Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Ord. 1556 2018-04-09
ORDINANCE NO. 1556 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Pearland, Texas, revising the Capital Improvements Plan for the City of Pearland; updating impact fees in accordance with State Law; making certain findings; providing a penalty for violation; containing a savings clause, a severability clause and a repealer clause; providing for publication, codification and an effective date. WHEREAS, by virtue of Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Volume 3, Local Government Code, Chapter 395 ("State Law"), the City Council has found it necessary and appropriate to revise the City's capital improvements plan and update impact fees to comply with the provisions of said State Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has employed qualified professionals to revise the capital improvements plan and calculate updated impact fees, and has held a public hearing, as required by State Law, at which hearing all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt the revised capital improvements plan and levy an updated impact fee in accordance with said State Law; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS: Section 1. The facts and matters set forth in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found to be true and correct. Section 2. The capital improvements plan, included in a study by Freese and Nichols entitled 2018 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update (the "Study"), is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 3. The updated impact fee calculations, included in the Study made a part hereof for all purposes, are hereby approved and adopted. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1556 Section 4. The impact fees set forth in the Study are hereby levied against new development on lands located within the corporate boundaries of the City of Pearland. The impact fees levied hereby are subject to the applicable provisions of State Law. Section 5. Penalty. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction, be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Section 6. Savings. All rights and remedies which have accrued in favor of the City under this Chapter and amendments thereto shall be and are preserved for the benefit of the City. Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed but only to the extent of such conflict. Section 9. Codification. It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Pearland, Texas, that the provisions of this Ordinance shall be codified in the City's official Code of Ordinances as provided hereinabove. Section 10. Publication and Effective Date. The City Secretary shall cause this Ordinance, or its caption and penalty, to be published in the official newspaper of the City 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1556 of Pearland, upon passage of such Ordinance. The Ordinance shall then become effective ten (10) days after its publication, or the publication of its caption and penalty, in the official City newspaper. 2018. PASSED and APPROVED ON FIRST READING ths the th y of March, A. D., oma ATTEST: Y,NG Y SE NG ETAR TOM REID MAYOR `%%11111►►,,,, PASSED and APPROVED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this the 9th day of April, A. D., 2018. ATTEST: , III UN 4047F RETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM C4,),:_ Off,- DARRIN M. COKER CITY ATTORNEY L7 TOM REID MAYOR RECORD SECOND AND FINAL READING April 9, 2018 • �� Voting "Aye" — Councilmembers, Carbone, Moore Reed, `xx Little, Perez and Owens Voting "No" — None Motion passes 6 to 1 Councilmember Ordencaux absent from Chamber PUBLICATION DATE: April 11, 2018 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2018 3 PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 3.10 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS NOTE TO CITY COUNCIL Study to be attached to original executed ordinance as Exhibit "A". Copy available in City Secretary's office for review. 2018 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT F�E PREPARED FOR: City of Pearland PREPARED BY: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 11200 Broadway St., Suite 2320 Pearland, Texas 77584 832-456-4700 F I • NICHOLS � NICNO rLS WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE REPORT 2018 UPDATE Prepared for: City of Pearland April 18, 2018 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 11200 Broadway Street, Suite 2320 Pearland, Texas 77584 832-456-4700 Innovative approaches Practical results Outstanding service 1 NICHOLS WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE REPORT 2018 UPDATE Prepared for: City of Pearland �Pc�°0.OF °TF'I"1v1 ° q • °°�®°° / 1 RICHARD WEATHERL :� �ii 0 e° 100211 ,ram% ?. — ,11 i;oNA / /8//e FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-2144 —co: • / KENDALL J. RYAN FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-2144 Prepared by: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. 11200 Broadway Street, Suite 2320 Pearland, Texas 77584 832-456-4700 FNI Project No.: PRL16273 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE City of Pearland �7 =NICHOLS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 1-1 1.1 Texas Local Government Code 1-1 1.2 Impact Fee Update 1-2 1.3 Major Scope Items 1-2 2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 2-1 2.1 City Limits and Impact Fee Service Area 2-1 2.2 Historical and Projected Population 2-4 2.3 Future Land Use 2-4 2.4 Existing and Projected Service Units 2-8 3.0 WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CIP 3-1 3.1 Existing System 3-1 3.2 Future Planned System 3-3 3.3 Water System Projections 3-4 3.4 Water Capital Improvements Plan 3-5 4.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CIP 4-1 4.1 Existing Wastewater System 4-1 4.2 Wastewater System Evaluation 4-3 4.3 Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan 4-5 5.0 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS 5-1 5.1 Maximum Impact Fee Determination 5-1 5.2 Impact Fee Assessment 5-2 6.0 IMPACT FEE ADOPTION 6-1 6.1 Public Hearing 6-1 6.2 Ordinance 6-1 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE r7 NICHOLS City of Pearland List of Figures Figure 2-1: Pearland City Limits 2-2 Figure 2-2: Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area 2-3 Figure 2-3: Future Land Use and Projected Growth 2-6 Figure 2-4: Apartment Complexes (from 2015 Pearland Comprehensive Plan) 2-7 Figure 3-1: Water System Impact Fee Capital Improvements 3-8 Figure 4-1: Water System Impact Fee Capital Improvements 4-7 List of Tables Table 1-1: List of Abbreviations 1-3 Table 2-1: Historical and Projected Impact Fee Eligible Populations 2-5 Table 2-2: Existing and Projected Service Units 2-9 Table 2-3: City of Pearland Service Unit Equivalent Factors 2-10 Table 3-1: Existing Water Supply Facilities 3-1 Table 3-2: Water Production in Million Gallons (2012-2016) 3-2 Table 3-3: Future Planned Water Supply Facilities 3-3 Table 3-4: System Capacity and Projected Water Demands 3-4 Table 3-5: Water Impact Fee Eligible Projects and Utilization 3-7 Table 4-1: Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities 4-1 Table 4-2: Historical Wastewater Flows to each WWTP in Million Gallons (2011-2016)4-2 Table 4-3: Total Wastewater Flow in Million Gallons (2012-2016) 4-3 Table 4-4: Projected 10-year WWTP Service Area Wastewater Flow Increases 4-4 Table 4-5: WWTP Future Capacities 4-4 Table 4-6: Wastewater Impact Fee Eligible Projects and Utilization 4-6 Table 5-1: 2017 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation 5-2 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G APPENDICES Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395 Impact Fee Eligible Water CIP Projects - Planning Level OPCCs Impact Fee Eligible Wastewater CIP Projects - Planning Level OPCCs 2018-2022 Pearland Capital Improvement Program (Water and Wastewater) 2009 TCEQ Alternative Capacity Requirement (ACR) Variance Public Hearing Presentation - March 26, 2018 City Ordinance No. 1556 ii Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE City of Pearland r7 NICHOLS 1.0 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE 1.1 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires an impact fee analysis before impact fees can be created and assessed. Chapter 395 defines an impact fee as "a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development." In September 2001, Senate Bill 243 amended Chapter 395 thus creating the current procedure for implementing impact fees. Chapter 395 identifies the following items as impact fee eligible costs: • Construction contract price • Surveying and engineering fees • Land acquisition costs • Fees paid to the consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan (CIP) • Projected interest charges and other finance costs for projects identified in the CIP Chapter 395 also identifies items that impact fees cannot be used to pay for, such as: • Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than those identified on the capital improvements plan • Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements • Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards • Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development • Administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision • Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed above As a funding mechanism for capital improvements, impact fees allow cities to recover the costs associated with new or facility expansion in order to serve future development. Statutory requirements mandate that impact fees be based on a specific list of improvements identified in a capital improvements program and only the cost attributed (and necessitated) by new growth over a ten-year period may be considered. As projects in the program are completed, planned costs are updated with actual costs to more accurately 1-1 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE City of Pearland r7 NICHOLS reflect the capital expenditure of the program. Additionally, new capital improvement projects may be added to the system. 1.2 IMPACT FEE UPDATE Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395 requires that impact fees be updated, at a minimum, every 5 years. The City of Pearland (City) retained Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) to update its water and wastewater impact fees, as documented in the 2013 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Report. Subsequently, the City authorized an amendment for FNI to conduct a market study update to develop population, land use, and service unit projections for the calculation of the impact fee. 1.3 MAJOR SCOPE ITEMS This report addresses and documents the following: • The methodology used in the development and calculation of water and wastewater impact fees for the City of Pearland, including land use assumptions developed in the market study update • Water and wastewater system evaluations for existing and 10-year conditions • The individual water and wastewater capital improvements identified by the City of Pearland that will be required to meet the 10-year water demands and wastewater flows The methodology used herein satisfies the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395 for the establishment of water and wastewater impact fees, as seen in Appendix A. 1-2 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland Table 1-1 provides a list of abbreviations used in this report. r FREESE 7 NICHOLS Table 1-1: List of Abbreviations Abbreviati . Full Nomenclature ACR Alternative Capacity Requirement AWWA American Water Works Association Con Connection CIAC Capital Improvements Advisory Committee CIP Capital Improvements Plan ETJ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction FNI Freese and Nichols, Inc. gpcd Gallons per Capita per Day gpd Gallons per Day gpm Gallons per Minute MGD Million Gallons per Day MUD Municipal Utility District PER Preliminary Engineering Report SUE Service Unit Equivalent SH State Highway TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 1-3 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE City of Pearland r7 NICHOLS 2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FNI conducted a market study update to establish the future population, residential and commercial growth, and land use assumptions for the water and wastewater impact fee update. Input data from the following five sources were utilized for the market study update: 1. City of Pearland 2015 Comprehensive Plan 2. Input from City Planning Department Staff, including recent City Limit and extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) Populations 3. Meter billing data from the City's Water Billing Department 4. 2013 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Report 5. Recent (2017) annexations by the City of Pearland Based on the updated market study, service units were developed for the growth anticipated over a 10- year period, as allowed by the statutory requirements in Texas Local Government Code Chapter 395. The market study update is discussed in the following sections. 2.1 CITY LIMITS AND IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA City Limits In 2017, the City annexed multiple areas into the City limits. The recently revised City limits are shown on Figure 2-1. Brazoria County (BC) MUDs 2, 3, 6, and 16 are also shown on this figure. BC MUDs 2, 3, and 6 comprise a significant number of people but are not in the Pearland City Limits. BC MUD 16 is discussed later in this section. Impact Fee Service Area The service area for the 2018 water and wastewater impact fee update is shown on Figure 2-2. The impact fee service area consists of the City Limits and Brazoria County MUD 16. The water and wastewater impact fee service area shown on Figure 2-1 encompasses approximately 55.3 square miles or 35,400 acres. Brazoria County MUD No. 16 Brazoria County MUD No. 16 is outside the City limits but is included in the water and wastewater impact fee service area. 2-1 CITY OF HOUSTON SOUTH D DALLAS PECAN WORTH CR 573 BULLARD RD SCALE IN FEET S 8 FWY CR 174 v N CR 81 73 CITY OF!OWA COLONY SAN SI SHAW RD S SAM ROUST N PKWY ---� —�� FELLO DEL BELLO LN HA K RD DAGG RD co m CR 100 z DOGWOOD AVE M•RTI MUD 16 KNAP RD ARD RD MP - RIM W OR•NGES prommiummumwasOligiiiiiini Lill ► it RAW, RD FN • , .� FW 41 ORRIE L BECKY LN CARRIE L 41. sTIPI R°R15VAC,I N HASTIN S FIELD R GALVESTON FIGURE 2-1 CITY OF PEARLAND CITY LIMITS LEGEND L Pearland City Limit Pearland ETJ L County Boundary c Other City Limit Lake Street Stream 9 NICHOLS BC MUD 16 BC MUD 2 BC MUD 3 BCMUD6 MUD 16 Outside City Limits but Inside Impact Fe Service Area E loam imiummins iiill "SW equi '" FIGURE 2-2 CITY OF PEARLAND WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA LEGEND Inside Impact Fee Service Area Outside Impact Fee Service Area County Boundary L___J City Limit I-7 Other City Limit r� NICHOLS 5— Lake Street Stream Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE City of Pearland r7 NICHOLS 2.2 HISTORICAL AND PROJECTED POPULATION Historical population information prior to 2013 is from the US Census and the 2013 Impact Fee Report. Population estimates for the City limits and ETJ from 2013 through 2017 were provided by City planning staff. The 2015 City of Pearland Comprehensive Plan provided a total 2042 population of 224,600 people. FNI developed growth rate assumptions for the City Limits and ETJ through 2027 and 2042. The Impact Fee eligible population is the City Limits population with adjustments for Brazoria County (BC) MUD No. 16 and BC MUD No. 1. The historical and projected impact fee eligible populations are shown in Table 2-1. 2.3 FUTURE LAND USE The City's future land use and general locations of anticipated 10-year growth based on the 2015 City of Pearland Comprehensive Plan and input from City planning staff are shown on Figure 2-3. Multi -family land use was addressed in the City's 2015 Comprehensive Plan via Figure 2-4. As part of this study, the Lake Park Subdivision was added to this figure based on input from City planning staff. 2-4 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE •I NICHOLS Table 2-1: Historical and Projected Impact Fee Eligible Populations Year 2000 N City Limits Population Average Population p City Limits # Annual Growth Total Impact Fee Eligible Population 38,518 ETJ Total 37,640 37,640 2001 39,612 39,612 1,972 5.2% 40,490 2002 42,772 42,772 3,160 8.0% 43,650 2003 46,013 46,013 3,241 7.6% 46,891 2004 50,553 50,553 4,540 9.9% 51,431 2005 58,379 58,379 7,826 15.5% 59,257 2006 68,835 68,835 10,456 17.9% 65,425 2007 77,425 77,425 8,590 12.5% 74,015 2008 83,363 83,363 5,938 7.7% 79,953 2009 87,939 87,939 4,576 5.5% 84,529 2010 91,252 91,252 3,313 3.8% 87,842 2011 95,644 95,644 4,392 4.8% 92,234 2012 103,800 103,800 8,156 8.5% 100,390 2013 105,200 2 6, 600 131,800 1,400 1.3% 101,790 2014 108,800 24,200 133,000 3,600 3.4% 105,390 2015 115,600 23,700 139,300 6,800 6.3% 112,190 2016 119,700 24,400 144,100 4,100 3.5% 116,290 2017 125,000 24,800 149,800 5,300 4.4% 121,590 2022 138,281 29,688 167,969 2,656 2.0% 134,871 2027 152,973 35,540 188,513 2,938 2.0% 149,563 2030 155,047 39,591 194,638 691 0.5% 151,637 2042 163,630 60,970 224,600 715 0.5% 160,220 (1) 2000 and 2010 population from the US Census (2) 2001- 2009, and 2012 population data from 2013 Impact Fee Report (3) 2013 - 2017 City limits and ETJ population provided by the City of Pearland (4) 2011 City limits population and 2042 total population from 2015 City of Pearland Comprehensive Plan (5) Assumption: 2.0% population growth rate within City limits through 2027; 0.5% through 2042 (6) Assumption: 3.75% population growth rate within ETJ through 2042 (7) Total Impact fee eligible population = City limits + Brazoria County MUD 16. After 2005, total impact fee eligible population is reduced by Brazoria County MUD 1 population 2-5 0 HOW ELL PINE RD e 2,500 SCALE IN FEET i t 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 t5,000 BULLARD RD Created By Freese and Nichols, Inc. Job No.: PRL16273 Location: HIW_W W_PLANNI NG\Deliverables\FINAL\(Figure_2-3)-Future_Lend_Use_and_Projected_Growth.mxd Updated: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 2:52:02 PM CR 956 = fib j �i.%"1.Er.?‘; Undevelopable Park Detention CR 573 SHAW RD ? ��cr'ldll�l ✓•,;'%�i%/� Syr • / id„' �f�//�//!'-�J �`���j�:�'I ✓. NUT ;T Warez MC 1 L- 511 AGNOL ' BL D — — _ %ram%%%/ Residential Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Suburban Residential Commercial/Industrial Cullen Mixed Use District Garden/O'Day Mixed Use Dist Village District Public / Semi -Public Light Industrial LAND USE Industrial Business Commercial Offices Retail, Offices and Services Major Nodes Residential Retail Nodes Minor Retail Node Lower Kirby Urban Center 288 Gateway Airport CR 129D FIGURE 2-3 CITY OF PEARLAND FUTURE LAND USE AND PROJECTED GROWTH LEGEND Year (1 Dot = 500 people) Stream 0 2020 2025 2030 I I L Outside City Limit but Inside Service Area Street Railroad fimEMFREESE lM°NICHOLS Lake ETJ City Limit County Boundary Broadstone Apartments (Planned) Units: 392 Per Acre: 21.6 SCR MF-5 (Planned) Units: 300 Per Acre: 16.4 SCR Potential Growth Units: 362 Location not set The Avenues at SCR Apartments Units: 300 Per Acre: 13.2 Villas at SCR Apartments Units: 560 Per Acre: 16.6 Alexan SCR Apartments Units: 392 Per Acre: 19 Clear Cre Carroll at SCR Apartments Units: 360 Per Acre: 13.2 Discovery at SCR Apartmems Units: 347 Per Acre: 19.6 Residences at Pearland Town Center Units: 234 Per Acre: 25.9 Shadow Creek Ranch Area (3605/3967) Silverlake (981) SAM HOUSTON TOLLWAYIBELTWAYS Tom Bass Regional Park Radius at SCR Apartmetns (Under Construction) Units: 350 Per Acre: 22.3 The Retreat at SCR Apartments Units: 370 Per Acre: 24 Middle of Town (1066) 110 G 1 *Lake Park Subdivision Units: 375 Z, Per Acre: 61.2 St Andrews Apartments Units: 472 Per Acre: 24.3 o BROADWAY ST I F Southwind Apartments � Units: 312 Per Acre: 24.1 Summerwind Apartments Units: 197 Per Acre: 20 Hickory :1 SeVona Tranquility Lake Apartments Units: 212 Per Acre: 19.2 Tranquility Bay Apartment Homes Units: 284 Per Acre: 17.4 East of Main St/SH 35 (2027/2183) The Reserve at Tranquility Lake Units: 314 Per Acre: 17.7 FITE RD SAM HOUSTON TOLL 1WAYIBELTWAY 8 Oakbridge Apartments Units: 158 Per Acre: 15.5 MCHARO R Salem Village Apartments Units: 141 Per Acre: 21.3 Silver Maple Apartments '1I ��� Units: 152 II j Per Acre: 21.7 — �� ill rllmrl�;�"l Ell Place Apartments II — I Units: 99 S.?9 ■Per Acre: 20.4 =Z kme; �� u2 p PP° *111071. r1t MAGNOLIA RO m w re z j 6 A ' o 1.4 CIO Residential Westlake Units: 25 Per Acre: 1 BAILEY RD Pearland Village Apartments Units: 130 Per Acre: 22 Remington Apartments Units: 352 Per Acre: 45.5 FIGURE 2-4 CITY OF PEARLAND APARTMENT COMPLEXES Strawbridge Apartments Units: 171 Per Acre: 22.2 Eastern Potential Growth Units: 156 Location and distribution varies Whispering Winds Apartments Units: 286 Per Acre: 17.3 Enclave at Marys Creek Units: 240 Per Acre: 21.6 L --.( art Cr •k I Pearland Regional Aiiport Royal Oaks Apartments Units: 298 Per Acre: 20.1 Lake Park Subdivision added to this figure during the 20181mpact �� Fee Update CITY OF PEARLAND Apartment Complexes Unit Counts z 501 251 - 500 101 - 250 s 100 Pearland City Limits Pearland ETJ —"— Other Cities *Note: potential growth figures given reflect the maximum permissible units which could be built based on currently approved zoning and regulations. 1 in = 1 miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on -the -ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries MAP PREPARED: SEP 2014 CITY OF PEARLAND GIS DEPARTMENT *Note: From The City of Pearland 2015 Comprehensive Pla Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report FREESE City of Pearland IF7 =NICHOLS 2.4 EXISTING AND PROJECTED SERVICE UNITS Connections FNI utilized the population and land use information to calculate the existing (2017) and 10-Year (2027) residential, multi family, and commercial/industrial impact fee eligible connections. These connections are utilized in the calculation of the maximum allowable water and wastewater impact fee. Service Units The maximum allowable impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of required capital improvements by the total number of service units attributed to new development during the 10-year impact fee eligibility period. A water service unit is defined as the service equivalent to a water connection for a single-family residence. This is also known as a Service Unit Equivalent (SUE). The City of Pearland does not directly meter wastewater flows and bills for wastewater services based on the customer's three-month winter average water consumption. Therefore, a wastewater service unit is defined as the wastewater service provided to a customer with a water connection for a single-family residence. The single-family service units for 2017 and 2027 are shown in Table 2-2. The services associated with multi -family and commercial/industrial connections are converted into equivalent service units with SUEs. The multi -family and commercial/industrial service units for 2017 and 2027 are also included in Table 2-2. Land Use Based Impact Fee Assessment The City of Pearland currently uses an impact fee assessment based on land use type. Table 2-3 provides equivalent service unit factors for different types of developments which occur in Pearland. This table allows conversion of different developments to service unit equivalents (SUEs). All developments not matching one of the development types below will be evaluated individually based on data submitted by the developer. 