WA0302-SY050831 (2)
~
~
Impact Fee
Capital
Improvement
Plan - Water,
Wastewater, and
Roadway
~
August 2005
~
Prepared for
City of Coppell
~
CPL05135
--
""""" "'"''''''
.'t or r '. ."t or r "
..~.... ..........e".J...... .-:."..'..........t'-t '.
:., ... * ..::",.!', :c;,'... * ...of.!',
-. .- -. .'1: '..- -. .'1-
;.: "."-#.: ..*~
II! ..A..................A.. ~II! ..1...................1... ~
~ CHRIS B. BOSCO -,~ ELLEN S. UUSALLAM -,
~ ..v..................v..,,~ ..v..................v.. ill
~~. 9.3679 :,~~ ~~. 9.3707 :,~~
p; . .....,.. . 'V.
" ~...f.!CENS~~...;: , ...!!CENS~?..~:
'.f..rs ........ '.(..rs ........ ~...-
"'~/ (ob ~';~~~~::fl/~~
ll" ql'5/ --g7M?-~~:\
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4055 International Plaza
Suite 200
Fort Worth, TX 76109
817n35-73oo
-
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
Pu.rpose.................................................................................................................. 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
i
-
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 Historical PopulationlWater Usage Data........................................................... 2-3
Table 2.2 Historical PopulationlWastewater Production Data .......................................... 2-4
Table 2.3 2005 Land Use and Population .......................................................................... 2-7
Table 2.4 2015 (Buildout) Land Use Assumptions............................................................ 2-8
Table 3.1 2005 and 2015 Water Demands......................................................................... 3-4
Table 3.2 2005 and 2015 Water Demands by Census Tract.............................................. 3-5
Table 3.3 2005 and 2015 Wastewater Production ............................................................. 3-7
Table 3.4 2005 and 2015 Wastewater Flows by Census Tract .......................................... 3-8
Table 3.5 Existing and Planned Improvements for the Water Distribution System,
2005-2015 with Estimated Costs ......................................................................................... 3-10
Table 3.6 Planned Improvernents for the Wastewater Collection System, 2005-2015
with Estirnated Costs ........................................................................................................... 3-11
Table 3.7 Cost Allocation for Water Impact Fee Calculations ........................................ 3-12
Table 3.8 Cost Allocation for Wastewater Impact Fee Calculations ............................... 3-13
Table 3.9 Service Unit Equivalency Table....................................................................... 3-17
Table 3.10 Projected Water Service Units for 2005-2015 ............................................. 3-18
Table 3.11 Projected Wastewater Service Units for 2005-2015.................................... 3-20
Table 4.1 Increase in Developed Acreages for years 2005 to 2015 ...................................4-5
Table 4.2 Roadway Facility Vehicle-Mile Capacities........................................................ 4-7
Table 4.3 Excess Capacity and Deficiencies...................................................................... 4-9
Table 4.4 Excess Capacity and Deficiencies......................................................................4-9
Table 4.5 Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Demand ....................................................... 4-11
Table 4.6 Summary of Roadway Cost .............................................................................4-13
Table 4.7 Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Capacity (Supply)........................................4-l5
Table 4.8 Vehicle-Miles of Existing Demand on CIP Roadways.................................... 4-16
Table 4.9 Calculation of Maxirnum Impact Fees (Uncredited) ....................................... 4-17
Table 4.10 Land-Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table.................................................4-l8
-
-
--
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 3.1
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 Systern Improvements with Impact Fees........................................... 3-14
Wastewater Systern Improvernents with Impact Fees.................................. 3-15
Service Area Map.................. .... ................ ..... ........................ ............ ........ .... 4-3
Impact Fee Roadway ClP.............................................................................4-l4
APPENDICES
Existing Roadway Inventory..................................................................... A-I
Existing Roadway Cpacity, Demand, Excess Capacity and Deficiencies B-1
Projected Vehicle-Miles Of New Dernand............................................... C-l
Engineer's Opinion Of Probable Construction Cost ................................ D-l
Roadway Improvernents Plan Project ClP Service Units Of Supply.........E-l
Lane Use Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table ...............................................F-l
Resolution for Impact Fees ....................................................................... G-l
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 Coppelllast 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 requirernents 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 irnpact fee and land use assurnptions 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
rnatching 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
irnprovements, 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
irnplementing 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
I-I
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 (ClP)
· Projected interest charges and other finance costs for facilities expansions
identified in the ClP
-
-
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 irnprovernents
· Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital irnprovements to
serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental, or regulatory standards
· Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvernents to
provide better service to existing developrnent
· 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 Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNl)
to perform an impact fee analysis on the City's water and wastewater system. The irnpact
fee analysis follows the general set of procedures in Subchapter B of Chapter 395,
Authorization of Impact Fee.
-
-
-
-
The irnpact fee analysis involves detennining the utilization of existing and proposed
projects required as defined by the capital improvement plan to serve new development
over the next lO-year time period. Once the utilization of a project by 2005-2015
developrnent is detennined, 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 percentage of the
project cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity needed to serve
developrnent 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 detennined by dividing the cost of capital improvements
needed by the total number of service units attributed to new developrnent 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 ftrst, 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
Totall0-year Projected Growth in Service Units
Base Maximum Calculated Water Impact Fee Per
Service Unit Without Credit Analysis
Water Impact Fee Credit (50%)
Base Maximum Calculated Water Impact Fee Per
Service Unit With Credit
1.3
Maximum Allowable Wastewater Impact Fee
$12,935,639
$12,935,639
$3,545,530
$16,481,169
8,327
$1,980
$990
$990
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 on4.5% interest,
assuming bonds are issued in three equal series in the ftrst, 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 maxirnurn allowable
wastewater impact fee with the credit is $933 per service unit. The maximurn allowable
wastewater impact fee calculation is summarized as follows:
Proposed Capitallmprovernent Costs
Total Capital Improvement Costs
Financing Costs
Total Eligible Costs
1-3
$12,195,216
$12,195,216
$3,342,709
$15,537,925
8,327
$1,866
$933
$933
Totall0-year Projected Growth in Service Units
Base Maximum Calculated Wastewater Impact Fee
Per Service Unit Without Credit
Wastewater Impact Fee Credit (50%)
Base Maximum Calculated Wastewater Impact
Fee Per Service Unit With Credit
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
Totall0-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%)
$168
$168
Base Maximum Calculated Roadway Impact
Fee Per Service Unit With Credit
-
1-4
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
-
2.1
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 developrnent, a
reasonable estimation of future growth is required. For the purposes of determining an
impact fee structure, growth and development projections were formulated based 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.
-
2.2
Elements of the Land Use Assumptions
This section contains:
A. Explanation of the general methodology used to prepare the land use assurnptions
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.
The data to compile these land use assumptions was obtained from the City of
Coppell. The lO-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.
-
2.4
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
approxirnately 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
J
1
1
J
1
1
Table 2.1
Historical Population and Water Usage Data
Average Historical
Day Parks/Open Commercial Average
Water Max Day Park/Open Average Spaces Water Water Residential Historical A vg
Use Water Use Commercial Space Acres Residential Residential Demand Demand Water Demand DaylMax Day
Year Population (mgd) (mgd) Acres (acres) (acres) Acres (acres) Pop! Acre (RJXI/acre) (gpdlacre ) (gpdJperson) Peaking Factor
2000 36051 8.3 17.0 1683 847 2705 13 250 1250 165 2.05
2001 36867 8.0 17.0 1707 859 2766 13 250 1250 153 2.12
2002 37683 7.6 16.9 1731 871 2827 13 250 1250 139 2.22
2003 38499 8.4 17.8 1755 883 2888 13 250 1250 155 2.11
2004 38650 nJa nJa 1779 895 2900 13 250 1250
. Historical Average Residential Water Demand (gpdlperson) = (Average Day Water Usage -(Commercial Acres. Commercial Water Demand)
- (parks and Open Spaces Acres · Parks/Open Space Water Demand))/Population
1
)
)
)
)
)
Table 2.2
Historical Population and Wastewater Flow Data
Historical
Parks/Open Average
Spaces Commercial Residential
Average Day Park/Open Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater
Wastewater Commercial Space Acres Residential Production Production Pnxluction
Year Population Flow (mgd) Acres (acres) (acres) Acres (acres) (gpdlacre ) (gpdlacre) (gpdlperson)
2000 36051 3.5 1683 847 2705 50 750 62
2001 36867 3.9 1707 859 2766 50 750 71
2002 37683 3.9 1731 871 2827 50 750 69
2003 38499 3.9 1755 883 2888 50 750 67
2004 38650 4.0 1779 895 2900 50 750 68
*2000 Acres~ 2005 Acres * 2000 Popl2oo4 Pop
*2005 Pop ~ 2005 Res Acres * 2000 Pop/Acre
* Historical Average Residential Wastewater Production (gpdlperson) ~ (Average Day Wastewater Production
- (Commercial Acres * Commercial Wastewater Usage)
- (parks and Open Spaces Acres * Parks/Open Space Wastewater Usage ))/Population
'tJ
E
~
i
!..
~ Nichols
~ Freese and
a.
~
Figure 2.1
City ofCoppell
Original 2005
Land Use Plan
N
! 2,500
o .
. SCALE IN FEET
D City Limits
LANDUSE .
Developed Residential
D d Residential
r--l Undevelope .
L-.J d Non-Residential
_Develope .
d Non-Residential
D Undevelope
.. Institution
.. Parks & Open Space
_ Railroad
. E ements
CJ Vanous as
"0
E
~
~
j
g
"
"3
'"
~..
~ Nichols
1 Freese and
Q.
>1.
Figure 2.2
C't of Cappell
. . 1 YI 2015 (Buildout)
Orlglna
Land Use Plan
N
I 2500
o .
. SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
_Regional Retail
d Retail
LANDUS. r-n N';9hbo",00 .
. L.......J.t H' h Density
_Flood Plain _ Residential Ig .
I d' m Density
,---, Historic Over ay ,---, Residential Me IU
'--J 0= '--J,
~ Light Indistrial Showr ,---, Residential Low Densl y
C mmerclal L-J . t' nal
- Freeway 0 _ Public InslItu 10
Cl Freeway Office I*i~'] Park Open Space
_ Mixed Use
City ofCoppell
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 staff input and from analysis of historical data. This documentation will
serve as a base line for future 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 Population
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 lO-year projections of land use assumptions are based upon previous and current
growth rates and number of people per residential acre.
The projected lO-year population based on 13 people per residential acre, and land use
assumptions are shown in Table 2.4.
2-7
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols. Inc.
Table 2.4
2015 (Buildout) 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 Land Use Maps
The land use maps are provided on the following pages. The existing land use map
contains land uses for the following categories:
. Developed Residential
. Undeveloped Residential
. Developed Commercial
· 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.
2.9 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 lO-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
u
E
t-'
~I
Z
~'
i
i'
~I..
[ -I
~ Nichols
3 Freese and
a.
>l.
Figure 2.3
City of Coppell
2005 Land Use Areas
N
! 2,500
o .
. SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
D City Limits
LANDUSE .
Developed Residenlial
D d Residential
D Un develope
I ped Commercial
,--, Deve 0
L-J d Commercial
c'SJ Undevelope
Space
.. Parks & Open
"
E
I-'
~I
~I
~
j
~
."
OJ
iF.
~ Nichols
3 Freese and
Q.
!,1,
A T~ '1 1 ~ ~II ~
' I ~;:- \i ~1II::::::::'11
u .l~
>///11 I I" ~~ ~ -. .~l
-, Ig II~.~=." 1~1~~~I~~~1
c'C '" - IIllHillii lIlIlIlJ I~ f-"; _ 0:;J! ~
.IF 1 """ ~ EBtI I::c _, " 'r.;:alll!llllllllllH ~I I ~~ ~ ..l:i\::q
h , !! '* ~ "I 11I1 'i:J -.. . ~IJ CI Il\llJ!llll!m~ ii.\
iI,' b-r ~~ _ . ill,
Il ~ ,"= 'f = . EHlBI ~ . ~. ')~ ~~ .:-- \.
~ I ~ - ~ lJ ~ Iml.-::;;;; ~ JI1Pn:T IlJDf 7 C' \J -,rJ
~ fJi ~ "'. - ....." "" \U ~y ~ kcI '" ~L ,1- II
~ I 1 \'l 1 I LhJ[ 1LJoIf D..... :;,:; S:!!I~ "V, ' ~,_ _ _, _
~ -, 1M l't&11' k '" I, .~
bto~ 9111/' \
I - c-c=t:' D :r r.
l~lLEb~ liU :=~ ld
I ~ J..~
\
~....
-
CD
I--
ll~'
.
Figure 2.4
City of Coppell
2015 (Buildout)
Land Use Areas
N
I 2500
.
o
. SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
D City Limits
LANDUSE
D Commercial
D Residential
l,i;S!l Parks & Open Space
_ Flood Plane
City afCappell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
3.0 WATER AND W ASTEW A TER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
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.
3.1 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.
3.2 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 rnaximum 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
u
g
'"
"
,.!
CD
.'
j
~'
..;
,
~..
J Freese and Nichols
~
A ~ Ji.,~~rn~ '
~ /~.~ ~.
A?\. ~ A - I : ~l~ ,
0~f1.,1k~1'~r -l1 I"'~' ~ ~
"/ ~7 ~I'-(\I . ~ cJ...wN- t:;o /j
. )/; / 0~~f~8~. ~ t:; m. ~/ ~
''/.H,II.~. ~4.~ ~~?,- 1:-. ~
A'0~.4,1U ~ "" 'i!I\J ~
" I -'" I Q ~I -~ \
/"" . I O~~~'182 0141.183 11, ~ .illllllll III 0~41.233 .fr1'1i ~
tf , ; !.rn ~ ~~~I .I~ ~ I IIIllilffiiij '~223141.22~?~4il<>>'I.2'134 I, ~1
, "~ ~' . '"'~ r' 1- --{" "'" III }r' ~ I (\
,_ ~. :~L.Oj!l~\.263 flII!I ~ rn "l . ]I I ~~ II III 0 ~ '"U.-...J ,...
