WA1005-RP120213r
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact
Fee Report
T H V. G T T - O F
COPPELL
February 2012
Prepared for:
City of Coppell
Prepared by:
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
4055 International Plaza, Suite 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76109
(817) 735 -7300
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
FREESE
S%121MICHOLS
Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report
February 2012
fAA)\—
OF T,1 �1
- �,�Q, esmooee.• F.r- ,
i e•e aas s
% e�ifseeeeoaell [.���io���illl•e.00e°J'ii
/ JESSICA L. BROWN /
90098 :fir
oFS � ;CENS�;�•G���
k0
?i rl l0! 201 'Z ---
P�� F Fi l
hie .••° 1
00 a . 9S,
% 0041400 see esoeooeeeeeeAe*e
/ TRICIA H. HATLEY /
•,��•83282ae•,�
�l �'IiOENSE� -' ?-
SS ••eeee••
�1 BONA
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INCFREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
TEXAS REGISTERED TEXAS REGISTERED
ENGINEERING FIRM ENGINEERING FIRM
F -2144 F -2144
CITY OF COPPELL
255 Parkway
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, Texas 75109
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
4055 International Plaza, Suite 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76109
FNI Project Number: CPL11254
MWICHOLS FREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Background ................................................................................................. ............................1
-1
2.0
Land Use Assumptions ......................................................................... ...............................
2 -1
2.1
Service Area .................................................................................... ...............................
2 -1
2.2
Historical Population ...................................................................... ...............................
2 -3
2.3
Projected Population ...................................................................... ...............................
2 -3
2.4
Land Use ......................................................................................... ...............................
2 -4
3.0
Capital Improvements Plan ................................................................ ...............................
3 -1
3.1
Water and Wastewater Load Projections ...................................... ...............................
3 -1
3.2
Water and Wastewater System Improvements ............................. ...............................
3 -3
4.0
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis ................................ ...............................
4 -1
4.1
Service Units ................................................................................... ...............................
4 -1
4.2
Maximum Impact Fee Calculations ................................................ ...............................
4 -3
5.0
Roadway Impact Fee Analysis ........................................................... ...............................
5 -1
5.1
Methodology ..................................................................................... ............................5
-1
5.2
Roadway Impact Fee Service Area ................................................. ...............................
5 -2
5.3
Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions ................................. ...............................
5 -3
5.4
Establishment of the Roadway Capital Improvement Plan ........... ...............................
5 -3
5.5
Roadway Level of Service ............................................................... ...............................
5 -4
5.6
Roadway Impact Fee Service Units ................................................ ...............................
5 -5
5.7
Roadway Existing Conditions Analysis ........................................... ...............................
5 -6
5.8
Existing Conditions Analysis ........................................................... ...............................
5 -7
5.8.1
Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................... ...............................
5 -7
5.8.2
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Capacity (Supply) ............................ ...............................
5 -8
5.8.3
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand .......................................... ...............................
5 -8
5.8.4
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity or Deficiencies ...... ...............................
5 -9
5.9
Calculating Impact Fees .................................................................. ...............................
5 -9
5.9.1 Trip Generation ..................................................................... ............................... 5
-10
5.9.2 Trip Length ............................................................................ ............................... 5
-11
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
FREESE
910012MICHOLS
5.9.3 Projected Growth and Vehicle -Miles of New Demand ......... ............................... 5 -12
5.9.4 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) .......................................... ............................... 5 -12
5.9.5 Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity Provided .............................. ............................... 5 -16
5.9.6 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand on Impact Fee CIP Roadways ........................5 -16
5.9.7 Maximum Cost per Service Unit ........................................... ............................... 5 -16
5.9.8 Land Use/ Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table .......................... ............................... 5 -17
5.10 Calculating Impact Fees ............................................................ ............................... 5 -19
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
FREESE
FINNICHOLS
City of Coppell
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2 -1
Historical Population ...............................................................
............................... 2 -3
Table 2 -2
Water and Wastewater Population Projections .....................
............................... 2 -3
Table 2 -3
Non - residential Acreage .........................................................
............................... 2 -4
Table 3 -1
Water Design Criteria .............................................................. ............................... 3 -1
Table 3 -2
Wastewater Design Criteria .................................................... ............................... 3 -1
Table 3 -3
Projected Water Demands ...................................................... ............................... 3 -2
Table 3 -4
Projected Wastewater Flows .................................................. ............................... 3 -2
Table 3 -5
Water System Impact Fee Eligible Projects ............................ ............................... 3 -4
Table 3 -6
Wastewater System Impact Fee Eligible Projects ................... ............................... 3 -5
Table 4 -1
Service Unit Equivalencies ...................................................... ............................... 4 -2
Table 4 -2
Water and Wastewater Service Units ..................................... ............................... 4 -2
Table 5 -1
Increase in Developed Acreages for Years 2011 to 2021
....... ............................... 5 -3
Table 5 -2
Roadway Facility Vehicle -Mile Capacities ...............................
............................... 5 -5
Table 5 -3
Existing Excess Capacity and Demand ....................................
............................... 5 -9
Table 5 -4
Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies ...............................
............................... 5 -9
Table 5 -5
Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand .............................
............................... 5 -12
Table 5 -6
Summary of Roadway Cost ...................................................
............................... 5 -14
Table 5 -7
Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity ( Supply) ...............
............................... 5 -16
Table 5 -8
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways ............
............................... 5 -16
Table 5 -9
Cost Per Service Unit Calculation ..........................................
............................... 5 -17
Table 5 -10 Land -Use Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table ........................... ............................... 5 -18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure2 -1 Service Area ............................................................................ ............................... 2 -2
Figure2 -2 Existing Land Use .................................................................... ............................... 2 -5
Figure 2 -3 Existing Commercial Acres ...................................................... ............................... 2 -6
Figure2 -4 Future Land Use ...................................................................... ............................... 2 -7
Figure 2 -5 Future Commercial Acres ........................................................ ............................... 2 -8
Figure 2 -6 Population and Non - residential Acreage by Traffic Survey Zones ........................ 2 -9
Figure 3 -1 Water System Impact Fee Capital Improvements .................. ............................... 3 -6
Figure 3 -2 Wastewater System Impact Fee Capital Improvements ........ ............................... 3 -7
Figure 5 -1 Roadway Impact Fee CIP ....................................................... ............................... 5 -15
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
APPENDICES
Appendix A Water System Project Cost Estimates
Appendix B Impact Fee Comparisons
Appendix C Existing Roadway Inventory
910111MICHOLS
Appendix D Existing Roadway Capacity, Demand, Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
Appendix E Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand
Appendix F Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Appendix G Roadway Improvements Plan Project CIP Service Units of Supply
Appendix H Land Use Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table
li
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
1.0 BACKGROUND
910111MICHOLS
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires an impact fee analysis before impact
fees can be created and assessed. Chapter 395 defines an impact fee as "a charge or
assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate
revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions
necessitated by and attributable to the new development." In September 2001, Senate Bill 243
amended Chapter 395 thus creating the current procedure for implementing impact fees.
Chapter 395 identifies the following items as impact fee eligible costs:
• Construction contract price
• Surveying and engineering fees
• Land acquisition costs
• Fees paid to the consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan
(CIP)
• Projected interest charges and other finance costs for projects identified in the CIP
Chapter 395 also identifies items that impact fees cannot used to pay for, such as:
• Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than those
identified on the capital improvements plan
• Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements
• Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to
serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental, or regulatory standards
• Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to
provide better service to existing development
• Administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision
1 -1
rmFREESE .,
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report l.,CHOLS
City of Coppell
• Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other
indebtedness, except as allowed above
In April 2011, the City of Coppell, Texas, authorized Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) to perform an
impact fee analysis on the City's water and wastewater systems. The purpose of this report is
to address the methodology used in the development and calculation of water, wastewater and
roadway impact fees for the City of Coppell. Chapter 395 requires that land use assumptions
and CIP be updated at least every five years or a notice of determination to not update land use
assumptions, CIP or impact fees must be issued. The impact fees are being updated due to the
revised 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The methodology used herein satisfies the
requirements of the Texas Local Government Code Section 395 for the establishment of water,
wastewater and roadway impact fees.
The following table provides a list of abbreviations used in this report.
Abbreviation
Full Nomenclature
AWWA
American Water Works
CIP
Capital Improvements Plan
FNI
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
NCTCOG
North Central Texas Council of Government
TSZ
Traffic Survey Zone
1 -2
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
IrINICKHOLS I
Population and land use are important elements in the analysis of water and wastewater
systems. Water demands and wastewater flows depend on the residential population and
commercial development served by the systems and determines the sizing and location of
system infrastructure. A thorough analysis of historical and projected populations, along with
land use, provides the basis for projecting future water demands and wastewater flows.
2.1 Service Area
The service area for Coppell's water and wastewater systems is defined as the city limits.
Figure 2 -1 illustrates the service area.
2 -1
U
2
U -°�
71
sue/
1
8^
po
FIGURE 3 -2
CITY OF COPPELL
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
LEGEND
Existing Eligible Impact Fee is Existing Eliible Lift Station
Wastewater Lines
Existing Eligible Impact Fee ® Meter Station
Force Mains
Manhole
8" and Smaller Wastewater Line
Streets
10" and Larger Wastewater Line
Parcel
Force Main i- - - - - -,
1 City Limits
Lake
IrINININKHOLS
CmdWi Roo" OW WWK Inc.
Nh NO.: ICK1'"41
L .. H:1W M2y NNING%O EMBLE$kWORMNGVSWm-11_EvNO�W _GW m.m30
UM.W W.n ®E9y, 1W 19, 3011
1f
10•' 10"
i m ,_ y
6
15 °' 15" 15"
i"
m
8"
v.
m
e, r
m.
w
m �I�
_ 1� 2" �
Sandy Lake Lift Statio n L
10.. Firm Capacity 4.2 MGD
�
�
N L5
811 _ IB t➢s
a„ "a
s
C o c 0
101• e. •\
all
b
6" 20 "° F.M.
N
8" 8" ro
m, q� 8'
YX
va
cpm"
r c
m
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
WMFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report INICHOLS
City of Coppell
2.2 Historical Population
The City of Coppell provided yearly population data from 2000 through 2010. The data
indicated an average growth rate of about 1% annual growth over the last 11 years. Table 2 -1
presents the historical populations for the City of Coppell.
Table 2 -1 Historical Population
Year
Population
Population Growth
Growth Rate
2000 36,051
2001 36,867
2002 _37,683
2003 38,499
2004 f _38,650
2005 38,900
2006 39,200
2007 39,350
2008 39,565
2009 39,655
2010 39,750
Average -
-
-
816
2.3%
816
2.2%
816
2.2%
151
0.4%
250
300
150
215
90
0.6%
0.8%
0.4%
0.5%
0.2%
0.2%
95
370
1.0%
2.3 Projected Population
Population projections were developed based on data provided by City staff. FNI developed
initial population projections using geocoded billing data and existing and projected land use.
The City provided comments on the location of planned development and additional detail
about the existing land use. Table 2 -2 presents the population projections for the City of
Coppell water and wastewater service area. Figure 2 -2 shows the population projections by
traffic survey zone (TSZ).
Table 2 -2 Water and Wastewater Population Projections
2 -3
Average Annual
Population
Average Annual
Year
Population
Growth
Growth Rate
2011
39,913
-
-
2021
41,632
172
0.4%
2 -3
rMFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report MICHOLS
City of Coppell
The projected growth in population is slightly less than the historical average due to the recent
slowdown of development and the natural slowdown in growth as the City approaches
buildout.
2.4 Land Use
The City provided an existing land use shapefile, which included the current zoning. A map of
the future land use was also provided by the City. In order to capture growth related to
commercial, retail, office, institutional, and industrial development, a commercial acreage for
each planning period was developed. The existing land use data was used to calculate the 2011
commercial acreage and the future land use data was used to calculate the 2021 commercial
acreage. The existing commercial acreage includes: developed nonresidential and
public /institutional. The future commercial acreage includes: mixed use community center, old
Coppell historic district, mixed use neighborhood center, freeway special district, commercial,
institutional, and industrial special district. Figure 2 -2 displays the existing land use, and Figure
2 -3 displays the existing commercial acres. Figure 2 -4 displays the future land use, and Figure
2 -5 displays the future commercial acres. Table 2 -3 and Figure 2 -6 present the non - residential
acreage by planning year for the water and wastewater service area.
