OR 91-533.1 Adopts impact fees as a chapter of Code of Coppell
ORDINANCE NO. 91533.1
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING "IMPACT FEES" AS A CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF
THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS; PROVIDING THIS ORDINANCE BE
CUMULATIVE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNtTY~ PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIONS; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
W}IEREAS, in 1987 the Texas legislature adopted Senate Bill 336, now
Article 395 of the Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that in all things the City has
complied with said statute in the notice, adoption,
promulgation and methodology necessary to adopt Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it be appropriate
policy to utilize schedule 1 and 2, attached hereto
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS:
That the Code of Ordinances of the City of Coppell, Texas, be and the
same is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Chapter 17 to be known as
the "City of Coppell Impact Fee Code."
IMPACT FEES
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 1.01 Short Title
This Chapter shall be known and cited as the City of Coppell Impact Fee
Code.
Section 1.02 Purpose
This Chapter is intended to assure the provision of adequate public
facilities to serve new development in the City by requiring each
development to pay its pro rata share of the costs of such improvements
necessitated by and attributable to such new development, as related to
water and wastewater capital improvements.
Section 1.03 Authority
This Chapter is adopted pursuant to Article 395 of the Local Government
Code (Senate Bill 336) and pursuant to the Coppell City Charter. The
provisions of this Chapter shall not be construed to limit the powers of
the City to utilize other methods authorized under State Law or pursuant
to other City powers to accomplish the purposes set forth herein, either
in substitution or in conjunction with this Chapter. Guidelines may be
developed by Resolution or otherwise to implement and administer this
Chapter.
Section 1.04 Definitions
(1) Capital Improvements Advisory Committee means the City's Planning and
Zoning Commission~ as duly appointed by Resolution 031390.2 (March
13, 1990).
(2) Area-related facility means a capital improvement or facility
expansion which is designated in the Impact Fee Capital Improvements
Plan and which is not a site related facility. Area-related facility
may include a capital improvement which is located offsite, within,
or on the perimeter of the development site.
(3) Assessment means the determination of the amount of the maximum
impact fee per service unit which can be imposed on new development
pursuant to this Chapter.
(4) Capital improvement means either a water facility or a sanitary sewer
facility with a life expectancy of three (3) or more yearsl to be
owned and operated by or on behalf of the City.
(5) City means the City of Coppell, Texas.
(6 Credit means the amount of reduction of an impact fee for fees,
payments or charges for the same type of capital improvements for
which the fee has been assessed.
(7 Facilities expansion means either a water facility expansion or a
sanitary sewer facility expansion.
Final plat approval or approval of final plat means the point at
which the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval and
the plat has been released for filing with Dallas County.
(9) Impact Fee means either a fee for water facilities or a fee for
sanitary sewer facilities imposed on new development by the City
pursuant to this Chapter in order to fund or recoup the costs of
capital improvements or facilities expansions necessitated by and
attributable to such new development. impact fees do not include the
dedication of rights-of-way or easements for such facilities or the
construction of such improvements. impact fees also do not include
extension Charges, pro rata charges, or tapping fees for water
improvements pursuant to section 3-1-13, section 3-1-14 and section
3-1-15 of chapter three of the Code of Ordinances. Impact fees also
do not include extension charges, pro rata charges or tapping fees
for sanitary sewer improvements pursuant to section 3-2-3, section
3-2-4 and section 3-2-5 of Chapter three of the Code of ordinances.
10) Impact fee capital improvements plan means either a water
improvements plan or a sanitary sewer improvements plan adopted or
revised pursuant to this chapter.
11) Land use assumptions means that projections of population and
employment growth and associated changes in land use, densities and
intensities adopted by the City, as may be amended from time to time,
upon which the impact fee capital improvements plans are based.
12) New development means a project involving the construction
reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or
enlargement of any structure, or any use or extension of land, which
has the effect of increasing the requirements for capital
improvements or facilities expansions, measured by the number of
service units to be generated by such activity, and which requires
either the approval and filing with Dallas County of a plat pursuant
to the City's subdivision regulations, the issuance of a building
permit, or connection to the City's water or sanitary sewer system.
13) Offset means the amount of the reduction of an impact fee designed to
fairly reflect the value of area-related facilities or other
facilities, pursuant to rules herein established or administrative
guidelinesl provided by a developer pursuant to the City's
subdivisions regulations or requirements.
(14) Recoupment means the imposition of an impact fee to reimburse the
City for capital improvements which the City has previously oversized
to serve new development.
(15) Service area means either a water benefit area or a sanitary sewer
benefit area within the City, within which impact fees for capital
improvements or facilities expansions will be collected for new
development occurring within such area and within which fees so
collected will be expended for those types of capital improvements or
expansions identified in the capital improvements plan applicable to
the service area.
(16 Service unit means the applicable standard units of measure shown on
the conversion table in the impact fees capital improvements plan
which can be converted to five-eighths by three-fourths inch (5/8" X
3/4") water meter equivalents, as the context indicates, which serves
as the standardized measure of consumption, use or generation
attributable to the new unit of development.
(17 Sanitary sewer facility means an improvement for providing sanitary
sewer service, including, but not limited to, land or easements,
treatment facilities, lift stations or interceptor mains. Sanitary
Sewer facility excludes sanitary sewer lines or mains which
constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from pro
rata charges paid by subsequent users of the facilities. Sanitary
sewer facilities exclude site related facilities.
(18) Sanitary seweI extension means the expansion of the capacity of any
existing sanitary sewer improvement for the purpose of serving new
development, but does not include the repair, maintenance,
modernization, or expansion of an existing sanitary sewer facility to
serve existing development.
(19) Sanitary sewer improvements plan means the adopted plan, as may be
amended from time to time, which identifies the sanitary sewer
facilities or sanitary sewer expansions and their associated costs
which are necessitated by and are attributable to new development,
and for a period not to exceed ten (10) years, and which are to be
financed in whole Or in part through the imposition of sanitary sewer
facilities fees pursuant to this Chapter.
(20) Single-family residential lot means a lot platted to accommodate a
single-family dwelling unit, as authorized under the City's zoning
and platting regulations.
(21) Site-related facility means an improvement or facility which is for
the primary use Or benefit of a new development and/or which is for
the primary purpose of safe and adequate provision of water or
sanitary sewer facilities to serve the new development, and which is
not included in the impact fees capital improvements plan and for
which the developer or property owner is solely responsible under
subdivision and other applicable regulations.
(22) Water facility means an improvement for providing water service,
including, but not limited to, land or easements, water treatment
facilities, water supply facilities or water distribution lines.
Water facility excluded water lines or mains which are constructed by
developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from pro rata charges
paid by subsequent users of the facilities. Water facility excluded
site-related facilities.
4
(23) Water facility expansion means the expansion of the capacity of any
existing water facility for the purpose of serving new development,
but does not include the repair, maintenance modernization, or
expansion of an existing water facility to serve existing development.
(24) Water improvements plan means the adopted plan, as may be amended
from time to time, which identifies the water facilities or water
expansions and their associated costs which are necessitated by and
which are attributable to new developmentl for a period not to exceed
ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part
through the imposition of water facilities fees pursuant to this
Chapter.
Section 1.05 Applicability
The provisions of this Chapter apply to all new development within the
corporate boundaries of the City.
Section 1.06 impact Fee as Condition of Development Approval
No application for new development shall be approved within the City
without assessment of an impact fee pursuant to this Chapter, and no final
plat shall be approved unless the applicant has paid the impact fee
imposed by and calculated hereunder.
Section 1.07 Land Use Assumptions
A. The Resolution adopting land use assumptions for the City is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by reference.
B. The land use assumptions for the City shall be updated at least every
three (3) years, utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in
Section 1.17.
Section 1.08 impact Fees per Service Unit
A. An impact fee per service unit for the service area shall be computed
by dividing the total costs of capital improvements necessitated by
and attributable to new development in the service area identified in
the impact fee capital improvements plan for that category of capital
improvements by the total number of service units anticipated within
the service area, based upon the land use assumptions for the service
area. Maximum impact fees per service unit for the service area
shall be established by category of capital improvements and shall be
set forth in schedule 1, attached hereto and made a part of this
Chapter be reference.
