Ord. 0806 08-11-97ORDINANCE NO. 806
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 Walsh
Engineering, Inc., entitled Water and Sanitary Sewerage Impact Fee Study 1996
Update (the "Study"), is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for
all purposes.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 806
Section 3. The updated impact fee calculations, included in the Study, and
more particularly, Table 15 located at page 43, and made a part hereof for all
purposes, are hereby approved and adopted.
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.
2
ORDINANCE NO. 806
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 of Pearland, upon passage of such Ordinance. The Ordinance shall then become
effective ten (10) days from and after its publication, or the publication of its caption
and penalty, in the official City newspaper.
PASSED and APPROVED ON FIRST READING this the c",?g s, day of
TOM REID
MAYOR
ATTEST:
PASSED and APPROVED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this the // day
of A , A. D., 1997.
TOM REID
MAYOR
3
ORDINANCE NO. 806
ATTEST:
NG L
IT SECRETARY
APPROVE() AS TO FORM:
AMY 0/ES McCULLOUGH
CITY ATTORNEY
EXHIBIT "A" - WATER AND SANITARY SEWERAGE IMPACT FEE STUDY 1996 UPDATE
FILED IN CONTRACTS & AGREEMENTS
4
1
TABLE 15
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
1
•
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
PROD
NO.I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PRE-1996
1996-2006
2006-2016
IMPACT -FEE-
ELLIGIBLE
PROP.
IMPACT FEE
-
ExisUrigwate�r Ines w/ Excess Capacity
$999,243
$494,170
-
Existing Elevated w/ Excess Capacity
$807.203
$187.325
-
Exist. W.P. & Lines W/ Excess Capacity
$1,128,300
$535,964
1
Yost Blvd. 8' Interconnect
$10,900
$10,900
2
Dixie Farm Road 16' Waterline
$171,000
S171,000
$171,000
3
Golfcrest 12' Interconnect
$24,500
$24,500
4
High School 12' Waterline
$295,800
$295,800
$132,800
5
Garden Rd. 12' WL- Butler to FM 518
$221,000
$221,000
$221,000
6
O'Day -Hatfield 12' WL
$93,000
$93,000
7
Garden Rd. 12' WL- W.P. to North
S178,300
$178,300
$178,300
8
Alice Rd. 12' Tie-in
$72,000
$72,000
$72,000
9
FM 518 16' WL- O'Day to FM 1128
$308,000
$308,000
$183,000
10
SH 35 16' WL- Magnolia to Exist. 16'
$164,000
$164,000
$164,000
11
500,000 Gal. Elevated Storage
$715,000
$715,000
S715,000
12
Water Well/Water Plant No. 9, at SWEC
$1,243,000
$649,000
$649,000
13
Water Weil/Water Plant No. 10 & 16' WL
$2,464,000
14
FM 518 16' WL- Water Plant to SH 288
$488,000
15
SH 35 12' WL- South of Dixie Farm Rd
$352,000
-
Mary's Creek Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
Old City Hall Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
Green Tee Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
McLean Rd. Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
Water Well/ Water Plant No. 11
$1,100,000
$649,000
$649,000
-
Water Wel/Water Plant No. 12
$1,100,000
$649,000
-
Water Well/Water Plant No. 13
$1,100,000
-
Administration
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
SUBTOTAL _
$2,934,746
$5 806,500
$4,404,000
$5,427,959
145 10 1
WATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 5,838 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
$930
$539
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
FPROJ
NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
PRE-1996J
1996-2006
2006-2016
['IMPACT -FEE -PROP..
ELLIGIBLE
IMPACT FEE
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-
fisting WWTP's w/ Excess Capacity
Centennial/Clear Creek Gravity Line
Old Alvin/ J. Lizer Trunk Sewer
Shadycrest Lift Station Modifications
Dixie Farm Rd. Trunk Sewer
Scott St. Trunk Sewer
Magnolia to SWEC Trunk Sewer
Longwood WWTP Expansion
Barry Rose WWTP Expansion
New WWTP at SWEC
12' F.M. & Lift Station Mod. on Veteran
SH 35 Trunk Sewer S. of Dixie Farm
FM 518 Trunk Sewer to SH 288
New WWTP North of FM 518
Administration
-$3,766,000-
$1,171.000
$1,000,000
$152,000
$835,000
$549,000
$1,651,500
$1,800,000
$1,000,000
$5,900,000
$460,000
$130,000
$10,000
$625,000
$1,631,500
$672,000'
$2,336,000
$2,242,500
$1,384,3801
$1,171,000
$1,000,000
$835,000
$549,000
$1,651,500
$1,238,400
$688,000
$4,070,360
$460,000
$130,000
$10,000
$854,800
$300,000
$417,500
S800,000
$1,238,400
$688,000
$4,070,360
$130,000
$10,000
SUBTOTAL
$3,766,000
$14.658,500
57.507.000,
$13,187,640
Sr8 509 060
,WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 5,838 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS I $2,259
$1,458
TOTAL WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
43
$3,189, $1.997
WATER AND SANITARY SEWERAGE
IMPACT FEE STUDY 1996 UPDATE
EXHIBIT "A"
ORDINANCE NO. 806
WALSH ENGINEERING, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
201 D E. BROADWAY PEARLAND, TEXAS
CITY OF PEARLAND
BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS
WATER AND SANITARY SEWERAGE IMPACT FEE STUDY
1996 UPDATE
APRIL, 1997
Prepared By:
WALSH ENGINEERING, INC.
P. 0. BOX 760
PEARLAND, TEXAS 77588-0760
WEI JOB NO. 96-77
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
CONTENTS
CITY OF PEARLAND
WATER & SANITARY SEWERAGE IMPACT FEE STUDY
1996 UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.,
INTRODUCTION
A. GENERAL 1
B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
C. STATE SENATE BILL 336 2
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
A. GENERAL 4
B. POPULATION 6
C. POPULATION/HOUSING DENSITY 6
D. CONSTRUCTION TRENDS 9
WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 13
B. WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 18
SANITARY SEWERAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 23
B. SANITARY SEWERAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 30
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Pacle No.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
A. GENERAL 34
B. SERVICE UNITS 34
C. EXISTING FACILITIES 39
D. IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION 42
E. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION EXAMPLES 45
IMPACT FEE ADOPTION
A. PUBLIC HEARING
B. RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Water Capital Improvements
Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvements
Land Use Assumptions
APPENDICES
A. PEARLAND ECONOMIC/MARKET DATA BY CDS RESEARCH
B. STATE SENATE BILL 336
C. WATER FACILITIES' CAPACITY CRITERIA
D. 10 & 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
COST ESTIMATES
E. RESERVE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
F. TESTIMONY BY WALSH ENGINEERING, INC.
PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPACT FEE UPDATE
, 1997
G. RESOLUTION NO.
ii
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
48
48
Figure 1
List of Tables
Page No.
