Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.10.1993 Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc-CIP & Impact FeeUPDATED / ► LAND USE AssumpnoNs, CAPITALIMPROVEMENTS AND IMPACT .Proposed Water and Wastewater Systems Presented to: City of Friendswood Community Development Department UPDATE 9MDY FOR LAND USE AS,SUM PUONS, CA.PITAL'WROVEMENTS PLAN AND 1"ACT FEE PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS March 10, 1993 Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc, 2470 Gray Fails Drive, Suite 170 Houston, Texas 77077-6513 (W51G0V\C0F03F) CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEE STUDY PROPOSED WATER DISTRIBUTION AND WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS Mayor Evelyn Newman City Council Ms. Kitten Hajecate Mr. Mel P. Measeles Mr. Tom Manison Mr. Ed Stuart Mr. Harold Raley Mr. Frank Frankovich City Manager City Engineer Public Works Director Finance Director City Secretary City Attorney Ronald E. Cox fames Thompson, P.E. Melvin Meinecke Roger Roecker Deloris Archer, CMC John Olsen CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD UPDATE STUDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEE PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS Chairman: Benny Baker 1203 Silverleaf (h) 482-1120 (w)286-8597 Jan Jordan 31 Hideaway (h.) 482-6954 (w) 482-2112 Don Dickson 2004 McKissick (h) 996-0653 (w) 945-7362 William R. Finger P.O. Box 879 (h) 482-0108 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Vice Chairman: Kenny Koncaba 409 Morningside (h) 482-2207 (w) 482-7941 Hans Van Dyke 701 W. Edgewood (h.) 482-1426 (w) 338-4225 Jeanie McHugh 1104 Lost River (h) 482-9122 John Watson 104 Pecan (w) 482-0557 Staff: James E. Thompson, P.E. City Engineer & Community Development Director 482-4439 Claudia Brinkman Planning & Zoning Secretary 482-4438 I CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD UPDATE STUDY FOR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEE PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS TABLE OF CONTENTS " Executive Summary Introduction Review of Land Use Assumptions Review of Water Supply Impact Fee Review of Water Distribution System Impact Fee A. Melody Lane Service Area B. Bay Area Boulevard Service Area C. South Friendswood (Central) Service Area Review of Wastewater Treatment Impact Fee Review of Wastewater Collection System Impact Fee A. Melody Lane Service Area B. South Friendswood (Central) Service Area C. Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow Ave. Service Area Exhibits A. Water System Service Area-. 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 Poge 1 4 6 9 12 14 17 IX. Appendices A. South Friendswood Sub Areas B. South Friendswood Wastewater Collection System Cost Estimates C. Impact Fee Calculation per Segment of South Friendswood D. Criteria for Estimation of Sewage Contribution - Special Uses E. Impact Fee Legislation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Friendswood adopted an Impact Fee Resolution in 1990 in conformance with the state Impact Fee legislation (UTCA Local Government Code Section 395.001 et seq.). The state legislation included 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 needs of the new development. The legislation provides that no fees can be assessed or collected on land considered as existing development. The City developed an Impact Fee for water supply capacity, water distribution systems, wastewater treatment capacity, and wastewater collection systems based on the results presented 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 "Maximum Allowable Impact Fees" to be assessed and collected on land development projects to fund the costs for the improvements. In Summary the 1990 Impact Fee (and 1991 Fee Amendment) components per Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) were as follows: A. City Wide Impact Fees: 1. Surface Water Facilities $711 2. Wastewater Treatment Facilities 122 3. Impact Fee/CIP Study 7 Total $ 840 B. Water Distribution Impact Fees: I. 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 830 Segment A: $ Segment B: $618 18 Segment C: $394 Segment D: $ Segment E: $186 86 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. 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 enlarged to include areas to the south of the 1990 service area and redefined 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 added to the sub areas 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 currently 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 Collection Impact Fees 1. Melody Lane Service Area $450 2. Mills, Murphy,Brirameadow Ave. $2,532 3. South Friendswood Service Area Area A $378 Area B-1 $378 Area B-2 $378 Area C $285 Area D $161 Area E-1 $784 Area E-2 (2) $784 Area E-3 $161 Area E-4 $ Area F $37788 (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 currently available nor proposed 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; 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 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 ESU is increased, 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. 