Ii U! 0'1ilt:Jm2 1 01~1jj12 Illry ?
bP f--- 0~41f;~~1t~ II . ~1.19'1 ~ ~ CD V AI' 1]
II - ,1 tI ~ Qja;~~3 I P [iT .a::f ~i
I ~'- . m~ ." 0~41~t:i Co - 11111 ~ I -Ii Pil.~!, (
1 \' , 11 '" ,.' ~1l3 " . ll'''' ~ u 1'M' "" ~ II . -m \ \-,
. !. . _ _.. "'iIIl! mill. P'ITl iT@ ~14~'~93 ~ Ll' OC14~~0~ I! IL In - ,\ \l
; _ 111.J ..~' ~ mJ] ~v ~&'!I--"~~~~~' "~-'---. ""ll\.
. . ':' _ ~ JU'. _.- '1", "ItLt:(~01'1n211l" . .1"
0141.264. ,. _, {l _ ""~~ YI f ~-. ,~ _JJ tL II~
~<i r==r-nE'=ru "'~~ ml~ I' I "~~~)~I~~( . \JX
~2~~ff ;@~9 " ',',
~~LBJ . ~.
r=:t~l--I
\ r'
\\
~.,.
~0~1!.1 0.1
""
-....
"'-.....
m ~~
.VI.
~
-k
0It'4..~ 1.019
Ou
Figure 3.1
City of Coppell
2005 Land Use Areas
With Census Tracts
~
N
I
o
.
2,500
.
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
D Census Tract Boundary
LANDUSE
D
D
D
~
~
..
Developed Residential
Undeveloped Residential
Developed Commercial
Undeveloped Commercial
Parks & Open Space
-0
E
i-'
()
~
'"
~'
~
....!
~
.,
~
0-
M
I
f..
I Freese and Nichols
IL
~
~.'172~ ~
h1f1)~~
y//
(/ 1/
ffk:171
)1
?t []
T ' ..
Ii:
1--,
0141.264
~
~
0217.101
.~
6,1 ~.iI~1:82
F
O~~9
I
~
'-v
,
t
Figure 3.2
City of Coppell
2015 (Buildout)
Land Use
By Census Tracts
'"
N
I
2,500
.
o
.
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
D Census Tract Bounda
LANDUSE
D Commercial
D Residential
_ Parks & Open Space
_ Flood Plane
Projected Water Demands
Average
Day
Park/Open
Average Day Space Average Average/ Average
Parks/Open Commercial Water Residential Max Day Max Day
PoplRes Commercial Spaces Water Usage Usage Usage Peaking Total Total
Year Population Acre Acres (acres) (acres) (gpdlacre) (gpd/acre) (gpcd) Factor (mgd) (mgd)
2005 38795 13 1805 908 1250 250 185 2.25 10 22
2015 (buildout) 40118 13 3800 1255 1250 250 185 2.25 12 28
Table 3.1
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 3.2
2005 and 2015 Water Demands by Census Tract
2005 2005 2015
Average Maximum Average
Census Water Day Water Water
Tract Usage Usage Usage 2015 Maxirnum Day
No. (rngd) (mgd) (rngd) 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
3.3 Wastewater Flows
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
The Capital Improvernents 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.
3-6
Table 3.3
Projected Wastewater Flows
Conunercial Park/Open Space Average
Parks/Open Wastewater Wastewater Residential Day
Conunerical Spaces Production Production Production Total
Year Population Acres (acres) (acres) (gpdlacre) (gpdlacre) (gpcd) (rngd) Peak Day Total (mgd)
2005 38795 1805 908 750 50 80 4.47 17.88
2015 (buildout) 40118 3800 1255 750 50 80 6.13 24.52
*Residential Production 2000 = (Tot Hist. Production-(Conun Acres * gpad)-(Parks/Open Spaces Acres * gpad))/Pop
*Peak Day = Average Day *4
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 ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
3.4 Water and Wastewater System Capital Improvements
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
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 IO-year growth period used in the impact fee analysis for both the
water and wastewater systerns 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
Existing and Planned Improvements for the Water Distribution System,
2005-2015 with Estimated Costs
No. Descriotion of Project Estimated Cost
/ / ..... ... ... .... 1!;~istil1gProjects ..... ...... ..... ........ / .
I 24-inch Sandy Lake Road and Coppell Road water line from Denton Tap Road to Wagon
Wheel EST $985,030
2 l2-inch water line along Ruby Road from Roval Ln to Coppell Road $324,480
3 l2-inch water line along western edge of City from Northpoint Drive to Gateview Drive $526,320
4 Wagon Wheel 2.0 MG EST $2,786,990
5 l2-inch SH 121 Water Line from Sandv Lake to Connell Road $212,616
6 Village Parkway PUffin #6 $273,607
7 30 Sandy Lake Road water line from MacArthur Blvd. to Denton Tap Road $1,862,720
/ ....... < ... < ............. / ... ...... ..... ...... ...... ... ........... ........ .....
8 l6-inch water line from Bethel Road to Airline Drive along Denton Tap $578,500
9 l6-inch Water Line Along Parkway Blvd. $372,000
10 Star Leaf Pumn Station (Future Growth) $3,271,200
lOa Star Leaf Pumn Station (ReliabilitylNot AnDlied Toward Imnact Fee) $3,228,800
11 l2-inch SH 121 Water Line from Connell Road to Denton Tap $1,420,154
l2-inch water line along Belt Line Road and west Along ill 635 from the existing l2-inch
12 water line south of Lakeshore Drive to the existing l2-inch water line at Freeport Parkway
$1,435,200
13 Replacement of Existing l2-inch with 20-inch Water Line from Elevated Storage Tank $518,400
TOTAL $17.796.017
Table 3.5
*Project Costs for Projects # I, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 provided by the City of Coppell
Table 3.6
Existing and Planned Improvements for the Sewer CoUection System, 2005-2015 with Estimated Costs
No. Description of Project Estimated Cost
.... .. ... E~istinl!Ptoje<:ts ....
.. .....
I Existing 30-inch forcemain in Basin C $1,164,000
2 Existing 24-inch Gravitv Line in Basin A $1,476,000
3 Existing 2l-inch Gravity Line in Basin A $357,600
4 Existing l8-inch Gravity Line in Basin A $321,600
5 Existing IS-inch Gravitv Line in Basin A $428,400
6 , ?'l-in"h ' T ;np ;n Roo;n R :i>j)/,bu\)
7 Existing 27-inch Gravity Line in Basin B $751,800
8 Existingl5/24-inch Gravity Line in Basin E $1,045,800
9 Existing 30-inch Gravitv Line in Basin C and E $2,263,200
i ........... ........ ....... ...... i ....... .............. ....
10 Saint Jones 30-inch forcemain (discharge from Deforest PS) $3,040,012
11 New 20-inch forcemain from Sandy Lake Lift Station $1,168,409
l2a and b Upsize Deforest and Sandy Lake Lift Stations $2,587,755
13 Upsize 8" to 12" in Northwest Section of Basin A $1,123,200
14 Add l2-inch Sewer Line in South of Basin E $187,200
TOTAL $16 272 576
*Costs for Projects # 10, II, l2a and b provided by City of Coppell
Tabld.7
Existin2 and Planned Improvements for the Water Distribntion System, 2005.2015
Percent Utilization Costs Based on 2005 Prices
'''-lear
Estimated Cnrrent (Bnildout)
No. Description of Project 2005 2015 2005-2015 Cost Development (2005-2015)
..... Existin" ..... ... .......
I 24-inch Sandy Lake Road and Coppell Road water line from Denton Tap Road to Wagon
Wheel EST 20% 100% 80% $985.030 $197.006 $788.024
2 12-inch water line alon2 Rubv Road from Roval Ln to CaDDell Road 70% 100% 30% $324,480 $227,136 $97,344
3 12-inch water line along western edge of City from Northooint Drive to Gateview Drive 60% 100% 40% $526,320 $315,792 $210,528
4 Wagon Wheel 2.0 MG EST 7% 100% 93% $2.786.990 $183,202 $2.603.788
5 12-inch SH 121 Water Line from Sandy Lake to CaDDell Road 89% 100% 11% $212,616 $189,493 $23.123
6 Villa.e Parkwav Pump #6 0% 100% 100% $273,607 $0 $273,607
7 30 Sandv Lake Road water line from MacArthur Blvd. to Denton TaD Road 28% 100% 72% $1,862.720 $518.949 $1.343,771
.. .. . .. t>rollOsedProjects .... > ...
8 16-inch water line from Bethel Road to Airline Drive alono Denton TaD 0% 100% 100% $578.500 $0 $578,500
9 16-inch Water Line Alan. Parkwav Blvd. 0% 100% 100% $372,000 $0 $372,000
10 Star Leaf PumD Station (Future Growth) 0% 100% 100% $3.271,200 $0 $3,271,200
11 12-inch SH 121 Water Line from CaDDell Road to Denton TaD 0% 100% 100% $1,420,154 $0 $1,420,154
12-inch water line along Belt Line Road and west Along IH 635 from the existing 12-inch
12 water line south of Lakeshore Drive to the existing 12-inch water line at Freeport Parkway
0% 100% 100% $1,435,200 $0 $1,435,200
13 ReDlacement of Existing 12-inch with 20-inch Water Line from Elevated Storage Tank 0% 100% 100% $518,400 $0 $518,400
TOTAL $15.058.257 $2,001,652 $12,935 639
'ProJect Costs for Projects # I, 5, 6, 7, and 8 proVided by the City of Coppell
Table 3 8
Existing and Planned Improvements for the Sewer Collection System, 2005-2015
Percent Utilization Costs Based on 2005 Prices
10~Year
Current (Buildout) (2005-
No. Descrintion of Pro.iect 2005 2015 2005-2015 Estimated Cost Development 2015)
.. ..... .... ExistiiIg.ProjecfS ". ..
1 Existin~ 3D-inch forcemain in Basin C 60% 100% 40% $1.164.000 $698,400 $465.600
2 Existing 24-inch Gravitv Line in Basin A 70% 100% 30% $1,476.000 $1.033.200 $442,800
3 ExistinI!" 21-inch Gravitv Line in Basin A 70% 100% 30% $357,600 $250.320 $107.280
4 Existin2 IS-inch Gravitv Line in Basin A 70% 100% 30% $321.600 $225.120 $96,480
5 Existing: IS-inch Gravitv Line in Basin A 70% 100% 30% $428,400 $299.880 $128.520
6 ExistinJ!: 21-inch Gravitv Line in Basin B 40% !OO% 60% $357,600 $143,040 $214,560
7 Existing 27 -inch Gravity Line in Basin B 30% 100% 70% $751.800 $225.540 $526,260
8 ExistinJ!:15124-inch Gravitv Line in Basin E 50% 100% 50% $1.045.800 $522.900 $522,900
9 Existing 30.inch Gravitv Line in Basin C and E 30% 100% 70% $2.263,200 $678.960 $1,584.240
. ..... Prop6~dPF'tJjects .... ......
10 Saint Jones 3D-inch forcemain (discharve from Deforest PS) 0% 100% 100% $3.040.012 $0 $3,040.012
11 New 20-inch forcemain from Sandv Lake Lift Station 0% 100% 100% $1.168.409 $0 $1,168,409
12a and b Unsize Deforest and Sandv Lake Lift Stations 0% 100% 100% $2.587.755 $0 $2.587,755
13 Upsize 8" to 12" in Northwest Section of Basin A 0% 100% 100% $1,123.200 $0 $1,123,200
14 Add 12-inch Sewer Line in South of Basin E 0% 100% 100% $187,200 $0 $187,200
TOTAL $16.272.576 $4,077.360 $12 195 216
*Costs for Projects # 10,11,12a and b provided by City of Coppell
~~_-L _
___ - I
i__ __
I
City Limits
Figure 3.3
City of Coppell
Water System
Improvements
with Impact Fees
:;.
.;;,.~ == ;; 1lI ;:;I 1I 1I =o:llll ;; ;;:;:;; ;; ;: ;;;:::; ;: 1I ;:;;:::; II ;; ;;;:::;;; .. II --J ~-;.
",T/ -8 - rI<:Ub', . . ""
...~ / ~8_8~-'~U8J cii ' t:;': n c.
i/ 8 ~ J - '~.9&_ \\~ 118~ ~
'L -,./J - "':J ,q,7'0'~ ~ ...w~
.# '" _, 8 ;:?/!O?:/' ~ \'k \i'.
$/ ~ 11 ~-~8'~~'l>' '~~-8 ,,0""'....# ! IoV~s,l,a=~~",
$ _________ '" '~8_ 8, ILl',. -.,;; 0"" 'i,~"" '\..~"-~ ._.~,
I ~ ~~8 q; ib Y \:::::---~ ,c" ,}. (\ "~~
,~.. ~ ~ ~
~ ,,;$ ~___......... _. _ 12 ' :"""" 'j~ "- 5// iB/J ~-J.' .,'t ~. '~~,
,~ .~./:: ;:... '~ <" "'I} Q)) ,,-,,", 6 \ ~-,
/ ""'.. 'i , ,.);,.. ~-/ I:f.i\ -'. . '. ....~ '.. . . "....1 ii;;~; c,,'1J'''.,,~~~ ,,","~~ T _8~~ ~\ -;
/'/ ~\ \ __ ".'~~( \[Y. ,~ 1< !I i ,-.I, ,~~ c.....~~ \~>~~'fJ[r ~ 8 8 'l>, r \~ ff~8 L..~
.. // \ \ r~""''', ,.;$>"#....'Ii; "~ ~ ~, .\t .' ~ .' ?IV I I \- ~ 1\ ~) 1/ l ,
~/lfJ 't>"-?' \\~~ .1=a11p /~;~~ wLJ~)( Q,~I' 't;::"[?...., ~ rl..,;;;~_ i ~ 0~~0.~r,~r~~\~~ V{ ~"'~~8 8 '~\ \r "'~\\~ ~~ ~ ~
/~ ~ it I / '=-':..~ - ~.. N ~- ,,~ '<'(~ \\ 8~ ~ '" a I o:::r-_ .,
~ Q / ..~ '" '. ~ i "~;;' -, r9 ~ Ii> \ ~ ':;J , 'Ii' 8 'l> 'l> ) ",..;.-::--.:. "'
IJ' ~ ....;;.;;# )~/ ./ 0;1 u~' ~;~"'~, ""'bFh? ,- .- .;;, .~i-:/\'2.'C~~\~~~l\ \~\'l> ~,.,flI 'l> <J> ~~\ 05) \~~? I I~D8.1
j / -J' G I" '\!?' ....... '~l~ ~..12'. .. 1'}.. 1.. -- ",-L8!..a. ~ '7 '\\? I 1\ I '" '" ~
:I / / .8 0; ~_..\<;: \ \ ~ '\~) I: ~ -I' ~12 ,j2\\;;rrC'~ \ '\ ~ _~~/ ~\ \~ ~ ,"'} '" ~ ~ '" ~ <P", I I '" (
"- /(.. , '8~'l>\\~ 8. L ~ / .,! , ~ . . . _ ~ , r9 t 8._8_8 _j r \.J'---1 ~ t.> '" '" '\ '0 ..
12 ~ "O:::~
'V" ',.( 12:' -...;::". " 1 I I '" \ ~ . ,~-_I\, ~ 12 d, 12 12 ~ '" '" 10 ~8 8 8 "l"/ I
^\ ,,,' ";~l.:" oc _ ,.~." L-.:'l." ..' ~1i:ElJi.WPS DJ~_ li~raalLoJa~ '~rJ ~-1l'r a _a 8~~~~~I~~r 8'1\ 6 ~6, \fI
".:> ,,'" ... ~ ~8~ ~'\\l~' '" \....-:; -- JI r.J1",- 1 I'" I r '?' \_,'\'\.~ )
o/"( (, ...'" ...,.r, =: I D:'i 8~8 . ':,:,_)n "~<6 ' J . ~ - N\ \\\\'"\.c::: 1 II 8 ~ ~ "0 ~ '\\ 811
.<0 ,,0'" ,;,-4..' ~r, "I), . No....." I r. '~l1n_~8 '- ~I ~ B ll:.8-~8_..:-' jf/;?,,(-J~ Cflbbs 81'8,8- ~ ~~\.",-,\ -,'" "'u)nl~i611 n '8 \8 \. 1'<Y'~'b "
flby ,,-' ,^".;,."""r ,11l"8 ii I U:L8 J: 1/=8---.1 m- ~88 J ~"'~:.--- I( IL U II 'l> <J>~ "-::::::V~' 8 I i ~~l -:)\..' ~ctf "
",,'::1 8' , .." _ IN I - ~ '1r---' ~_8 j r1x:.11i '_8 ..., I - \ ~(c==":'- ~ I 'b ~1.j'tl}"'I/ ~ ~'::>'\~ \'::::: 11'
c,;,:,?q --....:~_1~~8 il~_8' 8 8..L 8 "': 11 t 1 ~4 'r~,--'JI'-r~ ~iii 11 { II~ .J I ~~ (~.ilh.QJillL~8_';:y r ~~ / l ~"'If)~)) ",~-~I\:~t~ ",\' (..-..""\
~~ ~: ~I ~ 81(2 ii ~1~8...11 iiJiBI J lr~ ~'Lli(o;~2 ~I l,.~,./''.9~ l \ <b ~\ ~~ "'~.--!:l=Jll-Q.s- ~,II t,r; 8r8 '/ ~ C'l>/ ~~ I ~ ",I /'
/~ ~ l' 12 12.' - 'j= cO )'~ai ~ (\) ~ ~ ~ ~ co I \''''\ \\ \ It:: ~ '< Z 811, (8 8::-!!'(D ",",' \ I 63'/ ,,-,
CL' /.$ " ~ ~ii DJ.~a--8 .f) I;jJ=a_.'-'~.J ~l ~ if:i~ ,~ -,\ "'~ \ '" \]~8s0n f8_1 !b -'<~ '::~;:;~ 'Or.', /
c'" /..$ ." , 16'l 16 ~:":16 ",j ci ~'16. /i '<9 ^ ==; ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~<9 iBfF - li.n II n 1141- .t [=I \' ~ \' '}' (, '" ~ 1X..~ '-~jl ('#
,:.,'/ @ ~ u~f;;rF'n~;li l-;rrm,~ f ~1Y;) -,~~~ .. ~:' } \1' ~'\. -' -'.'~" 16 I "'H" l1Eq~.~\. t :J. \~~~ i!:z;.,"..".c'I'~ -,--' '-;;:,,,,-:'-z.,,, i~"!J))~\ ' .; r..
1J,Q/~ /I~ ~, f.l~ i ~ I ~ I ~~I~Li\lJ~ ~j\\~ ~ _ ~-A~~'~\ tJ~~f:r5a;, C ~~~-~'~~"~!]~i~~~~ll\ ~~'~~", ~J 8}C:;='" lj _8_8 tV) ~ ;~~;;r~? ~~..-~# ,
c"'. $$~ "I), 18::1 ~~j il =8JI8J::f [S,8L ~I~/)! \\. '\, '" ;iii([)~~l~~.1 ~~~ ~ l i L ~~ \ ~t ~~~ ~ ~J),\ ~ ~ lJC:=;=: ~? ~ 71( ~ '" J~~<//= 8~' ~:::___1\:::==-'8
, , n'" -:JE ~r-LI~,_r:::r;;;=~' -....) "'- . " - '---, :;;::-' ~ \,~ ,-,I ~O' -0., J~~L~~\ \ 81 :;j~""""" 6=-- 16 \ <P ;j I "'I (' '" -\, ,,-,r='b ~~ \ ~ ~
,/ N ~ ~ II: ~ t -;;; \ ~I!q;~ ~~~; 1it_16 '" "- ",. 1U ':)c,..~/iil~'eY'- ~ \ ~ -8, ~8~~ 'I 1/~---.J \~ ~ 1,,--'" "l~ 8 ~/'" 'l> ,~I ~'-.!CL.'" I E;'-;:J18,';~
,,p , j I L.---'jl h / / OJ_\=. -- r~----- ! r---- ". - ~ .. .' ..i 101 ~~ .\N 15> '= L8 8 '" -----1l -- P A"'h ::---.,>; I
$V ~: 11<t. Ii !:TI, ~ ibY/ ^ - /, 'l> .~)- ~L!! g ~.'O_8_8ce~8WOO("8 !.1l8- '&3 ,'t.~ II ~I? \\ ~,>;' "'''' ~~ I Jl 2L (1.1) ~(j'" M8adowalen CIf TI 1\ '~ .Ii,-" ~',,~, "i,\,..~.
?" N d ~iD l,:J lb ~ - 8 8 8_ i/': '" i'" '" , .-A' ~ L-~~lr:-l E, ", -',,~ 6'~ /L II r8-V"';:.../J?~ ~8 ae--- aL--J!=8"
~I ~ U t :-8'=='e>~ q,(/ 0; :1' JI r-;;<:jj~ \" ~ t-U1) m 8-~~~~-~ 8~~J ~ I~' ~-11\1 ~ 16 If( '16~"'11 16='" =-:1/16 :~~O~~rs; "'~ ~ ~ r'
r;~ ~ '8'."8 biB ~~C~ '0' co ~ I a; N ~ ,\ ?' Ii \ '" ~ ",~T~8_~ ~ .JLl!lli-Pr~ I '" "" I L~ ~I ~,"&" }. 1\ ~8.Ll~'LC6.d...-DJ-8
/ " ..' .. _..P ~l ~~ :i:/q, C\. ;:;a~I'ii1.k.e~8 L .~ f \ \Cii (>>, \jili ~l \.9.~Ii.O~\=~ ~ _ I ~ '<>, ~ 16 6~: C~9-=--~ I[~ 8-L ~V~ 'l> ~ 'F~8_.)8\-fl- ff
l 91~i~~~~~)YJ Q/t1J ~ ili~___~r J I' a; 1<0 ul caUl ~o//,JI~u IL~Lj. ~ rll "'~ :--~"''''I-=-~-J--= r::;::~ff, '~ L""JLi"'~~)\'-~!L .-J~!)1
I 24 2'4 ' ~I~"'~) ~/ /, .9 ~8~1._ k. 8 ~'~ L~~.--t~-=-~iw:~J".i ...-'. n ~ 88 '" f\.'a'ndals__Q.s8 i~8-8-a- '" 'l>// I \0;=--1..-2\ '6); '"
$ 12.s..aJUiHa12-RlL 12~12"24 12_' _ ~10~ _iii_ ~'. 10_.) ./, V..J os 11- 8-L-. n,. _.'==:') "B8 _8~ii ii_ii;:::~ '8:::8./ :8_' ~L .' ! \~ ,,~, =8=8=-==8-8J~L -8-8-. 8iL \ L..J ",\'l> \ ) '" /"' ,.en l ~ r .'
I.>t I ,-- -. .' ';:. --.l..J ~.~"'<J>~a:;. ill t~8~8=\-)~J I ii> ~<fi \" ~ ~'-!L" ~ v= ...--.J, ~J rr--=u> -", ~ [8 ~ L8_B._8.=J '{!~ '" 8.0 " \
I / It ~j I.' ~r.~'. 1 1 I r~n .,,, .- .. .1. . '')-'!''-'-'.-,.,., '~,_"8j''''J!~,,."lJ''' ~I--- ',.=!C. . .. '. · (.\, ,
j 11 ~ I ~ 1 ~ Ii ! ~ )' 1'0 j ! c:~~8= I OJ .w . l ~ u J . IlL " iii '" .,==-~-. ~ v-- N I I I \ I ~. '-----" ~ 6 ...J
.. 11 ~ :: gj J t"r h F"~'"" ~ , 'TU." 1= .'- I ~ "i ~ J.'.~ u (II I" !"t7-J,f- ~L- ~~ . " , r: ~. JI I. [l~ I \ 0 ~~~ o'!;-
~
'.'./k. ._ _.'~._ ~"-...\i..' ;L..Y U~j t',l.t, j \J.~ D, r~1 '~"~i ~ 7 r.' -:;lI11.rl'~ i j' I~Umj ~ ~ II1I i~1JJ~1O'<l<IO_~i~=~.~.l>-
~'-.....:<_. 12_i 12- 12' '12 jIL12~/ _/ l, ~___~ .iJ -8--8-;: I . _ . iii =. '1~,. ' 18 _ 8 ~,\~=;;]~: iD l, ~ ~ it~ '" ~!Jl1 ~ 'j \. 1 ~] ",i ~ I ~ I It I I _---=.l' '"
I a;~ ~I-)-'I~~---"'I- ~.;,..~ _ Wa~on Wheel 2.0 MG E.S. Tank J;~~~8~: ,tiil~ ~ 8 I~ 8 n ~ L8'( ~ ~""-"'" Ir(~r== illl I ~ ' ~ If. JL-! If ~ _~I U i 8 Quail VI\ 'b;a 8: l Jl ~ '" d II '" _8~~f\~ \f
ii N", . _ '/ I" "\ Overflow Elev. - 672.5' I Il =-=,'liJ q I", III' '" ~ ~, I I 'If=F iD II ~ . as "$ ~ h.." ~ d15 II t 8 I L ~ I :':If-cJ ----1 '" ~J ~c;.. \
ii 8
N Jl ( . ~ 'II' cOI '----.)1 1 --'1 OJ Q. i[ IT I-III J -- I I It /' ,;Innl: ""I ~b ;. ~ '" 'I \1 -----u~r~ .8~8J I), /1"""'",-,- ~/, if ~~ L) '"
: ~I= J! Lii, a ~II' Timbm,cw 1 ~-'= ~('~~, ~:[ ii ill) ~IL._1i~ a; 1,1 "'~,8~'.:~L"t II' ~~j ~"'kL-J! 8'C= 8':1 i 11 j' '1-~ C)~I//I~!::;"8,<>7~~ ~ ~J ~8 8 8~.
IN, ,~ 1. ~ il iii I ~L ii.JL iL11 iiJ. If ilJ. I ~ :.8~il~2- o;=[l f1 ,I C-.-Jf ~~ ff~t:: Jnl '" I - ~8~ 11 19 ~ --' JI! I~Jj0 ffrj' &1""f /I fIb ~8 ~'6 8
II C<i- . \'2.._.,XL N i Park In' Q I l...-- I ~ --.J ~ ) I ~ ,I ~ - #<i\ I [r - I -, -R.e..l:I~ 8\'-8-8/ I ell {J rlJ .... 1 '\0
~!
8 . 8 !
~ II ~~ ~! r .ccs::::tio I I 1 d ==""" /; c9.;,;'=-=--~~ I J ~ I J .,,~ 8, /J'ot.~ ~ ~ /'/ .'l> , ':::::'-""-' '" C 8 a~ 1m - If I ;(C'JU@
I N I q;j -k!~ __ RllbY)c:JCa'J.EJ"'-=-==1~~'-----.-::~)::.r-8~\~ Ill' LII'11J"'~~'~~'~~J:~~~V~''\~r~~~,~ 'b~ ~ IU~~l J,IJIIl'" lLJ 10
~ _ ! . ~ 8\ ~~' I 'l .Q A":?,'O.. ir-"- \ [li ~ '-~~_( C/ ~i 'l> -=- ~ 8 ~ / r9 cr~ II.~ --8-,":'1-6 -a 8 -----/ r-:N
" i 11 ~ I 8 8J., 8 ~ ~ I ::=-_\\ B;;::.ii 6 8_ a = ~'-",-:d "'V. ~,'-. -= '" C-'''G C' ~\' ~. I ~ r
I <:,".-.J _.;;;, ~;~ 12 _~"';"._ ~~' ,;===-,\~ 12 II '- ~..; _ rT = = ~ ~~ ~" "- ~-:v JP \ ~'-' ..;6 II ~,~ ~ 8 '" 8 8 8 61 8 8 8 ==:J
,,~i:;;'::.1;2 1;2:.. _ ,~ . aiD 8 Ol "'~." l rP !-===.~ '<>~ 'U 8 ,>; ~ '~'"
! 0'l7 '~ @\~: i'-i'" -',~~ ~; C-:~.-:m i '~.~ I J J IT ': .~ .~, : .~~/;~_~'. ;_.'~
i =I!~'~. . ~~ !~~~II :l':~~)~.' I..' J 11' ~~0\ I ~~~~L-~ ~:~<(~
i I.\!J ~'>~~\ ! I' 'r~- <00" '~i J: ffiw . ~ ~. ~ \ ) )} \~/ _ ~?' '. ,-~ ~~" · ;--'\fl '\->
Ii ~~~ ~.~ (1 ~I L ~. ~~J~}~~ ,,~p ~ .JJ~ ~~ J ~ " ~ ~/ ~.
! \\ N l' ~ I Hea~~.o..fl.L.8!l' c~. \ a; ~~~o--_ '-.:::l/~~I~i_-// 1 4~ (-t8 ~Ul "'~~;.m=-;' ~
fi \~\ ~ ~ - r= 11 @! Jl ~I) ~ NI'}..~- - '~f",~
I ,_--l>4I.h&l R4_'.io;_ 16_ j6-16 J 1L_16__16 .-' 36",1 -d6=--16 16 16 16 N L16--1 16 "',.6--1 11 dl tl or' .~ :.. (\'r. 'l.A - rv-- ....;;~::. - Z~'" I u",0 n ~~ ,,f ".~ 12
~ I r !11' ,/ -'---. ----I. '" ;;;-, I " ~8 -., 16--16;---16-", .,8-8; - ~i,\1.63=.R . .' "'01::/i -', --~ ,/ B I '8 !/81'i; '" "k
n ,~ CO:.' II -.>/ 8 . fr-~ iff'" -k.-:::-"". - 'l>' ~8 ';A..'-'" ~- ,
1 - ~~/ 'b=8= JI '8,.. ~,'l>~ "~ lf~~" -~ - - - J( ~ '"
I ~.I ( j II I ,q, '/ J 1) ~ ~~8:ji.:?Y.,"" ~ ~llwl <ii 11:'> --.~,.,.... ~~ + = I
! .~c;~..11 ~J ~ :1 ~ IL <1 if' ~l~."~~rl @'~ · ~ ~~~ ,,~ ~.// ",. 24 12-;;~ "--"-"'2----Jff-""-"'i2
Ii -}I I - I ' 11_- ~.~A~ ;J ~~
I j '.' ., co I '" J ~ . ! -.I '" 8 . - .~ Cii r; ~ '"
-,"" _ . ' _ _ . 1\_:;\ ,8L~ . - 1\...__:; '~"
. I co ~.! I '" L ' ' a ,6. a 6 '.- d' ~,,,,,-<::,;o ;:; ~
~ ~ Ii ;,li!a-8 a; B~8~a= \ ..~ . /-g;~~\J ~1 di - ~ : 'VJ;~/ ~~ r-~;J--....-------.....
I 1 J_26 ~ ~j; , ~ , "
: T ---== ,;0 L16 iii ~ I
I.-'.-';;~ "'.
Ii~ ~ ~I' L'. r)1.~3~ ..... - southWestefn 1.sJj<tE:S:_Tank -" ---;' ~II I
i ~ ~ i., . II ,'- OVilffi6W Elilv, ~ 6728 ,,~ i \
ft /~t":s~:~"'__,, . ,. J __/16~d ~ ~ ~~ \
HI' "'6. ,76'..1u....lGi.~lB:;'.'16...../.j6-.16j-_'\6~ j Iii ~i;
205 ~,6;i",,:, . . ---= iJ)'
L. . =.. =:. . =: .~'~,~ = ~ .~-=. ~.: ~ ~ >. '}';~iL;.-'2 ;, l2 ,,1. " ;2~" f,dln<i"".-J.,, '>C-"i-i2-i2~.i~""2-'.'~ i "=-J
-_ ~ ~. +-----, ;;=:,12 N i
.. ~~".. ' , / I N-' J' 1 r; ·
~. ~ ~.
'~ \~€_;; J ~I
''''.. ~l Nl 1 ~!
~,~~. ~~I ~ ~I
~ N:l
~ \~ ~ j I-I
\ \~ .? .'_ . ~ ~ ~ ~ n I _ ~I l
~. \. ,~--==.12 co ~12 12~2" .l12 12 12- 12_.~._\.'~Lal1..121L.J).r::I:--12---' ~
"\ I I -, t
\~.'\ \ i\-?--- "'\ "'J'~ N - ~~n
. l a '.E c;j I
~\~\ f Ciik~ ",} L J t
~ "'~I Iii F 1. I '1 ~
\\., ~r~.~ n a; J.""'\ ~ I:
;t. Q --....... . 8 0 L ..- ,
"~\ l $~~ 0;'-' :Bi~ 1, \: Jl
~ ~ :::.. as ~ ." 1" ,~_ ,<s, I i
~. i Ol ,_ii~ '" -L10,' .\ ,
, u. \ -0> ~/ '\~,>J2 12~~ t
~~ w '~_I",_!DJ_ "
~ i. I!
~~ ~ ~ i
~ ~.
'~ -;), i
/~ '<>)" ~ I
-)....~ u-:.:\ '
"~"'~"''\. *
~"'~<> ~.6'v:s "i), - N I
~ '1< I
6'v:s\. .."..,,~..-.._-- ~ ^~ .
. \\ -- _ 12 ~ ltr'---'
~ "" I ~
~\ ." ~ I!
\\ ~~. @ I i
~~ . N I
~ . 7.~ ""'" I
,....~ I
~ n
4,.. I II 'i
..~ f~l", l
, (Slat ..~..~ 11i;;-!!I~.c==jerry Rd.
~~." e 6JS S ~ B
';:.., erO'&- :-Jil
~~';a . Fr. i
'Iii.. .
...~.....
~
col- ~:-..
-I ' 76'
Villaae Parkway Pump Station
Pump #1 7000 GPM
Pump #2 7000 GPM
@
Star Leaf Pump Station
Pump #1 5500 GPM
Pump #2 5500 GPM
Pump #3 3500 GPM
Pump #4 5500 GPM
Pump #5 5500 GPM
6
12 12 8
8
8
I\;
~ "~..- ,
~ \
\f \
j {
\
,
\ ,/
\ #~
. "
'-, !
'-.-J~ i
V
LEGEND
Existing Water Lines, Storage Tanks,
and Pump Stations with Excess
Capacity Available for Future Growth
Proposed Water Improvements
(2005-2015)
CD
Project # for Existing Water Lines,
Storage Tanks, and Pump Stations
with Excess Capacity Available for
Future Growth
@
Project # for Proposed Water
Improvements
(2005-2015)
N
Developer Water Lines
Existing Water Lines
..
Freese ana NicHols
o
1,000
2,000
~
8
0;
Ground Storage Tanks
Elevated Storage Tanks
Pump Stations
SCALE IN FEET
:- . · - . i
1._.._:
Coppell City Limits
"
1\10
:.,.
Q
"'89 ;:r
.,.
"
"- $;:
,p
&>-
\,'
o
U;
,'l\~
:0.,'"
PJ
~'O\}
'.
-!jt~
4iO
~
o
c;T~
li.1.9
'\~
i>-
...,'Or::,
'0
sr;Fr 5..1.10 "{fj
0;10
~y ~.'I;)
"",,'\ <Ii>
t..'O<:l '
o""Q
"l'"
54C
<1'
~
"
'-
Q
;(;ig
"P....
~f
'"
<~.~~
'<,
S:<c
c
(3
<)~\:.
530
530
5~t:)
S;"
~
530
"-
--Sso
.,
550
0'
)<J'
o
<:pt
560
0'
if?
~
o
':';.
01 ~
t:,'"
o
N
L'1
--
i.I-
'''"
.0
'W>
':';.
o
\
s<,<;)
"
,..&
4q(J
440
a
0)
""
490
~
- 45(J.
'-
(j\\}
,
"17
'it
450~~
v
'-
b-
g
,
'-
6;,.0
...
$
""
o
,,,",
\
tr.
'""
'0
I
..,
o
00
.... \~ ;to'O
"so
Figure 3.4
City of Coppell
Wastewater
a
.x
~jo
'170
'-- "-.-
"
<5'
'0
" '
""
5;[ 'b
.... ' '"
'~.%.
C
<01
'<t
$
Ji>!
'&-
~,
()'l-\}
---
~8B. ~<:,
ikr8(),
$;
'<t
480.
~
City Limits
o
lrl
.,.
AAO
~\
;-
'$
4~.0
".
~
<B'
'"
""
~
!JI ~
<:0 '
\C'_
470'
" ~.
.:::
!7a&, ......,
"- i~\) t>
L'(? '"
~ ,r
'"
0,
m\
,"
"
~-5'o "
'-,
,"
""",0
"
450
,f~ 4$~'" ~
\~-
450\
450 l:) /....\\.
"f> ~ 1I':>~" ~4~ "
0" A- .;: \ . ,<:
-f.s ~, \". .. ~~"~'''.,:::~A..'!.~~
a ~.. \;0 "'.....- '''-.'<l!' ", .<,:,\}
~' ~f\ ;/ '. '\t~~~~ ,4~50 ~
~. ~~'~
~. '*" \ .,. () ~
G .;~.-: . ~~
...\'" c '!-~~, D ~. ().~.~\ ___...,
~,,< """~:;:-l(=~'" ;Q t D~torest Lift Station
~...'l-"',,< ,4'-\!ll~ r r, r-8--15 4'50t Upgradefrom6.4MGDto14.1 MGD
~~ ,,~/ ~_\'o/rbf' /'1> / \ ;--,
....<> "'l-,,.e, c.Y / '.!:? 8 '~
"'....'1> ~~~ \ ' \,.... '
,6 ~~:1 \\ tP ~ _,
(' e:,,-'I>L' (, \\ \, \ - I .,
..t. '.Q) ~ <P" J','" I
-,
J {J .1
, -
- ~~
'4'511
" ...,
460
A70
Ir.<f.
",,, f;,
b; ,l, 0
"-;'u
-'"
!2
L>5 'fl'"
't,
:t>- <S
.,Fa f
.:i~
~6'o, '-
tioo
...
f,,<JJ
<\50"
~
~
\,
,~
"S1:~ \
'"
.:n
'"
'"
@J ~
"' 0
:f
-l!.:: . 4?b
tli,>\l
'-
€,
V;,'1,~
~
0,
<:>
OJ
'<t
System Improvements
with Impact Fees
~5tr r..<'\}
"
~
\'
~
OC-
"-"
"
..
J
tj' .....>n
'1- 'f
~
~
i>.'?JO~
Mr
.>;>&
\o~ <r5
\
'-
"--"('
&
~
~
~_..~\
/ ~, ~
, ~,"- 0
" ,/r '"
/ .J/
1/ . Q/ '/
# $'/
. '1>/
/ ~;/
, ~~"
./# / ~
~ 'if,
'"
.~
a
a
lI)
'..
~'Oo
A10 .f!:.~./,
<j 'OJ
"'>0
\
'"
c:
~9'
470
\,
""
~,
~~
",.
,
~7
II
jl
1
,I
\
o
440
~o
440
4~C"
.<"
""
1.Bo ".00
~
"t
<1.50
^-.~
""
O'
~
440
4 7[f ~\}
~li.0
o
'"
'It
!J
t>-co"Jj!
co
ro
....
~ '':
.::>
c
'"
"'!
f
"--
c.c,zo
o ':>~\)
U'
'3
'40
"
",,0'
~
/
V-i
(;~
;[
~o 0
~II
,U ~ !
V
~a
'vo
".90
'>.q,\}
r~
, ,.. \
516
d' i I
D l/
/
/
SiD.,
12
l. ~.
". r=
~i@
't""1'1
II
r 152"'
N
't""
520
'""':
o
'%
510
~
".
/
/iT
/ I
/1
/
1/ 1
<?" /~ /
;,-
q ...
.~. / /
'0' #
. /
1/
t''I> ~
. Ii 8-
~--I'-~ 5:S0
~'
530
co
,
')30 1)30
<{fi
-v
:;'10
530~.
(:;>-\}
'"
-=1
l\r. :;:L ....'
I co ~ 1.2' 510
rX= =-~~ '-~1 ..: aJr-,r--::"'a- ~~
or. '<:.,8 ".__0-. I ~'. {J
(' ::'1 f'7"~ l' i -- --.........., ,
I ::7' , '1"--- - -~ I}=W----==~......
" ,9: I 8 ~~_ - ~ fi1 8 ynnpaQI0i FIr
;;. ~ ,Ii->,:" 8~.~' ~. 0 - co"9'
II ,~~== .,:"_.tI2o = tlJ;" ' co L ='=."
I o~')' Ashl~y);J.r. {J' ,,....::"":;'''--;:i J,pnw-n<l n, il
~// f '- "------.~w-- H"' I!(!)!~: '0 J
= ~ <'l<,,,-. 'I> ___ " '~.c ; 0"(,
/j'~'b;:~ co :--..JC~=- 8 ',~c9 ,:lI=_~co ~7<~ =c 0=<-
II ~== =--:;:::;;= =~ " ~'teamboat
JlI 8 II co 8 J'J,a,otaU o.nl D. r, 8 ' . .. -'.,
it 1 ..
~-- =:::: [:: ~---
"S.u an ; s.h. 1Il05 s. Dr.
0\
9-
.
.
I
,
,
,t.
:'I?
,
.
I
12
co
J?
""
Timberview
<Sl-"
<:,'1--\:.
530
530
-8- ..,..'
I
r
l F?ub -
~ F?d, ...-:.--
-~~---
\ -
co
Park Ln.
~6
,
C 0:
0,. 0)
'" ~
8
o
U;
15
':)00
.
.-
,,~
'b.
~
12
I i
01
~1
8 C r e 11v i e w 0 ,
0'10
f
POO
"',
5~;
co
8
c
""
It)
J' ~
<<
~
~
'- LfU
__-""C
----- '=""""=~
~
10
\~
K~ 51.
8.
.
.
I
.
.
I
.
.
I
i
.
I
.
,
l-,,-~-,=--. ---:
I . j:
,1
"60'" l
-ll'
~'
a
~D
"
0:;
\ \
""
co
8 F"
~! I
CIPb.V l~Y ,
,C.O,<4).fl,L .Ln..
o 0
.,
<l>'
>'
---:s:.
'. .....
~r
a;
jl
c
o
'"
~. I
" --
'tl L.D .iHa.r.d
C "
< l .Ji.10
~
....
"
co
a.---__J
...
...
o
fO;
'N
.1.t)
c.
"
<!
~
05<0 $';>0
co
\ \\
540
,;
.Y)
j,....!
1I
co
-
u
8
I
10
520
~.Jd .15 _
co
112 __
8-
4 )
A~Q
30
,12
10
12
.,,;
~'
"'I
'2
..= '(~
it)
't""
co
~
"'
C>
:to
co
'.;1..... - - - -,
o
~
30
>;
~
-'"
a;
I
~
co
8
8
8
-"
d 1,
"
III ,
" .
.:(
0;-
"
C
0;
Ei
E;
'"
;p
co
't
CI
-
-I
< ,
I
I
"
iI
~ .,
>,
-:
c'
~i
0,
0'
co
cl
- '-(7
-0, I
,
,.'iO
8
a..l.lrnS ..s.l
:?
,
C
~
I'
I
t,r
12
"""
-, iI
1!...:; ,
rti
~~.
it)
't""
,:;i-,
-
..
~
Q
cr
" If)
N
~~
.:c)
::i U!
.; _'~h~
01 8 ~ 8
.-:-..... J t___ !
--
12
"\
.,J
'"
12
8
8
"
.
.
I'
"'-
'"
.':;>,...,
:;
N'
...,
~)
'",
>~
..
8
8
~
"
'~"'" 10Ga'~''''v I, 10
~_CD_
~ '<.~ r v'
--- J
'C ~i
,I
N
N
~
",
105
.~
co
:.---~
o
co
'"
",,---- '''Ie,.
Stilt
n e 63$
. Servin
L ',. 'e F? ,
___.___,-=====~o~ton ~.~.====..!_.:..:._.~.._.._ '~----__
. ....... ........ ~
'- , "'\
-S~ $ "'.S.
0'0 .."
":\-, ~ ,:
t.""(., "_,', "-
~ ,~
. ,~
,,'"
.,
~~~" \
,;."
?'
~ ,..~'
" "'"or'.
\t'~>
&'
~ Q
~ or.;'
\:
, ~
'\ ~
, '....
~
~ '"
,~
,
~
~
., ""
o 'b ~
L"'. ~~
L.(,l ?..-(:)'\,
">~
"..~
&~
.;' ~ "
~ "'-
.~ .
"(O~~
,
~
~
,
~
~
,
,~
'\""
,
~
~ .
,,' '- .
"" J
',,~ " Jr"";,,,~C~ erry
'" I
~" -I
d',;>O'~ ........ ~~, " 'L I 530
.. .. #' "'??
....... ..
Basin '0'
co
5:-
~
N
~
~
c =-~-ii-"
'i-'-'s;:,
~~'S
N
%
<,
"
.,
a
M
lrl ~
10
10
10
.
~
r
.
~470
T
~
\li
'~
~
o
10
J)
10
10
--- - 'Y
~
I
Jt
0' I
4?,0'
d1(l
"'2.2
'"
I
.... ~ I
8
o
~
~
.ffiC-
",
8
4?G
"
~
N
,t
o 440
<k;o
""
'0
'~~
530
~
t.~\)
560
5Crr,i
I
U I
~I
'p,
<0
. ~WJm"..
",'\)
"-
"'"
'0
...,
530
.~
~
""
tj30
12
".
'6
5.3P-
'530
c.Ml.
'"
~
~
l~ (\
~
I
r
-t
'.
~ ...'be:.
....
.....
;85(\
L0
~
'0
<t"
O',C/
'-"
<'.0
$1'0
'\1..;>'0
"~rJ ;
~
~
"-
.....
~
~
.~
;r,)
12
b
'6
'-
o ()
..
'"
o
...,
0'
)'$
530
530
(:l,\:r
(~"'~' ';,p.,'" ~
I
"'I
~l
R
.,
<0
.'15
,-:?
'.
'"
~ Ie:
"
c
'"
"
~rfJ
~
''SSG
6'
:,36 "'%
,- ~ ":S
'-B-
<:f'
430
:i
c"
,
\~
"
l'
",:
~I
c,
"
)
o
N
l!)
'12 I
0.,1::>
(J"
T'O,
o
r
~o-
"
''''
(>
,~
!'~:=
."
?~
c
".,
L'1
'-5~j)-
'"
'I..
('"'l~)'
o
("):
'<t
,~
a
'"
")
~
R .~'
":- ~
~r ~
-~
'>?t1
~
':1
g
<!l
I{)
~
o
"
". "'"
o ';)"
'"
'"
"?
a
""
It)/
$10
,:>""..
a
M
'"
<:>
t.:;-
~
,....
(
53().
N
~
"
I
I
a:
,
I
~ I.,
..1\
,"0
"
c:,'l-O
.~
a
it
LEGEND
'"
w
o
s
o
D
~o
1M
'-'l
Lift Stations
Sewer Lines
i---.......cl
-, .
l?
l(j
G
Meter Stations
0'\)
Force Mains
~o
:
@l
I
.
~
I
'0 530
"
.830
:- .. .... . i
l_.._=
Cop pel! City Limits
~
\
'\
N
't""
Developer Sewer Lines
....
"
<Vo
<,'}\}
o
<"l
'"
Sewer Basins
"
Vo
Existing Sewer Lines, Lift Station,
and Force Mains with Excess
Capacity Available for Future Growth
_'Ot>,\}~
"''O~
'iJD
$:;"0
'VIf
';
N
____I
.....
"
<5',
""0
~ $30
...... '-,
Basin 'A'
540
<Vo
'ft.
Rd.
____I
Proposed Sewer Improvements
(2005-2015)
Y)n,.,~' ~
'-
i
Project # for Existing Sewer Lines,
Force Mains, and Lift Stations
with Excess Capacity Available for
Future Growth
co
<'J
,(J)
Basin 'B'
'.
~ -
':1'
't.P
'C€,
Basin 'C'
o
.x
CD
-539
S'Q
..
~
"-
o
1,000
2,000
I
Project # for Proposed Sewer
Improvements
(2005-2015)
Basin 'F'
~
o
$.-(0
@)
$~
Basin 'E'
"-
530
_ -- ~ J 520
'"
SCALE IN FEET
510
~
\J1
N
o
5:w.:
~S3C
Freese and Nichols
:::?
'0
:-
">40
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
The proposed water system projects that have excess capacity to serve future
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 IO'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.
3.5 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 A WW A 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 ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 3.9
Service Unit Equivalency Table
.
Meter Size Service Unit Equivalents
5/8" 1
I" 1.67
1 Vz" 3.33
2" 5.33
3" 11.67
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 Cappel!. 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
Table 3.10
Projected Water Service Units for 2005,2015
2005 Water 2005 2015 2015 2005-2015
Existing Service Existing Projected Projected Projected
Meter Size Water Unit Service Water Meters Service Units Growth in
5/8 " 10851 1 10851 11209 11209 358
1" 109 1.67 182.03 166 278 96
1 112" 95 3.33 316,35 145 482 166
2" 420 5,33 2238,6 641 3414 1176
3" 34 11.67 396.78 52 605 208
4" 22 21 462 34 705 243
6" 3 46.67 140m 5 214 74
8" 143 80 11440 218 17447 6007
TOTAL 11677 171 26027 12468 34354 8327
* Residential (5/8") Projected Water Meters based on projected population percent growth from 2005-2015
* Commercial (1"-8") Projected Water Meters based on projected commerical acre growth from 2005,2015
City of Cappel!
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
Table 3 11
Projected Wastewater Service Units for 2005-2015
2005 Wastewater 2005 2005.2015
Existing Service Unit Existing 2015 Projected 2015 Projected Projected Growth
Meter Size Wastewater EclUivalents Service Units Wastewater Meters Service Units in Service Units
5/8 " 10851 1 10851 11209 11209 358
1" 109 1.67 182.Q3 166 278 96
1 112" 95 3.33 316.35 145 482 166
2" 420 5.33 2238,6 641 3414 1176
3" 34 11.67 396,78 52 605 208
4" 22 21 462 34 705 243
6" 3 46.67 140.0l 5 214 74
8" 143 80 11440 218 17447 6007
TOTAL 11677 171 26027 12468 34354 8327
* Residential (5/8") ProJccted Wastewater Meters based on projected population percent growth from 2005-2015
* Commercial (1 ".8") Projected Wastewater Meters based on projected commerical acre growth from 2005-2015
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
3.6 Maximum Impact Fee Calculation
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
The maximum impact fee that can be levied is equal to the projected capital cost needed
to serve lO-year development divided by the projected lO-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 $12,935.639
Total Capital Improvement Costs $12,935,639
Financing Costs $3,545,530
Total Eligible Costs $16,481,169
Total Water Impact Fee Credit (50%) $990
The total eligible costs associated with the existing and proposed water system
improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years is $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 = lO-vear Capital Improvement Cost. Credit
With Credit lO-year growth in Service Units
= .$16,481,169, $8,240,585
8,327 SU
= $ 9901 SU
B. Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee
The eligible costs for water include the following:
Proposed Capital Improvement Costs $12,195.216
Total Capital Improvement Costs $12,195,216
Financing Costs $3,342,709
Total Eligible Costs $15,537,924
3,21
City ofCoppell
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
= lO,vear Capital Improvement Cost, Credit
lO-year Growth in Service Units
= $15,537,924
8,327 SU
$7,768.962
= $ 933/ SU
3,22
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
4.0 ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
4.1 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 "CID".
· 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 200 l, the existing service area structure of lO service areas was
combined into one service area. This combination of service areas provides the City of
Cappel! with ability to pool additional funds to construct 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
~
N
,
4000' 2000' 0
I ,
FIGURE 4.1
CITY OF COPPELL
ROADWAY IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA
, Hr.. (. , , 'r . 0 ,.
corrELL
.... .~. --',
,. -
I.... '"'
, , ,
..;~ : .
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
4.3 Roadway Impact Fees Land Use Assumptions
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
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 Nichols, 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
Freewav Commercial/Office/Retail 664
Light Industrial 866
Public Institutional 235
Residential
Residential High Density 20
Residential Medium Densitv 159
Residential Low Density 7
Parks and ODen SDace 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 commitments for
usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements
C. 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
D. 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 ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols. Inc.
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.
4.5 Roadway Level-or-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 "CID" is the design level-of-service selected for the Impact
Fee Analysis for the City of Cappel!. Table 4,2 lists the maximum service volumes for
level-of-service "CID" 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
Princi al Arterial - Divided
P6D
700
Divided Local Arterials
C4D
625
ndivided Collector - 4 Lane
C4U
440
Undivided Collector - 2 Lane
C2U
350
*Hourly capacity for LOS "C/D" obtained from NCTCOG DFW Regional Travel Model and the
Highway Capacity Manual
4.6 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 rcflect 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 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 ref1ect 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 pcak hour and the distance travcled by these
vehicles in miles. Thus, the Service Unit for roadway impact fees is vehicle-mile.
4-7
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
4.7 Roadway Existing Conditions Analysis
Freese and Nichols. Inc.
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.
C. 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 Coppelt
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 fce 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, Bethal 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. The following
section describes the methodology used in developing service units for new
developments.
A. 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 onlv 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
4-10
City of Coppel!
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 ntixed-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 docs 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 lintits 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 ntiles.
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 I O-year period, The basis used to calculate the increase in vehicle-ntiles
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 usc for the lO.year study period
· Trip generation rates for PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic (provided by
the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 711< edition)
· A verage trip length (provided by NCTCOG 1984 and 1994 Workplace Survey
and 2001 National Household Travcl 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 80,702
4-11
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
D. 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: I) future growth areas,
2) projected lO'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 lO,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 I O-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.
4-13
~
N
,
4000' 2000' 0
I . I
LEGEND:
" ,i'
:,'p
':S-.
FIGURE 4.2
CITY OF COPPELL
ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
"--
IMPACT FEE ROADWAYS
nnn RECOUPMENT ROADWAYS
.'..., c., '" 1>"
corrELL
.''>>'
. .
F ; ~
",
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
E, 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
F. 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 GF A, acre) for a service area, This maximum cost per service
area is the cost of thc ClF divided by the growth attributable to new development
projected to occur with a I O-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.
E. 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
F. 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 lO,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 ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Table 4.9
Calculation of Maximum Impact Fees (Uncredited)
Line # Service Area
1 Total Veh-Miles of Capacity Added by the CIP 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 Dejiciencies)(Table 4.4)
4 Net Amount of Veh-Mile Capacity Added 14,311
(Line #l-Line #l,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 Capacity Added/Fotal of Capacity Added)*CIP Cost. (Line
#4/Line #i)*(Line #5)
7 Cost to Meet Existing Needs and Usage $36,247,971
(Total Cost of CIP-Cost of Net Capacity Supplied) - Line #5-Line #6
8 Total Veh-Mile of New Demand Over 10 Years 80,702
(From Projected Vehicle-Miles of New Demand)(Table 4,5)
9 % of Capacity Added Atlributed 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 Atlributed to New Growth $27,157,029
(Cost of Net Capacity Supplied * Cost Attributed to New Growth) - Line
#6*Line#IO
12 Maximum Fee per Service Unit - Without Credit $337
(Cost of Net Capacity Attributed to New Growth/Total Veh-Mile of New
Demand) - Line #1 I/Line #8
13 Percent of Fee Recoverable 50%
14 Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit $168
(Line #12*Line #13)
H. Land Use i 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 Equivalency Table
Dev. .. . Trip Trip Veh-Mi Per
ITE Land Use Unit Rate Len2th Dev Unit
. . .
Residential
Residential (MediumILow) DU 1.01 4.20 4.24
Residential (High Density) DU 0,62 4.20 2,60
Others Nor 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 Nor Specified 1000 Sa, ft. 1.49 4,80 7.15
Retail I Commercial
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,)5 37,24
Gasoline/Service Station with Cony 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 Sa, ft, 2.48 3.20 7.92
Light Industrial
General Light Industrial 1000 sq, ft. 0,98 3.30 3,23
Industrial Park 1000 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 Sa. 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 1000 sq, ft. 0,66 1.45 0,96
Others Not Specified 1000 sa, 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.
Part 1:
Determine number of service units (vehicle-miles) generated bv the
development using the land-use vehicle-mile equivalencv table.
No. of Development x
Units
Vehicle,miles (Total Service Units)
per development unit
= Development's Vehicle-miles
Part 2:
Calculate the impact due bv 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 $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 (sJ.) General Office Building
(10,000 s.L x 7.15 vehicles-miles)/IOOO s.L units = 71.50 vehicle-miles
71.50 vehicle,miles x $168 / vehicle,mile = $12,012
C. 60,000 s.L 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.L 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-I
Cappel! Roadway Impact Fees 2005
Existing Roadway Inventory
Street From To Length Pavement No. of Width Traffic Volume Traffic Volume TOP Config
(FT) Type Lanes (PM) N/E (PM) 5IW
PARKWAY BLVD COPPELL ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD .. .6210 CONC 40 46'C 371 3B4 C4D
PARKWAY BLVD DENTON TAP HOAD MOORE ROAD 5400 CONC 40 .46'C 435 337 C4D
PARKWAY BLVD MOORE ROAD . SAMUELBLVD. 1650 CONC 2U 43'C 435 337 C4D
PARKWAY BLVD SAMUEL BLVD, MACARTHURBLVD, 3550 CONC 4U 43'C 435 337 C4D
SANDY LAKE ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) COPPELL ROAD 4980 ASP 2U 24' 353 374 C4D/6
SANDY LAKE ROAD COPPELL ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD 5870 ASP 2U 24' 836 587 C4D
SANDY LAKE ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD, 10330 CONC 40 50'C 1,012 923 C4D
'SANDY LAKE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD, CITY LIMIT (EAST) 4920 ASP 2U 22' 672 857 C4D/6
BETHEL ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) I'REEPORTPKWY, 6430 CONC 2U 20' 371 326 C4D
BETHEL ROAD FREEPORT PKWY, DENTON TAP ROAD 5310 ASP 2U . 20' 372 335 C2U
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD FREEPORT PKWY, COPPELL ROAD 1790 CONC 2U 44'C 242 197 C4U
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD COPPELL ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD 3610 ASP 2U 22' 242 197 C4U
BELT LINE ROAD CITY LIMIT (SOUTH) SOUTHWESTERN BLVD, 8450 CONC 60 33'C 2,891 1,335 P6D
BELT LINE ROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD, MACARTHURBLVD, . 12090 . CONC 40 23'C 1,236 574 P6D
BELT LINE ROAD MACARTHUR. BLVD, CITY LIMIT (EAST) 5810 CONC 60 33'C 1,284 1,515 P6D
ROYAL LANE CITY LIMIT (SOUTH) BETHEL ROAD 2990 CONC 40 24'C 614 557 P6D
ROYAL LANE BETHEL ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 6140 CONC 40 46'C 441 397 C4D/6
ROYAL LANE CREEKVIEW DR SANDY LAKE ROAD 1240 CONC 2U 23'C 441 397 C4D/6
FREEPORT PKWY, IH'635 BETHEL ROAD 6740 " CONC 40 42'C 1,196 400 C4D/6
STATE ROAD BETHEL ROAD RUBY ROAD 3220 CONC 40 46'C 340 151 C4D/6
STATE ROAD RUBY ROAD. SANDY.LAKE.ROAD , ." 3940 NC 2U 21'C 340 .. 151 C4D/6
COPPELL ROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD, BETHEL ROAD 2140 ASP 2U 23' 117 96 C2U
COPPELL ROAD BETHEL ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 5360 ASP 2U 23' 520 193 C2U
DENTON TAP ROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD. SANDY LAKE ROAD 7860 <tONC .60 64'C 2.606 1,357 ,.. P6D
DENTON TAP ROAD SANOY LAKE ROAD CITY LIMIT (NORTH) , 6020 CONC 60 64'G 2,732 .. 939 P6D
MACARTHUR BLVD. BELT LINE ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 9690 CONC 60 42'C 1.586 740 P6D
MACARTHUR BLVD. SANDY LAKE ROAD CITY LIMIT (NORTH) 6590 CONC 60 42'C 1,205 700 P6D
"'Under Construction as a 4-/ane Divided Local Arterial (C4D)
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols. Inc.
Appendix B
Existing Roadway Capacity, Demand,
Excess Capacity and Deficiencies
B-1
coppen Roadway Impact F_ 2OD5
8lislhg Roadway Capacity, Demand, 8I:ess Capacity and CMficienc..s
Length Length ""'" T>I" Veh-Mi PM Peak.Hour Volume
Roadway F~ To (Foel) (M~es) ClljIacity Direction T"'" .. Di"ectional Vllh-Mj Veh.Mi Veh-Mi Veh.Mi ""~ Elcess ToIalElccess """" fuess Tolel
A B Volumo s,,,,,, S_ Total Direction A DireclionB T"'" """"" -,,, Capdy Deficiencies Deficiencies Deficiencies
Pk.Ht Northbound SooOhbo,od "'"" Supply o.mMd O~""" _ood Direction A DirectionB Pook-Hour DirectlonA DirectionB Peak.Hour
Petlanll Easlbound Westbound Peak-Hour Peak.Hour Peak-Hour Peak.Hour Peak-Hour Veh-Mi Veh-Mi Veh-Mi veh.Mi veh-Mi ven-Mi
PARKWAY BLVD COPPELL ROAD DENTON TAP, ROAD 1;121Q 1.18 , "0 700 '" '" 7" '""' "" 3,293 '" '" ." 1.211> 1,195 2,405 0 0 0
PARKWAY BLVD DENTON TAP ROAD MOORE-ROAD "'" 1:02 , paD 700 435, '" m 100% 1432 2,864 '" '" 7'" 1,987 1;087 2,074 0 0 0
PARKWAY BLVD MOOREROAD SAMUEL'BLvp, "'" 0.31 , C2\J '"0 '" '" 772, '00' 109' '" ~:' 'OS '" 0 , . , -" 0 -"
PARKWAY BLVD SAMUEL BLVD MACARt"HURBLVD. "'" 0.67 , C4U ..., ". "7 m """, 59' 1;183 227 '" '" '" 664 0 0 0
SANDY lAKE ROAD CITYLlMlTlWEST) COPPELL ROAD ''''' 0." , C'U '" '"' '" m "0' m "" '" '" "" 0 0 0 " ," ,"
SANDY LAKE ROAD COPPELLROAD DENTON TAP ROAD "'70 1.11 , ",U '"0 '" 597 1,423 "0' '" na '" '" "" 0 0 0 ,"'" ,'" ."
SANOY LAKE ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. '''''' L96 . C<O '" 1,012 '" 1,935 "",. "" 4,891 ',"" L"" 3,786 '" '" 1.105 0 0 0
'SANDY LAKE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD CITY LIMIT (EAST) "'" 0.93 , C<O '" on ,~~. 1,529 ",,% 1165 2,330 '" '" 1,424 '" '" 00' 0 0 0
BETHEL ROAD CfTYLlMrt('oVEST} FREEPORTPKW'f. .... 1_ 122 , CW '"0 '" '" 100% '" '" 452- '" '" 0 ,. " -" 0 ,"
BETHEL ROAD FREEPORT PKWY. DENfONTAP,ROAD '''0 1.01 , CW "0 372 :: 707 '00% '" "" '" '" 711, 0' " " -" 0 -"
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD FREEPORT PKWY COPPELL ROAD "''' 0." . "'U ..0 '" '" "",. '" "7 " 67 '" 21. '" '" 0 0 0
SOUTHWESTERN BLVD COPPELLROAD DENTON TAP ROAD 3610 0." , ",U "" '" '" '" '00' '" 479 '" '" "'" " '" '79 0 0 0
BELT UNE ROAD CITY LIMIT (SOUTH) SOUTHWESTERN BLVD. ""' 1.60 , PeP 700 2,8111' 1,335 ''''' "'" '''''' 3,361 2.313 1,068 3,382 0 '" '" ." 0 -633
BELT LINE ROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD MACARTHUR BLVD "000 229 , "'0 '" 1,236 ." 1,810 "'" 1431 2,862 1;415 857 2,072 " IT< 700 0 0 0
BELT LINE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. CITY LIMIT (EAST) "''' Ul) , "" "" "" 1,515 2;199 """ "" ',"" 1;413 1,667 ,,COO '" ... 1,542 0 0 0
ROYAL LANE CITY LIMIT (SOUTH) BETHEL ROAD ""' 0.57 . "'0 '" '" 657 1,171 ''''''' 700 1,416 ". '" 66' '" '" 76' 0 0 0
ROYAL LANE BETHEL ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 6140 1.16 . "'0 '" .., '" '" ''''''' "" 2,907 '" '" '" ." '" 1,933 0 0 0
ROYAL LANE CREEKVIEW DR SANDY LAKE ROAD 1240 023 , "'U '"' 4" '" '" ''''''' " '" '" " '" 0 0 0 ," -" -"
FREEPORT PKWY. IH-635 BETHEL ROAD . 6740 '" . "'0 '" ';:: "'" 1,696 '""' 1596 3,191 _1,527 '" 2,037 " 1;065 1,154 0 0 0
STATE ROAD BETHEL ROAD RUBY ROAD "'" 0.61 4 "'D '" '" .., 100% 162 1.525 "" " '" '" '70 1~5_ 0 0 0
STATE ROAD RUBY ROAD SANDY LAKe ROAD 3940 0,75 , "'U '"' ... '" .., 100% '" '" '" '" '" 7 '" 0 0 0
COPPELLROAD SOUTHWESTERN BLVD BETHEL ROAD 2140 0.41 , CW '"' '" 96 '" '00' '" '" .. " " 94 '" "7 0 0 0
COPPELLROAO BETHEL ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 5360 1.02 , e,u '"' '''' '" '" '00% '" '" '" '96 '" 0 '" '" .17:) 0 .173
OENTONTAP ROAD SOUTl:\WESTERN BLVD SANDYLAKEROAD 7"" 1.49 , "0 700 2,~.: 1,357 ..;163 '00' ",. L - ~.252 .",1n 2,02(1 6,191 0 1,106 1,106 -1,OSl 0 _1,051
DENTON TAP ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD CITYLIMIT,(NORTH)': 60'" 1.,U4 , POD 700 "" '3' 3,671 100% 23" 4,769' 3,115 1,071 4,185 0 1,.324 1.324 0721 0 -721
MACARTHUR BLVD. BELT LINE ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 9600 '-" , C<O '" ',"" '" 2,328 "". ''''' 4,"" 2,914 1,358 4,272 0 936 936 ,620 0 .'"
MACARTHUR BLVD. S.o.NDYLAKEROAD CITY LIMIT (NORTH) 8500 1_25 4 e40 '" ,,'" 700 1,905 '00' ''''' 3,120 1,504 974 2,378 " "" 7" 0 0 0
Subtotal 2809 59,163 26,630 16,208 42,836 6,788 13,611 20;459 -3,836 .297 -4,133
Tr8fficcounrsconducrad'nMarch2005
RoadwayF...i1ity
Ty~Oesignation
HoUrIyVehlc....MiJ.
Capac:lty.-LaM
Uile Of Roadway Facility
lorLOS'C/D"
PmcpalArterial.Diviled
P60
700
DMded Loc.af Arterials
C<O
'"
UIldMde<JCoIleclors_4lane
"'u
440
UndMOOd Collectors - 2 Lane
"'u
'"
F~aO<lfY!cIl%.nc.
4065In_Pl8m.Sle.200
ForIWOtlh,T_7~1~Il9S
City of Coppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix C
Projected Vehicle..Miles of New Demand
C-l
Projected Vehicle Miles of New Demand
Year 2005
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS 1 Unit of Trip No.o' YEAR 2005 (ExtSTING)
Land Use (Veh-MilDev Unit) Generation Units per
Acre' Acres Veh-Mile3
Commercial
Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 s;:;Jt. GFA 10.89 193 10,807
4Freewav CommerciaVOfficeJAetail 5,14 1000 snJt. GFA 10,89 12' 4,301
*Liaht Industrial 2.38 1000~ft. GFA 15.24 1,074 38,890
Public Institutional 2.90 1000 5 .ft. GFA 15.24 410 18,106
Residential
Residential Hiah Densitv 2.60 DU 16 174 7,250
Residential Medium Densitv 4.24 DU 4 2,233 37890
Residential Low Densitv 4.24 DU 2 493 4,183
Parks and Open Space 0.54 Acres 1 908 491
Total 5,613 121,916
* Assumed 77% of the existing developed non-residential is industrial
Year 2015
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS 1 Unita'Trip No.o' YEAR 2015 (PROJECTED)
land Use (Veh-Mi/Dev Unit) Gen,eration Units per ..
. . - Acre2_ . Acres Veh-Mlij3.
Commercial
Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 sn.ft. GFA 10.89 423 23,686
"Freewav CommerciaVOffice/Retail 5.14 1000 sn-ft. GFA 10.89 792 26,609
Licht Industrial 2.38 10oo~ft, GFA 15.24 1,940 70,248
Public Institutional 2.90 1000 SCI-ft. GFA 15.24 645 28,484
Residential
Residential Hioh Densitv 2,60 DU 16 194 6,083
Residential Medium Densitv 4,24 DU 4 2,392 40,587
Residential Low Densit 4.24 DU 2 SOO 4,242
Parks and Open SDace 0,54 Acres 1 1,255 67'
Total 8,141 202;619
Difference 2005,2015
TOTAL SERVICE UNrrS 1 Unit of Trip I No. of INCREASE IN VEti-MlLES
Land Use (Veh-Mi/Dev Unit) Generation I_Unit$J)8r
.. Acre2 Acres ijeh~Mlle~
Commercial
Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 so.ft. GFA 10.89 230 12,879
4Freewav Commercial/Office/Retail 5.14 1000 sn,ft. GFA 10.89 664 22,309
Liaht Industrial 2,38 1000 Sn:ft, GFA 15.24 866 31,356
Public Institutional 2.90 1oo0~. GFA 15.24 235 10,378
Residential
Residential Hiah Densitv 2.60 DU 16 20 833
Residential Medium Densitv 4.24 DU 4 159 2,698
Residential Low Densitv 4.24 DU 2 7 59
Parks and Onen Space 0,54 Acres 1 347 18'
Total 2,528 80;702
ACRES TO UNrr OF TRIP GENERATION CONVERSION FACTORS
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(High Density) 16 units per acre
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Low Density)
2 units per acre
Notes:
1 See Average Land Use Trip Calculations
~ 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
~ Reduce the Freeway Commercial/OfficefRetail by 40%.
The 40% represents the number 01 trips added to the
Freeway system and not the Coppell Roadway System
Number of Dwelling Units per Acre
(Medium Oensity)
4 units per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Commercial) 25% covarage
10.89' sqft per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Light Industrlal) 35% coverage
15.24. sq 11 per acre
Gross Floor Area per Acre
(Public institutional) 35% coverage
15.24' sq 11 per acre
'all #'s are for 1,000 square teet
ForI Worth. Texas 76109-4895
FreeseancfNichols,/nc.
4055 International Plaza,Ste_200
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix D
Engineer's Opinion of Probable
Construction Cost
D-l
SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST
RECOUPEMENT PROJECTS
PROJECT ROAOWAY FROM TO
3< SANDY LAKE ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD.
.< SANDY LAKE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. CITY LIMIT (EAST)
8< FREEPORT PARKWAY IH.635 BETHAL ROAD
12< BELT LINE ROAO SOUTHWESTERN BLVO, MACARTHUR BLVD.
Total:
~Cost from City Contract Documents
EXPANSION PROJECTS
PROJECT ROADWAY FROM TO
1<< SANDY LAKE ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) COPPELL ROAD
2<< SANOY LAKE ROAO COPPELL ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD
5" ROYAL LANE SANDY LAKE ROAD EXTEND SOUTH
6" FREEPORT PKWY SH 121 SANDY LAKE ROAD
r FREEPORT PKWV RUBY ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD
9'< BETHEL ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) FREEPORT PKWY.
10u. ROYAL LANE IH-635 BETHEL ROAD
11*** SOUTHWESTERN BLVD. COPPELL ROAD CREEK CROSSING
13*** MACARTHUA BLVD. BETHAL SCHOOL ROAD BELT LINE ROAD
COST
$11,145.337
$5,193,720
$1,017,629
$522,283
$17,878,969
COST wi
FINANCING
$14,935,000
$6,960,000
$1,364,000
$700,000
$23,959,000
COST
$5,802,578
$5,115,927
$771,750
$1,140,436
$1,627,609
$8,994,000
$3,394,000
$1,009,000
$1,579,000
COST wI
FINANCING
$7,776,000
$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
UEngineer's Probable Construction Cost Estimates provided to the City by Engineering Consultants
U~ Freese and Nichols Conceptual Level Cost Estimates
$39,446,000
TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
$63,405,000
$47,313,269
CITY OF COPPEll RECOUPEMENT COST
Sandy lake Road Project No.: 3
Denton Tap to MacArthur
Construction $ 9,441,368
Design $ 1,030,683
Geotech $ 30,920
Mise, TXU street lights, ect. $ 193,073
Mise, tree removal, sprinkler repair $ 85,275
Right of way $ 364,018
$ 11,145,337
Sandy lake Road Project No,: 4
Macarthur to E, city limits
Construction $ 4,828,324
Design $ 134,106
Geotech $ 32,231
Misc. ADA review $ 575
Misc. tree removal $ 14,508
Mise, Archaeology survey $ 6,000
Right of way $ 134,116
Bridge over Elm Fork
Right of way $ 43,860
$ 5,193,720
Beltline Road Project No.: 12
Denton Tap to MacArthur
Construction $ 438,926
Misc. TXU streetlights $ 70,476
Right of way $ 12,881
$ 522,283
Bethel Road Project No.: 9
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
$ 8,994,000
Royal lane Project No,: 5
Sandy lake South
Engineer's est. of cost $ 753,000
Design $ 18,750
$ 771,750
Sandy lake Road Project No.: 1
SH121 to Coppeil Rd, N.
Engineer's est. of cost $ 5,014,000
Design $ 451 ,468
Right of way $ 337,110
$ 5,802,578
CITY OF COPPELL RECOUPEMENT COST
Sandy Lake Road Project No.: 2
Coppell Rd, N. to Denton Tap
Engineer's est. of cost $ 4,238.725
Design $ 677 .202
Right of way (est.) $ 200,000
$ 5,115,927
Royal Lane Project No,: 10
IH635 to Bethel
Drainage cost $ 224,023
Misc, RR crossing $ 436,579
Right of way $ 20,167
$ 680,769
Freeport Parkway Project No,: 8
IH635 to Bethel
Construction $ 900.364
Design $ 4.760
Misc. RR crossing $ 112,505
$ 1,017,629
Freeport Parkway Project No.: 6
Sandy Lake to SH121
Engineer's est. of cost $ ,
'($2,559.780 from NCTCOG)
Design $ 460.000
Geotech $ 40.250
Right of way (est.) $ 640.186
"($1,080.214 from NCTCOG)
$ 1,140,436
Freeport Parkway Project No.: 7
Ruby to Sandy Lake
Enginee~s est. of cost $ 730.609
'($3.368.000 from NCTCOG)
Design $ 632,500
Geotech $ 57,500
Right of way (est.) $ 207,000
$ 1 ,627,609
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Southwestern Blvd.
Roadway Description:
Roadway Length
Right-ot-Way Width
Roadway Width (BOC - SOC)
Undivided Roadway = 1 , Divided Roadway = 2
Item No. Item Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost)
Right of Way Preparation
Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment
8" Reinforced Concrete Pavement
8' Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade
Lime or Cement for Stabilization (40IbslSY)
6" Monolithic Curb
Sidewalk and Ramps
Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls)
Traffic Signals
Hydromulching
Top Soil
Pavement Markings & Signage
Traffic Control
Erosion Control
Landscaping and Irrigation
Lighting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors)
SubtotalCoristructlon Cost Estimate
Contingency
TotalC6'ristriJction Cost Estimate
Right-of-Way Cost
Engineering Services (10% of Construction Cost)
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost)
Geotechnical Services (1% of Construction Cost)
Testing (1% of Construction Cost)
"Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for May 2005)
*Total Capital Cost Per Foot
'This estimate does not include Legal, Administration, or Financial Cost
"Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years)
Quantity
1,SOO
70
49
1
Unit Project Summary:
LF 4-Lane Undivided from Coppell Rd.
FT to Denton Tap Road
FT
Date Performed: .618/05
Quantity Unit
1 LS
10 ACRE
2,800 CY
9,000 SY
9,400 SY
200 TON
3,300 LF
15,000 SF
1 LS
OLS
2,200 SY
2,200 SY
6,000 LF
1 LS
1 LS
o LS
o EA
Unit Cost
$40,000.00
$2,000.00
$15,00
$35.00
$4,00
$100.00
$5,00
$4,00
$143,000.00
$120,000.00
$1.00
$2.00
$1.00
$15,000.00
$9,000,00
$29,000,00
$4,000.00
20%
SF
$3,00
10.0%
3.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Total Cost
$40,000
$20,000
$42,000
$315,000
$37,600
$20,000
$16,500
$60,000
$143,000
$0
$2,200
$4,400
$6,000
$15,000
$9,000
$0
$0
$730,700
$146,200
$876,900
$0.00
$87,700.00
$26,400.00
$8.800.00
$8,800.00
$1,009,000.00
$680.00
$1,353,000.00
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
Royal Lane
Roadway Description:
Roadway Length
Right-of-Way Width
Roadway Width (BOC . BOC)
Undivided Roadway = 1 , Divided Roadway = 2
Item No. Item Description
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost)
Right of Way Preparation
Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment
8" Reinforced Concrete Pavement
8" Lime or Cement Stabilized Subgrade
Lime or Cement for Stabilization (40IbslSY)
6" Monolithic Curb
Sidewalk and Ramps
Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls)
Traffic Signals
Hydromulching
Top Soil
Pavement Markings & Signage
Traffic Control
Erosion Control
Landscaping and Irrigation
Lighting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors)
Misc. RR Crossing
Slibtotal Construction Cost 'Estimate
Contingency
Total'Construction Cost 'Estimate
Right-of-Way Cost
Engineering Services (10% of Construction Cost)
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost)
Geotechnical Services (1 % of Construction Cost)
Testing (1% of Construction Cost)
*Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for May 2005)
*Total Capital Cost Per Foot
~This estimate does not include Legal, Administration, Of Financial Cost
*Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years)
Quantity
2,990
110
68
2
Unit Project Summary:
LF 6-Lana Divided from IH 635 to Bethal Rd.
FT
FT
Date ,Performed: '618/05
Quantity Unit
1 LS
10 ACRE
7,600 CV
24,900 SY
25,600 SV
600 TON
13,200 LF
29,900 SF
1 LS
o LS
11,300 SY
11,300 SY
12,000 LF
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
20 EA
1 LS
Unit Cost
$100,000.00
$2,000,00
$15.00
$35,00
$4,00
$100.00
$5,00
$4,00
$224,023.00
$120,000.00
$1.00
$2,00
$1,00
$29,000,00
$17,000.00
$57,000,00
$4,000.00
$436,579,00
20%
53,200 SF
$3,00
10.0%
3,0%
1.0%
1.0%
Total Cost
$100,000
$20,000
$114,000
$871,500
$102,400
$60,000
$66,000
$119,600
$224,023
$0
$11,300
$22,600
$12,000
$29,000
$17,000
$57,000
$60,000
$436,579
$2.343,100
$468,700
$2,811,800
$159,600.00
$281,200.00
$84,400.00
$28,200.00
$28,200.00
$3,394,000.00
$1,140.00
$4,548,000,00
City of Coppell, Texas
Conceptual Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Estimate
MacArthur Boulevard
Roadway Description:
Roadway Length
Right-of-Way Width
Roadway Width (BOG - BOC)
Undivided Roadway := 1 , Divided Roadway:= 2
Quantity
2,630
110
25
1
Unit Project Summary.
LF 6.lane principal arterial from Sandy Lake Rd.
FT to Belt Une Road
FT
Item No. Item Description
1
2
3
.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
,.
15
16
17
Mobilization (5% of Construction Cost)
Right of Way Preparation
Unclassified Street Excavation or Embankment
8" Reinforced Concrete Pavement
8" Ume or Cement Stabilized Subgrade
Ume or Cement for Stabilization (401bs/SY)
6" Monolithic Curb
Sidewalk and Ramps
Drainage Improvements (RCP, Inlets, MH, Outfalls)
Traffic Signals
Hydromulching
Top Soil
Pavement Markings & Signage
Traffic Control
Erosion Control
Landscaping and Irrigation
Lighting (Foundations, Poles, Conduit, Conductors)
Subtotal.Construction Cost.Estimate
Contingency
TotalColistruction Cost Estimate
Right-of.Way Cost
Engineering Services (10% of Construction Cost)
Surveying Services (3% of Construction Cost)
Geotechnical Services (1 % of Construction Cost)
Testing (1% of Construction Cost)
"Total Capital Cost (Based on Unit Prices for May 2005)
-rotal Capital Cost Per Foot
'This estimate does not include Legal, Administration, or Financial Cost
"Future Capital Cost (Based on 3% Inflation for 10 years)
Date Performed: 618105
Quantity Unit
1 LS
o ACRE
2,500 CY
8,100 SY
8,700 SY
200 TON
5,800 LF
26,300 SF
1 LS
1 LS
22,600 SY
22,600 SY
10,600 LF
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
o EA
Unit Cost
$50,000.00
$2,000.00
$15.00
$35,00
$4,00
$100,00
$5,00
$4,00
$25,000,00
$120,000,00
$1.00
$2,00
$1,00
$25,000,00
$15,000.00
$30,000,00
$4,000.00
20%
SF
$3.00
10.0%
3.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Total Cost
$50,000
$0
$37,500
$283,500
$34,800
$20,000
$29,000
$105,200
$25,000
$120,000
$22,600
$45,200
$10,600
$25,000
$15,000
$30,000
$0
$853;400
$170;700
$1,024,1 DO
$0.00
$102,500.00
$30,800.00
$10,300.00
$10,300.00
$1,178,000.00
$460.00
$1,579,000.00
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-l
Coppell Roadway Impact Fee. 2005
Roadway Improvements Plan Project
CIP Service Units oj Supply
Project
Roadway
From
To
length Length Lanes TypEI
(Feet) (MUe)
Veh-Mi
Capacity
Pk..Hi"
Per,lane
PM Peak-Hour Volume
Direction
RECOUPEMENT'PROJECTS
3. SANDY LAKE ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD 100% 4,891 1,105 $14,935,000
4' SANDY LAKE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. CHY LIMIT (EAST) 100% 2,330 1,424 905 $5,193.720 $6,960.000
,. FREEPORT PARKWAY IH-63S BETHALROAD '00% 3,191 2,037 1,154 $1,017,629 $1,364,000
12. BELT LINE ROAD MACARTHUR BLVD. 2,072 2,736 $522,283 $700.000
EXPANSION PROJECTS
,.. SANDY LAKE ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) COPPELL ROAD 4980 C4D 374 100% 2,358 686 1,672 $5,802,578 $7,776,000
2" SANDY LAKE ROAD COPPELl ROAD DENTON TAP ROAD 5870 1.11 4 C4D 625 830 567 '00% 2,779 1,582 1,197 $5,115,927 $6,856,000
5" ROYAL LANE SANDY LAKE ROAD EXTEND SOUTH 1380 0.26 4 C4D 62' 441 397 100% 653 219 434 $771,750 $1,035,000
0" FREEPORT PKWY SH 121 SANDY LAKE ROAD 3170 0.60 6 POD 700 0 D 100% 2,522 0 2,522 $1,140,436 $1,529,000
7" FREEPORT PKWY RUBY ROAD SANDY LAKE ROAD 3940 0.75 4 C4D 62. 340 151 100% 1,866 386 1,499 $1,627.609 $2,181,000
,.. BETHEL ROAD CITY LIMIT (WEST) FREEPORT PKWY. 6430 1,22 4 C4D 62. 371 326 100% 3.045 649 2,196 $8,994,000 $12.052,000
10'" ROYAL LANE IH-635 BETHEL ROAD 2990 0.57 6 P6D 700 614 557 100% 2,378 663 1,715 $3,394,000 $4,548,000
11'" SOUTHWESTERN BLVD COPPELL ROAD CREEK CROSSING 1500 0.28 4 C4U 440 242 197 '00% 500 125 375 $1,009,000 $1,353,000
13'" MACARTHUR BLVD. BETHAL SCHOOL ROAD BELT LINE ROAD 2630 0.50 0 P6D 700 1,588 740 100% 2,092 1,160 932 $1,579,000 $2,116,000
Subtotal 12.68 33,413 14,969 18,444 $47,313,269 $63,405,000
HourlY-Vehicle-Mile
Capacity,per,L,ane
Mile of RoadWay Faclllty
Roadway Facility Type Desianation I far LOS "C/O"
Principal Arterial - Divided POD 700
Divided Local Arterials C4D 62'
Undivided Collectors- 4 lane C4U 440
Undivided Colleclors-2 Lane C2U 350
A
NoithbOimd
Eastbound
B
Southbound
WestbOund
%In
Service
Area
Veh-Mi
.Tolal
$1iPPly
Peak-Hour
Veh-Mi
Total
Demand
Peak.Hour
Excess
capclty
Peak-Hour
VehoMI
Total
Project
Cost
Total
Pro;ect
Cost
w/Financin
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix F
Land Use Vehicle..Mile Equivalency Table
F-l
CITY OF COPPELL
AVERAGE LAND USE TRIP CALCULATIONS
LAND USE rTELandUsi=t --:- ITE Land uSe Development Trip Qenerltlon No.-of PIlSiIBy Average . AverigeL8ndU8eTrip NCTCOG 1/2 Trip Average _~:I Service Unll$
. Code Uc' Rite2 Sfudles Rate' TrI"Rate Rate with cledUCtIonS TririLennth Lenn'th TrIDL;n~hs eh-MifDevUnlt)'
Commercial/Office I Retail GeneralOfllce 710 1000sq.ft. 1.49 235 0 9,60 4.80
Medical-DenlalOllice 720 1000 sq. It. 3.72 41 0 9,60 4.80
ElectronlcSuperslore 863 1000 sq. ft. 4,5 3 0.4 3,90 1.95
Pharmacy wilh drive thll.l B01 1000 sq. ft. B,62 12 0.49 1.50 0.75
Toy Superstore B64 l000sq.11. 4,99 2 0.34 4,30 2.15
Specialty Aelail Cenler 014 1000sq. ft. 2.71 5 0.34 3.10 1.55
Free standing Discount Superstore 013 1000 sq. It. 3.87 10 0.172 3.80 1.90
ApparelSlore 870 1000 sq. It. 3.83 7 0,34 3.10 1.55
Resturant 932 1000 sq. It. 10.92 6 0.44 3,80 1.90
ShoppingCenler 620 1000 sq. ft. 3.75 407 0,34 6.40 3.20
Supermarllet 650 1000 sq. It. 10.45 42 0.36 2.10 1.05
Faslfood with drivethru 934 1000 sq. It. 34.64 110 0,5 4.30 2.15
Automotive Care Center 942 l000sq.ft. 3.38 5 0.3 4.50 2.25
Home Improvement Superstore 862 1 000 sq. ft. 2.45 11 OA8 3.90 1.95
Aulo Parts Sales 643 1000 sq. It. 5.98 5 0.43 2.30 1.15
GaroenCenter 817 1000 sq. It. 3,B 12 0.4 3.10 1.55
Arts and Crafts Stora 87. 1000 sq. fl. 6.21 2 0,34 2.30 1.15
Gasoline/Service Station with Conv 945 1000sq. It. 96.37 31 0.56 1.80 0,90
FumilureStore BOO 1000sq. fl. 0.46 16 0.53 4.60 2.40
DisoounlClub 861 1000sq. ft. 4.24 25 0,34 3.70 2.55 2.30 1.15 2.01 5.14
Ughtlnduslrlal General light Industrial 110 1000sq.lt. 0.98 26 0 6.60 3,30
IndustrialParil. 130 1000sq.ft. 0.86 42 0 6.60 3,30
Manufacturing 140 1000sq.lt. 0.74 54 0 6.60 3.30
Mini Warehouse (Self Storage) 151 l000sq. It. 0.26 13 0 6.60 3.30
utilities 170 1000sq. II. 0.76 3 0 0.72 0.72 6,60 3.30 3.30 2.38
Public Institutional Midd!e/Jrhighschool 522 1000 sq. fl. 1.19 9 0 4.20 2.10
High School 530 1000 sq. ft. 0.97 22 0 4.20 2.10
Jr./CommunityCoIlcge 540 1000 sq. It. 2,54 3 0 6,00 3,00
Church 560 1000sq.rt. 0,86 11 0 1.34 1.34 2.90 1.45 2.\6 2.90
Residential-Hi9hDensity Apartment 220 OU 0.62 90 0 0.62 0,62 8.40 4.20 4.20 2.60
Residential- MediumfLow Density Slngle-familydetadledhousing 210 OU 1.01 302 0 1.01 1.01 8.40 4.20 4.20 4.24
Parks and Open Space Golf Course 430 acres 0,3 5 0 4.70 2.35
City Park 411 acres 0.16 3 0 0.23 0.23 4.70 2.35 2.35 0.54
Notes;
, Source ITE Trip GeneraUon Manual71h Edition
2 Average number 01 PM peak hourlrips per development unit
J Source Trip Generation Handbook
4 Source NCTCOG 1984 & 1994 Workplace Survey and 2001 National Household Travel Survey
"Minimum average value of 1/2 trip length or 6 miles
6Calculated by multiplying Ihe average lrip length by the average I rip rate wI deductions
City ofCoppell
Water, Wastewater, & Roadway Impact Fee Study
Freese and Nichols, Inc.
Appendix G
Resolution for Impact Fees
G-I
Oct 14 2005 8:02RM
HP LR5ERJET 3200
p.l
/
THE-CiTY'OF
COPPE L
P.O. Box 478
255 Parkway Blvd
Cappell. TX 75019
Phone: (972)304.3686
Fax: (972)304.7041
ENGINEERING DE
TO:
From:
(including cover sheel)
FAX COVER S
Fax:
Date:
Phone:
Pages:
Re:
ce:
o Urgent
OFor Review
o Please Comment 0 lease Reply
o As Requested
-Comments:
nrT_1A_~aa~ aD'a~
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES 1LE.4SE CALL (972) 304-3686
~
"City o[Coppel! Engineering ~ Excelle1ce By Design"
j
0.1\....
D ~.
Oct 14 2005 8:02AM
HP LASER JET 3200
p.2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY 0 COPPELL, TEXAS
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE OF COPPELL, TEXAS,
Al\fEl'iDING RESOLUTION NO. 0109 6,3, THE MASTER FEE
SCHEDULE, AS AMENDED, BY AMEN NG THE GENERAL FEES-
LIBRARY, IN PART; THE GENERAL FE S-ENGINEERING, IN PART;
AND THE IMPACT FEES, IN PART; A~D PROVIDING A REPEALING
CLAUSE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTI DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City
Resolution No, 010996,3 to provide for general arid sp
collected by the City, as authorized by the Code of
ordinances, resolutions, and laws; and
f Coppell, Texas, previously adopted
ial' fees and charges to be assessed and
dinances and other applicable codes,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Co pell desires to amend certain fees as set
forth therein and delete others as authorized by law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED Y THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Master Fee Schedule sect on entitled "General Fees" be amended,
in part, to read as follows:
"
Library Fees
Computer Diskettes - CD
Computer Diskettes - CD-RW
$ ,50
2,00
Engineering Fees
8) Copy Fees
g, Standard Construction Details Ix17"
Standard Construction Details- D
$25.00
10.00
J, Xerographic Copy/24"x36" or I rger
5.00
nrT_1~_~~~~ ~O~~~
0.-1"/
" ~'O
Oc" 14 2005 8:02AM
HP LASERJET 3200
p.3
MAXIMUM FEE RATE FOR MPACT FEES
SCHEDULE
WATER FACILITY
MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE JNIT-
Meter Size E.S.U. .- Water Impact Fee
5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 $ 990.00
1" 1.67 $ , 1,653,30
1 1/2" 333 $ 3,296.70
2" 5.33 $. 5,276.70
3" 11.67 $ 11,553.30
4" 21.00 $ 20,790,00
6" 46,67 $ 46,203,30
8" 80.00 $ 79,200.00
WASTEWATER FACILI1 Y
MAXIMUM FEE PER SER VIe} UNIT-
Meter Size E.S.U, -. Water Imnact Fee
5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 '$ 933,00
1" 1.67 $ 1,558,11
1 1/2" 3.33 $ 3,106.89
,,, 5.33 $ 4.972.89
~
3" 11,67 $ 10,888,11
4" 21.00 $ 19,593,00
6" 46,67 $43.543.1 I
8 80,00 $74,640,00
ROADWAY FACILITY
MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICJ; UNIT .
Service Area
Cost er Service Unit
1
$
168.00
.
Includes 50% Credit
U From A WW A Manual 6. Water Meters - Sele .on,
Installation, Testing and Maintenance, 3rd editi n, 1986
2
n m
Oct 14 2005 8:02AM
HP LASERJET 3200
p.4
SCHEDULE
WATER FACILITY
PAYMENT AND COLLECTION FEE PER SERVICE UNIT
Meter Size E.S,U., . Water Impact Fee
5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 $ 900.00
I" 1.67 $ 1,503.00
t 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" 80.00 $ 72,000.00
WASTEWATER FACILIl v
PAYMENT AND COLLECTION FEE PE SERVICE UNIT
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 $ ] 8,900,00
6" 46,67 $ 42,003,00
8" 80,00 $ 72,000.00
ROADWAY FACILITY
PAYMENT AND COLLECTION FEE PER ERVICE UNIT
Service Area Cost er Service Unit
1 $ 150.00
. From A WW A Manual 6, Water Meters, Selec on,
Installation, Testing and Maintenance, 3d edit i n,1986
PAYMENT AND COLLECT I N FEE RATE
3
nrT_4A_~~~~ ~o'nc
C1'7+./
P Old
,
Oc~ 14 2005 8:02AM
HP LASERJET 3200
p:5
SECTION 2. That all provisions of the resol tions of the City of Coppell, Texas, in
conflict with the provisions of this Resolution, excep as noted herein, be, and the same are
hereby, repealed, and all other provisions not in confli t with the provisions of this Resolution
sball remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. That should any word, phrase, p agraph, or section of this Resolution be
held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the s e shall not affect the validity of this
Resolution as a whole, or any part or provision there f other than the part so decided to be
unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, and shall not affect th validity of the Resolution as a whole,
SECTION 4. That this Resolution shall become effective immediately from and after its
passage as the law and charter in such cases provide,
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City fCoppell, Texas, this the J I~ day
of {fLW-tu h./ ,2005,
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FOR-vI:
4
o".,v
p ""