WA0302-SY050831CPL05135
.*. ~ .*~..*. ~ .*~.
· .."-..., ............ ,.#,.o ~. ~ ..,'..,,,.,,o,o,o,oo,o,o",,,
CHRIS 8. IBO$CO ~ ELLEN S. IvlUSALLAM
~4.'~.~. 93679 ;.z~,~,.~.... 93707
Impact Fee
Capital
Improvement
Plan - Water,
Wastewater, and
Roadway
August 2005
Prepared for
City of Coppell
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4055 International Plaza
Suite 200
Fort Worth, TX 76109
817/735-7300
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1-1
General Background ............................................................................................ 1-1
Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee ............................................................ 1-2
Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee .................................................. 1-3
Maximum Allowable Roadway Impact Fee ....................................................... 1-4
Land Use Assumptions ............................................................................................ 2-1
Purpose .................................................................................................................. 2-1
Elements of the Land Use Assumptions ............................................................. 2-1
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 2-1
Historical Data ..................................................................................................... 2-2
Base Data (Year 2005) ......................................................................................... 2-7
Growth Assumptions ........................................................................................... 2-7
10-Year Projections (Year 2015) ......................................................................... 2-7
Land Use Maps ..................................................................................................... 2-8
Summary ............................................................................................................... 2-8
Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Analysis ........................................................ 3-1
Populations ........................................................................................................... 3-1
Water Demands .................................................................................................... 3-1
Wastewater Flows ................................................................................................ 3-6
Water and Wastewater System Capital Improvements ................................... 3-9
Service Units ....................................................................................................... 3-16
Maximum Impact Fee Calculation ................................................................... 3-21
Roadway Impact Fee Analysis ................................................................................ 4-1
Methodology ......................................................................................................... 4-1
Roadway Impact Fee Service Areas ................................................................... 4-2
Roadway Impact Fees Land Use Assumptions ................................................. 4-4
Establishment of a Roadway Capital Improvement Plan ................................ 4-5
Roadway Level-of-Service ................................................................................... 4-6
Roadway Impact Fee Service Units .................................................................... 4-7
Roadway Existing Conditions Analysis ............................................................. 4-8
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4.8 Projected Conditions Analysis ............................................................................ 4-9
4.9 Calculating Impact Fees .................................................................................... 4-18
ii
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Historical Population/Water Usage Data ........................................................... 2-3
Historical Population/Wastewater Production Data .......................................... 2-4
2005 Land Use and Population .......................................................................... 2-7
2015 (Buildout) Land Use Assumptions ............................................................ 2-8
2005 and 2015 Water Demands ......................................................................... 3-4
2005 and 2015 Water Demands by Census Tract .............................................. 3-5
2005 and 2015 Wastewater Production ............................................................. 3-7
2005 and 2015 Wastewater Flows by Census Tract .......................................... 3-8
Existing and Planned Improvements for the Water Distribution System,
2005-2015 with Estimated Costs ......................................................................................... 3-10
Table 3.6 Planned Improvements for the Wastewater Collection System, 2005-2015
with Estimated Costs ........................................................................................................... 3-11
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Cost Allocation for Water Impact Fee Calculations ........................................ 3-12
Cost Allocation for Wastewater Impact Fee Calculations ............................... 3-13
Service Unit Equivalency Table ....................................................................... 3-17
Projected Water Service Units for 2005-2015 ............................................. 3-18
Projected Wastewater Service Units for 2005-2015 .................................... 3-20
Increase in Developed Acreages for years 2005 to 2015 ................................... 4-5
Roadway Facility Vehicle-Mile Capacities ........................................................ 4-7
Excess Capacity and Deficiencies ...................................................................... 4-9
Excess Capacity and Deficiencies ...................................................................... 4-9
Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Demand ....................................................... 4-11
Summary of Roadway Cost ............................................................................. 4-13
Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Capacity (Supply) ........................................ 4-15
Vehicle-Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways .................................... 4-16
Calculation of Maximum Impact Fees (Uncredited) ....................................... 4-17
Land-Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table ................................................. 4-18
iii
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 3. I
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
LIST OF FIGURES
Original 2005 Land Use Plan ......................................................................... 2-5
Original 2015 (Buildout) Landuse Plan ......................................................... 2-6
2005 Land Use Plan ....................................................................................... 2-9
2015 (Buildout) Land Use Plan ................................................................... 2-10
2005 Land Use Areas with Census Tracts ..................................................... 3-2
2015 (Buildout) Land Use Areas with Census Tracts .................................... 3-3
Water System Improvements with Impact Fees ........................................... 3-14
Wastewater System Improvements with Impact Fees .................................. 3-15
Service Area Map ........................................................................................... 4-3
Impact Fee Roadway CIP ............................................................................. 4-14
APPENDICES
Existing Roadway Inventory ..................................................................... A- 1
Existing Roadway Cpacity, Demand, Excess Capacity and Deficiencies B-1
Projected Vehicle-Miles Of New Demand ............................................... C-I
Engineer's Opinion Of Probable Construction Cost ................................ D-1
Roadway Improvements Plan Project CIP Service Units Of Supply ......... E-1
Lane Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table ............................................... F-1
Resolution for Impact Fees ....................................................................... G-1
- iv
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1
General Background
Texas Local Government Code Section 395 requires an impact fee analysis before impact
fees are set. Section 395 requires that land use assumptions and capital improvement
plans be updated at least every five years. The City of Coppell last performed an impact
fee analysis in 1995.
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. The
methodology used herein satisfies the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code
Section 395 for the establishment of water and wastewater impact fees. The statutory
authority for Impact Fees was established by the Texas Legislature in 1987 with the
passage of Senate Bill 336 (SB 336) and is currently codified in chapter 395, of the Texas
Local Government Code as a means to allow Cities to reduce the impact growth has on
its existing customer base and to allow a mechanism to place some of the burden of this
growth to future new development. In September 2001, SB 336 was replaced by Senate
Bill 243 (SB 243) which contained several changes to the original bill. The changes in
this bill include the following:
· Increased the time period that the impact fee and land use assumptions must be
updated from 3 to 5 years.
· Service area structure for roadway facilities was based on 6 mile areas.
· City's share of the costs on the federal or Texas highway system, including
matching funds, utility line relocations, right-of-way acquisition, curb and
gutter, sidewalks and drainage structures can be included
· A credit must be provided for: the portion of the utility service revenues
generated by development during the program period that is used for payment of
improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital
improvements plan, or a credit equal to 50% of the total projected cost of
implementing the capital improvements program.
· Consolidation of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan public
hearings
· Changes in compliance requirements as they relate to annual reporting
Chapter 395 also identifies the items that impact fees can be used to pay for. They are:
· Construction contract price
· Surveying and Engineering fees
· Land acquisition costs
1-1
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
· Fees paid to the consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements
plan (C1P)
· Projected interest charges and other finance costs for facilities expansions
identified in the C1P
The fee can not be used to pay for:
· 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
· Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other
indebtedness, except as allowed above
In February 2005, the City of Coppell, Texas, authorized Fmese and Nichols, Inc. (FiND
to perform an impact fee analysis on the City's water and wastewater system. The impact
fee analysis follows the general set of procedures in Subchapter B of Chapter 395,
Authorization of Impact Fee.
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. Once the utilization of a project by 2005-2015
development is determined, a portion of a project's cost can be assigned as impact fees.
For existing or proposed projects, the impact fee is calculated as a pementage of the
project cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity needed to serve
development projected to occur between 2005 and 2015. Capacity serving existing
development and development projected for more than 10 years in the future cannot be
charged to impact fees.
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
needed by the total number of service units attributed to new development during the
Impact Fee eligibility period less a credit to account for water and wastewater revenues
and property taxes used to finance capital improvement plans.
