HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 2003-47 RESOLUTION NO. R2003-47
A RESOLUTION OF TAE CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS,
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PLAN AND THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS APPROVED, AND THE
IMPACT FEES IMPOSED, BY RESOLUTION NO. R90-22, PASSED AND
APPROVED THE 4� DAY OF JUNE, 1990, AS AMENDED BY
RESOLUTION NO. R91-4, PASSED AND APPROVED THE 7TH DAY OF
JANUARY, 1991; AS FURTHER AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. R93-
24, PASSED AND APPROVED THE 17� DAY OF MAY, 1993; AS
FURTHER AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. R97-48, PASSED AND
APPROVED THE iSTH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997; AMENDED BY
RESOLUTION NO. R2000-40, PASSED AND APPROVED THE 7� DAY
OF AUGUST,2000;
� * � * * * * * * * � * � � * * * * *
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the qualified professionals of the City's staff
and consultants to prepare an amendment to the City's Land Use Assumptions, Capital
Improvements Plan, and to recalculate the impact fees in accordance therewith; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held public hearings as required by law to amend its
Capital Improvements Plan and adjust impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt such amendment, a true and correct copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and for all things is made a part hereof;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD, TEXAS
Section 1. The facts and matters set forth in the preamble of this Resolution are hereby
found to be true and correct.
Section 2. The Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee
Study, as amended, originally adopted pursuant to Resolution No. R90-22, passed and
approved the 4�' day of June, 1990, as amended by Resolution No. R91-4, passed and
approved the 7th day of January, 1991, and as amended by Resolution No. R93-24, passed
and approved the 17th day of May, 1993, as amended by Resolution No. R97-48, passed
and approved the 15th day of December, 1997; amended by Resolution No. R2000-40,
passed and approved the 7th day of August, 2000; is hereby further amended as set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, said Exhibit "A" being entitled " 2003 Update Study for
Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fees, for Water
Supply/Distribution and Wastewater Treatment/Collection Systems," dated September
2003, by Claunch& Miller, Inc.
Section 3. In the event any clause, phrase, provision, sentence, or part of this Resolution
or the application of the same to any person or circumstance shall for any reason be
adjudged invalid or held unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not
affect, impair, or invalidate this Resolution as a whole or any part or provision hereof
other than the part declared to be invalid or unconstitutional; and the City Council of the
City of Friendswood, Texas, declares that it would have passed each and every part of the
same notwithstanding the omission of any such part thus declared to be invalid or
unconstitutional, whether there be one or more parts.
PASSED,APPROVED,AND RESOLVED this 17th day of November 2003.
f �. \
imball W. Brizendine, ayor
City of Friendswood
ATTEST:
. .�r
.
Deloris McKenz e, TRMC
City Secretary
EXHIBIT “A”
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
2003 UPDATE STUDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEES
WATER SUPPLY / DISTRIBUTION AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT / COLLECTION SYSTEMS
September 2003
Mayor Kimball W. Brizendine
_____________________
City Council
Position 1 – Laura Ewing
Position 2 – Jerry Ericsson
Position 3 – Tracy Goza
Position 4 – David J.H. Smith
Position 5 – Shannon Kimmel
Position 6 – Mel Measeles
___________________
City Manager Ronald E. Cox
Director of Community Development and Public Works Mickiel G. Hodge, P.E., R.P.L.S.