2-8 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland Table 2-2: Existing and Projected Service Units FREESE •I NICHOLS Connection Type Single-Family(1) Total Impact Fee Eligible Connections 33,029 Service Units Total Impact Fee Eligible Connections 41,025 2027 SUEs 1 Service Units 41,025 10-Year Growth in Service Units (2017 - 2027 7,996 • - 1 33,029 Multi-Family(z) 6,987 0.7 4,891 8,572 0.7 6,000 1,110 Subtotal 40,016 37,920 49,597 47,026 9,106 Commercial/Industrial(3)(4)(5) 2,085 4 8,339 4,086 4 16,344 8,005 NW 46,259 63,370 17,111 (1) Single family connections based on 3.04 people/connection utilizing 2016 Meter Billing data and 2016 Impact Fee eligible population (2) Multi family connections from 2015 City of Pear/and Comprehensive Plan and input from City staff (3) Commercial/industrial connections based on 2013 City of Pearland Market Study assumption of 2.4 acres per commercial connection (4) Existing commercial/industrial impact fee eligible connections based on developed commercial acreage and 2016 Meter Billing data (5) Assumption: 7.0% growth rate for commercial/industrial acreage and connections 2-9 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland Table 2-3: City of Pearland Service Unit Equivalent Factors ri NICF DLS No. Development Type Unit of Measure I SUE Remarks 1 Bakery Square Foot 0.000700 2 Barber Shop Chair 0.470000 3 Beauty Salon Bowl 0.470000 4 Bowling Alley Lane 0.635000 Does not include restaurant 5 Car Repair Square Foot 0.000160 Does not include carwash 6 Carwash, Tunnel Self Service Lane 6.350000 7 Carwash, Wand Type Self Service Bay 1.220000 8 Carwash, Tunnel with Attendants Lane 31.430000 Does not include reclamation 9 Church, Administration Occupant 0.047000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 10 Church, Auditorium Seat 0.003200 11 Church, Classroom Seat 0.004700 12 Club/Tavern/Lounge Seat 0.031000 13 Convenience Store Square Foot 0.000220 14 Country Club Occupant 0.390000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 15 Day Care Center Occupant 0.031700 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 16 Doctor Office/Dentist Office/Emergency Clinic Square Foot 0.000335 17 Dormitory Bed 0.286000 18 Driving Range Tee 0.210000 19 Fire Station Employee 0.286000 20 Funeral Home Embalming Station 2.140000 21 Gas Station, Self -Service Island 0.800000 Island is defined as 1 pumping station - Does not include carwash 22 Gas Station, Full -Service Island 0.860000 Island is defined as 1 pumping station - Does not include carwash 23 Grocery Store Square Foot 0.000260 Does not include restaurant 24 Health Club Occupant 0.016000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 25 Health Club w/ Whirlpool or Swimming Pool Occupant _ 0.032000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 26 Hospital Bed 0.635000 Patient Care Area - Does not include designated office areas 27 Hotel/Motel Room 0.251000 Does not include restaurant 28 Hotel/Motel with Kitchenettes Room 0.430000 29 Ice Cream Parlor with Seating Seat 0.047000 30 Indoor Entertainment/Amusement w/o Restaurant Occupant 0.031000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 31 Industrial Laundry 50 lbs 0.950000 32 Manufacturing Square Foot 0.000160 Average: Each development must be individually evaluated 33 Nursing Home Bed 0.286000 34 Office Building Square Foot 0.000335 35 Photo Store, 1-Hour Processing Store 4.000000 36 Post Office, Excluding Dock Square Foot 0.000254 37 Racquetball Club Court 0.510000 38 Recreational Vehicle Park Space 0.238100 39 Resident, Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.700000 Basic Service Unit 40 Resident, Condominium Dwelling Unit 1.000000 41 Resident, Duplex Dwelling Unit 1.000000 42 Resident, Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 0.700000 43 Resident, Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.000000 44 Resident, Town House Dwelling Unit 1.000000 45 Restaurant, Full -Service, General Seat 0.110000 46 Restaurant, Fast Food with Seating Seat 0.047000 47 Restaurant, Fast Food without Seating Square Foot 0.002300 48 Restaurant, Buffet with Seating* Seat 0.110000 *Non -disposable Dinnerware and Flatware 49 Restaurant, Buffet with Seating** Seat 0.070500 **Disposable Dinnerware and Flatware 50 Retail Store Square Foot 0.000223 51 School, High Seat 0.047600 Does not include resident dormitory 52 School, Other Seat 0.031700 Does not include resident dormitory 53 Skating Rink Occupant 0.016000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 54 Swimming Pool Occupant 0.016000 Occupancy Loads established by the adopted building codes 55 Stadium Seat 0.010000 56 Theatre, Drive-in Space 0.016000 57 Theatre, Indoor Seat 0.016000 58 Toilet (non-specific) Toilet 0.254000 59 Transportation Terminal without Restaurant Passenger 0.016000 60 Warehouse I Square Foot 0.000100 61 Washeteria Machine 1.580000 2-10 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report r' FREESE NICHOLS City of Pearland 3.0 WATER SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CIP Water system impact fee eligible capital improvement projects were selected from the City's 2018-2022 Capital Improvements Plan, provided by the City of Pearland. Additional projects were included in the 10- year Impact Fee CIP based on discussions with City staff, the water system evaluation, and previously identified future projects in the City's 2013 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Report. These projects will provide the required capacity and reliability to meet projected water demands through 2027. 3.1 EXISTING SYSTEM Currently, Pearland provides potable water from ten wells plus two surface water plants. The current surface water contract for the Shadow Creek Water Plant is take -or -pay with a maximum day capacity of 6 million gallons per day (MGD). The current surface water contract for the Alice Water Plant is pay-as- you-go 10 MGD. The City of Pearland decommissioned the Old City Hall and Green Tee wells in the last three years. Table 3-1 presents the existing water supply facilities, including their pumping and storage capacities. The City of Pearland currently has ten water wells, with a capacity of 12,825 gpm. No new wells are proposed to be added to the City's system. lame s-i: txistung water supply racmties Water Plant Water Source Ground Surface Water (MGD) (gpm) Service Pumping Pumps Total Capacity (gpm) Storage Ground Storage (gallons) Elevated Storage (gallons) McLean - 600 3 @ 600 gpm 1,800 427,000 500,000 Mary's Creek - 747 3 @ 600 gpm 1,800 460,000 - Alice 10.0 - 3 @ 3,500 gpm 10,500 5,000,000 500,000 Liberty - 1,330 3 @ 1,000 gpm 3,000 460,000 500,000 Magnolia - 1,000 3 @ 900 gpm 2,700 460,000 - Garden - 1,448 3 @ 800 gpm 2,400 460,000 - Southeast - 1,800 3 @ 2,100 gpm 6,300 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cullen - 1,400 3 @ 2,100 gpm 6,300 600,000 1,000,000 Kirby - 2,200 3 @ 1,800 gpm 5,400 1,000,000 1,000,000 Southdown - 1,250 3 @ 1,000 gpm 3,000 500,000 - Country Place - 1,050 2 @ 1,000 gpm 2,000 500,000 gpm @ 650 650 Shadow Creek 6.0 - 5 @ 2,000 gpm 10,000 3,200,000 - Total 16.0 12,825 38 55,850 4,500,000 3-1 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland � FREESE 7 NICHOLS Table 3-2 summarizes the historical total water production from 2012 - 2016. The historical consumption in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) has ranged from a low of 101 gpcd to a high of 125 gpcd. Public consumption includes all metered irrigation systems. Table 3-2: Water Production in Million Gallons (2012-2016) Month 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Day Water Production (MGD) January 17.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.6 February 9.1 10.1 10.1 10.8 11.9 March 10.8 12.2 10.6 10.6 12.5 April 10.8 11.7 12.6 10.6 13.2 May 13.7 13.2 14.2 11.6 June 17.6 15.1 14.5 12.6 July 10.9 15.8 14.4 17.2 August 14.7 15.3 31.1 19.5 September 13.6 14.3 13.4 14.9 October 13.2 11.0 12.0 14.6 November 12.8 10.4 11.4 10.4 December 10.7 9.9 10.6 10.8 Daily Average 12.9 12.4 12.1 Population (City Limits) 103,800 105,200 108,800 115,600 119,700 Average Demand (gpcd) 125 11 101 3-2 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland 3.2 FUTURE PLANNED SYSTEM Table 3-3 presents the future planned water supply facilities, including their pumping and storage capacities. The City has initiated design of a new 10 MGD surface water treatment plant west of State Highway 288. Table 3-3: Future Planned Water Supply Facilities FREESE •I NICHOLS Water Source Service Pumping Storage Water Plant Surface Ground Total Ground (MGD) Water Pumps Capacity Storage (gpm) (gpm) (gallons) Elevated Storage (gallons) Existing Facilities McLean - 600 3 @ 600 gpm 1,800 427,000 500,000 518 Mary Creek - 747 3 @ 600 gpm 1,800 460,000 - Alice 10 - 3 @ 3,500 gpm 10,500 5,000,000 500,000 Liberty - 1,330 3 @ 1,000 gpm 3,000 460,000 500,000 Magnolia - 1,000 3 @ 900 gpm 2,700 460,000 - Garden - 1,448 3 @ 800 gpm 2,400 460,000 - Southeast - 1,800 3 @ 2,100 gpm 6,300 1,000,000 1,000,000 Cullen - 1,400 3 @ 2,100 gpm 6,300 600,000 1,000,000 Kirby Well - 2,200 3 @ 1,800 gpm 5,400 1,000,000 1,000,000 Southdown - 1,250 3 @ 1,000 gpm 3,000 500,000 - Shadow Creek 6 - 5 @ 2,000 gpm 10,000 3,200,000 - Country Place - 1,050 2 @ 1,000 gpm 2,650 500,000 - 1 @ 650 gpm Under Design Facilities 10 MGD Surface Water Plant 10 - In design - - 10-Year CIP FM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion - - - 1,000,000 - Riley Rd & Kirby 1 MG EST 1,000,000 Total 31.0 12,825 38 55,850 15,067,000 5,500,000 3-3 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland 3.3 WATER SYSTEM PROJECTIONS The population and land use data were used to develop future water demands based on the average day per connection usage history and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requirements. Table 3-4 presents the City's existing and projected water demands. FREESE r7 NICHOLS Table 3-4: System Capacity and Projected Water Demands Required 2017 Capacity 2027 Current Capacity 2017 Future 6 Capacity(6) 2027 Excess or Capacity 2017 (Deficient) 2027 Estimated Population 149,800 188,513 - - - - Impact Fee Eligible Population 121,590 149,563 Impact Fee Eligible Connections 42,101 53,683 Impact Fee Eligible SUEs 46,259 63,370 Water Supply Requirements ACR 0.47 gpm/con.ili (gpd) 28,493,924 36,332,895 34,468,000 44,468,000 5,974,076 8,135,105 Water Supply Requirements ACR 0.556 gpm/con.(2) (gpd) 33,704,626 42,977,115 34,468,000 44,468,000 763,374 1,490,885 Water Supply Requirements TCEQ 0.60 gpm/con.(3) (gpd) 36,375,222 46,382,419 34,468,000 44,468,000 (1,907,222) (1,914,419) Ground Storage (Gal) 2,441,855 3,113,635 14,067,000 15,067,000 11,625,145 11,953,365 Elevated Storage (Gal)i4i 4,210,095 5,368,336 4,500,000 5,500,000 289,905 131,664 Total Storage (Gal)(5) 6,651,950 8,481,970 18,567,000 20,567,000 11,915,050 12,085,030 (1) Based on Alternative Capacity Requirement variance granted by TCEQ of 0.47 gpm/connection (2) Calculated 0.556 gpm/connection based on the 2011 maximum day demand (3) Based on standard TCEQ requirement of 0.60 gpm/connection (4) Based on TCEQ minimum elevated storage requirement of 100 gallons/connection (5) Based on Alternative Capacity Requirement variance granted by TCEQ of 158 gallons/connection (6) Future Capacity accounts for the decommissioning of the Green Tee (0.10 MGD) and 01d City Hall (535 gpm) Water Plants, the expansion of the Shadow Creek Water Plant from 1.33 MGD to 6.0 MGD, and the new 10 MGD Surface Water Treatment Plant. Water Supply Analysis Currently, the City has a 10 MGD surface water supply pay-as-you-go contract with the City of Houston, in addition to a 6 MGD take -or -pay contract and ten water wells with a total capacity of 18.47 MGD (12,825 gpm) for a total system capacity of 34.5 MGD. According to TCEQ's criteria of 0.6 gpm per connection, the required current supply should be 34.7 MGD (116% of actual supply). However, based on a maximum day demand of 18,354,300 gallons on July 29, 2008, the City applied for and received an 3-4 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland � FREESE 7 NICHOLS Alternative Capacity Requirement variance from TCEQ for 0.47 gpm per connection. Therefore, according to the TCEQ variance, the required current supply is 28.5 MGD and the City currently has an excess water supply of 6.0 MGD. The analysis in Table 3-4 shows the 2027 supply requirement to be 36.3 MGD and an excess water supply of 8.1 MGD. Total Storage The TCEQ requirement for total storage is 200 gallons per connection. The City of Pearland received an Alternative Capacity Requirement (ACR) variance from TCEQ for 158 gallons of total storage per connection in 2009. The City's existing ground storage tanks, with a total capacity of 14,067,000 gallons, and six elevated storage tanks, with a total capacity of 4,500,000 gallons, meet the variance total storage requirement of 158 gallons per connection. The 2009 TCEQ ACR Variance is included in Appendix E. Elevated Storage The TCEQ requirement for elevated storage is 100 gallons per connection. The TCEQ required elevated storage for the year 2027 is projected to be 5.4 million gallons. The City currently has 4.5 million gallons of elevated storage. The elevated storage tank (EST) identified in the 10-Year impact fee eligible capital projects (Table 3-5) addresses this deficiency. If the City of Pearland were to receive an ACR from TCEQ for elevated storage, this EST may not be required. 3.4 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Water capital improvement projects eligible for impact fees include recently completed/under design projects with remaining capacity to serve projected 10-year growth and capital improvement plan projects planned to be constructed to serve growth within the next 10 years. Table 3-5 provides a summary of all impact fee eligible water projects for the City of Pearland and the associated capital costs. These projects are shown on Figure 3-1. Projects that are either existing or under design are shown in orange and with a letter ID. Future capital improvement projects are shown in blue and with a number ID. 3-5 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland Water Project Capital Costs � FREESE 7 NICHOLS The costs listed for the recently completed/under design projects are based on actual design and construction costs provided by the City. Ten -Year impact fee eligible projects 1-5 are included in the City's 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program, and their capital costs are represented in Table 3-5. FNI prepared planning level Opinions of Probable Construction Cost (OPCCs) for the remaining projects. OPCCs for all 10-Year impact fee water capital projects, including project descriptions, can be found in Appendix B. The City's 2018-2022 Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program can be found in Appendix D. Water Project Percent Utilization The 2017 percent utilization is the portion of a project's capacity required to serve existing development. This portion of the project cost is not included in the impact fee analysis. The 2027 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity that will be required to serve the projected 10-year growth by 2027. The 2017-2027 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity required to serve development within the next 10 years. These percent utilizations are used in the calculation of the maximum allowable impact fee as discussed in Section 5.0. 3-6 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE N NICHOLS ect Description of Project V Percent 2017(1) Utilization 2027 i ' 2017- 2027 Costs Based on 2017 Dollars Total Impact Fee Capital Cost Eligible Cost (2017-2027) A Old Alvin Road 20" Water Line 40% 65% 25% $3,304,051 $826,013 B McHard Road 16" Water Line Phase I 50% 75% 25% $5,260,200 $1,315,050 C Houston 30" Interconnect Transmission Line 50% 65% 15% $18,964,365 $2,844,655 D Magnolia Road 12" Water Line 75% 85% 10% $1,761,799 $176,180 E Bailey Rd 24" & 30" Water Transmission Lines 75% 85% 10% $360,145 $36,015 F BW 8 / SH 288 12" Utilities 35% 50% 15% $656,964 $98,545 G SH 35 Water 16" Water Line - South of Magnolia Road 75% 85% 10% $325,244 $32,524 H Proposed WTP Property Acquisition & Sand Pit Stabilization (Surface Water Plant) 0% 35% 35% $4,675,947 $1,636,581 I SH 35 / BW 8 - FM 518 W&S Phase I 40% 65% 25% $2,526,107 $631,527 J Dixie Farm Rd 16" Water Line & Sewer 50% 70% 20% $4,456,257 $891,251 K SE Water Plant City of Houston (Purchased 10 MGD) 70% 80% 10% $26,809,000 $2,680,900 L Far Northwest Water Plant Expansion (Phase 2) 75% 90% 15% $2,139,725 $320,959 M Pearland Pkwy 12" Water Line Extension 50% 70% 20% $502,100 $100,420 N Hooper Road Water Line 30% 70% 40% $271,801 $108,720 0 FM 521 Water Line - Broadway to Mooring Pointe 75% 90% 15% $3,688,000 $553,200 P McHard Rd. 16"Water Line Phase 11 - Cullen Parkway to Mykawa Road 40% 80% i 40% $6,936,480 $2,774,592 Q Hughes Ranch Road West 12" Water Line 60% 80% 20% $3,051,800 $610,360 R Surface Water Plant Phase 1 (10 MGD) 0% 45% 45% $149,275,000 $67,173,750 S Impact Fee Study 0% 50% 50% $60,200 $30,100 Existing Costs Sub -total: $235,025,185 $82,841,342 1 FM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion 30% 90% 60% $3,905,100 $2,343,060 2 Hughes Ranch Road East 12" Water Line Phase II 30% 80% 50% $1,300,000 $650,000 3 FM 1128 16" Water Line - Bailey to CR 100 0% 80% 80% $125,000 $100,000 4 CR 100 16" Water Line - Veterans Dr to FM 1128 0% 80% 80% $250,000 $200,000 5 Veterans Dr. 16" Water Line - Bailey Rd. to CR 128 0% 80% 80% $225,000 $180,000 6 SH 35 16" Water Line - FM 518 to Magnolia 30% 80% 50% $2,460,900 $1,230,450 7 Veterans Drive 12" Water Line 30% 80% 50% $552,800 $276,400 8 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank at Riley Rd & Kirby Dr. 0% 85% 85% $5,993,000 $5,094,050 9 CR 94 12" Water Line 30% 90% 60% $1,021,200 $612,720 10 Fellows Rd. 12" Water Line 30% 90% 60% $3,260,000 $1,956,000 11 Harkey Rd. 12"Water Line - CR100 to CR128 & CR128 from Harkey to Veterans 0% 80% 80% $2,592,800 $2,074,240 Proposed Costs Sub -total: $27,517,600 $14,716,920 Total Costs: $262,542,785 $97,558,262 (1) Utilization in 2017 on proposed projects indicates a portion of the project that will be used to address deficiencies within the existing system, and therefore are not eligible for impact fee cost recovery for future growth. (2) Actual costs provided by the City 3-7 Well Water Plant Ground Storage Tank Elevated Storage Tank Impact Fee Eligible CIP Surface Water Plant (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible CIP Ground Storage Tank (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible CIP Elevated Storage Tank (10 Year) F..?filICHOLS "INNININNI SOUTH DR LUEBONNET DR BLUEBONNET DR Shadow Creek (FM 521) Water Plant 3.20 MG Ground Storage Tank (5) - 2,000 GPM Booster Pumps water riant txpansion (rnase II) Proposed Ground Storage Tank Expansion FM 521 16" Water Line Broadway to Mooring Pointer EVERGREE TRAMMEL F DALLA ESNO R S LOCUST D PECAN S ELM ST MAPLE ST DAVIS RD CR 100 MERRIFI BROADMO VIRGINIA D POST DR COMPTON EDA BW 8 HIGHLAND LA KE L 1 Pearland Pkwy 12" Water Line Extension Surface Water Plant (Phase I) Property Acquisition and Sand Pit Stabilization 10.0 MGD Initial Capacity POST RD 11' WALNUT AVE 1' AKWOOD A RFORD R Hooper Road Water Line RIAL DR FRIO DR GENTLE IIED '" I IFSYY?1�iisrin mr�alM11 Proposed 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank Riley Rd and Kirby Dr. FRUGE RD BW 8/SH 288 12" Utilities Country Place Water Plant 0.50 MG Ground Storage Tank (2) - 1,000 GPM Booster Pumps (1) - 650 GPM Booster Pump Southdown Water Plant 0.50 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 1,000 GPM Booster Pumps CR 94 12" Water Line SIG AL HILL DR PAL DESERT DR CARMEL .R PINENJ=■ 16" CR10 McHard Road 16" Water Line Phase I Hughes Ranch Road West 12" Water Line Cullen Pkwy to CR 94 N 1 16" 1 rik% a, i a Kirby Water Plant 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1.0 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 1,800 GM Booster Pumps AHMA CROIX RD SAN SIMEON D FIGURE 3-1 CITY OF PEARLAND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR 2018 WATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE LEGEND Impact Fee Eligible CIP Line (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible Existing/In Design Line 8" and Smaller Water Line 10" and Larger Water Line Street Railroad Stream Lake Parcel Surface Water Plant Outside City Limit but Inside Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area City Limit County Boundary Created By Freese and Nichols, Inc. Job No.: PRL16273 Location: H0W_WW_PLANNING\Deliverables\FINAL\(Figure_3-1)-Water_CIP.mxd Updated: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 6:35:29 PM SOUTHWYCK PKWY HAWK RD STERLIN SUNGATE DR Cullen Blvd. Water Plant 1.00 MG Elevated Storage Tank 0.60 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 2,100 GPM Booster Pumps CR 21 CR 222 SUMMERLAND DEL BELLO LN NTLEY DR G ENHI A A 0 CR 100 DEL BELLO SPUR DOGWOOD AVE The utility alignments and facility sites shown on this figure are for illustrative purposes only and do not set the alignments or locations. The locations of utility alignments and facility sites will be determined in final design. Fellows Rd. 12" Water Line DAGG RD CRI560; 1• • S SAM HOUSTON PKWY ELTON RD McHard Road 16" Water Line Phase II Cullen Pkwy to Mykawa Rd W CLIFF STONE R a) ` Hughes Ranch Road East 12" Water Line Phase II Cullen Pkwy to Max Rd FITE RD GET TRACE: 16" 16" ER LN N MEADE CR 880 FM 1128 16" Water Line Bailey to CR 100 CENTENI WENDY LN SHARON DR FITE RD SH 35/ BW 8 FM 518 W&S Phase I KNAPP R Garden Road Water Plant 0.46 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 800 GPM Booster Pumps IN LN 0' 0 SCOTT L Old City Hall Water Plant 0.33 MG Ground Storage Tank (2) - 500 GPM Booster Pumps 12" W B OA McLean Water Plant 0.50 MG Elevated Storage Tank 0.43 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 600 GPM Booster Pumps L r„OAKS BL KE NCRES DR Magnolia Road 12" Water Line PAT RID COTTONWOOD ST 12" 12' —12• 12" CD BEC KY LN 0 A LYNN LN CR 100 16" Water Line Veterans Dr to FM 1128 SH 35 16" Water Line FM 518 to Magnoli Veterans Drive 12" Water Line Magnolia Water Plant 0.46 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 900 GPM Booster Pumps Bailey Rd 24" and 30" Water Transmission Lines MORHEA AMIE LN WILLIAM DR 0, rn r r 00 z 7 Harkey Rd 12" Water Line CR 128 from Harkey to Veterans and CR 100 to CR 128 Houston 30" Interconnect Transmission Line Alice Water Plant 0.50 MG Elevated Storage Tank 5.0 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 3,500 GPM Booster Pumps 10.0 MGD Water Supply from the City of Houston Old Alvin Road 20" Water Line Liberty Road Water Plant 0.5 MG Elevated Storage Tank 0.46 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 1,000 GPM Booster Pumps SH 35 16" Water Line Bailey Water Plant 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1.0 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 2,100 GPM Booster Pumps Veterans Drive 16" Water Line Bailey Rd to CR 128 LESTER DR DARE RD STONECREST RD Mary's Creek Water Plant 0.46 MG Ground Storage Tank (3) - 600 GPM Booster Pumps Pearland Pkwy 12" Water Line Extension S FIELD RD —_ -\- CR 100 0 K R' CARRIE LN qw Y LL CR 927 OVER ST GHTH AVE CR 281 CR 296A CR 129D CR129 HAWKINS GREENHOUSE RD MARSHAL BARRELL RD Green Tee Water Plant 0.21 MG Ground Storage Tank (2) - 500 GPM Booster Pumps Dixie Farm Rd 16" Water Line and Sewer HASTINGS C, A SCALE IN FEET Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland 4.0 WASTEWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CIP AM FREESE •I €NICHOLS Wastewater system impact fee eligible capital improvement projects were selected from the City's 2018- 2022 Capital Improvements Plan, provided by the City of Pearland. Additional projects were included in the 10-year Impact Fee CIP based on discussions with City staff, the wastewater system evaluation, previously identified future projects in the City's 2013 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Report, and preliminary engineering reports (by others). These projects will provide required conveyance and treatment capacity for the projected wastewater flows through 2027. 4.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM There are currently five wastewater treatment plants in the City of Pearland: JHEC, Longwood, Barry Rose, Far Northwest & Southdown. The current permitted capacity of each wastewater treatment plant can be seen in Table 4-1. The current, total combined capacity of the plants is 12.55 million gallons per day. Table 4-1: Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wastewater Plant Permitted Plant Capacity (MGD) Barry Rose 3.1 Longwood 2.5 JHEC 4.0 Southdown 0.95 Reflection Bay 2.0 Total 12.55 Table 4-2 details the monthly wastewater flows observed at each of the five wastewater treatment plants since 2012. Treatment plant flows above 75% of the permitted capacity for three consecutive months are shown in Red in Table 4-2. TCEQ §305.126, commonly referred to as the 75/90 rule, requires a WWTP permit holder to begin planning for expansion of the treatment facility when the average day or average annual flow reaches 75% of the permitted capacity for three consecutive months. When the average day or average annual flow reaches 90% of the permitted capacity, the permit holder is required to obtain necessary authorization from the commission to commence construction of the necessary additional treatment facilities. 4-1 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland r FREESE 7 NICHOLS Table 4-2: Historical Wastewater Flows to each WWTP in Million Gallons (2011-2016) Month 2012 2013 JHEC 2014 2015 2016 2012 Longwood 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012 Barry 2013 Rose 2014 2015 2016 2012 Far 2013 Northwest 2014 2015 2016 2012 2013 Southdown 2014 2015 2016 January 60 57 50 98 80 39 62 56 78 65 34 56 38 44 55 41 49 52 63 66 12 15 14 17 15 February 76 44 49 66 69 44 52 53 55 50 31 40 44 29 43 42 41 49 52 58 16 13 13 14 11 March 80 48 61 95 81 45 52 60 80 59 41 40 53 60 54 46 44 56 66 66 16 14 15 17 13 April 65 54 55 95 90 35 63 54 85 75 30 51 41 67 58 43 48 52 64 70 14 15 14 16 13 May 68 53 68 102 100 42 58 64 101 71 31 47 51 64 66 45 49 55 73 74 16 15 15 18 15 June 49 49 57 80 98 46 54 57 68 73 28 40 39 52 69 43 46 55 63 74 13 13 13 14 14 July 58 48 69 69 73 59 57 54 56 56 53 41 30 41 46 50 49 58 64 67 15 13 14 14 11 August 48 57 71 87 100 47 55 55 59 67 43 36 30 48 66 40 46 60 68 75 13 14 14 15 16 September 49 58 78 74 0 47 56 63 66 0 40 40 36 52 0 43 45 63 63 0 14 14 15 13 0 October 48 59 74 87 0 44 64 56 81 0 37 46 32 60 0 42 46 59 80 0 13 15 14 15 0 November 45 57 74 86 0 42 67 61 78 0 36 51 35 61 0 39 51 60 66 0 13 15 15 16 0 December Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 51 1.91 53 1.75 83 2.16 85 2.80 0 2.88 54 1.49 58 1.91 66 1.91 62 2.38 0 2.15 45 1.22 42 1.46 40 1.29 50 1.72 0 1.90 46 1.42 53 1.55 63 1.87 66 2.16 0 2.29 14 0.47 18 0.48 16 0.47 14 • 1 0 Permitted Capacity Maximum 3-month Average 4 2.46 4 1.94 4 2.56 4 3.24 4 3.20 2.5 1.70 2.5 2.10 2.5 2.04 2.5 2.95 2.5 2.43 3.1 1.50 3.1 1.54 3.1 1.61 3.1 2.12 3.1 2.14 2 1.54 2 1.66 2 2.03 2 2.35 2 2.40 0.95 0.50 0.95 0.53 0.95 0.50 0.95 • 0.57 0.46 3-month Average (1) (% of Permitted Capacity) 61% 48% 64% 81% 80% 68% 84% 81% 118% 97% 48% 50% 52% 68% 69% 77% 83% 101% 118% 120% 53% 55% 52% 60% 48% (1) Based on TCEO 4305.126. treatment plant flows above 75% of the permitted capacity for three consecutive months are shown in Red 4-2 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland � FREESE 7 NICHOLS Table 4-3 summarizes the historical total city-wide wastewater flows to all treatment plants. The flows shown include some inflow and infiltration (1/1) entering the collection system. The historical wastewater flows in gallons per capita per day (gpcd) has ranged from 63 to 83. !awe 4-3: i otai wastewater Fiow in Miiuon ciaiions (ZU12-ZU1b) Month 2012 Wastewater 2013 Flow 2014 (MG) 2015 2016 January 186 240 210 300 281 February 210 190 208 215 231 March 227 198 244 317 273 April 186 232 215 326 307 May 201 222 253 359 326 June 179 202 223 278 327 July 236 208 224 244 254 August 192 208 231 277 324 September 192 214 255 268 0 October 184 230 236 323 0 November 174 241 245 306 0 December 210 223 267 278 0 Annual Average Daily Flow (MGD) 6.49 7.14 ! 