OR 90-478 Adopts "Impact Fees" be cumulative ORDINANCE NO. 90478
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 IMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIONS; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, 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:
1.
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 Coppall 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 con]unction 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 years, to be
owned and operated by or on behalf of the City.
(5) City means the City of Coppall, 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.
(8) 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.
2
(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
guidelines, 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.
3
(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 are
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 sewer 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 accomaodate 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 development, for a period not to exceed
ten (10) years, and which are to be financed in whole or in part
through the imposition of water 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.
5
B. The impact fee per service unit which is to be paid by each new
development within the service ureu 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 City's 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 computed by the procedures set forth in section 1.08[A).
The city, in its sole discretion, 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 plat, a new
assessment must be performed at the time a new application for such
development is filed.
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 hambet 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 eunount 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 maximam 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.
10
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 expanded 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
payment 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 facilities
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 fee capital
improvements plans, and other factors such as market conditions more
frequently than provided in subsection (A) to determine whether the
land use assumptions and 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 amoant 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
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 anti1 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 emoant 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, constituting the
City as depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the water benefit area may be Mended 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 Coppall is hereby adopted
as Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
B. The Water Improvement Plan may be Mended 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 incorporated 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
SEWTER FACILITIES FEES
Section 3.01 Sanitary Sewer Benefit Area
A. There is hereby established a sanitary sewer benefit area,
constituting the City as depicted on Exhibit "D" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
B. The boundaries of the sanitary sewer benefit area may be Mended from
time to time, and new sanitary sewer benefit areas may be delineated,
pursuant to the procedures in Section 1.17.
15
Section 3.02 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Plan
A. The Sanitary Sewer Improvements Plan for the City of Coppall is
hereby adopted as Exhibit "E" 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 Coppoll, and this Ordinance shall not
operate to repeal or affect any of such other ordinances except insofar
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.
All 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
Coppall in the discharge of his duties, shall not thereby render himself
personally liable; and he is hereby relieved from all personal liability
16
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 effect immediately from and after the
publication of its caption, as the law in such cases provides.
17
Cit ~ cil of the City of Coppell, Texas, this
DULY PASSED by the ~~
the /~ day of , 1990.
APPROVED:
MA
ATTEST:
~'~RETAR~~z~'~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
18
SCHEDULE 1
MAXIMUM
IMPACT FEE PER
FACILITY TYPE SERVICE UNIT SERVICE UNIT
Water Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $660
inch water meter
equivalent
Sanitary Sewer Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $422
inch water meter
equivalent
SCHEDULE 2
IMPACT FEE PER
FACILITY TYPE SERVICE UNIT SERVICE UNIT
Water Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $660
inch water meter
equivalent
Fire Service Meter 0nly $1,650 (2.5
E.S.U.'s)
Combination Fire/Domestic $1,650 plus
$660 multiplied
by number of
ESU's for
domestic meter
size
Sanitary Sewer Cost per 5/8 X 3/4 $422
inch water meter
equivalent
Combination Fire/Domestic $422 multiplied
by number of
ESU's for
domestic meter
size
19
" EXHIBIT A "
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TLXAS
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; and
'~H~EREAS, 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
W~EREAS, the public hearing to solicit citizen input to present evidence
for and against the land use assumptions was held on May 8, 1990;
NOW, TH]EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COLINCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL:
SECTION i. 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, and kept on file in the office of
the Plamuling Commission, be approved by the governing body.
SECTION 2. That this action is taken after appropriate, legal notice and
sujDsequemt public participation has been solicited from the community.
SECTION 3. That this resolution shall take effect from and after its
passage.
THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXA~
BY:
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FOP~.: ATTEST:
>'~" q., I .' ,, .
'~.'-..:,:, ...'. "" .','~'/.::./::-~T~.~ x,,- ~.~
'CITY ~TTO~
~S
" [XHIBIT B "
&
"EXHIBIT D "
/
EXHIBIT C
&
EXHIBIT E
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PI.AN
AND
IMPACT FEE STUDY
for the
City of Coppell, Texas
.