Population and Growth 1960-2016 . . . . 8
Table 1 Pearland Land Use Projections 1996-2016 . 5
Table 2 Population Trends 1970-2016 7
Table 3 Population/Housing Statistics 11
Table 4 Construction Trends 1980-1996 12
Table 5 Existing Water Facilities 14
Table 6 Water Use 1978-1996 15
Table 7 Water Demand and Capacities 1996-2016 • 17
Table 8 Wastewater Flow 1995-1996 24
Table 9 Sanitary Sewerage Demand
and Capacities 1996-2016 29
Table 10 Service Unit Factors 36
Table 11 Commercial Service Units
10-year Projection 37
Table 12 City -Wide Service Unit Projections . . ▪ 38
Table 13 Capital Improvements Projects with
Capacity for Future Development . . . . 40
Table 14 Cost Data for Capital Improvements
Projects with Reserve Capacity . . . ▪ 41
Table 15 Impact Fee Calculation 43
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
PREFACE
The City of Pearland, under an agreement executed on January 13,
1997, retained Walsh Engineering, Inc. as Engineering Consultant
to update the October, 1993 impact fee for water and sanitary
sewerage improvements pursuant to State Senate Bill 336 (enacted
by the 1987 session of the Texas Legislature). The City has had
an impact fee ordinance in effect since 1984. However, beginning
in 1987 existing impact fees that were being assessed had to
comply with the requirements of SB 336 to remain in effect.
Following these requirements, the City obtained an update of its
Comprehensive Development Plan (1988 Update) and a Water and
Sanitary Sewerage Impact Fee Study. Subsequently, in October
1993 the City obtained the second update of its Water and
Sanitary Sewerage Impact Fee Study. As required by SB 336, the
City must update the land use assumptions and capital
improvements plan every three years. This study encompasses
those items as required by SB 336 to update the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee
_P•�E of re
assessment.
♦
MEHRAN BAVARIAN
o'. 48811 ; Q
Mehran Bavarian, P.E. f9•
Vice President/Chief Engineer ti°e;gFels�SYER44%
,ts; oj` C�NV:
iv
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
A. General
The City of Pearland, under an agreement executed on
January 13, 1997, retained Walsh Engineering, Inc. to update the
October 4, 1993 impact fee for water and sanitary sewerage
improvements. The update and impact fee determination are based
on State Senate Bill 336 (SB 336) requirements for adoption of an
impact fee.
B. Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this report is to update the 1993
impact fee determination as described in the October 1993 report
entitled "Water and Sanitary Sewerage Impact Fee Study", by Walsh
Engineering, Inc. In updating this report, new development
projects for the Capital Improvements Plan are presented along
with the calculations to determine an impact fee for water and
sanitary sewerage improvements. A description of the existing
water and sanitary sewerage systems and future demand on these
systems are identified. Future demand is based upon an economic/
market analysis with population projections, demographics, land
use, employment and economic trends performed by CDS Research,
Inc., a marketing research firm located in the Houston area (see
Appendix A).
1
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Also presented in the report are individual water and
sanitary sewerage capital improvements identified by the City of
Pearland's Engineering and Planning Department that will be
required
existing
report.
to meet the 10-year
and future land use
and 20-year
assumptions
An impact fee, based on the new
determined according to the requirements
demand. A study of
is described in the
land use assumption, is
of SB 336. A public
hearing on the new land use assumptions is also required by SB
336. The resolution and ordinances required for adoption of the
impact fee are included.
C. State Senate Bill 336
On June 20, 1987 the Texas Legislature passed into law
Senate Bill 336 (SB 336). This legislation sets forth
requirements that a political subdivision must meet in order to
impose an impact fee to subsidize the financing of capital
improvements. The intent of the law is to ensure that these
impact fees, when collected, are used strictly for the
construction of capital improvements to serve new development.
Section 2 of the law, entitled "Authorization of Impact Fee",
clearly states which costs the impact fee may be imposed to pay.
Also, the section specifically states what the impact fee may not
be used for.
that are not
operation or
Impact fees may not be used to pay for projects
in the capital improvements plan or for the repair,
maintenance of new or existing capital improvements.
The law requires that the political subdivision conduct a public
2
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
hearing on the land use assumptions, the adoption of the capital
improvements plan, and imposition of the impact fee. The law
also gives details on the use of proceeds, refunds and procedures
(see Appendix B).
3
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
A. General
"Land use assumptions", as defined by SB 336,
"includes a description of the service area and projections of
changes in land use, densities, intensities, and population
therein over at least a 10-year period." The service area, as
defined for purposes of the impact fee determination, is the area
bounded by the existing city limits. This area encompasses
approximately 23.95 square miles or 15,325 acres.
Beginning in the 1970's, the City experienced a period
of tremendous growth stimulated by the oil industry boom of the
Gulf Coast region. New residential housing permits were being
received at one of the highest rates in the nation. However, the
1980's brought a period of economic downturn to the City as a
result of the oil industry slump. The City has begun a recovery
from the economic downturn of the 1980's and is currently
experiencing a period of rapid growth. During the 1970's and
1980's, Pearland continued to experience a shift from
agricultural land use to urban usage because of developmental
pressures.
Forecast of land use for Pearland for the next 10 and
20 years are presented in Table 1.
4
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 1
PEARLAND LAND USE PROJECTIONS
1996-2016
.v:: w..v::::.:..:: r.-:.vn•.: vv. •..............
....v.. .. .. ....
..................., ......... ..
. r............ .... .. ..
.......v............................v... .
..:..... .:..
+:?•ti+}
. r•::: in.
.. v. :. ...
.,:..:..`w .,.. ...:.
: :. .......
....... n. ....r .
.:
.}`}}: .wyy: .
..
.I'
.}•.}'.+::.:{.}:•+:i}}•:...':'..: •}}..
... v ........... ..
,... rr...r.,.
.. }. r?f ................
.. :. ...
....v . ..v.,.r v..
..:
.:..:...
..r v:..v �w: x:vnw::%•}n
, ........ x... ...
..... r..... .r.
.....v. .... .....
.. n...... n•::v:� ;•w::.
. v.r.:.
vRC... .. .......
v: •,vx :..,v:•}'•:v.. r. r.......
... ... ...........
.+...:n.f. .............. ?...:.-r...rr....
..
v:?.•Y.v:•fv:::.:v:::::n�• :nv: ?:•:.. n. ..
...:.
•
�r.w�[•I:■;;.�
.�:..�:..:.....RR...
.:: n:
....r.v..n.i...�...
.:...............v ri4k�i'k:k^iii::iki:i�i:C:iSi}.`•'::.
i:.
:.........t...
...... .:.:n}}•: ryr{}:{..
...:..r..:...{...:..:........: .. n....l.....:: .�.::<.:.:.
v: k� j}; iiii.^}�i:
'ii.}:e::,r..
'. ...........v....... v.v..• : •
v:•:{::.v:::: •: •.{{n n
.