7.70 9.57 9.67 Population (City Limits) 103,800 105,200 108,800 115,600 119,700 Average Flow (gpcd) 63 68 71 83 81 4.2 WASTEWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION An evaluation of the City's wastewater system was performed to analyze the 10-year collection and treatment infrastructure needs. Projected wastewater flows were developed based on the city-wide average day per connection flow history and TCEQ requirements. A per capita of 90 gpcd was selected to project all wastewater flows. FNI developed projected 10-year wastewater flows by treatment plant service areas. The city-wide SUEs, presented in Table 2-2, were distributed to the future WWTP service areas using the following sources: • Future land use and projected growth (Figure 2-3) • Meter billing data from the City's Water Billing Department • The following Preliminary Engineering Reports (PERs) o John Hargrove Water Reclamation Facility Expansion (January 2017) by Ardurra Group o Far Northwest (Reflection Bay) WWTP Expansion (September 2014) by CDM Smith 4-3 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE N. NICNOLS Table 4-4 summarizes the projected 10-year SUE growth per treatment plant service area, and the resulting projected wastewater flow increases. Table 4-4: Projected 10-year WWTP Service Area Wastewater Flow Increases WWTP Service Area Projected 10-year SUE People/ Growth SUER) Wastewater Flow Rate (gpcd) Projected Wastewater Flow Increase (MGD) Barry Rose + Longwood(1) 7,352 JHEC + Silverlakei -) 5,039 Reflection Bay + Southdown(1) 4,383 3.2 90 2.12 90 1.46 90 1.27 (1) By 2027, the City is planning to direct the Longwood service area flows to the Barry Rose WWTP, the Southdown service area flows to the Reflection Bay WWTP, and the Silverlake service area flows to the JHEC WWTP (2) Utilizes the 2016 impact fee eligible population and impact fee eligible residential SUEs FNI developed projected 2027 average day wastewater flows for the future WWTP service areas. The City is currently constructing and/or planning WWTP capacity upgrades at the JHEC, Reflection Bay and Barry Rose WWTPs. A PER for the Barry Rose WWTP is currently underway and will recommend an expansion capacity. The 2027 planned and/or identified capacities for the WWTPs are presented in Table 4-5. Table 4-5: WWTP Future Capacities Wastewater Plant Existin: Permitted WWTP Capacity (MGD) •rojected 2027 Average Day Wastewater Flow (MGD) Planned/Identified 2027 WWTP Capacity (MGD) 2027 WWTP Capacity Utilization Barry Rose 3.1 6.9 TBDi1i JHEC 4.0 5.2 9.02) 60% Reflection Bay 2.0 6.1 7.00) 85% (1) To be determined by Barry Rose WWTP PER (by others) (2) The City is currently planning a 5.0 MGD expansion to 9.0 MGD total capacity based on the 2017 PER by the Ardurra Group. (3) The City is currently constructing a 4.0 MGD expansion to 6.0 MGD total capacity based on the 2014 PER by CDM Smith. This PER also identified the need for a potential 1.0 MGD expansion beyond 2024. 4-4 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland 4.3 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN � FREESE 7 NICHOLS Wastewater capital improvement projects eligible for impact fees include recently completed/under design projects with remaining capacity to serve projected 10-year growth and capital improvement plan projects planned to be constructed to serve growth within the next 10 years. Table 4-6 provides a summary of all impact fee eligible wastewater projects for the City of Pearland and the associated capital costs. These projects are shown on Figure 4-1. Projects that are either existing or under design are shown in and with a letter ID. Future capital improvement projects are shown in green and with a number ID. Wastewater Project Capital Costs The costs listed for the recently completed/under design projects are based on actual design and construction costs provided by the City. Ten-year impact fee eligible projects 1-4 are included in the City's 2018-2022 Capital Improvement Program, and their capital costs are represented in Table 4-6. FNI prepared a planning level Opinion of Probable Construction Cost (OPCC) for project 5. OPCCs for all 10- Year impact fee wastewater capital projects, including project descriptions, can be found in Appendix C. The City's 2018-2022 Water and Wastewater Capital Improvement Program can be found in Appendix D. Wastewater Project Percent Utilization The 2017 percent utilization is the portion of a project's capacity required to serve existing development. This portion of the project cost is not included in the impact fee analysis. The 2027 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity that will be required to serve the projected 10 year growth by 2027. The 2017-2027 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity required to serve development within the next 10 years. These percent utilizations are used in the calculation of the maximum allowable impact fee as discussed in Section 5.0. 4-5 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE r7 NICHOLS Table 4-6: Wastewater Impact Fee Eligible Projects and Utilization Project ID Description of Project Percent 20174) Utilization 2027 2017- 2027 Costs Based on Total Capital Cost 2017 Dollars Impact Fee Eligible Cost (2017-2027) N to 0 p t c —b.0 c x "' A Magnolia Road 24-inch Sewer 75% 85% 10% $1,761,799 $176,180 B SH 35 Water & Sewer Phase II 75% 85% 10% $4,935,371 $493,537 C BW 8 / SH 288 12" FM and Sanitary Sewer Line 80% 90% 10% $1,970,893 $197,089 D SH 35 18" Sewer - Broadway to Clear Creek 55% 80% 25% $2,526,107 $631,527 E Riverstone Ranch Oversizing 75% 85% 10% $838,609 $83,861 F Reflection Bay Water Reclamation 55% 100% 45% $55,441,905 $24,948,857 G McHard Rd Trunk Sewer (Garden to Southdown WRF) 55% 80% 25% $6,122,761 $1,530,690 H Hooper Road Sanitary Sewer 30% 70% 40% $426,140 $170,456 I Barry Rose WRF Expansion 50% 100% 50% $62,980,000 $31,490,000 J Impact Fee Study 0% 50% 50% $60,200 $30,100 Existing Costs Sub -total: $137,063,785 $59,752,297 110-Year Impact Fee Eligible 1 JHEC WRF Expansion - WWM Project 29A 0% 20% 20% $68,325,000 $13,665,000 2 Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System - WWM Project 12 20% 50% 30% $3,163,000 $948,900 3 Veteran's Drive Lift Station Service Area - WWM Project 11 (Gravity Sewer Line) 0 0% 85% 85% $1,250,000 $1,062,500 4 Southdown Regional Lift Station & Force Main 40% 60% 20% $8,950,000 $1,790,000 5 Reflection Bay Water Reclamation 1.0 MGD Expansion 0% 25% 25% $12,650,000 $3,162,500 Proposed Costs Sub -total: $94,338,000 $20,628,900 Total Costs: $231,401,785 $80,381,197 �I) utilization in zuli on proposes projects maicates a portion or the project tnat will De use to aaaress aericiencies witnm the existing system, and therefore are not eligible for impact fee cost recovery for future growth. (2) Actual costs provided by the City 4-6 EVERG LINDEN TRAMMEL FRTE.10 R CR 100 S LOCUST D PECAN S ELM ST MAPLE ST DAVIS RD ILSI ILSI I LS I WRF DI LIVE OAK DALLAS RD BROADMO VIRGINIA D POST DR COMPTON Existing Lift Station ,-- Impact Fee Eligible CIP Lift Station (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible Existing/In Design Lift Station Wastewater Reclamation Facility Impact Fee Eligible CIP WRF (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible Existing/In WRF Impact Fee Eligible CIP Line (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible Existing/In Design Line RI IC 11 0 LS Created By Freese and Nichols, Inc. Job No.: PRL12291 Location: HIW_W W_PLANNI NG\Deliverables\FINAL\(Figare_4-1)-Westeweter_CIP.mxd Updated: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 6:33:49 PM Lake Parcel 1,6" F.M. MUSTANG MEADOW Riverstone Ranch Oversizing Outside City Limit but Inside Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Service Area City Limit County Boundary HIRRINIRNI SOUTH DR WILLOW 3 n PALMS m POST RD BLUEBONNET DR BLUEBONNET DR cd LMETTO W 8ALMEDA RILEY RD Hooper Rd. Sanitary Sewer io �, = D - RIAL DR O 0 Reflection Bay (Far Northwest) Permitted Capacity = 2.0 MGD Expansion from 2.0 MGD to 6.0 MGD Expansion from 6.0 MGD to 7.0 MGD TH BELT INDUS i%! C STWIND 8„ 8 8" V 8., CR 940 CR 894 ETH DR BAND RA DR CR 174 21" 18" 18" �_1 10•' 18" CROIX RD SIG AL HILL DR Alt FIGURE 4-1 CITY OF PEARLAND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR 2018 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE LEGEND Impact Fee Eligible CIP Force Main (10 Year) Impact Fee Eligible Existing/In Design Force Main Existing 8" and Smaller Wastewater Line Existing 10" and Larger Wastewater Line 8" and Smaller Force Main 10" and Larger Force Main Street Railroad Stream 288 I NMINMIJ�IIMLILI v RO . EMA^Y CT SUMMERLAND BW 8/SH 288 12" FM and Sanitary Sewer Line Garden to Southdown WRF 8„ 8" 8" 8. a 10" NJ SUMMERWIN ' C SOUTHWYCK PKWY CR 218. CR 222 DEL BELLO LN ALMON STERLING DR m n 10" o 0 L) NHILL DEL BELLO BLVD WRF SERVICE AREAS Barry Rose JHEC Longwood Reflection Bay trg LAK DR KILNAR DAGG RD Southdown Regional Lift Station and Force Main Southdown (North Central) WRF Permitted Capacity = 0.95 MGD 30" 30" 30" SAM HOU •N PKWY lllll r_ 1 A N O A � z o - Spring Meadow LS McHard Rd. Trunk Sewer Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System o c NI 'i T:R LN 8" fares Cr South Fork Malys Creek CR 100 DEL BELLO SPUR Savannah Silverlake Southdown 18" 12" 24" 24" 24" 00 CR 589 4001 Magnolia Road 24-inch ScuAicor MEADE CR 107C WENDY LN WESTWOOD LN 10" 10" 10" 30" 30" 30" 30" • MEADOW LN cu The utility alignments and facility sites shown on this figure are for illustrative purposes only and do not set the alignments or locations. The locations of utility alignments and facility sites will be determined in final design. 12" 12" 12" A 10" 10" 10" 8^ O_ O HOARD N BARDET-T ITE RD RIAN ST MC DONALD DR TRANS L SH 35 18" Sewer Broadway to Clear Creek KNAPP RD 1--1 0 " 10" SH 35 Water & Sewer Phase II Lift Station Improvemei JHEC (SWEC) WRF Permitted Capacity = 4.0 MGD Expansion from 4.0 MGD to 9.0 MGD Filter and Bar Screen Improvements 12" 12" 12" LS GRACE LN AMIE LN CONELY R Veteran's Dr. LS Service Area Gravity Sewer Line *Impact Fee Cost based on Oversizing JENKINS RD LESTER DR DARE RD STONECREST RD rs1. 7s.. 10" 10" Barry Rose WRF Expansion Permitted Capacity = 3.1 MGD 24" _24" 8" F.M KEIS RD JAMES ST CARRIE LN CR 927 CR 541 OVER ST GHTH AVE S 8 FWY CR 281 a CR 296A CR 869 Riverstone Rancli Sewer Line Oversizing *Impact Fee Cost based on Oversizing BARRELL RD CR 28S CHOATE 72S J RG, r \a 0 Longwood WWTP Permitted Capacity = 2.5 MGD f ti e 2,500 SCALE IN FEET 5,000 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland 5.0 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS � FREESE 7 NICHOLS The impact fee analysis involves determining the utilization of existing and proposed projects required as defined by the water and wastewater capital improvement plans to serve new development over the next 10-year time period. For existing or proposed projects, the impact fee is calculated as a percentage of the project cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity required to serve development projected to occur between 2017 and 2027. Capacity serving existing development and development projected for more than 10 years in the future cannot be charged to impact fees. 5.1 MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code states that the maximum impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements required by the total number of service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period. Chapter 395 also requires that the impact fee, actually charged, be either discounted 50% from the computed maximum fee or establish a reimbursement method for ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated and take a credit for any debt payment included in the CIP. The City of Pearland has historically used the 50% credit option due to the complexity of tracking impact fees and the implementation of the required reimbursement method. For these reasons, the 50% credit option was used for this study. The total projected costs include the projected capital improvement costs to serve 10-year development, the projected finance cost (assuming a 3% interest rate) for the capital improvements, and the consultant cost for preparing and updating the Capital Improvements Plan. Table 5-1 summarizes the water and wastewater impact fee calculation. 5-1 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE •I NICHOLS Table 5-1: 2017 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation Water Wastewater Total Impact Fee Eligible Cost $97,558,262 $80,381,197 Finance Cost (10 year CIP) $23,952,572 $19,735,247 Total Cost $121,510,834 $100,116,445 Growth in Service Units 17,111 17,111 Maximum Impact Feed' $7,101 $5,851 Ir owab (1) Maximum Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs/Growth in Service Units (2) Maximum Allowable Impact Fee = 50% of Maximum Impact Fee 5.2 IMPACT FEE ASSESSMENT The City of Pearland currently uses an impact fee assessment based on the land use of the proposed development. For a multi -family dwelling, according to Table 2-3, the rate would be 0.7 times that of a single-family dwelling. For commercial developments, the impact fee rate will be assessed according to the land use specific factors in Table 2-3. The maximum allowable impact fee for a single-family dwelling land use is $3,551 for water and $2,926 for wastewater, for a total 2017 maximum allowable water and wastewater impact fee of $6,477. 5-2 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland 6.0 IMPACT FEE ADOPTION 6.1 PUBLIC HEARING � FREESE 7 NICHOLS The amended Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires a public hearing to be held to present any update of the impact fee. The presentation shall include a discussion of the new land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. The hearing was held on March 26, 2018 at the Pearland City Hall. The presentation by Freese and Nichols, Inc. at the public hearing is presented in Appendix F. 6.2 ORDINANCE Once the public hearing is held, the political subdivision shall approve or disapprove the amendment of the capital improvement plan and modification of the impact fee within 30 days after the public hearing. At a City Council meeting on April 09, 2018, Council adopted the impact fee update assessment that was presented at the public hearing. A copy of the City Ordinance adopting the impact fee update is presented in Appendix G. 6-1 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE •I NICHOLS APPENDIX A Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code CHAPTER 395. FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 395.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Capital improvement" means any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (A) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and (B) roadway facilities. (2) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this chapter that identifies capital improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. (3) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. (4) "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump -sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this definition. The term does not include: (A) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; (B) dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of on -site or off -site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities, or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; (C) lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines; or (D) other pro rata fees for reimbursement of water or sewer mains or lines extended by the political subdivision. 1 However, an item included in the capital improvements plan may not be required to be constructed except in accordance with Section 395.019(2), and an owner may not be required to construct or dedicate facilities and to pay impact fees for those facilities. (5) "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 10-year period. (6) "New development" means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units. (7) "Political subdivision" means a municipality, a district or authority created under Article III, Section 52, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, or, for the purposes set forth by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section. (8) "Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. The term includes the political subdivision's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation and the establishment of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances, and rights -of -way. (9) "Service area" means the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined under Chapter 42, of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan, except roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. The service area, for the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. For roadway facilities, the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six miles. For storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service area may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, but shall not exceed the area actually served by the storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities designated in the capital improvements plan and shall not extend across watershed boundaries. (10) "Service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and 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. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(e), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 2 SUBCHAPTER B. AUTHORIZATION OF IMPACT FEE § 395.011. Authorization of Fee (a) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee. (b) Political subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway facilities. (c) A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except roadway facilities, to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must comply with this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.012. Items Payable by Fee (a) An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the: (1) construction contract price; (2) surveying and engineering fees; (3) land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and (4) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (b) Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under this chapter. (d) A municipality may pledge an impact fee as security for the payment of debt service on a bond, note, or other obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion if: (1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvements plan; and 3 (2) at the time of the pledge, the governing body of the municipality certifies in a written order, ordinance, or resolution that none of the impact fee will be used or expended for an improvement or expansion not identified in the plan. (e) A certification under Subsection (d)(2) is sufficient evidence that an impact fee pledged will not be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 90, § 1, eff. May 16, 1995. § 395.013. Items Not Payable by Fee Impact fees may not be adopted or used to pay for: (1) construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (2) repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility expansions; (3) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards; (4) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (5) administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay its administrative and operating costs; (6) principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed by Section 395.012. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.014. Capital Improvements Plan (a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; 4 (2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial; (5) 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 and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (6) the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years; and (7) a plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan. (b) The analysis required by Subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on a systemwide basis within the service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility expansion for the designated service area. (c) The governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervising the implementation of the capital improvements plan in a timely manner. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.015. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (a) The impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by subtracting the amount in Section 395.014(a)(7) from the costs of the capital improvements described by Section 395.014(a)(3) and dividing that amount by the total number of projected service units described by Section 395.014(a)(5). 5 (b) If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to projected new service units described by Section 395.014(a)(6) by the projected new service units described in that section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.016. Time for Assessment and Collection of Fee (a) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted and land platted before June 20, 1987. For land that has been platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before June 20, 1987, or land on which new development occurs or is proposed without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development approval and building process. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (b) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted before June 20, 1987, and land platted after that date. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after June 20, 1987, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (c) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted after June 20, 1987. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee may not be collected on any service unit for which a valid building permit is issued within one year after the date of adoption of the impact fee. (d) This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after adoption of an impact fee adopted after June 20, 1987. The political subdivision shall assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation of a subdivision plat or other plat under Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting ordinance or procedures of any political subdivision in the official records of the county clerk of the county in which the tract is located. Except as provided by Section 395.019, if the political subdivision has water and wastewater capacity available: (1) the political subdivision shall collect the fees at the time the political subdivision issues a building permit; 6 (2) for land platted outside the corporate boundaries of a municipality, the municipality shall collect the fees at the time an application for an individual meter connection to the municipality's water or wastewater system is filed; or (3) a political subdivision that lacks authority to issue building permits in the area where the impact fee applies shall collect the fees at the time an application is filed for an individual meter connection to the political subdivision's water or wastewater system. (e) For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development and building process and may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (f) An "assessment" means a determination of the amount of the impact fee in effect on the date or occurrence provided in this section and is the maximum amount that can be charged per service unit of such development. No specific act by the political subdivision is required. (g) Notwithstanding Subsections (a)-(e) and Section 395.017, the political subdivision may reduce or waive an impact fee for any service unit that would qualify as affordable housing under 42 U.S.C. Section 12745, as amended, once the service unit is constructed. If affordable housing as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section 12745, as amended, is not constructed, the political subdivision may reverse its decision to waive or reduce the impact fee, and the political subdivision may assess an impact fee at any time during the development approval or building process or after the building process if an impact fee was not already assessed. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 980, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.017. Additional Fee Prohibited; Exception After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed against the tract for any reason unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. In the event of the increase in the number of service units, the impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.018. Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment A political subdivision is authorized to enter into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 7 § 395.019. Collection of Fees if Services Not Available Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but may not be collected in areas where services are not currently available unless: (1) the collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion that has been identified in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to commence construction within two years, under duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work required to provide service, and to have the service available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event longer than five years; (2) the political subdivision agrees that the owner of a new development may construct or finance the capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or funds advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development or agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such capital improvements or facility expansions, which fees shall be collected and reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its plat; or (3) an owner voluntarily requests the political subdivision to reserve capacity to serve future development, and the political subdivision and owner enter into a valid written agreement. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.020. Entitlement to Services Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and benefit of the services for which the fee was exacted and is entitled to receive immediate service from any existing facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to compliance with other valid regulations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.021. Authority of Political Subdivisions to Spend Funds to Reduce Fees Political subdivisions may spend funds from any lawful source to pay for all or a part of the capital improvements or facility expansions to reduce the amount of impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.022. Authority of Political Subdivision to Pay Fees Political subdivisions and other governmental entities may pay impact fees imposed under this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 8 § 395.023. Credits Against Roadway Facilities Fees Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of off -site roadway facilities agreed to or required by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited against roadway facilities impact fees otherwise due from the development. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.024. Accounting For Fees and Interest (a) The order, ordinance, or resolution levying an impact fee must provide that all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest -bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. (b) Interest earned on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under this chapter. (c) Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital improvements plan and as authorized by this chapter. (d) The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.025. Refunds (a) On the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or the political subdivision has, after collecting the fee when service was not available, failed to commence construction within two years or service is not available within a reasonable period considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1). (b) Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. (c) The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized by this chapter within 10 years after the date of payment. (d) Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Section 302.002, Finance Code, or its successor statute. (e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity. 9 (f) The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1396, § 37, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 7.82, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. SUBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEE § 395.041. Compliance With Procedures Required Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, a political subdivision must comply with this subchapter to levy an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.0411. Capital Improvements Plan The political subdivision shall provide for a capital improvements plan to be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices in accordance with Section 395.014. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.042. Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or resolution establishing a public hearing date to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for the designated service area. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.043. Information About Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Available to Public On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall make available to the public its land use assumptions, the time period of the projections, and a description of the capital improvement facilities that may be proposed. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 10 § 395.044. Notice of Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing before the 30th day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. (c) The notice must contain: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN RELATING TO POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan under which an impact fee may be imposed; and (4) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.045. Approval of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) After the public hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. (b) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing, shall approve or disapprove the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. (c) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 11 § 395.0455. Systemwide Land Use Assumptions (a) In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service area, a political subdivision may, except for storm water, drainage, flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter. (b) Prior to adopting systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision shall follow the public notice, hearing, and other requirements for adopting land use assumptions. (c) After adoption of systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision is not required to adopt additional land use assumptions for a service area for water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities or wastewater collection and treatment facilities as a prerequisite to the adoption of a capital improvements plan or impact fee, provided the capital improvements plan and impact fee are consistent with the systemwide land use assumptions. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(b), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.047. Hearing on Impact Fee On adoption of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the governing body shall adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the imposition of the impact fee. The public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution imposing an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.049. Notice of Hearing on Impact Fee (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the imposition of an impact fee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing before the 30th day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" 12 (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the adoption of an impact fee; (4) the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and (5) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the plan and proposed fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.050. Advisory Committee Comments on Impact Fees The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed impact fees before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the imposition of the fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.051. Approval of Impact Fee Required (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the imposition of an impact fee, shall approve or disapprove the imposition of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.052. Periodic Update of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) A political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every five years. The initial five-year period begins on the day the capital improvements plan is adopted. (b) The political subdivision shall review and evaluate its current land use assumptions and shall cause an update of the capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Subchapter B. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 13 § 395.053. Hearing on Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan The governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days after the date it receives the update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order setting a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether to amend the plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.054. Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee A public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution amending land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, including the amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.055. Notice of Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee (a) The notice and hearing procedures prescribed by Sections 395.044(a) and (b) apply to a hearing on the amendment of land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee. (b) The notice of a hearing under this section must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of an impact fee; and (4) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the update. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 14 § 395.056. Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.057. Approval of Amendments Required (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the amendments, shall approve or disapprove the amendments of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan and modification of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the amendments to the land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.0575. Determination That No Update of Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or Impact Fees is Needed (a) If, at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the governing body determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is needed, it may, as an alternative to the updating requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057, do the following: (1) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon determining that an update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice under this section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee by certified mail to any person who has, within two years preceding the date that the final notice of this matter is to be published, give written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of hearings related to impact fees. The notice must contain the information in Subsections (b)(2)-(5). (2) The political subdivision shall publish notice of its determination once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one -quarter page of a standard -size or tabloid -size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in 18-point or larger type. 15 (b) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES"; (2) a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determined that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is necessary; (3) an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the updating has been determined to be unnecessary; (4) a statement that if, within a specified date, which date shall be at least 60 days after publication of the first notice, a person makes a written request to the designated official of the political subdivision requesting that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body must comply with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052- 395.057; and (5) a statement identifying the name and mailing address of the official of the political subdivision to whom a request for an update should be sent. (c) The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the need for updating the land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the earliest notice of the government's decision that no update is necessary is mailed or published. (d) If, by the date specified in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body shall cause an update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Sections 395.052-395.057. (e) An ordinance, order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(d), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.058. Advisory Committee (a) On or before the date on which the order, ordinance, or resolution is adopted under Section 395.042, the political subdivision shall appoint a capital improvements advisory committee. (b) The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdivision. Not less than 40 percent of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees or officials of a political subdivision or governmental entity. 16 If the political subdivision has a planning and zoning commission, the commission may act as the advisory committee if the commission includes at least one representative of the real estate, development, or building industry who is not an employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If no such representative is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the commission may still act as the advisory committee if at least one such representative is appointed by the political subdivision as an ad hoc voting member of the planning and zoning commission when it acts as the advisory committee. If the impact fee is to be applied in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membership must include a representative from that area. (c) The advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: (1) advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions; (2) review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; (3) monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (4) file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and (5) advise the political subdivision of the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. (d) The political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any professional reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan. (e) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural rules for the advisory committee to follow in carrying out its duties. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER PROVISIONS § 395.071. Duties to be Performed Within Time Limits If the governing body of the political subdivision does not perform a duty imposed under this chapter within the prescribed period, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land on which an impact fee has been paid has the right to present a written request to the governing body of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be performed within 60 days after the date of the request. If the governing body of the political subdivision finds that the duty is required under this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days after the date of the request and continue until completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 17 § 395.072. Records of Hearings A record must be made of any public hearing provided for by this chapter. The record shall be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10 years after the date of the hearing. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.073. Cumulative Effect of State and Local Restrictions Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision where an impact fee is proposed are cumulative with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.074. Prior Impact Fees Replaced by Fees Under This Chapter An impact fee that is in place on June 20, 1987, must be replaced by an impact fee made under this chapter on or before June 20, 1990. However, any political subdivision having an impact fee that has not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20, 1988, is liable to any party who, after June 20, 1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maximum permitted under Subchapter B by more than 10 percent for an amount equal to two times the difference between the maximum impact fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.075. No Effect on Taxes or Other Charges This chapter does not prohibit, affect, or regulate any tax, fee, charge, or assessment specifically authorized by state law. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.076. Moratorium on Development Prohibited A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of awaiting the completion of all or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 441, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.077. Appeals (a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies within the political subdivision and who is aggrieved by a final decision is entitled to trial de novo under this chapter. 18 (b) A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee. (c) Except for roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to specific performance of the services by the political subdivision for which the fee was paid. (d) This section does not require construction of a specific facility to provide the services. (e) Any suit must be filed in the county in which the major part of the land area of the political subdivision is located. A successful litigant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 7lst Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.078. Substantial Compliance With Notice Requirements An impact fee may not be held invalid because the public notice requirements were not complied with if compliance was substantial and in good faith. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.079. Impact Fee for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous County (a) Any county that has a population of 3.3 million or more or that borders a county with a population of 3.3 million or more, and any district or authority created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution within any such county that is authorized to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized to impose impact fees to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (b) The imposition of impact fees authorized by Subsection (a) is exempt from the requirements of Sections 395.025, 395.052-395.057, and 395.074 unless the political subdivision proposes to increase the impact fee. (c) Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise contractually obligate all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued or incurred by or on behalf of the political subdivision and to the payment of any other contractual obligations. (d) An impact fee adopted by a political subdivision under Subsection (a) may not be reduced if: (1) the political subdivision has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision; and (2) the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact fees during the term of the bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations. 19 Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 669, § 107, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.080. Chapter Not Applicable to Certain Water -Related Special Districts (a) This chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions: (1) paid by or charged to a district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution to another district created under that constitutional provision if both districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; or (2) charged by an entity if the impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (b) Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution may petition the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for approval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The commission shall adopt rules for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shall require notice substantially the same as that required by this chapter for the adoption of impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected parties to participate. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 11.257, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. § 395.081. Fees for Adjoining Landowners in Certain Municipalities (a) This section applies only to a municipality with a population of 105,000 or less that constitutes more than three -fourths of the population of the county in which the majority of the area of the municipality is located. (b) A municipality that has not adopted an impact fee under this chapter that is constructing a capital improvement, including sewer or waterline or drainage or roadway facilities, from the municipality to a development located within or outside the municipality's boundaries, in its discretion, may allow a landowner whose land adjoins the capital improvement or is within a specified distance from the capital improvement, as determined by the governing body of the municipality, to connect to the capital improvement if: (1) the governing body of the municipality has adopted a finding under Subsection (c); and (2) the landowner agrees to pay a proportional share of the cost of the capital improvement as determined by the governing body of the municipality and agreed to by the landowner. (c) Before a municipality may allow a landowner to connect to a capital improvement under Subsection (b), the municipality shall adopt a finding that the municipality will benefit from allowing the landowner to connect to the capital improvement. The finding shall describe the benefit to be received by the municipality. 20 (d) A determination of the governing body of a municipality, or its officers or employees, under this section is a discretionary function of the municipality and the municipality and its officers or employees are not liable for a determination made under this section. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1150, § 1, eff. June 19, 1997. § 395.082. Certification of Compliance Required (a) A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification verifying compliance with this chapter to the attorney general each year not later than the last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year. (b) The certification must be signed by the presiding officer of the governing body of a political subdivision and include a statement that reads substantially similar to the following: "This statement certifies compliance with Chapter 395, Local Government Code." (c) A political subdivision that fails to submit a certification as required by this section is liable to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the impact fees erroneously charged. The attorney general shall collect the civil penalty and deposit the amount collected to the credit of the housing trust fund. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 21 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE •I NICHOLS APPENDIX B Impact Fee Eligible Water CIP Projects — Planning Level OPCCs City of Pearland �7 NICHOLS 0 �. �fsi.xj05' .act Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Constructi• April 18, 2018 Impact Fee O 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: Program Project No.: WA1701 (by 2027) Project N. FM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion Detailed Description: N Installation of an estimated third ground storage tank (estimated to be 1 MG) and related piping and controls to provide additional storage and redundancy at the Far Northwest Water Treatment Facility. Includes a 3,600' run of conduit and fiber to connect the plant to the fiber located on Shadow Creek Parkway. Project Justification: — — r _ The McHard Road water line was designed to transfer less expensive water from the Southeast Water Purification Plant to the west side of Pearland and replace water purchased at a more expensive rate from the City of Houston. This tank is required to store water for distribution. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WA1701) 0 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WA1701) 0 EA $ - $ - 3 Design/Surveying (WA1701) 1 EA $ 305,050 $ 305,050 4 Construction (WA1701) 1 EA $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WA1701) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WA1701) 1 EA $ 600,000 $ 600,000 ITotal Costs: $ 3,905,100 FREESE City of Pearland eel !=NICHOLS fst. 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construct', April 18, 2018 Impact Fee © 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: Program Project No.: WA1901 (by 2027) ,Je Detailed Installation Max Road, Hughes and Sanitary Hughes Ranch Road East 12" Water Line Phase II 11 Hughes Ranch Road from Cullen Parkway to will be completed in coordination with the the Hickory Slough Park, Storm Pump Station Description: of approximately 4,500 LF of a water line, extending along near the Hickory Slough Sportsplex. This water line extension Ranch Road Expansion. Fiber connection from PSB to serve Lift Station. Purpose: The water line extension will tie the dead end water line on Max Road into the transmission line on Cullen Parkway. ITEM pinion of Probable DESCRIPTION Construction Cos TOTAL QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WA1901) 0 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WA1901) 1 EA $ 220,000 $ 220,000 3 Design/Surveying (WA1901) 1 EA $ 120,000 $ 120,000 4 Construction (WA1901) 1 EA $ 800,000 $ 800,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WA1901) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WA1901) 1 EA $ 160,000 $ 160,000 Total Costs: $ 1,300,000 FREESE City of Pearland eel !=NICHOLS 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construct', April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: 3 Program Project No.: WA1803 (by 2027) . e . I FM 1128 16" Water Line - Bailey to CR 100 Detailed Description. FM 1128 (Manvel Rd) from Bailey Rd. to CR100. The timing for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. To install approximately 5,300 feet of water line along of this project is developer driven and the city cost is Purpose: This will loop the system for pressure and fire protection based on 2007 Water Model Update and will supply water to future development. inion of Probable Construction I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WA1803) 0 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WA1803) 0 EA $ - $ - 3 Design/Surveying (WA1803) 0 EA $ - $ - 4 Construction (WA21803) 1 EA $ 45,000 $ 45,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WA1803) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WA1803) 1 EA $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Total Costs: $ 125,000 FREESE City of Pearland eel !=NICHOLS fst. 