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 assessed any Impact Fees. 4' lI. INTRODUCTION The City of Friendswood adopted 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 or 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.GO1 et seq.) subsequent to the preparation and review of an engineering report prepared by Brown & Gay Engineers, Inc. (BGE). The engineering report had developed the calculation of a "Maximum Allowable Impact Fee" for the various "Service Areas" of projected 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)" required to serve projected development, and determining the cost per "Equivalent Service Unit" for the improvements to serve future development within each service area. The Impact Fee could be used 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 are in excess of existing demands and the excess capacities can be used to provide service to proposed 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 (R91-4) 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 Greenbriar Drive. Over the past three years a significant amount of planning and design work (wastewater collection system) has occurred to prepare for the development within an expanded Central Service Area (as defined in the 1990 Impact Fee Study) and the area 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 correspond with the 5 current planning. The four areas were analyzed for water distribution and wastewater collection Impact Fees by reviewing the development projections and determining the required capital improvements to serve future needs. The proposed "Maximum Allowable Impact Fees" determined from the engineering study were discussed during required public hearings prior to City Council approval. The approved Impact Fees and the administration procedures were established 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 been 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 authorized by the Friendswood City Council on January 18, 1993 to perform the update study. 6 III. REVIEW OF LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 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 are defined as "a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least the ten year planning period." At the time of the 1990 Impact Fee Study, the City anticipated an annual growth of approximately 5% for the duration of the 10 year planning period. In 1990, the population of Friendswood was estimated to be 22,500 and the 5% annual growth rate represented an additional 14,150 people over the 10 year planning period. The Additional 14,150 people would correlate to an additional 4,800 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 : "Feasibility Study on The Transport of Wastewater From The Southern Portion of the City to Blackhawk Regional Treatment Facility" (10-9-91) and "Engineering Letter 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 mathematical forecasting models. BGE has reviewed the current population projections performed in the recent planning studies and have recommended 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 7% annual increase from 1990 - 1995, a 5% annual increase from 1995 - 2000, and a 4% annual increase from 2000 - 2005. By interpolation, the City would have a population of approximately 43,724 by the year 2003, the end of a ten year planning period. Four areas of growth identified in the 1990 study and the January 7, 1991 amendment are described below. BGE has met with City staff and the same four areas have been identified as the areas most likely to develop over the next ten years. (See Exhibits A & F) 1. 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 Boulevard Service Area: The 1990 study identified 204 acres of developable land bisected by Bay Area Boulevard 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 area was essentially defined as east of FM-528 and extending from Clear Creek near the eastern boundary of the City across FM-51 S to the undeveloped portions of Mission Estates. The area has now been expanded to include approximately 3,357 acres of undeveloped land and 1,991 acres of developed land located within the City limits south of Chigger Creek. Additional areas 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 area 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 fines was previously developed for the Melody Lane, Bay Area Boulevard, and Central Service Areas and has been reviewed and revised where required in this study. The proposed 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 Boulevard 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 1995 contractual agreement previously mentioned. The impact fee determined in connection with the Bay Area Boulevard 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 family residential. Land Use in the Bay Area Boulevard Service Area is mixed with Community Shopping Center, Office Park, and High Density Multifamily areas being present. 