MAY 1990
GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
17103 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 100, LB-118
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248
(214) 248-4900
ORIGINAL
WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND
IMPACT FEE STUDY
for the
City of Coppell, Texas
,";~""'~":'.~?~-'~'
I
MAY 19~0
GINN, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
17103 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 100, LB-I18
DALLAS, TEXAS 75248
(214) 2484900
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WATER SYSTEM
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1
General .............................................................................................................................................3
Existing Water System ....................................................................................................................3
Water Demand ................................................................................................................................4
Hydraulic Analysis ..........................................................................................................................4
Equivalent Service Units ................................................................................................................6
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula ............................................................................7
Allowable Impact Fee ....................................................................................................................7
Table l
Cost of Existing Facilities Oversized for Future Development ...............................................8
Table 2
Cost For Proposed Water Facilities Required For Anticipated Growth ...............................9
Table 3
Water Line Costs In 1990 Dollars ................................................................................................10
Table 4
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Factors ..............................................................................10
Table 5
Total Equivalent Service Units .....................................................................................................11
Table 6
Population and Employment Projections ....................................................................................12
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................13
General .............................................................................................................................................15
Existing Wastewater System ..........................................................................................................15
Wastewater Flows ...........................................................................................................................15
System Analysis ...............................................................................................................................16
Equivalent Service Units ................................................................................................................18
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula ............................................................................19
Allowable Impact Fee ....................................................................................................................19
Table 7
Cost For Proposed Wastewater Facilities Required For Anticipated Growth ...................... 20
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Table 8
Waterwater Line Costs In 1990 Dollars .......................................................................................21
Table 9
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Factors ..............................................................................21
Table 10
Total Equivalent Service Units .....................................................................................................22
Table 11
Population and Employment Projections ....................................................................................23
Appendix A
Population & Employment Factors ...............................................................................................24
Chart 1
NCTCOG Traffic District
Chart 2
Proposed Water Facilities
Chart 3
Proposed Sanitary Sewer Facilities
WATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND
IMPACT FEE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope
In June of 1987, the Texas Legislature adopted Senate Bill 336 in order 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 of June 20, 1990 for each politi-
cal subdivision to bring its "impact fees" into conformance with the legislation. In order to be
certain that the current water impact fees were in compliance with Senate Bill 336, the City of
Coppell authorized Ginn, Inc. to analyze and re-calculate the water impact fee for the time
period January 1, 1990 to January 1, 2000. The 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).
Methodology
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 as well as all oversized (10" and larger) facilities constructed since 1986 in which the
City participated in the cost. Table 1 summarizes the projects, percentage required for exist-
ing development, and cost recoverable from future development. The total recoverable cost
for future development of existing facilities is $5,058,197.
The next step was to identify the capital water projects and/or system improvements which
would be required to be constructed prior to January 1, 2000. Since the 1990 Master Water
Plan Update for the City of Coppell will not be completed until late summer, the 1987
Hydraulic Analysis was revised using population/employment projections provided by the
City of Coppell Planning Department (Table 6), the 1987 Comprehensive Plan by J. T. Dunkin
and Associates, the Future Land Use Assumption Plan, and Master Thoroughfare Plan (with
modified S.H. 121 interchanges). Future water facilities were identified to serve the projected
year 2000 demand, 2010 demand, and ultimate demand. Table 2 summarizes the facilities
which will be required prior to January 1, 2000 and the recoverable pro-rata cost. The
recoverable pro-rata cost was determined by using the appropriate cost factor from Table 3
for the actual size required for the Year 2000. The majority of the proposed improvements
will be required in the business/industrial districts in the western part of the city. For the pur-
pose of this analysis, it is assumed that developers will bear the cost of facilities under 12"
without City cost participation. The estimated cost for proposed future facilities is $4,360,310.
General
The City of Coppell is a rapidly growing community in northwest Dallas County. Easy access
to interstate highways and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport have contributed to
the rapid growth in recent years. The City has grown from a population of 3,836 in 1980 to an
estimated 16,300 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 throughout the plan-
ning period. Employment growth is expected to be substantial as the western portion of the
City develops.
Existing Water System
The City of Coppell's water distribution system consists of approximately 75.13 miles of water
lines ranging from 2" to 24" in diameter. The City currently has one pump station on Sandy
Lake Road. The station has a total peak pumping capacity of approximately 6.5 MGD and a
500,000 gallon ground storage tank. The City also has a 1.5 MG elevated storage tank on
Southwestern Blvd. The 250,000 gallon elevated storage tank on Coppell Road is discon-
nected from the system and will be dismantled later this year.
The City is supplied with water from the City of Dallas (Dallas Water Utilities Elm Fork
Treatment Plant) through a contract with the Trinity River Authority (TRA). Water is
received at the Sandy Lake Road pump station through a Rate-of-Flow Controller (ROFC).
The maximum capacity of the existing ROFC is 9 MGD. In 1987, the City executed a contract
directly with Dallas Water Utilities to secure future water supp]y needs, without the TRA sur-
charge.