B. The impact fee per service unit which is to be paid by each new
development within the service area shall be that established by
Ordinance by City Council, as may be amended from time to time, and
shall be an amount less than or equal to the maximum impact fee per
service unit established in subsection (a/. impact fees that are to
be paid shall be as set forth in schedule 2, attached hereto and made
a part of this chapter be reference.
C. Impact fee schedules 1 and 2 may be amended from time to time
utilizing the amendment procedure set forth in Section 1.17.
Section 1.09 Assessment of Impact Fees
A. The approval of any new development shall include as a condition the
assessment of the impact fee applicable to such development.
B. Assessment of the impact fee for any new development shall be made as
follows:
1. For a development which is submitted for approval pursuant to
the Cityis subdivision regulations following the effective date
of this Chapter, assessment shall be made in the development
review process, and shall be the amount of the maximum impact
fee per service unit then in effect, as set forth in schedule
1, as compufed by the procedures set forth in section 1.08(A).
The city, in its sole discretionl may provide the subdivider
with a copy of schedule 1 prior to development review~ but
shall not constitute assessment within the meaning of this
Chapter.
2. For a development which has received final plat approval prior
to the effective date of this Chapter and for which no
replatting is necessary, fees will be determined according to
the fee schedule in effect at the time of approval.
C. Following assessment of the impact fee pursuant to subsection (B),
the amount of the impact fee per service unit for that development
cannot be increased, unless the owner proposes to change the approved
development by the submission of a new application for final plat
approval, in which a new assessment shall occur at the schedule 1
rate then in effect.
D. Following the lapse or expiration of approval for a platl a new
assessment must be performed at the time a new applicafion for such
development is filed.
6
Section 1.10 Computation and Collection of impact Fees
A. The impact fees due for new development shall be collected prior to
final plat approval by the City Council unless the equivalent service
units for the new development cannot be determined. In such case an
agreement between the developer and the City will be executed
providing for a different time of payment.
B. Following the filing and acceptance of an application, the City shall
compute the impact fees due from the new development in the following
manner:
1. The amount of each impact fee shall be determined by
multiplying the number of service units generated by the new
development by the impact fee due per service unit for the
service area using schedule 2. The number of service units
shall be determined by using the conversion table contained in
the capital improvements plan.
2. The amount of each impact fee due shall be reduced by any
allowable offsets or credits for that category of capital
improvements, in the manner provided in Section 1.12.
3. The total of the impact fees due for the new development shall
be calculated and attached to the development application with
collection as a condition of approval.
C. The amount of each impact fee due for a new development shall not
exceed an amount computed by multiplying the fee assessed per service
unit pursuant to Section 1.08 by the number of service units
generated by the development.
D. If the final plat for which an impact fee has been paid has expired,
and a new application is thereafter filed, the impact fees due shall
be computed using schedule 2 then in effect, with credits for
previous payment of fees being applied against the new fees due.
E. Whenever the property owner proposes to increase the number of
service units for a development, the additional impact fees collected
or such new service units shall be determined by using schedule 2
then in effect, and such additional fee shall be collected prior to
issuance of a new building permit, or prior to enlargement of the
connection to the City's water or sanitary sewer system.
Section 1.11 Suspension of Fee Collection
There is no suspension period for new development which has not received
final approval prior to enactment of this Ordinance.
Section 1.12 Offsets and Credits Against Impact Fees
A. The City shall offset the reasonable value of any area-related
facilities, pursuant to rules established in this section or pursuant
to guidelines and which have been dedicated to and have been received
after final acceptance by the City on or after June 1, 1990~
including the value of capital improvements constructed pursuant to
an agreement with the City, against the amount of the impact fee due
for that category of capital improvement.
B. All offsets and credits against impact fees shall be subject to the
following limitations and shall be granted based on this Ordinance
and additional standards promulgated by the City, which may be
adopted as administrative guidelines.
1. No Offset Or credit shall be given for the dedication or
construction of site-related facilities.
2. No offset or credit shall exceed an amount equal to the
eligible value of the offset multiplied by a fraction, the
numerator of which is the impact fee per service unit due for
the new development as computed using schedule 2 and the
denominator of which is the maximum impact fee per service unit
for the new development as computed using schedule 1.
3. The unit costs used to calculate the offsets shall not exceed
those assumed for the capital improvements included in the
capital improvements plan for the category or facility within
the service area for which the impact fee is imposed.
4. If an offset or credit applicable to a plat has not been
exhausted within ten (10) years from the acquisition of the
first building permit issued or connection made after the
effective date of this ordinance or within such period as may
be otherwise designated by contract, such offset or credit
shall lapse.
5. In no event will the City reimburse the property owner or
developer for an offset or credit when no impact fees for the
new development can be collected pursuant to this Ordinance or
for any amount exceeding the total impact fees due for the
development for that category of capital improvement, unless
otherwise agreed to by the City.
C. An applicant for new development must apply for an offset or credit
against impact fees due for the development in the development review
process unless the City agrees to a different time. The applicant
shall file a petition for offsets Or credits with the City on a form
acceptable by the City for such purpose. The contents of such
petition shall be established by administrative guidelines. The City
8
must provide the applicant, in writing, with a decision on the offset
or credit request, including the reasons for the decision. The
decision shall specify the maximum value of the offset or credit
which may be applied against an impact fee, which amount and the date
of the determination shall be associated with the plat for the new
development.
D. The available offset or credit associated with the plat shall be
applied against an impact fee in the following manner:
1. For single-family residential lots in a new development
consisting only of single-family residential lots which have
received Development Review Board approval, such offset or
credit shall be prorated equally among such lots, to be applied
at the time of filing and acceptance of an application of a
final plat , against impact fees due.
2. For all Other types Of new development, including those
involving mixed uses, which have received Development Review
Board approval, the Offset or credit applicable to the plat
shall be applied to the impact fee due at the time of approval.
3. At its sole discretion, the City may authorize alternative
credit or offset agreements upon petition by the owner in
accordance with guidelines promulgated by the City.
Section 1.13 Establishment of Accounts
A. The City's Finance Department shall establish an account to which
interest is allocated for the service area for each category of
capital facility for which an impact fee is imposed pursuant to this
Ordinance. Each impact fee collected shall be deposited in such
account.
B. Interest earned on the account into which impact fees are deposited
shall be considered funds of the account and shall be used solely for
the purposes authorized in Section 1.14.
C. The City's Finance Department shall establish adequate financial and
accounting controls to ensure that impact fees disbursed from the
account are utilized solely for the purposes authorized in Section
1.14. disbursement of funds shall be authorized by the City at such
times as are reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes and
intent of this Ordinance, provided, however, that any fee paid will
be expended within a reasonable period of time, but not to exceed
ten (10) years from the date fee is deposited into the account.
D. The City's Finance Department shall maintain and keep financial
records for impact fees, which shall show the source and disbursement
9
of all fees collected or expended. The records of the account into
which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection
and copying during ordinary business hours. The City may establish a
fee for copying services.
Section 1.14 Use of Proceeds of Impact Fee Accounts
A. The impact fees collected for the service area pursuant to this
Ordinance may be used to finance or to recoup the costs of any
capital improvements or facilities expansions identified in the
applicable impact fee capital improvements plan for the service area,
including the construction contract price, surveying and engineering
fees, land acquisition costs (including land purchased, court awards
and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees), and the fees
actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified
engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the impact fee
capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political
subdivision. Impact fees may also be used to pay the principal sum
and interest and other finance costs on bonds, notes or other
obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance such
capital improvements or facilities expansions.
B. Impact fees Collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall not be used to
pay for any of the following expenditures:
1. construction, acquisition or expansion of capital improvements
or assets other than those identified in the applicable impact
fee capital improvements plan;
2. repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new capital
improvements or facilities expansions;
3. upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements
to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety,
efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards~
4. upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements
to provide better service to existing development, provided,
however, that impact fees may be used to pay the costs of
upgrading, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements
in order to meet the need for new capital improvements
generated by new development: or
5. administrative and operating costs of the City.