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construct', April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 4 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: 4 Program Project No.: WA1804 (by 2027) . e . I CR 100 16" Water Line - Veterans Dr to FM 1128 Detailed Description. CR 100 from Veterans Dr. to FM 1128 (Manvel Rd). The cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated To install approximately 13,200 feet of water line along timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost. Purpose: This will supply water for future development along this corridor based on the 2007 Water Model Update, projected growth. inion of Probable Construction I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WA1804) 0 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WA1804) 0 EA $ - $ - 3 Design/Surveying (WA1804) 0 EA $ - $ - 4 Construction (WA1804) 1 EA $ 130,000 $ 130,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WA1804) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WA1804) 1 EA $ 120,000 $ 120,000 Total Costs: $ 250,000 City of Pearland FiiFREESE NICHo�s 0 r fst. 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construct', April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: 5 Program Project No.: WA1805 (by 2027) s je (Veterans Dr 16" Water Line - Bailey Rd. to CR 128 Project Descrip To install approximately 5,300 feet of water line on Veterans Dr. from Bailey Rd, south to CR 100 and continue an additional 5,300 feet with a line from CR 100 to CR 128. The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. Project Drivers: This will loop the system for pressure and fire protection based on 2007 Water Model Update and will supply water to future development. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WA1805) 0 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WA1805) 0 EA $ - $ - 3 Design/Surveying (WA21805) 0 EA $ - $ - 4 Construction (WA1805) 1 EA $ 165,000 $ 165,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WA1805) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WA1805) 1 EA $ 60,000 $ 60,000 Total Costs: $ 225,00 City of Pearland riiFREESE NICI�oLs fst. I B9 2017 Impact Fee U • date - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 6 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: ) (by 2027) • je ISH 35 16" Water Line - FM 518 to Magnolia Project Descrip line along SH 35 from FM 518 to Magnolia/John To install approximately 9,800 feet of 16-inch water transmission Lizer. Project Drivers: This line completes Pearland's major north -south line. • inion of Probable Construction I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 16" Water Line & Appurtenances 9,600 LF $ 124 $ 1,190,400 2 Fire Hydrant 20 EA $ 4,400 $ 88,000 3 16" Gate Valve with Box 3 EA $ 11,000 $ 33,000 4 6" Gate Valve with Box 20 EA $ 1,100 $ 22,000 5 Site Clearing and Restoration (Project 6) 1 LS $ 36,000 $ 36,000 6 Trench Safety 9,600 LF $ 2.5 $ 24,000 7 Ductile Iron Fittings 20 TN $ 5,500 $ 110,000 8 16" WL Creek Crossing 200 LF $ 264 $ 52,800 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,556,200 CONST. MGNT. I 10% $ 155,700 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,711,900 ENGINEERING I 15% $ 256,800 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,968,700 CONTINGENCY I 25% $ 492,200 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,460,900 Total Costs: $ 2,460,900 FREESE City of Pearland r7�NICHOLs fst. 2017 Impact Fee U • date - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost April 18, 2018 Impact Fee /7) 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: �) (by 2027) • je Veterans Drive 12" Water Line Project Descrip on Veterans Drive south of Walnut. To install approximately 1,900 feet of 12-inch water line Project Drivers: The water line, in addition to providing water service to the area, will complete a water line loop. • inion of Probable Construction I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 12" Water Line & Appurtenances 1,900 LF $ 93 $ 176,700 2 Fire Hydrant 4 EA $ 4,400 $ 17,600 3 16" Gate Valve with Box 4 EA $ 11,000 $ 44,000 4 12" Gate Valve with Box 2 EA $ 2,200 $ 4,400 5 6" Gate Valve with Box 4 EA $ 1,100 $ 4,400 6 Site Clearing and Restoration (Project 7) 1 LS $ 36,000 $ 36,000 7 Trench Safety 1,900 LF $ 2.5 $ 4,750 8 Ductile Iron Fittings 4 TN $ 5,500 $ 22,000 9 12" WL Creek Crossing 200 LF $ 198 $ 39,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 349,500 CONST. MGNT. 10% $ 35,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 384,500 ENGINEERING 15% $ 57,700 SUBTOTAL: $ 442,200 CONTINGENCY I 25% $ 110,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 552,800 Total Costs: $ 552,800 FREESE City of Pearland rii. HOLs fst. I B9 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 8 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: 2S) (by 2027) s je I1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank at Riley Rd. & Kirby Dr. Project Descriptio Installation of a 1.0 million gallon composite elevated storage tank at Riley Rd. & Kirby Dr. Project Drivers: This elevated tank will provide the required elevated storage needed for the first 10-year period. inion of Probable Construction I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank 1 LS $ 3,250,000 $ 3,250,000 2 Foundation (Project 8) 1 LS $ 240,000 $ 240,000 3 Site Work (Project 8) 1 LS $ 120,000 $ 120,000 4 Piping (Project 8) 1 LS $ 120,000 $ 120,000 5 Site Clearing and Restoration (Project 8) 1 LS $ 60,000 $ 60,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,790,000 CONST. MGNT. 10% $ 379,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 4,169,000 ENGINEERING 15% $ 625,400 SUBTOTAL: $ 4,794,400 CONTINGENCY I 25% $ 1,198,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 5,993,000 Total Costs: $ 5,993,000 City of Pearland riiFREESE NICI�oLs fst. 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: 9 (by 2027) je CR 94 12" Water Line Project Descrip from Hughes Ranch Rd/CR 403 to just north of FM To install approximately 5,300 feet of 12-inch water line 518/Broadway. This water line will provide water service to new developments in the area. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 12" Water Line & Appurtenances 5,300 LF $ 93 $ 492,900 2 Fire Hydrant 11 EA $ 4,400 $ 48,400 3 12" Gate Valve with Box 5 EA $ 2,200 $ 11,000 4 6" Gate Valve with Box 11 EA $ 1,100 $ 12,100 5 Site Clearing and Restoration (Project 9) 1 LS $ 24,000 $ 24,000 6 Trench Safety 5,300 LF $ 2.5 $ 13,250 7 Ductile Iron Fittings 8 TN $ 5,500 $ 44,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 645,700 CONST. MGNT. 10% $ 64,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 710,300 ENGINEERING 15% $ 106,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 816,900 CONTINGENCY 25% $ 204,300 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,021,200 Total Costs: $ 1,021,200 FREESE City of Pearland r7.NICHOLS 2017 Impact Fee U • date - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 10 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: (by 2027) • je Fellows Rd. 12" Water Line Project Descrip to loop from the termination of the existing waterline along at Hawk Rd. To install approximately 14,400 feet of 12" water line the feeder road of BW 8 along Fellows to Cullen and terminating Project Drivers: The water line, in addition to providing water service to the area, will complete a water line loop. • inion of Probable Construction I ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 12" Water Line & Appurtenances 13,300 LF $ 93 $ 1,236,900 2 Fire Hydrant 30 EA $ 4,400 $ 132,000 3 12" Gate Valve with Box 12 EA $ 2,200 $ 26,400 4 6" Gate Valve with Box 30 EA $ 1,100 $ 33,000 5 Site Clearing and Restoration (Project 10) 1 LS $ 120,000 $ 120,000 6 Trench Safety 13,300 LF $ 2.5 $ 33,250 7 Ductile Iron Fittings 30 TN $ 5,500 $ 165,000 8 12" Boring and Casing 600 LF $ 360 $ 216,000 9 12" WL Creek Crossing 500 LF $ 198 $ 99,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,061,600 CONST. MGNT. 10% $ 206,200 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,267,800 ENGINEERING I 15% $ 340,200 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,608,000 CONTINGENCY I 25% $ 652,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 3,260,000 Total Costs: $ 3,260,000 FREESE City of Pearland r7?NICHOLS fst. 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construction Cos #April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 11 10 Year CIP Water Project Number: (by 2027) je Harkey Rd. 12" Wter Line - CR100 to CR128 & CR128 from Harkey to Veterans Project Descriptio To install approximately 13,300 feet of water line from Harkey Rd/CR100 south to CR128 then east to Veterans Dr. Project Drivers: This will loop the system for pressure and fire protection based on 2007 Water Model Update and will supply water to future development. The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. pinion of Probable Construction Cost ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 12" Water Line & Appurtenances 13,300 LF $ 93 $ 1,236,900 2 Fire Hydrant 27 EA $ 4,400 $ 118,800 3 12" Gate Valve with Box 12 EA $ 2,200 $ 26,400 4 6" Gate Valve with Box 27 EA $ 1,100 $ 29,700 5 Site Clearing and Restoration (Project 12) 1 LS $ 68,000 $ 68,000 6 Trench Safety 13,300 LF $ 3 $ 33,250 7 Ductile Iron Fittings 23 TN $ 5,500 $ 126,500 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,639,600 CONST. MGNT. I 10% $ 164,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 1,803,600 ENGINEERING I 15% $ 270,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,074,200 CONTINGENCY I 25% $ 518,600 SUBTOTAL: $ 2,592,800 Total Costs: $ 2,592,800 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE •I NICHOLS APPENDIX C Impact Fee Eligible Wastewater CIP Projects Planning Level OPCCs City Impact Wastewater of Pearland pact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Constructio. EESE r--� NICHOLS Capital Improvement Project No.: WW1603 &mem ,sr., B9s April 18, 2018 10 Year CIP (by 2027) Fee Ci). 2018 - 2022 Project Number: Program Project Na JHEC WRF Expansion - WWM Project 29A Detailed Descriptio A 5 MGD Expansion to the existing 4 MGD water reclamation facility that will increase the tretment capacity to 8 MGD facility at the John Hargrove Water Reclamation Facility. Project Justificati • This 5 MGD expansion is based on growth projections for the JHEC WRF service area and additional flows that will be diverted to the JHEC WRF from the Longwood Service Area and the future MUD 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Current flows are approaching 75% of current capacity. WWM Project 29A. This is also to meet TCEQ's goal of regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WW1603) 1 EA $ 475,000 $ 475,000 2 Land/Right of Way (WW1603) 0 EA $ - $ - 3 Design/Surveying (WW1603) 1 EA $ 7,550,000 $ 7,550,000 4 Construction (WW1603) 1 EA $ 50,300,000 $ 50,300,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WW1603) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WW1603) 1 EA $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 sts: $ 68,325,000 �7 N E OLS j-k.` e ptAR�t o City of Pearland x' fS 1. 1 B9b 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Constructs • April 18, 2018 Impact Fee �1 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Wastewater Project Number: 1 , Program Project No.: WW1605 (by 2027) Jec ' Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System - WWM Project 12 Detailed Descri. This project proposes approximately 4,940 LF of 18" trunk sewer along Broadway St. from Food Town's Lift Station to O'Day Rd, approximately 1,300 LF of 15" trunk sewer along Garden Rd from Broadway to the lift station and 1,200 LF of 12" sewer line along Roy and Max Rd from Broadway to Hickory Slough. Purpose: This project will eliminate modeled overflows and two existing lift stations (Food Town's, Garden Rd.) and serve areas that are currently not serviced as far north as Hickory Slough. WWM Project 12. of Probable Constructio ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WW1605) 1 EA $ 50,000 $ 50,000 2 Land/Right of Way (WW1605) 1 EA $ 100,000 $ 100,000 3 Design/Surveying (WW1605) 1 EA $ 330,000 $ 330,000 4 Construction (WW1605) 1 EA $ 2,143,000 $ 2,143,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WW1605) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WW1605) 1 EA $ 540,000 $ 540,000 Total Costs: $ 3,163,000 EESE F7 NICHOLS alitataksi City of Pearland ,Sr ass 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Constructio April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Wastewater Project Number: 3 Program Project No.: WW2001 (by 2027) jec Veterans Drive Lift Station Service Area - WWM Project 11 Detailed Descriptio This project extends the trunk sewer south along Veterans Dr. as far as Dare Rd., providing gravity sewer service as follows: approximately 1,600 LF of 12" line, 1,910 feet of 18" line, and 4,920 LF of 24" line. The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. This will allow gravity sewer for development south of Bailey Rd. and eliminate two lift stations (Park Village and Springfield). The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. WWM Project 11. uction ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WW2001) 1 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WW2001) 1 EA $ 50,000 $ 50,000 3 Design/Surveying (WW2001) 1 EA $ 100,000 $ 100,000 4 Construction (WW2001) 1 EA $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WW2001) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WW2001) 1 EA $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Total Costs: $ 1,250,000 EESE F7 NICHOLS ti�dt rEAR9 &mem City of Pearland ,Sr ass 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Constructio April 18, 2018 Impact Fee 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement 10 Year CIP Wastewater Project Number: C.4) Program Project No.: WW2101 (by 2027) jec Southdown Regional Lift Station & Force Main Detailed Description: Construct regional lift station to serve the entire Southdown service area. Wetwell and pump capacity should have ultimate capacity of 2,440 GPM or 3.2 MGD. In the initial phase of this project The lift station will pump the McHard gravity line to the Southdown Plant until this plant reaches its capacity. At 90% of the Southdown capacity the construction of the force main will begin and pumps will be resized to pump to the Reflection Bay Plant. Construction includes approximately 12,300' of 16" force main from the Southdown Regional Lift Station to Reflection Bay Water Reclamation facility. Route will take line beneath SH 288 and remain within McHard and Shadow Creek Parkway ROW to tie into gravity trunk on Reflection Bay. VP This project will collect regional wastewater flows from an expanded service area and divert them to the regional treatment facility at Reflection Bay eliminating the Southdown plant and an estimated $125,500 per year in operations costs. The project also eliminates the need for a future expansion of the Southdown Plant. This is also to meet TCEQ's goal of regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities. Opinion of Probable Construction Cost ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Prelim. Engineering Report (WW2101) 0 EA $ - $ - 2 Land/Right of Way (WW2101) 1 EA $ 50,000 $ 50,000 3 Design/Surveying (WW2101) 1 EA $ 990,000 $ 990,000 4 Construction (WW2101) 1 EA $ 6,590,000 $ 6,590,000 5 Equipment and Furniture (WW2101) 0 EA $ - $ - 6 Contingency (WW2101) 1 EA $ 1,320,000 $ 1,320,000 Total Costs: $ 8,950,000 City of Pearland rii NICHOIS two` PE,9R�t wriarkka ,St. 1 B9b 2017 Impact Fee Update - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost April 18, 2018 Impact Wastewater Fee Project Number: 10 Year CIP (by 2027) e 1Refection Bay Water Reclamation 1.0 MGD Expansion Project Descriptio This project will expand the treatment capacity of the Reflection Bay WRF by 1.0 MGD, for a total of 7.0 MGD. Purpose: This expansion was identified in the 2014 PER by CDM Smith. bable Construction ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 Reflection Bay 1.0 MGD Expansion 1 EA $ 8,000,000 $ 8,000,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 8,000,000 CONST. MGNT. I 10% $ 800,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 8,800,000 ENGINEERING I 15% $ 1,320,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 10,120,000 CONTINGENCY I 25% $ 2,530,000 SUBTOTAL: $ 12,650,000 Total Costs: $ 12,650,000 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE •I NICHOLS APPENDIX D 2018 — 2022 Pearland Capital Improvement Program (Water and Wastewater) CITY OF PEARLAND 2018 - 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WATER Project No. Project Name Budgeted Thru 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Total 2018 - 2022 Allocation WA1501 Toll Road Utility Relocations 991,157 991,157 WA1505 FM 521 Water Line - Broadway to Mooring Pointe 2,473,000 1,215,000 3,688,000 1,215,000 WA1601 McHard Rd. 16" Water Line Phase II - Cullen Parkway to Mykawa Road 5,936,480 1,000,000 6,936,480 1,000,000 WA1602 Hughes Ranch Road West 12" Water Line - CR 94/Smith Ranch Road to Cullen Parkway 3,051,800 3,051,800 WA1605 Surface Water Plant Phase 1 (10 MGD) 12,025,000 8,650,000 106,000,000 22,600,000 149,275,000 137,250,000 WA1701 FM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion 305,050 3,600,000 3,905,050 3,600,000 WA1702 Water Meter Changeout 10,525,000 7,475,000 18,000,000 7,475,000 WA1703 Underground Piping Infrastructure at Water Production Facilities 2017 250,000 250,000 WA1704 Transite Pipe Water Line Replacement Program 2017 500,000 500,000 WA1705 Water Master Plan Update 500,000 500,000 WA1801 Underground Piping Infrastructure at Water Production Facilities 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 WA1802 Transite Pipe Water Line Replacement Program 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 WA1803 FM 1128 16" Water Line - Bailey to CR 100 125,000 125,000 125,000 WA1804 CR 100 16" Water Line - Veterans Dr to FM 1128 250,000 250,000 250,000 WA1805 Veterans Dr. 16" Water Line - Bailey Rd. to CR 128 225,000 225,000 225,000 WA1901 Hughes Ranch Road East 12" Water Line Phase II 400,000 900,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 WA1902 Bailey Water Plant Improvements 557,000 1,837,000 2,394,000 2,394,000 TOTAL $ 36,557,487 $ 23,790,000 $ 108,207,000 $ 27,087,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 199,141,487 $ 162,584,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS Budgeted Thru 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Total 2018 - 2022 Allocation General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds 23,871,680 14,615,000 53,957,000 14,037,000 106,480,680 82,609,000 System Revenues- Cash 305,945 2,550,000 1,250,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 9,355,945 9,050,000 Impact Fees - Cash 292,500 500,000 792,500 500,000 Impact Fees - Debt 10,040,340 6,125,000 53,000,000 11,300,000 80,465,340 70,425,000 Other Funding Sources 2,047,022 2,047,022 Plus Bonds Sold in Prior Years TOTAL $ 36,557,487 $ 23,790,000 $ 108,207,000 $ 27,087,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000 $ 199,141,487 $ 162,584,000 Note: The totals do not tie by year as the City sometimes appropriates funds for GO Bond projects in one year and then sells the bonds in the next year. 68 FM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion a,:E a Etio FM 521 Water Line *Broadway to Mooring Pointer Hughes Ranch Rd. West 12" Water Line FM 1128 16" Water Line *Bailey to CR 100 ROOKSIDE I LL'AGE McHard Rd. 16" Water Line Phase II *Cullen Pkwy to Mykawa Rd Hughes Ranch Rd. East 12" Water Line *Cullen Pkwy to Max Rd CR 100 16" Water Line *Veterans Dr to FM 1128 Veterans Dr. 16" Water Line *Bailey Rd. to CR 128 CITYOF PEARLAND O Bailey Water Plant Improvements 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement Projects Water OFM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion OToll Rd. Utility Relocations ® Surface Water Plant Phase I CR 100 16" Water Line FM 1128 16" Water Line IDFM 521 Water Line Hughes Ranch Road East 12" Water Line Phase II Hughes Ranch Road West 12" Water Line McHard Road 16" Water Line Phase 11 •IVeterans Drive 16" Water Line City Limits ETJ Projects Not Shown *Water Meter Changeout *Water Master Plan Update "Transite Water Line Replacement Program *Underground Piping Infrastructure at Water Facilities 1:63,360 or 1 in = 1 miles 0 0.5 1 2 Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the.ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. MAP PREPARED: JUNE 2017 CITY OF PEARLAND GIS DEPARTMENT 69 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER . Toll Road Utility Relocations WA1501 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE The project consists of relocating 600 linear feet of 16 inch water main by directional drill beneath the northern embankment for the FM 518 overpass on SH 288. At Smith Ranch approximately 1,500 feet of 12 inch PVC water line will be relocated and placed in steel casing. At this same location approximately 1,000 feet of Force Main will be relocated by open cut and another approximately 150 feet by directional drill and placed in steel casing to allow for the installation of the T-Ramp. I ; ti• Si!r~' �f�s;IL.l1 [{ i } l [tiro) LLL , ; Ii`.:�`• ■ " f (# +- - i �; '. , J. 1• 1�w 1. ; � ,k ""i:.i '4 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Existing utilities in both locations will conflict with improvements being constructed for the SH 288 Toll Lanes. At FM 518 the SH 288 Overpass will be lengthened placing support foundations in the current location of the water line. On Smith Ranch, the intersection will be extensively reconstructed to provide for an elevated T-Ramp from Hughes Ranch to the toll lanes. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below)• Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 Capital Outlay Total Expense $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $40,665 $40,665 $40,665 $40,665 Construction $950,492 $950,492 $950,492 $950,492 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $991,157 $991,157 $991,157 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $991,157 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $749,460 $789,460 $749,460 $749,460 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - $241,697 $201,697 $241,697 $241,697 TOTAL SOURCES $991,157 ' $991,157 $991,157 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $991,157 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: $38,700 transferred from Hatfield (WW1103) and $162,997 transferred from West Oaks LS (W W 1304). $40,000 from Fund 565 fund balance. Bonds sold - $749,460 in 2016. Project Manager: Jaime Dino Projects Approval Date: 6/22/2015 70 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER FM 521 Water Line - Broadway to Mooring Pointe WA1505 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Install approximately 8,000 feet of 20" water line along Almeda Rd from Broadway to Mooring Pointe. ''"If -714W 1,41111M- - : ' - -_- -VIP- - _ir 1 y--.et - , ` . ' rt.v - .' r •t-7 -li ,l -■-- i - .- PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Looping of transmission lines based on the City's water model. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) — Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 $2,500 $2.500 Capital Outlay Total Expense $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Design/Surveying $508,000 $508,000 $508,000 $508,000 Construction $2,750,000 $1,535,000 $1,535,000 $1,215,000 $2,750,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 TOTAL COSTS $3,688,000 $2,473,000 $2,473,000 $1,215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,688,000 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $2,703,055 $1,488,055 $1,488,055 $1,215,000 $2,703,055 System Revenue - Cash $105,945 $105,945 $105,945 $105,945 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - $879,000 $879,000 $879,000 $879,000 TOTAL SOURCES $3,688,000 $2,473,000 $2,473,000 $1,215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,688,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 Fund Balance ($879,000). Bonds sold - $1,068,055 in 2016 and $420,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 71 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER , McHard Rd. 16" Water Line Phase II - Cullen Parkway to Mykawa Road WA1601 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. PROJECT IMAGE Mal Phase II of the transmission line extends from Cullen Parkway to Mykawa a total of 17,340 linear feet. This portion of the project is timed to. coincide with Right of Way approval and acquisition for the McHard Road project. Run 45,000' of fiber from Barry Rose WRF to Business Center Drive. - x r if \,_ ,..,/---- `, ,, ` _. -' A ° Mill MIL ° v 8 R 0 f} +ice VIA l ��� epooKswE ill4 xt PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This will be a second transmission connection between the east and west sides of the City. It will allow for more efficient water flow, better fire protection and the movement of water from the expanded Alice Street Water Plant. This will reduce monthly average payments for water to the west side from the Far North West plant where purchase prices are much higher. Phase II 911111111supplied w. i� nr _ F o 7 '�„ , 1 gamG-�� A� o i p! s a s s ��1 o T { II -. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJNo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance ($374,500) ($749,000) ($747,500) ($747,500) ($747,500) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($374,500) ($749,000) ($747,500) ($747,500) ($747,500) FTE Staff Total TOTAL • FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Construction $6,206,480 $5,206,480 $5,206,480 $1,000,000 $6,206,480 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $630,000 $630,000 $630,000 $630,000 TOTAL COSTS $6,936,480 $5,936,480 $5,936,480 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,936,480 • TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET' 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $3,468,240 $2,968,240 $2,968,240 $2,968,240 System Revenue - Cash $500,000 $500,000 Impact Fees - Cash $500,000 $500,000 Impact Fees - Debt $3,368,240 $2,868,240 $2,868,240 $2,868,240 Other Funding Sources - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 TOTAL SOURCES $6,936,480 $5,936,480 $5,936,480 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,936,480 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 fund balance ($100,000). $5,836,480 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 72 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER . Hughes Ranch Road West 12" Water Line - CR 94/Smith Ranch Road to Cullen Parkway WA1602 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE MI Installation of approximately 10,000 LF of 12" water line along Hughes Ranch Road from CR 94 to Cullen Parkway. This water line connection will be done in coordination with the Hughes Ranch Road Expansion from CR 94 to Cullen Parkway. s .