1.2 Maximum Allowable Water Impact Fee
The cost of water capital improvements to serve development projected to occur between
2005 and 2015 is $ 12,935,639. Finance costs are based on 4.5% interest, assuming
1-2
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
bonds are issued in three equal series in the first, fourth, and seventh years of the 10 year
planning period. The increase in the number of service units due to growth over the next
ten years is projected as 8,327 service units. The maximum allowable water impact fee
with the credit is $990 per service unit. The maximum allowable water impact fee
calculation is summarized as follows:
Proposed Capital Improvement Costs
Total Capital Improvement Costs
Financing Costs
Total Eligible Costs
$12,935,639
$12,935,639
$3,545,530
$16,481,169
Total 10-year Projected Growth in Service Units
8,327
Base Maximum Calculated Water Impact Fee Per
Service Unit Without Credit Analysis
$1,980
Water Impact Fee Credit (50 %)
$990
Base Maximum Calculated Water Impact Fee Per
Service Unit With Credit
$990
1.3
Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee
The cost of wastewater system capital improvements to serve development projected to
occur between 2005 and 2015 is $12,195,216. Finance costs are based on 4.5% interest,
assuming bonds are issued in three equal series in the first, fourth, and seventh years of
the 10 year planning period. The increase in the number of service units due to growth
over the next ten years is projected as 8,327 service units. The maximum allowable
wastewater impact fee with the credit is $933 per service unit. The maximum allowable
wastewater impact fee calculation is summarized as follows:
Proposed Capital Improvement Costs
Total Capital Improvement Costs
Financing Costs
Total Eligible Costs
$12,195,216
$12,195,216
$3,342,709
$15,537,925
Total 10-year Projected Growth in Service Units
8,327
Base Maximum Calculated Wastewater Impact Fee
Per Service Unit Without Credit
$1,866
Wastewater Impact Fee Credit (50 %)
$933
Base Maximum Calculated Wastewater Impact
Fee Per Service Unit With Credit
$933
1-3
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
1.4
Maximum Allowable Roadway Impact Fee
The total cost of roadway capital improvements to serve the development projected to
occur between 2005 and 2015 is $47,313,269. The increase in the number of service
units due to growth over the next ten year period is 80,702 vehicle-miles. The maximum
allowable roadway impact fee with the credit is $168 per service unit.
Proposed Capital Improvement Costs
Total Capital Improvement Costs
Financing Costs
$47,313,269
$47,313,269
$16,091,731
Total Costs
Total Eligible Costs
$63,405,000
$27,157,029
Total 10-year Projected Growth in Service Units
(veh-mil)
Base Maximum Calculated Roadway Impact Fee Per
Service Unit Without Credit
80,702
$337
Roadway Impact Fee Credit (50 %)
Base Maximum Calculated Roadway Impact
Fee Per Service Unit With Credit
$168
$168
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
2.0
2.1
2.2
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Purpose
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the process by which cities
in Texas must formulate the development of impact fees. To assist the City of Coppell in
determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a
reasonable estimation of future growth is required. For the purposes of determining an
impact fee structure, growth and development projections were formulated ba~sed on
assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity, and time of various future land
uses in the community. The purpose of this section of the report is to establish and
document the methodology used for preparing the growth and land use assumptions for
the City of Coppell. These land use assumptions, which include population projections,
will become the basis for the preparation of an impact fee for capital improvement plans
for water and wastewater facilities.
Elements of the Land Use Assumptions
This section contains:
A. Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the land use assumptions
B. Historical Data Analysis
C. Base Year Data - Information on population and land use for the City of Coppell
as of March 2005
D. Future 10-Year Data - Information on population and land use for the City of
Coppell in the year 2015 (buildout)
E. Land Use Maps - Maps of land use for years 2005 and 2015 of the City of
Coppell
2.3
Methodology
The Land Use Assumptions and future growth projections take into account several
factors influencing development patterns, including:
A. The character, type, density, and quantity of existing development
B. Existing zoning patterns
C. Current growth trends in the City
D. Location and configuration of vacant land
E. Availability of land for residential growth
- 2-1
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
2.4
The data to compile these land use assumptions was obtained from the City of
Coppell. The I0-year growth projections were calculated based upon reasonable
growth rates using past absorption rates and development proposals known or
approved by the City of Coppell. Based on the growth assumptions and capital
improvements needed to support growth, it is possible to develop an impact fee
structure that fairly allocates improvement costs to growth areas in relationship to
their impact on the entire infrastructure system.
Historical Data
The City of Coppell provided the following data:
· Wastewater production for the years 2000-2004,
· Water usage data for the years 2000-2003.
· Population distribution according to the 2000 Census Tracts, and
· Year 2005 and buildout (year 2015) land use assumptions.
The original year 2005 and buildout (year 2015) land use plans provided by the City of
Coppell are included as Figures 2.1 and 2.2. For purposes of this report, the land uses
were grouped into residential, commercial, and parks and open spaces for final analysis.
Population data for the years 2001 through 2004 was obtained from the North Central
Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Since the land use data provided by the
City was for the year 2005, the land use areas were considered to develop at
approximately the same rate per year as the population. The land use areas were
projected back yearly from the 2005 to the year 2000. Standard water usage and
wastewater production values for commercial and parks and open spaces were used to
determine the historical per capita water usage and wastewater flows. A historical
average to maximum day water usage peaking factor and number of residents per
residential acre were also established using this data. The historical data for the years
2000 through 2004 are presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
- 2-2
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
2.5 Base Data (Year 2005)
In any evaluation and projection of future land use patterns, a documentation of existing
conditions is essential. A documentation of existing land use patterns and population
was made from staffinput and from analysis of historical data. This documentation will
serve as a base line for futura growth. Table 2.3 indicates a summary of existing land
uses and populations for the City of Coppell.
Table 2.3 2005 Land Use and Pc )ulation
Land Use Acreage Population
Developed Commercial 1805
Developed Residential 2900
Parks and Open Spaces 908
Undeveloped Commercial 2029
Undeveloped Residential 123
Total Developed Acres 5613 38795
2.6
Growth Assumptions
The growth was characterized based on population. A series of assumptions were made
to arrive at a reasonable growth rate. The following assumptions have been made as a
basis from which ten-year projections could be initiated.
A. Future land uses will occur as identified by current development patterns and city
staff.
B. The City will be able to finance the necessary improvements to accommodate growth.
C. School facilities will accommodate increases in population.
2.7
10-Year Projections (Year 2015)
The 10-year projections of land use assumptions are based upon previous and current
growth rates and number of people per residential acre.
The projected 10-year population based on 13 people per residential acre, and land use
assumptions are shown in Table 2.4.
2-7
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 2.4 2015 0luildout) Land Use Assumptions
Land Use Acreage Population
Developed Commercial 3800
Developed Residential 3086
Parks and Open Spaces 1255
Total Developed Acres 8141 40118
2.8
2.9
Land Use Maps
The land use maps are provided on the following pages,
contains land uses for the following categories:
The existing land use map
· Developed Residential
· Undeveloped Residential
· Developed Commemial
· Undeveloped Commercial
· Parks and Open Spaces
The proposed land use maps contain land uses for the following categories:
· Developed Residential
· Developed Commercial
· Parks and Open Spaces
Figure 2.3 illustrates land uses for the year 2005. Figure 2.4 illustrates land uses for the
year 2015.
Summary
· Existing estimated population of Coppell in the year 2005 is 38795 persons.
· An average of 13 persons/developed residential acre was used to calculate the City of
Coppell's 10-year growth projections.
· The 10-year population projection for the year 2015 in the City of Coppell is 40,118
persons.
· Buildout will occur in the year 2015.
2-8
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
3.0 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
3.1
3.2
Water and wastewater impact fees are based on the capital costs a city incurs to provide
the water distribution system and wastewater system to serve development in the next ten
years and the service units added during the same time period. The impact fee analysis
for the water distribution and wastewater system is based on the capital improvement
plans developed in this report.