.v?•n:
.:;'...<XR?}.f.;s�..........
n�.:
.4.fv
�i':Vi? :{k�:?k;: +..}T}}:.{.
::.......
yr
'i ii'Fi:::???::::;•}:?•ii::::
:::::::::::::: t4:•}}}}:•}:•:
-::
k•:;.:•
�...::,..�.:.:.»�...',..}?.:.r.:..ti:..
:ti>:•}}}w}}}}:t.
a,vvv..}.n..:.}..}}.A}}...?r:...•h..:?..;,vv.;}.:.n..:..:.;....:;..:..n.::.?... .•..•.+...<r.?:n.\.>:�.r...:i..
vnv:n}?:..:h.}:Nir.
�.... ..r.Kfr{.v..
i.n.:.::}.'}....
.s{}}:r}:y::>:{ikt+?:?;.
..
. .}.}yl
y4i:.�A�..
,: r}h+}i?i?.vA
.:}: •:.:•r:.....:
l.�..'..:.: 1..: .t'. .•T..?....v{.....:}�.: !{�..•.,!}i.RS:
..........::.....M.:,nf.:.:.xr..%-R}
�...
:r.}.`n•/.•
'tkk....,.. rk{ .?4•}y{.;;.::;:.}•;.}:}'::kk%•:k:;::••:::.,;.:::..<.:.::::.
.T
•:.n�.+
:.:.:..:.:.
:.:.�:..;.:
.....f
..:..:::..R::.
k..•.:
4r .•..n/Y.....xrf.::nv
.. ..
{.5r.r..
.
•..:..:v...:�.....hf.......n. }.:. .;..:.: r.
:nv}.,;
{..•........ Y...
.};;.ti.:::;}••}:s•>{:}•:•:
:..:...:.I.v.�.. �.........R......:.w.
vvvnr•r,}•:Y�v.✓.}}:ti{?�
>?::::t ik {
v:.•..•....:v.
.r•.f.. :v�..:S..r.:yf
...:..:
.:::..v'.v^:.::...:•n:{••..�v.;i:i�. 5n•M1•.•.:.
. :;ti{•{:4•}:}Y}{:.:.n.r.:f?..•.r
.:.....
'/+ "
..:.
T.....4..R...n.
Single Family
3,322
784
4,106
1,116
5,222
576
5,798
864
6,662
Multi -Family
96
16
112
24
136
11
147
16
163
SUBTOTAL•
3,418
800
4,218
1,140
5,358
587
5,945
880
6,825
Commercial*
1,227
166
1,393
205
1,598
98
1,696
196
1,892
Industrial**
0
30
30
45
75
30
105
45
150
TOTAL
4,645
996
5,641
1,390
7,031
715
7,746
1,121
8,867
Based on:
2.5 Single Family Units per acre.
15 Multi -Family Units per acre.
2.44 Acres per Commercial Connection.
7.5 Acres per Industrial Connection.
* Commercial acreage includes: Retail, office, service centers, warehouse. etc., includes industrial listed acreage from Table 13.
** Industrial acreage includes new light industrial projects in city limits.
SOURCE: CDS Research
5
The City is expected to need approximately 2,386 acres for
developmental purposes during the next 10 years, with 1,940
acres, or 81% of that land, required for residential demand
(single and multi -family). Commercial and industrial uses will
require 446 acres or 19%.
B. Population
Population trends for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (C.M.S.A.), Brazoria
County and the City of Pearland are presented in Table 2.
According to the 1980 and 1990 census data, the City of Pearland
population accounted for 7.8% and 9.8% of the Brazoria County
population, respectively. Based on the estimated population for
1996, this percentage is now 14.1%. The City grew by 5,516
persons during the 1980's and currently has an estimated
population of 32,090 persons. The City's year 2006 population is
projected to be 49,210 persons (17.1% of Brazoria County) while
the year 2016 population is projected to be 62,010 persons (17.8%
of Brazoria County) . Figure 1 presents a graphical description
of the City's growth over the past 35 years.
C. Population/Housing Density
To allocate an impact fee to future development, it is
necessary to convert the future growth in population into housing
units. Thus, by knowing the projected increase in housing units
or connections, future demand for water and sanitary sewerage
facilities can be determined. Information used for this
6
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 2
POPULATION TRENDS
PEARLAND AND SELECTED AREAS
1970-2016
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria C.M.S.A.*
2,169,100
rr ..yy :nv1yy: :fi:ivryi:::q '•
3,711,000
4,101,565
4,361,942
4,752,507
Brazoria County
108,300
169,600
191,707
228,028
252.242
288.563
312.777
349.099
Percent of C.M.S.A.
5.0%
5.5%
5.2%
5.6%
5.8%
6.1%
6.2%
6.5%
City of Pearland
6,400
13,200
18,697
32,090
39,130
49,210
54,330
62,010
Percent of Brazoria County
5.9%
7.8%
9.8%
14.1%
15.5%
17.1%
17.4%
17.8°/a
* Eight. County Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1970. 1980 and 1990:
Donnelley Marketing Information Services/Demographics on Call:
Houston -Galveston Area Council:
City of Pearland
CDS Research
7
POPULATION (1000'S)
65
60--
55-
50--
45-
40 -
35-
30-
25-
20-
15--
10-
5-
0
49,210
2006 (PROJECTION)
32,090
1996 (EST.)
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
FIGURE 1. POPULATION GROWTH 1960 - 2016
conversion is presented in Table 3. The average occupancy level
per housing unit (single and multi -family) for the City and the
County had decreased in the 1980's. Based on 1990 census data,
the City's occupancy rate was 2.84 persons per housing unit (See
Table 3). The migration of family units to the City in the
1990's has been steadily shifting towards the single family
category. During the period of 1989-1996, the number of single
family dwellings has increased at a steady rate of 28% per year
while the multi -family rate for the same period has dropped from
14.3% to 6.4%. This trend in housing tends to show that a higher
occupancy rate per unit should be used (See Table 7 of CDS
Research, Inc. in Appendix A). It is for this reason that the
City believes that an occupancy rate of 3.2 persons per housing
unit should be used to estimate the 1996 population and make
projections.
D. Construction Trends
Historical construction data by type, beginning in
1980 are presented in Table 4. As shown, a total of 2,848 single
family building permits in the City (within City limits) have
been taken out during the 1990's. This surpasses the total of
1,395 single family permits taken out during the entire decade of
the 1980's. During the 1980's, the total number of permits
issued was 2,097 or an average of 210 permits per year. From
1990 through December 1996, a total of 3,112 permits or an
average of 445 permits per year have been issued. The 1990's
average annual value of 445 permits is over double the average
9
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
annual value of 210 permits during the decade of the 1980's.
Existing major subdivisions in the City with
developable lot inventory include Sunset Lakes, Dixie Woods, Pine
Hollow, Briarglen, Cobblestone, Oakbrook Estates, and Westoak
Village.