City Secretary Deloris McKenzie, TRMC
City Attorney Loren Smith
Page 2 of 18
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
2003 UPDATE STUDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEES
WATER SUPPLY / DISTRIBUTION AND
WASTEWATER TREATMENT / COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Impact Fee Advisory Committee
Chairman: Vice Chairman:
Robert Bertrand II Tom Burke
Kevin Holland
Jim Gibson
Michele Brekke
Stephen Yeretsky
David Brakebill
Page 3 of 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM
I. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 4
II. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................... 7
III. Review of Land Use Assumptions –City Growth Rates .............................................................. 9
IV. Development of City-Wide Water Supply & Distribution Impact Fee ....................................... 12
1. Water Supply, Storage, Transmission, Pumping, and Distribution Projects
2. Service Unit Basis
3. Projected Service Units
4. Calculation of Updated City-Wide Water Supply & Distribution Impact Fee
V. Development of City-Wide Wastewater Collection & Treatment Impact Fee ........................ 16
1. Wastewater Collection and Treatment Projects
2. Service Unit Basis
3. Projected Service Units
4. Calculation of Updated City-Wide Wastewater Collection & Treatment Impact Fee
VI. Recommendations & Conclusions .......................................................................................... 18
Appendices
A. Chapter 395 Local Government Code
B. Summary of Service Unit Equivalents
C. Water Supply & Distribution Projects and Costs
D. Wastewater Collection & Treatment Projects and Costs
E. Review of Historical Impact Fee Charges (Per Service Unit)
Page 4 of 18
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study is the 2003 Update of the original study which the City of Friendswood (City)
performed in 1990 to establish impact fees for water supply and distribution and wastewater
collection and treatment facilities. Fees were established in accordance with the original
state Impact Fee Legislation (VTCA Local Government Code Section 395.001 et seq.) and
have previously been updated in 1993, 1997, and 2000. The law provides for municipalities
and certain other political subdivisions to assess and collect impact fees for the infrastructure
required to serve new development. Fees collected are used to fund new infrastructure and
expansions to existing infrastructure that are required to serve the needs of the new
development and cannot be used to serve existing development. The legislation includes
guidelines for use when determining if a particular project is eligible for impact fees and the
method of calculating the maximum allowable impact fee that can be established.
The City’s fees have previously been adopted and subsequently updated for city-wide water
supply capacity, specific area water distribution systems, city-wide wastewater treatment
capacity, and specific area wastewater collection systems.
In 2000, Claunch & Miller, Inc. (CMI) prepared an update that included a review of current
water demand and wastewater flow data, population projections, land use assumptions and
area growth trends. The update also included as-built costs for recently constructed systems
improvements and other updated cost data that were utilized to determine the maximum
allowable impact fees to be assessed and collected.
In that update study, Service Area modifications included a Moore / Mandale Road Service
Area for water distribution system and the inclusion of the Autumn Creek Service Area for
wastewater collection. The projects to be constructed within the 2-5 years from the most
recent 10 year CIP completed in the fall of 1999 were included along with previously
identified projects. Actual construction costs were utilized in place of estimated costs for
projects that had been completed.
The state law originally required that impact fees be reviewed and updated at least every
three years from the adoption date; however, recent legislation has revised the maximum
period to five years between required updates. The city chose to update the study in 2003
because of additional anticipated water and wastewater capital improvement projects that
were identified in the most current Capital Improvement Plan, as well as a desire to simplify
the administration of the impact fee program by reducing all impact fees to a city-wide fee
that is currently either water or wastewater in nature and by changing the assessment
approach to be more equitable than the current system for small commercial developments
on larger tracts.
Assessing Impact Fees based on Water Meter Size:
Many municipalities choose to assess impact fee amounts for water and sewer capital
improvements based on the size of the water meter purchased to serve the development. A
water meter of a particular size will allow a definite water flow that will provide adequate
Page 5 of 18
service to the user. The larger the water meter, the larger the flow rate for which the meter is
rated. The American Water Works Association, on of the leaders in technical research in the
water and wastewater utility industries, has published tables identifying the rated water flow
rates through meters of various sizes. When an engineer sizes a water meter for a particular
development, he determines the number of water closets, water fountains, sinks, and other
types of fixture units and uses the number of fixture units and associated average demands to
select the proper water meter size.
Essentially those “industry standard” flow rates are compared to the flow rated for the meter
serving a single family home ( in Friendswood – 1 inch ) to determine the equivalent number
of service units for which the impact fee is ultimately charged. If a 1” meter is rated for 25
gpm and a 2” simple meter is rated for 50 gpm, then the purchase of a 2” meter to serve a
development would result in the assessment of an impact fee for 2 service units ( 50 gpm / 25
gpm = 2).
Assessing Impact Fees based on general consumption/ wastewater flow tables:
Agencies such as Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ), City of Houston
(COH) and others have developed tables identifying water use and wastewater flows for
various types of commercial, institutional, and industrial development based on available
research data ( water meter records and wastewater flow tests) that they have on various
types of development. Depending on the size of a proposed development of a specific type,
water demands and wastewater flows can be developed from the tables and compared to
those generated by the single family residence. The ratio of the proposed water demands and
wastewater demands to those for the typical single family residence become the multiplying
factor for the impact fee charged for residential development to determine the impact fee to
be assessed a particular development.