Populations
Population and land use projections were prepared using land use data and population
data from the City. The City of Coppell total population in 2005 is projected as 38,795,
and the population in 2015 is projected as 40,118. The 10-year population growth is
projected to be 1,323. The land use assumptions combined with Census Tract Areas are
shown in Figures 3.1 and 3.2. These populations were used to establish water demands
and wastewater flows, which are used to size proposed water and wastewater system
improvements.
Water Demands
The population data along with the Capital Improvements Plan developed future water
demands based on a projected average day per capita use and peaking factors. The
average day and maximum day water demands for 2005 and 2015 were projected using
the information developed in this document as summarized in Section 2.04 (Historical
Data). These water demands are shown in Table 3.1. Using land use types grouped by
Census Tract and the water uses shown in Table 3.1, the average day and maximum day
demands for 2005 and 2015 are broken down by Census Tract in Table 3.2.
3-1
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 3.2 2005 and 2015 Water Demands by Census Tract
2OO5 2OO5 2015
Average Maximum Average
Census Water Day Water Water
Tract Usage Usage Usage 2015 Maximum Day
No. (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) Water Usage (mgd)
0141.09 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.19
0141.171 0.07 0.15 0.39 0.88
0141.172 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.20
0141.181 0.51 1.15 0.74 1.66
0141.182 0.08 0.19 0.08 0.18
0141.183 0.49 1.10 0.48 1.08
0141.191 0.24 0.54 0.23 0.52
0141.192 0.27 0.61 0.29 0.66
0141.193 0.78 1.75 0.83 1.86
0141.201 0.48 1.08 0.49 1.10
0141.202 0.24 0.55 0.24 0.53
0141.203 0.42 0.95 0.42 0.94
0141.211 0.86 1.94 0.95 2.13
0141.221 0.60 1.36 0.67 1.50
0141.222 0.42 0.95 0.41 0.93
0141.223 0.13 0.28 0.14 0.31
0141.224 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.25
0141.231 0.56 1.26 0.67 1.50
0141.232 0.14 0.32 0.14 0.32
0141.233 0.27 0.60 0.28 0.64
0141.234 0.20 0.45 0.20 0.44
0141.24 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.15
.0141.261 0.18 0.40 0.26 0.59
0141.262 0.73 1.64 0.87 1.95
0141.263 0.32 0.72 0.37 0.83
0141.264 1.37 3.08 2.70 6.08
0217.101 0.10 0.23 0.29 0.66
Total 10 22 12 28
3-5
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
3.3
Wastewater Flows
The Capital Improvements Plan developed future wastewater flows based on historical
data, projected average day per capita wastewater production and peaking factors for dry
and wet weather flows. Peaking factors for peak dry weather and peak wet weather flows
were taken as 4. The projected wastewater flows for 2005 and 2015 are shown in Table
3.3.
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 3.4 2005 and 2015 Wastewater Flows by Census Tract
2005 Average 2005 Peak 2015 Average
Census Tract Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater
No. Flow (mgd) Flow (mgd) Flow (mgd) 2015 Peak Wastewater Flow (mgd)
0141.09 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.20
0141.171 0.04 0.16 0.23 0.94
0141.172 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.21
0141.181 0.21 0.86 0.35 1.42
0141.182 0.04 0.15 0.04 0.15
0141.183 0.23 0.93 0.23 0.91
0141.191 0.11 0.42 0.10 0.41
0141.192 0.13 0.51 0.14 0.54
0141.193 0.35 1.41 0.38 1.52
0141.201 0.22 0.88 0.23 0.92
0141.202 0.11 0.42 0.10 0.41
0141.203 0.18 0.73 0.18 0.72
0141.211 0.38 1.54 0.41 1.62
0141.221 0.26 1.03 0.29 1.14
0141.222 0.19 0.77 0.19 0.76
0141.223 0.06 0.23 0.06 0.25
0141.224 0.05 0.20 0.05 0.21
0141.231 0.24 0.98 0.30 1.20
0141.232 0.06 0.25 0.06 0.24
0141.233 0.12 0.47 0.12 0.50
0141.234 0.09 0.36 0.09 0.35
0141.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.16
0141.261 0.08 0.31 0.12 0.49
0141.262 0.32 1.29 0.40 1.59
0141.263 0.14 0.56 0.17 0.69
0141.264 0.80 3.20 1.59 6.37
0217.101 0.04 0.17 0.14 0.57
Total 4.47 17.87 6.13 24.52
3-8
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols. Inc.
3.4 Water and Wastewater System Capital Improvements
Proposed water system projects were developed as part of the Capital Improvement Plan
created in this document. A detailed description of the costs for each of the various
projects needed for the i O-year growth period used in the impact fee analysis for both the
water and wastewater systems are shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 respectively. These
proposed water system Capital Improvement Projects are shown on Figure 3.3. Proposed
wastewater projects are shown on Figure 3.4.
3-9
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
3.5
The proposed water system projects that have excess capacity to serve futura
development and are used in the impact fee analysis are listed in Table 3.5. The
proposed wastewater system projects that have excess capacity to serve future
development and are used in the impact fee analysis are listed in Table 3.6. In Tables 3.7
and 3.8, the percent utilization for 2005, 2015, and the 10-year period, 2005 to 2015 are
listed. The 2005 percent utilization is the portion of a project's capacity needed to serve
existing development. It is not included as part of the impact fee analysis. The 2015
percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity that will be needed to serve
Coppell in 2015. The 2005-2015 percent utilization is the portion of the project's
capacity needed to serve development from 2005 to 2015.
The portion of a project's total cost that is used to serve development projected to occur
from 2005 through 2015 is calculated as the total actual cost multiplied by the 2005 to
2015 percent utilization. Only this portion of the cost is used in the impact fee analysis.
Service Units
The maximum impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of
capital improvements needed by the total number of service units attributed to new
development during the impact fee eligibility period. For the purposes of the water
impact fee analysis, a water service unit is defined as 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. The wastewater service unit is defined in terms of the size of the water
meter used. For the purposes of the impact fee analysis, 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 needed to represent each meter size is based on the maximum
rated capacity of the meters as shown in AWWA Manual 6, Water Meters -- Selection,
Installation, Testing, and Maintenance, 3rd edition, 1986. The service unit equivalent for
each meter size is listed in Table 3.9.
3-16
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 3.9 Service Unit Equivalency Table
Meter Size I Service Unit
Equivalents
5/8" 1
1" 1.67
1 V2" 3.33
2" 5.33
4" 21
6" 46.67
8" 80
Table 3.10 shows the water service units for 2005 and the projected service units for
2015. Typically, in Coppell, single-family residences are served with 5/8-inch water
meters. Larger meters represent public, commercial, and industrial water use. The 2005
water residential and commercial meter quantities were provided by Coppell. The total
number of service unit equivalents for 2005 is 26,027. The 2015 projected water meter
quantities are based on population and commercial acre growth projections. The
projected total number of service unit equivalents for 2015 is 34,354. The growth in
service unit equivalents from 2005 to 2015 is 8,327.
3-17
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 3.11 shows the wastewater service units for 2005 and the projected service units
for 2015. A wastewater service unit for a single family residence is represented by a 5/8"
water meter. Larger meters represent public, commercial, and industrial wastewater use.
The 2015 projected connections are based on population and commercial acre growth.
3-19
Cit~ of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
3.6
Maximum Impact Fee Calculation
The maximum impact fee that can be levied is equal to the projected capital cost needed
to serve 10-year development divided by the projected 10-year growth in service units.
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 Improvement Plan.
A. Maximum Water Impact Fee
The eligible costs for water include the following:
Proposed Capital Improvement Costs
Total Capital Improvement Costs
Financing Costs
Total Eligible Costs
Total Water Impact Fee Credit (50%)
$12,935,639
$12,935,639
$3,545,530
$16,481,169
$990
The total eligible costs associated with the existing and proposed water system
improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years i s $16,481,169. The
increase in the number of service units due to growth over the next ten years is
projected as 8,327 service units.