10
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 3
POPULATION/HOUSING STATISTICS
Brazoria County Pearland
1980 Census 1990 Census 1980 Census 1990 Census 2006* 2016*
Population 169,600
Occupied
Housing Units 53,907
Persons Per Occupied
Housing Unit 3.15
* Projected
Source: U. S. Census Data
191,707 13,200 18,716
64,019 4,333 6,577
2.99 3.05 2.84
11
3.2 3.2
TABLE 4
CONSTRUCTION TRENDS
1980 - 1996
Year Single Family' Multi-Family2 Commerical Total
1980 94 0 18 112
1981 64 6 21 91
1982 113 183 28 324
1983 300 •6 19 325
1984 232 291 34 557
1985 75 8 18 101
1986 129 0 45 174
1987 134 0 17 151
1988 131 3 2 136
1989 123 0 3 126
Subtotal 1,395 497 205 2,097
1990 403 2 8 413
1991 381 4 11 396
1992 402 160 16 578
1993 481 0 13 494
1994 362 4 12 378
1995 340 0 13 353
1996 479 2 19 500
Subtotal 2,848 172 92 3,112
Include mobil home
2 Includes duplexes and apartments
12
WATER C. I. P.
A. Existing Conditions
The water supply system was evaluated to determine the
current level of demand and total capacity. Data were collected
on water production and distribution facilities. Sources of
information were system maps and monthly water production
reports.
Currently, the City produces potable water from seven
wells. The seventh well with associated ground storage and
booster pumps (Garden Road Water Plant) went under construction
in the second half of 1996 and is operational at the time of this
update report. Table 5 presents the wells and their pumping and
storage capacities. Historical and current water usage are
presented in Table 6. The demand for potable water has steadily
increased from 83 gallons per capita per day (GPCD) in 1970 to a
current level of 110 GPCD - 140 GPCD in the 19901s. The GPCD
usage represents total potable water produced by the City which
is either consumed or lost to leakage. Public consumption
includes lawn and garden watering.
The Water Hygiene Division of the Texas Department of
Health sets forth standards which regulate public water systems.
These criteria were used to evaluate the current level of demand
13
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 5
EXISTING WATER FACILITIES
Auxiliary
Well Booster Pumps Well Motors Ground Elevated
Station Name Capacity (calm) No. Capacitv(gpm) (Diesel)(gpm) Storage(gal) Storage(gal)
Mary's Creek 762 2 905
Liberty 1,236 3 2,6482
Magnolia 976 3 2,6432
McLean 632 2 1,139
Old City Hall 546 2 1,013
Alice 1,218 3 2,2282
Green Tee 2081 2 1,069
Garden Road 1,300 3 3,600
Total 6,878 20 15,2453
350,000
950 500,000 500,000
950 400,000
650 250,000 500,000
200,000
950 300,000 500,000
212,000
1,300 428,000
4,800
1. City is receiving an equivalent of 208 gpm surface water from HCMUD 13.
2. Includes 500 gpm auxiliary pump.
3. Total sytem-wide capacity.
14
2,640,000 1,500,000
TA&E 6
WiTER USE 1970-1993
(million gallons)
Month 1978 1980 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Jan 37.51 51.86 62.91 67.39 62.78 67.86 73.09 66.58 71.14 83.95 79.47 90.08 84.65 93.46
Feb 39.37 50.28 55.73 53.51 59.12 58.70 68.17 59.71 72.44 79.15 72.96 81.28 76.76 86.69
Mar 41.58 49.93 61.35 75.95 64.22 69.18 83.88 68.95 76.38 84.55 78.03 89.22 87.16 96.78
Apr 44.40 54.14 68.02 71.44 89.22 77.24 84.79 63.28 74.34 81.05 85.30 86.08 96.46 108.48
May 65.38 56.25 60.74 69.29 75.51 89.84 80.46 77.73 75.70 90.70 87.40 94.39 108.89 132.60
Jun 55.02 70.35 83.41 78.91 71.59 96.03 83.63 108.55 79.60 89.73 89.40 96.53 107.88 131.42
Jul 67.92 75.02 84.75 104.74 77.74 88.30 82.24 96.31 91.22 100.30 117.48 128.39 122.49 141.39
Aug 63.15 57.43 106.24 80.33 110.77 100.79 78.71 118.94 96.47 112.78 145.36 102.49 115.85 112.27
Sep 61.68 55.52 81.22 73.94 85.35 82.34 86.98 92.39 81.66 90.86 112.00 95.90 128.78 89.59
Oct 61.87 54.22 72.37 67.71 79.62 80.17 91.82 89.10 96.76 107.31 97.54 96.74 106.62 95.75
Nov 49.01 49.51 63.24 62.09 72.10 73.44 70.25 73.55 77.96 82.34 85.92 87.79 85.32 90.72
Dec 51.43 48.67 69.09 60.25 68.01 74.19 77.31 78.63 80.85 79.54 88.36 83.55 88.38 91.29
Tbtal 638.02 673.18 869.07 865.55 916.03 958.08 961.33 993.72 974.52 1082.26 1139.22 1132.42 1209.24 1270.44
Avgerage
Monthly
53.17 56.10 72.42 72.13 76.33 79.84 80.11 82.81 81.21 90.19 94.93 94.37 100.77 105.87
Population
13,500 13,200 14,050 15,200 16,500 17,923 18,716 19,861 20,948 22,461 23,000 26,030 29,060 32,090
GP® 129 140 169 156 152 146 141 137 127 132 136 119 114 109
Source: Water Works Monthly Reports 15
being placed on the water system facilities. This analysis
includes a review of well requirements, booster pumps, auxiliary
power, and water storage requirements. A summary of existing and
future demand versus existing facility capacities is presented in
Table 7. The Department of Health criteria and the calculations
to determine existing and future demand are presented in Appendix
C.
The existing water facilities have sufficient capacity
to meet current and future demand in some areas but are deficient
in other areas. Currently, total well capacity is slightly (34
GPM) short of meeting the existing demand. To meet 1997 demand
and have a surplus, a minimum 1,200 GPM well should be drilled.
Two more wells with minimum 1,200 GPM capacity each will be
required between years 1999 and 2006 to meet the need for the
next 10 years. Well water demand requirements will change if
City purchases surface water from the City of Houston or Gulf
Coast Water Authority.
To meet current state requirements of having a minimum of
two booster pumps with a minimum total capacity of 1,000 GPM with
largest pump out of service at each pump station,` an additional
booster pump is required at the Mary's Creek station, Green Tee
station, McLean station, and also the Old City Hall station.
Each new well drilled will require a minimum of two booster pumps
with a minimum total capacity of 1,000 GPM.