Discussion of the use of these methods to develop water and sewer utility impact fees:
Communities use these types of methods as well as others to calculate the maximum
allowable impact fee to be assessed a particular development. The use of either of the above
described methods are based on using industry standards to compare different types of
development and their associated water demands and wastewater flows.
Using either assessment method does not assure that the consumption and flow generation of
a particular development will not vary significantly from the values that form the averages
that are used to calculate fees. Even if average values are determined for a specific City
using historical data for that particular City, the water demands and wastewater flows for a
particular development typically vary significantly from the City averages.
For the selection of a water meter, there are other factors than impact fees that determine the
meter size that an owner may want for their development ( ie keep pressures at desired
levels). While it is probable that actual water and wastewater records will result in numbers
that vary significantly from those developed by area agencies, as they are more general and
use many samples to develop their numbers - those samples may have significantly different
Page 6 of 18
characteristics such as size, location, amount of water use in the area, fire protection,
irrigation patterns, and others.
Using either approach, a review of several months records of an individual development may
result in different numbers than the industry averages used to calculate the impact fees.
Since both methods are successfully used in the vicinity, and either approach would produce
a more equitable fee in most cases (than the current approach) for small commercial
developments on larger tracts, we recommend the water meter approach for ease of
administration and uniformity. The City staff has indicated a preference for the water meter
approach because of the ease of administration , and developers would also benefit from the
simplicity in that approach.
The city-wide fees determined per Service Unit (SU) during this 2003 update are:
1. Water Supply and Distribution $ 1,892
2. Wastewater Collection and Treatment $ 967
Total City-Wide Impact Fees $2,859
The approach to assessing the impact fee has been changed to be dependant on the size of the
water meter serving the proposed development which will be more equitable than the current
system in allocating capital improvement costs to serve commercial development on
relatively large tracts of land. (See Appendix B)
Administration Items:
1. The impact fee will be assessed at the time that a plat is filed (where applicable) and
collected during the building permit process as identified in the impact fee
legislation.
2. Parks, and construction trailers will not be assessed any Impact Fees.
3. Houses and Businesses obtaining additional meter(s) for fire line or lawn irrigation
purposes only, will not pay the impact fee associated with water or wastewater.
4. The Architect or Engineer for the Owner will size the water meter for the
development based on industry standards.
5. Governmental buildings, churches, and schools will pay the water and sewer impact
fees based on the proposed assessment method.
6. When an existing water meter is changed out, additional impact fees will be assessed
if the meter size is increased. The fee will be based on the incremental increase in
the Service Units calculated per Appendix B.
7. When meters are changed out for the same size meter or a smaller meter, no fee will
be assessed.
Page 7 of 18
II. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
State law allows municipalities to establish impact fees to fund the cost of capital
improvements necessitated by new development. Current Chapter 395 of the Local
Government Code (VTCA Local Government Code, Chapter 395) contains the requirements
and procedures for the establishment of impact fees. (Appendix A)
The City of Friendswood has established impact fees to recover the costs of water supply and
distribution and wastewater treatment and collection. These impact fees were first adopted
on June 4, 1990 by Resolution No. 90-22, in accordance with the provisions of State law.
Impact fees were originally established for the following items:
City-wide Water Supply Facilities
City-wide Wastewater Treatment Facilities
City-wide Impact Fee/CIP Study
Service Area Water Distribution:
Melody Lane Water System
Bay Area Boulevard Water System
Central Service Area Water System
Service Area Wastewater Collection:
Melody Lane Wastewater System
Central Service Area Wastewater System (Segments A-E)
On January 7, 1991, an amendment (R91-4) to the Impact Fee Resolution was adopted to
create the Mills, Murphy, and Briarmeadow Avenue Wastewater Collection System service
area and establish an impact fee therefor.
In 1993, the 1990 Impact Fees were reviewed, as required by State law. The Updated Study
for Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fees, dated March 10,
1993 reviewed the previously established impact fees with regard to water demand,
wastewater flow and revisions and extensions to the service areas. Adjustments to the
various components of the impact fees were recommended and adopted by the City based on
the 1993 Update Study, under Resolution No. R 93-24.