Maximum Water Impact Fee = 1 O-year Capital Improvement Cost - Credit
With Credit 10-year growth in Service Units
= $16,481,169 $8,240,585
8,327 SU
B. Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee
$ 990/SU
The eligible costs for water include the following:
Proposed Capital Improvement Costs
Total Capital Improvement Costs
Financing Costs
Total Eligible Costs
$12,195,216
$12,195,216
$3,342,709
$15,537,924
3-21
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Total Wastewater Impact Fee Credit (50 %) $933
The total eligible costs associated with the existing and proposed wastewater system
improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years is $15,537,924. The
increase in the number of service units due to growth over the next ten years is
projected as 8,327 service units.
Maximum Wastewater Impact
Fee With Credit
= I0-year Capital Improvement Cost - Credit
10-year Growth in Service Units
= $15,537,924 - $7,768,962
8,327 SU
= $ 933/SU
3 -22
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4.0
4.1
ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
Methodology
In order to establish or update an impact fee for roadway systems, several steps must be
taken. The steps taken for the update of the roadway impact fee for the City of Coppell
included:
· Establishment and combining the existing Service Areas into one Service Area.
Land use assumptions
· Identification of the PM peak hour of vehicle-miles of travel as the appropriate
service unit for the impact fee calculation.
· Preparation of an existing street inventory of the thoroughfare plan streets. This
inventory included current roadway lengths, roadway widths, number of lanes,
pavement types and existing traffic counts.
· Calculation of total vehicle-miles of existing supply for PM peak hour. This was
done using the roadway segment length and capacity of the roadway based upon a
level-of-service "C/D".
Evaluation of the existing roadway network based on City traffic count data and
traffic counts collected by Gram Traffic Counting. These PM peak hour traffic
counts were used to determine current roadway demand, and if any deficiencies
(below an acceptable level-of-service) exist on each roadway link within the impact
fee service area.
· Calculation of new total vehicle-miles of demand for each service area. These new
vehicle-miles of demand are based on the land use assumptions, ITE Trip Generation
Manual 7th Edition, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG)
Workplace Survey, and the National Household Travel Survey.
· Establishment of an impact fee capital improvements plan that includes identification
of roadways, lengths, and costs. This capital improvements plan was based on future
growth, traffic patterns, and staff input.
· Calculation of new vehicle-miles of supply, vehicle-miles of demand, and excess
capacities. These were calculated based on the improvements listed in the capital
improvements plan and the existing PM peak hour traffic counts.
· Calculation of the cost of net capacity supplied and the cost to meet existing demands
on impact fee CIP roadways.
· Determination of the percentage and cost of capacity added attributed to new growth.
· Calculation of the maximum cost per service unit for each service area.
· Establishment of a land-use vehicle-mile equivalency table for five main land uses
with specific categories. These land uses included: residential, office,
retail/commercial, light industrial, and institutional.
4-1
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
· Calculation of the impact fee. The land use vehicle-mile equivalency table and the
cost per service unit are the components which make up the impact fee.
4.2
Roadway Impact Fee Service Areas
Service areas are required by State Law to define the area served by the Roadway Capital
Improvements. A new development in a particular service area can only be assessed an
impact fee based on the cost of the capital improvements necessitated by the new
development within that service area. The service area for roadway facilities is limited to
an area within the corporate boundaries of the city and shall not exceed a distance of six
miles. Previously the service area was limited a distance of 3 miles. Based on the new
criteria passed in 2001, the existing service area structure of 10 service areas was
combined into one service area. This combination of service areas provides the City of
Coppell with ability to pool additional funds to constmct infrastructure improvements
and promotes fee uniformity because it tends to average cost out over several projects.
Refer to Figure 4.1 for the service area map.
4-2
0
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4.3
Roadway Impact Fees Land Use Assumptions
Chapter 395 requires that land use assumptions and capital improvements plan be
updated at least every five (5) years. The capital improvements plan and land use
assumptions are developed for a period of time not more than ten (10) years.
The land use assumptions provide the basis and structure for determining impact fees
attributed to future growth and development. These land use assumptions are presented in
a report in Section 2.0. From this section the 2005 and 2015 increase in developed
acreages for the City of Coppell is estimated to be 5,613 acres and 8,141 acres,
respectively.
4-4
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nicholx, Inc.
A summary of the increase in developed acreages used in this report is shown in Table
4.1.
Table 4.1 Increase in Developed Acreages for years 2005 to 2015
INCREASE IN DEV. ACREAGES
Land Use
Acres
Commercial
Commercial/Office/Retail 230
Freeway Commercial/Office/Retail 664
Light Industrial 866
Public Institutional 235
Residential
Residential High Density 20
Residential Medium Density 159
Residential Low Density 7
Parks and Open Space 347
Total 2,528
4.4
Establishment of a 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:
A. 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
B. An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and comrrdtments 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.
4-5
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4.5
E. 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
F. The projected demand for capital improvements required by the new service units
projected over a reasonable period of time
G. 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.
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 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 4.2 lists the maximum service volumes for
level-of-service "C/D" as a function of facility type.
4-6
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 4.2 Roadway Facility Vehicle-Mile Capacities
Principal Arterial - Divided P6D 700
Divided Local Arterials C4D 625
Undivided Collector - 4 Lane C4U 440
lndivided Collector - 2 Lane C2U 350
4.6
*Hourly capacity for LOS "C/D" obtained from NCTCOG DFW Regional Travel Model and the
Highway Capacity Manual
Roadway Impact Fee Service Units
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)
rash 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 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/l)".
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.
4-7
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4.7
Roadway Existing Conditions Analysis
Through field investigations of existing thoroughfare plan roadways (collector and
arterial streets) a roadway inventory was established. This inventory included the
pavement type, number of lanes, roadway widths and lengths, the current traffic volume
using the roadways, and current designation on the thoroughfare plan. A listing of the
roadway inventory is provided in Appendix A. The roadway inventory was used to
determine the capacity provided by the existing roadway system, the current vehicle
demand on the roadway system, and if any roadway link was over capacity or exhibited
any deficiencies.
A. Existing Traffic Volumes
Existing daily and hourly traffic volumes were obtained from 19 locations throughout
the City to supplement existing city traffic count data. These counts were conducted
by GRAM Traffic Counting in March 2005. These traffic counts included collector
and arterial roadways and were not limited to only potential impact fee capital
improvement plan roadways.
B. 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)
For example: a 4-lane divided roadway that is 3 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 3 miles -- 7,500
vehicle-miles per hour
This existing capacity is calculated for each 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 4.3. A
complete detailed listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix B.
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
4-8
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
This existing demand is calculated for each service area and is not limited to only
those roadways identified in the impact fee capital improvements program. A
summary of the existing demand for the service area is illustrated in Table 4.3. A
complete detailed listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix B.
Table 4.3 Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
City 20,459 42,838
D. 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 4.4. A complete detailed
listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix B. Roadways with deficiencies in
the City of Coppell are Sandy Lake Road, Bethai Road, Royal Lane, Coppell Road, and
Denton Tap Road.
Table 4.4 Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
City 20,459 4,133
4.8
Projected Conditions Analysis
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 and the costs for the roadway improvements. The recommended
service unit for assessing impact fees for the impact new development has on roadway
4-9
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
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. ~l~e following
section describes the methodology used in developing service units for new
developments.
Trip Generation
The trip generation rates are use 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
7th 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.
· 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
4-I0
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
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.
B. 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, chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code limits the
average trip length 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.
C. 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 from the adopted land use assumptions. These land use assumptions are
summarized 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 1 O-year study period
Trip generation rates for PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic (provided by
the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th 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 4.5. A
complete detailed listing by land use category is provided in Appendix C.