Section 1.15 Appeals
A. The property owner or applicant for new development may appeal the
following decisions to the City Council:
1. applicability of an impact fee to the development;
2. the amount of the impact fee due;
3. the availability or the amount of an offset or credit;
4. the application of an Offset or credit against an impact fee
due;
5. the amount of a refund due, if any.
B. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant to demonstrate that the
amount of the fee or the amount of the offset or credit was not
calculated according to the applicable schedule of impact fees or the
guidelines established for determining offsets and credits.
C. The appellant must file a notice of appeal with the City Secretary
within thirty (30) days following the decision. If the notice of
appeal is accompanied by a bond or other sufficient surety
satisfactory to the City Attorney in an amount equal to the original
determination of the impact fee due, the development application may
be processed while the appeal is pending.
Section 1.16 Refunds
A. Any impact fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this
Ordinance, which has not been expended within the service area within
ten (10) years from the date of payment, shall be refunded, upon
application, to the record owner of the property at the time the
refund is paid or, if the impact fee was paid by another governmental
entity, together with interest calculated from the date of collection
to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Article
1.03, Title 79, Revised Statutes (Article 5069-1.03, Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes), or any successor statute.
B. An impact fee collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be
considered expended if the total expenditures for capital
improvements or facilities expansions authorized in Section 1.14
within the service area within ten (10) years following the date of
pa~nent equals or exceeds the total fees collected for such
improvements or expansions during such period.
11
C. If a refund is due pursuant to subsections (A) and (B), the City
shall prorate the same by dividing the difference between the amount
of expenditures and the amount of the fees collected by the total
number of service units assumed within the service area for the
period to determine the refund due per service unit. The refund to
the record owner shall be calculated by multiplying the refund due
per service unit by the number of service units for the development
for which the fee was paid, and interest shall be calculated upon
that amount.
D. Upon completion of all the capital improvements or iacilities
expansions identified in the Capital improvements plan for the
service area, the City shall recalculate the maximum impact fee per
service unit using the actual costs for the improvements or
expansions. If the maximum impact fee per service unit based on
actual cost is less than the impact fee per service unit paid, the
City shall refund the difference, if such difference exceeds the
impact fee paid by more than ten percent (10%). The refund to the
record owner shall be calculated by multiplying such difference by
the number of service units for the development for which the fee was
paid, and interest due shall be calculated upon that amount.
E. If the final plat for a new development for which an impact fee has
been paid has expires, and a modified or new application has not been
filed within six (6) months of such expiration, the City shall, upon
written application, refund the amount of the impact fee to the
applicant.
Section 1.17 Update of Plan and Revision of Fees
A. The City shall update its land use assumptions and impact fees
capital improvements plan and shall recalculate its impact fee not
less than once every three years in accordance with procedures set
forth in Texas Revised Civil Statutes, Article 1269j-4.11, Section 6,
or any successor statute.
B. The City may review its land use assumptions, impact ice capital
improvements plans, and other factors such as market conditions more
irequently than provided in subsection (A) to determine whether the
land use assumptions and impact fee capital improvements plans should
be updated and the impact fee recalculated accordingly, or whether
schedule 2 collection rates should be increased, decreased, or
otherwise changed.
Section 1.18 Functions of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee
A. The Capital Improvements Advisory Committee shall perform the
following functions:
12
1. advise and assist the City in adopting land use assumptions;
2, review the impact fee capital improvements plans and file
written comments thereon;
3. monitor and evaluate implementation of the impact fee capital
improvements plans;
4. advise the City of the need to update or revise the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plans and impact fees; and
5. file a semiannual report evaluating the progress of the City in
achieving the impact fee capital improvements plans and
identifying any problems in implementing the plans or
administering the impact fees.
B. The City Council shall adopt, by Resolution, procedural rules by
which the Advisory Committee may carry out its duties.
C. The City shall make available to the Advisory Committee any
professional reports prepared in the development or implementation of
the impact fee capital improvements plans.
Section 1.19 Agreement for Capital Improvements
A. An owner of a new development may construct or finance a capital
improvement or facility expansion designated in the impact fee
capital improvements plan, if required or authorized by the City, by
entering into an agreement with the City prior to the approval of
final plat for the development. The agreement shall be on a form
acceptable to the City, and shall identify the estimated cost of the
improvement or expansion, the schedule for initiation and completion
of the improvement or expansion, a requirement that the improvement
be designed and completed to City standards and such other terms and
conditions as deemed necessary by the City. The agreement shall
provide for the method to be used to determine the amount of the
Offset to be given against impact fees due for the development.
B. Except as herein otherwise provided, the assessment and collection of
an impact fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in
substitution of, any other tax, fee, charge or assessment which is
lawfully imposed on and due against the property.
C. The City may pay all or part of impact fees due for a new development
taking into account available offsets and credits pursuant to duly
adopted criteria.
Section 1.21 Impact Fee as Additional and Supplemental Regulation
3 13
impact fees established by this Ordinance are additional and supplemental
to, and not in substitution of, any other requirements imposed by the City
on the development of land or issuance of building permits or certificates
of occupancy. Such fee is intended to be consistent with and to further
the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the impact fee capital
improvements plan, the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and
other City policies, ordinances and resolutions by which the City seeks to
ensure the provision of adequate public facilities in conjunction with the
development of land.
Section 1.22 Relief Procedures
A. Any person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land upon which
an impact fee has been paid may petition the City Council to
determine whether any duty required by this Ordinance has not been
performed within the time so prescribed. The petition shall be in
writing and shall state the nature of the unperformed duty and
request that the act be performed within sixty (60) days of the
request. If the City Council determines that the duty is required
pursuant to the Ordinance and is late in being performed, it shall
cause the duty to commence within sixty (60) days of the date of the
request and to continue until completion.
B. The City Council may grant a variance or waiver from any requirement
of this Ordinance, upon written request by a developer or owner of
property subject to this Ordinance, following a public hearing, and
only upon finding that a strict application of such requirement
would, when regarded as a whole, result in confiscation Of the
property.
C. The City Council may grant a waiver from any requirement of this
Ordinance on other grounds, as may be set forth in administrative
guidelines.
D. If the City Council grants a variance or waiver to the amount of the
impact fee due for a new development under this section, it shall
cause to be appropriated from other City funds the amount of the
reduction in the impact fee to the account for the service area in
which the property is located.
Section 1.23 Exemption From Ordinance
Any final plat application which was duly accepted for filing prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance and which is subsequently granted, shall
be exempt from the assessment and payment of an impact fee under this
Ordinance, unless such application thereafter expires. Other fees due in
connection with said application shall not be exempt from collection.
14
WATER FACILITIES FEES
Section 2.01 Water Benefit Area
A. There is hereby established a water benefit area, constitufin~ the
City as depicted on Exhibit "B" atfached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the water benefit area may be amended from time to
time, and new water benefit areas may be delineated, pursuant to the
procedures in Section 1.17.
Section 2.02 Water Improvement Plan
A. The Water Improvement Plan for the City of Coppell is hereby adopted
as set out in the Water and Wastewater System 1991 Capital
Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Study Exhibit "C" attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Water Improvement Plan may be amended from time to time, pursuant
to the procedures in Section 1.17.
Section 2.03 Water Facilities Fees
A. The maximum impact fees per service unit for water facilities are
hereby adopted and incorporated in schedule 1 attached hereto and
made a part hereof by reference.
B. The impact fees per service unit for water facilities, which are to
be paid by new development, are hereby adopted and incorporafed in
schedule 2 attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
C. The impact fees per service unit for water facilities may be amended
from time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.17.
ARTICLE III
SEWER FACILITIES FEES
Section 3.01 Sanitary Sewer Benefit Area
A. There is hereby established a sanitary sewer benefit area,
constitutin~ the City as depicted on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
15
B. The boundaries of the sanitary sewer benefit area may be amended from
time to time, and new sanitary sewer benefit areas may be delineated,
pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.17.