Table 2 -3 Non - residential Acreage
Year
Acres
Growth in
Acres
2011
2,269
-
2021
3,243
974
2 -4
sl
I 9
R
FIGURE 2 -2
CITY OF COPPELL
EXISTING LAND USE
EXISTING LAND USE
Developed Nonresidential _ Easement
Undeveloped Nonresidential Public/Institutional
Developed Residential Parks Open Space
Undeveloped Residential Railroad
FREESE
n OMMOLS
0 1,200 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
- -1
4
N
o zoo 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
retl am o,
/
o
,
I
v +
c
n
\
I
YH
` f ca vo
z
t M mod'• v
�.
se an o
�� \ e v
= u
?4
BreK
tlB,
"
c �
v
"
v
m
E p
o
r
I'
II
e
0
a
.,v
II
w
'
e
d'
e
+ �aaraaw•Bn° .
o. -- _. v
!�, ci
a.. ...,<, B.e..na n,o d,
E
4
N
o zoo 2,400
SCALE IN FEET
i
FIGURE 2 -4
CITY OF COPPELL
FUTURE LAND USE
FUTURE LAND USE
Park and Open Space . Freeway Special District
Residential Neighborhood Commercial
. Urban Residential Neighborhood Instititional
�- Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Industrial Special District
Old Coppell Historic District Easement
- Mixed Use Community Center Railroad
r� NKHOLS
0
I r �
T
■
i
N
1,200 2.400
SCALE IN FEET
.aaaaaxaa®
saaagaaaaaa�
�eaxuusiv�e
1pitttilN€
tHMlfSflt if
ts�Haefn ar
FIGURE 2 -4
CITY OF COPPELL
FUTURE LAND USE
FUTURE LAND USE
Park and Open Space . Freeway Special District
Residential Neighborhood Commercial
. Urban Residential Neighborhood Instititional
�- Mixed Use Neighborhood Center Industrial Special District
Old Coppell Historic District Easement
- Mixed Use Community Center Railroad
r� NKHOLS
0
I r �
T
■
i
N
1,200 2.400
SCALE IN FEET
i
,
r- -- -----------
-_
- - - - -- -- -
L--- - - - - -- - -- i
- i
I
i
FIGURE 2 -5
CITY OF COPPELL
FUTURE LAND USE N
�" Commercial Q Cityl-imit \\ I
Other Parcel
I
The future commercial acreage includes:
mixed use community center, old Coppell historic district, a I
FREESE mixed use neighborhood center, freeway special district, I o 1,200 2400
°NICHOLS commercial, institutional, and industrial special district. __ - - -J
SCALE IN FEET
2445
652 2447
652
2.46 Ac. 162
39.36 Ac. _�
447
ONT 6008 20.94 Ac.
U s 24.32 Ac.
6
Lk 6
40321 6006 2.97 Ac. w, 16.6 c.
p 338 13.1 A`c. 21.93 Ac.
0 341 40211
54.83 Ac. 4.70 Ac. 1,932
82.96 Ac. _ 9.95 Ac. 1,969
1.43 Ac.
6009 1.41 Ac.
a aEA� oa
w
3,191 - .. -,•, <<
y
9
30174 3,191 °
_ 2,180 34.80 Ac.
2,253 33.56 Ac. _
" ,.. 0.36 Ac. _
0.26 Ac.
6003 -
0
0
85.74 Ac.
289.78 Ac. -
- 6082
- 30173 6078 2,471 ,
1,227 '� 1,973 6080 2,483 1,62 629
1,973 2,514 30.38 Ac. 1,996
1,305
101.50 Ac. 5 1,9 Ac. 2,596 40.68 Ac. 29.68 Ac.
9062 105.96 Ac. 56.94 Ac. 32.63 Ac.
0 40.43 Ac.
0
0.00 a
0 .
6074
0 6076 \
0 1,433
063 218.01 Ac. 1,433
0 266.34 Ac. 56.91 Ac.
54.40 Ac. 6079 _
0 3,080
11 A
80 c. 3,165
20.68 Ac. 48.08 Ac.
6077 55.42 Ac. 6081 -
3,616 1,715 6083
3,857 1,718 3,592
28.67 Ac. 2.89 Ac. 3,592
40.42 Ac. 5.24 Ac. 47.60 Ac. 6084
5 065
1 6075 48.00 Ac.
41 5,065
j 41 64.85 Ac.
284.24 Ac. 45.49 Ac.
388.16 Ac.
T
6152 OWO
/// 1,262
1,346
6151 99.07 Ac.
6150 531 121.11 Ac.
0 628
0 - 48.63 Ac.
153.35 Ac. 84.74 Ac. a
302.44 Ac.
6238
103
40061 6234
0 0 129.59 .59
Ac.
0 0 221.40 Ac.
1.53 Ac. 86.26 Ac. -
54.36 Ac.
122.23 Ac.
6236
0
FIGURE 2 -6 0
0.00 Ac.
CITY OF COPPELL 000 Ac \
6235
POPULATION AND o �-
NON - RESIDENTIAL ACRES BY TSZ 411.40 Ac.
557.26 Ac.
LEGEND 62 .7
TSZ Boundaries 0,
TSZ ID o.00 Ac.
Streets 2011 Population N 0.00 Ac.
Parcel 2021 Population 40236
2011 Comm. Acres 0
City Limits 2021 Comm. Arces 0
i .37 Ac.
Lake Pi .
0 1,200 2,400
�� FREESE
■ _ ,■ MICHOLS SCALE IN FEET
D
40338
1,200
1,472
42.15 Ac.
39.26 Ac.
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
3.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
r � NIMLS
An impact fee capital improvements plan (CIP) was developed for the City of Coppell to ensure
high quality water and wastewater service that promotes residential and commercial
development. The recommended improvements will provide the required capacity and
reliability to meet projected water demands and wastewater flows through year 2021.
3.1 Water and Wastewater Load Projections
The population and land use data was used to develop future water demands and wastewater
flows based on a projected average day per capita use and peaking factors. Based on historical
water usage and wastewater flows, design criteria were developed. The design criteria for
water and wastewater are presented in Table 3 -1 and Table 3 -2, respectively. Table 3 -3
presents the projected water demands. Table 3 -4 presents the projected wastewater flows for
the City of Coppell.
Table 3 -1 Water Design Criteria
Table 3 -2 Wastewater Design Criteria
Average
Maximum
Peak
Average
Day
Day to
Hour to
Average
Commercial
Average
Maximum
Residential
Water
Day
Day
Usage
Usage
Peaking
Peaking
(gpcd)
(gpd /acre)
Factor
Factor
140
2,000
2
2
Table 3 -2 Wastewater Design Criteria
3 -1
Peak Wet
Average
Average
Weather
Daily
Daily
to Average
Residential
Commercial
Daily
Loading
Loading
Peaking
(gpcd)
(gpd /acre)
Factor
75
700
4
3 -1
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Table 3 -3 Projected Water Demands
r BNKNOLS
Table 3 -4 Projected Wastewater Flows
Average Day
Maximum Day
Peak Hour
Daily Flow
Demand
Demand
Demand
Year
MGD )
(MGD)
(MGD
2011
10.1
20.3
40.5
2021
12.3
24.6
49.3
Table 3 -4 Projected Wastewater Flows
3 -2
Average Annual
Peak Wet
Daily Flow
Weather Flow
Year
(MGD )
(MGD
2011
4.58
18.33
2021
5.39
21.57
3 -2
rMNNICHOLS FREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
3.2 Water and Wastewater System Improvements
FNI updated the existing water and wastewater models in H2OMap Water and H2OMap Sewer.
The water demands and wastewater loadings were redistributed based on the revised land use
assumptions. FNI developed proposed water and wastewater system improvements based on
the results of the hydraulic models. The City of Coppell is approaching buildout and the existing
water and wastewater systems are appropriately sized to meet future demands and loads. The
cost for the project required for the 10 -year growth period used in the impact fee analysis for
both the water systems is shown in Table 3 -5. Costs listed for the existing projects are based on
actual design and construction costs provided by the City. Detailed cost estimate for the
proposed water system project is included in Appendix A. Tables 3 -5 and 3 -6 show 2011
percent utilization as the portion of a project's capacity required to serve existing development.
It is not included in the impact fee analysis. The 2021 percent utilization is the portion of the
project's capacity that will be required to serve the City of Coppell in 2021. The 2011 -2021
percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity required to serve development from
2011 to 2021. The portion of a project's total cost that is used to serve development projected
to occur from 2011 through 2021 is calculated as the total actual cost multiplied by the 2011-
2021 percent utilization. Only this portion of the cost is used in the impact fee analysis. The
10 -year water system projects are shown on Figure 3 -1. The 10 -year wastewater projects are
shown on Figure 3 -2.
3 -3
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Table 3 -5 Water System Impact Fee Eligible Projects
IrIINKHOLS I
3 -4
Percent Utilization
Cost Based on 2011 Dollars
2011-
Current
10 -Year
Beyond
No.
Description of Project
2011*
2021
2021
Capital Cost
Development
(2011 -2021)
2021
EXISTING PROJECTS
24 -inch Sandy Lake Road and Coppell Road water
A line from Denton Tap Road to Wagon Wheel EST 65% 100%
35% $985,030 $640,270 $344,761 $0
12 -inch water line along Ruby Road from Royal Lane 90% 100%
10%
$324,480
$292,032
$32,448
$0
B to Coppell Road
12 -inch water line along western edge of City from
80%
100%
20%
$526,320
$421,056
$105,264
$0
C
Northpoint Drive to Gateview Drive
D Wagon Wheel 2.0 MG EST
50%
75%
25%
$2,786,990
$1,393,495
$696,748
$696,748
E Village Parkway Pump 46
20%
100%
80%
$273,607
$54,721
$218,886
$0
30 -inch Sandy Lake Road water line from MacArthur
80%
100%
20%
$1,862,720
$1,490,176
$372,544
$0
F
Blvd. to Denton Tap Road
16 -inch water line from Bethel Road to Airline Drive
65%
100%
35%
$804,708
$523,060
$281,648
$0
G
along Denton Tap
12 -inch SH 121 water line from Coppell Road to
90%
100%
10%
$615,109
$553,598
$61,511
$0
H
Denton Tap
12 -inch water line along Belt Line Road and west
along Dividend from the existing 12 -inch water line
10%
90% °
°
80%
$950,040
$95,004
$760,032
$95,004
of Lakeshore Drive to the existing 12 -inch water line
at Freeport Parkway
J I
Impact Fee Study
0%
100%
1 100%
$40,000
$0
$40,000
$0
Existing Project Sub -total
$9,169,003
$5,463,412
$2,913,840
$791,752
PROPOSED PROJECTS
Replacement of existing 12 -inch with a 20 -inch
1
water line from the Southwestern Elevated Storage
40%
90%
50%
$1,134,660
$453,864
$567,330
$113,466
Tank
Proposed Project Sub -total $1,134,660 $453,864 $567,330
$113,466
} .r a
Total Cost $10,303,663 $5,917,276 $3,481,170
$905,218
* Utilization in 2011 on Proposed Projects indicates a portion of the project that will be used to address deficiencies within the existing system, and therefore
are not eligible for impact fee cost recovery for future growth.
3 -4
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Table 3 -6 Wastewater System Impact Fee Eligible Projects
IrIINKHOLS E
No.
Description of Project
Percent Utilization
Cost Based on 2011 Dollars
2011*
2021
2011-
2021
Capital Cost
Current
Development
10 -Year
(2011 -2021)
Beyond
2021
EXISTING PROJECTS
A Existing 30 -inch forcemain in Basin C 80% 100% 20% $1,164,000 $931,200 $232,800 $0
B
Existing 24 -inch gravity line in Basin A
90%
85%
100%
100%
10%
15%
$1,476,000
$357,600
$1,328,400
$303,960
$147,600
$53,640
$0
$0
$0
C_
D
E
F
G
H
J
Existing 21 -inch gravity line in Basin A
Existing 18 -inch gravity line in Basin A
85%
85%
100%
1 100%
15%
15%
$321,600
$428,400
$273,360
$364,140
$268,200
$48,240
$64,260
$89,400
$187,950
$156,870
Existing 15 -inch gravity line in Basin A
Existing 21 -inch gravity line in Basin B
Existing 27 -inch gravity line in Basin B
Existing 15/24 -inch gravity line in Basin E
Existing 30 -inch gravity line in Basin C and E
Saint Joseph 30 -inch forcemain (discharge from
Deforest PS)
$0
75%
100%
1 25%
$357,600
$0
75%
100%
25%
$751,800
$563,850
$0
80%
95%
15%
$1,045,800
$2,263,200
$2,312,041
$836,640
$1,697,400
$1,618,429
$52,290
75%
95%
20%
$452,640
$113,160
70%
100%
30%
$693,612
$0
K
Existing 20 -inch forcemain from Sandy Lake Lift
Station
75%
100%
25%
$1,172,750
$879,563
$293,188
$0
L
}
M I
�Upsize Deforest and Sandy Lake Lift Stations
Impact Fee Study
70%
100%
30%
$2,611,742
$1,828,219
$783,522
$0
0%
100%
100%
$40,000
$0
$40,000
$0
Existing Project Sub -total
$14,302,533
$10,893,360
$165,450
__$3,2.43_,_7_2_2_
Total Cost $14,302,533 $10,893,360 $3, 243,722 $165,450
* Utilization in 2011 on Proposed Projects indicates a portion of the project that will be used to address deficiencies within the existing system, and therefore
are not eligible for impact fee cost recovery for future growth.