Table 4.5 Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Demand
City 80,7O2
4-11
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Capital Improvements Plan (CIP)
The capital improvements plan includes roadway improvements that are needed to
accommodate growth based on the adopted land use assumptions and vehicle-miles
of travel for various types of land uses. The impact fee CIP can only contain
roadways which are only included on the city's thoroughfare plan and are of the
arterial and collector classification. 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) existing conditions, 4) ability to recoup
roadway costs (cost share or previously constructed roadways with excess capacity),
5) financial considerations, and 6) staff input. Senate Bill 243 allows for 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 or federal highways are included in the CIP. The
projects included in the Impact Fee Roadway CIP are listed in Table 4.6 and
illustrated in Figure 4.2
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 $47,313,269 in 2005 dollars
($63,405,000 with interest). A detailed Engineer's Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost for each roadway is provided in Appendix D. A summary of the
cost for the impact fee CIP are provided in Table 4.6
4-12
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
RECOUPEMENT
PROJECTS
Table 4.6 Summary of Roadway Cost
COST w/
No. ROADWAY FROM TO COST FINANCING
3* SANDY LAKE RD DENTON TAP ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. $11,145,337 $14,935,000
4* SANDY LAKE RD MACARTHUR BLVD. CITY LIMIT (EAST) $5,193,720 $6,960,000
8* FREEPORT PKWY 1H-635 BETHAL ROAD $1,017,629 $1,364,000
12' BELT LINE ROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD. MACARTHUR BLVD. $522,283 $700,000
Total: $17,878,969 $23,959,000
*Cost from City Contract
Documents
EXPANSION
PROJECTS
COST w!
No. ROADWAY FROM TO COST FINANCING
SANDY LAKE
1'* ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) COPPELL ROAD $5,802,578 $7,776,000
SANDY LAKE
2** ROAD COPPELL ROAD DENTON TAP RD $5,115,927 $6,856,000
5** ROYAL LANE SANDY LAKE ROAD EXTEND SOUTH $771,750 $1,035,000
FREEPORT
6** PKWY SH 121 SANDY LAKE RD $1,140,436 $1,529,000
FREEPORT
7** PKWY RUBY ROAD SANDY LAKE RD $1,627,609 $2,181,000
9** BETHEL ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) FREEPORT PKWY. $8,994,000 $12,052,000
10'*
* ROYAL LANE IH-635 BETHEL ROAD $3,394,000 $4,548,000
11'* SOUTHWESTER
* NBLVD. COPPELL ROAD CREEK CROSSING $ ! ,009,000 $1,353,000
13'* MACARTHUR
* BLVD. BETHAL SCHOOL RD BELT LINE ROAD $1,579,000 $2,116,000
Total: $29,434,300 $39,446,000
**Engineer's Probable Construction Cost Estimates provided by the City
*** Freese and Nichols Conceptual Level Cost Estimates
TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS $47,313,269 $63,405,000
4-13
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Capacity (Supply)
The vehicle-miles of capacity added is 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 4.7. A complete
detailed listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix E.
Table 4.7
Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Capacity (Supply)
City 33,413
Vehicle-Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways
The vehicle-miles of existing demand or the current usage on CIP roadways is a
measure of the existing vehicle-miles along a roadway that is included in the capital
improvements plan. The demand is calculated from the equation below:
Vehicle-Miles of Demand on CIP roadway = PM peak hour volume x Length of
Roadway (miles)
For example: A 3-mile long CIP roadway that has a PM peak hour volume of 400
vehicles per hour:
Vehicle-Miles of Demand = 400 vehicles per hour x 3 miles = 1,200 vehicle-miles
per hour
The vehicle-miles of existing demand on CIP roadways are provided in Table 4.8. A
complete detailed listing by roadway segment is provided in Appendix E.
4-15
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 4.8
Vehicle-Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways
City 14,696
G. 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 4.9 illustrates these calculations for
the roadway impact fees. The maximum fee per service unit without a credit is $337.
4-16
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 4.9 Calculation of Maximum Impact Fees (Uncredited)
Line # I I Service Area
1 Total Veh-Miles of Capacity Added by the ClP 33,413
(From Projected Veh-Miles of New Capacity) (Table 4.7)
2 Total Veh-Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roads 14,969
(From Veh-Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways)(Table 4.8)
3 Total Veh-Mile of Existing Deficiencies on Existing Roads 4,133
(From Excess Capacity and Deficiencies)(Table 4.4)
4 Net Amount of Veh-Mile Capacity Added 14,311
(Line gl-Line #2-Line #3)
5 Total Eligible Cost of CIP Within Service Area $63,405,000
(From Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Costs)(Table 4.6)
6 Cost of Net Capacity Supplied $27,157,029
(Net of Capac#y Added/Total of Capacity Added) *CIP Cost - (Line
#4/Line #1)*(Line #5)
7 Cost to Meet Existing Needs and Usage $36,247,971
~Total Cost of ClP-Cost of Net Capacity Supplied) - Line #5-Line #6
8 Total Yeh-Mile of New Demand Over 10 Years 80,702
'From Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Demand)(Table 4.5)
9 % of Capacity Added Attributed to New Growth 563.9%
(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 $27,157,029
(Cost of Net Capacity Supplied * Cost Attributed to New Growth) - Line
#6*Line#10
12 Maximum Fee per Service Unit - Without Credit $337
(Cost of Net Capacity Attributed to New Growth/Total Veh-Mile of New
Demand) - Line #Il~Line #8
13 Percent of Fee Recoverable 50%
14 Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit $168
Line #I2*Line #13)
H. 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 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
4-17
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
industrial, and institutional. Table 4.10 illustrates the total service units generated by
the various land uses. Appendix F provides the land-uses used for this table.
Table 4.10 Land-Use Vehicle-Mile E, uivalenc Table
Dev. Trip Trip Veh-Mi Per
ITE Land Use Unit Rate Length 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. 3.72 4.80 17.86
Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 1.49 4.80 7.15
Retail / Conunercial
Shopping Center 1000 sq. ft. 2.48 3.20 7.92
Home Improvement Superstore 1000 sq. ft. 1.72 1.95 3.34
Super market 1000 sq. ft. 6.69 1.05 7.02
Restaurant 1000 sq. ft. 6.12 1.90 11.62
Fast food with drive thru 1000 sq. ft. 17.32 2.15 37.24
Gasoline/Service Station with Conv Fuel Positions 5.89 0.90 5.30
Hotel Rooms 0.59 3.20 1.89
Bank with Drive Thru 1000 sq. ft. 27.44 1.25 34.31
Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 2.48 3.20 7.92
Light Industrial
General Light Industrial I000 sq. ft. 0.98 3.30 3.23
Industrial Park I000 sq. ft. 0.86 3.30 2.84
Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 1000 sq. ft. 0.26 3.30 0.86
Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.98 3.30 3.23
Institutional
Primary/Middle School Students 0.15 2.10 0.32
High School Students 0.14 2.10 0.29
Jr. / Community College Students 0.12 3.00 0.36
Day Care Center Students 0.82 2.10 1.72
Church i000 sq. ft. 0.66 1.45 0.96
Others Not Specified 1000 sq. ft. 0.66 1.45 0.96
4.9
Calculating Impact Fees
The calculation of the actual fee charged to development is a two-part process. These
parts are:
4-18
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Determine number of service units (vehicle-miles) generated by the
development using the land-use vehicle-mile equivalency table.
Part 2:
No. of Development x Vehicle-miles (Total Service Units)
Units per development unit
= Development's Vehicle-miles
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 C1P 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 $168.