Significant modifications were made to the Central Service Area during the 1993 Update
Study. This area, renamed the South Friendswood Service Area, was greatly expanded and
the proposed collection system was redesigned. Costs for various other impact fee
components and areas were recalculated and updated in the 1993 study to reflect current
conditions as well.
Page 8 of 18
The second Update Study was prepared by CMI in 1996 – 1997 with the result being that
two service areas were deleted from the program and the fee calculation for the South
Friendswood Service Area was simplified for administration.
The 2000 Update Study added one specific water distribution service area and one specific
wastewater collection service area.
The 2003 Update Study is being produced to recognize new Capital Improvement Projects
that will have system wide benefits and meet the needs of new development that occurs
anywhere within the City. The study also simplified the overall assessment and collection
process for the City Staff by grouping all water and wastewater impact fees into city-wide
fees for either water supply and distribution or wastewater collection and treatment. The
assessment method was changed to correlate Service Units with water meter size. This
method will allow for the fees assessed to more closely reflect water demand and wastewater
flows than the current method of assessing the fees on an acreage basis for particular
development types (which allows for a relatively high assessment for a commercial
establishment on a site of several acres).
The Impact Fee Legislation provides for assessing the Impact Fee before or at the time of
recordation of the final plat. In cases where new development occurs without platting, the
Impact Fee may be assessed at any time during the development and building process.
Per the legislation, collection of the Impact Fees can occur:
1. When the final plat is recorded, if the development is platted, or
2. When connections are made to the City’s water and wastewater system, or
3. At the time the City issues either a building permit or certificate of occupancy.
After assessment of Impact Fees attributable to a specific project or the execution of an
agreement for payment of Impact Fees, no additional Impact Fees may be assessed to the
particular property for that project unless the number of Service Units (SU) is increased (a
larger meter is installed to replace the existing meter), in which case the additional fees to be
imposed shall apply only to the additional service units.
If a property owner pays an Impact Fee and the construction of the Capital Improvement, for
which the fee was paid, is neither under construction within 2 years after payment nor
complete for service within 5 years after payment, the Property Owner may request a refund
of the fee.
Page 9 of 18
III. REVIEW OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS – CITY GROWTH RATES
Land use assumptions adopted in the previous Impact fee studies fall into two categories.
For the city-wide impact fees (surface water supply and wastewater treatment), growth rates
for the City were projected for the 10-year planning period.
For the individual service area based impact fees, specific assumptions about land use types
and connection counts were made to reflect the planned or anticipated development in each
area.
The 2003 update study has grouped all proposed impact fees into two City-Wide components
and thus an evaluation of the City-Wide Growth Rates is the focus and the previously
identified specific service areas will not be analyzed further.
Previous Studies:
The original 1990 Impact Fee Study assumed a 5% annual growth rate throughout
the 10-year planning period. The 1990 population of the City was estimated to be
22,500 people with 7,662 equivalent connections. At the end of the planning period
(January 2000), the population was projected to be 36,650 people with 12,481
equivalent connections.
The 1993 Updated Study adopted population projections developed in two reports
prepared by City Staff and Wayne Smith & Associates. Those reports utilized
Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments (HGAC) population projections
and the City Zoning Map to produce land use and population projections for the
entire City. Based on this data, the 1993 Updated study utilized population
projections of 30,850 for 1995, 38,900 for 2000 and 43,724 for 2003.
In 1996, Claunch & Miller, Inc. analyzed data from three additional sources as a part
of the Second Update Study. Data was again obtained from HGAC, a study prepared
by J.T. Duncan and Associates, and data provided by the City records for dwelling
units constructed.
It was determined that a growth rate of 3.6% derived from City records was possibly
the most accurate and reasonable figure available, as it was based on the 1990
Census count plus detailed records of new residential electrical connections made
since then, whereas all of the other figures were based on projections of historical
trends or assumed growth rates. The 3.6% annual growth rate produced a January
1996 population projection of 27,835 and a 2006 population projection of 40,175.
Page 10 of 18
The 2000 update study revisited HGAC, Texas Water Development Board (TWDB),
and City records on dwelling construction. The dwelling construction data from
1997 through 1999 utilized with data previously gathered for the period from 1990-
1996 indicated an average annual population growth rate of approximately 3.3%.