16
Walsh Engineering, Inc:
Population
Connections/
Service Units
Well Capacity (GPM)
Booster Pimps1(GPM)
Auxiliary Power (GPM)
Ground Storage
(Gallons)
Elevated Storage
(Gallons)
Total Storage
(Gallons)
TABLE 7
'WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITIES
1996-2016
Required Capacities Current Capacity
1996 2006 2016
32,090 49,210 62,010
11,519 17,357 21,777
6,912 10,414 13,066
14,000 20,000 24,000
4,032 6,075 7,622
1,151,900 1,735,700 2,177,700
1,151,900 1,735,700 2,177,700
2,303,800 3,471,400 4,355,400
Excess or (Deficiency)
1996 1996 2006 2016
6,878
11, 9002
4,800
2,640,000
1,500,000
4,140,000
(34)
(2,100)
768
(3,536)
(8,100)
(1,275)
(6,188)
(12,100)
(2,822)
1,488,100 904,300 462,300
348,100 (235,700) (677,700)
1,836,200 668,600 (215,400)
1 Governing criteria is the number of booster pumps required per station to provide
a total capacity of at least 1,000 gpu with the largest pump out of service.
2 Total capacity computed based on meeting the minimum requirements stated above.
17
Currently, there is adequate well pump auxiliary power
to meet demand. However, to meet the year 2006 demand,
approximately 1,300 GPM of additional well pump auxiliary power
will be needed.
At the time of the 1978 Comprehensive Development
Plan, the City had a significant deficiency in it's storage
requirements. However, the City overcame these deficiencies, and
in fact, has adequate total storage capacity (ground and elevated
combined) to meet demand for the next 15 to 18 years. However,
at the present level of growth, some elevated storage (235,700
gallons) will be needed to meet the year 2006 demand. It is
recommended that a minimum 500,000-gallon elevated storage be
installed to have surplus storage and take advantage of economy
of scale.
B. Water Capital Improvements Plan
Twelve projects have been identified and are proposed
for the 10-year Capital Improvements Plan. These projects are:
1. Yost Boulevard Water Line: An 8-inch water line,
approximately 400 feet long, on Yost Boulevard
approximately 2,500 feet from FM 518. This water line
will connect two existing 8-inch water lines, thus
providing an additional loop in the Woodcreek
Subdivision area.
18
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
2. Dixie Farm Road Water Line: A 16-inch water line to
replace an existing 6-inch line. The line will extend
from just north of Mary's Creek bypass to just south
of FM 518, approximately 2,900 feet long. This line
will assist in providing more water in this corridor.
Existing tie-in lines are already 16-inch.
3. Golfcrest Water Line: A 12-inch water line,
approximately 500 feet long, connecting a dead end
line to a line on Golfcrest. This line will provide
additional loop in the water distribution system in
the Green Tee Terrace Subdivision.
4. High School Water Line: A 12-inch water line,
approximately 6,800 feet long, from John Lizer Road to
State Highway 35 along the southerly side of the new
high school site. The new line will also connect to
Shadycrest Subdivision and will provide service to
projected new development around the high school.
5. Garden Road Water Line - Butler to FM 518: A 12-inch
water line, approximately 5,000 feet long, connecting
a water line on Butler Street to a line on the south
side of FM 518. This line provides water for areas
east and west of Garden Road and completes a loop in
the distribution system.
19
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
6. O'Day Road/Hatfield Road Water Line: A 12-inch water
line, approximately 2,200 feet long, from the north
end of O'Day Road to the north of Hatfield Road. This
line will complete a loop in the northwest sector of
the City and provide service to projected new
development in the area.
7. Garden Road Water Line - Water Plant to North: A 12-
inch water line, approximately 4,000 feet long,
extended from the Garden Road water plant to
approximately 500 feet south of the City Limits. This
line will provide water for areas east and west of
Garden Road and completes a loop in the water
distribution system.
8. Alice Street Tie-in to Old Alvin Road: A 12-inch
water line, approximately 1,700 feet long, from the
Alice Street storage facility to Old Alvin Road. This
line will complete a loop in the north central sector
of the City and provide service to projected new
development in the area.
9. FM 518 Water Line - O'Day to FM 1128: A 16-inch
water line, approximately 5,300 feet long, extended
from a terminus point at O'Day Road to FM 1128. This
line will extend the western extremity of the water
20
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
distribution system further west and thus provide
water for recent annexed areas and future development.
10. State Highway 35 Water Line: A 16-inch line,
approximately 2,700 feet long, to replace an existing
8-inch line currently connecting two 16-inch lines.
Line will extend from near Magnolia Road to a point
west of Dixie Farm Road. This line will provide more
water in this sector and removes a bottleneck in the
distribution system.
11. Elevated Storage Tank: A 500,000-gallon elevated
storage tank at the newly constructed Garden Road
Water Plant. This elevated tank will provide the
required elevated storage needed for the 10-year
period and will have excess capacity for beyond year
2006.
12. New Water Plant at SWEC: A new water plant at City's
Southwest Environmental Center (SWEC) with a minimum
1,200 GPM water well, ground storage tank, booster
pumps and approximately 2,500 feet of 16-inch
transmission line. This well will provide additional
well capacity needed for the 10-year period.
Because SB 336 allows a political subdivision to
21
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
r
impose an impact fee for only those improvements that provide
service to new development, not all twelve projects can be
eligible for the impact fee calculation. The 8-inch water line
and appurtenances on Yost Boulevard are proposed for better water
circulation in the area to serve existing development. This line
will have no significant impact on future development.
Cost estimates for these projects are included in
Appendix D. Locations of the projects are shown in Exhibit 1.
22
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
SANITARY SEWERAGE C. I. P.
A. Existing Conditions
The sanitary sewerage collection system and wastewater
treatment plants (WWTP) were evaluated to determine the current
level of demand and total capacity. Current wastewater flow data
were collected from monthly operating reports.
There are currently two WWTP's to serve the City. The
Barry Rose WWTP is located at the end of Barry Rose Road near
Clear Creek. The current capacity of the plant is 2.25 million
gallons per day (MGD). The Longwood WWTP is located on Dixie
Farm Road at Clear Creek. The current capacity of this plant is
1.75 MGD. Table 8 summarizes the 1995 and 1996 wastewater flow
at each treatment facility.
The Barry Rose WWTP had an average daily flow of 2.228
MGD in 1995, while the 1996 average daily flow decreased to 2.007
MGD, or a 0.221 MGD decrease. The Longwood WWTP had an average
daily flow of 0.985 MGD in 1995, while the 1996 average daily
flow increased slightly to an average daily flow of 1.074 MGD.
The total average daily flow for both plants combined were 3.214
MGD in 1995 and 3.081 MGD in 1996. Based on 1995 and 1996
population estimates, this results in an average daily flow per
capita of 111 GPCD in 1995 and 96 GPCD in 1996. This compares to
23
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 8
WASTEWATER FLOW
1995-1996
Barry Rose
Longwood Total
Month Total(Million gal) Daily Avg(MGD) Total (million gal) Daily Avg(MGD) Daily Avg.(MGD)
Jan 1995 94.902
February 63.292
March 90.910
April 71.948
May 66.737
June 62.126
July 54.975
August 56.987
September 50.081
October 52.486
November 62.154
December 68.955
'95 Avg.