A. Single-Family Dwelling
(1 dwelling unit x 4.24 vehicle-miles) / 1 dwelling unit = 4.24 vehicle-miles
4.24 Vehicle-miles x $168 / vehicle-mile = $712
B. 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 $168 / vehicle-mile = $12,012
C. 60,000 s.f. Retail Shopping Center
(60,000 s.f. x 7.92 vehicle-miles)/1,000 s.f. units = 475.20 vehicle-miles
475.20 vehicle-miles x $168/vehicle-mile = $79,833
D. 100,000 s.f. Light Industrial Development
(100,000 s.f. x 3.23 vehicle-miles)/1,000 s.f. units =323 vehicle-miles
323 vehicle-miles x $168/vehicle-mile = $54,264
E. 4,000 Student Junior/Community College
(4,000 Students. x 0.36vehicle-miles)/4,000 units = 1,440 vehicle-miles
1,440 vehicle-miles x $168/vehicle-mile = $241,920
4-19
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix A
Existing Roadway Inventory
A-1
~ oo~ o o ooooo~ooo_ oooo
~88°
oo~
~ ~oooo~ o
<0<0<8<8°0
O~wm
~o =~= ~ ~ o
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix B
Existing Roadway Capacity, Demand,
Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix C
Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Demand
C-1
Projected Vehicle Miles of New Demand
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS1 Unit of Trip No. of YEAR 2005 (EXISTING)
Land Use (Veh-Mi/Dev Unit) Generation Units per
Acre2 Acres Veh-Miiea
Comme rcial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 sq.ft. G FA 10.69 193 10,807
4Freewa¥ Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 sq.~l. GFA 10.89 128 4,301
*Light Industrial 2.38 1000 sq.ft. GFA 15.24 1,074 38,890
Public Institutional 2.90 1000 sq.ft. GFA 15.24 410 18,106
Residential
Residen6al High Density 2.60 DU 16 174 7,250
Residential Medium Density 4.24 DM 4 2,233 37,890
Residential Low Density 4.24 DU 2 493 4,183
Parks and Open Space 0.54 Acres 1 908 49t
Assumed 77% of the existing developed non-residential/~ industrial
Land Use (Veh-Mi/Dev Unit) Generation Units per
Acrez Acres Veh-Miie~
Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 sq,fl. GFA 10.89 423 23,686
4FreewaY Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 sq.ft. GFA 10.89 792 26,609
Light industrial 2.38 1000 sq.ft. G FA 15.24 ~,940 70,248
Public Institutional 2.90 1000 sq.ft. GFA 15.24 645 28,484
Residential
Residential High Density 2.60 DU 16 194 8,083
Residential Medium Density 4.24 DU 4 2,392 40,587
Residential Low Density 4.24 DU 2 500 4,242
Parks and Open Space 0.54 Acres 1 1,255 678
Total 8,141 202,6t9
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS1 Unit of Trip No. of INCREASE IN VEH-MtLES
Land Use (Veh-Mi/Dev Unit) Generation Units per
ACRES TO UNIT OF TRIP GENERATION CONVERSION FACTORS
Number of D~lling Units per Acre
{High Density)
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
lumber of Dwelling Units per Acre
.ow Density)
~'ommercial) 25% coverage
(Ught Industrial) 35% coverage
(Public Institutional) 35% coverage
16 units per acre
4 units per acre
2 units per acre
10.89* sq fl per acre
15.24' sq ft per acre
15.24* sq ft per acre
Note~:
See Average Land Use Trip Calculations
See Trip Generation Conversion Factors
Caicutatad by multiplying the Total Service Units by the NO of units
per Acres by the Acres provided in the land use assumptions
Reduce the Freeway Commercial/Office/Retail by 40%.
The 40% represents the numbe¢ of trips added to the
Freeway system and not the Coppeli Roadway System
4055[nternationa[Plaza, Ste200
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix D
Engineer's Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost
D-1
RECOUPEMENTPROJECTS
PROJECT ROADWAY
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST
COST w!
FROM TO COST FINANCING
3* SANDY LAKE ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. $11,145,337 $14,935,000
4' SANDY LAKE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. CITY LIMIT (EAST) $5,193,720 $6,960,000
8' FREEPORT PARKWAY IH-635 BETHAL ROAD $1,017,629 $1,364,000
12' BELT LINE ROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD. MACARTHUR BLVD. $522,283 $700,000
Total: $17,873,969 $23,959,000
*Cost from City Contract Documents
EXPANSION PROJECTS
PROJECT ROADWAY
FROM TO COST
1'* SANDY LAKE ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST)
2'* SANDY LAKE ROAD COPPELL ROAD
5** ROYAL LANE SANDY LAKE ROAD
6** FREEPORT PKWY SH t21
7" FREEPORT PKWY RUBY ROAD
9'* BETHEL ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST)
10'" ROYAL LANE IR-635
11'** SOUTHWESTERN BLVD. COPPELL ROAD
COPPELL ROAD
DENTON TAP ROAD
EXTEND SOUTH
SANDY LAKE ROAD
SANDY LAKE ROAD
FREEPORT PKWY.
BETHEL ROAD
CREEK CROSSING
MACARTHUR BLVD. BETHAL SCHOOL ROAD BELT LINE ROAD
$5,802,578
$5,115,927
$771,750
$1,627,609
$8,994,000
$3,394,000
$1,009,0O0
$1,579,000
COST wi
FINANCING
$7,776,O00
$6,856,000
$1,035,000
$1,529,000
$2,181,000
$12,052,000
$4,548,000
$1,353,000
$2,116,000
Total: $29,434,300 $39,446,000
· *Engineer's Probable Construction Cost Estimates provided to the City by Engineering Consultants
· ** Freese and Nichols Conceptual Level Cost Estimates
TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $47,313,269 $63~405,000
CITY OF COPPELL RECOUPEMENT COST
Sandy Lake Road Project No.:
Denton Tap to MacArthur
Construction $ 9,441,368
Design $ 1,030,683
Geotech $ 30,920
Misc. TXU street lights, ect. $ 193,073
Misc. tree removal, sprinkler repair $ 85,275
Right of way $ 364,018
Sandy Lake Road Project No.:
Macarthur to E. city limits
Construction $ 4,828,324
Design $ 134,106
Geotech $ 32,231
Misc. ADA review $ 575
Misc. tree removal $ 14,508
Misc. Archaeology survey $ 6,000
Right of way $ 134,116
Bridge over Elm Fork
Right of way $ 43,860
4
Beltline Road Project No..'
Denton Tap to MacArthur
Construction $ 438,926
Misc. TXU streetlights $ 70,476
Right of way $ 12,881
12
Bethel Road Project No,:
Freeport to W. city limits
Engineer's est. of cost $ 8,277,387
Design $ 545,480
Misc. relocate explorer pipeline $ 48,000
Right of way $ 123,133
9
Royal Lane Project No.:
Sandy Lake South
Engineer's est. of cost $ 753,000
Design $ 18,750
5
Sandy Lake Road Project No.:
SH121 to Coppell Rd. N.
Engineer's est. of cost $ 5,014,000
Design $ 451,468
Right of way $ 337,110
11,145,337
5,193,720
522,283
8,994,000
771,750
5,802,578
CITY OF COPPELL RECOUPEMENT COST
Sandy Lake Road
Coppell Rd. N. to Denton Tap
Engineer's est. of cost
Design
Right of way (est.)
Project No.:
4,238,725
677,202
200,000
Royal Lane
IH635 to Bethel
Drainage cost
Misc. RR crossing
Right of way
Project No.:
224,023
436,579
20,167
10
Freeport Parkway
IH635 to Bethel
Construction
Design
Misc. RR crossing
Project No.:
$ 900,364
$ 4,760
$ 112,505
8
Freeport Parkway
Sandy Lake to S H 121
Engineer's est. of cost
*($2,559,780 from NCTCOG)
Design
Geotech
Right of way (est.)
**($1,080,214 from NCTCOG)
Project No.:
$ 460,000
$ 40,250
$ 640,186
6
Freeport Parkway
Ruby to Sandy Lake
Engineer's est. of cost
*($3,368,000 from NCTCOG)
Design
Geotech
Right of way (est.)