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 areas is zoned Commercial. The Friendswood City Ordinance limits residential development to an approximate density of 2.7 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 2000 38,900 10,375 2005 46,940 13,345 2010 54,980 19,620 Fully Developed — 36,007 1V. REVIEW OF WATER SUPPLY IMPACT FEE In the past, the City of Friendswood has purchased 3.0 mgd capacity in the City of Houston 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 80`}'0 of the total demand would be served by surface water and that a maximum of 20% of the total water demand would be served by the City's existing groundwater water wells. The 3.0 mgd capacity will serve approximately 11,196 Equivalent Service Units (ESU) (@ 80% of total demand) and there is currently 8621 existing FSU to the Friendswood water supply system. The City has recognized that the costs of purchasing surface water capacity 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 approximately 2.89 mgd for 8621 ESU (335 gpd1ESU). The 80% 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 capacity could serve an additional 2575 FSU. The Land Use Assumptions assumes a total of 3111 proposed 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 purchased during the later stages of the 10 year planning period. As indicated in the 1990 study, if the unit cost of additional surface water capacity 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 Transmis ion Pum in S r e; The surface water transmission, pumping, and storage projects that have been completed to date have previously been estimated to be sufficient for the City's requirements through the 50% build out level, or approximately 12,500 equivalent connections (based on current 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 System Wide Improvements: 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 are not particularly sensitive to " levels of buildout " and are intended to apply to the overall system. Basis of Service Units: A total of 11,732 Equivalent Service Units (ESU) are projected for purposes of this study including 8,621 existing ESU and an additional 3,111 proposed ESU for the 10 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 167 161 M F Residential (Units) 1,344 740 Single Business Commercial 207 414 Multi Unit Commercial 109 55 Parks, Schools, Churches 38 209 Sprinkler Systems 63 0 Total 8,964 8,621 * Computed 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 " 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." 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 people 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 Cg? ESU/ACRE a nit 150 gpcd 450 cd ESU SFR 2.7 3.00 1,215 2.7 Garden Homes 6 1.65 1,485 3.3 MFR-L 6 1.65 1,485 3.3 MFR-M 9 1.65 2,228 5.0 MFR-H 18 1.65 4,455 9.9 MHR 10 1.65 2,475 5.5 CSC (1) -- ----- 1,665(2) 3.7 1 -- -- 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 1,900 gpd/Acre Projected Service Uni The surface water components described above are each adequate to serve the 8,621 existing . ESU in addition 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 ESU ESU 1. Surface Water Capacity 11,196 2,575 2. Transmission, Pumping, and Storage 12,500 3,879 3. System Wide Improvements 25,000 3,111 Calculation of Impact Fees per ES : 1. Surface Water Capacity $5,467,450/11,196 = $488 2. Transmission,Pumping,Storage $2,161,110/12,500 = $173 3. System Wide Improvements $593,582125,000 = 24 Total $ 685 These fees differ from those calculated in 1990 as follows: Future ESU D] 0 13,268 1990 1993 1. Surface Water Capacity 531 488 2. Transmission,Pumping,Storage 157 173 3. System Wide Improvements _-21 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 1990. 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 the cost of each of the three component categories itemized above divided by the number of Equivalent Service Units that are appropriate for each category. 12 V. REVIEW OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION IMPACT FEE The Capital Improvements to be provided for water distribution in undeveloped areas are indicated in Exhibits A, B, C, and D that indicate the boundaries, existing water lines, and proposed water lines for Melody Lane, Bay Area Boulevard, 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 359.869 Total Cost $687,400 Bay Area Boulevard System (1): Contract Cost (Exist. 14" Line) $369,338 Engineering 44.322 Total Cost $413,700 South Friendswood System (1): Construction $390,600 Engineering 46,972 Right of Way 80,800 Bond Issuance & Finance Costs 342,140 Total Cost $860►400 (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: Service Area 1. Melody Lane 299 acres SFR ® 2.7 ESU/acre 2. Bay Area Boulevard 40 acres CSC 3.7 ESU/acre 59 acres OPD ® 3.7 ESU/acre 105 acres MFR-H ® 9.9 ESU/acre Sub -Total 3. South Friendswood 1,088 acres SFR ® 2.7 ESU/acre Total Projected ESU Total Proposed Future ESU ESU ESU 805 805 0 148 218 1 Q40 1,406 400 t x6 2.939 1 5 2 1.386 5,149 2,757 2,392 13 Proposed ESU are those projected within the ten year planning period. Calculation of Water Distribution Impact Fee; 1. Melody Lane Water System $687,4001805 ESU = , $854/ESU 2. Bay Area Boulevard Water System $413,700/1,406 ESU $2941ESU 3. South Friendswood Water System $860,400/2,938 ESU $293IESU The project costs were allocated over the ultimate number of ESU to more equally distribute costs between proposed and future development. These fees are 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 $358 $293 The water distribution improvements specific to the service areas identified 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 are built out. 1 4. VI. REVIEW OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPACT FEE The City 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 incurred 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 Clearwoods Improvement District upon annexation of the land. The City owns 2.5 MGD in the Phase I construction which serves existing 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 participated in a construction effort distinct from the two Blackhawk construction phases referenced above for the extension of a temporary access road from FM-528 to the plant. Costs attributed to the Phase II treatment plant expansion and to the access road are considered in the Impact Fee calculation. There are no costs allocated 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 needs, safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards. The City of FriendswoW is currently using approximately 2.5 MGD of its allotted capacity of 4.815 MGD. The remaining 2.315 MGD will serve an estimated 10,722 ESU of future development (a 2.7 people per ESU and 82 gpcd - per Wayne Smith & Associates analysis of current dry weather flows). The Land Use Assumptions have indicated that there will be approximately 2721 - ESU (805 ESU - Melody Lane; 16 ESU - Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow; 1906 - South Friendswood) developed over the 10 year planning period. The unallocated 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 City's wastewater system. This value was defined as the Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) for wastewater treatment plant capacity. Infiltration and inflow data indicated 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 performed 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 weather 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 density of 3 people 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 rNcuiremen : Land Unit/ Occupancy/ Max QlAcre ESU/Acre 0 Use Acre Unit __gpd 1050gpd/ESU SFR 2.7 3.00 2,835 2.7 Garden 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 52692 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 a 25 gpcd for base flow Note(3): Based on 1,440 gpad for base flow Proiected ESU: Existing Proposed Future ESU ESU ESU Phase I1 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 temporary access road constructed 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 referenced above, the cost of the road should be amortized over a total of 22,058 ESU. 16 Calculation of the Impact F : Blackhawk WWTP Capacity (1) $541,129110,727 = $50 Blackhawk Access Road (1) $411,431/22,058 19 Total = $69 (1) Costs indicated in 1990 Impact Study (No adjustments for inflation) These fees vary from those calculated in the 1990 Impact Study as follows: Wastewater Capacity Blackhawk Access Road Total 1990 1993 $ 89 $50 3i 19 $122 $69 The difference in the two fees is that the planning work by Wayne Smith and Associates, Inc. has developed a more in depth study of wastewater flows per ESU 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 gpd/ESU in our Update Study. VII. REVIEW OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION IMPACT FEE The wastewater collection systems to serve undeveloped areas within the City are indicated in Exhibits 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 area 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 area 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 anticipated 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 are 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. Project Costs: Melody Lane System (1): Construction Engineering Right of Way Bond Issuance & Finance Costs Total Cost Mills, Murphy, and Briarmeadow Ave, Service Area; (2) Total Construction & Engineering (1985 costs) South Friendswood System: (3) Segment 1: (27" Sewer between Clear Creek Drainage Easement Construction Engineering Right of Way Bond Issuance & Finance Costs Total Costs $ 180,400 21,648 63,400 291,695 $ 557,200 $ 121,554 and Falcon Ridge) (3) $ 329,400 34,400 0 _239,500 $603,300 Segment 2: (Sewer from Oak Drive Life Station through Falcon Ridge) Construction $ 602,800 Engineering 62,900 Right of Way 0 Bond Issuance & Finance Costs 437.900 Total Costs $1,103 600 Segment 3: (Oak Drive Lift Station & 20!' Force Main) Construction $ 837,000 Engineering 87,400 Right of Way 76,400- Bond Issuance & Finance Costs 659,200 Total Costs $1,660,000 Slone Trunk Sewer (3) Construction $478 000 Engineering 50,000 Right of Way 19,800 Bond Issuance & Financing Costs 3�404 Total Costs $908,200 (1) See 1990 Impact Fee Study for details of casts no significant change in the project casts are anticipated from the estimates developed 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 ' we, Proiected Service Units: Exist. Proposed Future Service Area EST ESU ESU 1. Melody Lane 458 acres Cg 2.7 ESU/Acre 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 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 14 266 381 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 System Im act Fee: 1. Melody Lane $557,200 / 1,237 ESU $4501ESU 2. Mills, Murphy, Briarmeadow $121,554 / 48 ESU $2,532/ESU 3. South Friendswood (See Appendix C} Area A $378 Area B-1 $378 Area B-2 $378 Area C $285 Area D $161 Area E-1 $784 Area E-2(1) $784 Area E-3 $161 Area E-4 $161 Area F $378 (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. 20 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 area and a current project cost estimate. Also, the impact fee for Sub Area E has variation in it due to the addition of the Slone Trunk Sewer.