3 -5
I
N 16" 16" 16" 16" si[I,,,"
r
m
i
I
io
io
I
m
J
of e
f3Y
FIGURE 3 -1
CITY Oj� 7, k1_711OPPELL
WATER IMPACT FEE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
LEGEND
Existing Elevated Storage Tank 8" and Smaller Water Line
Existing Eligible Impact Fee 10" and Larger Water Line
Elevated Storage Tank
0 Existing Ground Storage Tank Streets
PS Existing Pump Station Lake
Un-] Existing Eligible Impact Fee Parcel
Pump Station
Existing Eligible — ___ i City Limits
V Impact Fee Water Line
Proposed Eligible
Impact Fee Water Line
r FREESE
?NICHOLS
Created by Freese aid Nichols, Inc.
Job No.: [CPL712541
Location: N:1W WW_ PLANNINGIOEUVERABLES 1WORIUNQ(Figu 1)46tel Syalsmmld
Updated: We dnesday, July 13, 2011
/12 12l'
mW O
ys
8• o"
00 CP
co
l
s
8" B"
i
w
8"
8"
C11, ,
C9n
8"
i0
m
c � ca,
1p"
Be
1 co
01, 'r' <oul i B.
c➢,
8^ 8"
a 1�
8" S"
g
Im 8^ g"
0 ro \
21 vniage varKway t-* 8„ 6.0 MG GST
4.0 MG GST
rs
41.0 MGD Firm Capaci #y,
O
16" ;l
8" e ry 12r1 12" 12" l .
CP
O
8" 8" 8•
0 gyp,
8" CO, ]
N �I
N
8"
I
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
z
--------------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- — - - --
�' m I
m
i 11 Lake Vista isl
✓ 1 _ —
„ g
I
r 15
,
vi,. 10"
S lla 8
;0 a , (P y
8' ,'
go-
, 1
�}
io
r
R- dYnF? o � �
�3My 21 4
c1 49 CK
> m 8• j - N SH 121 $ V'S M1'ti ggMC" 8• 8" fi m :°LL .. �.y a-; \
i? \ 81 $" °
co � S" O z
d`o
CP. w> `moo � Frl %
, m ` - Deforest Lift Station 10�� 6" /
� 1r, 1 ti rye` Firm Capacity 14.1 MGD
8" $ a^ _ "
1211 10' 244 O,, 8,.
S"
\•. �� �..
CO
10"
_ � -0 ,
p
Co. ,
15.. 15° >, io ,
S Ot // � w
IS.
ck _ a
8" ;D 01. o;
d° 8 aj ;Do 8 0? vz 8. 8" @" !�•• Q,,F 6>
0 �A y> 1° CP
Nt -
;0
� ;0 d>
21 " j m 8• s• e
11 C0 /
1 e
2 r �y A
00� �� �� 8• �^ 21� ao --0 a 8 �:' 8 r M1 8` 8^ \ s" 6• 8. is o-'Z ao g Q" 10" '7 m ;
1 8"
a•
_ »
m cO a" 6" s" 8" 6 r ....��._ �, m s• 8> g
011- 10 10 c e^ s" a a" 6• 6•
1t co
m > 8" r a0 r - �• n
,o
L
»
/ io » " ^ e• 11 8 On 14° 1� io 8 C 11 n 711 I,
6.. 1u N 1 - co s• N 2 Fr 2 2
/ w 8 8 co 8, 14> m 6" 8,. 8.1 6 8" 8• o g lo
00 ' 6` m 6" a0 '° ��' 6" c0 8, 10" 10" m 6" 6• O
6" 6" 6" .M . 6 o s 8" 8 r 8» 6" 4" 8" n[ 8" 8" 8" °D o ►�0 W \ .
8• 8" 8, 4" 8,
_ " D C
4 / 6 8" 8" 8 8, 8" 8.. 6` '
<' 60 0D oo 00 uo 8 8" �� Qo 6., g ro
I. Tm \
io
r
_ = a^
6 = - - %— m 8" m - 8 co
4" 8" 8, °° °° 6 g g• g" 00 8" 8
„ 6, c0 m
"
8" 8
"
s> 10 / M , eo °° °° c0 io > io m °° oo io 8" S m 8" 8, 7> 8, 8" _ °°
8" i
a0 8" W 87
/ eo d0 a" 8" io i0 `° ao co m_ ao 8" co io �� \
8" _
j e a" 8" �, 00 h 8" 8" 8" r .. °° A,:, 6" 8^ a" '� 10° 12" s^ 6" Sand Lake Lift Station `
j 8" _6• 8" 8• 10 i 6 8„ 8" 8" 8" 8" 8" N y -
;0 o.. Do 4• a m $. 6" 6" a" 10.1 1011 10'• Firm Capacity 4.2 MGD
C { 1 m $'' t =� 8" 8" d 8":. w ao an � °0 ro a ao - N lg a
90 u0 m
m _ _ 00 8" co ;, a0 co �' 101, 10.1 8"
6" s" 1`4 ,, = a io 8•. O0 8" J a, 8" m 6" co 6, 6" 0 8" iff d>
J 8"
t ^
6" „ �-J ao " �� 8 g•• 0 8• oa 6" to 6" 6" 00 C ao 6 00
" » ,
�� " E 1 5 '6 8" 8" & 8 9 8 6- 60 8" _ g • > 6" » � b ao CF, a 8. 8„ ;
W CPI
d
m _ _ ro °0 90 `° io 8" io: ao 611 6" 6"
6"
S _ _ - ,>
m 8• 8" c0 8" 00 8" ' io 6' `° m 8" °D 6 0 00=
U" = 8" 6" `O 1 v
1 _ _ zo 6 8
o °0 00 8" 8" 8" `°
_ J.
6.. 4 ao m 6• i0 6" > w 8" ° 6" io 4' , 4' 00 0 g"
4 4" - 4" a a0 8" 6 00 $0 8" iD p 6 6" 0 4, ro 10" 6• \
4" �'
8,
h . i0 • 6 ": w 6 > 6" 6" m= 6" 6" 8" 8" _ a0 8•• LL. i \
y: 8" _ A" " `° co 6•• 8" , ; , i0 6> o � c° io a' » �� .. = 6" " � 6 to r s w � M g � �.
9" w_ R 8" 8 8" 6 .. 6 8 s" . 6 0 8 ro 6 e g. 6" ro 8" ° e e 6 �? 8" 0
m 1Q°
j Z. 15 €0 6 °°� 6y 8" L8- � 'b > iu co 6e s" �`'' 101, 8>
1" .
s" " `O
10 °
" g• 6 8• o 00 6"
6• 8• a 'p 6> 20 1 F.M. 6" $
N
- 6�,
r 6.
8^ 8" Creekvlow Dr O 8" 6" Sn 8" 9. 8" 8 g g^ 6. T 6" 8" 8" » 8"
9"
r 8. Do 0 8• 8" ...0 n 11,,,.,: $ �g•.
"
B. 6" 6" _ 8" 6" 6" - e » . 10 C F 6
6> 8 8 .• co 8" io 6" aethe io 811 $ 8" 00 m> M.
_
7
C m
>o � � • 5 J �
B s 8 a d a $ ? s" c» ao 6" ao s s" a 6" 6" _ ° a" _ iO C% � _ 6> d a" a"
� u
'
10..
1
W v 6" 70 C 01 > 6 �� 8" 0 8• 8+ ® 8• ,�;,
o `
i ` 6 8" °D G $o io io .- G d> , ', 6 6" 6" 8p 8" 8» \
J, 1 i4 " 6" iv ' = to
co d> - 6^ " 3
0 �o a" ao �. r- _
n0 N p ro 6" $ �'' O 8^ $ 8" 6 K 8" 12" [ .:12„ \`
" ;01 FD '� 00 ao a- 6" m -6e B> ° J 8" 6" M1
;or ao G 6 • ;0 = 6"
ib » _ ! ' io 10" » a 3o ro 8
r•
8 8' 8" 8 `a0 -- - - - "`.. 6 �O 8" 8 .8" all
'n 8 4" I. r' C - r" Q, FM • 30 '�
"
6 8
/,
15" 15" 1511 �. �; � �a e
8- \
e: 15.. 101. 101. 01. 101 12'• 12' 12" 12" 12'• 24x1 .3Q'r �• 3Q,, �.; 6" \\
3
3i1
Oo
8. . r :.,� ,i �'• ri rr 3 o r r io 4 01. � 8 6"
0 ` g ! \ Meter Station
3 °° w 1n \ rn 33° 33 /1
_ '
" s" " " " dw
;o a 00 s g :. B0 6 e 6 6 s 8" 8" 12" 12
`D °° (J .
C
8 a;
00 to Y m
OD
9" aoi 8 °°
..
I- 12" 12" ' A N a" 8• d c � to
_
r
LO
N
m> iti� r
a" 8 1Z
a _ o
I 6>
j�
a" 10" 10" 10" 1 = r l
.o
- N
! I
i4 1
7v,fYrt fdtlhr 6"
7
10" 10" 10" 10" 10" 10"
10" 10.1 1
_ 18" i
I
! ___.. ..:..... ;
- -- -- ------ -- - - -- - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- —_ \ 6" m
Re
6"
j V
12" 16 12" 12" 12; 12" r
FIGURE 3-2
CITY OF COPPELL
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
LEGEND
Existing Eligible Impact Fee Existing Eliible Lift Station
Wastewater Lines
Existing Eligible Impact Fee Meter Station
Force Mains
Manhole
8" and Smaller Wastewater Line
Streets
10" and Larger Wastewater Line
Parcel
Force Main
L City Limits
Lake
EFREESE
MO QIVICNOLS
Created by Freese and Nmhsk Inc.
Job 140, [CPL11254[
L-SHO' H:IW NMI PLANNINGIDELNERABLESIWORKI" Fpm" -1) F M.9–W.st— d.L.ay"tem.—d
Updated Wednesday JNy 13, 2011
0
0% (r a0 - 12ti
12'" 2••
G if1
N a-
doe u: G Ip
m " 12" !
\\ 101 101' 10" 10"
`\ N
N
`., �
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
s
N
FIGURE 3 -1
CITY OF COPPELL
WATER IMPACT FEE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
LEGEND
Existing Elevated Storage Tank 8" and Smaller Water Line
Existing Eligible Impact Fee 10" and Larger Water Line
Elevated Storage Tank
0 Existing Ground Storage Tank Streets
Ps Existing Pump Station Lake
Existing Eligible Impact Fee Parcel
°S Pump Station _______
i
Existing Eligible City Limits
Impact Fee Water Line
Proposed Eligible
Impact Fee Water Line
I � N1CH0LS
Croy dby Fmew sE Nib s.hw
Job NO.: )CP012%]
bca- H:�MpI NNINGDWVERABLF MRMNti IF® l)�NbN,�SyWm
..d: ..&.d, J.y 13, 2011
Ph
i
1
,-
- - - - - --
-----
- - - - ;
5
yp.. w a.:.. $.
I
i
U�,E
l
%j
m 1
e
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
1
e
0 1,000 2,000
SCALE IN FEET
MFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report OICHOLS
City of Coppell
4.0 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
The impact fee analysis involves determining the utilization of existing and proposed projects
required as defined by the capital improvement plan to serve new development over the next
10 -year time period. For existing or proposed projects, the impact fee is calculated as a
percentage of the project cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity required to
serve development projected to occur between 2011 and 2021. Capacity serving existing
development and development projected for more than 10 years in the future cannot be
charged to impact fees.
4.1 Service Units
The maximum impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of
capital improvements required by the total number of service units attributed to new
development during the impact fee eligibility period. A water service unit is defined as the
service equivalent to a water connection for a single - family residence. The City of Coppell does
not directly meter wastewater flows and bills for wastewater services based on the customer's
water consumption. Therefore, a wastewater service unit is defined as the wastewater service
provided to a customer with a water connection for a single - family residence.
The service associated with public, commercial, and industrial connections is converted into
service units based upon the capacity of the meter used to provide service. The number of
service units required to represent each meter size is based on the safe maximum operating
capacity of the appropriate meter type. The City uses Class I turbine meters. American Water
Works Association (AWWA) standards C701 (Cold Water Meters — Turbine Type) was used to
determine the safe maximum operating capacity. The service unit equivalent for each meter
size used by the City is listed in Table 4 -1.
