
2012 142,644 167 23.82 1.051 25.03 1.90 45.26
2013 149~777 167 25.01 1.051 26.29 1.90 47.52
New Demandt 2003-2013
10.04 10.56 19.08
Source: Served population from Table 4; average day per capita demand and ratio of raw to finished
water producUon from Table 5; raUo of peak day to average day finished water production from Table
6; raw water and peak day demand exclude demand due to wholesale customers.
WATl: R TREAT,~ENT
Water treatment facilities are sized to
accommodate peak day demands. The
m~x~mum daily capacity of the Spencer Road 50
·rater treatment plant is 28.9 mgd. The City
recendy completed construction of a new water ~ 4§
treatment plant near Lake ILay Roberts. The Ray
Roberts plant has a peak capacity of 20 mgd.
The City had originally planned to construct the
I~ a0
facility in two 10-mgd phases, but subsequently
determined that it was more cost-effective to I~ 2§
construct the full 20-mgd plant As summarized _o 20
in Table 8, current retail demand plus wholesale
wate~ sales almost exactly equals the capacity of
the old Spencer Road plant. New development
over the next ten years will consume virtually all
of the capacity added by the construction of the
new 20-mgd Ray Roberts plant.
Figure 5
TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND
I
15
10
5
0
1988
Actual
t993 1998 2003 2008 2013
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 10
Table 8
ELIGZBLE PERCENT OF RAY ROBERTS PLANT COST
Retail peak Day Demand (mgd), 2003
Wholesale Peak Day Demand (mgd)~ 2003
Total Current Dema_nd (mgd)
Spencer Road Plant Capacity (mgd)
Existing Capacity Available (mgd)
New Retail. Peak Day Demand (mgd), 2003-2013
New Ray Robe~s Plant CapaciL7 (mgd)
Percent Needed for Growlcht 2003-2013
28,40
0.50
28.90
28,90
0.00
19.08
20.00
95.40%
Source: 2003 retail peak day demand and 2003-2013 new retail
peak day demand from Table 7; 2003 wholesale peak day
demand and plant capacities from City of Denton Municipal
Utilities.
In addition to constructing the plant in one phase, other changes were made from the pr 'eltminary plans
for the Lake Ray Roberts plant. In particular, the planned Hardee Field Road booster pomp station
and ground storage facilities were incorporated into the redesigned plant. Thus, while these capital
improvements no longer appear as separate listings in the water impact fee capitalimprovements plan,
their functional equivalents are still there.
$ffATE R $UPPL¥
The City's water supply comes primarily from water fights in Lake Lewisville and Lake Ray Roberts.
The Lewisville Reservoir was constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to hold a total of 436,000
acre-feet of conservation storage, of which the City holds the fight to 21,000 acre-feet of storage.
Based on a safe yidd of 90.2 mgd, the City receives 4.34 mgd in water rights from l_~ke Lewisville.
Most of the City's remaining water needs are supplied by Lake Ray Roberts. The reservoir was
constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, with the cities of Denton and Dallas being the local
sponsors and responsible (26% and 740/0
respectively) for repaying 50 percent of the total
cost. The City has water fights of 19.8 mgd
from this lake.
Additional water supply capadty comes in the
form of credits for the portion of the City's
,~mstewater that is returned to these water bodies,
as well as contract rights with the City of D~lh~.
The Cit3~s contract with Dallas reserves a
minimom of 0.50 mgd, regardless of whether the
City needs it, and the City also has the fight to
purchase additionalwater as needed. The Cites
water supply is sommarized in Table 9. After
subtracting the Ciq/s current total average day
demand, including both retail and wholesale
needs as well as lost and unaccounted for water,
the City still has about 9.4 mgd available for
Figure 6
WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND
/ Existing Supply ~25.33 mgd}
Actual
Projected
0
1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 11
growth. Projected growth over the planning petiod will consume all of this capacity and more, meaning
that additional water will need to be purchased from the City of Dallas. Nevertheless, the City can
recover the costs of the 47 percent of Lake Ray Roberts capadty that is enrrenfly available but will be
consumed by new customers over the planning period.
Table 9
ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST
Lake Ray Roberts Capacity (mgd) 19.78
Lake Lewlsville Capacity (mgd) 4.34
Effluent Return Credits (mgd) 0.73
City of Dallas Contractual Rights (mgd) O.S0
Total Water Supply Capacib/(mgd) 2003 25.33
Total Average Day Raw Water Demand (mgd)e 2003 15.98
Available Water Supply Capacity (mgd) . 9.35
Needed Water Supply Capacity (mgd)~ 2003-2013 10,81
Percent of Available Supply Capacity Needed, 2003-2013 100.00%
Available as Percent of Lake Ray Roberts Capacity 47.32°%
Source: 2003 capacity from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; 2003 total
average day demand is retail raw water demand from Table 7 plus 0.25 mgd
wholesale demand from City of Denton Municipal UUlities; 2003-2013 needed
capacity from Table 7.
The original 1986 cost to the City for its parddpafion in the construction of Lake Ray Roberts was $70
million. In today's dollars, the cost of the City's share is $107 million, as summarized in Table 10.
Table 10
LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST
lOrigina[ Cost (1986) $69,633,034
Cost Inflation Factor 1.532
Facility Cost in Current Dollars $106~677e808
Source: Original cost from Denton Municipal UUliUes,
January 15, 2003; cost inflation factor based on
Engineering News-RecordConst~uction Cost Index for
January 2003.
COST PER SERVICE UHIT
Capital improvements identified in the City's water master plan and by City staff as necessary to
accommodate growth over the next ten yems are summarized in Table 11. The portions of the costs
of the Ray Roberts treatment plant, the Lake Ray Roberts reservoir and the main transmission line
from the Ray Roberts treatment plant that is attributable to growth over the plarming period uae based
on the capacity of the facilities and the new demand generated by the antidpated growth over the
period. For pump stations, water storage tanks and other transmission lines, the portions of the costs
amibutable to growth are based on the year that the facility is antidpated to be put into service. For
these facilities, the simplifying assumptions are made that they will accommodate 20 years of growth
and that growth will be linear. In general these are conservative assumptions, and they affect only 12
percent of the total directly attributable costs.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 12
In addition to those costs directly attributable to growfl~, there axe the interest costs associated with
funding capitalimpmvements with revenue bonds or other forms of debt. The City traditionally funds
all o£its maior water system capitalimprovements with bonds, and consequently incurs interest costs.
According to state law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Interest costs axe
estimated based on the most recent City of Denton utility bond issue.
The final step in determining the cost per service unit is to divide the total capital cost attributable to
growth over the next ten yeaxs by the anticipated growth in service units over the same time period.
The result is a cost of $5,450 per new single-family or equivalent customer, as shown in Table 11.
Improvement
Table 11
WATER COST PER SERV'rCE UN?T, 2003-2013
Year In Attrlbu- Total
Service table % Cost
Attributable
Cost
Roy Roberts Water Treatment Plant (20 mgd)
Lake ROy Roberts (City Share)
Hartiee Field Road Booster Pump Station~
Hardee Field Road Booster Pump Station Tie-in~
Hardee Field Greund Storage (6 mg)~
Southwest Booster Pump Station (3.7~ mgd)
High School Booster Pump Station (3.8 mgd)
Northwest Elevated Storage Tank (1.0 mg)
Roselawn Elevated Storage Tank (2.5 mg)
Robson Ranch Elevated Storage Tank (1.0 mg)
Univemity Elevated Tank (2~0 rog)a
i Plain Transmission Line Froi?l Ri~y Roberts WTp
Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to Hwy. 380
Loop 288 Water Une - Sherman to UNT
Bernard - 3ames 20" Water Line
North - South Water Line Phase !
North - South Water Line Phase I!
Reselawn Water Line
North - South Water Line Phase ~II
North - South Water Line Phase IV
Loop 288 Water Line - UNT to IH-35
2003
1989
n/a
n/a
n/a
2003
2007
2003
2004
2006
n/a
2003
2003
2003
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005
2007
2007
95.40% $41,320,000 $39,419,280
47.32% $106,677,808 $50,47_9,939
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
n/a n/a n/a
50.00% $3,480,000 $1,740,00(
3~.00% $2,460,b~3~) $738,000
50.00% $1,890,000 $945,000
40.00% $2,830,000 $1,132,000
35.00% $1,140,000 $399,000
n/a n/a . n/a
40.00% $6,610,900 . $2,644 000
50.00% $2,430,000 $1,215,000
50.00% $2,890,000. $1,445,000
50.00% $1,420,000 $710,000
50.00% $1,600,000 $800,000
45.00% $1,580,000 $711,000
45.00% $1,310,000 $589,500
40.00% $1,530,000 $612,000
30.00% $2,140,000 $642,000
30.00% ~;lr365~000 ~;409r 500
$104,631,219
~61r732~419
Total Direct Attributable Cost
)ebt Service Interest Cost
Total Attributable Cost
New Water Service Units, 2003-2013
$166,363,638
30~528
Cost per Service Unit ~;5~450
Notes: (1) incorporated into the high service pump station at the Ray Roberts WTP and no longer required; (2)
replaced by the Roselawn Elevated Tank.
Source: Alan Plummer Associates, "Water Improvement Costs Applicable to Tmpact Fees," December 4, 2002; cost
of Lake Ray Roberts from Table 10; attributable percent of Ray Roberts WTP cost from Table 8; attributable percent
of Lake Ray Roberts cost from Table 9; attributable percent of main transmission line from Ray Roberts WTP based
on 2003-2013 share of ultimate 50 mgd capacity; attributable percent of other improvements based on year placed
in service (years remaining in 2003-2013 period divided by 20 years); intores~c cost based on interest rates of Series
2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds.
DENTON, TEX~$\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 13
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
New water customers will help pay off outstanding debt incurred for existing facilities through their
monthly rates. To avoid requiring new customers to pay twice for capital facilities, once through
impact fees and again through rate payments, the impact fees should be reduced to account for debt
service payments. In this section, a debt service credit per service unit is calculated for outstanding debt
on existing water fadlifies. The methodology used was to divide each year's debt service payment by
the proiected number of service units in that year to determine an annual credit per service unit. The
net present value of the future stream of debt service payments is the debt service credit per service
Table 12
WATER DEBT SERVTCE CREDTT
Fiscal Debt Service
Year Payment
2~03 11,819,579
2004 11,728,618
2005 11,804,155
2006 11,701,141
2007 11,748,123
2008 11,573,781
2009 11,573,801
2010 . 11 606~831
2011 10,990,184
2012 10,98~,308
2013 11,340,040
2014 11,332,939
2o1 --
2016 11,272,175
2017~. 11,275,206
2018 11,164,438
2019 11,182,236
2020 11 192,882
2021 9,304,780
2022 7,777,294
2023 . 5,295,422
2024 5,296,228
2025 5,298,359
2026 2,745,031
2027 2,745,359
2028 2 744 666
2029 2,747,566
2030 2t748r675
Total $252,327,393
Net Present Value
Water Credit/
SFEs SFE
45,501 $260
47,776 ~24S
50,165 $235
53,476 $219
56,149 . $209
59,571 $194
62,549 $185
65,676 $177
68,960 $159
72,408 $152
76,029 $149
7~,~o~ ....