Based on the city supplied connection numbers by development type and the
recommended annual growth rate of 3.3%, the projected Service Unit totals at the
end of the 10-year planning period (2010) were 14,164 water service units and
13,709 wastewater service units.
Current Study:
Table 1
Recent Census Data for Friendswood are as follows:
Year Population % increase annual % increase
1970 5,675 -
1980 10,719 88.9% 8.9%
1990 22,814 112.8% 11.3%
2000 29,037 27.3% 2.7%
Average persons per household for the past 13 years, has been approximately 2.8 in
the City. Numbers of households and number of water connections for the past three
years would indicate the following population projections:
Table 2
Year Households Connections Population Persons/Household (Connection)
1990 8048 22,814 2.8
2000 10,405 10,217 29,037 2.8
2001 10,996 30,789 2.8
2002 11,360 31,808 2.8
Page 11 of 18
Utilizing a reasonable 3.3% annual growth rate that is consistent with values used in
the past, population projections for the next 10 years would be:
Table 3
Year Population Year Population
2003 32,857 2009 39,924
2004 33,941 2010 41,241
2005 35,062 2011 42,609
2006 36,219 2012 44,009
2007 37,414 2013 45,460
2008 38,648
Using the same 3.3% annual growth rate, population and water / sewer connections
projected for the 10 year period would be:
Table 4
Year Population PPC Connections
2013 45,460 2.8 16,236
Page 12 of 18
IV. DEVELOPMENT OF CITY - WIDE WATER SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION
IMPACT FEE
1. Water Supply, Storage, Transmission, Pumping, and Distribution Projects
This City-wide water supply and distribution impact fee is composed of the following
components:
1. Surface Water Capacity
2. Surface Water Transmission, Pumping and Storage Facilities
3. Water Distribution System Improvements
Surface Water Capacity
Under the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District’s requirements, the City’s
future water supply must be converted from a majority of ground water use to a
majority of surface water use.
The City of Friendswood initially purchased 3.0 mgd of treatment capacity in the
City of Houston’s Southeast Water Purification Plant. Additional purchases have
included 1.0 mgd from the La Porte Water Authority, 0.5 mgd from MUD 55, and
1.5 mgd from the Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP).
The 2002 Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) developed to meet the needs of the
Harris / Galveston Coastal Subsidence District requirements indicated the ultimate
maximum day conditions for the City would be approximately 17 mgd and that to
meet ground water reduction goals, the appropriate mix should be 12 mgd surface
water and 5 mgd groundwater.
Future purchases will provide for a total of 12 mgd surface water for ultimate
development of the City. Total available to the ultimate 57,400 population of the
City would be the 12 mgd surface water along with 5 mgd groundwater. We are
including the cost for half of the 6 mgd to be purchased in this impact fee study.
That cost will provide for connections that will occur during the 10 - year planning
period.
Surface Water Transmission, Pumping and Storage Facilities
The surface water transmission, pumping and storage projects that have been
completed to date along with those anticipated in the near future based on the current
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are estimated to be sufficient for the city’s
requirements through the ultimate build out level, or approximately 20,500 Service
Units. A summary of all surface water supply, storage, transmission, and pumping
projects included in the impact fee calculation are included as Appendix C.
Page 13 of 18
Water Distribution System Improvements
Appendix C includes water distribution facilities included in the water supply and
distribution system impact fee component. Several of the projects were previously
identified as projects for specific service areas. These projects have now been
combined with all other projects for simplicity of administration so that a city-wide
water supply and distribution fee could be developed.
2. Service Unit Basis
The 1990 Impact Fee Study and the 1993 Update Study calculated the surface water supply
capacity in terms of Service Units based on historical water usage and connection counts.
Table 5 below shows the data used to compute these figures, along with 1996 and 2000 -
2002 data.