Project No.:
$ 730,609
$ 632,500
$ 57,500
$ 207,000
7
5,115,927
680,769
1,017,629
1,140,436
1,627,609
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Southwestern Blvd.
~oadway Description: Quantity Unit Project Summary:
Roadway Length 1,500 LF 4-Lane Undivided from Coppe]l Rd.
Right-of-Way Width 70 F~' to Denton Tap Road
Roadway Width (BOC - BOC) 49 FT
Undivided Roadwa = 1 , D v pad Roadway = 2 1
Item No. Item Description Date Performed: 6/8~05
Quantit~ Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $40,000.00 $40,00u
2 Right of Way Preparation I 0 ACRE $2,000.00 $20,000
3 Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment 2,800 CY $15.00 $42,000
4 ¥ Reinforced Concrete Pavement 9,000 SY $35.00 $315,000
5 ' Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade 9,400 SY $4.00 $37,600
6 _ime or Cement for Stabilizatior~ (401bs/SY) 200 TON $100.00 $20,000
7 ~" Monolithic Curb 3,300 LF $5.00 $16,500
8 ~idewalk and Ramps 15,000 SF $4.00 $60,00~
9 3rainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Ouffalls) 1 LS $143,000.00 $143,00~
10 rraffic Signals 0 LS $120,000.00
11 -lydromulching 2,200 SY $1.00 $2,200
12 Top Soil 2,200 SY $2.00 $4,40(3
t3 3avement Markings & Signage 6,000 LF $1.00 $6,00C
14 Traffic Control 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,00C
15 5rosion Control 1 LS $9,000.00 $9,00(;
16 .andscaping and Irrigation 0 LS $29,000.00 SC
17 .ighting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors) 0 EA $4,000.00 SC
9ubtotal Construction Cost Estimate $730,70~
Contingency 20% $146,20¢
Total Construction Cost Estimate $876,90~
Right-of-Way Cost SF $3.00 $0.0(
Engineering Services (10% of Construction Cost) 10.0% $87,700.8(
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost) 3.0% $26,400.0t
~eotechnical Services (1% of Construction Cost) 1.0% $8,800.0(
Testing (1% of Construction Cost) 10% $8,800.0(
*Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for May 2005) $1,009,000.00
*Total Capital Cost Per F~ot $680.00
*Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years) $1,353,000.00
*This estimate does not include Legal, Administration, or Financial Cost
City of Coppefl, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Royal Lane
:loadway Description: Quantity Unit Project Summary:
Roadway Length 2,990 LF 6oLane Divided from IH 635 to Bethal Rd.
Right-of-Way Width 110 FT
Roadway Width (BOC ~ BOC) 65 FT
Item No. Item Description Date Performed: 6/8/05
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization {5% of Construction Cost) 1 LS $100,000.00 $100.00(
2 Right of Way Preparation 10 ACRE $2,000.00 $20,00(
3 Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment 7,600 CY $15.00 $114,00(
4 ~= Reinforced Concrete Pavement 24,900 SY $36.00 $571,50(
5 8" Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade 25,600 SY $4.00 $102,40(
6 Lime or Cement for Stabilization (401bs/SY) 600 TON $100.00 $60,00(
7 6" Monolithic Curb 13,200 LF $5.00 $66,00(
8 Sidewalk and Ramps 29,900 SF $4.00 $119,601
9 Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls) 1 LS $224,023.00 $224,023
10 Traffic Signals 0 LS $120,000.00 $0
11 -~ydromulching 11,300 SY $1.00 $11,300
12 Fop Soil 11,300 SY $2.00 $22,600
13 ~avement Markings & Signage 12,000 LF $1.00 $12,000
14 traffic Control 1 LS $29,000.00 $29,000
15 :rosion Control 1 LS $17,000.00 $17,000
16 _andscaping and Irrigation 1 LS $57,000.00 $57,000
17 Jghting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors) 20 EA $4,000.00 $60,000
18 Vlisc. RR Crossing 1 LS $436,579.00 $436,579
,ubtotal Construction Cost Estimate $2,343,100
~ontingency 20% $468,700
~ Total Construction Cost Estimate $2,811,800
Right.-of-Way Cost 53,200 SF $3.00 $159,600.00
Engineering Services (10% of Construction Cost) 10.0% $281,200.0(]
Su rvey~ng Services (3% of Construction Cost) 3.0% $84,400.0~
Geotechnical Services (1% of Construction Cost) 1.0% $25,200.0C
Testing (1% of Construction Cost) 1.0% $28,200.0£
*Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for May 2005) $3,394,000.0(
*Total Capital Cost Per Foot $1,140.0(
*Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years) $4,548,000.0(
*This estimate does not include Legal, Administration, or Financial Cost
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
MacArthur Boulevard
Roadway Description: Quantity Unit Proiect SummaP/:
Roadway Length 2,630 LF 6-lane principal aderial from Sandy Lake Rd.
Right-of*Way Width 110 FT to Belt Line Road
Roadway Width (BOC - BOC) 25 FT
Item No. Item Description Date Performed: 6/8/05
Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost} 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,00(
2 Right of Way Preparation 0 ACRE $2,000.00 $(
3 Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment 2,500 CY $15.00 $37,50(
4 ¥' Reinforced Concrete Pavement 8,100 SY $35.00 $283,50(
5 8" Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade 8,700 SY $4.00 $34,80(
6 Lime or Cement for Stabilization (401bs/SY) 200 TON $100.00 $20,00(
7 i6" Monolithic Curb 5,800 LF $5.00 $29,000
8 ~idewalk and Ramps 26,300 SF $4.00 $105,200
9 3rainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Ouffalls) 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
10 Fraffic Signals ILS $120,000.00 $120,000
11 -lydromulching 22,600 SY $1.00 $221600
12 Fop Soil 22,600 SY $2.00 $45,200
13 ~avement Markings & Signage 10,600 LF $1.00 $10,600
14 traffic Control 1 LS $25,000.00 $25,000
t5 :roslon Control ILS $15,000.00 $15,000
16 -andscaping and Irrigation 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000
17 .ighting (Foun(Jations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors) 0 EA $4,000.00 $0
Subtotal Construction Cost Estimate $853,400
Contingency 20% $170,700
Total Construction Cost Estimate $1,02~t,100
Right-of-Way Cost SF $3.00 $0.00
Engineering Services (10% of Construction Cost) 10.0% $102,500.0(3
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost) 3.0% $30,800.013
Geotechnical Services (1% of Construction Cost) 1.0% $10,300.01:
Testing (1% of Construction Cost) I 0% $10,300.0C
*Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for May 2005) $1,178,000.0(
*Total Capital Cost Per Foot $450.0t
*Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% inflation for 10 years) $1,579,000.0(
*This estimate does not include Legal, Administration, or Financial Cost
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix E
Roadway Improvements Plan Project CIP
Service Units of Supply
E-I
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix F
Land Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table
F-1
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix G
Resolution for Impact Fees
G-1
Oct 14 200S 8:02RM
HP LRSERSET 3200
ENGINEERING DEt~
FAX CO I/ER St~
From.'