The City currently has the Village Parkway Pump Station and Reservoir under construction.
These facilities are estimated to be on-line by July 1, 1990. The Village Parkway Pump Sta-
tion has three 450 HP pumps rated for 10.08 MGD. The station has a firm average day
capacity of 10 MGD with a peak capacity of 16 MGD. The Village Parkway Reservoir is a 4
MG prestressed, wire wound concrete tank ( 152' diameter, 29.5' HWL). The reservoir is sup-
plied with water from the Sandy Lake Rd. ROFC via a 36" pipeline.
It is currently planned for the Sandy Lake Road Pump Station to be decomrnissioned within
1-2 years of start-up on the Village Parkway Pump Station. Therefore, the percentage of
facilities to serve existing developments are calculated with only the Village Parkway Pump
Station in use.
The process was repeated for the projected 2000 demands and "ultimate" demands. A series
of system improvements (12" and larger) were modeled for each time period to size the ul-
timate facilities and determine the size required for the year 2000. Table 2 summarizes the
capital projects required to meet the year 2000 demands. The future system improvements
(Chart 2) which were identified to meet the projected Year 2000 demands are as follows:
· Rate of Flow Controller for the Village Parkway Pump Station: Construct a 16 MGD
rate-of-flow controller to serve the Village Parkway site directly from DWU.
· Additional 4 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.
· Acquire Site for the Royal Lane 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 planning period.
· MacArthur Blvd. 12" Waterline from Deforest Road to Lake Vista and the purchase
and/or modification of the Vista Ridge system (Oversize Costs Only).
· Denton Tap 16" Waterline from Parkway Blvd. to Highway 121 by-pass.
· Parkway Blvd. 16" Waterline from the New High School west to the Villages at Cot-
tonwood Creek.
· Parkway Blvd. 16" Waterline from Coppell Road to Highway 121.
· Sandy Lake Road 16" Waterline from Denton Tap to Coppell Road.
· Freeport Parkway 16" Waterline from Bethel Road to Highway 121.
· Freeport Parkway 16" Waterline from Southwestern to I.H. 635.
· 16" Waterline along Proposed Gateway Blvd. from Royal Lane to Freeport Parkway.
It should be noted that this analysis is based on the entire service area within the City limits
being on one water system. No distinction has been made between improvements within the
City of Coppell and the Coppell Municipal Utility District No. 1. Another assumption in this
analysis involves the Vista Ridge Development. It was assumed that the 12" water mains in
the Vista Ridge Development (currently on the Lewisville system) will be connected to the
City of Coppell water system. If the City of Lewisville retains these water lines, then addition-
al water facilities will be needed in this area.
We must caution that the collection of an impact fee in an area serviced by the MUD District
involves several legal issues which must be resolved. Until the issue of absorption of the MUD
by the City is resolved or an interlocal agreement between the parties regarding impact fees
is reached, we recommend that impact fees not be collected in the MUD service area. This
issue along with an in-depth analysis of the ultimate facilities will be addressed in more detail
in the 1990 Master Water Plan Update.
5
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula
Using the calculated ratios, the formula for existing equivalent service units is:
Existing ESU's = 1.1172 x (# of Households) + 0.7959 x (# of Employees)
It should be noted that the conversion formula is based on the current distribution of
households and industrial/commercial development. An employee factor of 0.7959:1 at build-
out would represent a ratio of 1.256 employees per ESU. A ratio in this range would be more
typical of an area with heavy industrial development. If the employment growth occurs as
projected in the commercial/office/light industrial sectors, the employee to ESU ratio will in-
crease to the range of 2.5 to 3.0 employees/ESU and the ESU/employee factor will decrease
to the range of 0.4 to 0.33 by the year 2000. Similarly, the residential factor of 1.1172:1 at
build-out would represent a ratio of 2.24 residents/ESU. As the community develops, this
ratio is expected to increase to a range of 2.5 to 2.78 residents/ESU and the corresponding
ESU/household factor wilt decrease to a range of 0.9 to 1.0 by the year 2000. Based on the dis-
cussion in Appendix A and after review with the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee,
the following formula was developed to project the Year 2000 Equivalent Service Units:
Year 2000 ESU's = 0.9 x (# of Households) + 0.4 x (# of Employees)
Therefore, the projection for the Year 2000, is:
Total Projected Households in 2000 = 11,515
Total Projected Employment in 2000 = 29,491
Year 2000 ESU's = 0.9 x (11,515) + 0.4 x (29,491) = 22,160
Net Gain in ESU's (1990 to 2000) = 22,160 - 8,926 = 13,234
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 an-
nual basis and the ESU formula updated to insure that the impact fees adequately recapture
the capital costs.