— - --"i- -"- 1 4 i' jt; r l - `i -•` -• ) r, 1• 1 . r _«- 1 it-g''Ii .-- PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The water line will replace fragmented City lines and acquired MUD lines due to the road widening and sound wall installation. _ , n• �.. __ , Md. rpPod RanRd W 12"WOWUm .r II !Smith Ranch Rd -Cu14n ...^� — Vt, C._..' -, • • ,r�+' '.mob .. �..a l rw ti4 " • 1. r J c INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 I 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 S2,500 Capital Outlay Total Expense $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $142,000 $125,000 $142,000 $142,000 Construction $2,603,800 $1,283,800 $2,603,800 $2,603,800 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $306,000 $156,000 $306,000 $306,000 TOTAL COSTS $3,051,800 $1,564,800 $3,051,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,051,800 • TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET' 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $1,525,900 $745,500 $1,525,900 $1,525,900 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash $292,500 $292,500 $292,500 $292,500 Impact Fees - Debt $1,233,400 $453,000 $1,159,600 $1,159,600 Other Funding Sources - $73,800 $73,800 $73,800 TOTAL SOURCES $3,051,800 $1,564,800 $3,051,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,051,800 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: $73,800 transferred from Tom Bass Loop (TR1203). Bonds Sold - $292,500 in 2016 and $2,393,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Skipper Jones Projects Approval Date: 73 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER . Surface Water Plant Phase 1 (10 MGD) WA1605 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE MO Pilot testing, design, and construction of a pre -sedimentation basin, 10 MGD Surface Water Treatment Plant and associated distribution system. This project will treat raw water from the Gulf Coast Water Authority (GCWA) canal for distribution throughout the City's water system. The plant will be located on City property on CR48 south of CR59, which is adjacent to the GCWA canal. Pilot testing will begin in FY2017 followed by design and construction. The project is scheduled to be completed over a five year period with new capacity available by 2022/2023. Phase 1 of the distribution system is planned to include 24" - 36" pipelines along CR 48, CR 59, and east/west corridor to FM 1128 to connect to the plant. Installation of fiber to serve the City's SCADA system. • .?� R' * ,, • _ -- a - • _ : — PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The project will provide additional potable water capacity to meet demands of northern Brazoria County as the region continues to grow. The 2012 Water Model Update based on growth projections established that the demand for an additional 10 MGD would need to be met by 2022/2023. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below),}`,,-.,,.� Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue^d- Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 ' 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report $8,000,000 $6,600,000 $8,000,000 $8,000,000 Land/Right of Way $900,000 $900,000 $900,000 Design/Surveying $17,900,000 $3,000,000 $6,900,000 $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $17,900,000 Construction $110,000,000 $90,000,000 $20,000,000 $110,000,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $12,475,000 $1,025,000 $850,000 $9,000,000 $1,600,000 $12,475,000 TOTAL COSTS $149,275,000 $6,600,000 $12,025,000 $8,650,000 $106,000,000 $22,600,000 $0 $0 $149,275,000 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL I BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 201 2019 2020 2021 Y022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $74,637,500 $3,250,000 $6,012,500 $4,325,000 $53,000,000 $11,300,000 $74,637,500 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $74,637,500 $3,250,000 $6,012,500 $4,325,000 $53,000,000 $11,300,000 $74,637,500 Other Funding Sources - $100,000 TOTAL SOURCES $149,275,000 $6,600,000 $12,025,000 $8,650,000 $106,000,000 $22,600,000 $0 $0 $149,275,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project 7 in 2013 impact fee update. DWSRF Grant (Drinking Water Drinking State Revolving Fund) $149,275,000. Bonds sold - $12,025,000 in 2017. Project Manager: Project's Approval Date: 74 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER FM 521 Ground Storage Tank Expansion WA1701 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Installation of an estimated third ground storage tank (estimated to be 1 MG) and related piping and controls to provide additional storage and redundancy at the Far Northwest Water Treatment Facility. Includes a 3,600' run of conduit and fiber to connect the plant to the fiber located on Shadow Creek Parkway. , it. / -- C 1 r n f • - ti i r c _ . e. a \' i ' ? f 3 - -• - fir.9. 1 r r : - .. . „sr E. • , . f :. 5' r .•.f. 4 • , _ = . rr �. :'E, ='f - PROJECT JUSTIFICATION I The McHard Road water line was designed to transfer less expensive water from the Southeast Water Purification Plant to the west side of Pearland and replace water purchased at a more expensive rate from the City of Houston. This tank is required to store water for distribution. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJNo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $500 $121,172 $122,672 $122,672 $122,672 Capital Outlay Total Expense $500 $121,172 $122,672 $122,672 $122,672 FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $305,050 $228,800 $305,050 $305,050 Construction $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 TOTAL COSTS $3,905,050 $228,800 $305,050 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,905,050 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL I BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $1,952,525 $152,525 $152,525 $1,800,000 $1,952,525 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Other Funding Sources - $152,525 $152,525 $152,525 $152,525 TOTAL SOURCES $3,905,050 $305,050 $305,050 $3,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,905,050 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 Fund Balance ($152,525). Project 14 in 2013 impact fee update. Bonds sold - $152,525 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Ryan McKinnis Project's Approval Date: 75 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Water Meter Change Out WA1702 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Change out of approximately 37,000 water meters and drive -by reading system with a wireless remote read and addition of Customer Portal Technology. The change out will include remote antennae, meters, external antennae on meter lids, installation, hardware and software, and vaults as needed. _ _ - J N. p ft ft , i - -, _. INY:+: l { - _. n n_ PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AWWA standards recommends that residential meters be replaced when over 10 years old or more than 1.0 mill gallons have passed through the meter. By 2017 approximately 22,000 meters in Pearland will be older than 10 years old or have 1.0 million gallons that have passed through the meters. The AWWA standard is based on .25 gallons per min. The newer meters will register .03 gallons per minute, thus measuring more water, increasing revenues and reducing water loss. Newer technology will allow for remote turn on and off and capture water and loss associated with a given area. Customer expectations are also higher wanting information more readily to view (graphs, etc.) and the customer portal would provide. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue I Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $500,000 $300,000 $500,000 $500,000 Construction Equipment and Furniture $17,500,000 $5,500,000 $10,025,000 $7,475,000 $17,500,000 Contingency TOTAL COSTS $18,000,000 $5,800,000 $10,525,000 $7,475,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000,000 • TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET' 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $17,500,000 $11,000,000 $10,225,000 $7,275,000 $17,500,000 System Revenue - Cash $400,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $400,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 TOTAL SOURCES $18,000,000 $11,300,000 $10,525,000 $7,475,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $18,000,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: DWSRF Grant (Drinking Water D inking State Revolving Fund) $10,225,000 and $100,000 Fund 565 fund balance. Bonds sold - $10,225,000 in 2017. Cash - $200,000 in 2017 and $200,000 in 2018. Project Manager: Public Works/Engineering Project's Approval Date: 76 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Underground Piping Infrastructure at Water Production Facilities 2017 WA1703 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE This program will replace significant portions of the aging large diameter water conveyance pipe located at water production facilities. This program will inspect each of the 10 facilities and make recommendations for the design and replacement of failing piping within each facility. — 4 05/27/2014 07:50 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The Public Works Department has experienced several failures of water lines at the water production facilities over the past several years. Most of the water line infrastructure at the production facilities is original to the facilities and has not been replaced. This program will reduce service interruptions.-111 INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Bonds to be sold in 2017 Project Manager: Tracy Sombrano Projects Approval Date: 77 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER , Transite Pipe Water Line Replacement Program 2017 WA1704 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Mill Replace approximately 63 miles of failing Transite pipe water lines (over 30 years old) in the City with PVC water lines. The program will replace the water line infrastructure in the following locations over a period of years - Corrigan, Old Town Site, Sommersetshire, Country Place, Green Tee, Westminster, Brookside Acres, Shadycrest, Creek View, Parkview, Wood Creek, Heritage Green, Clear Creek Estates, and Southdown subdivisions. k- +� v _ _ `_ •' 1,f.` 7 . k - - = - i — 'ia PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Transite pipe water line has a failure rate significantly higher than that of comparable and like sized PVC. This program will replace the failing Transite pipe infrastructure with PVC which was not prevalent in the industry at the time the Transite pipe lines were installed. The Transite pipe lines are responsible for a higher percentage of work orders per foot than comparable PVC lines and require an inordinate amount of resources to maintain relative to PVC. The program will also provide the opportunity to resolve dead end water line issues in the affected areas which will improve water quality. 1► INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue I Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense I FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Construction $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Bonds to be sold in 2017 Project Manager: John Hines Project's Approval Date: 78 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Water Master Plan Update WA1 705 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE This project will be to update the Water Master Plan that was created in 2002. Although there has been some updates to the model for specific project no city wide has been done. This project will update the city infrastructure, water demands and include new Surface Water Treatment Plant supply. Ilit - `./ E A PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 711 The Water Model Plan was created in 2002 and has been updated periodically due to specific projects that were planned for in the CIP. With the planned water from the Surface Water Treatment Plant the system needs to be updated to determine how this will interface with the current system. The update will include system improvements and new development that has occurred and not included in the current model. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJvo LYes (See Below) T E X AS Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 ^ . V . 1 1� Total Revenue I Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Construction Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 TOTAL SOURCES $500,000 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Funds transferred from closeout of WA1001 Project Manager: Projects Approval Date: 79 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER Underground Piping Infrastructure at Water Production Facilities WA1801 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE This program will replace significant portions of the aging large diameter water conveyance pipe located at water production facilities. This program will inspect each of the 10 facilities and make recommendations for the design and replacement of failing piping within each facility. - 05127/2014 07:50 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The Public Works Department has experienced several failures of water lines at the water production facilities over the past several years. Most of the water line infrastructure at the production facilities is original to the facilities and has not been replaced. This program will reduce service interruptions. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $1,250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $1,250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2042 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $1,250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $1,250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project Manager: Tracy Sombrano Project's Approval Date: 80 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER Transite Pipe Water Line Replacement Program WA1802 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION + PROJECT IMAGE 11 Replace approximately 63 miles of failing Transite pipe water lines (over 30 years old) in the City with PVC water lines. The program will replace the water line infrastructure in the following locations over a period of years - Corrigan, Old Town Site, Sommersetshire, Country Place, Green Tee, Westminster, Brookside Acres, Shadycrest, Creek View, Parkview, Wood Creek, Heritage Green, Clear Creek Estates, and Southdown subdivisions. ! : - a AIL 44111sr��+a:� - - 1 V. a- - . w • .-• - -4 . _ _ . • - ••, 4 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Transite pipe water line has a failure rate significantly higher than that of comparable and like sized PVC. This program will replace the failing Transite pipe infrastructure with PVC which was not prevalent in the industry at the time the Transite pipe lines were installed. The Transite pipe lines are responsible for a higher percentage of work orders per foot than comparable PVC lines and require an inordinate amount of resources to maintain relative to PVC. The program will also provide the opportunity to resolve dead end water line issues in the affected areas which will improve water quality. • , — INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below) s •- Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 r v¢ �' Total Revenue i Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense I FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS = 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Construction $6,400,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $6,400,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $6,500,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $6,500,000 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $6,500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $6,500,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $6,500,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $6,500,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Program to carryover until all Transite water lines are eplaced. Project Manager: John Hines Project's Approval Date: 81 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER 1 FM 1128 16" Water Line - Bailey to CR 100 WA1803 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE To install approximately 5,300 feet of water line along FM 1128 (Manvel Rd) from Bailey Rd. to CR100. The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. ..., L—;,- �- i j �� • 0 anisi. 1 1 I S f t I ll i i PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ' ., This will loop the system for pressure and fire protection based on 2007 Water Model Update and will supply water to future development.1 1 a n 8 8 l FM 1128 w:oernn. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS k Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below) "'-'°° Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 Capital Outlay Total Expense $1,000 FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJE TOTA Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 TOTAL COSTS $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 I. FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project 8 in 2013 impact fee update. Project Manager: Susan Johnson Projects Approval Date: 82 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ' PREFERENCE ORDER , CR 100 16" Water Line - Veterans Dr to FM 1128 WA1804 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE To install approximately 13,200 feet of water line along CR 100 from Veterans Dr. to FM 1128 (Manvel Rd). The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. 4 — l§ 11111Mi IN, M. ■.array. • .UlI C1U Mull ��' �� PROJECT JUSTIFICATION )���� This will supply water for future development along this corridor based on the 2007 Water Model Update, projected growth. CR 100 Waterline INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 I 2022 Total Revenue a"" "'°" G°a Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 Capital Outlay Total Expense I I $1,000 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 I PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 TOTAL COSTS $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 • TOTAL I FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project 9 in 2013 impact fee update. Project Manager: Cara Davis Projects Approval Date: 83 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # , PREFERENCE ORDER Veterans Dr. 16" Water Line - Bailey Rd. to CR 128 WA1805 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION + PROJECT IMAGE To install approximately 5,300 feet of water line on Veterans Dr. from Bailey Rd, south to CR 100 and continue an additional 5,300 feet with a line from CR 100 to CR 128. The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. U [ i `` u PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This will loop the system for pressure and fire protection based on 2007 Water Model Update and will supply water to future development. VW Dr w aterliterli ne INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below) = Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 o ` Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1.000 �� L Capital Outlay Total Expense I I $1,000 FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 TOTAL COSTS $225,000 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL I BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $225,000 $0 $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 Fund Balance. Project 11 in 2013 impact fee update. Project Manager: TBD Projects Approval Date: 84 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER , Hughes Ranch Road East 12" Water Line Phase II WA1901 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Installation of approximately 4,500 LF of a water line, extending along Hughes Ranch Road from Cullen Parkway to Max Road, near the Hickory Slough Sportsplex. This water line extension will be completed in coordination with the Hughes Ranch Road Expansion. Fiber connection from PSB to serve the Hickory Slough Park, Storm Pump Station and Sanitary Lift Station. J .,....,_ , ►v.ree _ _ _` L__ r - Ent 1 I I. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The water line extension will tie the dead end water line on Max Road into the transmission line on Cullen Parkway. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 $2,500 Capital Outlay Total Expense $1,000 $2,500 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way $220,000 $220,000 $220,000 Design/Surveying $120,000 $120,000 $120,000 Construction $800,000 $800,000 $800,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $160,000 $60,000 $100,000 $160,000 TOTAL COSTS $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $900,000 $0 $0 $1,300,000 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $1,300,000 $400,000 $900,000 $1,300,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $1,300,000 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $900,000 $0 $0 $1,300,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project Manager: Projects Project's Approval Date: 6/22/2015 85 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Bailey Water Plant Improvements WA1902 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Elevated levels of organic manganese cause taste, odor and appearance issues though the water product itself remains safe for consumption. The 1st phase of this project installed a distribution line at the facility that improved water quality by providing adequate water flow within the tank. The 2nd phase of this project includes the installation of a 'green sand' filter that will chemically bond with manganese and iron to remove it. • . —P• _� _ � _ '"y • t 1 i J. 1 1 is PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The City of Pearland has maintained a log of customer complaints regarding water quality. Complaints regarding brown/rusty colored water44, indicate problems with iron and manganese have been occurring in the winter months. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No LYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 Capital Outlay Total Expense I $1,000 $2,500 $2,500 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report $90,000 $90,000 $90,000 Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Construction $1,670,000 $1,670,000 $1,670,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $334,000 $167,000 $167,000 $334,000 TOTAL COSTS $2,394,000 $0 $0 $0 $557,000 $1,837,000 $0 $0 $2,394,000 • TOTAL I FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $2,394,000 $557,000 $1,837,000 $2,394,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $2,394,000 $0 $0 $0 $557,000 $1,837,000 $0 $0 $2,394,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project Manager: TBD Projects Approval Date: 86 CITY OF PEARLAND 2018 - 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WASTEWATER Project No. Project Name Budgeted Thru 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Total 2018 - 2022 Allocation WW0901 Riverstone Ranch Oversizing 838,609 838,609 WW1402 Pearland Heights Lift Station Abandonment 271,000 271,000 W W 1405 Reflection Bay Water Reclamation 55,441,905 55,441,905 WW1406 McHard Rd Trunk Sewer (Garden to Southdown WRF) 4,132,761 1,990,000 6,122,761 1,990,000 WW1502 Barry Rose WRF Expansion 700,000 6,380,000 28,900,000 27,000,000 62,980,000 62,280,000 WW1506 Springfield Lift Station Abandonment 500,400 500,400 WW1507 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2015 590,194 590,194 WW1601 Mykawa Lift Stations 1,296,300 5,551,620 6,847,920 5,551,620 WW1603 JHEC WRF Expansion 475,000 7,550,000 22,300,000 38,000,000 68,325,000 67,850,000 WW1604 Green Tee 1 to Riverstone Wastewater Diversion (Longwood Service Area Phase 1) 1,013,580 532,500 1,546,080 532,500 WW1605 Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System 50,000 700,000 2,413,000 3,163,000 3,113,000 WW1701 Lift Station Program 2017 275,000 275,000 WW1702 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2017 500,000 500,000 WW1703 Independence Park Lift Station Abandonment 562,500 562,500 WW1704 Waste Water Master Plan Update 214,290 285,710 500,000 285,710 WW1801 Lift Station Program 863,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 560,000 3,103,000 3,103,000 WW1802 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 WW1803 Reflection Bay Lift Station Bar Screen 1,725,000 1,725,000 1,725,000 WW2001 Veterans Drive Lift Station Service Area 150,000 1,100,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 WW2101 Southdown Regional Lift Station & Force Main 1,700,000 7,250,000 8,950,000 8,950,000 TOTAL $ 66,861,539 $ 25,877,830 $ 2,260,000 $ 55,823,000 $ 69,860,000 $ 9,810,000 $ 230,492,369 $ 163,630,830 SOURCE OF FUNDS Budgeted Thru 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Project Total 2018 - 2022 Allocation General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds 33,257,224 16,004,620 910,000 27,366,500 33,910,000 4,185,000 115,633,344 82,376,120 System Revenues - Cash 649,049 285,710 1,000,000 1,575,000 2,050,000 2,000,000 7,559,759 6,910,710 Impact Fees - Cash 350,000 75,000 550,000 975,000 975,000 Impact Fees - Debt 27,494,750 8,507,500 26,806,500 33,350,000 3,625,000 99,783,750 72,289,000 Other Funding Sources 6,490,516 50,000 6,540,516 50,000 Plus Bonds Sold in Prior Years 1,030,000 (TOTAL $ 67,891,539 $ 24,847,830 $ 2,260,000 $ 55,823,000 $ 69,860,000 $ 9,810,000 $ 230,492,369 $ 163,630,830 Note: The totals do not tie by year as the City sometimes appropriates funds for GO Bond projects in one year 87 Reflection Bay Water Reclamation Reflection Bay Lift Station Bar Screen HOUSTON TOLLWAY/BELTWAY Southdown Regional Lift Station & Force Main McHard Road Trunk Sewer *Garden to Southdown Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System Springfield Lift Station *Abandonment HOUSTON TOLLWAY/BELTWAY,8 Veterans Dr Lift Station Service Area Green Tee 1 to Riverstone Wastewater Diversion Independence Park Lift Station Abandonment Pearland Regional Airport CITY OF PEARLAND O 2018 - 2022 Capital Improvement Projects Wastewater 0 O Barry Rose WRF Expansion Green Tee 1 to Riverstone Wastewater Diversion Independence Park Lift Station Abandonment JHEC WRF Expansion Mykawa Lift Stations O 0 Pearland Heights Lift Station McHard Road Trunk Sewer Reflection Bay Lift Station Bar Screen 40 Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System Reflection Bay Water Reclamation Southdown Regional Lift Station & Force Main Springfield Lift Station Abandonment Riverstone Ranch Oversizing Veterans Drive Lift Station Service Area Projects Not Shown *Lift Station Program *Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation *Waste Water Master Plan (WWI704) 1:63,360 or 1 in = 1 miles 0.5 1 2 Miles This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on -the -ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. MAP PREPARED: JUNE 2017 CITY OF PEARLAND GIS DEPARTMENT 88 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Riverstone Ranch Oversizing WW0901 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE _ Oversizing of the Riverstone Ranch development's sewer infrastructure in order to incorporate into the City's larger system. ci (t':\, 1 i� r p. ®� • 1. I r - q ���, I �� L) o 7 `.4 •� P � � '',,, Rrverstone� / P4 jP6 1 "`Ranch ♦/ y° . ./. ‘Oversizing yob . 