4 -1
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Table 4 -1 Service Unit Equivalencies
r a NKHOLS
Meter Size
Safe Maximum Operating
Capacity ( m )(1)
Service Unit Equivalent
5/8" x 3/4"
30
1.0
1"
50
1.7
1-1/2"
100
3.3
2"
160
5.3
3"
350
11.7
4"
630
21.0
6"
1,400
46.7
8"
2,400
80.0
(1) Safe maximum operating capacity is based on AWWA standards C701
Typically, in Coppell, single - family residences are served with 5/8 -inch water meters. Larger
meters represent public, commercial, and industrial water use. The City provided data that
included the meter size of each active water meter as of June 2011. Table 4 -2 shows the water
and wastewater service units for 2011 and the projected service units for 2021.
Table 4 -2 Water and Wastewater Service Units
Meter Size
2011
Connections
2011
Service
Units
2021
Connections
2021
Service Units
Growth in
Service Units
5/8" x 3/4"
11,219
11,219
11,702
11,702
483
1"
202
337
211
352
15
1-1/2"
103
343
107
357
14
2"
487
2,597
628
3,349
752
3"
18
210
29
338
128
4"
24
504
30
630
126
6"
3
140
5
233
93
8"
204
16,320
213
17,040
720
Total
12,260
31,670
12,925
34,001
2,331
4 -2
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
4.2 Maximum Impact Fee Calculations
€NKNOLS
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code states that the maximum impact fee may not
exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements required by the
total number of service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility
period less the credit to account for water and wastewater revenues used to finance capital
improvement plans.
The total projected costs include the projected capital improvement costs to serve 10 -year
development, the projected finance cost for the capital improvements, and the consultant cost
for preparing and updating the Capital Improvements Plan. A 4.0% interest rate was used to
calculate financing costs. Comparison graphs showing impact fees in other cities throughout
the Metroplex are presented in Appendix B.
Water Impact Fee:
Total Capital Improvement Costs $3,481,170
Financing Costs $1,157,947
Total Eligible Costs $4,639,117
Growth in Service Units 2,331
Maximum Water Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs /Growth in Service Units
= $4,639,117/2,331
= $1,990 per Service Unit
Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee = Maximum Impact Fee — 50% Credit
= $1,990 - $995
= $995 per Service Unit
4 -3
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Wastewater Impact Fee:
�BNKNOLS
Total Capital Improvement Costs $3,243,722
Financing Costs $1,078,964
Total Eligible Costs $4,322,686
Growth in Service Units 2,331
Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs /Growth in Service Units
= $4,322,686/2,331
= $1,854 per Service Unit
Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee = Maximum Impact Fee — 50% Credit
= $1,854 - $927
= $927 per Service Unit
4 -4
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
5.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
5.1 Methodology
�3NICNOLS
To update the roadway impact fee system, a series of work tasks were undertaken that
included the following:
A roadway conditions inventory of major thoroughfares in Coppell was updated for lane
geometries, roadway classifications and segment lengths. The existing roadway network
was evaluated based on updated traffic volume count information, collected in August
2011, to determine roadway capacity, current utilization, and deficiencies, if present, for
the service area.
Both the AM and PM peak hour movements were analyzed to determine the most critical,
thus the vehicle -mile of travel during the PM peak hour was retained as the appropriate
service unit for measuring capacity and system utilization for the impact fee calculation,
Roadway capacity values were based on data developed by the NCTCOG for level of service
"C /D" operations.
New vehicle -miles of demand were calculated for each service area based on updated land
use assumptions by service area for the program planning period. The land use
equivalency table was used as a basis for deriving projected vehicle -miles from growth
over the ten -year planning period.
An analysis of previous roadway impact fee Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) was
conducted based on updated traffic volume count information to ensure excess capacity
remained in program projects for each service area.
A CIP was prepared based on growth needs from future development (land use
assumptions), other capital improvements programming and City Staff input. Roadway
cost data including construction, engineering and right -of -way for impact fee projects were
prepared and compiled by service area based on cost estimates and data provided by the
City. For recently completed projects, actual costs were incorporated into the system
database.
5 -1
COINKHOLS E
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
• The cost of capacity supplied, cost attributable to new development and the maximum
cost per service unit was calculated for each service area. A credit of 50% was applied to
the overall cost of the capital improvements program for the identification of the
maximum allowable cost per service unit consideration.
• The Land Use Equivalency Table (service unit generation for specific land use categories)
was updated to incorporate new trip rate and trip length data. Trip rate data was obtained
from Trip Generation, Eighth Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip
length statistics for the city were obtained from a workplace survey conducted by the
NCTCOG.
• Example fee calculations were prepared based upon sample land uses, associated service
unit equivalencies, and the maximum allowable cost per service unit.
This section documents the procedures, findings, and conclusions of the study.
5.2 Roadway Impact Fee Service Area
Chapter 395 requires that service areas be defined for impact fees to ensure that facility
improvements are located in proximity to the area that is generating the need. Legislative
requirements stipulate that roadway service areas be limited to a six mile maximum and must
be located within the current city limits. Roadway service areas are different from other impact
fee service areas, which can extend beyond the city limits and include its Extra Territorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) or other defined area of service. This is primarily because roadway systems
are "open" to both local and regional use as opposed to a defined limit of service that is
provided with water and wastewater systems. For roadways, the result is that new
development can only be assessed an impact fee based on the cost of necessary capital
improvements within that service area.
No changes were made to the service area structure and is illustrated in Figure 2 -1
5 -2
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
5.3 Roadway Impact Fee Land Use Assumptions
ININICHOLS N
Land use assumptions serve as the basis from which travel demands are developed over the
planning period. For this system update, service unit generation (future growth) was based on
the net population and employment growth as identified in the "Land Use Assumptions for
Impact Fees" report prepared by the City and discussed as part of Chapter 2.
For roadways, both population and employment data are necessary for the determination of
both residential and non - residential traffic (vehicle - miles) over the planning period. Derived
demographic data, in conjunction with service unit generation from the land use equivalency
table, formed the basis for ten -year growth estimates. Table 5 -1 details the breakout of the
increase in Developed Acreages within the service area.
5.4
Table 5 -1 Increase in Developed Acreages for Years 2011 to 2021
Land Use
Acres
Commercial
Commercial /Office /Retail
170
Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
595
Light Industrial
209
Public Institutional
0
Residential
Residential High Density (16 units per acre)
0
Residential Medium Density (4 units per acre)
478
Residential Low Density (2 units per acre)
0
Parks and Open Space
279
Total
1,731
Establishment of the Roadway Capital Improvement Plan
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies the requirements necessary to
prepare a capital improvements plan. These requirements include:
5 -3
MFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report INICNOLS
City of Coppell
• A description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the cost to
upgrade, update, improve, expand or replace the improvements to meet existing needs
and usage
• An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of
capacity of the existing capital improvements
• A description of all or the parts of the capital improvements and their costs necessitated by
and attributable to new development in the service area based on approved land use
assumptions
• A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation, or discharge of service unit for each category of capital improvements and an
equivalency table establishing the ratio of the service unit to various types of land uses,
including residential, office, retail /commercial, light industrial, and institutional.
• The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions
• The projected demand for capital improvements required by the new service units
projected over a reasonable period of time
• A plan for awarding a credit for the portion of the ad valorem tax generated by new service
units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, or a credit
equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements
plan
The plan must contain two distinct components: analysis of existing conditions and analysis of
projected conditions. To analyze these components two measures of performance must be
established, they are: level -of- service and service units.
5.5 Roadway Level of Service
Level -of- Service (LOS) is a term used in traffic engineering to describe the performance of the
roadway system. Roadway level -of- service is the basic design criterion used in thoroughfare
5 -4
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
910 ��NICHOLS
planning. The design level -of- service determines the capacity for which the roadway is
intended. Level -of- service is rated from "A" to "F". The higher level of service (A -B) provides
better driving conditions, but typically requires higher construction cost. Level of Service "E" is
considered to be the capacity limit of urban roadways. Level of Service "C /D" is the design
level -of- service selected for the Impact Fee Analysis for the City of Coppell. Table 5 -2 lists the
maximum service volumes for level -of- service "C /D" as a function of facility type.
Table 5 -2 Roadway Facility Vehicle -Mile Capacities
Roadway Facility
Roadway Type
Capacity "LOS C/D Vehicles per
hour per lane -mile of Roadway
Facility(')
Principal Arterial - Divided
P6D
700
Divided Local Arterials
C4D
625
Undivided Collector - 4 Lane
C4U
440
Undivided Collector - 2 Lane
C2U
350
(1) Mouny capacity Tor LU5 -C /D" obtained trom NCTCOG DFW Regional Travel Model and the Highway Capacity
Manual
5.6 Roadway Impact Fee Service Units
Service units establish a relationship between roadway projects and demand placed on the
street system by development, as well as the ability to calculate and assess impact fees for
specific development proposals. As defined, service unit means; "a standardized measure of
consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category
of capital improvements or facility expansions."
To determine the roadway impact fee for a particular development, the service unit must
accurately identify the impact that the development will have on the major roadway system
(i.e., arterial and collector roads) serving the development. This impact is a combination of the
number of new trips generated by the development, the particular peaking characteristics of
the land - use(s) within the development, and the length of each new trip on the transportation
system.
5 -5
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
PREESE
BNKHOLS
The service unit must also reflect the capacity, which is provided by the roadway system, and
the demand placed on the system during the time in which peak, or design, conditions are
present on the system. Transportation facilities are designed and constructed to accommodate
volumes expected to occur during the peak hours (design hours). These volumes typically occur
during the peak hours as motorists travel to and from work.
The vehicle -mile during the PM peak hour was retained as the service unit for impact fees in
Coppell. This service unit establishes a more precise measure of capacity, utilization and
intensity of land development through the use of published trip generation data. It also
recognizes legislative requirements with regards to trip length.
The PM peak hour is recommended as the time period for assessing impacts because the
greatest demand for roadway capacity occurs during this hour. Roadways are sized to meet
this demand, and roadway capacity is more accurately defined on an hourly basis. Traffic
volume data collected August 2011 at over 20 locations throughout the city confirmed the PM
peak hour as the highest period of use.
5.7 Roadway Existing Conditions Analysis
An accurate service unit is required to calculate and assess impact fees for new developments.
As defined in Chapter 395, "Service unit means a standardized measure of consumption, use,
generation, or discharge attributed to an individual unit of development calculated in
accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards, based on historical data
and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is
located during the previous 10 years." In other words it is a measure of supply and demand.
The service unit must accurately reflect the supply, which is provided by the roadway system.
Transportation facilities are designed to accommodate peak hour traffic volumes because the
heaviest demand for the roadway capacity occurs during the peak hour. These peak hours
typically occur during the morning (AM peak) and evening (PM peak) rush hours as motorist
travel to and from work. The impact fee analysis for the City of Coppell was developed for PM
peak traffic volumes. For the supply side the unit of measurement is the service volume that is
5 -6
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
FREESE
BNICHOLS
provided by a lane -mile (lane - miles) of roadway facility. This number is also the capacity of the
roadway based on an acceptable level -of- service; in this case that level -of- service is "C /D ".
The service unit must also reflect the demand that a particular development will place on the
transportation system. The impact the development has on the street system is directly related
to: the trips generated by development, land -use for which the development is intended, and
the average length of each trip on the transportation system. For the demand side this unit is a
vehicle -trip of one -mile in length (vehicle - miles).
Service units create a link between supply (roadway projects) and demand (new development).
Both supply and demand can be expressed as a combination of the number of vehicles traveling
during the peak hour and the distance traveled by these vehicles in miles. Thus, the Service
Unit for roadway impact fees is vehicle -mile.
5.8 Existing Conditions Analysis
An inventory of major roadway facilities was conducted to determine existing conditions
throughout Coppell. This analysis determined the capacity provided by the existing roadway
system, the demand currently placed on the system, and the existence of any deficiencies on
the system. Data for the inventory was obtained from field reconnaissance, traffic volume
counts, the City Thoroughfare Plan and City Staff, and is detailed in Appendix C.
5.8.1 Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing directional PM peak hour volumes were obtained from automated traffic counts
collected by the City from their comprehensive traffic count program in November
2011. Automated traffic counts at 20 separate locations were collected on major
roadways (as identified in the Thoroughfare Plan as arterial or collector status)
throughout the city. In an effort to minimize the total number of counts, data was
collected at locations where traffic volumes would typify link volumes on the major
segments within the immediate area. For segments not counted, estimates were
developed based on peaking characteristics of area roadways or data from adjoining
roadway counts. This data was compiled for roadway segments throughout the city and
S -7
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
FREESE
#NICHOLS
entered into the database for use in calculations. A summary of volumes by roadway
segment is included in Appendix D as part of the existing capital improvements
database.
5.8.2 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Capacity (Supply)
The vehicle -miles of existing capacity for each counted roadway segment were obtained
using the equation below:
Vehicle —Miles of Capacity = Capacity per peak hour per lane x Number of lanes x Length
(miles)
Example: a 4 -lane divided roadway that is 2 miles in length and has a capacity of 625 vehicles
per hour per lane:
Vehicle —Miles of Capacity = 625 vehicles per hour x 4 lanes x 2 miles = 5,000 vehicle-
miles per hour
This existing capacity is calculated for the service area and is not limited to only those
roadways identified in the impact fee capital improvements program. A summary of
existing capacity for the service area is illustrated in Table 5 -3. A complete detailed
listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix D.
5.8.3 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand
The vehicle -miles of existing demand or the current usage of the facilities for each
roadway segment was obtained using the equation below:
Vehicle —Miles of Demand = PM peak hour volume x Length of Roadway (miles)
For example: a 3 -mile long roadway that has a PM peak hour traffic volume of 400 vehicles
per hour:
Vehicle —Miles of Demand = 400 vehicles per hour x 3 miles =1,200 vehicle -miles per hour
This existing demand is calculated for the service area and is not limited to only those
roadways identified in the impact fee capital improvements program. A summary of the
5 -8
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
5.9
�BNKNOLS
existing demand for the service area is illustrated in Table 5 -3. A complete detailed
listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix D.
5.8.4
Table 5 -3 Existing Excess Capacity and Demand
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity or Deficiencies
From the calculation of vehicle -miles of existing capacity and demand for each roadway
segment, the excess capacity or deficiencies for each direction can be determined. A
deficiency exists if a roadway is over capacity or has an hourly traffic volume that is
below its acceptable level -of- service in any direction of travel. If this is the case then the
deficiency is deducted from the available supply. A summary of existing excess capacity
and /or deficiencies for each service area is illustrated in Table 5 -4. A complete detailed
listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix D. Roadways with deficiencies in
the City of Coppell are Parkway Boulevard, Sandy Lake Road, Bethel Road, Belt Line
Road, Freeport Parkway, Denton Tap Road, and MacArthur Boulevard.
Table 5 -4 Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
Demand
Excess Capacity
(Peak Hour Veh-
Service Area
Peak Hour Veh- Miles
Miles)
city
26,697
43,511
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Excess Capacity or Deficiencies
From the calculation of vehicle -miles of existing capacity and demand for each roadway
segment, the excess capacity or deficiencies for each direction can be determined. A
deficiency exists if a roadway is over capacity or has an hourly traffic volume that is
below its acceptable level -of- service in any direction of travel. If this is the case then the
deficiency is deducted from the available supply. A summary of existing excess capacity
and /or deficiencies for each service area is illustrated in Table 5 -4. A complete detailed
listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix D. Roadways with deficiencies in
the City of Coppell are Parkway Boulevard, Sandy Lake Road, Bethel Road, Belt Line
Road, Freeport Parkway, Denton Tap Road, and MacArthur Boulevard.
Table 5 -4 Existing Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
Calculating Impact Fees
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires a description of all capital
improvements and their cost attributable to new development within the service area. To
determine the cost attributable to new development, the following information needs to be
calculated or supplied: future land use assumptions, vehicle -miles of new demand, a capital
improvement plan, vehicle -miles of new capacity supplied by the capital improvements plan
Ut
Deficiencies
Excess Capacity
(Peak Hour Veh-
Service Area
Peak Hour Veh - Miles
Miles
city
26,697
1,451
Calculating Impact Fees
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires a description of all capital
improvements and their cost attributable to new development within the service area. To
determine the cost attributable to new development, the following information needs to be
calculated or supplied: future land use assumptions, vehicle -miles of new demand, a capital
improvement plan, vehicle -miles of new capacity supplied by the capital improvements plan
Ut
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
FREESE
NKNOLS
and the costs for the roadway improvements. The recommended service unit for assessing
impact fees for the impact new development has on roadway facilities is a combination of the
trips generated (vehicles) by the new development during the peak hour and the average trip
length (miles) of each trip. The following section describes the methodology used in developing
service units for new developments.
5.9.1 Trip Generation
The trip generation rates are used to determine the number of vehicles added to the
roadway system as a result of new development. The trip generation rates were
developed for the PM peak weekday period. The trip generation rates were established
using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual 8th edition.
Development units were chosen by size (e.g.: office building, retail, industrial), by
number of units (e.g.: residential, multifamily) and by the number of students (schools).
The following development units are typically used:
• Dwelling Units (DU) — Total number of habitable dwellings within the development.
This should not be mistaken as bedrooms. For example a single - family residence is
one dwelling unit; a 50 unit apartment complex is 50 dwelling units.
• Gross Floor Area (GFA) — Total square feet of building floor area bounded by the
exterior boundary of outer building walls. Uncovered and outdoor patios are
excluded from GFA.
• Acres — The total number of acres included in the development.
• Students —The total number of students attending an institution.
Adjustments to the trip generation rates are necessary to reflect the differences
between driveway volumes and the total amount of traffic added to adjacent roadways.
The actual "traffic impact" of the new development is based only on the traffic added to
the adjacent roadways. The actual traffic added to the adjacent roadways is determined
by adjusting the driveway volumes to account for pass -by trips, diverted trips, and
internal trips.
5 -10
MFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report MICHOLS
City of Coppell
• Pass -by trips — are those trips attracted to a development from traffic that would
otherwise pass -by the site on an adjacent roadway. For example, a stop at a
convenience store on the way from the office to home is a pass -by trip for the
convenience store. The trip does not create an additional burden on the street
system and therefore should not be double- counted. The burden of this type
should be assigned to the office and /or residence.
• Diverted trips — are those trips that are already on the roadway system and are
diverted to the roadway system serving the new development. For example, a trip
from home to work along Parkway Boulevard would be a diverted trip if the travel
path was changed to Sandy Lake Road the purposes of stopping at the dry cleaners.
On a system -wide basis, this trip also does not add a significant additional burden
to the street system so it is not considered in assessing impact fees.
• Internal trips — are those that would typically be made in a mixed -use development
between two uses within the development, not utilizing a thoroughfare outside the
development for that trip. For example, a trip between a shopping center and a
restaurant contained within the same site would be considered and internal trip,
and does not create any additional burden on the roadway system.
5.9.2 Trip Length
Trip lengths in miles will be used in conjunction with site trip generation to establish the
vehicle -miles of travel, the service unit to be used for assessing impact fees. As with trip
generation, trip lengths are used in the development of travel forecasting models for
use in assessing roadway needs, as well as for assessing impact fees. As previously
stated, trip lengths are limited to six miles. Each trip has an origin and destination, half
of the trip length will be assigned to the origin and half of the trip length will be assigned
to the destination. Therefore, the average trip length for a development is half the total
trip length, allowing the maximum total trip length under state law to be six miles. The
trip length data used in this report was based on information generated in the 1984 and
1994 NCTCOG Workplace Survey and the 2001 National Household Travel Survey.
5 -11
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
910 &NICNOLS
5.9.3 Projected Growth and Vehicle -Miles of New Demand
Project growth for roadway impact fees is represented by an increase in the vehicle -
miles over a 10 -year period. The basis used to calculate the increase in vehicle -miles is
population and employment projections that were prepared as part of the land use
assumptions detailed in the Section 2.0. The calculation for the increase in the vehicle -
miles due to new development is made up of three components:
• Increase in the acreage for each land use for the 10 -year study period
• Trip generation rates for PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic (provided by the ITE
Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition)
• Average trip length (provided by NCTCOG 1984 and 1994 Workplace Survey and
2001 National Household Travel Survey)
A summary of the vehicle -miles of new demand is illustrated in Table 5 -5. A complete
detailed listing by land use category is provided in Appendix E.
5.9.4
Table 5 -5 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand
Service Area
Projected Vehicle -Miles Of
New Demand
City
45,131
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
The capital improvements plan includes roadway improvements that are needed to
accommodate long -term growth. The impact fee CIP can only contain roadways which
are included on the city's official thoroughfare plan and are classified as arterial and
collector status streets. Freese and Nichols, along with City staff, evaluated roadway
projects for inclusion in the CIP based on: 1) future growth areas, 2) projected 10 -year
traffic demand, 3) ability to recoup roadway costs (cost share or previously constructed
roadways with excess capacity), 4) financial considerations, and 5) staff input. Chapter
395 also allows the City to include their share of the cost for state and federal highways
to also be included in this plan. At this time no state highways are included in the CIP.
5 -12
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
��NKHWS
An assessment of the existing impact fee capital improvements plan was conducted to
ensure that excess capacity remains in the impact fee roadway projects. Using traffic
count data, a determination was that all projects within the Impact Fee CIP contain
excess capacity and can be retained in the program.
The projects included in the Impact Fee Roadway CIP are listed in Table 5 -6 and
illustrated in Figure 5 -1.
The following costs were included in the preparation of the 10 -year CIP program:
• Construction price
• Surveying and engineering fees
• Land acquisition costs
• Fees paid for the preparation of the capital improvements plan
• Projected interest charges and other finance costs
The total projected cost for the 10 -year impact fee CIP is $26,673,091 in 2011 dollars
($35,746,000 cost with financing). A detailed Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction
Cost for each roadway is provided in Appendix F. A summary of the cost for the impact fee
CIP are provided in Table 5 -6.
5 -13
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Table 5 -6 Summary of Roadway Cost
r m NICHOLS
RECOUPMENT PROJECTS
No.
ROADWAY
FROM
TO
COST
COST w/
FINANCING
1(1)
SANDY LAKE RD
CITY LIMIT WEST
N. COPPELL ROAD
$4,697,908
$6,296,000
20)
SANDY LAKE RD
MACARTHUR BLVD.
CITY LIMIT EAST
$5,193,720
$6,960,000
30)
BETHEL RD
CITY LIMIT (WEST)
FREEPORT PKWY.
$7,280,321
$9,756,000
4(1)
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
COPPELL ROAD
GRAPEVINE CREEK
$1,204,349
$1,614,000
MACARTHUR BLVD.
BETHEL SCHOOL
ROAD
BELT LINE ROAD
$325,394
$437,000
Total:
$18,701,691
$25,063,000
EXPANSION
PROJECTS
No.
ROADWAY
FROM
TO
COST
COST w/
FINANCING
6(2)
SANDY LAKE ROAD
N. COPPELL ROAD
GRAPEVINE CREEK
$6,102,000
$8,177,000
7(3)
FREEPORT PKWY
SH 121
SANDY LAKE RD
$881,800
$1,182,000(4)
8(3)
FREEPORT PKWY
RUBY ROAD
SANDY LAKE RD
$987,600
$1,324,000(4)
Total:
1 $7,971,400
$10,683,000
TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
$26,673,091
$35,746,000
(1) Cost from City Contract Documents
(2) Engineer's Probable Construction Cost Estimates provided by the City
(3)Freese and Nichols Conceptual Level Cost Estimates
(4)City only responsible for 20% of Total Cost
5 -14
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
5.9.5 Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity Provided
01O NICHOILS
The vehicle -miles of capacity added are calculated in a similar manner as the vehicle -
miles of existing capacity supplied.
Vehicle —Miles of New Capacity = Capacity per peak hour per lane x Number of
lanes x Length (miles)
The calculated capacity is for the new impact fee roadways. The vehicle -miles of new
capacity supplied for each service area is provided in Table 5 -7. A complete detailed
listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix G.
5.9.6
Table 5 -7 Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Capacity (Supply)
Service Area
Projected Vehicle -Miles of
New Capacity (Supply)
City
17,491
Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand on Impact Fee CIP Roadways
The vehicle -miles of existing demand on CIP roadways are provided in Table 5 -8. A
complete detailed listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix G.
5.9.7
Table 5 -8 Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways
Service Area
Vehicle -Miles of Existing
Demand
City
6,732
Maximum Cost per Service Unit
The maximum cost per service unit is a calculation of the cost per service unit (dwelling,
1000 sq. ft GFA, acre) for a service area. This maximum cost per service area is the cost
of the CIP divided by the growth attributable to new development projected to occur
with a 10 -year period. Table 5 -9 illustrates these calculations for the roadway impact
fees. The maximum fee per service unit is calculated to be $619. The credited cost per
service unit is $309.
5 -16
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Table 5 -9 Cost Per Service Unit Calculation
FREESE
ININNKHOLS
Line #
Total Veh -Miles of Capacity Added by the CIP
(From Projected Veh -Miles of New Capacity) (Table 5 -7)
Total Veh -Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roads
Service Area
1
17,491
2
6,732
(From Veh -Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roodways)(Table 5 -8)
3
Total Veh -Mile of Existing Deficiencies on Existing Roads
(From Excess Capacity and Deficiencies) (Table 5 -4)
Net Amount of Veh -Mile Capacity Added
(Line #1 -Line #2 -Line #3)
1,451
4
9,308
5
Total Eligible Cost of CIP Within Service Area
$35,746,000
(From Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs)(Table 5 -6)
6
Cost of Net Capacity Supplied
$19,022,570
(Net of Capacity Added /Total of Capacity Added) *CIP Cost - (Line
#4,/Line #1)* ine #5
7
Cost to Meet Existing Needs and Usage
$16,723,430
(Total Cost of CIP -Cost of Net Capacity Supplied) - Line #5 -Line #6
8
Total Veh -Mile of New Demand Over 10 Years
45,131
(From Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand)(Table 5 -5)
9
% of Capacity Added Attributed to New Growth
484.9%
(Total of New Demand /Net Amount of Capacity Added) - Line #8 /Line
#4
10
If Line 8 > Line 4, Reduce Line 9 to 100%
100.0%
11
Cost of Capacity Added Attributed to New Growth
$19,022,570
12
(Cost of Net Capacity Supplied * Cost Attributed to New Growth) - Line
#6 *Line #10
Maximum fee per Service Unit - Without Credit
(Cost of Net Capacity Attributed to New Growth /Total Veh -Mile of New
Demand ) - Line #11 Line #8
$421
13
Percent of Fee Recoverable
50%
14
Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit
$210
(Line #12 *Line #13)
5.9.8 Land Use / Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table
A land use /vehicle -mile equivalency table establishes the service unit rate for various land uses.
This table is a result of combining PM peak hour trip generation rates with average trip length
information for various land uses. These rates are based on an appropriate development unit
5 -17
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
915111MICHOLS
for each land use. For example; office, retail, and light industrial, are based on development of
1,000 square feet of gross floor area, while single - family and multi - family residential is based on
dwelling units. The City of Coppell's Land -Use Vehicle Mile Equivalency Table is made up of five
main land uses with specific use categories, they are: residential, office, retail /commercial,
light industrial, and institutional. Table 5 -10 illustrates the total service units generated by the
various land uses. Appendix H provides the land -uses used for this table.
Table 5 -10 Land -Use Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Tablet
ITE Land Use
Dev. Unit
Trip
Ratet �1
Trip
Length
Veh -Mi Per
Dev Unit
Residential
Residential (Medium /Low)
DU
1.01
4.20
4.24
Residential (High Density)
DU
0.62
4.20
2.60
Others Not Specified
DU
1.01
4.20
4.24
Office
General Office Building
1000 sq. ft.
1.49
4.80
7.15
Medical / Dental Office
1000 sq. ft.
3.46
4.80
16.61
Others Not Specified
1000 sq. ft.
1.49
4.80
7.15
Retail / Commercial
Shopping Center
1000 sq. ft.
1.99
3.20
6.38
Home Improvement Superstore
1000 sq. ft.
1.12
1.95
2.19
Super market
1000 sq. ft.
4.64
1.05
4.87
Restaurant
1000 sq. ft.
5.28
1.90
10.02
Fast food with drive thru
1000 sq. ft.
15.36
2.15
33.02
Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps
Fuel Positions
5.32
0.90
4.79
Hotel
Rooms
1000 sq. ft.
0.59
10.13
3.20
1.25
1.89
12.66
Bank with Drive Thru
Others Not Specified
Light
General Light Industrial
1000 sq. ft.
1.99
3.20
6.38
Industrial
1000 sq. ft.
0.98
3.30
3.20
Industrial Park
1000 sq. ft.
1000 sq. ft.
0.86
3.30
2.84
Mini Warehouse (Self Storage)
0.26
3.30
0.86
Others Not Specified
1000 sq. ft.
0.97
3.30
3.20
Institutional
Jr. / Community College
Students
0.12
3.00
0.36
Private School (K -8)
Students
0.60
2.10
1.26
Day Care Center
Students
0.82
2.10
1.72
Church
1000 sq. ft.
0.55
1.45
0.80
Others Not Specified
1000 sq. ft.
0.55
1.45
0.80
(1) Average Trip Rate with Reductions
(2) If not specified in table, use ITE Trip Generation Manual 8`h Edition
5 -18
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
5.10 Calculating Impact Fees
Ron FREESE
1MKHOLS
The calculation of the actual fee charged to development is a two -part process as follows:
Part 1: Determine number of service units (vehicle - miles) generated by the development using
the land -use vehicle -mile equivalency table.
No. of Development Units x Vehicle -miles (Total Service Units) per development unit
= Development's Vehicle -miles
Part 2: Calculate the impact due by new development. This fee based on the cost per service
unit for the service area where the development is located.
Development's Vehicle -miles (from part 1) x Cost per vehicle -mile (from CIP calculation)
= Impact Fee due from development
Examples: The following fee would be assessed to new developments which has a maximum
(Assessable) fee per service unit of $210.
Q
e
C.
107
Single- Family Dwelling
(1 dwelling unit x 4.24 vehicle - miles) / 1 dwelling unit = 4.24 vehicle -miles
4.24 Vehicle -miles x $210 / vehicle -mile = $890
10,000 square foot (s.f.) General Office Building
(10,000 s.f. x 7.15 vehicles - miles) /1000 s.f. units = 71.50 vehicle -miles
71.50 vehicle -miles x $210 / vehicle -mile = $15,015
60,000 s.f. Retail Shopping Center
(60,000 s.f. x 6.38 vehicle - miles)/ 1,000 s.f. units = 382.80 vehicle -miles
382.80 vehicle -miles x $210 /vehicle -mile = $80,388
100,000 s.f. Light Industrial Development
(100,000 s.f. x 3.20 vehicle - miles)/ 1,000 s.f. units =320 vehicle -miles
320 vehicle -miles x $210/ vehicle -mile = $67,200
5 -19
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
4,000 Student Junior /Community College
IrIM,V?NIC,OLS
(4,000 Students. x 0.36vehicle- miles)/ 1 Student = 1,440 vehicle -miles
1,440 vehicle -miles x $210/ vehicle -mile = $302,400
5 -20
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Appendix A
IrIIII'MICHOLS
Water System Project Cost Estimates
City of • • • -
Water CIP
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
Construction Project •-
Project Description
E08
IN
UPDATE
20 -inch water line from Southwestern EST
Detailed Description
Replacement of existing 12 -inch with a 20 -inch water line from the Southwestern Elevated Storage Tank
DESCRIPTION ITEM
QUANTITY UNIT
UNIT PRICE TOTAL
1
20" Pipe
4,618
LF
$120
554,208
2
30" Boring and Casing
200
LF
S465
93,000
3
Pavement Repair
3,500
LF
$50
175,000
PROJECT •
SUBTOTAL:
CONTINGENCY
SUBTOTAL:
ENG /SURVEY
SUBTOTAL:
20%
15%
$822,210
$164,450
$986,660
$148,000
$1,134,660
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Appendix 6
Impact Fee Comparison
Irl,111MICHOLS
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee per Service Unit Comparison
lrl,ll'.'N,C.OLS
$7,000
- - - - -
-- - - - - --
$6,546
Wasteivater Impact Fee
u Water Impact Fee
$6,000
------- - - - - --
$ 5, 000
$4,612
$4,000
$3,464
$3,326
$3,000
$2,191
$2,000
$1,922
$1,800
$1,700
$1,000
$750
$0
tw
0
(V O
v
Q)
-le
01
r
c c
41
J M
�^ ti
O
L
;
U1
CE
1=
C
Q O
N
+'
O
C
M
w
M
Ln
(D
O._
M
.,_.
—
Q
v a`
Q
o
U
0
0
Ll-
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
NIM1111MICHOLS
Water, Wastewater, and Roadway Impact Fee per Single Family Home Comparison
$10,000
$9,382
uRoadway Impact Fee
$9 000
�R'astessater- Impact Fee
■ ater Impact Fee
$8,000
.— $7,465
--
$7,000
-
$6,000
$5,046
$5,000
$4,612
$4,000
$3,000
$2,350 $2,191
$2,132
$1,950
$2,000
$1,ODO
s $750
$0 - - -,—
o r Y
a1
c al
a, c
_
E
c
o
Q a
E
= o
LA
o
OL
U
_O
o
U
LL
' Roadway Impact Fee shown is an average of all service areas
rMFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report INICHOLS
City of Coppell
Appendix C
Existing Roadway Inventory
Coppell Roadway Impact Fees 2011
Existing Roadway Inventory
Street
From
To
Length
Pavement
No. of
Traffic Volume
Traffic Volume
TDP Config
(FT)
Type
Lanes
(PM) N/E
(PM) S/W
PARKWAY BLVD
COPPELL ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
6210
CONC
4D
254
266
C4D
PARKWAY BLVD
DENTON TAP ROAD
MOORE ROAD
5400
CONC
4D
521
290
C4D
PARKWAY BLVD
MOORE ROAD
SAMUEL BLVD.
1650
CONC
2U
521
290
C2U
PARKWAY BLVD
SAMUEL BLVD.
MACARTHUR BLVD.
3550
CONC
41-1
521
290
C4U
SANDY LAKE ROAD
CITY LIMIT (WEST)
COPPELL ROAD
4980
CONC
4D
312
465
C4D /6
SANDY LAKE ROAD
COPPELL ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
5870
CONC
4D
645
682
C21-1
SANDY LAKE ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
MACARTHUR BLVD.
10330
CONC
4D
842
903
C4D
SANDY LAKE ROAD
MACARTHUR BLVD.
CITY LIMIT (EAST)
4920
CONC
4D
565
1,401
C4D /6
BETHEL ROAD
CITY LIMIT (WEST)
FREEPORT PKWY.
6430
CONC
4D
373
328
C2U
BETHEL ROAD
FREEPORT PKWY.
DENTON TAP ROAD
5310
ASP
2U
383
345
C2U
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
FREEPORT PKWY.
COPPELL ROAD
1790
CONC
2U
197
154
C4U
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
COPPELL ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
3610
CONC
2U
197
154
C2U
BELT LINE ROAD
CITY LIMIT (SOUTH)
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD.
8450
CONC
6D
2281
1175
P6D
BELT LINE ROAD
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD.
MACARTHUR BLVD.
12090
CONC
4D
980
633
P6D
BELT LINE ROAD
MACARTHUR BLVD.
CITY LIMIT (EAST)
5810
CONC
6D
1031
1320
P6D
ROYAL LANE
CITY LIMIT (SOUTH)
BETHEL ROAD
2990
CONC
4D
617
560
C4D
ROYAL LANE
BETHEL ROAD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
6140
CONC
4D
443
399
C41D/6
FREEPORT PKWY
IH -635
BETHEL ROAD
6740
CONC
4D
531
1197
C4D /6
FREEPORT PKWY
BETHEL ROAD
RUBY ROAD
3220
CONC
4D
342
152
C4D /6
FREEPORT PKWY
RUBY ROAD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
3940
A/C
2U
758
128
C2U
COPPELL ROAD
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD.
BETHEL ROAD
2140
ASP
2U
202
170
C2U
COPPELL ROAD
BETHEL ROAD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
5360
ASP
2U
202
170
C2U
DENTON TAP ROAD
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD.
SANDY LAKE ROAD
7860
CONC
6D
2315
847
P6D
DENTON TAP ROAD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
CITY LIMIT (NORTH)
6020
CONC
6D
2162
1100
P6D
MACARTHUR BLVD
BELT LINE ROAD
N. OF RIVERCHASE
1565
CONC
6D
1,419
745
C4D
MACARTHUR BLVD
N. OF RIVERCHASE
SANDY LAKE ROAD
4940
CONC
4D
1,419
745
C4D
MACARTHUR BLVD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
CITY LIMIT (NORTH)
10000
CONC
4D
1,293
623
C4D
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Appendix D
r � NICHOLS
Existing Roadway Capacity, Demand, Excess
Capacity and Deficiencies
Projected Vehicle Miles of New Demand
Year2011
Land Use
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS'
(Veh -Mi /Dev Unit)
Unit of Trip
Generation
No. of
Units per
Acre2
YEAR 2011 (EXISTING)
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
Acres
Veh -Mile 3
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
Commercial
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.89' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
309
17,282
4 Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
94
3,157
*Light Industrial
2.55
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
1,369
53,138
Public Institutional
1.72
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
497
13,063
Residential
Residential High Density
2.60
DU
16
181
7,521
Residential Medium Density
3.90
DU
4
34
535
Residential Low Density
3.90
DU
1 2
1 2,755
21,506
Parks and Open Space
0.38
Acres
1
905
340
Total
6,144
116,541
Assumed 77% of the existing developed non - residential is industrial
Year 2021
Land Use
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS'
(Veh -MI /Dev Unit)
Unit of Trip
Generation
No. of
Units per
Acre2
YEAR 2021 (PROJECTED)
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
Acres
Veh -Mile3
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
Commercial
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.89' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
480
26,781
4 Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
689
23,085
Light Industrial
2.55
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
1,578
61,267
Public Institutional
1.72
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
497
13,074
Residential
Residential High Density
2.60
DU
16
181
7,521
Residential Medium Density
3.90
DU
4
512
7,993
Residential Low Density
3.90
DU
2
2,756
21,509
Parks and Open Space
038
Acres 1
1
1,183
445
Total
7,875
161,674
Difference 2011 -2021
Land Use
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS'
(Veh -Mi /Dev Unit)
Unit of Trip
Generation
No. of
Units per
Acre2
INCREASE IN VEH -MILES
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
Acres
Veh -Mile 3
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
Commercial
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.89' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
170
9,499
4 Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
595
19,929
Light Industrial
2.55
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
209
8,129
Public Institutional
1.72
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
0
11
Residential
Residential High Density
2.60
DU
16
0
0
Residential Medium Density
3.90
DU
4
478
7,458
Residential Low Density
3.90
DU
2
0
0
Parks and Open Space
0.38
Acres
1
279
105
Total 1
1,731
45,131
ACRES TO UNIT OF TRIP GENERATION CONVERSION FACTORS
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(High Density)
16 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Medium Density)
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.89' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
15.24' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Public Institutional) 35% coverage
15.24' sq ft per acre
'all #'s are for 1.000 sauare feet
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Notes:
' See Average Land Use Trip Calculations
2 See Trip Generation Conversion Factors
a Calculated by multiplying the Total Service Units by the No. of units
per Acres by the Acres provided in the land use assumptions
4 Reduce the Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail by 40%.
The 40% represents the number of trips added to the
Freeway system and not the Coppell Roadway System
4055 International Plaza, Ste. 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76109 -4895
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Appendix E
IrINININKHOLS
Projected Vehicle -Miles of New Demand
Projected Vehicle Miles of New Demand
Year2011
Land Use
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS'
(Veh -Mi /Dev Unit)
Unit of Trip
Generation
No. of
Units per
Acre'
YEAR 2011 (EXISTING)
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
Acres
Veh -Mile
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
Commercial
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.69' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
309
17,282
4 Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
94
3,157
*Light Industrial
2.55
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
1,369
53,138
Public Institutional
1.72
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
497
13,063
Residential
Residential High Density
2.60
DU
16
181
7,521
Residential Medium Density
3.90
DU
4
34
535
Residential Low Den sit
3.90
DU
2
2,755
21,506
Parks and Open Space
0.38
Acres
1
905
340
Total
6,144
116,541
n J JUl- I I / UI IIIQ OJ.I6IIII9 UCVCIUPVU IIUII-f U ,IUCIIIIdl IS lTnJUS(rldl
Year 2021
Land Use
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS
(Veh -Mi /Dev Unit)
Unit of Trip
Generation
No. of
Units per
Acrez
YEAR 2021 (PROJECTED)
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
Acres
Veh -Mile 3
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
Commercial
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.69' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
480
26,781
4 Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 scift GFA
10.89
689
23,085
Light Industrial
2.55
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
1,578
61,267
Public Institutional
1.72
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
497
13,074
Residential
Residential High Density
2.60
DU
16
181
7,521
Residential Medium Density
3.90
DU
4
512
7,993
Residential Low Density
3.90
DU
2
2,756
21,509
Parks and Open Space
0.38
Acres
1
1,183
445
Total
7,675
161,674
Difference 2011 -2021
Land Use
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS'
(Veh -Mi /Dev Unit)
Unit of Trip
Generation
No. of
Units per
Acrez
INCREASE IN VEH -MILES
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
Acres
Veh -Mile
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
Commercial
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.69' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
170
9,499
4 Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail
5.13
1000 s .ft. GFA
10.89
595
19,929
Light Industrial
2.55
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
209
8,129
Public Institutional
1.72
1000 s .ft. GFA
15.24
0
11
Residential
Residential High Density
2.60
DU
16
0
0
Residential Medium Density
3.90
DU
4
478
7,458
Residential Low Density
3.90
DU
2
0
0
Parks and Open Space
0.38
Acres
1
279
105
Total
1,731
45,131
ACRES TO UNIT OF TRIP GENERATION CONVERSION FACTORS
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(High Density)
16 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Medium Density)
4 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Commercial) 25% coverage
10.69' sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrial) 35% coverage
15.24` sq ft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Public Institutional) 35% coverage
15.24• sq ft per acre
`all Ws are for 1,000 square feet
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Notes:
' See Average Land Use Trip Calculations
2 See Trip Generation Conversion Factors
3 Calculated by multiplying the Total Service Units by the No. of units
per Acres by the Acres provided in the land use assumptions
4 Reduce the Freeway Commercial /Office /Retail by 40%.
The 40% represents the number of trips added to the
Freeway system and not the Coppell Roadway System
4055 International Plaza, Ste. 200
Fort Worth, Texas 76109 -4895
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report
City of Coppell
Appendix F
w fNICNOLS
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction
Cost
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE
TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CLIENT: CITY OF COPPELL
DESCRIPTION: WEST SANDY LAKE ROAD - PHASE II
( COPPELL ROAD NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD)
DATE: APRIL 2004
ITEM
NO.
DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS
QUANTITY
UNIT
UNIT COST
TOTAL
PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
1
RIGHT -OF -WAY PREPARATION
7820
STA
$25.00
$195,500
2
MOBILIZATION
1
LS
$200,000.00
$200,000
3
CONCRETE REMOVAL
5000
SY
$5.00
$25,000
4
HMAC REMOVAL
17100
SY
$5.00
$85,500
5
UNCLASSIFIED STREET EXCAVATION
50000
CY
$6.00
$300,000
6
8" CEMENT STABLIZED SUBGRADE
44000
SY
$1.85
$81,400
7
CEMENT STABILIZATION (42 # /SY)
924
TON
$85.00
$78,540
8
8" REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT
42400
SY
$27.50
$1,166,000
9
8" ENHANCED PAVEMENT
1500
SY
$100.00
$150,000
10
REMOVE 6" HMAC PAVEMENT TRANSITION
1450
SY
$5.00
$7,250
11
STEPPED BLOCK RETAINING WALLS
750
SF
$25.00
$18,750
12
6" REINFORCED CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
800
SY
$30.00
$24,000
13
PVC CONDUIT
5800
LF
$10.00
$58,000
14
PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAGE
1
LS
$80,000.00
$80,000
15
BARRICADES, SIGNS & TRAFFIC CONTROL
1
LS
$200,000.00
$200,000
16
EROSION CONTROL
1
LS
$50,000.00
$50,000
17
10' BIKE PATH
53100
SF
$3.50
$185,850
18
5' SIDEWALK
25650
SF
$3.00
$76,950
19
STREET LIGHT FOUNDATION
60
EA
$2,000.00
$120,000
20
RESTORE PARKWAYS
7820
STA
$20.00
$156,400
21
RESTORE /RECONSTRUCT EXISTING IRRIGATION
1
LS
$30,000.00
$30,000
SUBTOTAL PAVING
$3,289,140
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
1
DEMO EXISTING BRIDGE
1
EA
$35,000.00
$35,000
2
FLEXIBLE BASE
280
CY
$50.00
$14,000
3
18" DRILL PIERS
152
LF
$60.00
$9,120
4
30" DRILLED PIERS
375
LF
$90.00
$33,750
5
CONCRETE ABUTMENTS
105
CY
$550.00
$57,750
6
CONCRETE BENTS
83
CY
$600.00
$49,800
7
8" THICK BRIDGE DECK
13004
SF
$12.00
$156,048
8
EXPDXY WATERPROOFING
3650
SF
$1.00
$3,650
9
CONCRETE SURFACE TREATMENT
12716
SF
$1.50
$17074
10
TYPE C PRESTRESSED CONCRETE GIRDERS
1581
LF
$70.00
$110,670
11
CONCRETRE RIP -RAP
175
CY
$250.00
$43,750
12
STRUCTURAL STEEL - ARMOR JOINT
6400
LB
$4.00
$25,600
13
SPECIAL TRAFFIC / PEDESTRIAN RAIL
193
LF
$125.00
$24,125
14
SPECIAL TRAFFIC / BICYCLE RAIL
386
LF
$140.00
$54,040
15
CONCRETE APPROACH SLABS
144
CY
$250.00
$36,000
16
METAL BEAM GUARD FENCE
400
LF
$25.00
$10,000
17
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT
880
LF
$3.00
$2,640
18
LIGHT STANDARDS
4
EA
$1,500.00
$6,000
19
ENHANCED PAVEMENT
2175
SF
$5.00
$10,875
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE
$701,892
WATERIMPROVEMENTS
1
RELOCATE / ADJUST 24" WATER LINE
700
LF
$150.00
$105,000
2
RELOCATE MISC. WATER HYDRANTS, VALVES, ETC
1
LS
$50,000.00
$50,000
SUBTOTAL WATER
$155,000
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
1
8" SS LINE
230
LF
$100.00
$23,000
2
ADJUST MH & MISC.
1
LS
$10,000.00
$10,000
SUBTOTAL SANITARY SEWER
$33,000
UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS
1
RELOCATE TXU OVERHEAD TRASMISSION POLES
4
EA
$10,000.00
$40,000
SUBTOTAL UTILITY ADJUSTMENT
$40,000
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
1
DEMO RCP STORM DRAIN
849
LF
$7.50
$6,368
2
DEMO HEADWALLS
6
EA
$500.00
$3,000
3
CONNECT TO EXISTING RCP
7
EA
$400.00
$2,800
4
CONNECT TO EXISTING 10x8 RCB
1
EA
$1,500.00
$1,500
5
5'X3' RCB
385
LF
$215.00
$82,775
6
6'X3' RCB
190
LF
$225.00
$42,750
7
6'X4' RCB
440
LF
$230.00
$101,200
8
9'X6' RCB
130
LF
$300.00
$39,000
9
10'X8' RCB
50
LF
$360.00
$18,000
10
48" CLASS III RCP
240
LF
$100.00
$24,000
11
42" CLASS III RCP
110
LF
$95.00
$10,450
12
39" CLASS III RCP
85
LF
$90.00
$7,650
13
36" CLASS III RCP
440
LF
$70.00
$30,800
14
33" CLASS III RCP
275
LF
$65.00
$17,875
15
30" CLASS III RCP
185
LF
$60.00
$11,100
16
27" CLASS III RCP
50
LF
$55.00
$2,750
17
24" CLASS III RCP
665
LF
$50.00
$33,250
18
21" CLASS III RCP
455
LF
$45.00
$20,475
19
18" CLASS III RCP
900
LF
$40.00
$36,000
20
10' RECESSED CURB INLET
6
EA
$2,500.00
$15,000
21
12' RECESSED CURB INLET
5
EA
$2,750.00
$13,750
22
14' RECESSED CURB INLET
5
EA
$3,000.00
$15,000
23
20' RECESSED CURB INLET
5
EA
$3,500.00
$17,500
24
4' COMBINATION INLET
1
EA
$2,500.00
$2,500
25
6x6 DROP INLET
1
EA
$5,000.00
$5,000
26
6' SQUARE MANHOLE
2
EA 1
$5,000.00
$10,000
27
5' SQUARE MANHOLE
1
EA
$4,000.00
$4,000
28
4' SQUARE MANHOLE
7
EA
$3,000.00
$21,000
29
TRENCH SAFETY
4600
LF
$2.00
$9,200
30
WINGWALL FOR MBC 9x6
1
EA
$10,000.00
$10,000
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
$614,693
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT
1
SIGNALIZATION FOR 2 INTERSECTIONS
1
LS
$155,000.00
$155,000
SUBTOTAL SIGNALIZATION
$155,000
LANDSCAPING / IRRIGATION
1
WEST SANDY LAKE ROAD
1
LS
$500,000.00
$500,000
2
404 MITIGATION
1
LS
$50,000.00
$50,000
SUBTOTAL LANDSCAPING
$550,000
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST
SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE
TEAGUE NALL AND PERKINS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CLIENT: CITY OF COPPELL
DESCRIPTION: WEST SANDY LAKE ROAD - PHASE II
( COPPELL ROAD NORTH TO DENTON TAP ROAD)
DATE: APRIL 2004
COST OPINION SUMMARY -PHASE II
I
PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
$3,289,140
II
BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
$701,892
III
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
$155,000
IV
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
$33,000
V
UTILITY ADJUSTMENTS
$40,000
VI
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
$614,693
VII
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
$155,000
VIII
LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
$550,000
SUBTOTAL
$5,538,725
CONTINGENCY 10%
$553,870
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
$6,093,000
FLOODPLAIN /ENVIRONMENTAL APPLICATION FEES
$9,000
PROJECT TOTAL
$6,102,000
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Freeport Parkway
Roadway
Description:
Quantity
Unit
Project Summary:
Roadway Length
3,400
LF
6 -Lane Divided Principal Arterial from SH 121
Right -of -Way Width
110
FT
to Sandy Lake Road
Roadway Width (BOC - BOC)
66
FT
Undivided Roadway = 1 , Divided Roadway = 2
2
Item No.
Item Description
Date Performed: 11/28/11
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost)
1
LS
$100,000.00
$100,000
2
Right of Way Preparation
10
ACRE
$2,000.00
$20,000
3
Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment
8,400
CY
$10.00
$84,000
4
8" Reinforced Concrete Pavement
27,500
SY
$28.00
$770,000
5
8" Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade
28,300
SY
$4.00
$113,200
6
Lime or Cement for Stabilization (40lbs /SY)
600
TON
$100.00
$60,000
7
6" Monolithic Curb
15,000
LF
$5.00
$75,000
8
Sidewalk and Ramps
34,000
SF
$4.00
$136,000
9
Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls)
1
LS
$251,640.00
$251,640
10
Traffic Signals
1
LS
$120,000.00
$120,000
11
Hydromulching
13,600
SY
$1.00
$13,600
12
Top Soil
13,600
SY
$2.00
$27,200
13
Pavement Markings & Signage
13,600
LF
$1.00
$13,600
14
Traffic Control
1
LS
$33,000.00
$33,000
15
Erosion Control
1
LS
$20,000.00
$20,000
16
Landscaping and Irrigation
1
LS
$65,000.00
$65,000
17
Lighting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors)
30
EA
$4,000.00
$120,000
Subtotal Construction Cost Estimate
$2,022,300
Contingency
20%
$404,500
Total Construction Cost Estimate
$2,426,800
Right -of -Way Cost
374,000
SF
$4.00
$1,496,000.00
Engineering Services (15% of Construction Cost)
15.0%
$364,100.00
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost)
3.0%
$72,900.00
Geotechnical Services (1% of Construction Cost)
1.0%
$24,300.00
Testing (11% of Construction Cost)
1.0%
$24,300.00
*Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for Nov. 2011)
$4,409,000.00
*Total Capital Cost Per Foot
$1,300.00
*Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years)
$5,926,000.00
.— caunraie UUes rviLl 1f1c1uue Leyar. Hammrsrrauon, or rinancrai uosr
Note: The city is only responsible for 20% of cost
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Freeport Parkway
Roadway Description:
Quantity Unit
Project Summary:
Roadway Length
4,050 LF
4 -Lane Divided Local Arterial from Ruby Rd
Right -of -Way Width
95 FT
to Sandy Lake Rd
Roadway Width (BOC - BOC)
50 FT
Undivided Roadway = 1 , Divided Roadway = 2
2
Item No.
Item Description
Date Performed: 11/28/11
Quantity Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1
Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost)
1 LS
$160,000.00
$160,000
2
Right of Way Preparation
10 ACRE
$2,000.00
$20,000
3
Pavement Removal
12,400 SY
$8.00
$99,200
4
Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment
7,500 CY
$10.00
$75,000
5
8" Reinforced Concrete Pavement
24,800 SY
$28.00
$694,400
6
8" Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade
25,800 SY
$4.00
$103,200
7
Lime or Cement for Stabilization (40lbs /SY)
600 TON
$100.00
$60,000
8
6" Monolithic Curb
17,900 LF
$5.00
$89,500
9
Sidewalk and Ramps
40,500 SF
$4.00
$162,000
10
Bridge
1 LS
$1,300,000.00
$1,300,000
11
Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls)
1 LS
$261,000.00
$261,000
12
Traffic Signals
1 LS
$120,000.00
$120,000
13
Hydromulching
16,700 SY
$1.00
$16,700
14
Top Soil
16,700 SY
$2.00
$33,400
15
Pavement Markings & Signage
16,200 LF
$1.00
$16,200
16
Traffic Control
1 LS
$39,000.00
$39,000
17
Erosion Control
1 LS
$24,000.00
$24,000
18
Landscaping and Irrigation
1 LS
$30,000.00
$30,000
19
Lighting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors)
0 EA
$4,000.00
$0
Subtotal Construction Cost Estimate
$3,303,600
Contingency
20%
$660,800
Total Construction Cost Estimate
$3,964,400
Right -of -Way Cost
45,000 SF
$4.00
$180,000.00
Engineering Services (15% of Construction Cost)
15.0%
$594,700.00
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost)
3.0%
$119,000.00
Geotechnical Services (1% of Construction Cost)
1.0%
$39,700.00
Testing (1% of Construction Cost)
1.0%
$39,700.00
*Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for Nov. 2011)
$4,938,000.00
*Total Capital Cost Per Foot
$1,220.00
*Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years)
$6,637,000.00
11. —. nui nwi— �vyda numtfusuduun, ur r-manciat i-osi
Note: The city is only responsible for 20% of cost
rm FREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report <NICHOLS
City of Coppell
Appendix G
Roadway Improvements Plan Project CIP
Service Units of Supply
Coppell Roadway Impact Fee - 2011
Roadway Improvements Plan Project
CIP Service Units of Supply
Hourly Vehicle -Mile
Capacity per Lane
Mile of Roadway Facility
for LOS "C /D"
Principal Arterial - Divided
P6D
700
Length
Length
Lanes
Type
Veh -Ml
PM Peak -Hour Volume
C4U
440
Undivided Collectors - 2 Lane
C2U
350
Project
Roadway
From
To
(Feet)
(Mile)
Capacity
Direction
% in
Veh -Mi
Veh -Mi
Excess
Total
Total
A B
Pk -Hr
Service
Total
Total
Capacity
Project
Project
Northbound
Southbound
Per lane
Area
Supply
Demand
Peak -Hour
Cost
Cost
Eastbound
Westbound
Peak -Hour
Peak -Hour
Veh -Mi
w/ Financin
RECOUPEMENT PROJECTS
1'
SANDY LAKE ROAD
CITY LIMIT (WEST)
COPPELL ROAD
4980
0.94
4
C41D
625
312
465
100%
2,358
733
1,625
$4,697,908
$6,296,000
2'
SANDY LAKE ROAD
MACARTHUR BLVD
CITY LIMIT (EAST)
4920
0.93
4
C41D
625
565
1,401
100%
2,330
1,832
498
$5,193,720
$6,960,000
3"
BETHEL ROAD
CITY LIMIT (WEST)
FREEPORT PKWY
6430
1.22
4
C4D
625
373
328
100%
3,045
853
2,192
$7,280,321
$9,756,000
4`
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD
COPPELL ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
1500
0.28
4
C4U
440
197
154
100%
500
100
400
$1,204,349
$1,614,000
5'
MACARTHUR BLVD.
BETHEL SCHOOL ROAD
BELT LINE ROAD
2630
0.50
6
P6D
700
1,419
745
100%
2,092
1,078
1,014
$325,394
$437,000
EXPANSION PROJECTS
6`
SANDY LAKE ROAD
COPPELL ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
5870
1.11
4
C41D
625
645
682
100%
2,779
1,475
1,304
$6,102,000
$8,177,000
7"
FREEPORT PKWY
SH 121
SANDY LAKE ROAD
3170
0.60
6
P6D
700
0
0
100%
2,522
0
2,522
$881,800
$1,182,000
8—
FREEPORT PKWY
RUBY ROAD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
3940
0.75
4
C4D
625
758
128
100%
1,866
661
1,204
$987,600
$1,324,000
Subtotal i
i
i
1
6.33 1
1
1
i
i
17,491 1
6,732 1
10,759
$ 6,673,0911
$35,7461000
Hourly Vehicle -Mile
Capacity per Lane
Mile of Roadway Facility
for LOS "C /D"
Principal Arterial - Divided
P6D
700
Divided Local Arterials
C4D
625
Undivided Collectors - 4 lane
C4U
440
Undivided Collectors - 2 Lane
C2U
350
rMFREESE
Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Report <NICHOLS
City of Coppell
Appendix H
Land Use Vehicle -Mile Equivalency Table
CITY OF COPPELL
AVERAGE LAND USE TRIP CALCULATIONS
LAND USE
ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Development
Trip Generation
No. of
Pass By
Diverted
Average
Average Land Use Trip
NCTCOG
1/2 Trip
Average
Total Service Units
Code
Unit
Rate`
Studies
Rate'
Trips`
Trip
Rate with deductions
Tri Len th
Len th
Trip Length`
(Veh- Mi /Dev Unit)'
Commercial / Office I Retail
General Office
710
1000 sq. ft.
1.49
235
0
0
9.60
4.80
Medical - Dental Office
720
1000 sq. ft.
3.46
43
0
0
9.60
4.80
Electronic Superstore
863
1000 sq. ft.
4.5
3
0.4
0.33
3.90
1.95
Pharmacy with drive thru
881
1000 sq. ft.
10.35
19
0.49
0.13
1.50
0.75
Toy Superstore
864
1000 sq. ft.
4.99
2
0
0
4.30
2.15
Specialty Retail Center
814
1000 sq. ft.
2.71
5
0
0
3.10
1.55
Free standing Discount Superstore
813
1000 sq. ft.
4.61
64
0.28
0
3.80
1.90
Apparel Store
876
1000 sq. ft.
3.83
7
0
0
3.10
1.55
Resturant
932
1000 sq. ft.
11.15
46
0.43
0.17
3.80
1.90
Shopping Center
820
1000 sq. ft-
3.73
412
0.34
0.19
6.40
3.20
Super market
850
1000 sq. ft.
10.5
40
0.36
0.31
2.10
1.05
Fast food with drive thru
934
1000 sq. ft.
33.84
118
0.49
0.11
4.30
2.15
Automotive Care Center
942
1000 sq. ft.
3.38
5
0
0
4.50
2.25
Hotel
310
Rooms
0.59
25
0
0
6.40
3.20
Bank with Drive Thru
912
1000 sq. ft.
25.82
71
0 47
0.26
2.50
1.25
Home Improvement Superstore
862
1000 sq. ft.
2.37
39
0.48
0.09
3.90
1.95
Auto Parts Sales
843
1000 sq, ft.
5.98
5
0.43
0.13
2.30
1.15
Garden Center
817
1000 sq. ft.
3.8
12
0
0
3.10
1.55
Arts and Crafts Store
879
1000 sq. R.
6.21
2
0
0
2.30
1.15
Convenience Market with Gasoline P
853
Fueling Positions
19.07
54
0.66
0.18
1.80
0.90
Furniture Store
890
1000 sq. ft.
0.45
19
0.53
0.16
4.80
2.40
Discount Club
857
1000 sq. ft.
4.24
25
0
0
4.00
2.52
2.30
1.15
2.03
5.13
Light Industrial
General Light Industrial
110
1000 sq. ft.
0.97
27
0
0
6.60
3.30
Industrial Park
130
1000 sq. ft.
0.86
42
0
0
6.60
3.30
Manufacturing
140
1000 sq. ft.
0.73
56
0
0
6.60
3.30
Mini Warehouse (Self Storage)
151
1000 sq. ft.
0.26
13
0
0
6.60
3.30
Utilities
170
1000 sq. ft.
0.76
3
0
0
0.77
0.77
6.60
3.30
3.30
2.55
Public Institutional
Middle /Jr high school
522
1000 sq. ft.
1.19
9
0
0
4.20
2.10
Private School (K -8)
534
Students
0.6
8
0
0
4.20
2.10
High School
530
1000 sq. ft.
0.97
22
0
0
4.20
2.10
Day Care Center
565
Students
0.82
71
0
0
4.20
2.10
.Ir. / Commaniry Collcgc
540
Students
0.12
5
0
0
6.00
3.00
Church
560
1000 sq. ft.
0.55
12
0
0
0.81
0.81
2.90
1.45
2.14
1.72
Residential - High Density
Apartment
220
DU
0.62
90
0
0
0.62
0.62
8.40
4.20
4.20
2.60
Residential - Medium /Low Density
Single- family detached housing
210
DU
1.01
314
0
0
8.40
4.20
Residential Condominium / Townhou
230
DU
0.52
62
0
0
0.93
0.93
8.40
4.20
4.20
3.90
Parks and Open Space
City Park
411
acres
0.16
3
0
0
0.16
0.16
4.70
2.35
2.35
0.38
Notes:
' Source ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Edition
2 Average number of PM peak hour trips per development unit
3 Source Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition
' Source Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition
5 Source NCTCOG 1984 & 1994 Workplace Survey and 2001 National Household Travel Survey
s Minimum average value of 1/2 trip length or 6 miles
' Calculated by multiplying the average trip length by the average trip rate w/ deductions