Allowable Impact Fee
The maximum allowable impact fee is determined by dividing the total recoverable capital ex-
penses by the projected growth in equivalent service units. Therefore, the calculated maxi-
mum water impact fee for the City of Coppell is:
Maximum Impact Fee = $9,418,507 / 13,234 = $712 per Equivalent Service Unit
TABLE 5
CITY OF COPPELL
JANUARY 1990
TOTAL EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
EQUIV.
METER # OF TRWA SERVICE
SIZE METERS EQUIV. UNITS
5/8 X 3/4" 5,065 1.00 5,065
1" 75 2.50 188
11/2" 31 5.00 155
2" 124 8.00 992
Y' 4 16.00 64
4" 6 25.00 150
6" 9 62.50 563
8" 19 80.00 1,520
10" 2 115.00 230
TOTAL 5,335 8,926
11
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
AND
IMPACT FEE STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope
In June of 1987, the Texas Legislature adopted Senate Bill 336 in order 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 of June 20, 1990 for each politi-
cal subdivision to bring their "impact fees" into conformance. In order to be certain that the
current wastewater impact fees were in compliance with Senate Bill 336, the City of Coppell
authorized Ginn, Inc. to analyze and re-calcniate the wastewater impact fee for the time
period January 1, 1990 to January 1, 2000. The 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).
Methodology
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, the
system was analyzed to identify any oversized wastewater collection and/or treatment facilities
constructed since 1986 in which the City participated in the funding. There were no oversized
facilities constructed with City funds during this period. It should be noted that if and when
the City absorbs the MUD, certain MUD facilities may be eligible for capital recovery due to
oversizing.
The next step was to identify the capital wastewater projects and/or system improvements
which would be required to be constructed prior to January 1, 2000. Since the 1990 Master
Wastewater Plan for the City of Coppell will not be completed until later this fall, future flows
and system needs were calculated based on the population/employment projections provided
by the City of Coppell Planning Department (Table 11 ), the 1987 Comprehensive Plan by J. T.
Dunkin and Associates, the Future Land Use Assumption Plan, and Master Thoroughfare
Plan (with modified S.H. 121 interchanges). In addition, the CoppellMunicipal UtilityDistrict
No. I Wa3tewater Collection System Study by J. T. Millican and Associates, Inc., the Sanitary
Sewer System Infiltration/Inflow Evaluation 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.
Future wastewater collection facilities were identified to serve the projected year 2000
demand and 2010 demand. Table 7 summarizes the facilities which will be required prior to
January 1, 2000 and the anticipated recoverable pro-rata cost. The recoverable pro- rata cost
was determined by using the appropriate cost factor from Table 8 for the actual size required
13
General
The City of Coppell is a rapidly growing community in northwest Dallas County. Easy access
to interstate highways and the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport have contributed to
the rapid growth in recent years. The City has grown from a population of 3,836 in 1980 to an
estimated 16,300 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 throughout the plan-
ning period. Employment growth is expected to be substantial as the western portion of the
City develops.
Existing Wastewater System
The existing wastewater system for the City of Coppell (including the MUD) consists of ap-
proximately 82.03 miles of gravity sewers and force mains ranging from 6" to 27" in diameter.
The system also contains two lift stations. The Deforest Road Lift Station contains 2 - 50 HP
and 1 - 2 HP pumps with a total design capacity of 7.6 MGD. The Sandy Lake Road Lift Sta-
tion contains 3 o 50 HP and 1 - 2 HP pump with a total design capacity of 10.1 MGD. All was-
tewater flow from the City of Coppell (including Coppell MUD No. 1) is delivered to the 33"
Trinity River Authority (TRA) Interceptor for transport and treatment at the TRA Central
Plant in Grand Prairie.
Currently, the existing 12" trunk line along Grapevine Creek is approaching 95°100% of it's
capacity. Peak flows and major storm events in this basin push the existing system to the limits
of its capacity and surcharge some portions. Field observations also indicate that Infiltration
and Inflow may be a significant problem in the Cottonwood Creek drainage basin. The 24" in-
terceptor crossing Denton Tap Road was repeatedly observed to be flowing 50-75% full al-
though only minimal development has occurred within this drainage basin.
Wastewater Flows
Wastewater flows within the City of Coppell have out-paced the population growth. The
average daily flow has increased from 1.070 MGD in 1986 to 2.090 MGD in 1989. 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 11.18 MGD by the year 2000
and will approach 16.84 MGD by 2010.
15
Grapevine Creek Interceptor: Construct a 30" interceptor parallel to the existing 12"
trunk line along Grapevine Creek from MacArthur to Denton Tap Road. 24" laterals
should extend south along Beltline to Airline and continue west along Grapevine
Greek to Southwestern Boulevard. The existing line is a 23 year old vitrified clay pipe
line which should be removed from service.
· Vista Ridge Interceptor(s), Lift Station and Force Main: Construct a gravity
12"/15"/18" interceptor along Denton Creek (west of MacArthur) to transport flows to
the Deforest Road Lift Station. Also, construct a 10" gravity trunk line along the pot-
lion of Lake Vista (east of MacArthur) and a 1.0 MGD lift station and 8" force main
from Lake Vista Drive to the MUD lift station on Deforest Road.
· Denton Creek Interceptor: Construct an 18/21" gravity interceptor along and parallel
to the existing interceptor from west of Denton Tap Road to the Deforest Road Lift
Station.
· Deforest Road Lift Station Improvements: Construct a 10.0 MGD lift station (or ex-
pand the existing lift station) to accommodate the expected flows from the Denton
Creek and Vista Ridge basins.
· Sandy Lake Road Lift Station Improvements: Construct a 15.0 MGD lift station (or
expand the existing lift station) adjacent to the existing lift station to raise the total
capacity to 19.2 MGD. The new station should be deep enough to accommodate the
future replacement of the 27" gravity line through the Lakes of Coppell which is fie-
quently surcharged due to it's flat grade.
· TRA Central Plant Expansion: 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 expan-
sion 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 $3,177,812.
In addition, we recommend that the Mater Wastewater Plan closely examine the 27" gravity
sewer line through the Lakes of Coppell addition. The extremely flat grade on this line may
necessitate a replacement or paralleling within the study period.
It should be noted that this analysis is based on the entire service area within the City limits
being one integrated wastewater system. No distinction has been made between improve-
ments within the City of Coppell and the Coppell Municipal Utility District No. 1. Another
assumption in this analysis assumes that a portion of the 18" gravity sewer in the Vista Ridge
Development (currently on the Lewisville system) will be purchased and/or connected to the
City of Coppell system. If the City of Lewisville retains these collection lines, then addition-
al facilities will be needed in this area.
17
Equivalent Service Unit Conversion Formula
Using the calculated ratios, the formula for existing equivalent service units is:
Existing ESU's = 1.1172 x (# of Households) + 0.7959 x (# of Employees)
It should be noted that the conversion formula is based on the current distribution of
households and industrial/commercial development. An employee factor of 0.7959:1 at build-
out would represent a ratio of 1,256 employees per ESU. A ratio in this range would be more
typical of an area with heavy industrial development. If the employment growth occurs as
projected in the commercial/office/light industrial sectors, the employee to ESU ratio will in-
crease to the range of 2.5 to 3.0 employees/ESU and the ESU/employee factor will decrease
to the range of 0.4 to 0.33 by the year 2000. Similarly, the residential factor of 1.1172:1 at
build-out would represent a ratio of 2.24 residents/ESU. As the community develops, this
ratio is expected to increase to a range of 2.5 to 2.78 residents/ESU and the corresponding
ESU/household factor will decrease to a range of 0.9 to 1.0 by the year 2000. Based on the dis-
cussion in Appendix A and after review with the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee,
the following formula was developed to project the Year 2000 Equivalent Service Units:
Year 2000 ESU's = 0.9 x (# of Households) + 0.4 x (# of Employees)
Therefore, the projection for the Year 2000, is:
Total Projected Households in 2000 = 11,515
Total Projected Employment in 2000 = 29,491
Year 2000 ESU's = 0.9 x (11,515) + 0.4 x (29,491) = 22,160
Net Gain in ESU's (1990 to 2000) = 22,160 - 8,926 = 13,234
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 an-
nual basis and the ESU formula updated to insure that the impact fees adequately recapture
the capital costs.
Allowable Impact Fee
The maximum allowable impact fee is determined by dividing the total recoverable capital ex-
penses by the projected growth in equivalent service units. Therefore, the calculated maxi-
mum wastewater impact fee for the City of Coppell is:
Maximum Impact Fee = $6,279,312 / 13,234 = $474 per Equivalent Service Unit
19
TABLE 8
WASTEWATER LINE COSTS IN 1990 DOLLARS
Pipe Diameter Cost Per Linear Foot*
(in)
8 $30
12 $40
15 $45
18 $50
24 $80
30 $90
36 $120
48 $160
* These costs include all pipe, fittings, miscellaneous appurtenances, construction, trench
safety, inspection, and testing.
TABLE 9
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 Texas Rural Water Association Recommended Meter Equivalents, based on AWWA
Specifications and Design Criteria.
21
TABLE 11
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
NCTCOG Households Employment
District 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
257 0 0 0 0 828 1,380
258 0 125 250 0 46 77
259 0 50 200 88 935 1,500
260 1,400 2,500 4,550 32 256 405
261 0 0 0 0 1,440 2,400
262 0 0 0 239 396 500
263 50 0 0 110 3,460 5,694
264 0 0 0 18 2,715 4,513
265 0 0 0 202 819 1,231
266 36 30 50 0 270 450
267 7 250 450 0 1,595 2,658
268 * 750 1,200 2,500 37 176 269
269 2,300 2,900 3,200 64 488 770
270 5 350 500 0 0 0
271 20 10 0 0 708 1,180
272 20 10 0 146 1,678 2,700
273 140 350 500 64 503 795
274 3 10 15 40 220 340
275 * 0 0 0 32 76 105
276 0 0 0 0 576 960
278 0 0 0 0 276 460
279 0 0 0 0 1,290 2.150
280 20 200 450 0 720 1,200
281 0 0 0 0 741 1,235
282 0 0 0 0 924 1,540
283 0 0 0 0 288 480
284 9 300 380 9 34 50
285 200 200 300 9 254 417
286 600 750 900 50 200 300
287 250 270 270 221 280 320
288 3 0 0 410 809 1,075
289 2 0 0 188 138 105
290 201 300 350 0 432 720
291 450 500 550 0 42 70
292 5 0 0 113 90 75
294 10 0 0 0 2,757 4,595
300 * 0 1,000 1,500 0 1,662 2,770
301 * 6 0 0 12 155 250
302 * 0 0 0 0 600 1,00t3
304 * 12 85 30 0 222 370
305 * 0 0 0 0 318 530
314 * 6 125 178 0 60 100
559 0 0 0 0 14 23
Totals 6,505 11,515 17,123 2,084 29,491 47,762
· Only portion of district within the City Limits of Coppell listed.
23
APPENDIX A
Employment Factor
The calculated employment factor is 0.7959 ESU/Employee. This represents one ESU for
every 1.256 employees in the City. We believe this factor may not accurately represent the
City of Coppell workforce in the year 2000. It is our opinion that the figure may be inflated
due to the possible oversizing of water meters for some existing business customers.
Industry standards estimate that a typical office worker will use 20-30 gallons per day of
water. Industrial and other service industries can raise the projected total demand to
approximately 40 gallons/day/employee. With an average residential consumption of
approximately 160 gallons/day, a ratio of up to 4 employees to 1 resident can be justified.
The current calculated ratio (employee/ESU: residentfESU) for the City of Coppell is 0.56
employees per resident. On an ESU basis, the employee/ESU ratio should increase to the
range of 2.0 to 3.33 by the Year 2000. If the growth occurs as projected in the officeflight
industrial/retail sectors, the corresponding employment factor should drop. The following
table indicates the effect of the ratio on the employment factor:
Emp./ESU Factor
1.256 0.7959 ............Current
1.667 0.6000
2.00 0.5000
2.50 0.4000 ............Proposed Year 2000
3.00 0.3333
3.33 0.3000
4.00 0.2500
Effect On Impact Fees
Selecting an appropriate factor is essential to the calculation of the impact fee. Even if the
projected growth occurs, if either the population or employment factor is to high, the total
projected ESU's in the system will be too high. An overstatement of the total projected
ESU's will result in an impact fee which is too low. The low impact fee can create a problem
when the City must construct facilities which will cost more than has been collected.
Summary
Based on the above discussion, and after consultation with the City of Coppell Planner and
Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, we believe that a conservative impact fee
formula which will best describe the projected Year 2000 Equivalent Service Units is:
Year 2000 ESU's = 0.9 x (# of Households) + 0.4 x (# of Employees)
These factors in the formula will represent a projected Year 2000 residential densitiy of
2.78 residents/ESU and 2.5 EmployeesfESU.
Appendix A 25
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I ~
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I