Section 3.02 Sanitary Sewer improvements Plan
A. The Sanitary Sewer improvements Plan for the City of Coppell is
hereby adopted as set out in the Water and Wastewater System 1991
Captial Improvement Plan and Impact fee Study Exhibit "C" attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Sanitary Sewer Improvements Plan may be amended from time to
time, pursuant to procedures in Section 1.17.
Section 3.03 Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fees
A. The maximum impact fees per service unit for sanitary sewer
facilities are hereby adopted and incorporated in schedule 1 attached
hereto and made a part hereof by reference.
B. The impact fees per service unit for sanitary sewer facilities, which
are to be paid by each new development, are hereby adopted and
incorporated in schedule 2 attached hereto and made a part hereof by
reference.
C. The impact fees per service unit for sanitary sewer facilities may be
amended from time to time, pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.17.
2.
This Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be cumulative of
all other ordinances of the City of Coppelll and this Ordinance shall not
operate to repeal or affect any of such other ordinances except insolaf
as the provisions thereof might be inconsistent or in conflict with the
provisions, if any, in such other ordinance or ordinances are hereby
repealed.
If any section, subsection, sentence, Clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
16
A1] of the regulations provided in this ordinance are hereby declared
to be governmental and for the health, safety and welfare of the general
public. Any member of the City Council or any City official or employee
charged with the enforcement Of this ordinance, acting for the City of
Coppell in the discharge of his duties, shall not thereby render himself
personally liable: and he is hereby relieved from all personal liability
for any damage that might accrue to persons or property as a result of any
act required or permitted in the discharge of his said duties.
Any violation of this ordinance can be enjoined by a suit filed in
the name of the City of Coppell in a court of competent jurisdiction, and
this remedy shall be in addition to any penal provision in this ordinance
or in the Code of the City of Coppell.
This ordinance shall take efiect immediately from and after the
publication of its caption, as the law in such cases provides.
17
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, this
the 12th day of November , 1991.
APPROVED
Mark Wolfe
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Dorothy Timmons
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lawrence W. Jackson
CITY ATTORNEY
18
SCHEDULE 1
MAXIMUM
IMPACT FEE PER
FACILITY TYPE SERVICE UNIT SERVICE UNIT
Water Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $974
inch water meter
equivalent
Sanitary Sewer- Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $1,404
City System inch water meter
equivalent
Sanitary Sewer- Cost per 5/8 X 3/4
MUD System inch water meter $282
equivalent
SCHEDULE 2
IMPACT FEE PER
FACILITY TYPE SERVICE UNIT SERVICE UNIT
Water Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $650
inch water meter
equivalent
Fire Service Meter Only $1,625 (2.5
E.S.U's)
Combination Fire/Domestic $1,625 plus $650
multiplied by
number of ESU's
for domestic meter
size
Sanitary Sewer Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $450
City Wastewater inch water meter
Customers equivalent
Combination Fire/Domestic $450 multiplied by
by number of ESU's
for domestic meter
size
MUD Wastewater Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $225
Customers inch water meter
equivalent
Combination Fire/Domestic $225 multiplied by
number of ESU's for
domestic meter size
19
" EXHIBIT A "
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
PaSOLbTZON NO. 0 57~ 90, /
APPROVING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS TO BE USED IN THE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS Senate Bill 335 was passed by the Texas Legislature in 1987 (now
Chapter 395 Local Government Code}, to provide a method for
municipalities to impose impact fees for recouping the cost of
off-site capital improvements necessitated by new development; 8rid
I~HERE~, an important element of establishing impact fees as outlined by
Senate Bill 336 is the adoption of land use assumptions to be used in
the establishment of such fees; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing to solicit citizen input to present evidence
for and against the land use assumptions was held on May 8, 1990;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COh'NCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL:
SECTION 1. That the land use assumptions prepared by the Capital
improvements Advisory Committee and city staff as provided in Chapter
395 of the Local Government Code, ahnd kept on file in the office of
the Plaruling Commission, be approved by the governing ~dy.
SECTION 2. That this action is taken after appropriate, legal notice and
subsequent public participation has been solicited from the community.
SECTION 3. That this resolution shall take effect from and after its
passaqe.
THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
MAYOR
APPROVED A~ TO FORM: ATTEST:
'CITY ATTORITEY/,,, CI'
" EXHIBIT B "
"EXHIBIT D"
"EXHIBIT C" --~ ;,~
WATER AND WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
1991 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
AND
IMPACT FEE STUDY
for the
City of Coppell, Texas
This d'3cl,;nen it; for inletira review
GINN & CASE, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
171~3 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 100, LB-118
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248
(214) 248-4900
( '~:./.. ,;6'
,,', .:/
"EXItlBIT C"
WATER AND WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
1991 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN
AND
IMPACT FEE STUDY
for the
City of Coppell, Texas
JULY 1991
GINN & CASE, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
17103 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 100, LB-118
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248
(214) 248-4900
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................
Overview .........................................................................................................................................2
Definition ...........................................................................................................................2
Methodology ......................................................................................................................2
Water System Analysis ..................................................................................................................
Water System C~xpital Improvement Plan ..................................................................................5
Water System Equivalent Service Units .....................................................................................6
Employee Ratio ................................................................................................................6
Household Ratio ...............................................................................................................7
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula ..........................................................................7
Maximum Allowable Water System Impact Fee .......................................................................8
Wastewater System Analysis ........................................................................................................9
Wastewater System Capital Improvement Plan ......................................................................10
Wastewater System Equivalent Service Units .........................................................................11
Employee Ratio ..............................................................................................................1
Household Ratio .............................................................................................................11
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula ........................................................................
Maximum Allowable Wastewater System Impact Fee ...........................................................13
TABLES
No. Page
1 Cost of Existing ~cilities Oversized for Future Development ...............................14
2 Cost for Proposed Water Facilities Required for Anticipated Growth ...................15
3 Cost of Proposed Wastewater Facilities Required for Anticipated Growth ........... 17
4 Combined Anticipated Interest Expense (No Principal Included) .........................18
5 Projected Citywide Populations ....................................................................................20
6 Population and Employment Projections ....................................................................21
7 Household and Employment Projections ....................................................................22
8 Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Factors ..............................................................23
9 Water System-May 1991-Total Equivalent Service Units ..........................................24
10 Irrigation and Fire Service Meters-May 1991-Total Equivalent Service Units ...... 25
11 Wastewater System-May 1991-Total Equivalent Service Units ................................26
EXHIBITS
No.
1 Water System Improvement Map
2 Wastewater System Improvement Map
3 NCTCOG Traffic Districts
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June of 1987, the Texas Legislature adopted Senate Bill 336 to standardize the method
by which political subdivisions recover the cost of capital improvements required to serve
new development. The legislation set forth a deadline and a methodology for the calcula-
tion of the fees. In June of 1990, the City of Coppell adopted Water and Wastewater
Impact Fees which complied with the legislation. In March of 1991, the Council authorized
the re-evaluation of these fees. As in the initial study, this study area encompasses all land
within the city limits, including areas currently served by the Coppell Municipal Utility
District No. 1 and the City of Lewisville (Vista Ridge).
The legislation requires that impact fees be based on an Equivalent Service Unit basis. For
the City of Coppell, one Equivalent Service Unit (ESU) has been established as 5/8" x 3/4"
meter. There is a projected increase of 14,669 ESU's for the Water System and 11,441
ESU's for the Wastewater System (4,774 City; 6,667 MUD) over the time period January
1, 1991 to January 1, 2001. Over the same period, there is projected to be $14,287,746 of
recoverable capital expenditures for the water system. An estimated $4,893,250 is recov-
erable from the City wastewater system and an additional $3,177,812 is recoverable from
the combined City and MUD wastewater system. This yields a maximum calculated water
impact fee of $974/ESUfor water, $1,307/ESU for the City wastewater system, and
$282/ESU for the MUD wastewater system.
If growth matched projections, adequate capital would be recovered to meet 100% of the
fiscal requirements without the need for outside financing. However, growth rarely
matches projections and the capital projects must be constructed in advance of the growth.