83,184 $136
86,761 $130
.90,318 $125
93,931 $119
97,500. $115
101,107 $111
104,848 $89
108,727 $72
112,750 $47
116,922 $45
121,248 _ $44
!25,734 $22
130,386 $21
135,210 $20
140,213 $20
145t401 $19
$3,461
$2~295
Source: Water system debt service payment from City of Denton
Municipal Utilities; water SFES for 2003-2013 from Table 4; water
SFEs for succeeding years based on percent growth from 2002 water
system forecast; net present value based on 4.8% discount rate,
which is the average interest rate on 20-year AAA municipal bonds
cited on bloomberg.com, bondsonline.com and fmsbonds.com on
.lanuary 30, 2003.
DENTOM, TE~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 14
The revenue credits calculated above were done using the same philosophy and methodology set forth
in the original 1998 impact fee study. At that time, the state impact fee enabling act made no mention
of~evenue credits. The revisions to Chapter 395 made by the Texas legislature in 2001 now prescribe
the following alternatives for address'mg revenue credits in 395.014(a)(7):
a ~reditfor thepo~ian of ad valorem tax and ati~ semice revenues generated ~y nero sevai~
units dining the program pe~od that ir used )~r the pa3ment of improvements, inclua~ng the
pqment of debt, that am included in the capital improvements plan; or
in the alternatim, a credit equal to 50percent of the tatalprojeeted cost of implem~nti#g the
capital improvements platt
Note that the credits calculated above differ in certain respects from the literal reading of the state law.
Most significantly, the credit has been calculated for outstanding debt for existing facilities, rather than
for future debt that will be issued to implement the projects in the capital improvements plan. It would
make little sense to calculate a credit for the improvements in the capitalimprovements plan, since new
development will be paying for such costs through impact fees, and at least in theory no rate revenues
should be needed to fund such improvements. On the other hand, new development will be paying
for the remaining debt service on past improvements, and if no c~edits were provided would be in
effect paying for its costs through impact fees and some of existing development's costs through the
pondon of its rates that go to debt retirement The other way in which the credits differ is that they
are provided for future debt service payments beyond the ten-year planning period. Both of these
differences result in credits that are larger than if they were calculated according m a literal reading of
the state ac~
The alternative to calculating a revenue credit is simply to divide the cost per service unit in half. The
net costs resulting from deducting the revenue credit from the cost per service unit are compared in
Table 13. Based on the debt service credit calculated above, the net cost is $3,155 per service unit.
Using the alternative method authorized by state law, the net cost would be 16 percent lower, at $2,725
per service unit.
Table 13
WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Calculation Alternative
Method Method
Cost per SFE . $5,450 $5,450
Revenue Credit per SFE ~;2~295 ~;2t725
Net Cost per SFE f/3~155 ~2~725
Source: Cost per SFE from Table 11; revenue credit per SFE for
calculation method from Table 12; revenue credit for alternative
method is one-half of cost per SFE.
NET COST SCHEDULE
The two methods for calcubfing revenue credits give similar results, and the City Council could enact
water impact fees at either of these levels, or at a reduced level. The following net cost schedule
represents the maximum impact fees that may be charged by the City for water system facilities, based
on the adopted I~nd Use Assumptions, the utility system evaluation and capital improvement cost
estimates prepared by City Municipal Utilities staff and Alan Plummet Assoc'mtes, and the additional
DENTON. TEXAf.\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page
data and analysis presented in this study. The City could adopt the fees at a lower level than the
m.~imums shown, or phase the increases in over a period of time. In Table 14, the service unim per
meter axe multiplied by the net cost per service unit derived from the calculated revenue credit
methodology to determine the net cost per meter.
Table 14
WATER NET COST SCHEDULE
SFEs/ Net Cost Net Cost/
Meter Size Meter per SFE Meter
3/4" 1.0 $3,155 $3,155
1" 2.5 $3,155 $7,888
1-1/2" 5.0 $3, I55 $1.5,775
2" 8.0 $3,155 $25,240
3" 22.5 $3,155 $70,988
4" 50.0 $3,155 $157,750
6" 100.0 $3,155 $315,500
8" 200.0 $3,155 $63.1,000
10" , 325.0 ~3r155 $1,025~375
Source: SFEs per meter from Table 2; net cost per SFE
from Table 13.
The maximum water impact fees calculated above are compared to the City's existing water impact fees
in Table 15. The fees would increase by 54 percent for meters of two inches in diameter or less, and
more for larger meters.
Table 15
COIHPARATZVE WATER FEES
Potential Current Percent
Heter Size Fees Fee~ Change
3/4" . $3,155 $2,044 54%
1' $7,888 $5,110 54%
1-1/2' $15,775 $10,220 54%
2" $25,240 $16,~552 54%
3" $70,988 $32,704 117%
4~' $1.57,750 $51,100 209%
6" $315,500 $102,200 209%
8" $631,000. $163,520 286%
10" ~;le025f375 ~;235e060 336%
Source: Potential fees from Table 14; current fees from
Denton City Code.
D[NTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 16
Based on the growth proiections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential revenues over the next ten
years ~ou~d be 68 percent higher under the potential fees calculated in tl~s report than under the
current fees, as shown in Table 16. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since the
mmual proiections of $5.8 million under the current fee schedule me considerably l~gher than the $3.4
million collected by the City in 2001. It should also be noted that the updated fees will not apply to
properties platted under the previous impact fee schedule.
Table 16
COMPARATXVE WATER Xf4PACT FEE REVENUES, 2003-2013
2003 New 03-13 Potential Current Percent
Neter Size Connections Connections Revenues Revenues Change
3/4" 22,078 14,813 $46,735,015 $30,277,772 54%
1" 1,050 704 $5,553,~52 $3,597,440 54%
1-1/2" 651 437 $6,893,675 $4,466,140 54%
2" 1,207 810 $20,444,400 $13,245,120 S4%
3" 104 70 $4,969,160 $2,289,280 117%
4" 70 47 $7,414,250 $2,401,700 209%
6" 8 5 $1,577,500 $511,000 209%
8" 4 3 $1,893,0Q0 $490,560 286%
10" 1 1 ~1~025r375 ~;235t060 336%
Total 25,173 16,890 ~;96r 505~527 ~57~514f072 68%
Source: 2003 connections estimated based on 2002 connections from Table 3 and percent growth
in SFEs 2002-2003 from Table 4; new 2003-t3 connections estimated based on percent growth in
SFEs from Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and
current fees from Table 15.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 17
WASTEWATER
The City's current wastewater impact fees, adopted in 1998, cover only the costs of wastewater
t~eatment. This study updates the fees and adds the costs of interceptors and force mains. It also adds
the interest costs assodated with fimding capital projects through revenue bonds.
SERVICE UNITS
The current service unit for Denton's wastewater impact fees is the "single-family equivalent" (SFE),
which is based on the size of the water meter. This is reasonable, since wastewater generation is not
metered direcdy and tends to be proportional to water usage. An SFE is the water demand associated
with the smallest water meter used in the system (3/4'~, which is the meter typically used by a
single-family residence. The ratio of each larger meter's capacity to the capacity of the base meter
determines the SEE multiplier applied to each la~ger size meter.
The number of service units assodated with meters of different sizes was calculated earlier. Multiplying
the number of existing wastewater connections with each meter size by the service units per meter
yidds total service units for that meter size. Summing for all meter sizes yields the total number of
wastewater service units connected to the City's system, as shown in Table 17. Wholesale customers
have been exduded from these calculations because they are located outside the wastewater service
Table 17
WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002
Existing SFEs/
Meter Size Connections Heter SFEs
3/4" 20,668 1.0 20,668
1" 792 2.5 1,980
1-1/2" 515 5.0 2,575
2" 752 8.0 6,016
3" 78 22.5 1,755
4" 60 50.0 3,000
6" 7 100,0 700
8" 3 200.0 600
10" 1 325.0 325
Total 22~876 37,619
Source: Average number of active non-wholesale
wsstewater connections by meter size for fiscal year 2002
from the City of Denton, October 2002 (based on water
customers with wastewster service by meter size plus 116
residential customers with no water meter; SFEs per meter
from Table 2.
Average per capita wastewater demands can be determined based on hismtic system-wide demand in
millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic service area populations. These per capita estimates
represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system
requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Wastewater
treatment facilities are primarily designed to accommodate average daily flows. As summarized in Table
18, per capita wastewater flows to the treatment plant have been remarkably consistent over the last
five years, at 148 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). These calculations exclude wholesale wastewater
flows from Corinth and Argyle. In addition, they represent flows per served or connected population,
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 18
which has been detenulned based on recent studies by the City of Denton to be about 97 percent of
total population. These factors will be used to project future demand and setwice units in the Pecan
Creek service area. However, because the Clear Creek service area will have relatively little infiltration
(due to new lines) and little industry, Alan Plummet Associates has determined that 94 percent
connectivity and 100 gpcd shoed be used for this areafi
Table 18
PER CAPITA WASTEWATER DEMAND
Fiscal Avg. Xnfluent Sewed Per Capita
Year Flow (mgd) Population Flow (gped)
1997 11.18 75,306 148.46
1998 ~1.55 77,791 148.47
1999 11.93 80,358 148.46
2000 11.32 83,009 148.42
2001 12,68 85r549 148.22
Average 148
Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities, cited in Alan Plummer
Associates memorandum, December 11, 2002 (average influent
excludes wholesale flows).
The growth in wastewater service units and retail customer wastewater demand over the 2003-2013
planning period is derived from the Land Use Assumptions. The first step is to calculate the average
demand per service unit. This will be applied to demand projections to proiect the growth in service
units for each service area.
Total 2002 population in the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek bas'ms from the Land Use Assumptions
is multiplied by the estimated percent of households that are connected to the Denton wastewater
system to derive an estimate of the 2002 population sctwed by the wastewater system (the population
in the Clear Creek basin is excluded because there is no wastewater service presently available there).
The served population is then multiplied by the average per capita demand to estimate total 2002
wastewater demand, exclusive ofwholesale customers. Estimated demand in 2002 is divided by the
cu~ent number of service units from the previous table to determine the average demand per service
unit (see Table 19).
aMemorandurn from Bryan Jann, P.E., Alan Plummee Associams, to P.S. Arora of CAt), of Denton Mtmidpal
Utiliu'es, December 11, 2002.
DENTON, TEY+A$\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 19
Table 19
AVERAGE DEMAND PER SERVI'CE UNZT
Total Population, Wastewater. CCN (excl. C!e~? Creek), 2002 . 9:1 086
Percent Served 97%
Wastewater Served Pop~dlaUon, 2002 88,353
Wastewatar Per Capita Demand (gpcd) 148
Total Retail Wastewater Demand (gpd), 2002 :13,076,244
Wastewater SFEs~ 2002 37~619
Average Wastawater Demand per SFE (gpd) 348
Source: Total poputaUon from Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002
(excludes 2,631 in Clear Creek basin where no service is available); percent
served from Alan Plummer Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per
capita demand from Table 18; 2002 SFEs from Table 17.
For each service area, the total population from the Land Use Assumptions is multiplied by the percent
sexved and the average per capita demand to determine total retail wastewater demand. The average
demand per service unit is then divided into total demand to determine the number of wastewater
SFEs. Using this approach, the number of service units in the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek drainage
basins are estimated for each year through 2013 in Tables 20 and 21.
Table 20
WASTEWATER SERVI*CE UNI'TS, PECAN CREEK~ 2003-2013
Per Capita Retail Demand/
Fiscal Total Percent Sewed Demand Demand SFE
Year Population Sewed Poeulation (lacd) (mgd} (glxl) SFEs
2003 62,807 97% 60,923 148 9.02 348 25,920
2004 64,965 _97% _ ~3,016 .148 9.3:~ 348 _ 26,810
2005 67,021 97% 65,010 148 9.62 348 _ 27,644
2006 69,249 97% 67,:172 148 9.94 348 28,563
2007 71,939 97% 69,781 148 10.33 348 29,684
2008 74,820 97% 72,575 :148 10.74 348 30,862
2009 77,478 97% 75,154 148 11.12 348 31,954
2010 80,345 97% 77,935 148 11.53 348 33,132
2011 83,435 97% 80,932 148 11.98 348 34,425
2012 86,757 97% 84 154 148 12.45 348 35,776
2013 90~325 97% 87~615 148 12.97 348 37~270
New Demand and SFEs~ 2003-20:13 3.95 3ll;350
Ourea: Total population from Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent served from Alan Plummer
Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per capita demand from Table 18; demand per SFE from Table 19;
SFEs is total demand divided by demand per SFE.
DENTON,TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 20
Table 21
WASTEWATER SERVZCE UNZTS, HZCKORY CREEK, 2003-2013
Per Capita Retail Demand/
Fiscal Total Percent Served
Year Population Sewed Population
2003 30,558 97% . 29,641
2004 32,086 97% 31,123
2005 33,690 97% 32,679
2006 35,375 97% 34,314
2007 37,143 97% 36,029
2008 39 000 ~7% 37,8.30
2009. 40,950 97% 39,722
2010 42,998 97% 41,708
2011 45,148 97% 43,794
2012 47,405 97% _ 45,983
2013 49e775 97% 48e282
Demand Demand
(gpcd) (mgd)
148 4.39,
148 4.61
148 4.84
148 5.08
148 6.33
148 5.60
148 5,88
148 6.17
148 6,48
148 6.81
148 7,15
New Demand and SFEs~ 2003-2013
Source: Total population fi'om Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002;
Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per capita demand from Table
SFEs is total demand divided by demand per SFE.
SFE
(gpd) SFEe
348 12,615
348 13,247
348 13,908
348 14,598
348 15,316
348 16,092
348 16,897
348 17,730
348 18,621
348 19,569
348 20~546
2.76 7~931
percent served from Alan Plummet
18; demand per SFE from Table 19;
The demand and service unit projections in the Clear Creek drainage basin are derived in s~r, il~,r fashion
in Table 22. However, the percent comaecdvity and per capita demand assumptions are somewhat
lower, for the reasons described earlier. In addition, there is currently no sexwed population, because
the proposed Clear Creek treamaent plant ~ not be consU'ucted until July 2004.
Table 22
WASTEWATER SERV~ZCE UNZTS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013
Per Capita Retail Demand/
Iqscal Total Percent Served Demand Demand SFE
Year Population Served Population (gpcd) (mgd) (~lpd) 5FEe
2003 3,279 0% 0 100 0.00 348 0
2004 4,424 10% 442 100 . .0.04 . . 348 115
2005 5,839 200/0 1,168 100 0.12 .348 345
2006 7,254 30% 2,176 100 0.22 348 632
2007 8,389 40% 3,356 100 0.34 348 ~77
2008 9,524 50% 4,762 100 . 0.48 348 1,379
2009 11,084 60% 6,650 100 0.67 348 1,92S
2010 12,644 70% 8,851 100 0.89 348 2,557
2011 14,204 80% 11,363 100 1.14 348 . 3,276
2012 15,764 90% 14,188 100 1.42 348 4,080
2013 17e322 94% 16r283 100 1.63 348 4r684
New Demand and SFEs~ 2003-2013 1.63 4~684
Source: Total population from Land Use AssumplJons, December 4, 2002; percent served by 2013 and per capita
demand from Alan Plummet Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; demand per SFE from Table 19; SFEs
is total demand divided by demand per SFE.
DEHTON, TEX~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 21
Projected 2003-2013 retail wastewater demand and wastewater service units are summarized for the
three drainage basins in Table 23 below.
Table 23
WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY, 2003-2013
Retail Demand (mgd) Service Units (SFE~)
Drainage Ba;I. 2003 2.0].3 New 2003 2013 New
Pecan Creek 9.02 12.97 3.95 25,920 37,270
Hickory Creek 4.39 7.:15 2.76 12f6:15 20~546 7~93:1
Subtotal, Pecan/Hickory Creeks 13.41 20.:12 6.71 38,535 57,816 19,281
Clear Creek 0.00 1.63 1.63 0 4;684 4;684
Total Westowater CCN 13.41 21.75 8.34 38f535 62~500 23~965
Source: Tables 20, 21 and 22.
TREATMENT PLANTS
In 1994, the City completed a $9.5 million expansion of its wastowater treatment plant. The Pecan
Creek Water Reclamation Plant is now designed to treat up to 15 mgd, and is in compliance with all
State and Federal discharge permits. With a projected dem~nfl in 2003 of 14.91 mgd, as shownin Table
24, the City has no existing capacity deficiencies with regard to wastewater treatment_ It also has
virtually no excess capacity to accommodate new customers.
Table 24
TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND AND CAPACITY~ 2003
Projected Retail Demand, 2003 (mgd) :13.4:1 I
Pre~ected Wholesale Demandf 2003 (mgd) 1.S0 ]
To~al Prelected Demand, 2003 (mgd) ~4.9! ]
ExisUng Plant Capacity (mgd) ~.S.00
Avai ab e Excess Capac ty (mgd) 0.09
Source: Pmjectod 2003 retail demand from Table 23; projected
wholesale demand is 110% of wholesale demand in FY 2002 frem
City of Denton Municipal Utilities, "FY 2002 Wastowater Customers
and Volume Summary."
To accommodate future growth in the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek basins, the City is currently
building a 6.00 mgd expansion to the Pecan Creek plant, and will also construct a new 0.95 mgd plant
in the Hickory Creek basin. The Pecan Creek plant expansion is being constructed in modules, and
some additional capadty will be available when the first new treatment train is completed in late January
or early February 2003.
The construction of the Hickory Creek plant is five years or so away. Cttrrenfly, the flows from the
Hickory Creek basin axe conveyed to the Pecan Creek system by an existing lift station. In order to
m*~imize the use of the Pecan Creek plant expansion already underway, it is anticipated that a
~oonificant portion of the new capacity required by growth in the Hieko~y Creek basin over the ten-year
period will be met by that plant. Consequently, new development in the Hickory Creek basin will have
its wastewater treated by both the Pecan Creek plant expansion and the new Hickory Creek plant.
IDEHTON, TEXA$\2003 2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 22
Treatment capacity to serve the Clear Creek basin
~ be constructed in two phases. The first phase
is the construction of a 0.95 mgd wastewater
treatment plant, anticipated to be completed by
July 2004. Later in the ten-year planning horizon,
an expansion of the plant will take place to
provide the additional 0.68 mgd of required
capacity.
The projected systemwide relationship between
wastewater demand and treatment capacity is
illustrated in Figure 7.
LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE h4AINS
Figure 7
WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACZTY
25
~20
~ 15
Actual Demand
Projected Demmnd
caFac~
Based on information in the City of Denton 1997 2001 2005 2~09 2013
~ste~ter master p]~n~ three lift station proiects
are antidpated for the ten-year planning period. The Cooper Creek Lift Station expansion is currently
under design and will increase cxpadty to 12 mgcL A Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Lift Station and Force
Main is also antidpated during the planrting period. While no capadfies are known at this time, a
smmap date of 2005 is assumed. For the projects above, the assumpfionwas made that each lift station
wall be constructed to meet 2020 flows. In addition, it was assumed that population growth would
occur at a linear rate over the same period.
To convey additionalwastewater resulting from growth in the Hickory Creek basin to the Pecan Creek
plant will create the need for a 2 mgd capacity expansion of the current Hickory Creek lift station. The
expansion of the existing Hickory Creek lift station will occur during the planning period and is
antidpated to be fully utilized by 2013.
INTERCEPTORS
Several new interceptors are discussed in the City of Denton l~Taste~ater Master P/an, many of which
were considered developer-relared projects. Many of these projects were not induded in the update
due to uncertainties of the required timing. The inclusion of the listed projects was based on current
needs and input from City personnel.
The underlying assumption for interceptor projects was that all interceptors would have a 20-year life.
In addition, each interceptor was assigned an in-service date. The in-service dates are anticipated. The
applicable percentages were calculated based on the ratio of the number of yea.rs in-service during the
planning period to 20, which is the life of the line.
The North Hickory Creek Interceptor will serve both the City of Kmm, which is a wholesale
wastewarer customer, and a newly developing area within the Hickory Creek basin. The City of Krum
will pay for the equivalent cost of a 15-inch line, and the City of Denton is responsible for the cost
share above the 15-'tach size, which ranges from 21 to 27 inches.
DENTON. TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 23
COST PER SERVICE UNIT
Wastcwater capital improvements identified by City Municipal Utilities staff as necessary to
accommodate growth over the next ten years for each of the three drainage basins are summarized in
Tables 25, 26 and 27. The portions of the costs of the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant
expansion, the new Hickory Creek plant and the new Clear Creek plant that are attributable to growth
over the planning period are based on the capadty of the facilities and the new demand generated by
the antidpated growth over the period. Lift station and force main improvements included in the
capitalimprovements plan are identified in the wastewater master plan~ and the percent attributable to
growth for these projects is based on the assumption that the facilities will be fully utilized by 2020. For
interceptors, the portions of the costs attributable to growth are based on the year that the facility is
anfidpated to be put into service. For these fac'difies, the simplifying assumptions are made that they
w~l accommodate 20 years of growth and that growth will be linear.
In addition to those costs directly attributable to growth, them are the interest costs associated with
funrling capital improvements with revenue bonds or other forms of debt. The City tractitionally funds
all of its major wastewater system capital improvements with bonds, and consequently incars interest
costs. According to state law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Interest costs
are estimated based on the most recent City of Denton utility bond issue.
The total costs of planned capital improvements attributable to growth in each of the three drainage
basins are presented in the following three tables.
Table 25
WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013
Capacity (mgd) Attrlbu- Total
Improvement Total Needed Year table % Cost
Attributable
Cost
Pecan Creek WRP Expansion _ 6.00
Cooper Crk Lift Station & Force Main
_Lake_view/Grissom !_S/Force Hain
Cooper Creek Interceptor
Pecan Creek Interceptor
Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Interceptor
Direct Attributable ~Ceat
Debt Service Interest Cost
_3.95 n/a 65.83% $19,416,0!5 .$12,781,5~3
2003 59.00% $1,650,000 $973,500
. . 2005 53.0q% $1,633,000 $865,490
2003 50.00% $1,500,000 $750,000
2003 50.00% $3,000,000 $1,500,000
2005 40100% !~117631282 }705~313
........ }17,575,866
$10r369r761
Total Attributable Cost ~27~945~627
Source: Project costs, capacity and in-servica dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastewater Improvement Costs
Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period
from Table 23; attributable percent of Cooper Creek and Lakeview lift station/force mains assumed to be fully utilized
by 2020, so percent based on years remaining in 2003-2013 period divided by remaining years before 2020;
attributable percent of other improvements with in-service date shown based on years remaining in 2003-2013 period
divided by 20 years; interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 24
Table 26
WASTEWATER CAPZTAL COSTS, HZCKORY CREEK, 2OO3-2013
Capacity (mgd) Attrlbu- Total Attributable
Tmprovement Total Needed Year table % Cost Cost
~ecan Creek WRP E~pansion
tickory Creek WWTP
Subtotal, Treatment Plant
Hickory Crk Lift Station [mprevements
Hickory Creek [nterceptor Phase
Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase
Graveyard Branch !nterceptor
N Hickory Cd( interceptor Oversizing
Road( Branch Interceptor Oversizin,~
Direct Attributable Cost
Debt Service !nterest Cost
6.O0 1.81
0.95 0.95
2.76
n/a 30.17% $19,416,015 $5,857,81;
n/a 100.00% $6,000,000 $6tO00t001
n/a $25,416,015 $1.1,857 812
n/a 100.00% $300,000 $300,000
2005 40.00% $2,90Q,000 $1,160,000
2005 40.00% $1,873,000 $749,200
2003 50.00% $3v658,440 $1,829,220
2003 50.00% $2,000,000 $!,000,000
2003 50.00% $750~000 $375r000
. . $17,271,232
$10t190;027
Total Attributable Cost ~;27~461r2S9
Source: Pmjest costs, capacity and in-service dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastewater Improvement Costs
Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period
from Table 23; attributable percent of improvements with in-service data shown based on years remaining in 2003-
2013 periad divided by 20 years; interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds.
Xesprovement
Table 27
WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013
Capadty (mgd) Attribu- Total
Total Needed Year table % Cost
Attributable
Cost
Clear Creek WRP, Phase I
Clear Creek WRP Expansion
Subtotal Treatment; Plants
Ciear/Hllam Creek Interceptor
Direct Attributable Cost
Debt Service Interest Cost
0.95 0.95 n/a 100.00% $5,950,000 $5,950,000
0.68 0.68 n/a 100.00% }2~700t000 }2~700~000
1.63 $8,650,000 $8,650,000
2003 50.00% $5.000.000 $2.500.000
$11,150,00.0
$615781500
Totel Attributable Cost ~17t728~500
Source: Project costs, capacity and in-service dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Westewatar Improvement Costs
Applicable to !mpact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period
from Table 23; attributable percent of improvements with in-service data shown based on years remaining in Z003-
2033 period divided by 20 years; interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds.
The cost per service unit is determined by dividing the total attributable cost over the 2003-2013
plunning perlod by thc new service units (SFEs) antidpated during the same time period. Thc average
costs per Si:rE are shown for each drainage basin and for the entire wastewater CCN in Table 28 below.
It is apparent that new development will be more cost-effective to serve in the Pecan Creek basin, due
to the economies of scale at the large ex/sting treannent plant. Since much of the new development
in the Hickory Creek basin will also be served by the expansion of the ex/sting plant, a reasonable case
can be made for including both basins within the same service area and charging the same fee in both
areas. The Clear Creek basin, on the other hand, will be served by an entirely sepaxate set of facilities,
and the significantly higher cost to serve new customers in this area could be reflected in higher fees
ilk is designated as a separate service area.
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 25
Table 28
WASTEWATER COST PER SERVZCE UNZT, 2003-2013
Attributable New
Dralna~le Baein Costs SFEs
Subtotal, Pecan/Hickory Creeks
Clear Creek
Tol~l Wastewater CCN
coat/
SFE
$2,462
$3,463
$2,874
:~3r785
~;3~052
Pecan Creek $27,945,627 11,350
Hickory Creek $27;461r259 7f931
$55,406,886 19,281
$17;7281500 4~684
$73~135r386 23r965
Source: Attributable costs from Tables 25, 26 and 27; new SFEs from Table 23.
NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT
New wastewater customers ~ help pay off outstanding debt incurred for existing facilities through
their montbly rates. The net present value of the future stream of debt service payments is the debt
se~ice c~edit per service urfit.
Table 29
WASTEWATER DEBT SERVTCE CRED:[T
Fiscal Debt Service
Year Payment
2003 $5,623,624
2004 $S,562,979
2005 $5,352,725
2006 $5,298,611
2007 $5,421,938
2008 $5,730,474
2009 $5,615,421
2010 $5,539,916
2011 $4,930,010
2012 $4,907,336
2013 $4,517,159
2014 $4,484,684:
2015 $4,141,871
2016 $3,984,6~8
2017 $3,974,465
2018 $3,878,365
2019 $3,683,716
2020 $3,696,799
2021 $2,133,865
2022 ~;1~373~500
Toter $89,852,186
Net Present Value
Wastewatar Credit/
SFEs SFE
38,535 $146
40,172 $138
41,897 .... $128
43,793 $121
45,977 $118
48,333 $119
50,776 $111
53,419 $104
56,322 $88
59,425 $83
82,500 $72
65,437 _ $69
68,382 $61
71,322 $56
74,246 $54
77 216 $50
80,150 $46
83,116 ~
86,191 $25
89t380 $15
$1,648
~1~171
Source: Westewatar debt service payments from City of Denton
Municipal UtiliUes; wastewater SFEs for 2003-2013 from Tables 20,
21 and 22; wastewater SFEs for succeeding years based on percent
growth from 2002 water system forecast; net present value based on
4.8% discount rate, which is the average interest rate on 20-year
AAA municipal bonds cited on bloomberg.com, boedsenline.com and
fmsbonds.com on January 30, 2003.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 26
The net cost per service unit is calculated by subtracting the revenue credit calculated above from the
cost per servicc unit. As discussed in the water section, however, state law prescribes an alternative
method of calculating the net cost per service unit, which is to divide the cost per service unit by two.
These two methods of determining the net cost per service unit are presented in Table 30. As with the
water fee, the two methods yield very similar results for the wastewater fee for the Pecan Creek basin,
with the alternative method resulting in a m~xirn,zrn fee that is only 5 percent lower than the calculated
net cost. However, the alternative method would result in considerably lower fees for the other two
drain.o~e basins.
Table 30
WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVTCE UNTT
Cost/ Credit/ Net Cost/ Alternative Alt.
D~aina~e Basin SFE SFE SFE Hax. Fee of Net
Pecan Creek
Hickory Creek
Subtotal, Pecan/Hickory Creeks
Clear Creek
[Total Wastewater CCN
$2,462 $1,171 $1,291 $1,231 95%
$3,463 $1f171 $2t292 $1,732 76%
$2,874 $1,171 $1,703 $1,437 84%
$3,785 $1,171 $2t614 $1r893 72%
$3t052 $1f171 $1~881 $1,526 81%
Source: Cost per SFE from Table 28; credit per SFE from Table 29; alternative maximum fee is COSt per SFE
dN~ted by 2.
NET COST SCHEDULE
Because the City has several options to choose from in terms of service areas, as many as five fee
schedules could be generated for various geographic areas. The option of using the alternative method
of calculating revenue credits authorized by state law increases the number of possible fee schedules
to ten. For simplicity, the fee schedule presented will be based on the maximum fee for the entire
wastewater service area. In Table 31, the senrice units per meter are multiplied by the net cost per
service unit derived from the calculated revenue credit methodology to determine the net cost per
meter.
Table 31.
WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE
SFEs/ Net Co~ Net Cost/
Meter Size Meter per SFE Meter
3/4" 1.0 $1,881 . $1,881
1" 2.5 $1,881 $4,703
1-1/2" 5.0 $1,881 $9,405
2" 8.0 $1,881 $15,048
3' 22.5 $1,881 $42,323
4" 50.0 $1,881 $94,050
6" 100.0 $1,881 $188,100
8' 200.0 $1,881 $376,200
10" 325.0 $1r881 $611e325
Source: SFEs per meter from Table 2; net cost per SFE
from Table 13.
DENTON, TEXAf,\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 27
The ma~ruum wastewaterimpact fees calculated above are compared to the City's existingimpact fees
in Table 32. If adopted at the maximum level, the fees would increase by 289 percent for meters of
two inches in diameter or less. The increase would be greater for larger meters, reflecting the revised
SFEs per meter based on the capacity data provided by the manufacture~ of the meters used by the
Table 32
COMPARAT~rVE WASTEWATER FEES
Potential Current Percent
Moter Size Fees Fees Change
3/4" $1,881 $483 289%
1" $4,7.03 $1,208 289%
1-1/2" $9,408 $2,415 289%
2" $15,048 $3,864 289%
3" $42,323 $7,728 448%
4" $94,050 $12 075 679%
6" $188,100 . $24,150 679%
8" $376,200 $38,640 874%
10" $611,325 $55,545 1001%
Source: Potential fees from Table 31; current fees from
Denton City Code.
Based on the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential revenues over the next ten
years would be 323 percent higher under the potential fees calculated in this report thaaa under the
current fees, as shown in Table 28. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since the
ann~ml projections of $1.1 million under the current fee schedule are considerably higher than the $0.8
million collected by the City in 2001.
Table 33
COMPARATTVE WASTEWATER REVENUES, 2003-2013
2003 New 03-13 Potential Current
Hoter Size ConnecUons Connections Revenues Revenues
Change
3/4" 21,171 13,166 $24,765,246 $6,359,178 289%
1" 811 504 $2,370,312 $608,832 289%
1-1/2" 528 328 $3,084,840 $792,120 289%
2" 770 479 $7,207,992 $1,850,856 289%
3" 80 SO $2,116,150 $386,400 448%
4" 61 38 $3,573,900 $458,850 679%
6" 7 4 $752,400 $96,600 679%
8" 3 2 $752,400 $77,280 874%
10" 1 1 $611,325 $55,545 1001%
Totel 23t432 14t572 $45;234~565 $10t685;661 323%
Source: 2003 connections estimated based on 2002 connecUons from Table 17 and percent growth
in SFEs 2002-2003 from Table 4; new 2003-13 connections estimated based on percent growth in
SFEs from Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and
current fees from Table 32.
DENTON, TEF~\2003-2013 CapiLal Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 28
APPENDIX: TEXAS IMPACT FEE ENABLIN~ ACT
[Underline and strike-out indicates changes from SB 247, effective September 1, 2001]
CHAPTER 39~. FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVBMIgNTS RIgQUIRIgD BY NEW
D~3~IgLOPM~NT IN MUNICIPALITIIgS, COUNTIES, A1ND CERTAIN OTHIgR LOCAL
SUBCHAPi'~R A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 395.001. Definitions.
In this chapter:
O) "Capital improvement" means any of the following facilities that have a llfe expectancy of three or
more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision:
water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment
fadlifies; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they axe
located within the service area; and
(B) roadway facilities.
"Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this chapter that identifies capital
improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed.
"Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the
same function as an otherwise necessary new capital itnprovement, in order that the existing
facility may serve new development. The term does not indude the repair, maintenance,
modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development.
"Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new
development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital
improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development.
The term indudes amortized charges, lump-sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions
in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this defirfitio~. The
term does not include:
dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park
needs;
dedication of rights-of-way or easements or construction or dedication of on-site or
· off-site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage fadlifies, or streets,
sidewalks, or coxbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and
is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; [err]
DENTON,TSXA$\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 29
(D)
lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing
developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines:or
other pro ram fees for reimbursement of water or sewer mains or lines extended by the
political subdivision.
"Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes
in land uses, densities, intensifies, and population in the service area over at least a 10-year
period·
"New development" means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction,
redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure;
or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units.
"Political subdivision" means a municipality, a distxict or authority created under Art/de III,
Section 52, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constimrion, or, for the purposes set forth
by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section.
"Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on
an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary
appurtenances. The term includes the political subdivision's share of costs for [does ,,ok
iL,~l',d~ ,~iy] roadways and [err] associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas
highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation and
the esmhli~hment of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances, and fights-of-way.
"Service area" means the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial iurisdicfion,
as determined under Chapter 42, of the political subdivision to be served by the capital
improvements or facilities expansions spedfied in the capital improvements plan, except
roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. The service area, for
the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision
or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and
flood control facilities. For roadway facilities, the service area is limited to an area within the
corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six [a di~i~ .... U~,l. &,
· l~,~th fi,,i ..... '2M~4 miles[;
h.v .......... e~ j:,l~4. For storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service area
may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial
jurisdiction, but shall not exceed the area actually served by the storm water, drainage, and flood
control facilities designated in the capital improvements plan and shall not extend across
watershed boundaries.
"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 and based on historical data and trends applicable
to the political subdivision in which fl~e individual unit of devdopment is located during_ the
previous 10 years [far ........ ' ...... ~ "~' ,~t,~k,,~4.
DENTON, T£XA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 30
SIJBCItAPi'~:R B. AUTHORIZATION OF IMPACT FEE
$ee~ 395.011. Authorization of Fee.
Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or
political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee.
Political subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate
boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that
impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway
facilities.
A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except roadway facilities, to an
area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact
fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must
comply with dfis chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.012. Items Payable by Fee.
An impact fee may be imposed only m pay the costs of constructing capital improvements or
facility expansions, inducling and limited to the:
(1) construction contract price;
(2) surveying and engineering fees;
land acquisition costs, indudingland purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees,
and expert wimess fees; and
fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or
finandal consultam preparing or updating the capitalimprovements plan who is not an
employee of the political subdivision.
Projected interest charges ~nd other finance costs may be included in determining the amount
of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on
bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance
the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and
are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the
capital improvements plan.
Notwithstanclingany other provision of this chapter, the Edwards Underground Water District
or a river authority that is authorized dsewhem by state law to charge fees that fimcrion as
impact fees may use impact fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital
improvements plan under this chapter.
A menidpality may pledge an impact fee as security for the payment of debt service on a bond,
note, or other obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion
iff
(1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvements plan; and
DEhlTON,TE~KAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 31
at the time of the pledge, the governing body of the municipality certifies in a wtitmn
order, ordinance, or resolution that none of the impact fee will be used or expended
for an improvement or expansion not identified in the plan.
A certification under Subsection (d) (2) is suffident evidence that an impact fee pledged will not
be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital
improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 90, Sec. 1, eff. May 16, 1995.
~c. 395.013. Items Not Payable by Fee.
Impact fees may not be adopted or used to pay for:
(1)
construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital
improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan;
repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility
expansions;
upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing
development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards;
upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better
service to existing developmem;
administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards
Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to
rh~ orge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay its administrative and
operating costs;
pfindpal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness,
except as allowed by Section 395.012. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug.
28, 1989.
Sec. 395.014. Capital Improvements Plan.
The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals m prepare the capital improvements
plan and m calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific
enumeration of the following items:
O)
a description of the existing capitalimprovements within the service area and the costs
to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing
needs and usage and stricter safety, effidency, environmental, or regulatory standards,
which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the
professional engineering setw/ces in this state;
an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage
of capadty of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this
state;
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 32
a description of all or the parts of the capitalimprovements or facility expansions and
their costs necessitated by and attributable to new devdopment in the service area
based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified
professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering setwices in this
state;
a defitfirive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consmption.
generarion, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or
facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a
service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and
industrial;
the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and
calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; and
the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new
service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years: and
a plan for awardir~.
a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated
by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of
improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital
improvements plan; or
in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of
implementing the capital improvements plan.
The analysis required by Subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on a systemwide basis within the
service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility expansion for the
designated service area.
The governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervising the
implementation of the capital improvements plan in a timely manner. Added by Acts 1989,
71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Se~ 395.0~5. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit.
The impact fee per service un/t may not exceed the amount determined by subtracting_ the
amount in Section 395~014(~(7) from [dlvid~ the costs of the capital improvements
described by Section 395.014(a)(3) and dividing that amount by the total number of projected
service units described by Section 395.014(a)(5).
If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the
total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at dill
development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated
by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable
to projected new service units described by Section 395.014(a) (6) by the projected new service
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 33
units described in that section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28,
1989.
~ ~95.016. Time for_Assessment and Collection of Fee.
This subsection applies only m impact fees adopted and land platted before June 20,1987. For
land that has been platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision
or platting procedures of a political subdivision before June 20, 1987, or land on which new
development occurs or is proposed without platting, the political subdivision may assess the
impact fees at any time during the development approval and building process. Except as
provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of
recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer
system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate
of occupancy.
This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted before June 20,1987, and land platted after
that date. For new devdopment which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter
212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after June 20,1987, the
political subdivision may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except
as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time
of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection m the political subdivision's water or sewer
system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate
of occupancy.
This subsection applies only m impact fees adopted after June 20,1987. For new development
which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting
procedures of a political subdivision before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee may
not be collected on any service unit for which a valid building permit is issued within one year
after the date of adoption of the impact fee.
This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or
the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after adoption of animpact fee
adopted after June 20, 1987. The political subdivision shall assess the impact fees before or at
the time of recordation of a subdivision plat or other plat under Subchapter A, Chapter 212,
or the subdivision or platting ordinance or procedures of any political subdivision in the offidal
records of the county clerk of the county in which the tract is located. Except as provided by
Section 395.019, if the political subdivision has water and wastewater capacity available:
the political subdivision shall [niay] collect the fees [at eld,~ il,~ i~ .... f ..... d~d,u of
e~r] at the time the political subdivision issues a [,Sd,~; a,4 building permit:
for land platred outside the corporate boundaries of a municipality, the munldpalitv
shall collect the fees at the time an aDt~llcation for an individual meter connection to
the municipality's water or wastewater system is filed; or
a political subdivision that lacks authority to issue building permits in the area where the
impact fee applies shall collect the fees at the time an apphcafion is filed for m
individual meter connection to the political subdivision's water or wastewater system
ld ..... ~i.q~tc ~f ....
DIENTON, TIiX~f,\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 34
For land on which new development occurs or is proposed m occur without platting, the
political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development and
building process and may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision
plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the
political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy.
An "assessment" means a determination of the mount of the impact fee in effect on the date
or occurrence provided in this section and is the maximum mount that can be charged per
service trait of such development. No specific act by the political subdivision is required.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
See. 395.017. Additional Fee Pzohibited; Exception.
After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or execution of an agreement
for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed against the
tract for any reason unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. In the
event of the increase in the number of service units, the impact fees to be imposed are limited to the
amount attributable to the additional sexariee units. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf.
Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.018. Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment.
A political subdivision is authorized to enter into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for
which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees.
Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. AUg. 28, 1989.
Se~ 395.019. Collection of Fees if Sen4ces Not Available.
Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but may not be collected in areas where
services are not currently available unless:
O)
the collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion that has been
identified in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to commence
construction within two years, under duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments
of staff time covering substantially all of the work required m provide service, and m have the
service available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital
improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event longer than five years;
the political subdivision agrees that the owner of a new development may constract or finance
the capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or funds
advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development or
agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new
developments that will use such capitalimpmvements or facility expansions, which fees shall
be collected and reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its
plat; or
an owner voluntarily requests the political subdivision to reserve capacity to serve furore
development, and the political subdivision and owner enter into a valid written agreement.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eft. AUg. 28, 1989.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 35
Se~ 395.020. Entitlement to Services.
Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and
benefit of the services for which the fee was exacted and is entitled to receive immediate service from
any existing facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to compliance with
other valid regulations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.021. Authority of Political Subdivisions to Spend Funds to Reduce Fees.
Political subdivisions may spend funds from any lawful source to pay for all or a part of the capital
improvements or facility expansions to reduce the mount of impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st
Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.022. Authority of Political Subdivision to Pay Fees.
Political subdivisions and other governmental entities may pay impact fees imposed under this chapter.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec~ 395.023. Credits Ag-~nst Roadway Facilities Fees.
Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of off-site roadway facilities agreed to or required
by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited against roadway
facilities impact fees otherwise due from the development. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec.
82(a), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec~ 395.024. Accounting For Fees and Interest.
The order, ordinance, or resolution levying an impact fee must provide that all funds collected
through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest-beating accounts deafly
identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area
for which the fee was adopted.
Interest earned on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is
subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under this chapter.
Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed
as shown by the capital improvements plan and as authorized by this chapter.
The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public
inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1,
Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.025. Refunds.
On the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political
subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or
the political subdivision has, after collecting the fee when service was not available, failed to
commence construction within two years or service is not available within a reasonable period
considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no
event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1).
OENTObI, Ti~XAS\2003 2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 36
(c)
The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized
by this chapter within 10 years after the date of payment.
Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the
statutory rate as set forth in Article 1.03, Title 79, Revised Statutes (Article 5069-1.03, Vernon's
Texas Civil Statutes), or its successor statute.
All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid.
However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entity,
payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity.
The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political
subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing m sue for a refund
under this section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
8UBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FORADOPTION OF IMPACT FEE
Sec. 395.041. Compliance With Procedures Required.
Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, a political subdivision must comply with this subchapter
to levy an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.0411. Capital Improvements Plan.
The political subdivision shall provide for a capital improvements plan to be developed by q,~lified
professionals hain? generally accepted e _~eexing and phnning practices in accordance with Section
395.014.
Sec. 395.042. Heating on Land Uae Asaumptlona and Capital Improvements Plan.
To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or resolution
establishing a public hearing date to consider the land use assumplions and capitalimprovements plan
fo__~r [,~ithi.] the designated ' " '
Sec. 395.043. Information About Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan
Available to Public.
On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing onthe land use assumptions
and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall make available to the public its land use
assumptions, the time period of the pro'actions, and a description of ~il~ ~ ....,d' ,,~c oq the capital
improvement facilities that may be proposed.
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 37
Sec. 395.044. Notice of Hearing on Land Use A~sumpdons and Capital Improvements Plan.
(a)
Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital
improvements plan, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail
to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the munidpal
secretary or other designated offidal of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing
within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting
the public heating.
The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing [ ........ ~k f,,. d ....... **~uti, ~,
....... L~ ~VVc,~] before the 30th day ' ........... y] before the
date set for the hearin~ in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in
which the political subdivision ties. However, a fiver authority that is authorized elsewhere by
state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice
only in each county in which the service area lies. [~'I ..... fi~ uf p~b~c l,~uh~g may ,~ut bu h,
(c) The notice must contain:
(1) a headline to read asfo~ows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE
ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN ]{RI ATING
TO POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF LMPACT FEES"
(2) the time, date, and location of the hearing;
(3)
a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions
and [ ................... l~ ~j capital improvements plan under which an
impact fee may be imposed; and
(4)
~kply, ,~d
a statement that any member of the public has the fight to appear at the hearing and
present evidence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements
plan.
Sec. 395.045. approv of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan
Required.
After the public hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plato the
political subdivision shall determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance, order, or
resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan.
The political subdivision, within 30 days after thc date of the public hearing, shall approve
or disapprove the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan.
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 38
(c) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital
improvements plan may not be adopted as an emergency measure.
Sec. 395.0455. Systemwide I and Use Assumptions.
In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service ma, a political subdivision may,
except for storm water, drainage, flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide
land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political
subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter.
Prior to adopting systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision shall follow the
public notice, hearing, and other requirements for adopting land use assumptions.
After adoption of systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision is not required to
adopt additional land use assumptions for a service area for water supply, treatment, and
distribution facilities or wastewater collection and treatment facilities as a prerequisite to the
adoption of a capital improvements plan or impact fee, provided the capital improvements
plan and impact fee are consistent with the systemwide land use assumptions. Added by
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, Sec. l(b), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
.......... P ..... 'P ............... ~t ......... PP .... ~f L~d
Sec. 395.047. Hearing on [C4i. k,,i hnFi ....... lo rlm alld] Impact Fee.
On adootion of the land use assumvfions and [~,~i,i, lcll .... £ ih~] capital improvements plan, the
governing body shall adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the [,id,,i,;i,~,
of-thr-ptarrm~ imposition of the impact fee. The public heating must be held by the governing
body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution [~d,~pIL.8
~4pital h.lo~o,o~c~l~ pk~. ~ imposing an impact fcc.
Sec. 395.049. Notice of Heating on [C.~Pk..l l~,io,,~,.ili~ rl,.ii ,md] Impact Fee.
Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the imposition of an
h~p .... i.~.t, pi ..... ~] impact fee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the
hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or
registered mail to the munidpal secretary or other designated official of the political
subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption
of the order or resolution setting the public hearing.
DENTON, TEX~$\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 39
The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing [ ......... k f,,~ d~cc
......... ~o appel] before the 30th day [
day] before the date set for the hea~ng, in one or more newspapers of general circularion in
each county in which the polirical subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is
authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish
the required ncw~paper notice only in each county in which the service area lies.
(c) The notice must contain the following.
(1) a headline to read as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES"
(2) the rime, date, and location of the hearing;
(3)
a statement that the purpose of the heating is to consider the adoption of an impact
fee;
levied,
[~] the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and
[(/4'] a statement that any member of the public has the tight to appear at the hearing and
present evidence for or against the plan and proposed fee.
Sec. 395.050, Advisozy Committee Comments on [C~}'ii~l' :~,Fi~,.~.~.~.iiia i'i~a ..id] Impact
The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the
proposed [~l,i~l L..t,.,,,~iJ,~,~, klm ,~ impact fees before the fifth business day before the date
of the public heating on the imposition of the jFI~i ~M] fees.
Sec. 395.051. Approval of [C~l'[i~i i~},i,,,,.ai.~iiia Pl~i~ ,di.~.] Impact Fee Required.
The polirical subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the
imposition of an [~pi~l hJ,t,~ ~ ..... L~ pl~ .... ,~] impact fee, shall approve or disapprove
' " ~p .... p ......~o p~ ,~,d] tmposmon of an unpact fee.
the [~,~,~, .... ~,,' ~,~ ..................
An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the [~pk~
imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003 2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 40
(4
Sec. 395.052. Periodic Update of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan
Required.
A political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and
capital improvements plan at least every five [three] years. The initial five-year
period begins on the day the capital improvements plan is adopted.
The political subdivision shall review and evaluate its current land use assumptions and shad
cause an update of the capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with
. Subchapter B. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 41.
Sec. 395.053. Hearing on Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan.
The governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days after the date k receives the
update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order setting a
public heating to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether m amend the plmm
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.054. Hearing on Amendments to Lend Use A~sumpfions, Capital Improvements
Plan, or Impact Fee.
A public heating must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the
proposed ordinance, order, or resolution amending land use assumptions, the capital improvements
plan~ or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing
on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, including the
amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.055. Notice of Heating on Amendments to Lend Use A~s-mpdons, Capital
Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee.
The notice and hearing procedures prescribed by Sections 395.044(a) and lb) apply to a
h~ring on the amendment of land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan. or an
impact fee. [Bcfoi'¢ ;'.,~ 3P, il, d~y b~fu~ d,~ d~ vfd,~ h~arhig ~ ....... &n~,,k, ~u il,~ l~,d
[(c)] The notice of a heating_ under this section must contain the followhag:
(1) a headline to read as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES"
(2) the time, date, and location of the hearing;
(3)
a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land
use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of an impact
fee; and
DENTON, TEXA~\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 42
a statement that any member of the public has the fight to appear at the hearing and
present evidence for or against the update.
Sec. 395.056. Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments.
The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the
proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee
before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments. Added by
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.057. Approval of Amendments Requited.
The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the
amendments, shall approve or disapprove the amendments of the land use assumptions and
the capital improvements plan and modification of an impact fee.
An orrlinunce, order, or resolution approving the amendments to the land use assumptions,
the capital improvements plan, and imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an
emergentT measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.0575. Determination That No Update of Land Use Assumptions, Capital
Improvements Plan or Impact Fees is Needed.
If, at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the goverrfing body determines
that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is
needed, it may, as an alternative to the updating requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057,
do the following:.
(1)
The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon detcrmining that an
update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice unde£ this
section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions,
capital improvements plan, and impact fee by certified mail to any person who has,
within two years preceding the date that the final notice of this matter is to be
published, give written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal
secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of
heatings related to impact fees. The notice must contain the information in
Subsections (b) (2)-(5).
The political subdivision shall publish notice of its detemaination once a week for
three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each
county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is
authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may
publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area
lies. The notice of public heating may not be in the part of the paper in which legal
notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one-qua~er page of a
standard-size or tabloid-size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in
18-point or larger type.
I)l{NTOM, l'Elt4~\2003 2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 43
(b) The notice must contain the following.
(1) a headline to read as follows:
"NO'rICE OF DETERMINATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS,
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES";
a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determined that
no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is
necessary;
an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the
updating has been determined to be unnecessary;
a statement that if, within a spedfied date, which date shall be at least 60 days after
publication of the first notice, a person makes a written request to the designated
offidal of the political subdivision requesting that the land use assumptions, capital
improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body must comply
with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057; and
a statement identif]ring the name and mailing address of the offidal of the political
subdivision to whom a request for an update should be sent.
The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the need for updating the land
use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fee before the fifth business day
before the earliest notice of the government's decision that no update is necessary is mailed
or published.
If, by the date spedfied in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body shall
cause an update of the land use assumptions and eapiml improvements plan to be prepared
in accordance with Sections 395.052-395.057.
An ordinance, order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions,
a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency
measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, Sec. l(d), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.058. Advisory Committee.
On or before the date on which the order, ordinance, or resolution is adopted under
Section 395.042, the political subdivision shall appoint a capital improvements advisory
committee.
The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members who shall be appointed
by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdivision. Not less than 40
percent of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real
estate, development, or building industries who are not employees or officials of a political
subdivision or governmental entity. If the political subdivision has a planning and zoning
commission, the commission may act as the advisory committee if the commission indudes
at least one representative of the real estate, development, or bnilRiqg industry who is not
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 44
an employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If no such
representative is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the commission may
still act as the advisory committee if at least one such representative is appo'mted by the
political subdivision as an ad hoc voting member of the planning and zoning commission
when it acts as the advisory committee. If the impact fee is to be applied in the
extxaterritollal jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membership must include a
representative from that area.
The advisory committee serves in an advisory capadty and is established to:
(1) advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions;
(2) review the capital improvements plan and file written comments;
(3) monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan;
file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements
plan and report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing
the plan or imposing the impact fee; and
advise the political subdivision of the need to update or revise the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee.
The political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any professional
reports with respect to devdoping and implementing the capital improvements plan.
The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural roles for the advisory
committee to follow in carrying out its duties. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec.
82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
SUBCHAPi'i~R D. OTHER PROVISIONS
Set 395.071. Duties to be Performed Within Time Limits.
If the governing body of the political subdivision does not perform a duty imposed under this
chapter within the prescribed period, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land on
which an impact fee has been paid has the right to present a written request to the governing body
of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be
performed within 60 days after the date of the request. If the governing body of the political
subdivision finds that the duty is required under this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall
cause the duty to commence within 60 days afte~ the date of the request and continue until
completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.072. Records of Hearings.
A record must be made of any public hearing provided for by this chapter. The record shall be
malnr~ined and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10
years after the date of the hearing. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. l, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,
1989.
DENTON, TIE¥,~\2003 2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 45
Sec. 39.5.073. Cnmularlve Effect of State and Local Restrictions.
Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision
where an impact fee is proposed are cumulative with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts
1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.074. Prior Impact Fees Replaced by Fees Under This Chapter.
An impact fee that is in place on June 20, 1987, must be replaced by an impact fee made under this
chapter on or before June 20, 1990. However, any political subdivision having an impact fee that
has not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20, 1988, is liable to any party who,
after June 20, 1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maximum permitted under Subchapter B by
more than 10 percent for an amount equal to two times the difference between the maximum
impact fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court
costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.075. No Effect on Taxes or Other Charges.
This chapter does not prohibit, affect, or regulate any tax, fee, charge, or assessment specificaBy
authorized by state law. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.076. Moratorium on Development Prohibited.
A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of awaiting the completion
of all or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update the impact fee. Added by
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.077. Appeals.
A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies within the political subdivision and
who is aggrieved by a final decision is entitled to trial de novo under this chapter.
A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days after the date of adoption of the
ordi,~unce, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee.
Except for roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property
on which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to specific performance of the serdces by
the political subdivision for which the fee was paid.
(d) This section does not require construction of a specific facility to provide the sendces.
Any suit must be filed in the county in which the major part of the land area of the political
subdivision is located. A successful litigant shali be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's
fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec. 395.078. Substantial Compliance With Notice Requirements.
An impact fee may not be held invalid because the public notice requirements were not complied
with if compliance was substantial and in good faith. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec.
82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989.
DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 46
Sec. 395.079. Impact Fee for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous
Any county that has a population of 2.2 million or more or that borders a county with a
population of 2.2 million or more, and any district or authority created under Article XVI,
Section 59, of the Texas Constitution within any such county that is authorized to provide
storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized to impose impact fees to
provide storm water, drainage, and flood control improvements necessary to accommodate
new development.
The imposition of impact fees authorized by Subsection (a) is exempt from the
requixements of Sections 395.025, 395.052-395.057, and 395.074 unless the political
subdivision proposes to increase the impact fee.
Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise
contractually obligate all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest
on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued or incurred by or on behalf of the political
subdivision and to the payment of any other contractual obligations.
An impact fee adopted by a political subdivision under Subsection (a) may not be reduced
0)
the political subdivision has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part
of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or
other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision; and
the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact
fees d, ring the term of the bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations. Added
by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eft. Aug. 28, 1989.
Sec~ 395.080. Chapter Not Applicable to Certain Water-Related Special Districts.
(a) This chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions:
O)
paid by or charged to a district created under _A_rtide XVI, Section 59, of the Texas
Constitution to another district created under that constitutional provision if both
districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural
Resource Conse,afion Commission; or
charged by an entity if the impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions
are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.
Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas
Constitution may petition flae Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for
approval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The
commission shall adopt roles for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees
adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shall
require notice substantially the same as that required by this chapte~ for the adoption of
impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected part/es to partidpate. Added by
DENTON, TEX~S\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003, Page 47
Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), elf. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg.,
ch. 76, Sec. 11.257, elf. Sept 1, 1995.
Sec. 395.082. Cettitlca~ion of Compliance Requited.
A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification
ye ' _nfying compliance with this chapter to the attorney general each year not later than the
last day_ of the political subdivision's fiscal year.
The cextification must be signed by the pre~idin~ officec of the governing body ora political
subdivision and include a statement that reads substantially ~imil~r tO the foli0wir~:. *'This
statement certifies compliance with Chapter 395, Local Government Code."
A political subdivision that f~s to submit a certification as requin;d by this section is liable
to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the impact
fees erroneously charged. The attorney general shall collect the civil penalty and deposit the
amount collected to the credit of the housing trust fund.
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 Cal~ital Iml~rovement Plan
Background:
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code outlines the legal authority and
procedures to be followed for municipal utilities to adopt and implement impact fees.
The City of Denton first implemented impact fees for water and wastewater on with the
adoption of Ordinance 98-301 (adopted September 18, 1998 with and effective date of
September 29, 1998). This action was prompted by the following:
· The rapid growth rate projected for Denton - Service population increases of 61%
for water and 57% for wastewater fi:om 1999 to 2009.
· The significant cost of developing new water supplies associated with the Lake
Ray Roberts Reservoir project.
· The significant construction cost for building the new Lake Ray Roberts Water
Treatment Plant.
· Community resistance towards increasing water and/or wastewater utility rates to
pay for new infi:astmcture to support the rapid growth rates projected.
· General acceptance by other communities in the DFW area to use impact fees as a
means to help pay for new utility infi:astructure necessary to support growth.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code as amended in 2001 requires that
cities that adopt and implement impact fees update their population projections, land use
assumptions and capital improvements plans every five years. The planning period that
impact fee update studies are based upon is a ten-year period.
FY 1998 10 Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees:
The ten-year capital improvements program for water utilities that was adopted as a part
of the development of Ordinance 98-301 is shown in Exhibit I-A. This plan included
nine growth related capital improvement projects for water utilities that covered the
following categories of improvements:
· Water treatment plants (3 projects).
· Water pumping stations with or without ground storage tanks (2 projects).
· Elevated storage tanks (2 projects).
· Major transmission lines (2 projects).
One of these projects (Spencer Road Water Treatment Plant) was an existing capital
improvement that had some available excess capacity at the time the study was done. A
portion of the costs for this existing facility was therefore eligible for recovery through
impact fees. The remaining eight projects were new projects that were either in the
existing Water Utilities 5-year capital improvements program (approved by the Public
Utilities Board and City Council) or identified in the utility master plan as capital
improvements needed to support new growth during the next ten years. The total cost of
these nine capital improvement projects was estimated to be $100,617,000 with
$ 43,604,000 identified as ehgible costs for impact fees to support growth during the ten-
year planning period. The projected increase in new water customers during this period
was 19,138 Single Family Equivalents (SFEs).
FY 2003 10 Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees:
The ten-year capital improvements program for water utilities proposed for the FY 2003
impact fee program update is shown in Exhibit I-B. This plan includes sixteen growth
related capital improvement projects for water utilities that covered the following
categories of improvements:
· Water treatment plants (1 project).
· Water pumping stations with or without ground storage tanks (2 projects).
· Elevated storage tanks (3 projects).
· Major transmission lines (10 projects).
Six of these projects were either recently completed (Bernard/James 20" Waterline), or
under construction (Lake Ray Roberts WTP, 54" Finished Water Transmission Line,
Loop 288 Waterline-Sherman to Hwy 380, Loop 288 Waterline-Sherman to UNT, and
the Northwest Elevated Storage Tank and Supply Line). One project is currently under
final design (Southwest Booster Pump Station and Ground Storage Tank). Eight projects
are in the adopted FY 2003 - FY 2007 Water Utilities CIP (North-South Waterline
Phases I, II, III & IV, Roselawn Waterline, Roselawn Elevated Storage Tank, Robson
Ranch Elevated Storage Tank and the High School Booster Pump Station). One
additional project (Loop 288 Waterline - UNT to 1-35) is planned to be included in the
FY 2008 CIP during the upcoming budget cycle.
During the design phase of the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant project, the
decision was made to build the initial plant with a capacity of 20 Million Gallons per Day
(MGD) rather than build the plant in two 10 MGD phases as originally proposed in the
FY 1998 impact fee capital plan. Additionally, the decision was made to relocate the
Hartlee Field Road Booster Pump Station and Ground Storage facilities from the
originally proposed site up to the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant site. This
also resulted in an increase in the size and pressure rating of the Finished Water
Transmission Line and the Booster Pump Station Tie-In Line. The total estimated cost of
these proposed projects from the FY 1998 impact fee CIP was $ 50,775,000. The revised
cost of the modified facilities that are currently under construction that are included in the
FY 2003 impact fee CIP totaled $ 47,930,000. Additionally, the location of the new
elevated storage tank for the southwest side of the middle pressure plane has been moved
fi.om a site proposed near the UNT Campus to the Roselawn area south of Dehia Park.
During the FY 1998 impact fee study process, the growth demands for the far
southwestern portion of the water service area was not projected to occur to any major
extent during the ten-year planning period. However, the Robson Ranch development
coupled with the Country Lakes North development resulted in two new projects to be
included in the FY 2003 impact fee CIP (Southwest Booster Pump Station and Ground
Storage Tank and the Robson Ranch Elevated Storage Tank).
In addition, the population projections that resulted fi.om the FY 1998 impact fee study
were significantly higher than those that were projected in the Utility Department's FY
1996 Forecast. This more conservative forecast from the mid 1990's was used for the 20-
year Water Distribution Master Plan Study that was performed in 1997. With the revised
population projections that came out of the FY 1998 impact fee study, it was determined
that the 1997 Water Distribution Master Plan would need to be revised prior to including
any major transmission lines in the impact fee capital plan other than the major lines
associated with the initial connection of the new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment
Plant. As a result, the proposed FY 2003 Ten-Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees
includes nine new water transmission line projects that were identified in the FY 2000
Water Distribution Master Plan update that are necessary to support the capacity of the
new Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant project and the expansion of water system
demands over the ten year planning period.
A detailed listing of the proposed FY 2003 Ten-Year CIP for Water Utilities Impact Fees
is shown in Exhibit HI. The total cost of these sixteen capital improvements projects is $
75,995,000 with $ 53,549,500 identified as eligible costs for impact fees to support
growth during the ten-year planning period. The preliminary estimate for new water
customers during this period is approximately 25,000 Single Family Equivalents (SFEs).
10 - Year Water Capital Improvements Plan
Prepared by Alan Plummer and Associates
Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee
City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Update Evaluation.
City of Denton
Water Improvement Costs
2003-2013
Improvement Cost Percent Applicable to Applicable Cost
(Dollars) Impact Feesj (Dollars)
Treatment Plants
1. Ray Roberts WTP (Phase 1 & I1 - 10 MGD ea.) $41,320,000 100.00% $41,320,000
Subtotal Treatment Plants $41,$20,000 $41,$20,000
Pump Stations & Tanks
2. Hartlee Field Road Booster Pump Station~ $0 0.00% $0
3. Hartlee Field Road Booster Pump Station $0 0.00% $0
Tie-in Improvements2
4. Hartlee Field Ground Storage (6 MG)2 $0 0.00% $0
5. Southwest Booster Pump Station $3,480,000 50.00% $1,740,000
6. Northwest Elevated Storage Tank $1,890,000 50.00% $945,000
7. Roselawn Elevated Tank $2,830,000 45.00% $1,273,500
8. Robson Ranch Elevated Tank $1,140,000 35.00% $399,000
9. High School Booster Pump Station $2,460,000 30.00% $738,000
10. University Elevated Tanka $0 0.00% $0
Subtotal Pump Sta~on~ & Tanks $11,800,000 $5,09S, SO0
Transmission Lines
11. Main Transmission Line From Ray Roberls WTP to System $6,610,000 40.00% $2,644,000
12. Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to Hwy. 380 $2,430,000 50.00% $1,215,000
13. Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to UNT $2,890,000 50.00% $1,445,000
14. Bernard - James 20" Water Line $1,420,000 50.00% $710,000
15. North - South Water Line Phase I $1,600,000 50.00% $800,000
16. North - South Water Line Phase B $1,580,000 45.00% $711,000
17. Roselawa Watar Line $1,310,000 45.00% $589,500
18. North - South Water Line Phase Ill $1,530,000 40.00% $612,000
19. North - South Water Line Phase IV $2,140,000 30.00% $642,000
20. Loop 288 Water Line - UNT to IH-35 $1,365,000 30.00% $409,500
Subtotal Transmission Lines $22,875,000 $7,134,000
Total Water Expansion/Improvement Capital costs - $75~995,000 Total Applicable Costs - $53,549,500
1. For applicable percentages, see worksheets attached.
2. Included as part of the Ray Roberts WTP
3. Replaced with Roselawn Elevated Tank
City of Denton
Water Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees
Transmission Lines
2003-2013
Improvement In-Service Date Years Applicable Percentage
Year~ to CIP:
Transmission Lines
1. Main Transmission Line From Ray P-.oberts WTP to System 200:3 10 40.00%3
2. Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to Hwy. 380 2003 10 $0.00%
3. Loop 288 Water Line - Sherman to UNT 2003 i0 $0.00%
¢. Bernard - James 20" Water Line 2003 10 $0.00%
5. North - South Water Line Phase I 2003 10 $0.00%
$. North - South Water Line Phase II 2004 9 45.00%
?. Roselawn Water Line 2004 9 45.00%
~. North - South Water Line Phase III 2005 8 40.00%
~}. North - South Water Line Phase IV 2007 6 30.00%
I 0. Loop 288 Water Line - LINT to IH-35 2007 6 30.00%
1. In service dates are anticipated and were provided by the City of Denton,
2. Transmission lines will have a 20 year life. Years applicable to CIP is calculated by taking the in-service date
from the year 2013, The percentage is the ratio of the years applicable to 20, the assumed project life,
3. Main Transmission Line from Ray Roberts W'I'P to System based on utilization of 20 mgd of the designed 50 mgd capacity
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.
lO-Year Wastewater Capital Improvement Plan
The Phase-I Impact Fees were approved by the City Council in August 1998. For
wastewater, this phase included impact fees only for the expansion of the Pecan Creek
Water Reclamation Plant. The exist'rog plant has a treatment capacity of 15 million
gallons per day (mgd) average daily flow. With the implementation of the Phase-I Impact
Fees, the construction for expansion of the plant capacity to 21 mgd is currently under
way and is scheduled for completion in December 2003. The cost of expansion of the
water reclamation plant to 21 mgd is included in Exhibit IV. This cost includes
engineering, construction and construction management costs.
During the adoption of the Phase I Impact Fees, the wastewater collection system master
plan was not complete. So the Council had decided to move ahead with adoption of
impact fees for the water reclamation plant construction. Since then, a new wastewater
collection system computer model based on the 1999 population projections and
measured flow data has been developed. The pipe sizes required to carry the wastewater
flows for the Year 2020 conditions have been modeled. The construction cost of these
major sewer lines has been estimated. In this update of the impact fees, the cost of
construction of these major interceptor sewer lines is included to allow recovery of the
capital cost from new development that impacts the existing collection system and creates
the need for these projects. The construction cost of each of the projects is shown in
Exhibit IV. The major interceptor sewer projects are listed below and shown in the
attached map.
· Cooper Creek Lift Station and Force Main
· Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Lift Station and Force Main
· Pecan Creek Interceptor
· Hickory Creek Interceptor
· Graveyard Branch Interceptor
· Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Interceptor
· Roark Branch Interceptor
· North Hickory Creek Intemeptor
Three major projects have been proposed in the Clear/Milam Creek Basin, which is north
of the Loop 288. The existing collection system south of the Loop 288 can not
accommodate flows from these proposed developments. The Planning Department has
prepared the Land Use Plan and Population Projections for this basin. The population
projections show an estimated population of 16532 in Year 2013. To provide wastewater
service for the projected growth in the Clear/Milam Creek Basins a new wastewater
treatment plant and interceptor sewer to convey flows to the plant has. been approved by
the Public Utilities Board and the City Council. The Clear Creek Water Reclamation
Plant and the interceptor sewer are shown in Exhibit IV. These projects are currently
under design and scheduled for construction in the summer of 2003. The initial plant
capacity is projected at 0.95 mgd that will serve approximately 9500 persons. To
accommodate projected growth in the sewer basin the plant capacity will be expanded in
the 10-year time horizon. The cost of this expansion is included in Exhibit IV. The sewer
line will be designed for a minimum of 20 year projected wastewater flow capacity
requirement.
The population projections prepared by the Planning Department for the Hickory Creek
Basin forecast a population of 49,775 by 2013 and 70,039 by 2020. Currently all
wastewater flows from the Hickory Creek Basin are pumped to the Pecan Creek Water
Reclamation Plant. The existing Hickory Creek Lift Station used to pump the Hickory
Creek Basin flows to the plant is fully utilized during wet weather conditions. The
southwest part of the city is a high growth area and is expected to grow most rapidly
within Denton. The Graveyard Branch Interceptor and the currently under design Roark
Branch Interceptor sewer to serve the Vintage Development and the Roark Branch Basin
have created the need to expand the wastewater infrastructure in the Hickory Creek
Basin. To accommodate the wastewater flows from projected populations one option is to
construct a new pumping station at the intersection of the Graveyard Branch and Hickory
Creek Interceptor sewers, and pump all flows to the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation
Plant. The new pump station and the approximately 9 miles of force main to carry
wastewater flows to the plant is a substantial project. If all flows from the Hickory Creek
Basin are pumped with the new pump station along with the existing Hickory Creek Lift
Station, then growth in the Hickory Creek Basin will use up the capacity of the Pecan
Creek Water Reclamation Plant. This will require construction of a new plant at the
existing plant site to allow for this growth.
The Water Department is currently developing and expanding the wastewater treated
effluent reuse system in the city for supplying irrigation and industrial use water to large
users. To minimize the pipeline and pumping costs to supply the reuse water it is
beneficial to locate the source of this water, the treatment plant, close to the users. To
accommodate growth in the Hickory Creek Basin and provide impetus for reuse in this
basin, the option of locating a new wastewater treatment plant in the Hickory Creek
Basin in lieu of a new large pumping station is proposed. An in-house study is currently
underway to evaluate this option. The dollars required to construct the new pumping
station will offset the cost for the new wastewater plant construction. The estimated
construction cost ofa 3 mgd plant in the Hickory Creek Basin is included in Exhibit IV.
10 - Year Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan
Prepared by Alan Plummer and Associates
Presented to the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee
City of Denton FY 2003 Water/Wastewater Impact Fee
Update Evaluation.
City of Denton
Wastewater Improvement Costs
2003-2013
Improvement Cost Percent Applicable to Applicable Cost
(Dollars) Impact Fees~ (Dollars)
Treatment Plants
I. Pecan Creek WRP Exis6ng Capacity (15 MGD)2 $23,436,540 13.60% $3,187,369
2. Pecan Creek WRP Expansion (6 MGD)2 $19,416,015 83.67% $16,244,733
3. Hickory Creek xSrWTP (.95 MGD)2 $6,000,000 100.00% $6,000,000
4. Clear Creek WWTP (.95 MGD)2 $5,950,000 100.00% $5,950,000
5. Clear Creek WWTP Expansion (.68 MGD)2 $2,700,000 100.00% $2,700,000
Subtotal Treatment Plants $57,502,$$S $34,082,102
Lift Stations & Force Mains
6. Hickory Creek Li~ Station Improvements $300,000 100.00% $300,000
7. Cooper Creek Lif~ Station & Force Main $1,650,000 58.82% $970,530
8. Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Lift Station & Force Main $1,633,000 53.33% $870,879
Subtotal Lift Stations & Force Mains $3,283,000 $1,841,409
Interceptors
9. Cooper Creek Interceptor $1,500,000 50.00% $750,000
10. Pecan Creek Interceptor $3,000,000 50.00% $1,500,000
I I. Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase I $2,900,000 40.00% $1,160,000
12. Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase 11 $1,873,000 40.00% $749,200
13. Graveyard Branch $3,658,440 50.00% $1,829,220
14. Lakeview RanclVGrissom Interceptor $I,763,282 40.00% $705,3 I3
15. Clear Creek / Milam Creek Interceptor $5,000,000 40.00% $2,000,000
16. Roark Branch3 $750,000 50.00% $375,000
17. North Hickory Creek3 $2,000,000 50.00% $1,000,000
Subtotallntereeptors $22,444,722 $10,068,755
Total Wastewater Improvement Capital costs- $83~230~277 Total Applicable Costs - $457992,244
I. For applicable percentages, see worksheets attached.
2. Treatment Plant capacities were not adequately addressed in the 2001 Master Plan. Information regarding treatment plant construction and
capacities, both total and required, were provided by P.S. Arora - City of Denton per telephone conversation on December 10, 2002. Capacities
ware based on current City of Denton population projections published in November 2002.
3. Oversize Participation Only - information provided by P.S. Arora - City of Denton
City ofDenton
Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicableto Impact Fees
Interceptors
2003-2013
Improvement In-Service Date Years Applicable Percentage
Yea rI to CIP~
Interceptors
[}. Cooper Creek Interceptor 2003 10 50.00%
10. Pecan Creek Interceptor 2003 10 50.00%
11. Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase I 2005 8 40.00%
12. Hickory Creek Interceptor Phase II 2005 8 40.00%
13. Graveyasd Branch 2003 10 50.00%
14. Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Interceptor 2005 8 40.00%
15. Clear Creek / Milam Creek Interceptor 2005 8 40.00%
16. Roark Branch3 2003 10 50.00%
17. North Hickory Creek3 2003 10 50.00%
1. In service dates are anticipated.
2. Interceptors will have a 20 year life. Years applicable to CIP is calculated by taking the in-service date
from the year 2013. The percentage is the ratio of the years applicable to 20, the assumed project life.
3. Oversize Participation Only
CCN Boundaryt ~,~.,,~ ~
EXHIBIT C
Wastewater CCN Boundary~ ~_
EXHIBIT D
Wastewater CCN Boundary
City of Denton Wastewater ccN
/CITY OF l ~ EXHtE~tT ~
EXHIBIT F
LAND USE EQUIVALENCIES
WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES
METER I
TYPE METER SIZE
TYPICAL LAND USE
SERVICE
UNITS
Positive Displacement 3/4"
Positive Displacemenl 3/4"
Positive Displacemenl 1"
Positive Displacemenl 1-1 1/2
Positive Displacernenl
Venmri
Compound
Turbine
Residential - Single Family
less than 1,300 sq. fl./lot size less than 6,000 sq. ft.)
0.5
Residential - Single Family 1.0
Residential / Commercial 2.5
Commercial 5.0
Commercial 8.0
Apartment Complex 17.5
Commercial / Industrial 22.5
Commercial / Industrial 50.0
Source: City ofDenton Approved Meter Manufacturer's Specifications
EXHIBIT F