Table 5
Surface Water Capacity
Study Water ServiceConsumption Surface Water
Year Consumption Units Per S.U. Unit Capacity
1990 2.8 mgd 7,662 365 gpd 10,261
1993 2.89 mgd 8,621 335 gpd 11,196
1996 2.97 mgd 9,337 318 gpd 11,789
2000 3.73 mgd 10,238 365 gpd 20,548
2001 3.42 mgd 10,955 312 gpd
2002 3.49 mgd 11,218 312 gpd
(initial 3 mgd surface water capacity increased to 6.0 mgd capacity in 2000 by
purchases)
In 1996, CMI standardized the surface water supply impact fee calculations by defining a
previously fluctuating surface water supply service unit (based on yearly water consumption
fluctuations) at 365 gpd consumption, which was the value used in the original Impact Fee
Study. This value is a reasonable consumption rate for a typical single family residence and
is somewhat conservative based on analysis of water usage figures supplied by the City for
the period FY 1993 through FY 2002.
Most recently, the 2002 GRP indicated that the average demand per Service Unit should be
136 gpd X 2.8 ppc, or 381 gpd.
Page 14 of 18
Use of a value of 381 gpd per Service Unit means that the current 6 mgd capacity owned in
the two surface water treatment facilities equates to 19,685 SU ( versus the 20,500 ultimate
anticipated Service Units) when the 80% surface water 20% groundwater mix is factored in.
The additional groundwater to be purchased will more than cover the additional 815
connections that will ultimately need to be served.
The Groundwater Reduction Plan used a peak daily demand rather than an average daily
demand to determine the amount of future surface water purchases to meet the needs of
existing and future development.
The recommended Water Supply Service Unit of 381 gpd is lower than the previously
defined 450 gpd defined for the Water Distribution Service Unit, however, there are valid
reasons for a more conservative figure to be used for distribution system design. In addition,
the 1990 Study acknowledged that the 450 gpd utilization rate was higher than other
commonly recognized rates.
For planning purposes, it is helpful to equate various types and densities of development in
terms of their water and sewer capacity requirements. The Impact Fee legislation requires
that a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an
individual unit of development be used in the computation of impact fees.
Previously, the water consumption for different land use types were compared to that of the
single family residential connection (Service Unit) to develop equivalent service units for
areas of development. To simplify administration of the impact fee program, required water
meter sizes are now proposed to determine the equivalent number of Service Units for a
particular development.
An equivalent service unit table for various water meter sizes is included as Appendix “B”.
3. Projected Service Units
The existing surface water transmission, pumping, and storage components above are each
adequate to serve the 9,160 existing SU (3.49 mgd average 2002 daily demand / 381 gpd per
Service Unit). The existing and proposed surface water transmission, pumping, and storage
components will provide adequate transmission, storage, and pumping capacity for the City’s
needs through beyond the end of the ten year planning period of 2013.
Table 6
Total Capacity SU Remaining SU
1. Surface Water Facility Capacity 20,500 11,340
Page 15 of 18
Based on the 3.3% annual growth rate projection and the existing 6 mgd of total available
surface water capacity, the City’s available Surface Water Capacity will more than serve the
needs of the development projected through the year 2013.
4. Calculation of Updated City-Wide Water Supply & Distribution Impact Fee
Using the updated total costs for previous projects along with the costs for the anticipated
projects to be completed within the next 2 – 5 years (per the current CIP) for the various
components of the Surface Water Supply & Distribution System, the Water Supply &
Distribution Impact Fee is as follows:
Table 7
Water Supply Impact Fee Calculation
Item Cost** Capacity
Impact
Fee
1. Surface Water Capacity (6mgd + ½ of 6
mgd)
$18,400,177 20,500 SU $ 898
2. Transmission, Pumping & Storage Facilities $ 9,360,150 20,500 SU $ 457
3. System Wide Components $ 3,507,423 20,500 SU $ 171
4. Water Distribution $ 7,248,655 20,500 SU $ 354
5. Impact Fee Studies (through 2013) $ 100,000 8,574 SU* $ 12
Total: $1892
* - (16,236(2013 SU) – 7662 (1990 SU))
** - See Appendix C for further details in individual cost
Page 16 of 18
V. DEVELOPMENT OF CITY-WIDE WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND
TREATMENT IMPACT FEE
1. Wastewater Treatment and Collection Projects
The City of Friendswood has purchased 4.875 MGD of capacity in the Black Hawk Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Of the City’s total capacity, 2.5 MGD was purchased in the
Phase I construction to serve existing development. An additional 2.375 MGD was
purchased in the Phase II expansion project to serve new development, and is subject to the
impact fee.
The City has also participated in the construction of a temporary access road to serve the
Black Hawk Regional Plant, which is included in the impact fee calculation.
The following new additional projects and associated costs have been added as system wide
wastewater system projects and will be incorporated into the impact fee calculation:
(See Appendix D for a complete project list.)
Table 8
27” Trunk Sewer Capacity Study – The Forest $ 12,500
Preliminary Study – Area One South of FM 528 $ 6,500
Sewer Panhandle Area $ 20,000
Emergency Power Transfer Switches
at Deepwood, Crazyhorse, and Autumn Creek Lift Stations $ 60,814
Trunk Force Main (Forest Bend to WWTP) $ 1,153,727
Deepwood LS Expansion $ 490,821
Beamer Road Sanitary Sewer (Phase I) $ 1,017,518
FM 528 Trunk Sewer (Lundy Land – Tower Estates) $ 322,379
Impact Fee Studies (50% X $200,000 – through 2013) $ 100,000
2. Service Unit Basis
In 1991 and 1992, a detailed analysis of the existing wastewater flows was undertaken as a
part of the planning effort for the South Friendswood Service Area. This study found that
the average daily dry weather flow was 82 gpd per capita or 246 gpd per service unit for
wastewater treatment capacity. The peak 2-hour flow was found to be 4.2 times the average
daily flow or 1,033 gpd per service unit, which was rounded up to 1,050 gpd for planning
purposes for the wastewater collection system.
It is recommended that the previously defined wastewater treatment capacity Service Unit of
246 gpd, from a typical single family residence, and wastewater collection system Service
Unit of 1,050 gpd be maintained for use in this study for consistency. These figures are
based on the previous flow study data and bear a reasonable relationship to the consumption
rate used to define the Water Supply Service Unit.
Page 17 of 18
For planning purposes, it is helpful to equate various types and densities of development in
terms of their water and sewer capacity requirements. The Impact Fee legislation requires
that a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation or discharge attributable to an
individual unit of development be used in the computation of impact fees.
Previously, the wastewater generation for different land use types were compared to that of
the single family residential connection (Service Unit) to develop equivalent service units for
areas of development. To simplify administration of the impact fee program, required water
meter sizes are now proposed to determine the equivalent number of Service Units for a
particular development.
3. Projected Service Units
Based on the Service Unit definition provided above, the 2.375 MGD of wastewater
treatment capacity in the Black Hawk Regional Plant equates to 9,654 Service Units. The
wastewater treatment costs and costs for additional trunk sewers and lift stations will be
distributed over these 9,654 Service Units to develop a City-Wide wastewater impact fee.
The temporary plant access road serves both Phase I and II and must be distributed over the
total of 20,500 ultimate service connections (existing and future development).
4. Calculation of Updated City-Wide Wastewater Collection and Treatment Fee
The updated Wastewater Collections / Treatment Impact Fee is as follows:
Table 9
Impact
Items Cost Capacity Fee
1. Wastewater Treatment Capacity $ 541,129 9,654 $ 56
(Phase 2 Capacity only)
2. Temporary Access Road $ 411,431 20,500 $ 20
3. Additional System Wide Projects $8,500,946 9,654 $ 881
4. Impact Fee Study Costs $ 100,000 9,654 $ 10
Total Wastewater Collection / Treatment $967
Page 18 of 18
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
CMI recommends that the City simplify the impact fee assessment process by proceeding to
incorporate water and wastewater impact fees for existing service areas within the City into a
City-Wide impact fee that includes the costs of all Capital Improvements that will serve
future development.
The City has the desire for a new approach to assessing impact fees that is more equitable
than the current system for allocating costs for service to commercial development on
relatively large tracts of property. We recommend that the City proceed to change the
approach of assessing impact fees to recognizing the water meter size of a proposed
development as the way to determine the number of Service Units for which the
development will be assessed the fee. (See Appendix B)
Research indicates that the City should recognize approximately 20,500 Service Units at
ultimate development of the City and that the projected number of service units at the end of
the 10 year planning period, 2013 should be 16,236.
Capital Improvement Costs for new development distributed over the new development to be
served indicates that the maximum allowable water and wastewater impact fee to be assessed
future development would be $2859.
The two components of the total fee are:
1. Water Supply and Distribution - $1,892
2. Wastewater Collection and Treatment - $967