Date:
Pages:
~ I
Phone:
~RTMENT
PO Box 478
255 Parkway Brvd
Coppall, TX 75019
Phone: (g72)304-3686
F~x: (g72}304-7041
EET
~o/~/o ~
(including cover sheet)
Re: CC:
[] Urgent E~For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply [] As Requested
,Comments:
LE. ASE CALL (972J 304-3686
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES,
p.1
CiO~ of Coppell Engineering - Eorcellet~ce By Design
i
Oct 14 2005
HP LRSERJET 3~00
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY O
RESOLUTION NO.
i R SO t TIO Or TaE
AI~UENDING ~SOLUTION NO. 0109
SCHEDULE, ~ ~NDED, BY A~NE
LIB~RY, IN PART; THE GENE~ FEI
AND THE IMPACT FEES, IN PART; AND
CLAUSE ~D PRO~DING ~ EF~CTIV
WHE~AS, the City Council of the City ~
Resolution No. 010996.3 to provide for general ~d spt
co]l:cteR by ~e City, as au~o~zed by thc Code of
ordin~ces, resolutiom, ~d laws; ~d
WHE~AS, ~e City Co~cil of the City of Cc
fo~h t~erein ~& delete others as authorized by Iaw;
NO,V, THE~FO~, BE IT ~SOLVED
CITY OF COPPELL, TE~S:
SECTION 1. That the Master Fee Schedule sec
in p~. to read ~ foiIows:
Library Fees
Computer Diskettes - CD
Computer Diskettes - CD-RW
Engineering Fees
8) Copy Fees
g. Standard Construction Details
Standard Construction Details-
j'. Xerograph/c Copy/24"x36" or 1
~COPPELL, TEXAS
loll, I
( OF COPPELL, TEXAS,
6.3, THE MASTER FEE
lNG THE GENERAL FEES-
S-ENGINEERING, LN PART;
PROVIDING A REPEALING
DATE.
C0ppell, Texas, previously adopted
Cial'fees ~nd charges to he assessed and
)rdinances and other applicable codes,
,ell desires to amend certain fees as set
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
on entitled "General Fees" be amended,
$ .50
2.00
xI7" $25.00
:D 10.00
rger 5.00
Oc~ 14 2005 8:02RM HP LRSERJET 3200 p.3 .
MAX~$UMFEERATEFOR
SCHEDULE
WATER FACILITY
MA.XI~UM FEE PER SERVICE
Meter Size E.S.U, **
5t8" x 314" 1.00
1" 1.67
1 i/2" 3.33
2" 5.33
Y' I1.67
4" 21.00
6" 46.67
8"
80.00
IMPACT FEES
JNIT *
Water Impact Fee
$ 99O.0O
$ ' ],653.30
$ 3,296.70
$: 5,276.70
$ 11,553.30
$ 20,790.00
$ 46,203.30
$ 79,200.00
Meter Size
5/8" x 3/4"
1" 1.67
1 I/2" 3.33
2" 5.33
3" 11.67
4" 21.00
WASTEWATER FACILi k:
MAXI3IUNI FEE PER SERVIC UNIT *
E.S.U. ** Water Impact Fee
1.00 '$ 933.00
6" 46,67
8 80.00
ROADWAY FACILITY
NIA. XIMUM FEE PER SERVICE
Service Area Cost:
* Includes 50% Credit
** From AWWA Manual 6, Water Meters -Sele{
Installation, Test/ag and Ma[ntanance, 3r~ edit
2
$ 1,558.11
$ 3,106.89
$ 4,972.89
$10,888.11
$19,593.00
$43,543A 1
$74,640.00
UNIT *
'er Service Unit
168.00
n, I986
- Oc~ 14 2005 8:02RM HP LRSERJET 3~00 p.4
PAYMENT A_ND COLLECTI
SCHEDULE
WATER FACILITY
PAYMJgNT AND COLLECTION FEE PER
Meter Size
5/8" x 3/4"
E.S.U..*
ON FEE RATE
80.00
SERVICE UNIT
Waler Impact Fee
$ 900.00
1.00
1" 1.67 $ 1,503.00
1/2" 3.33 $ 2,997.00
2" 5.33 $ 4,79T00
3" I1.67 $ 10,503.00
4" 21.00 $ 18,900.00
46.67 $ 42,003.00
$ 72,000.00
WASTEWATER
PAYYlENT AND COLLECTION ]FEE l~
Meter Size E.S.U. * Water Impact Fee
5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 $ 900.00
1" 1.67 $ 1,503.00
1 1/2" 3.33 $ 2,997.00
2" 5.33 $ 4,797.00
3" 11.67 $ 10~503.00
4" 21.00 $ 18,900.00
6" 46.67 $ 42,003.00
8" 80. O0
$ 72,000.00
ROADWAY FACILITY
PAYMENT AND COLLECTION FEE PER
Service Area Cost
1
From AW~VA Manual 6, Water Meters - Selec
[rmtallation, Testing and Maintenance, 3r~ editi,
~ERVICE UNIT
~er Service [Init
150.00
1986
- Oct 14 2005 8:02RM HP LRSERJET 3200 p.5
SECTION 2. That all provisions of the resol
conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, excep
hereby, repealed, and all other provisions not in conill,
shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. That should any word, phrase, p~
held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the sa]
Resolution as a whole, or any part or provision there
unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, and shall not affect th
SECTION 4. That this Resolution shall become
passage as the law and charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the Cit
,2005.
tions of the City of Coppel[, Texas, in
as noted here/n, be, and the same are
with the provisions of this Resolution
lgraph, or section of this Resolution be
te shall not affect the validity of this
other than the part so decided to be
validity of the Resolution as a whole.
effective immediately from and after its
)fCoppell, Texas, this the t['~ day
DO
ATTEST:
STOVER, MAYOR
LJBB'~'
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RO~ ATTORNEY
4
~,~IT~ SECRETARY
53C
530
/
\
Freese and Nichols
e
Figure 3.4
City of Coppell
Wastewater
System Improvements
with Impact Fees
....
Sandy Lake Lift ~muon
Upgrade from 3.8 MGD to 4.2 MGD
-q:, 2,
:U)-{ --/
:/
510
?
~,0o0
2,000
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
Sewer Lines
Force Mains
Developer Sewer Lines
Existing Sewer Lines, Lift Station,
and Force Mains with Excess
Capacity Available for Future Growth
Proposed Sewer Improvements
(2005-2015)
Project # for Existing Sewer Lines,
Force Mains, and Lift Stations
with Excess Capacity Available for
Future Growth
Project # for Proposed Sewer
Improvements
(2005-2015)
A Lift Stations
Meter Stations
Coppell City Limits
Sewer Basins
Basin 'A'
Basin 'B'
Basin 'C'
Basin 'D'
Basin 'F'
12 12
8 8 8
12
Wagon Wheel 2.0 MG E.S. Tank
Overflow Elev. - 672.5'
12
16 16 16 16
16
~ 12 , 12
12 12
%
Freese and Nichols
8 8 888
8 8
8 8
8 8 8 8 8
\
~__ Southwestern 1.5 MG E.S. Tank
Overflow Elev. - 672.5'
12 12
12 12
%
12
88 8 8
12
8 8
10 10
arty Rd
--8 -.8--- 8
8 co
8 8
88 [~
8 8
8 8
8
30 ~
8 8
8 8 8 8
88 88
88
12
Figure 3.3
City- of Coppell
Water System
Improvements
with Impact Fees
Villacle Parkway Pump Station
Pump #1 7000 GPM
Pump #2 7000 GPM
Pump #3 7000 GPM
Pump #4 9000 GPM
Pump #5 3750 GPM
Pump #6 3750 GPM
Village Parkway 6.0 MG G.S. Tank #1
Village Parkway 4.0 MG G.S. Tank #2
8 8
Star Leaf Pump Station
Pump #1 5500 GPM
Pump
~Star Leaf
Pump #2 5500 GPM
Pump #3 3500 GPM
Pump #4 5500 GPM
Pump #5 5500 GPM
#6 3500 GPM
4.0 MG G.$. Tank
0
N
1,000
SCALE IN FEET
2,000
!
LEGEND
Existing Water Lines, Storage Tanks,
and Pump Stations with Excess
Capacity Available for Future Growth
Proposed Water Improvements
(2005-2015)
Project # for Existing Water Lines,
Storage Tanks, and Pump Stations
with Excess Capacity Available for
Future Growth
Project # for Proposed Water
Improvements
(2005-2015)
Developer Water Lines
Existing Water Lines
Elevated Storage Tanks
Ground Storage Tanks
Pump Stations
Coppell City Limits