1• e ... \ ...t- - wP� :. ! j } ° 1.�' _ _ Srrt�} i• a'Q4a t - 'rArsr r F — 4 s :N: i ,.. r I / ! i PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project accomplishes a portion of the overall plan developed in the Longwood Wastewater Basin study to eliminate the need for an expansion or long-term operation of the Longwood Wastewater Treatment Plant. This project also eliminates three lift stations in the Green Tee Subdivision. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS i Impact on operating budget �0 Yes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS _ 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $681,937 $681,937 $681,937 $681,937 Construction $122,672 $122,672 $122,672 $122,672 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 $34,000 TOTAL COSTS _ $838,609 $838,609 $838,609 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $838,609 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $296,778 $296,778 $296,778 $296,778 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources'- $541,831 $541,831 $541,831 $541,831 TOTAL SOURCES $838,609 $838,609 $838,609 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $838,609 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: $43,222 in 2013 from WW0902 - Longwood Lift Station Replacement project. Fund 42 fund balance. $125,000 moved from fund 67 balance Project Manager: Engineering Project's Approval Date: 6/22/2015 89 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Pearland Heights Lift Station Abandonment W W 1402 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE The project would eliminate Pearland Heights lift station and reroute sewer via gravity to Spring Meadow lift station. Install approximately 1,700 If of 8" sanitary sewer will be required. T _ — T PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Eliminate existing lift station as surrounding development allows for gravity connections. The existing lift station is in very poor condition and will require extensive rehabilitation if it is retained. -•• - - )1,; a. '?�: ..;� ,g ��U'`''� '-'``"'" - • —17 —• z _ ---. - =} , t . s I 1 —_� .' -. a•` .F. - � ;'' °. "i- •. • - - •. _ INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No Lf'es (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $32,000 $24,840 $32,000 $32,000 Construction $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 $207,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $32,000 $23,184 $32,000 $32,000 TOTAL COSTS $271,000 $255,024 $271,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $271,000 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $255,024 $255,024 $255,024 $255,024 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - $15,976 $15,976 $15,976 TOTAL SOURCES $271,000 $255,024 $271,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $271,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Bonds sold - $255,024 in 2014. $15,976 from Fund 565 fund balance. Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 3/14/2014 90 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Reflection Bay Water Reclamation W W 1405 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION + PROJECT IMAGE Growth rates within the service area have increased both average daily flows and the biological loading contained in the plant's influent requiring construction of a 4 MGD treatment capacity expansion. The project includes the design, permitting and construction upgrades of the lift station, headwork's, addition of four continuous flow 1 MGD basins modifications to the existing basins to create two additional 1 MGD continuous flow basins, new filtration and UV disinfectant systems, expansion of the sludge holding tanks, addition of two belt press dewatering systems, a new non -potable water system and new SCADA control for a total plant capacity of 6 MGD. . i ,' i •• ( -"', '-ft PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The existing plant reached 75% of its rated capacity in 2013. TCEQ rules require that operators begin design once a plant reaches 75% capacity for a period of three consecutive months. Plant design and permitting were completed in late 2017. Current flows require a doubling of existing capacity but with the addition of flows from the Southdown plant, planned to occur around 2024, and the inclusion of the flows from development in the Lower Kirby area a full 6 MGD expansion provides better economies of scale at this point in time. _ - - :: . -• T —s • '"'r - -, ;'"' - } "tl` - _ -- yi - -r41ram _ -. ._-. --- :.p. r� -.- - Y -2" - INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L110 Li lYes (See Below) F .fr° r • •• - CDBIue Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $240,344 $240,344 $240,344 $240,344 Capital Outlay Total Expense $240,344 $240,344 $240,344 $240,344 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET ' 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED ' THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report $414,000 $414,000 $414,000 $414,000 Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $4,527,905 $4,527,905 $4,527,905 $4,527,905 Construction $47,000,000 $47,000,000 $47,000,000 $47,000,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 TOTAL COSTS $55,441,905 $55,441,905 $55,441,905 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,441,905 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $26,473,905 $26,473,905 $26,473,905 $26,473,905 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $25,100,000 $25,100,000 $25,100,000 Other Funding Sources - $3,868,000 $3,868,000 $3,868,000 $3,868,000 TOTAL SOURCES $55,441,905 $30,341,905 $55,441,905 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,441,905 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 and Fund 44 Fund Balance ($3,868,000). Waste water project 7 in 2013 impact fee update. TWDB Loan in amount of $61.2M, including $11 M package plant. Bonds sold - $1,032,000 in 2014, $48,822,000 in 2016 and $1,719,905 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Skipper Jones Project's Approval Date: 91 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER McHard Rd Trunk Sewer (Garden to Southdown WRF) W W 1406 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE • Install, along McHard Rd, approximately 4,500 feet of 24" trunk sewer from Cullen to Southdown WRF; 5,800 feet of 18" trunk sewer from Cullen to Max Road; and approximately 4,000 LF of 15" trunk sewer from Max Road to Garden Road. The first 4,500' will be constructed in the Developer Agreement with Lake Park Subdivision. L.---. AAHW yprylTpuy�py �LTWAYB __ - \�, — 0‘ - - Trunk Sewer z .v a 1— o k � Q. 1 1 MN I i --._ • --.! fot _,i Q N...,,,,,..--A," R-f ` - . -UkfAr McHard Road .wzuHo o:. 0diiiiiiiiiiiieiltii!iiiiiiiiiimain • , - ...,+~�� 0 g { Hucr-es 7gN�H R r5 FflC%aRPSt. A CD z = ,. % ... r. '. Bi-CADN'AY ST PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project will provide gravity sewer and is called for in the wastewater master plan. Extends Southdown service area to the east, picking up areas not currently served by City system. Additionally, this project is in conjunction with the installation of the McHard Road Extension. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L� No fires (See Below) P P 9 9 Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total ■ PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET 1 FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET , PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way $91,929 $91,929 $91,929 $91,929 Design/Surveying $794,332 $794,332 $794,332 $794,332 Construction $4,736,500 $3,246,500 $3,246,500 $1,490,000 $4,736,500 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 TOTAL COSTS $6,122,761 $4,132,761 $4,132,761 $1,990,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,122,761 ■ FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES . 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $3,024,995 $2,029,995 $2,029,995 $995,000 $3,024,995 System Revenue - Cash $34,771 $34,771 $34,771 $34,771 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $2,637,250 $1,642,250 $1,642,250 $995,000 $2,637,250 Other Funding Sources - $425,745 $425,745 $425,745 $425,745 TOTAL SOURCES $6,122,761 $4,132,761 $4,132,761 $1,990,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,122,761 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 Fund Balance. Waste water project 8 in 2013 impact fee update. Probable Oversizing Agreement with Lake Park Subdivision for the 24" segment. Bonds sold - $225,745 in 2014, $1,117,000 in 2016, and $2,329,500 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 92 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER Barry Rose WRF Expansion W W 1502 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION + PROJECT IMAGE In 2016 a Preliminary Engineering Report began to determine the specific design parameters required for the plant expansion, including volume and biological loading. Expansion of the plant capacity design will begin in 2017. In 2020 construction of the expansion of treatment plant will begin, which will be a separate plant to be run in parallel with the existing plant. Run approximatley 7,500' of fiber from FM 518 to the Plant. 4 , ' tr 1. .. J r - g • 6 u? 0 !,f • ' i ,- • f PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The TCEQ rules require the initiation of engineering and financial planning to upgrade a water reclamation facility when the flows reach 75% of the plant capacity. The facility is currently treating approximately 46% of the capacity and current projects are underway to remove flows from Longwood facility and shift to Barry Rose increasing loads at this plant above the 75% requirement. This is also to meet TCEQ's goal of regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L1 No fires (see Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue l Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance $168,241 $168,241 $168,241 Capital Outlay Total Expense $168,241 $168,241 $168,241 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 ' 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report $700,000 $300,000 S700,000 $700,000 Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $4,980,000 $2,940,000 $4,980,000 $4,980,000 Construction $53,300,000 $27,300,000 $26,000,000 $53,300,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $4,000,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 TOTAL COSTS $62,980,000 $3,240,000 $700,000 $6,380,000 $0 $28,900,000 $27,000,000 $0 $62,980,000 TOTAL I FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 20 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $31,340,000 $1,470,000 $400,000 $2,990,000 $14,450,000 $13,500,000 $31,340,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $31,340,000 $1,470,000 $3,390,000 $14,450,000 $13,500,000 $31,340,000 Other Funding Sources - $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 TOTAL SOURCES $62,980,000 $3,240,000 $700,000 $6,380,000 $0 $28,900,000 $27,000,000 $0 $62,980,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 Fund Balance $300,000. Waste water project 2 in 2013 impact fee update. Bonds sold $400,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Skipper Jones Project's Approval Date: 93 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Springfield Lift Station Abandonment W W 1506 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Abandon the Springfield lift station and gravity flow all wastewater 1,300 feet south to the Park Village Lift station on the east side of McLean. Ti 1 �� - r! { r,i� 4` 1 I'1 It -' - ! "r f r� A. or ,r - . L rp �r • .. - a,;p-.. - _.W -'y - - • - - Ret7- . h ;.:.: r ^' ..r.:' �• t +' , f ., 1 i F,,,.•E�illi��i I I1 = • t11' ` . ; i; l,, 1,�IIjII ,y • ' ''' INiI" `kkii I III IlIl II I I - -- -� tq• fi t, — PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The pumps at these facilities are currently above ground centrifugal pumps that have been in service for 30+ years. The rehab of these facilities would be costlyand consist of submersible pumpreplacements withguide rail systems, raisingwet well topto a higher elevation, reliningwet well P Y 9 and upgrading the control panels. It is less costly to convert these facilities to gravity flow manholes. Additionally, as development continues it allows for gravity systems to abandon lift stations. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LJres (see Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services O Operation & Maintenance p ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200)"� FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $59,600 $59,600 $59,600 $59,600 Construction $440,800 $440,800 $440,800 $440,800 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS _ $500,400 $500,400 $500,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,400 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $440,800 $440,800 $440,800 $440,800 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - $59,600 $59,600 $59,600 $59,600 TOTAL SOURCES $500,400 $500,400 $500,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,400 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 301 fund balance $59,600. Bonds sold - $440,800 in 2016. Project Manager: TBD Project's Approval Date: 6/22/2015 94 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2015 W W 1507 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Inflow and infiltration program to rehabilitate failing sanitary collections system over thirty years of age in the following areas over a period of years - Corrigan Subdivision, Old Towne, Summerset/Shrine, Country Place, Green Tee, Westminster, Brookside Acres, Shadycrest, Creek View, Parkview, Wood Creek, Heritage Green, Clear Creek Estates, and Twin Creek Woods. . 1 ' i h' .` : , T r -; ' + { r ►� " ; / . +, 1 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 4 Through analysis of Public Works work order history and institutional knowledge, the waste water lines in these older areas are responsible for the majority of line breaks and service interruptions in Pearland. This project will address the areas with the most frequent failures and improve system reliability for the residents. You will note that the list of project locations is the same as that listed for water line rehabilitation. It is recommended that both projects are done simultaneously to limit construction impacts to the residents. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L1 No fires (see Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue l 1 Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense I FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $117,215 $117,215 $117,215 $117,215 Construction $472,979 $472,979 $472,979 $472,979 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $590,194 $590,194 $590,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $590,194 ■ TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES . FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - $340,194 $340,194 $340,194 $340,194 TOTAL SOURCES $590,194 $590,194 $590,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $590,194 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Interest from TWDB funds. Project Manager: Public Works Project's Approval Date: 6/22/2015 95 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Mykawa Lift Stations W W 1601 PROJECT DESCRIPTION , MA PROJECT IMAGE MI Relocation and reconstruction of Mykawa-Scott Lift Station, and installation of new 8-inch force main for approximately 2,500 If from Mykawa to- SH35; installation of approximately 1,200 If of 12-inch gravity line north along Mykawa from Hickory Slough to Scott, approximately 4,000 If of 12- inch gravity line along Mykawa south from Hickory Slough to Shank, and 600 If of 8-inch gravity line south from Shank to Orange; abandonment of Shank Street Lift Station; relocation and upgrade of Orange-Mykawa Lift Station outside of Mykawa right-of-way just north of Town Ditch, and installation of new 6-inch force main from Orange-Mykawa Lift Station to 24-inch trunk sewer on Hatfield. Project will be coordinated with Mykawa Road Widening project. �• 5 :- , S ' - - ? _ PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project will remove existing sanitary lines and lift stations from being in conflict with the future Mykawa Road Widening Mykawa Lift Station pumps wastewater three times before sending to the plant, will require a major rehabilitation within the next poorly located for servicing the area. This project will eliminate a lift station and inverted siphon, reducing long-term operation costs, and improving system efficiency. project. The Orange- five years, and is and maintenance Impact on operating budget LJvo L�' Yes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 . Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) FTE Staff Total ■ PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET 12018 FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED PROJECTED ' THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Land/Right of Way $360,000 $300,000 $300,000 $60,000 $360,000 Design/Surveying $596,300 $596,300 $596,300 $596,300 Construction $4,668,600 $4,318,600 $4,668,600 $4,668,600 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $923,020 $823,020 $100,000 $823,020 $923,020 TOTAL COSTS $6,847,920 $6,337,920 $1,296,300 $5,551,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,847,920 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL I BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES - 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $6,346,620 $5,836,620 $795,000 $5,551,620 $6,346,620 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - $501,300 $501,300 $501,300 $501,300 TOTAL SOURCES $6,847,920 $6,337,920 $1,296,300 $5,551,620 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,847,920 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 67 Fund Balance $166,300 and Fund 42 Fund Balance $335,000. Bonds sold - $795,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Susan Johnson Project's Approval Date: 96 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER JHEC WRF Expansion W W 1603 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE A 5 MGD expansion to the existing 4 MGD water reclamation facility that will increase the treatment capacity to 9 MGD facility at the John Hargrove Water Reclamation Facility. .4`.. �y.'-'7. A.,. _ ri• P I • r ' .+._� ' -- _f �f 1 —. w mu u c ,} r I T. j° . J +' - µ P' �. 7. 11 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This 5 MGD expansion is based on growth projections for the JHEC WRF service area and additional flows that will be diverted to the JHEC WRF from the Longwood Service Area and the future MUD 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant. Current flows are approaching 75% of current capacity. WWM 29A. This is also to meet TCEQ'sgoal of regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities. P tY Project9 INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LjVo Yes (See Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue l PersonServices Operation Operation & Maintenance $240,344 $240,344 $240,344 Capital Outlay Total Expense $240,344 $240,344 $240,344 FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET , 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report $475,000 $475,000 S475,000 $475,000 Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $7,550,000 $2,785,000 $7,550,000 $7,550,000 Construction $50,300,000 $17,300,000 $33,000,000 $50,300,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 TOTAL COSTS $68,325,000 $3,260,000 $475,000 $7,550,000 $0 $22,300,000 $38,000,000 $0 $68,325,000 TOTAL I FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 20 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $34,162,500 $752,500 $3,260,000 $11,150,000 $19,000,000 $34,162,500 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $34,162,500 $752,500 $3,260,000 $11,150,000 $19,000,000 $34,162,500 Other Funding Sources - $1,830,000 TOTAL SOURCES $68,325,000 $1,830,000 $1,505,000 $6,520,000 $0 $22,300,000 $38,000,000 $0 $68,325,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Waste water project 10 in 2013 impact fee update. Bonds sold - $1,505,000 in 2016. Project Manager: Cara Davis Project's Approval Date: 6/22/2015 97 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER Green Tee 1 to Riverstone Wastewater Diversion (Longwood Service Area Phase 1) W W 1604 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE 1.1 Work includes running the remaining 780 equivalent connections from Green Tee basin and redirecting these flows through Riverstone Ranch to Barry Rose plant by running approximately 2600' of 8-10" line from lift station on Golf Crest & Country Club to receiving manhole in Riverstone Ranch and diverting flows from Lift Station #34 via force main on Country Club Drive into the Riverstone collection system. Work also includes the rehabilitation of Lift Station #34.This project works in conjunction with the Riverstone Ranch Oversizing agreement. jor S... . / . f N. z+ •• sue. - y . ^-,t ":.: Ail �y. • + R{ y . ; It +:,p`4. . il' "ti• . ` �� ^� } • ,� , __ j ~ '^ X V • i� 'PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project will effectively remove 780 equivalent wastewater connections from the Longwood treatment plant and transfer them to the Barry Rose plant. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget 1,110 fires (see Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue++PlyF Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total-b PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET ' FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 ' 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Design/Surveying $143,580 $143,580 $143,580 $143,580 Construction $1,200,000 $760,000 $760,000 $440,000 $1,200,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $172,500 $80,000 $80,000 $92,500 $172,500 TOTAL COSTS $1,546,080 $1,013,580 $1,013,580 $532,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,546,080 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $1,322,500 $840,000 $840,000 $482,500 $1,322,500 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - $223,580 $173,580 $173,580 $50,000 $223,580 TOTAL SOURCES $1,546,080 $1,013,580 $1,013,580 $532,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,546,080 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 565 fund balance $223,580. Bonds sold - $840,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 98 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Roy/Max/Garden Roads Basin Sewage System W W 1605 7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE This project proposes approximately 4,940 LF of 18" trunk sewer along Broadway St. from Food Town's Lift Station to O'Day Rd, approximately 1,300 LF of 15" trunk sewer along Garden Rd from Broadway to the lift station and 1,200 LF of 12" sewer line along Roy and Max Rd from Broadway to Hickory Slough. a ° 9 �Q r 0 5 --,; o 9 ia s i R la ° _ID z Ott, j !4 l m - 1 Ef1CRO0SL 1 'Gk • - ' o ■ * c M1QaS' i • Roy Max oTL ii 0 ■ Garden Roads ST mo_ ���������*��� Basin Sewage System J rh LJ Fez e r O - T i 0 1` ' +tHl n 1 5 1 _ { '+-�WNOL�^ RO r 14 L ; ; L Lg - ° I PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project will eliminate modeled overflows and two existing lift stations (Food Town's, Garden Rd.) and serve areas that are currently not serviced as far north as Hickory Slough. W W M Project 12 INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\Jo L1res (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance ($10,933) ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($10,933) ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET j FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 ' 2021 2022 Prelim. Engineering Report $50,000 $50,000 S50,000 $50,000 Land/Right of Way $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Design/Surveying $330,000 $330,000 $330,000 Construction $2,143,000 $2,143,000 $2,143,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $540,000 $270,000 $270,000 $540,000 TOTAL COSTS $3,163,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $700,000 $2,413,000 $0 $0 $3,163,000 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $1,556,500 $350,000 $1,206,500 $1,556,500 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 Impact Fees - Debt $1,206,500 $1,206,500 $1,206,500 Other Funding Sources - $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 TOTAL SOURCES $3,163,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0 $700,000 $2,413,000 $0 $0 $3,163,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Fund 42 fund balance $50,000 Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 99 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Lift Station Program 2017 W W 1701 5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Convert 30 year old Veterans 1 lift station to a manhole and re-route sanitary sewer to existing gravity sewer. "------ ow '� -+ li i +_ . et it — �I:_ lil.Filfi UMW 4 - , r ' lib i - PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Elimination of the Veterans I lift station reduces operation and maintenance cost. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No Wires (see Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 Construction $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 S275,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Bonds sold - $275,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Public Works Project's Approval Date: 100 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation 2017 W W 1702 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Inflow and infiltration program to rehabilitate failing sanitary collections system over thirty years of age in the following areas over a period of years - Corrigan Subdivision, Old Townsite, Sommersetshire, Country Place, Green Tee, Westminster, Brookside Acres, Shadycrest, Creek View, Parkview, Wood Creek, Heritage Green, Clear Creek Estates, and Twin Creek Woods. , , r .1Lli .??1IVin Vr • t r fr 'r l J' y� j ` PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Through analysis of Public Works work order history and institutional knowledge, the waste water lines in these older areas the majority of line breaks and service interruptions in Pearland. This project will address the areas with the most frequent failures system reliability for the residents. Note that the list of project locations is the same as that listed for water line rehabilitation. that both projects are done simultaneously to limit construction impacts to the residents. are responsible for and improve It is recommended Impact on operating budget J o LIYes (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total ■ PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - TOTAL SOURCES $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Bonds sold - $500,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Public Works Project's Approval Date: 101 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Independence Park Lift Station Abandonment W W 1703 Ongoing PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Abandon the existing lift station located at Independence Park and replace with a gravity sanitary sewer system. This will tie-in to the existing sewer system located on Pearland Parkway. Ilia' �•' M1 P _ - 4)r l .'t; • • ;..• ... s•.. ' ir,rl --. !. I �- ��c - ? �^Alliiiiri--Ft . - NI4, _ 'PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This lift station is approximately 35 years old and is equipped with retrofitted pumps from the 1990's. Investigation of the system has shown some settlement of the system that has caused continual maintenance. As development in the area has occurred gravity sewer has come closer to the site. Additionally, facilities in the park are being relocated closer to the gravity lines allowing for the use of a gravity sewer system. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No Lf'es (See Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue l Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $67,500 $67,500 $67,500 Construction $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 TOTAL COSTS $562,500 $0 $562,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $562,500 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL I BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $495,000 $495,000 $495,000 System Revenue - Cash $67,500 $67,500 $67,500 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - TOTAL SOURCES $562,500 $0 $562,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $562,500 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Bonds sold - $495,000 to be sold in 2017. Project Manager: Matthew Brown Projects Approval Date: 102 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Waste Water Master Plan Update W W 1704 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE This project will be to update the 2008 Waste Water Master Plan. Since 2008 there has been significant growth and development along with system rehabilitation and the model has not been updated to reflect these changes. The project will include the updating of the system changes. �C PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The 2008 Waste Water Master Plan is the last major update that has been conducted to the model. Modeling is used to help assist in location potential over flows and deficient line sizes that result in system capacity issues. These results are then used to develop priorities for CIP projects. Modeling is also utilized to assist in determining development impacts to the system. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget LJ\lo LYes (See Below) T E ]r A 5 Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 ]' ■ . 1 Total Revenue 1 Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $500,000 $214,290 $214,290 $285,710 $500,000 Construction Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $500,000 $214,290 $214,290 $285,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 • FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $285,710 $285,710 $285,710 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - $214,290 $214,290 $214,290 $214,290 TOTAL SOURCES $500,000 $214,290 $214,290 $285,710 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Funds transferred from closeout of WA1001 ($214,290). Project Manager: Engineering Projects Approval Date: 103 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # ORDER . Lift Station Program W W 1801 (PREFERENCE PROJECT DESCRIPTION + PROJECT IMAGE Mil FY 18: Convert 30 year old Marys Creek lift station to a manhole. It is the last of four below ground stations that are confined space entry facilities. The flow from this manhole would flow to a new site about 20ft. north on city easement and right of way for the construction of a conventional submersible pump lift station. The new station would consist of submersible pumps with guide rail systems, wet well top would be above flood elevation, a new control panel with remote alarming system. - •L?4 � - - .. - +i - ti1Ctr PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The Mary's Creek lift station pump and controls are below ground with a risk of flooding. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS i Impact on operating budget L_No Li (See Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022! Total Revenue l Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) ($8,200) FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 ' 2019 2020 i 11 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $353,000 $113,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $353,000 Construction $2,750,000 $750,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,750,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $3,103,000 $0 $0 $863,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,103,000 TOTAL I FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 201 2019 2020 2021 2022 III PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $3,103,000 $863,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,103,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - TOTAL SOURCES $3,103,000 $0 $0 $863,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $560,000 $3,103,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project Manager: Public Works Project's Approval Date: 104 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation W W 1802 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Inflow and infiltration program to rehabilitate failing sanitary collections system over thirty years of age in the following areas over a period of years - Corrigan Subdivision, Old Townsite, Sommersetshire, Country Place, Green Tee, Westminster, Brookside Acres, Shadycrest, Creek View, Parkview, Wood Creek, Heritage Green, Clear Creek Estates, and Twin Creek Woods. r 40$4-1 . . V . % k .. /jrr'r, 1 w. ' 1 {p , • f ; y, • 1 , 1 r 1.• %i ,; R 'e } , •a 1 • „r , 1' A1✓ , ,i, ,. , ' r .17 r ' L PROJECT JUSTIFICATION Through analysis of Public Works work order history and institutional knowledge, the waste water lines in these older areas are responsible for the majority of line breaks and service interruptions in Pearland. This project will address the areas with the most frequent failures and improve system reliability for the residents. Note that the list of project locations is the same as that listed for water line rehabilitation. It is recommended that both projects are done simultaneously to limit construction impacts to the residents. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L� jVo �'es (See Below)• Fiscal Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense FTE Staff Total PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying Construction $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $7,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000 FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL BUDGET FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $1,000,000 $1,000,000 System Revenue - Cash $7,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $7,000,000 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Interest from TWDB funds. Project will carryover to 2025. Project Manager: Public Works Project's Approval Date: 105 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Reflection Bay Lift Station Bar Screen WW 1803 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE Install a course bar screen located up stream of the regional on -site lift station. This will be an automated system with a control panel that is connected into the Reflection Bay SCADA system. j ' 1 i 1.0 . r s ' ` i � � i ;e i `f II Ill `����yy��� \I ` j{ l li ^III r .. [[/11/ �_i �i II II i+ .+ i i Cr j _ 1 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION The amount of debris in the wastewater stream entering into the lift station has resulted in pumps clogging, additional wet well cleaning and potential for debris to get into the treatment system. The lift station has been monitored for the past year with 1-2 cleanings per month with no improvement. The installation of a bar screen will allow for the debris to be collected and disposed of before entering into the lift station and possibly to the treatment system.- INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L No fires (see Below) Fiscal Year 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue I Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay, Total Expense I FTE Staff Total _ TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2042 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way Design/Surveying $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 Construction $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency TOTAL COSTS $1,725,000 $0 $0 $1,725,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,725,000 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $862,500 $862,500 $862,500 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $862,500 $862,500 $862,500 Other Funding Sources' - TOTAL SOURCES $1,725,000 $0 $0 $1,725,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,725,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project Manager: Public Works Project's Approval Date: 106 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Veterans Drive Lift Station Service Area - WWM Project 11 W W 2001 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE This project extends the trunk sewer south along Veterans Dr. as far as Dare Rd., providing gravity sewer service as follows: approximately 1,600 LF of 12" line, 16,680 feet of 18" line, and 4,920 LF of 24" line. The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. _ • - — • • a - - - w_. 3. 11 @AILY HO 0 m ■■ E— :� m ui 7 u -- D .1 p 0 I`�1 C 4 7 N I Limit r -,,... cDW.+RrCRtEx ;i ~ ..„ PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This will allow gravity sewer for development south of Bailey Rd. and eliminate two lift stations (Park Village and Springfield). The timing of this project is developer driven and the city cost is for line oversizing only, not 100% of the estimated cost. WWM Project 11 INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_No L1res (See Below) Fiscal Year 2018 I 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Ti q - _ .S �'� __, r��y ti Total Revenue I Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance p ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) Capital Outlay Total Expense ($16,400) ($16,400) ($16,400) FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET 1 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 ' 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Design/Surveying $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Construction $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 TOTAL COSTS $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $1,100,000 $0 $1,250,000 TOTAL FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES . FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 20 2022 PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds System Revenue - Cash $625,000 $75,000 $550,000 $625,000 Impact Fees - Cash $625,000 $75,000 $550,000 $625,000 Impact Fees - Debt Other Funding Sources - TOTAL SOURCES $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $1,100,000 $0 $1,250,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Waste water project 6 in 2013 impact fee update. Project Manager: Jennifer Lee Project's Approval Date: 107 PROJECT NAME PROJECT # PREFERENCE ORDER Southdown Regional Lift Station & Force Main WW2101 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT IMAGE a Construct regional lift station to serve the entire Southdown service area. Wetwell and pump capacity should have ultimate capacity of 2440 GPM or 3.2 MGD. In the initial phase of this project The lift station will pump the McHard gravity line to the Southdown Plant until this plant reaches its capacity. At 90% of the Southdown capacity the construction of the force main will begin and pumps will be resized to pump to the Reflection Bay Plant. Construction includes approximately 12,300' of 16" force main from the Southdown Regional Lift Station to Reflection Bay Water Reclamation facility. Route will take line beneath SH 288 and remain within McHard and Shadow Creek Parkway ROW to tie into gravity trunk on Reflection Bay. _ _ } + j ��' t .. 44 IF L 'A.. t ; ' + y.',r'� t•:: . s } . _. •, ., : ;,. c� t .;' . •.�4 ^ °''% 2 , -may-� [��` •f�' ,.[#y'j^fi.. sy I i - •`� �_ i :s Fo:�Wn v - ��- F ;, •y ;,;- r ;�: :.:x PROJECT JUSTIFICATION — This project will collect regional wastewater flows from an expanded service area and divert them to the regional treatment facility at Reflection Bay eliminating the Southdown plant and an estimated $125,500 per year in operations costs. The project also eliminates the need for a future expansion of the Southdown Plant. This is also to meet TCEQ's goal of regionalization of wastewater treatment facilities. INCREMENTAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS Impact on operating budget L_, No LlYes (See Below) Fiscal Year I 2018 2019 I 2020 2021 2022 Total Revenue l 1 Personnel Services Operation & Maintenance Capital Outlay Total Expense I FTE Staff Total TOTAL FY PROJECTED ALLOCATIONS PROJECT COSTS ALLOCATION BUDGET ' 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 PROJECT TOTAL Prelim. Engineering Report Land/Right of Way $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Design/Surveying $990,000 $990,000 $990,000 Construction $6,590,000 $6,590,000 $6,590,000 Equipment and Furniture Contingency $1,320,000 $660,000 $660,000 $1,320,000 TOTAL COSTS $8,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700,000 $7,250,000 $8,950,000 TOTAL I FY PROJECTED FUNDING SOURCES FUNDING SOURCES BUDGET 2017 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECTED THRU 2017 2018 2019 2020 2p, PROJECT TOTAL General Revenue - Cash Certificates of Obligation General Obligation Bonds New/Proposed GO Bonds PEDC W/S Revenue Bonds $4,475,000 $850,000 $3,625,000 $4,475,000 System Revenue - Cash Impact Fees - Cash Impact Fees - Debt $4,475,000 $850,000 $3,625,000 $4,475,000 Other Funding Sources - TOTAL SOURCES $8,950,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,700,000 $7,250,000 $8,950,000 'Explain & Identify Type of Other Sources: Project Manager: Project's Approval Date: 108 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report City of Pearland FREESE s NICHOL5 APPENDIX E 2009 TCEQ Alternative Capacity Requirement (ACR) Variance Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director File PWS 0200008/CO RN101393601 CN600595052 TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution November 9, 2009 Ms Jennifer Phan, Assistant Director City of Pearland, Public Works Dept. 3519 Liberty Drive Pearland, Texas 77581-5416 Subject: Request for Alternative Capacity Requirement City of Pearland - PWS I.D. 0200008 Brazoria County, Texas Dear Ms. Phan: We received your letter, dated August 20, 2009, and associated data requesting that wholesale minimum alternative capacity requirements for the subject public water system be granted under the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ) requirements specified in 30 TAC §290.45(g). Based on our review, we are granting the following minimum alternative capacity requirements: Total (purchased, ground, & surface) production: 0.47 gpm/connection Total storage capacity: 158 gallons/connection Service pump capacity (whichever is less): 1.6 gpm/connection OR at least 1,000 gpm AND the ability to meet peak hourly demand with the largest pump out of service. Pressure tank capacity: 16 gallons/connection You submitted 36 months of daily usage data that indicated that a maximum daily demand of 18,354,300 gallons occurred on July 29, 2008, with 31,001 active connections. We applied a safety factor of 1.15, then computed 0.79 for the equivalency ratio. The above minimum alternative capacities were calculated using this equivalency ratio as specified in rule 30 TAC §290.45(g)(2). These new minimum alternative capacity requirements mandate continuing collection of daily usage data and maintenance of records. All alternative capacity requirements are subject to periodic review and may be revised or revoked if water demand conditions change or other evidence confirms the alternative capacity requirements resulted in the degradation of potable water quality or quantity. P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.us Ms. Jennifer Phan, Assistant Director Page 2 of 2 November 9, 2009 If you have questions concerning this letter, or if we can be of additional assistance, please contact me at the letterhead's address or by telephone at (512) 239-4729. Sincerely, William R Melville, P.E. Technical Review & Oversight Team Public Drinking_ Water_ Section (MC-155) Water Supply Division cc: Mr. Barry Price, TCEQ Houston Regional Office — R12 Ms. Vera Poe, P.E., TCEQ Utilities Technical Review Team - MC153 The Honorable Mr. Thomas Reid, Mayor, City of Pearland, 3519 Liberty Drive, Pearland, Texas 77581-5416 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report r' FREESE NICHOLS City of Pearland APPENDIX F Public Hearing Presentation — March 26, 2018 Public Hearing 2018 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE UPDATE March 26t", 2018 Impact Fee Background r9 • Governed by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code • Why have Impact Fees? o Allows cities to recoup costs associated with infrastructure needed to serve future development o The COP utilizes the method in the statue that limits the recouping of the cost to 50% of the total cost o Alleviates burden of new facilities on existing customer o Accounts for impacts of redevelopment o Makes "growth pays fora share of the growth" Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update ti>° f E9Rrr c o 1 2018 Impact Fee Update PROCESS l CIAC = Capital Improvements Advisory Committee CIP = Capital Improvements Plan Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update ti>° f E9Rrr J o 2018 Impact Fee Update SCHEDULE CIAC Presentation & Discussion 1/29/2018 Submit Advertising for Public Hearing 2/21/2018 Public Hearing and 1st Reading of Impact Fee Ordinance 3/26/2018 2nd Reading and Adoption of Impact Fee Ordinance 4/9/2018 CIAC = Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update ti>° f E9Rrr c o 1 2018 Impact Fee Update CALCULATIONS Water Wastewater Total Total Eligible Costs — 50% Credit $60,755,417 $50,058,223 $110,813,640 Growth in Service Units 17,111 17,111 17,111 Maximum Allowable Impact Fee(1) $3,551 $2,926 $6,477 (1) Maximum Allowable Impact Fee = (Total Eligible Capital Improvement Costs — Credit) / Growth in Service Units CIP = Capital Improvements Plan Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Comparison $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 w w $3,000 To $2,000 $1,000 6,477 *The 2013 Maximum Allowable Impact Fee was $4,875 $5,670 $5,634 $5,050 $4,875 fa J U 073- L 01 r-I fa =0 110 CLO N ro if) i J `I Wastewater Impact Fee II Water Impact Fee $3,217 $3,000 $2,928 1 1 a-+ Friendswood co 0 N $2,243 (Projected year for impact fee update) Thank You 7 Water & Wastewater Impact Fee Report r' FREESE NICHOLS City of Pearland APPENDIX G City Ordinance No. 1556 ORDINANCE NO. 1556 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City Of Pearland, Texas, revising the Capital Improvements Plan for the City of Pearland; updating impact fees in accordance with State Law; making certain findings providing a penalty for violation containing a savings clause, a severability clause and a repealer clause; providing for publication, codification and an effective date. WHEREAS, by virtue of Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Volume 3, Local Government Code, Chapter 395 ("State Law"), the City Council has found it necessary and appropriate to revise the City's capital improvements plan and update impact fees to comply with the provisions of said State Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has employed qualified professionals to revise the capital improvements plan and calculate updated impact fees, and has held a public hearing, as required by State Law, at which hearing all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt the revised capital improvements plan and levy an updated impact fee in accordance with said State Law; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS: Section 1. The facts and matters set forth in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found to be true and correct. Section 2. The capital improvements plan, included in a study by Freese and Nichols entitled 2018 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update (the "Study"), is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for all purposes. Section 3. The updated impact fee calculations, included in the Study made a part hereof for all purposes, are hereby approved and adopted. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1556 Section 4. The impact fees set forth in the Study are hereby levied against new development on lands located within the corporate boundaries of the City of Pearland. The impact fees levied hereby are subject to the applicable provisions of State Law. Section 5. Penalty. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction, be punished by a fine in any sum not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00). Section 6. Savings. All rights and remedies which have accrued in favor of the City under this Chapter and amendments thereto shall be and are preserved for the benefit of the City. Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 8. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed but only to the extent of such conflict. Section 9. Codification. It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Pearland, Texas, that the provisions of this Ordinance shall be codified in the City's official Code of Ordinances as provided hereinabove. Section 10. Publication and Effective Date. The City Secretary shall cause this Ordinance, or its caption and penalty, to be published in the official newspaper of the City 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1556 of Pearland, upon passage of such Ordinance. The Ordinance shall then become effective ten (10) days after its publication, or the publication of its caption and penalty, in the official City newspaper. PASSED and APPROVED ON FIRST READING th 2018. ATTEST: Y Y SEERETAR TOM REID MAYOR • nnu.a`°v• i the 1h y of March, A. D., 007 PASSED and APPROVED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this the 9th day of April, A. D., 2018. ATTEST: Y RETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM DARRIN M. COKER CITY ATTORNEY C - • • 3 TOM REID MAYOR RECORD SECOND AND FINAL READING April9 2018 Voting "Aye" — Councilmembers, Carbone, Moore Reed, Little, Perez and Owens Voting "No" - None Motion passes 6 to 1 Councilmember Ordeneaux absent from Chamber PUBLICATION DATE: April 11, 2018 EFFECTIVE DATE: April 20, 2018 PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 3.10 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS