HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 93-24 , � A
RESOLUTION NO. R93-24
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PLAN APPROVED, AND THE IMPACT FEES IMPOSED,
BY RESOLUTION NO. 90-22, PASSED AND APPROVED THE 4TH DAY
OF JUNE, 1990, AS AMENDED BY RESOLUTION NO. 91-4, PASSED
AND APPROVED THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1991; MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY.
* * * * *
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the qualified
professionals of the City's staff to prepare an amendment to the
City's Capital Improvements Plan and to recalculate 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 thereof; 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 Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee
Study, as amended, originally adopted pursuant to Resolution No.
90-22 , passed and approved the 4th day of June 1990, is hereby
further amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, said
Exhibit "A" being entitled "City of Friendswood Amendment to C.I.P.
FWD\IM PACTFEE.RES\061293
g
and Impact Fee Study Dated April 27, 1990, Amendment -
March 10 , 1993 . "
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
Ordinance 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 �a.y. ,
1993 .
�
Evely B. Newman
Mayor
ATTEST:
. �►
De oris McKenzie, CMC
City Secretary
FWD\IMPACTFEE.RES\061293 -2-
tl;�i
. ��
=;{`^1
i� 'x;
0�
� ��.
� �'.
�� '�
� g INC. '�
:NG4NEE�
v��
,�<
'r
;'��
�
SS�MPTj��s� °`�
ND jjSE A pACT F'EE
UDY F�R LA N AND jM
PDAT E �T NIEN�S �'LA ��
U I�PR,�vE �:.
�APIT�` �
tew�er S�'stems �
propas
ed w�er and W� �
presented to:
C�� o f F�e�VVOOd nt Dep��ent
�omm�i�, r}evetopme
� .�� ��
March 10,
1993 � �-�
HOUSTON,TEXAS
.�.-�'"'"�.__---
_��
��EYOi�S' __�
CiVIL EN�INEERS&SU -
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
UPDATE ST[JDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL Il�iPROVEMENTS
PLAN AND IlIZPACT FEE
PROPOSID WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
March 10, 1993
Brown&Gay Engineers, Inc.
2470 Gray Falls Drive, Suite 170
Houston, Texas 77077-6513
- �P�����,�^��'�
� G
,._�'�, ;���
t;�y . . , ..:: °��
�� �,V KHUSE •�R "'
` �,q, ....•571f�;) .,�>•' �
�ws�cov�co�� �&vo 9 .;:
r�n ,c'F>J.5��P�G..
�
e�o��S • `%�.,e'
y���i 7 n'd�,�-e,�
.. .;��.•
_ �"j����
CTTY OF FRIENDSWOOD
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEE STUDY
PROPOSED WATER DISTRIBUTION AND
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS
Mayor Evelyn Newman
Ciry Council
Ms. Kitten Hajecate
Mr. Mel P. Measeles �
� Mr. Tom Manison
� Mr. Ed Stuart
Mr. Hazold Raley
Mr. Frank Frankovich
City Manager Ronald E. Cox
City Engineer James Thompson, P.E.
Public Works Director Melvin Meinecke
Finance Director Roger Roecker
City Secretary Deloris Archer, CMC
Ciry Attomey John Olsen
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
UPDATE STUDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMPTTONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
AND IMPACT FEE
PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPACT FEE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman: Vice Chairman:
Benny Baker Kenny Koncaba
1203 Silverleaf 409 Morningside
(h) 482-1120 (h)482-2207 �
�
(w) 286-8587 (w)482-7941
Jan Jordan Hans Van Dyke
31 Hideaway 701 W. Edgewood
(h) 482-6954 (h)482-1426
(w) 482-2112 (w) 338-4225
Don Dickson Jeanie McHugh
2004 McKissick 1104 Lost River
(h) 996-0653 (h) 482-9122
(w) 945-7362
William R. Finger John Watson
P.O. Box 879 104 Pecan
(h) 482-0108 (w) 482-0557
Staff:
James E. Thompson, P.E.
City Engineer& Community Development Director
482-4438
Claudia Brinkman
Planning &Zoning Secretary
482-4438
CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD
UPDATE STUDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMP'ITONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
AND IMPACT FEE
PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item PaQe
I. Executive Summary 1
II. Introduction 4
III. Review of Land Use Assumptions 6
IV. Review of Water Supply Impact Fee 9
V. Review of Water Distribution System Impact Fee 12
A. Melody Lane Service Area
B. Bay Area Boulevard Service Area �
„....
C. South Friendswood (Central) Service Area
VI. Review of Wastewater Treatment Impact Fee 14
VII. Review of Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee 1�
A. Melody Lane Service Area
B. South Friendswood (Central) Service Area
C. Milis, Murphy, Briarmeadow Ave. Service Area
VIII. Exhibits
A. Water System Service Areas
B. Melody Lane Water Distribution System
C. Bay Area Boulevard Water Distribution System
D. South Friendswood Water Distribution System
E. Wastewater System Service Areas
F. Melody Lane Wastewater Collection System
G. South Friendswood Wastewater Collection System
H. South Friendswood Wastewater Collection System
I. Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow Ave. Wastewater
Collection System
IX. Appendices
A. South Friendswood Sub Areas
B. South Friendswood Wastewater Collection System
Cost Fstimates
C. Impact Fee Calculation per Segment of South
Friendswood
D. Criteria for Estimation of Sewage Contribution
-Special Uses
E. Impact Fee Legislation
�,...
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Friendswood adopted an Impact Fee Resolution in 1990 in conformance with the
state Impact Fee legislation (UTCA Local Goverament Code Section 395.001 et seq.). The
state legisladon includefl the provisions for municipalities and certain other political
subdivisions to assess and collect Impact Fees on land development activities that would fund
the planning, right of way acquisition, and construction of infrastructure (water and wastewater
utilities, drainage, roads, etc. ) to meet the nee�s of the new development. The legislation
provides that no fees can be assessed or collected on land considered as existing development.
The City develope� an Impact Fee for water supply capaciry, water distribution systems,
wastewater treatment capacity, and wastewater collection systems based on the results presente�
in an engineering report "Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fee Study -Proposed Water
Distribution and Wastewater Collection Systems" prepared by Brown&Gay Engineers, Inc.
(BGE). The study included an analysis of future land use and population projections, an
analysis of water and wastewater capital improvements needed to meet the demands of the
projected development, and established "Mazimum Allowable Impact Fees" to be assessed and
collected on land development projects to fund the casts for the improvements.
In Summary the 1990 Impact Fee (and 1991 Fee Amendment) components per Equivalent
Service Unit (ESU) were as follows:
A. Ciry Wide Impact Fees:
1. Surface Water Facilities $711 �
2. Wastewater Treatment Facilities 122
°�°` 3. Impact Fee/CIP Study �
Total $840
B. Water Distribution Impact Fees:
1. Melody Lane Service Area $854
2. Bay Area Blvd. Service Area $294
3. Central Service Area $358
C. Wastewater Collection Impact Fees:
1. Melody Lane Service Area $450
2. Central Service Area
Segment A: $830
Segment B: $618
Segment C: $397
Segment D: $234
Segment E: $186
3. Mills, Murphy, Briar Meadow Avenue
Service Area $2532
The Impact Fee legislation provides that any impact fees adopted would be reviewed at least
every three years from the date of adoption.
BGE has prepared an Update Study that reviews the Land Use Assumptions, Capital
Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees and has proposed adjustments based on recent water
demand data, wastewater flow data, and revisions and extensions to the 1990 Service Areas
� targeted for future development.
r �
2
Essentially the City Wide Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Capacity Impact Fees are
proposed to be reduced based on recent city water demand and wastewater flow data.
The Melody Lane, Bay Area Boulevard, and Mills, Murphy, and Briarmeadow Avenue Service
Area Impact Fees remain the same as calculated in 1990.
The Central Service Area was enlarge�to include azeas to the south of the 1990 service azea
and redefine� as the South Friendswood Service Area to be consistent with planning and design
of the wastewater collection system that has occurred in 1991 and 1992. New sub areas have
been adde�to the sub azeas defined in the 1990 report based on planning work accomplished
over the past 3 years.
BGE proposes the following adjustments to the Impact Fees per ESU cunently in place:
A. City Wide Impact Fees
1. Surface Water Facilities $685
2. Wastewater Treatment Facilities $ 69
3. Impact Fee Study &Update Study (1) 36
Total $790
B. Water Distribution Impact Fees
1. Melody Lane Service Area $854
2. Bay Area Boulevard Service Area $294
3. South Friendswood Service Area $293 �
"""' C. Wastewater Colle�tion Impact Fees
1. Melody Lane Service Area $450
2. Mi11s,Murphy,Brirameadow Ave. $2,532
3. South Friendswood Service Area
�'�A $378
Area B-1 $378
Area B-2 $378
�'� C $285
�'�D $161
Area E-1 $784
Area E-2 (2) $784
Area E-3 $161
Area E-4 $161
Area F $378
(1) Based on estimated $100,000 for 10 year study costs and 2,757 ESU.
(2) Originally calculated to be $5,743 but elected to be equal to Area E-1.
Requests for service, in areas in which water and wastewater infrastructure necessary to support
new development is neither cunendy available nor propose� as a part of the Capital
Improvements Plan, will have to be coordinated with City officials.
� ,
3
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.
Collection of the Impact Fees will occur:
1. When the finat plat is recorde�, if the development is platted, or
2. When connections are made to the City's water and wastewater system
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 Fee.s may be assesse�i to the
particulaz property for that project unless the number of ESU is increase�, in which case the
additional fees to be impose�i 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 Properry Owner may request a refund of the fee.
We recommend that in cases of special uses (such as churches, schools and building additions)
or partial use of a tract, the City Engineer would estimate water demands and wastewater flows
based on locally accepted criteria and make a recommendation for an equitable impact fee to
the Advisory Committee for their approval (See Exhibit D).
Parks, sprinkler systems, and construction trailers will not be assesse� any Impact Fces.
4 � �
II. INTRODUCTION
The City of Friendswood adoptad Resolution No. R90-22 on June 4, 1990. The resolution
established an Impact Fee to recover the costs for water and wastewater system improvements
(water supply, water distribution, wastewater treatment, and wastewater collection) that have
been er will be constructed to meet the needs of future development. The Impact Fee was
adopted in accordance with state legislation (UTCA Local Government Code Section 395.001 et
seq.) subsequent to the preparation and review of an engineering report prepare�by Brown&
Gay Engineers, Inc. (BGE).
The engineering report had developed the calculation of a "Ma�cimum Allowable Impact Fee"
for the various "Service Areas" of proj�future development. The process included
reviewing "Land Use Assumptions - (LUA)" for the 10 year planning period, by determining
the required water and wastewater system capital improvements or "Capital Improvements Plan
-(CIP)" require�to serve projected development, and determining the cost per "Equivalent
Service Unit" for the improvements to serve future development within each service azea.
The Impact Fee could be use�to fund improvements to serve new development only and could
not be assessed and collected to upgrade facilities -ie. update, expand, or replace existing
capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental, or regulatory standards, or to perform maintenance functions.
The calculated Impact Fee involved four components:
City wide water supply Impact Fee
� City wide wastewater treatment Impact Fee
Service Area water distribution system Impact Fee
Service Area wastewater collection system Impact Fee
The City of Friendswood has purchased capacities in a surface water supply plant and
wastewater treatment plant that aze in excess of existing demands and the excess capacities can
be used to provide service to propose� development for the ten year planning period. The cost
that has been and will be spent to provide capacity for future development can be retrieved by
assessing and collecting a City wide Impact Fee for water and wastewater plants. A "Maximum
Allowable Impact Fee" component was determined for the two plants.
There were three Service Areas identified in the original engineering report for water
distribution system and wastewater collection system Impact Fee analysis due to their potential
for development within the ten year planning period:
Melody Lane Service Area
Bay Area Boulevard Service Area
Central Service Area
An amendment (R91�) to the Impact Fee Resolution was adopted on January 7, 1991 that
included an additional area identified as Mills, Murphy, and Briarmeadow Avenue between
� Sunset Drive and Greenbriaz Drive.
Over the past three yeazs a significant amount of planning and design work (wastewater
collection system) has occune� to prepaze for the development within an expanded Central
Service Area (as defined in the 1990 Impact Fee Study) and the azea has been renamed the
South Friendswood Service Area in those planning efforts. We have renamed the Central
Service Area to be the South Friendswood Service Area in this report to conespond with the
5
�- cunent planning.
The four areas were analyze�for water distribution and wastewater collection Impact Fees by
reviewing the development projections and determining the required capital improvements to
serve future nee�s.
The proposed "Maaimum Allowable Impact Feas" determined from the engineering study were
discussed during required public hearings prior to City Council approval. The approve�i Impact
Fees and the administration procedures were establishe� and presented in Resolution R90-22.
The Impact Fee legislation includes a provision that an identified capital improvement project,
for which an impact fee has bean collected, must be in the construction phase within two years
after fee collection and be ready to serve the property owner within five years after fee
collection or the property owner may request a refund.
The impact fee legislation includes the requirement for a City to review the Land Use
Assumptions, Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee at least every three years from the
original adoption date. BGE was authorize�by the Friendswood Ciry Council on January 18,
1993 to perform the update study.
�.,.
6 F �
„�. III. REVIEW OF LAND USE ASSUMPTZONS
The Impact Fee legislation requires an analysis of Land Use Assumptions for a ten year
planning period as the initial step in the determination of an Impact Fee for a Service Area.
Land Use Assumptions aze defined as "a description of the service azea and projections of
changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least the
ten year planning period."
At the time of the 1990 Impact Fee Study, the City anticipated an annual growth of
approximately 596 for the duration of the 10 year planning period. In 1990, the population of
Friendswood was estimated to be 22,500 and the 596 annual growth rate represente�an
additional 14,150 people over the 10 year planning period. The Additional 14,150 people
would correlate to an additiona14,800 equivalent single family connections.
A significant amount of planning for the wastewater collection system for the South
Friendswood Service Area has occurred in 1991 and 1992 by City staff and Wayne Smith&
Associates. Two reports have been prepared for the City : "Feasibiliry Study on The Transport
of Wastewater From The Southem Portion of the City to Blackhawk Regional Treatment
Faciliry" (10-9-91) and "Engineering L,etter Report-Extension of Sewer Service to Unsewered
Area (South Friendswood) " (9-25-92). The 1991 feasibility study produced land use and
population projections for the entire City utilizing the City of Friendswood Zoning Map and
Houston - Galveston Area Council of Governments (HGAC)population projections. The
projections were verified using historical population data, and three different mathemadcal
forecasting models. BGE has reviewed the current population projections performed in the -
recent planning studies and have recommendefl to Staff that these projections serve as the Land
Use Assumptions for the Update Study for Impact Fees.
�,.
The recent projections indicate a 1990 population of 22,814 (1990 Census Data), a 1995
population of 30,850, a 2000 population of 38,900, and a 2005 population of 46,940. These
projections indicate a 796 annual increase from 1990 - 1995, a 59b annual increase from 1995 -
2000, and a 49b annual increase from 2000 -2005. By interpolation, the Ciry would have a
population of approximately 43,724 by the year 2003, the end of a ten year planning period.
Four azeas of growth identified in the 1990 study and the January 7, 1991 amendment aze
describe�below. BGE has met with Ciry staff and the same four azeas have been identified as
the areas most likely to develop over the neat ten years. (See Ea�hibits A &F)
l. Melody Lane Service Area: Approximately 298 acres of undeveloped land
proposed for the water distribution service area and 458 acres of undeveloped
land proposed for the wastewater collection service area located west of FM-
2351, north of Melody Lane, and south of Clear Creek. The Update study
utilizes the same service area as defined in the 1990 study.
2. Bay Area Boulevazd Service Area: The 1990 study identified 204 acres of
developable land bisected by Bay Area Boulevazd and located south of FM-528
that would be considered for water distribution Impact Fees (based on a 1985
contract between the City and Bay Area Land Company, Ltd. that included a
provision for repayment by the City of the prepayment of fees by a developer
to construct a water line extension).
7 , ,
3. Central (Now South Friendswood) Service Area: In 1990 the azea was
essentially define� as east of FM-528 and extending from Clear Creek near the
eastem boundary of the City across FM-518 to the undeveloped portions of
Mission Fstates. The area has now been expanded to include approximately
3,357 acres of undeveloped land and 1,991 acres of developed land locate�
within the City limits south of Chigger Creek. Addidonal azeas include the
Slone Tract, undeveloped portions of Rancho Viejo, and the undeveloped land
south of Sunmeadows and San Joaquin Estates on south to the City Limits. The
azea is bound on the south and east by the contiguous City Boundaries for
Friendswood and League City. The City limits and Galveston County
boundary form the west boundary.
4. Mills, Murphy, Brairmeadow Ave. Service Area: Includes 48 residential lots
along Mills Drive, Murphy Lane, and Briarmeadow Ave. between Greenbriar
Ave. and Sunset Drive to be considered for wastewater collection impact fees.
A Capital Improvements Plan, in the form of a conceptual service plan.to provide for the
extension of water distribution and wastewater collection lines was previously developed for the
Melody Lane, Bay Area Boulevazd, and Central Service Areas and has been reviewed and
revised where require� in this study. The propose�extension of water and wastewater lines
into each of the Service Areas generally corresponds with the proposed alignment of major road
arteries as illustrated on the Major Thoroughfare Plan.
The Bay Area Boulevazd Service Area water line and the sanitary sewers in the Mills, Murphy,
Brairmeadow Ave. Service Area were constructed prior to preparation of the 1990 study. �
The Bay Area Boulevard Service Area has already been provided with water distribution under
the terms of a 1985 contractual agreement previously mentioned. The impact fee determined in
connection with the Bay Area Boulevazd Service Area was based on the actual cost of the 14"
water line that was extended along FM-528 to the tract.
The 1991 amendment to the 1990 Impact Fee resolution identified the Mills, Murphy,
Briarmeadow Ave. sewer project that had been constructed to serve new development in 1986.
Land Use in the Melody Lane and Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow Ave. Service Areas is single
fanuly residential. Land Use in the Bay Area Boulevazd Service Area is mizad witb.
Community Shopping Center, Office Park, and I3igh Density Multifamily areas being present.
8
Land Use for the South Friendswood Service Area is predominantly single family residential
(See Appendix A for connection breakdowns in each sub area). Property adjoining FM-528 in
small azeas is zoned Commercial. The Friendswood City Ordinance limits residential
development to an approaimate density of 2.�homesites per acre which results in
approximately 8 to 9 people per acre of residential development.
Population projections for the City of Friendswood and the South Friendswood Service Area
taken from the Wayne Smith&Associates Feasibility Study report are as follows:
Planning Friendswood South Friendswood
year Service Area
1990 22,814 5,185
1995 30,850 7,806
Z000 38,900 10,375
2005 46,940 13,345
2010 54,9$0 19,620
Fully Developed — 36,007
,�.-
9 ,
�
IV. REVIEW OF WATER SUPPLY IMPACT FEE
In the past, the City of Friendswood has purchased 3.0 mgd capacity in the City of Fiouston
Southeast Water Purification Plant. The purchase was in response to direction by the Harris -
Galveston Coastal Subsidence District that the service area in which the City of Friendswood is
located would convert to surface water for supply such that 8096 of the total demand would be
served by surface water and that a maximum of 2096 of the total water demand would be servad
by the City's existing groundwater water wells. The 3.0 mgd capaciry will serve approximately
11,196 Equivalent Service Units (FSU) (l� 809b of total demand) and there is currendy 8621
existing ESU to the Friendswood water supply system.
The Ciry has recognizad that the costs of purchasing surface water capaciry and constructing
pumping, storage, and system wide improvements to accommodate the surface water in the
system should be allocated to future development that will be served as well as to existing water
system ESU.
None of the costs considered for the water supply impact fee component are to upgrade, update,
improve, or replace facilities that serve existing development.
Surface Water Supply:
Water consumption in Friendswood for 1992 averaged approaimately 2.89 mgd for 8621 ESU
(335 gpolESU). The 809b surface water component of the existing daily average consumption
would be approximately 2.31 mgd which would leave 0.69 mgd of the 3.0 mgd capacity that the -
City of Friendswood owns that could be used to serve future development. At the current rate
of consumption, the surplus capaciry could serve an additional 2575 ESU. The Land Use
Assumptions assumes a total of 3111 propose� equivalent single family connections requiring
' water supply over the term of the 10 year planning period which implies that additional surface
water will have to be purch�sed during the later stages of the 10 year planning period. As
indicated in the 1990 study, if the unit cost of additional surface water capaciry is different than
the initial allocation in the Southeast Plant, adjustments.will have to be made in future updates
of the Impact Fee structure.
Surface Water Transmission. Pumping. and Storage:
The surface water transmission, pumping, and storage projects that have been completed to date
have previously been estimated to be sufficient for the Ciry's requirements through the 509b
build out level, or approximately 12,500 equivalent connections (based on cunent ultimate
connection projections of 25,000). Ultimately, a second surface water line is envisioned along
the alignment of Beamer and FM-2351 with the attendant storage and pumping facilities to
complete the conveyance and handling of surface water for the City.
,.�.
10
"�`� Sy,Ftem Wide ImDrovements:
Several components of the surface water conversion effort including the Surface Water
Monitoring Equipment and the Modifications to Existing Water Plants to Accommodate Surface
Water aze not particulazly sensitive to " levels of buildout " and are intende�to apply to the
overall system.
Basis of Service Units:
A total of 11,732 Equivalent Service Units (ESU) are projecte�for purposes of this study
including 8,621 existing ESU and an additional 3,111 proposed ESU for the LO year planning
period for the Capital Improvements Plan.
The following is a summary of the metered connections in service as of January 1993:
Type of Customer Individual Equivalent
Connections Connections
S F Residential 7,036 7,036
S F Construction 167 167
M F Residential (Units) 1,344 740 *
Single Business Commercial 207 414 *
Multi Unit Commercial 109 55 *
Parks, Schools, Churches 38 209 * -
Sprinkler Systems �� p
Total 8,964 8,621
� * Compute�based on water usage factors developed in 1990 Impact Fee Study.
The Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) is defined in the Impact Fee legislation as a " standazdized
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." Previous analysis of
the water distribution system by Texas A&M indicated a reasonable value for per capita water
consumption to be 150 gallons per day (gpd). A single family dwelling, assuming an
occupancy of 3 peaple would generate an average daily water demand of 450 gallons per day.
This update study will continue to use to use the 450 gallons per day demand as the definition
of an Equivalent Service Unit. The following table illustrates the ESU's for various land use
requirements:
Land Use Units/Ac Occupancy/ Demand(� ESU/ACRE (g?
Unit 150 gpcd 450 Qncd/ESU
SFR 2.7 3.00 1,215 2.7
Gazden Homes 6 1.65 1,485 3.3
MFR-L 6 1.65 1,485 3.3
MFR-M 9 1.65 2,22g S.p
MFR-H 18 1.65 4,455 9.9
MHR 10 1.65 2,475 5.5
CSC (1) — — 1,665 (2) 3.7
I — — 1,800 (3) 4.0
�
11
� Note (1): 3.7 ESU/Acre also applies to other Land Use
designations including NC, LI, OBD, OPD, BP,
RSC and PUD.
Note (2): Based on 55 people/Acre � 30 gpcd.
Note (3): Based on 1,800 gpd/Acre
Projecte� Service Units:
The surface water components deseribed above are each adequate to serve the 8,621 existing
ESU in addidon to the portion of the ESU proposed for the ten year planning period and future
ESU beyond the ten year planning period as itemized below:
Total 2003 Future
ESU E�� ESU
1. Surface Water Capacity 11,196 2,575 0
2. Transmission,Pumping,
and Storage 12,504 3,879 0
3. System Wide Improvements 25,000 3,111 13,268
Calculation of Impact Fees per ESU:
1. Surface Water Capacity �5,4b7,450J11,196 = $488 �
2. Transmission,Pumping,Storage $2,161,110/12,500 = $173
3. System Wide Improvements $593,582/25,000 = 24
Total $ 685
These fees differ from those calculated in 1990 as follows:
19�0 �
1. Surface Water Capacity 531 488
2. Transmission,Pumping,Storage 157 173
3. System Wide Improvements 2� 24
Total $711 $685
The difference is basically due to the fact that the per capita consumption of water has decreased
from the levels that were indicated in 1990 which allows the cost of surface water capacity to be
allocated between more ESU than in 199Q.
The surface water supply components addressed in the report are capable of serving various
levels of development as discussed earlier. The Impact Fee proposed for the City's surface
water improvements is based on tbe cost of each of the three component categories itemized
above divided by the number of Equivalent Service Units that aze appropriate for each category.
12
V. REVIEW OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPACT FEE
� The Capital Improvements to be provided for water distribution in undevelope� areas are
indicated in Elchibits A, B, C, and D that indicate the boundaries, eaisting water lines, and
proposed water lines for Melody Lane , Bay Area Boulavard, and South Friendswood Service
Areas. The City will assess and collect an Impact Fee to provide the proposed facilities based
on an estimated total cost for the water lines and their appurtenances allocated over the total
number of proposed ESU in each Service Area.
Project Costs:
Melody Lane System(1):
Construction �242,400
Engineering 29,088
Right of Way 56,000
Bond Issuance&Finance Costs �,59.869
Total Cost �687,400
Bay Area Boulevard 5ystem (1):
Contract Cost (Exist. 14" Line) $369,338
Engineering 44.322
Total Cost $413,700
South Friendswood System (1):
Construction $390,600 �
Engineering 46,872
Right of Way 80,800
,._. Bond Issuance&Finance Costs 42 1
Total Cost �g60,4pp
(1)- See 1990 Impact Fee Study for details of costs -no significant change in the project costs
are anticipated from the estimates developed in 1990. (No adjustment for inflation).
Projected Service Units:
Total Proposed Future
Service Area ESU ESU ESU
1. Melody Lane
298 acres SFR C� 2.7 ESUlacre 805 805 0
2. Bay Area Boulevard
40 acres CSC C� 3.7 ESU/acre 148
59 acres OPD � 3.7 ESU/acre 218
105 acres MFR-H lg� 9.9 ESU/acre 1•040
Sub-Total 1,406 400 1,006
3. South Friendswood
1,088 acres SFR� 2.7 ESU/acre 2•93g 1.552 1.386
Total Projected ESLJ 5,149 2,757 2,392
.�.
13
Proposed ESU are those projecte� within the ten year planning period.
Calculation of Water Distribution Impact Fee:
1. Melody Lane Water System
5687,400/805 ESU = $854/ESU
2. Bay Area Boulevard Water System
$413,700i1,406 ESU 5294/ESU
3. South Friendswood Water System
�860,400/2,938 ESU 5293/FSU
The project costs were allocated over the ultimate number of ESU to more equally distribute
costs between proposed and future development.
These fees aze identical to those calculated in 1990:
1990 1993
Impact Fee Impact Fee
1. Melody Lane $854 $854
2. Bay Area Boulevard $294 $294
3. South Friendswood 5358 $293 �
..�. The water distribution improvements specific to the service areas idendfie� above are ultimately
intended to serve a total of 5,149 ESU including 2,757 proposed during the ten year study
period and an additional 2,392 when the subject areas aze built out.
14
VI. REVIEW OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPACT FEE
The Ciry of Friendswood owns 4.875 mgd of capacity in the Blackhawk Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The 1990 Impact Fee study included an analysis of the costs that had been
incurre�by the City to acquire the capacity and the resulting Impact Fee to future development
for unallocated capacity. The report indicated that there was sufficient capacity to serve the
projected number of Equivalent Service Units (ESU) as well as existing service connections at
the time.
Friendswood has purchased capacity in each of the two Phases of the Blackhawk Plant.
Although the cost of the City's capacity in Phase I was paid for through EPA participation, it
later assumed the debt ($272,000) of the Cleazwoods Improvement District upon annexation of
the land. The City owns 2.5 MGD in the Phase I construction which serves eaisting
development. The 2.375 MGD treatment capacity obtained by the City in the Phase II
construction is available to support new development. In addition, Friendswood pazticipated in
a constr�ction effort distinct from the two Blackhawk construction phases referenced above for
the eatension of a temporary access road from FM-528 to the plant. Costs attributerl to the
Phase II treatment plant expansion and to the access road aze considered in the Impact Fee
calculation.
There are no costs allocate� in the proposed Capital Improvements Plan for upgrading,
updating, improving, expanding, or replacing any of the existing capital improvements
described above in order to meet existing nee�s, safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory
standards.
The Ciry of Friendswood is currently using approximately 2.5 MGD of its allotteci capacity of
� 4.875 MGD. The remaining 2.375 MGD will serve an estimated 10,722 ESU of future
development (� 2.7 peaple per ESU and 82 gpcd -per Wayne Smith&Associates analysis of
cunent dry weather flows). The Land Use Assumptions have indicated that there will be
approximately 2727 -ESU (805 ESU - Melody Lane; 16 ESU - Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow;
1906 - South Friendswood) developed over the 10 year planning period. The unallocate�i
capacity will serve the City through the ten year planning year based on the projections.
Basis of Service Unit:
In the 1990 Impact Fee Study a 390 gpd per ESU was derived using the dry weather flow for
the Ciry's wastewater system. This value was defined as the Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) for
wastewater treatment plant capacity. Infiltration and inflow data indicate� that a peak two hour
flow of approximately 1,355 gpd per ESU was appropriate for designing the wastewater
collection system.
15
In 1991 and 1992 Wayne Smith and Associates performerl a detailed analysis of the existing
wastewater flows as part of their planning effort for the South Friendswood Service Area.
Their study indicated that the average daily dry weathex flow per capita was approximately 82
gpd and that the peak two -hour flow was approximately 4.2 X the average daily dry weather
flow or 345 gpd. The wastewater treatment capacity is typically analyzed on an average daily
dry weather flow basis for process considerations and on a peak 2 hour flow basis for hydraulic
considerations. Utilizing a densiry of 3 peaple per single family connection, the Equivalent
Service Unit would produce 221 gpd average dry weather flow and 928 gpd peak 2 -hour flow.
The more current 221 gpd and 928 gpd will be used to define the ESU for wastewater treatment
and wastewater collection system purposes respectively.
ESU for various land use reauirements:
Land Unit/ Occupancy/ Maa Q/Acre ESU/Acre !�
�,sg Acre ni �� 1050 gpd/ESU
SFR 2.7 3.00 2,835 2.7
Gazden Homes 6 1.65 3,415 3.2
MFR-L 6 1.65 3,415 3.2
MFR-M 9 1.65 5,123 4.9
MFR-H 18 1.65 10,246 9.8
MHR 10 1.65 5,692 5.4
CSC (1} — — 5,775 (2) 5.5
I — — 6,048 (3) 5.8 �
Note(1): 5.5 ESU/Acre also applies to other Land Use
designations including NC, LI, OBD, OPD,
BP, RSC and PUD.
Note(2): Based on 55 people/acre!� 25 gpcd for base flow
Note(3): Based on 1,440 ggad for base flow
Projected ESU:
Existing Proposed Future
ESU ESU ESU
Phase II Treatment Capacity 0 2,727 8,000
Temporary Access Road 8,621 2,727 10,710
The 2.375 mgd treatment capacity obtained by the City of Friendswood in the second
construction phase is available to support new development. Assuming an updated average rate
of flow of 221 gpd per connection used as the basis of an Equivalent Service Unit in this Impact
Fee Update Study, the additional capacity will serve approximately 10,727 ESU. The
temQorary access road constructe� in the Blackhawk plant provides service for both
construction phases of the Blackhawk plant. Based on the 2.5 mgd capacity in the initial phase,
an additional 2.375 mgd in the second phase and the 221 gpd per ESU reference� above, the
cost of the road should be amortized over a total of 22,058 ESU.
16
� Calculation of the Impact Fee:
Blackhawk WWTP CaQacity (1) 5541,129/10,727 = $50
Blackhawk Access Road (1) $411,431/22,058 = �1Q
Total =$69
(1) Costs indicated in 1990 Impact Study (No adjustments for inflation)
These fees vary from those calculatad in the 1990 Impact Study as follows:
�� �
Wastewater Capaciry � 89 S50
Blackhawk Access Road � �1Q
Total $122 �69
The difference in the two fees is that the planning work by Wayne Smith and Associates, Inc.
has develope� a more in depth study of wastewater flows per FSU and the results are that the
average dry weather flow per ESU has decreased from 390 gpd/ESU in the 1990 Impact Fee
Study to 221 gpdiESU in our Update Study.
�
..�
17
`"' VII. REVIEW OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION IMPACT FEE
The wastewater collection systems to serve undevelope�i areas within the City aze indicated in
Eahibits E, F, G, H, and I. The systems to serve the Melody Lane Service Area, and the Mills ,
Murphy , Briarmeadow Avenue Service Area (built in 1985) are merely extensions of the
existing collection system and include trunk sewers that could serve the needs of the entire
service azea and convey flows to the system that ultimately flows to the Blackhawk Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The South Friendswood Service ArEa has been expanded from the Central Service Area defined
in the 1990 Impact Fee Study and contains a total of 5,348 acres as opposed to the 2210 acres
defined in the original Service Area (includes 3,357 acres undeveloped and 1,991 acres
developed land). Exhibit G indicate the South Friendswood Trunk Sewer, Lift Station, and
Force Main project that has been defined in the two previous studies performed by Wayne
Smith and Associates. The project Service Area has been enlarged from the 1990 Impact Fee
Study project to include sub azea F within the Service Area and the proposed trunk sewer is of
sufficient depth that the sub areas can tie lateral sewer systems to it in the future as development
occurs. It is anticipatefl that the system extensions, except for the CIP projects defined below,
will be paid for by developers when development occurs in the future -this manner of planning
will allow for a maximum of flexibility in land planning for the developer.
Two additional projects aze included in this Impact Fee Study to provide service to the future
residents of the Slone Tract and West Rancho Viejo areas. The first project includes a 24" �
trunk sewer which would extend from the South Friendswood Interceptor at Falcon Ridge
Boulevard through the Slone Tract along a future road to W. Viejo Drive. The second project
includes 12" sewers which would provide service to West Rancho Viejo from the Slone Tract
sewer. These systems are illustrated in Exhibit G.
Pro,�ect Costs:
Melody Lane System (1):
Construction $ 180,400
Engineering 21,54g
Right of Way 63,400
Bond Issuance &Finance Costs 291,695
Total Cost $ 557,200
Mills, Murphy, and Briarmeadow Ave. Service Area: (2)
Total Construction & Engineering
(1985 costs) $ 121 554
,
South Friendswood System: (3)
Segment 1: (27" Sewer between Clear Creek Drainage Easement and Falcon Ridge) (3)
Construction $ 329,400
Engineering 34,400
Right of Way p
Bond Issuance&Finance Costs 239•500
Total Costs $603,300
r
18
Segment 2: (Sewer from Oak Drive Life Station through
Falcon Ridge)
Construction � CO2�gpp
Engineering 62,900
Right of Way p
Bond Issuance&Finance Costs 4 7 pp
Total Costs $1,103 600
Segment 3: (Oak Drive Lift Station&20" Force Main)
Construction $ 837�ppp
Engineering S7�4a(�
Right of Way �(�400-
Bond Issuance&Finance Costs 659.200
Total Costs $l,�p,ppp
Slone Trunk Sewer (3)
Construction $478�ppp
Engineering 50 000
Right of Way 19,800
Bond Issuance&Financing Costs 3�p,4pp
Total Costs $908�200
(1) See 1990 Impact Fee Study for details of costs no significant change in the project costs
are anticipated from the estimates develope� in 1990. (No adjustment for inflation)
(2) Costs obtained from January 7, 1991 Resolution R91-4 that amended original Impact
Fee Resolution
(3) See breakdown of costs in Appendix B
�
19
Prq�ected Service Units:
Exist. Proposed Future
Service Area .E�IZ � �
l. Melody Lane
458 acres (8? 2.7 ESUJAcre 0 805 432
Total ESU: 1,237
2. Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow 32 16 0
3. South Friendswood (See Appendix C)
Area A 639 323 459
Area B-1 0 238 1,270
Area B-2 43 263 2,585
Area C 89 302 209
Area D 449 64 0
Area E-1 8 448 1,321
Area E-2 26 18 0
Area E-3 162 20 9
Area E-4 0 113 590
Area F 14 � 381
Totals Areas A-F 1,430 2,055 6,824
Proposed ESU are those projected for the 10 year planning period.
Calculation of Wastewater Collection Spstem Img c� t Fee:
1. Melody Lane
$557,200 / 1,237 ESU $450/ESU
2. Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow
a121,554 /48 ESU $2,532/ESU
3. South Friendswood (See Appendix C)
Area A $3�g
Area B-1 $3�g
Area B-2 $378
Area C $28$
Area D $161
Area E-1 $7g4
Area E-2(1) $784
Area E-3 $161
- Area E-4 $161
Area F �3�g
(1) Originally calculated to be$5,743 but elected to be equal to Area E-1 with the
exclusion of the West Viejo Drive system.
�
zo
The wastewater collection system Impact Fee for the Melody Lane and Mills, Murphy,
Briarmeadow Avenue Service Areas did not change from the 1990 Impact Fees. The South
Friendswood Service Area Impact Fees changed due to an enlargement of the service azea and a
cunent project cost estimate. Also, the impact fee for Sub Area E has variation in it due to the
addition of the Slone Trunk Sewer.