As such, the City must incur long term debt for the construction of the projects. The
associated revenue bonds are secured through the water and wastewater rates. In the first
few years after the bonds are sold, the existing system customers, as well as the first "new"
customers support the burden of this debt service. This could subject the City to a claim
of double charging the new customers since they have paid an impact fee covering the
projects and paid rates supporting the associated debt service. There are two possible
solutions to prevent this type of claim. The first would be a two tiered rate structure, one
with and one without the associated debt. Aside from being an administrative nightmare,
such a rate strt~cture could make future revenue bonds difficult to market. The most
realistic alternative is to discount the assessed impact fee, thus assuring the City that a
potential double charge does not occur since the new development only pays the dis-
counted portion up front with the unassessed balance being recovered system wide through
the rates. Therefore, we recommend the Council set the new impact fee rates as follows:
All Water Customers: $650/ESU
City Wastewater Customers: $450/ESU
MUD Wastewater Customers: $225/ESU
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis I
OVERVIEW
Definition
Impact Fees are a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new
developments in order to generate revenue for recouping or funding the costs of capital
improvements necessitated by and attributable to such new development. An Impact Fee
is not a tax. The fees cover a defined group of capital improvements and are allocated
equally over the anticipated new service units. The Impact Fee represents the equitable
recovery of actual and anticipated capital expenditures on a unit basis over a ten year
forward period. Projected expenditures beyond the ten year period, or expenditures to
serve existing development, are equally absorbed by all customers of the system.
By law, the Impact Fees may only be used to recover the cost of capital i~nprovements or
facility expansions (contained in the approved Capital Improvements Plan) including the
construction contract price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisition costs (includ-
ing court awards, attorney's and witness fees), and fees paid for preparing or updating the
Capital Improvements Plan. Impact Fees may not be used for parks or park land acquisi-
tion; onsite water distribution, wastewater collection, or drainage facilities; streets, side-
walks or other such facilities required by valid ordinances. Projected interest charges and
finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees, provided such fees
are used for the payment of obligations for the construction of hcilities identified in the
Capital Improvement Plan. Upon completion of a project, the actual cost must be used to
recalculate the fees to determine if refund provisions apply.
Methodology
The City of Coppell continues to be a rapidly growing cnmmunity in northwest Dallas
County. The City has grown from a population of 3,836 in 1980 to 16,881 in 1990.
Currently, in excess of 40% of the gross acreage within the City is undeveloped; therefore,
adequate land exists for the growth to continue throaghout the next ten year planning
period. Employment growth is expected to be a substantial component of the future
growth as the western portion of the City begins to develop.
The legislation allows for the City to recover the cost of certain existing oversized facilities
as well as future facilities identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. To accomplish this,
all water facilities constructed with funds from the 1985 Water Revenue Bond Program
were analyzed for excess capacity as well as all oversized facilities constructed since 1986
in which the City participated in the cost. 'Fable 1 summarizes the identified water projects,
the percentage required for existing development, allocated interest expenses for 1991 to
2001 and recoverable costs from future development. The total recoverable cost from
future development for existing water facilities is $7,509,535. The only existing wastewater
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 2
projects eligible for cost recovery are the Master Wastewater Plan and the wastewater
portion of the 1990 Impact Fee Analysis. These projects total $55,585 of recoverable
wastewater costs. It should be noted that the 1985 Revenue Bonds were retinaneed and
refunded under the 1991 Refunding Revenue Bond Series.
The next step was to identify the capital water/wastewater projects and/or system im-
provements which would be required to serve new development prior to January 1, 2001.
The Ten Year Capital Improvements Programs contained in the recently adopted Master
Water Plan and Master Wastewater Plan for the City of Coppell were evaluated for the
ability to serve the anticipated new development. The majority of the proposed im-
provements will be required in the business/industrial districts in the western part of the
city. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that developers will bear the cost of all
infrastructure for their development without City cost participation. For segments identi-
fied as "oversize only", the anticipated cost participation represents the recoverable cost
above the size required by the subdivision ordinance. The estimated recoverable cost for
proposed future water facilities (Table2) is $6,778,211. Table 3 summarizes the wastewa-
ter facilities which will be required prior to January 1, 2001 and the associated recoverable
costs. The estimated recoverable cost of the proposed wastewater facilities is $8,536,015.
The corresponding percentage of the project cost, including projected interest expense,
was allocated to existing and proposed development. Table 4 is a composite summary of
the interest expense for the existing and anticipated revenue bond programs necessary to
complete the Ten Year Capital Improvement Programs.
Base year populations/household data was derived from the 1990 U.S. Census. Future
flows and system demands were calculated based on the population/employment projec-
tions provided by the City of Coppoll Planning Department, the 1987 Comprehensive Plan
by J. T. Dunkin and Associates, the Fnture Land Use Assumption Plan, and Master
Thoroughfare Plan (with modified S.H. 121 interchanges). In addition, the Coppea
Municipal Utility District No. 1 Wastewater Collection System Study by J. T. Millican and
Associates, Inc., the Sanitary Sewer System Infiltration/Inflow Evahtation Survey by Geo-
Marine, Inc., and the Proposed Vista Ridge Utility Service Plan by Carter & Burgess were
utilized to determine capacities and future improvements within the MUD District
wastewater system.
~tble 5 is a composite summary of the projected households, population, and employment
for the entire City through the year 2020. qhble 6 is a breakdown, by NCTCOG District,
of the population and employment projections for 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. ~Pable 7 is
a breakdown, by NCTCOG District, of the household and employment projections for the
same periods.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 3
Water System Analysis
Water usage within the City of Coppell has increased as dramatically as the population.
The average daily demand has increased from 0.602 MGD in 1980 to 2.88 MGD in 1990.
In 1990, the water system experienced a new record high peak day of 6.78 MG. Based on
the population projections from the Planning Department and the Future Land Use
Assumption Plan, it is estimated that peak day water demands will exceed 14 MGD by the
year 2000 and ultimately approach 24 MGD at "build out". The potential drought peak day
at buildout is 27.5 MGD.
One of the most critical factors affecting w,~ter demands is weather. The amount of rainfall
and summer heat can directly influence water usage by 15-20%. In order to assure a
dependable water supply for the community, the system must be capable of meeting the
expected peak hour demand during the peak day of a drought year. Adequate fire reserves
must be maintained at all times. Summarized below are the past and projected water
demands:
Year Avg. Day Peak Day Peak # of
MGD MG D Factor Connections
1980 0.602 1.479 2.46 1,075
1986 1.911 5.827 3.05 4,276
1987 1.753 5.859 3.34 4,500
1988 2.712 5.736 2.12 4,881
1989 2.412 5.356 2.22 5,200
1990 2.880 6.780 2.35 5,400
1991' 3,000 7.120 2.35 5,995
1995 * 4, 130 9.340 2.26 9,104
2000* 6.660 14.080 2.11 14,974
2001' 6,940 14.680 2.11 15,621
2005* 8.320 17.140 2.06 18,536
2010' 10,480 21.030 2.01 23,135
2015' 11,180 22.460 2.01 24,745
2020* 11.880 23.900 2.01 26,506
· Projected
city of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 4
Water System Capital Improvement Plan
The recently adopted Master Water Plan contains a five, ten, twenty, and thirty year
Capital Improvement Plan. For the purpose of this Impact Fee Analysis, only those
projects identified within the five and ten years plans are included for analysis of recover-
able costs. The projects include:
Wrangler Drive 12" Waterline loop from the Old High School to Freeport Parkway.
This line is needed to ensure adequate pressures and fire flows to the Park West
Commerce Center. Only the oversize portion (12" from 8") of this project is
included for analysis.
16" Waterline along Gateway Bird. from the Postal Facility on Royal Lane to the
Santa Fe Development on Gateway. This segment is needed to improve fire flows
to the southwestern industrial areas of the City. The estimated cost of the oversize
portion (16" from 8") plus the city's portion (off site of existing developments) is
included.
Freeport Parkway 16" Waterline from I.H. 635 to Southwestern.
Parkway Blvd. 16" Waterline from the New High SchOol west to the Villages at
Cottonwood Creek.
Rate of Flow Controller for the Village Parkway Pump Station: Construct a 20
MGD rate-of-flow controller to serve the Village Parkway site directly from DWU.
Acquire Site for a second elevated storage tank. Analysis indicates that a second
elevated storage tank will be required by late 2000. For the facility to be on-line by
then, site acquisition should be undertaken during the mid 1990's.
Additional 4-6 MG Ground Storage Tank for the Village Parkway Pump Station:
Analysis indicates that the second tank will be required in order to maintain total
ground storage at one average day's demand.
Sandy Lake Road 24" Waterline - Phase I from MacArthur Blvd. to Denton 'Pap
Road.
South Belt Line Road 16" Waterline from Southwestern Blvd. to Lakeshore Drive.
· Freeport Parkway 16" Waterline from Bethel Road to Highway 121.
Sandy Lake Road 24" Waterline - Phase I1 from Denton Tap Road to Freeport
Pkwy. and a 16" waterline from Freeport to Hwy. 121.
Construct a 2.0 MG Elevated Storage ~xnk in the vicinity of Sandy Lake Road and
Freeport Pkwy.
Hwy. 121 Waterline - 12" from the West City Limits to Freeport Pkwy. and a 16"
Waterline from Freeport Pkwy. to Parkway Blvd.
· Parkway Blvd. 16" Waterline from Highway 121 to Coppell Road.
City or Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 5
Denton Tap 16" Waterline from Southwestern Blvd. to Bethel Road.
Install a fourth pump at the Village Parkway Pump Station.
Coppell Road 16" Waterline from Bethel Road to Sandy Lake (Thweat Road).
It should be noted that this analysis is based on the entire service area within the City limits
since the City system and MUD District system area are operated by the City as one water
system. No distinction has been made between the above listed improvements within the
City of Coppell and the Coppell Municipal Utility District No. 1. Several projects within
the MUD District boundary which are currently planned or in progress have not been
included since no City funds are anticipated to be expended. These projects include:
Denton ~Pap 16" Waterline from Parkway Blvd. to the HWY. 121 By-Pass.
MacArthur BIrd. 12" Waterline from DeForest Road to the Hwy. 121 By-Pass.
Water System Equivalent Service Units
The legislation requires impact fees to be based on equivalent service units (ESU) to
insure an equal distribution between residential and employment development. The
standard residential water meter in the City of Coppell is a 5/8" x 3/4" meter. Therefore,
impact fee calculations were based on a 5/8" x 3/4" meter = 1 ESU. All other meter sizes
in the system were converted to ESU's using the factors published by the Texas Rural Water
Association (Table 8). Table 9 is a summary of the number of meters in the water system
with the corresponding ESU's. Allmetersincludingirrigationmetersandfiremeterswere
included since these meters impose a significant potential demand on the water system.
Table 10 summarizes the irrigation and fire service meters in the system. It should be noted
that while irrigation meters only comprise 1.7% of the total number of system connections,
they represent 7.07% of the total water system ESU's. Fire service meters represent an
even wider variation, comprising 0.3% of the total system connections and 19.2% of the
systems potential ESU demand.
The calculation of current and the projection of future ESU's is dependent upon some
ratio of household and employment numbers which would best represent future develop-
ment in the City of Coppell. The ratios were calculated in the following manner:
Employee Ratio
Determined the total number of commercial/industrial meters in the system (in-
cluding irrigation and fire service meters) and converted the number to equivalent
service units. Total Business ESU's = 4,234.5.
Divided the number of business equivalent service units within the system by the
total number of employees (1991 estimate at 2,670).
Calculated water system ratio (equivalent service units/employee) of 1.5860.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 6
Household Ratio
Calculated the total number of equivalent service units for the entire City (Table
9). Total ESU's = 10,237.
Subtracted Business ESU's from Total ESU's to determine Household ESU's =
6,002.5.
Divided Household ESU's by total number of households (1991 estimate at 6,708).
Calculated ratio (equivalent service units/household) of 0.8948.
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula
Using the calculated ratios, the formula for the existing equivalent service units is:
Existing Water ESU's = 0.8948 x (# oflhmseholds) + 1.5860 x (# of Employees)
It should be noted that the conversion formula is based on the current distribution of
households and industrial/commercial development. These factors should continue to
change as the development density increases. The household factor should gradually
decrease to approximately 0.865 by 2000 and remain fairly constant thereafter. The
residential household densities are projected to increase from 2.642 res./household to
2.80 res./household at buildout.
An employee factor of 1.5860:1 ESU reflects the fact that the business sector of the
community is just beginning to develop. These figures are somewhat distorted by the newly
constructed and partially occupied commercial buildings. As commercial development
matures, this ratio should drastically fall to the range of 0.50 ESU's/employee (2.0 Employ-
ees/ ESU) as existing developments reach full staffing levels. If the employment growth
occurs as projected in the commercial/office/light industrial sectors, the employee to ESU
ratio will increase to the range of 2.0 to 2.25 employees/ESU and the ESU/employee factor
will stabilize around 0.45 by the year 2000. Therefore, the following formula represents
our opinion of the projected water system ESU's for the year 2001:
Year 2001 Water ESU's = 0.865 x (# ofltouseholds) + 0.495 x (# of Employees)
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 7
Therefore, the projection for the Year 2001, is:
Total Projected Households in 2001 = 11,077
Total Projected Employment in 2001 = 30,959
Year 2001 Water ESU's = 0.865 x (11,077) + 0.495 x (30,959) = 24,906
Net Gain in Water System ESU's (1991 to 2001) -- 24,906 - 10,237 = 14,669.
Since the future ESU formula is sensitive to changes in the demographic distribution and
population/employment densities, we recommend that these factors be re-examined on an
annual basis and the ESU formula updated to insure that the impact fees adequately
recapture the capital costs.
Maximum Allowable Water System Impact Fee
The maximum allowable impact fee is determined by dividing the total recoverable capital
expenses by the projected growth in equivalent service units. Therefore, the calculated
maximum water impact fee for the City of Coppell is:
Recoverable Cost from Existing Facilities: $7,509,535 (Table 1)
Recoverable Cost from Future Facilities: $6,778,211 (Table 2)
Total Recoverable Costs: $14,287,746
Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee = $14,287,746 / 14,669 = $974 per ESU
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis
Wastewater System Analysis
Wastewater flows within the City of Coppell have out-paced the rapid population growth.
The average daily ,low has increased from 1.070 MGD in 1986 to 2.273 MGD in 1990.
Based on the population projections from the Planning Department and Future Land Use
Assumptions, it is estimated that future peak day wastewater flows will exceed 13.5 MGD
by the year 2000 and will approach 20 MGD by 2010. The ultimate peak day flow is
projected to be 21.15 MGD at buildout. The corresponding two hour storm flow at
buildout is projected at approximately 42.3 MGD.
Wastewater flows are highly dependent upon rainfall and the associated infiltration and
inflow. In 1988, the wastewater system flow averaged 53.4% of the average daily water
demand. In 1990, a year with above average rainfall (and several record floods), the
wastewater system flow averaged only 72.1% of the average daily water demand. This
figure is extremely low considering the large amount of known Inflow and Infiltration which
the system received. In the months of January to April 1990, wastewater ,'lows averaged
122% of the water demand. This indicates that infiltration and inflow are a significant
problem in both the City and MUD District systems. Based on the available flow data,
the peak hourly flow may approach a f~ctor of 5 times the average daily flow and 2.5 times
the peak day flow. In order for the system to operate effectively, the wastewater collection
system must be capable of handling these peak hourly flow events without overflow.
Summarized below are the past and projected wastewater flows:
Peak
Year Avg. Day Day % of Water # of
MGD MGD Demand Connections
1986 1.070 56.0 4,276
1987 1.256 71.6 4,500
1988 1.455 5.0 + 53.6 4,881
1989 2.090 5.0 + 83.4 ' 5,200
1990 2.080 5.0 + 72.1 5,400
1991' 2.265 6.800 75.5 5,689
1995' 3.221 8.700 78.0 8,712
2000* 5.395 13.488 81.0 14,492
2001 * 5.621 13.772 81.0 15,128
2010' 8.908 20.043 85.0 22,498
2015' 9.727 20.427 87.0 24,084
2020* 10.573 21.146 89.0 25,789
· Projected + Meter limits prevented accurate measurement
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 9
WASTEWATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The wastewater system was analyzed to determine existing capacities and projected flows
for the entire City (including areas within the MUD and Vista Ridge). Average and peak
day demands were calculated based on the population projections. The demands were
distributed within the districts to the appropriate interceptors. The process was repeated
for the projected years 2001, 2010, and 2020 demands. A series of system improvements
(12" and larger) were analyzed for each time period to size the ultimate facilities and
determine the size required for the year 2001. Table 3 summarizes the capital projects
required to handle the year 2001 flows. The future system improvements which were
identified to meet the projected Year 2001 demands are as follows:
Grapevine Creek Trunk Main: Construct a 30" interceptor parallel to the existing
12" trunk line along Grapevine Creek from MacArthur to Denton Tap Road
(Branch I). 24" laterals should continue west along Grapevine Greek to South-
western Boulevard (Branch II) and extend south along Belt Line to Airline
(Branch Ill). Branch IV will extend a 12" line north from Denton Tap to Bethel
School Road.
· St. Louis/Southwestern Railroad Collector line: Construct a 12"/15"/18" line along
the railroad from Royal Lane to the Grapevine Creek Trunk Main.
North Bethel Road Collector: Construct a 15" collector line from Grapevine Creek
to Coppell Road.
South Belt Line Road Sewer: Extend the existing sewer collection system to serve
the far southern portion of the City including the IH 635 frontage.
· TRA Central Plant Expansinn: The City of Coppell is a member of the TRA
system. Subsequently, the City is obligated for its share of improvements to the
TRA system. The TRA Central Plant is currently undergoing a $153,892,000
expansion. Of this total, $9,446,000 is for retrofit to handle existing flows and
$144,446,000 is for expansion to handle future development wastewater flows.
The City of Coppell contributes approximately 2.2% of the total flow to the TRA
Central Plant; therefore, the City's portion of this expansion is estimated to be
approximately $3,177,812 (without interest expense). This portion of the
Wastewater Impact Fee should be assessed and collected for all tracts, regardless
of location.
It should be noted that this analysis is based on the entire service area within the City limits
operating as one integrated wastewater system. However, the lack of an interlocal agree-
ment between the City and MUD district on impact fees has necessitated the separation
of the systems for the purpose of fee calculation. We most caution that the collection of an
impact fee in an area serviced by the MUD District inw~lves several legal issues which must
be resolved. Negotiations on an interlocal agreement have been ongoing for almost a year
with little progress. Until the issue of absorption of the MUD by the City is resolved or an
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 10
interlocal agreement between the parties regarding impact fees is reached, we recommend
that wastewater impact fees exclude MUD related projects and only the portion related to
the TRA project be assessed on property within tile MUD service area. Should such an
agreement be reached, we recommend that the wastewater fees be re-evaluated to include
proposed MUD projects and all fees assessed citywide.
Wastewater System Equivalent Service Units
The legislation requires that impact fees be based on equivalent service units (ESU) to
insure an equal distribution between new residential and employment development. The
standard residential water meter in the City of Coppell is a 5/8" x 3/4" meter. Therefore,
for uniformity, impact fee calculations were based on a 5/8" x 3/4" meter = 1 ESU for water
and wastewater. As with the water system, other meter sizes were converted to ESU's
using the factors published by the Texas Rural Water Association (Table 8). For the
wastewater system, irrigation meters and fire service meters were not included, since these
meters do not generate any wastewater denland. In addition, approximately 179 house-
holds receive water service but are not connected to the wastewater system at this time.
The total ESU's for the wastewater system are summarized in 'Pable 11.
The calculation of current and the projection of future ESU's is dependent upon some
ratio of household and employment numbers which woald best represent future develop-
ment in the City of Coppell. The ratios were calculated in the following manner:
Employee Ratio
Determined the total number of commercial/industrial meters (net of irrigation
and fire service) in the City and converted the number to equivalent service units.
· Divided the number of business equivalent service units within the City by the
number of employees.
Calculated ratio (equivalent service units/employee) of 0.5983. (Note: This is
lower than the Water System formula since irrigation and fire service meters
compose a significant portion of the employment ESU's.)
Household Ratio
Calculated the total number of equivalent service units for the entire City CPable
11). Total Wastewater ESU's = 7,338.
· Subtracted Business ESU's from Total ESU's to determine Household ESU's =
5,740.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 11
Divided Household ESU's by total number of households.
Calculated ratio (equivalent service units/household) of 0.8557. (Approximately
the same as the Water System.)
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula
Using the calculated ratios, the formula for existing equivalent service units is:
Existing ESU's = 0.8557 x (#of Households) + 0.5983 x (# of Employees)
It should be noted that the conversion formula is based on the current distribution of
households and industrial/commercial development. Presently, the total wastewater
ESU's in the system account for only 71.68% of the total water system ESU's. This
percentage should increase as development continues and is projected to approach 75.0%
by 2000, 77.5% by 2010, and reach 80.0% by 2020. Additionally, all households are
projected to be connected to the wastewater system by the early 2000's. With the percent-
age of households on the wastewater system approaching 100%, the household factors in
the water formula and wastewater formula should virtually equal each other. As such, the
expected major difference in the two formulas will be in the employment factor. Combin-
ing these factors, the anticipated future ESU formula for the Wastewater System is:
Year 2001 Wastewater ESU's = 0.862 x (# of Ihmseholds) + 0.298 x (# of Employees)
Therefore, the projection for the Yuar 2001, is:
Total Projected Households in 2001 = 11,077
Total Projected Employment in 2001 -- 30,959
Year 2001 ESU's = 0.862 x (11,077) + 0.298 x (30,959) = 18,779
Net Gain in ESU's (1991 to 2001) = 18,779 - 7,338 = 11,441 * For the Entire Area.
When the projected growth is allocated based on the City/MUD boundary and NCTCOG
Districts, the distribution is approximately 4,774 new ESU's for the City System and 6,667
new ESU's for the MUD System.
Since the future ESU formula is sensitive to changes in the demographic distribution and
population/employment densities, we recommend that these factors be re-examined on an
annual basis and the ESU formula updated to insure that the impact fees adequately
recapture the capital costs.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 12
Maximum Allowable Wastewater System Impact Fee
The maximum allowable impact fee is determined by dividing the total recoverable capital
expenses by the projected growth in equivalent service units. Due to the fact that there
are two entities involved in the construction of new hcilities but only one for operation,
separate fees have been calculated as follows:
Both Systems:
Recoverable Costs of Existing Facilities: $55,585
Recoverable Future Facilities (TRA): $3,177,812
Combined Component Assessable to both Systems: $3,233,397
Impact Fee Assessable to Both Systems: $3,233,397/11,441 = $282/ESU
City System Only:
Recoverable Future Facilities: $4,893,250
City Component: $5,358,203 / 4,774 = $1,025/ESU
MUD System Only:
No Separate Costs
Therefore, the calculated maximum wastewater impact fee(s) within the City of Coppell
are:
City System: Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee = $282 + $1,025 = $1,307 / ESU
MUD System: Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee = $282 / ESU
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 13
TABLE 5
PROJECTED CITYWIDE POPULATIONS
YEAR HOUSEHOLDS POPULATION EMPLOYMENT
1990 6,404 16,881 2,100
1991 6,708 17,721 2,670
1992 7,026 18,603 3,395
1993 7,360 19,529 4,317
1994 7,709 20,500 5,489
1995 8,075 21,520 6,980
1996 8,458 22,591 8,875
1996 8,860 23,715 11,285
1997 9,281 24,896 14,350
1998 9,721 26,134 18,246
1999 10,183 27,435 23,200
2000 10,667 28,800 29,500
2001 11,077 29,964 30,959
2002 11,504 31,175 32,490
2003 11,946 32,435 34,096
2004 12,406 33,745 35,782
2005 12,884 35,109 37,551
2006 13,380 36,528 39,408
2007 13,895 38,004 41,357
2008 14,431 39,540 43,402
2009 14,986 41,138 45,548
2010 15,564 42,800 47,800
2011 15,715 43,294 48,016
2012 15,867 43,793 48,232
2013 16,021 44,298 48,450
2014 16,176 44,809 48,668
2015 16,334 45,325 48,888
2016 16,492 45,848 49,108
2017 16,652 46,377 49,330
2018 16,814 46,912 49,552
2019 16,978 47,453 49,776
2020 17,143 48,000 50,000
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee/h~alysis 20
TABLE 6
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
NCTCOG Residential Population Employment
District 1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010 2020
257 0 0 0 0 0 828 1,380 1,400
258 0 317 625 675 0 46 80 100
259 0 125 500 575 88 935 1,500 1,575
260 3,631 6,250 11,370 11,500 33 256 405 450
261 0 0 0 0 0 1,440 2,400 2,550
262 0 0 0 0 239 396 500 530
263 125 0 0 0 110 3,460 5,694 6,100
264 0 0 0 0 18 2,715 4,513 4,550
265 0 0 0 0 203 819 1,240 1,275
266 90 75 125 190 0 270 450 500
267 18 625 1,125 1,625 0 1,595 2,658 2,700
268 * 2,075 3,000 6,250 7,000 38 176 275 300
269 5,875 7,250 8,000 8,500 64 488 770 775
270 13 875 1,250 1,250 0 0 0 0
271 50 25 0 0 0 708 1,180 1,200
272 50 25 0 0 148 1,678 2,700 2,850
273 400 875 1,250 1,800 65 503 795 950
274 8 25 35 45 40 220 340 500
275 * 0 0 0 65 33 76 105 150
276 0 0 0 0 0 576 960 748
278 0 0 0 0 0 276 460 500
279 0 0 0 0 0 1,290 2,150 2,300
280 50 500 1,125 1,250 0 720 1,200 1,400
281 0 0 0 0 0 741 1,235 1,300
282 0 0 0 0 0 924 1,540 1,625
283 0 0 0 0 0 288 480 500
284 23 750 950 1,425 9 34 50 50
285 500 500 750 1,025 10 254 420 450
286 1,609 1,875 2,250 2,850 50 200 300 300
287 625 675 675 700 225 280 325 325
288 8 0 0 0 410 809 1,075 1,100
289 5 0 0 0 188 138 I10 150
290 503 750 875 1,I00 0 432 720 700
291 1,125 1,250 1,375 1,500 0 42 70 50
292 13 0 0 0 115 90 75 100
294 25 0 0 0 0 2,757 4,600 4,700
300 * 0 2,500 3,750 4,250 0 1,664 2,770 2,900
301 * 15 0 0 0 14 155 250 250
302 * 0 0 0 0 0 600 1,000 1,0130
304 * 30 213 75 75 0 225 370 397
305 * 0 0 0 0 0 320 530 550
314 15 320 445 600 0 60 1130 1130
559 0 0 0 0 0 16 25 50
Totals 16,881 28,800 42,800 48,000 2,101) 29,500 47,800 50,000
· Onlyportions of District within the City of Coppell are inchtried
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 21
TABLE 7
HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
NCTCOG Residential I!ouseholds Employment
District 1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010 2020
257 0 0 0 0 0 828 1,380 1,400
258 0 117 227 241 0 46 80 100
259 0 46 182 205 88 935 1,500 1,575
260 1,377 2,315 4,135 4,107 33 256 405 450
261 0 0 0 0 0 1,440 2,400 2,550
262 0 0 0 0 239 396 500 530
263 47 0 0 0 110 3,460 5,694 6,100
264 0 0 0 0 18 2,715 4,513 4,550
265 0 0 0 0 203 819 1,240 1,275
266 34 28 45 68 0 270 450 500
267 7 231 409 580 0 1,595 2,658 2,700
268* 787 1,111 2,273 2,500 38 176 275 300
269 2,229 2,685 2,909 3,036 64 488 770 775
270 5 324 455 446 0 0 0 0
271 19 9 0 0 0 708 1,180 1,200
272 19 9 0 0 148 1,678 2,700 2,850
273 152 324 455 643 65 503 795 950
274 3 9 13 16 40 220 340 500
275 * 0 0 0 23 33 76 105 150
276 0 0 0 0 0 576 960 748
278 0 0 0 0 0 276 460 500
279 0 0 0 0 0 1,290 2,150 2,300
280 19 185 409 446 0 720 1,200 1,400
281 0 0 0 0 0 741 1,235 1,300
282 0 0 0 0 0 924 1,540 1,625
283 0 0 0 0 0 288 480 500
284 9 278 345 509 9 34 50 50
285 190 185 273 366 10 254 420 450
286 610 694 818 1,018 50 200 300 300
287 237 250 245 250 225 280 325 325
288 3 0 0 0 410 809 1,075 1,100
289 2 0 0 0 188 138 110 150
290 191 278 318 393 0 432 720 700
291 427 463 500 536 0 42 70 50
292 5 0 0 0 115 90 75 100
294 9 0 0 0 0 2,757 4,600 4,700
300* 0 926 1,364 1,518 0 1,664 2,770 2,900
301 * 6 0 0 0 14 155 250 250
302 * 0 0 0 0 0 600 1,000 1,000
304 * 11 79 27 27 0 225 370 397
305 * 0 0 0 0 0 320 530 550
314 6 119 162 214 0 60 100 100
559 0 0 0 0 0 16 75 50
Totals 6,404 10,667 15,564 17,143 2,100 29,500 47,800 50,000
Density 2.636 2.70 2.75 2.80
· Oneportions ofD~ffict wi~ the Ci~ L~ffts of Coppeg are ~c~ded.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 22
TABLE 8
EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
METER SIZE E.S.U. *
5/8 X 3/4" 1.00
1" 2.50
11/2" 5.00
2" 8.00
3" 16.00
4" 25.00
6" 62.50
8" 80.00
10" 115.00
* From 'l~xas Rural Water Association Recommended Meter Equivalents, based on
AWWA Specifications and Design Criteria.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 23
TABLE 9
WATER SYSTEM
MAY 1991
TOTAL EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
METER # of TRWA EQUIV.
SIZE METERS EQUIV. SERVICE UNITS
5/8" X 3/4" 5,665 1.00 5,665
1" 95 2.50 238
11/2" 40 5.00 200
2" 149 8.00 1,192
3" 5 16.00 80
4" 6 25.00 150
6" 9 62.50 563
8" 24 80.00 1,920
10" 2 115.00 230
TOTAL 5,995 10,237
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 24
TABLE 10
IRRIGATION AND FIRE SERVICE METERS
MAY 1991
TOTAL EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
METER # of TRWA EQU1V.
SIZE METERS EQUIV. SERVICE UNITS
5/8" X 3/4" 9 1.00 9
1" 11 2.50 28
11/2" 12 5.00 60
2" 69 8.00 552
Y' 0 16.00 0
4" 3 25.00 75
6" 6 62.50 375
8" 17 80.00 1,360
10" 2 115.00 230
TOTAL 129 2,689
Note: Irrigation and Fire Service Meters account for 26.3% of the entire ESU's in the
water system. These meters do not generate any wastewater demand.
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 25
TABLE 11
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
MAY 1991
TOTAL EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
METER # of TRWA EQUIV.
SIZE I~,PS EQUIV. SERVICE UNITS
5/8" X 3/4" 5,490 1.00 5,490
1" 76 2.50 190
11/2" 23 5.00 115
2" 80 8.00 640
3" 5 16.00 80
4" 3 25.00 75
6" 3 62.50 188
8" 7 80.00 560
10" 0 115.00 0
TOTAL 5,687 7,338
City of Coppell, Texas
1991 Impact Fee Analysis 26