3.061
2.260
2.930
2.398
2.152
2.070
1.773
1.838
1.669
1.693
2.671
2.224
2.228 MGD
46.291
32.572
43.146
34.042
43.478
28.929
25.935
27.194
25.509
27.328
33.864
36.207
1.493
1.163
1.391
1.134
1.112
0.964
0.836
0.877
0.850
0.881
1.128
1.167
4.554
3.423
4.321
3.532
3.264
3.034
2.609
2.715
2.519
2.574
3.799
3.391
0.986 MGD 3.214 MGD
January 1996 64.841 2.091 35.408 1.142 3.233
February 52.824 1.821 28.855 0.995 2.816
March 53.885 1.738 26.872 0.866 2.604
April 51.085 1.702 27.683 0.922 2.624
May 54.389 1.754 26.648 0.859 2.613
June 64.711 2.157 31.801 1.060 3.217
July 45.067 1.453 25.757 0.830 2.283
August 88.966 2.869 43.466 1.402 4.271
September 86.266 2.875 45.068 1.502 4.377
October 58.526 1.888 30.679 0.989 2.877
November 51.376 1.712 29.977 0.999 2.711
December 62.714 2.023 41.243 1.330 3.353
24
an average potable water demand of 114 GPCD in 1995 and 109 GPCD
in 1996.
The low total flows from the two plants for 1996
appear to be due partly to less rainfall in 1996 versus 1995
(12" less), and partly due to the continuous infiltration and
inflow (I & I) abatement. The lower rates per capita for water
as well as wastewater for 1995 and 1996 are due to factors such
as normal to above normal rainfalls, higher population estimates,
and successful work on finding the I & I sources and abating
them.
Infiltration is defined as water entering the sanitary
sewerage system from the ground through such means as defective
pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Inflow is
defined as water discharged into a sanitary sewerage system from
such sources as roof, yard and area drains, cooling -water
discharges, manhole covers, cross connections from storm sewers
and combined sewers, catch basins, surface runoff, street waste
waters, or drainage. For analysis purposes of older systems, I &
I is assumed to be 20% of the average daily flow.
The following sanitary sewerage facts were taken from
the 1990 study entitled, "Regional Water Supply and Wastewater
Treatment Comprehensive Plan" for the Brazos Bend Water Authority
by Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam, Inc.. and Walsh Engineering, Inc.
25
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
The study area included Brookside Village, Manvel, Missouri City,
and Pearland. Domestic wastewater treatment was provided by 14
public agencies at 15 sites and six privately owned plants.
Wastewater flow rates were collected for the period August, 1987
through July, 1988. Average daily wastewater flow for the public
facilities during this period totaled 6.247 MGD or 116 GPCD. The
City of Pearland's daily rates during this time period were 1.53
MGD at the Barry Rose plant and 0.818 MGD at the Longwood plant
or an average of 130 GPCD.
Based on generally accepted wastewater flow criteria
of 100 GPCD for design purposes and 20% I & I for older systems,
Pearland's per capita flow of 130 GPCD was above normal at the
time of the Brazos Bend study (130 GPCD versus 120 GPCD).
However, the average rate of 104 GPCD over the 1995 and 1996,
shows that the City of Pearland system is not as susceptible to I
& I as before and in fact improved.
During a period of population growth, if the I & I
problem remains constant, the average flow rate per capita should
decrease. New construction to serve population growth is being
carried out with better quality material (PVC pipe versus clay
pipe) which does not add a significant amount of I & I to the
system. Therefore, the existing I & I flow is spread out over a
larger populace and hence, the average flow rate per capita
should decrease or at least stay the same.
26
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
During the last two years, the Longwood WWTP's flow increased
from 0.986 MGD in 1995 to only 1.074 MGD in 1996, and the Barry
Rose WWTP's flow decreased from 2.228 MGD in 1995 to 2.007 MGD in
1996. This consistency in average annual flows indicate the
success of the I & I abatement program. It is the recommendation
of this report that the I & I abatement program be continued to
eliminate the major sources of I & I in order to increase the
capacity of the plants to treat the actual wastewater.
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) provides design criteria to be used as minimum guidelines
for sanitary sewerage collection, treatment and disposal systems.
As part of the permitting requirements, whenever flow measurement
for any sanitary sewerage treatment facility reaches 75% of the
permitted average flow for three consecutive months, design for
expansion or upgrading the facility should be initiated. Based
on this requirement, the Barry Rose WWTP has exceeded the permit
limit consistently during the past two years. The City is in the
process of designing a new 2.00 MGD wastewater treatment plant at
its Southwest Environmental Center and expanding the Barry Rose
and Longwood plants by 0.85 MGD and a 0.75 MGD, respectively.
The Longwood WWTP exceeded the 75% of the permitted average flow
for two consecutive months, on two occasions in the past three
years. Therefore, expansion of this plant as indicated above is
needed to meet the demand for the eastern portion of the City.
27
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Although the Barry Rose WWTP has exceeded the 75%
criteria as described above, the plant has not reached its total
capacity of 2.25 MGD. Similarly, the Longwood WWTP has not
reached its capacity of 1.75 MGD. Total capacity of both plants
is 4.0 MGD, whereas the average flow for the period January thru
December, 1996 is 3.081 MGD (both plants combined). Therefore,
the City has 0.9 MGD of reserve wastewater treatment capacity for
future growth. A summary of existing and future demand versus
existing capacity is presented in Table 9.
Although the 1995-1996 average flow rate is varied
from low of 81 GPCD to high of 156 GPCD, a design value of 120
GPCD is used (100 GPCD + 20% I & I). The assumption made is that
the City will maintain its aggressive I & I abatement program.
Therefore, to estimate future wastewater demand, 120 GPCD will be
used for the existing population and 110 GPCD will be used for
future growth. The TNRCC requires that 200 gallons per inch
diameter per mile of pipe be included as I & I for estimating
wastewater flow. Assuming that this value for I & I corresponds
to a 10% rate increase, the standard flow rate of 100 GPCD was
increased by 10% to account for incorrectable I & I from future
development.
As stated above, the City has 0.9 MGD of reserve
wastewater treatment capacity for future growth. This reserve,
along with 2.478 MGD more capacity will be required to attain
28
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Capacity
Population
TABLE 9
SANITARY SEWERAGE DEMAND AND CAPACITIES
1996-2016
Required Capacity Current Capacity Excess or (Deficient)
1996 2006 2016 1996 1996 2006 2016
32,090 49,210 62,010
Future Service Units 5,838 10,258
1Wastewater Flow/
Person for Future
Growth (GPCD) 110 110
Existing Service
Units 11,519 11,519 11,519
2
Total Service
Units 11,519 17,357 21,777
Wastewater Flow/
Person from
Existing Service
Units (GPCD) 120 120
Persons/Service
Unit 3.20 3.20 3.20
Total Wastewater
Flow (MGD) 3.081* 6.478 8.034
1 Includes 10% uncorrectable I & I
2 Includes a 20% I & I from the existing system
* Existing average, flow total
29
4.0 0.919 (2.478) (4.034)
a total capacity of 6.478 MGD that will be required to serve the
projected year 2006 population. A combined total treatment
capacity of 3.600 MGD is currently. under design. This design and
construction needs to proceed to meet the 10-year expansion
requirements. By 2016, the City will need a total of 8.034 MGD
of capacity. It should be noted that if the aggressive I & I
abatement program is not maintained, these capacity demands will
be required much sooner.
B. Sanitary Sewerage Capital Improvements Plan
Ten projects have been identified and are proposed for
the 10-year Capital Improvements Plans. These projects are:
1. Centennial Blvd/Clear Creek Parkway: A 24-inch
through 30-inch sewer line, approximately 10,800 feet
long, and two lift stations. This trunk sewer line
follows the route of the proposed Clear Creek Parkway
and Centennial Blvd. and would provide service to
development along these proposed major thoroughfares
and undeveloped areas along FM 518.
2. Old Alvin/John Lizer Road Sewer Line: A 15-inch
through 21-inch trunk sewer line, approximately 10,200
feet long, with three lift stations with associated
force mains along Old Alvin Road, John Lizer Road and
Centennial Blvd. This line would service the
30
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
anticipated development in this sector.
3. Shady Crest Lift Station Modifications: Increase the
capacity of an existing lift station and force main to
provide service to development in the area between
State Highway 35 and Shadycrest Subdivision area.
4. Dixie Farm Road Sewer Line: A 18-inch through 27-inch
trunk sewer line, approximately 17,400 feet long, with
two lift stations with associated force mains. This
line would serve the anticipated development along
Dixie Farm Road, and eliminate smaller existing lift
station/force main systems in existing developments.
5. Scott Street Sewer Line: A 15-inch through 36-inch
trunk sewer line, approximately 22,800 feet long, with
1 lift station to eliminate several smaller existing
lift station/force main systems in the area. This
trunk line would serve the anticipated development in
the northwest sector of the City.
6. Magnolia Road to SWEC Sewer Line: A 15-inch through
30-inch trunk sewer line, approximately 22,000 feet
long, with 2 lift stations. This line would serve the
anticipated development in the southwest sector of the
City en route to a new wastewater treatment plant at
31
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
the City's Southwest Environmental Center.
7. Longwood WWTP Expansion: The 0.75 MGD expansion
project would increase the capacity of this plant from
1.75 MGD to 2.5 MGD.
8. Barry Rose WWTP Expansion: The 0.85 expansion project
would increase the capacity of this plant from 2.25 MGD
to 3.1 MGD.
9. New Wastewater Treatment Plant: A new 2.00 MGD
wastewater treatment plant at the City's Southwest
Environmental Center This plant is needed to meet the
required capacity for the 10-year period with some
excess capacity.
10. Lift Station Modifications & Force Main: A 12-inch
force main, approximately 5,450 feet long, on Veterans
Road with major modifications to the Walnut Street lift
station to reroute the wastewater flow to the proposed
trunk sewer on Magnolia Street. This rerouting will
take a major load off of Barry Rose WWTP and direct it
to the new plant at SWEC which is currently under
design.
32
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Cost estimates for these sanitary sewerage projects are
included in Appendix D. Locations of the projects are shown in
Exhibit 2.
33
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
A. General
An impact fee, as defined by SB 336, "is 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 such new development." This
assessment is allocated uniformly to the projected number of
future users, or service units that will be served by the capital
improvements.
B. Service Units
A "service unit", as defined by SB 336, "is a
standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge
attributable to an individual unit of development." It is
generally accepted practice to use a single family residential
housing unit as the standard of measure. Therefore, one single
family housing unit equals one equivalent service unit. Water
usage by a single family unit and wastewater flows from a single
family unit are used to relate other types of development to the
standard service unit. Based on the City's estimate, the average
occupancy of a single family unit currently is 3.2 persons per
unit. Based on 1990's water consumptions, the average water usage
per person is assumed to be 125 GPCD for a total of 400 gallons
34
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
per day to an equivalent service unit. The average wastewater
flow per person is 120 GPCD for a total of 384 gallons per day
from an equivalent service unit. Table 10 gives the equivalent
number of service units for development which may occur in
Pearland. This table is required by SB 336. To simplify the
variation in service units for commercial development, a variety
of combinations of commercial development was projected over a 10-
year period and an average equivalent service unit per commercial
development was determined. This analysis resulted in one
commercial development equivalent to four service units. These
data are shown in Table 11. One industrial development was
estimated to be equivalent to six service units.
Based on the land use assumptions, the projected
residential, commercial and industrial connections were converted
to equivalent service units. Table 12 summarizes the service unit
projections. Based on these projections, the number of new
equivalent service units in the next 10 years is 5,838 units.
As part of the 1988 Comprehensive Development Plan
Update, a distribution pattern of projected housing units was
developed to indicate where future growth would occur. Although
the projected number of units has changed, the areas of potential
growth have not changed significantly in the past five years.
Exhibit 3 illustrates the distribution of the various projected
service units for the planning area.
35
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Development
TABLE 10
SERVICE UNIT FACTORS
Unit
Bakery
Barber Shop
Beauty Shop
Bowling Alley
Car Repair
Carwash Tunnel Self Service
Carwash, Wand Type Self Service
Carwash, Tunnel with Attendants
Church:
Auditorium
Classroom
Club/Tavern/Lounge
Convenience Store
Country Club
Day Care Center
Dormitory
Driving Range
Fire Station
Gas Station, Full Service
Gas Station, Self Service
Grocery Store
Health Club
Hospital
Hotel/Motel
Indoor Entertainment/amusement
Manufacturing
Nursing Home
Office Building
Photo Store, 1 Hour Processing
Post Office, Excluding Dock
Recreational Vehicle Park
Residence, Apartment
Residence, Condominium
Residence, Duplex
Residence, Mobile Home
Residence, Single Family
Residence, Town House
Restaurant:
Full Service, General
Fast Food with Seating
Fast Food without Seating
Retail Store
School, High
School, Other
Swimming Pool
Theater, Drive-in
Theater, Indoor
warehouse
Washateria
Unit/Unit Remarks
Square Foot 0.0007
Chair 0.47
Chair 0.47
Lane 0.62 1,
Square Foot 0.00016 2
Lane 6.25
Bay 1.20
Lane 30.93
Seat 0.0031
Seat 0.0047
Seat 0.031
Square Foot 0.00022
Member 0.39
Occupant 0.031
Bed 0.28
Tee 0.21
Employee 0.28
Island 0.86 2
Island 0.80 2
Square Foot 0.00025 1
Member 0.016
Bed 0.62 3
Room 0.25 1
Occupant 0.031 1
Square Foot 0.00016 4
Bed 0.28
Square Foot 0.00031
Store 3.12
Square Foot 0.00025
Space 0.23
Dwelling Unit 0.70
Dwelling Unit 0.70
Dwelling Unit 1.00
Dwelling Unit 0.70
Dwelling Unit 1.00 5
Dwelling Unit 1.00
Seat 0.11
Seat 0.047
Square Foot 0.0023
Square Foot 0.00022
Seat 0.047 6
Seat 0.031 6
Swimmer 0.016
Space 0.016
Seat 0.016
Square Foot 0.0001
Machine 0.90
Remarks:
1. Does not include restaurant.
2. Does not include carwash.
3. Patient care area, does not include designated office areas.
4. Average Value, each development must be individually evaluated.
5. Basic Service Unit.
6. Does not include resident dormitory.
7. All developments not matching one of.the above will be evaluated
individually based on data submitted by the developers.
36
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 11
COMMERCIAL SERVICE UNITS
10-YEAR PROJECTION
Projected
Type of Average Service Service
Development Number Unit Size Unit/Unit Units
Barber Shop 4 Chair 4 0.47 7.52
Beauty Shop 6 Chair 4 0.47 11.28
Car Repair 5 Sq. Ft. 3,000 0.00016 2.40
Carwash, Tunnel
Self Service 2 Lane 1 6.25 12.50
Carwash, Wand Type
Self Service 3 Bay 6 1.20 21.60
Church 4 Seat 250 0.0078 7.80
Club 2 Seat 50 0.031 3.10
Convenience Store 12 Sq. Ft. 3,600 0.00022 9.50
Day Care Center 7 Occup 30 0.031 6.51
Gas Station,
Full Service 2 Island 2 0.86 3.44
Gas Station,
Self Service 6 Island 2 0.80 9.60
Grocery Store 2 Sq. Ft. 40,000 0.00025 20.00
Health Club 2 Member 200 0.016 6.40
Hotel/Motel 1 Room 100 0.25 25.00
Nursing Home 1 Bed 100 0.28 28.00
Office Building 25 Sq. Ft. 4,000 0.00031 31.00
Restaurant,
Full Service 2 Seat 150 0.11 33.00
Restaurant, Fast Food
With Seating 4 Seat 150 0.047 28.20
Retail Store 17 Sq. Ft. 4,000 0.00022 14.96
School, High 1 Seat 2,500 0.047 117.50
Washateria 2 Mach. 30 0.90 54.00
TOTAL 110
Average Equivalent Service Units Per Commercial Development = 4
453.31
37
TABLE 12
CITY-WIDE SERVICE UNIT PRC ECTIONS
1996
2006 2016
Service Equivalent Service Eg►,;valent Service Equivalent
Type of Unit Service Unit Service Unit Service
Development Connections Factor Units Connections Factor Units Connections Factor Units
Single Family 8,305 1.0 8,305 13,055 1.0 13,055 16,655 1.0 16,655
Multi -Family 1,723 0.7 1,206 2,323 0.7 1,626 2,723 0.7 1,906
Commercial 502 4.0 2,008 654 4.0 2,616 774 4.0 3,096
Industrial 0 6.0 0 10 6.0 60 20 6.0 120
Total 10,530 11,519 16,042 17,357 20,172 21,777
38
C. Existing Facilities
At the time of the first capital recovery fee
qualification, i.e., April 10, 1989., several capital improvements
projects constructed prior to that time had reserve capacity to
serve future development. Likewise, the Garden Road Water Plant
and Transmission Lines constructed in 1996 have certain reserve
capacity to serve future development. These improvements and
their actual costs are given in Table 13. Because these projects
meet the requirements of SB 336, they are included in the impact
fee calculation. In the 1993 Impact Fee Update, the cost of these
appropriate projects with reserve capacity was proportionately
allocated to future demand. Since some of these projects still
have reserve capacity, a proportional cost is used in this update.
To properly allocate the cost of these projects with
reserve capacity to future demand, it is necessary to quantify:
(1) the current level of demand required by existing development,
(2) the level of demand that each project can serve, and (3) the
level of demand required during the planning period. By knowing
these factors, the incremental capacity available for future
demand can be determined. This can be readily accomplished for a
wastewater treatment plant, sewer line, or water storage facility,
However, it is difficult to determine for water lines because
water line capacity is a function of pressure. A computer network
analysis simulating demand as a function of field pressure tests
39
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 13
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
WITH CAPACITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Facility Construction Cost
Dixie Farm Road Water Line $249,300
FM 518 Water Line $154,444
Magnolia Road/John Lizer Road Water Line $110,000
Hatfield Road Water Line $173,884
O'Day Road Water Line $132,965
Old Alvin Road Water Line $ 90,650
Woody Lane Water Line $ 88,000
Elevated Water Storage Tanks $807,203
Barry Rose WWTP $2,094,000
Longwood WWTP $1,672,000
Garden Road Water Plant and Transmission Line $1,128,300
40
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 14
COST DATA FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
WITH RESERVE CAPACITY
Facility Actual Cost
Waterlines $ 999,243
WWTP Expansions $3,766,000
Elevated Storage Tanks $ 807,203
Garden Road Water Plant
& Transmission Lines $1,128,300
41
Cost Qualifying
For Impact Fee
$ 494,170
$1,311,318
$ 187,325
$ 535,964
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Li
is required to accurately determine capacity availability. This
analysis is beyond the scope of this study.
Because the component water lines of a water system are
all connected and operate together as a pressure -flow system and
cannot be analyzed individually without a network analysis,
existing reserve capacity of water line projects are based on the
entire service area of the City with a design life of 20 years.
Table 14 provides a summary of existing facilities with reserve
capacity and available costs qualifying for impact fee
determination. The calculations are presented in Appendix E.
D. Impact Fee Determination
Because the projected service units in the next 10-year
period is less than the total new service units projected to occur
when the City is fully developed, the impact fee is equal to the
costs of those capital improvements required in the next 10-year
period allocated to the projected new service units in the 10-year
period.
Table 15 presents a summary of the impact fee eligible
projects and the impact fee cost. Eligible projects include
existing water plant and water lines with excess capacity
(Appendix E), existing elevated storage with excess capacity
(Appendix E), proposed water improvements (Appendix D), existing
WWTP's with excess capacity (Appendix E), sanitary sewerage
42
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TABLE 15
IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
FPROA
NO.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PRE-1996
1996-2006
2006-2016
IMPACT FEE
ELLIGIBLE
PRE
IMPACT FEE
-
Existing Waterlines w/ Excess Capacity
-$999,243
•• , 94,170
-
Existing Elevated w/ Excess Capacity
$807,203
$187,325
-
Exist. W.P. & Lines W/ Excess Capacity
$1,128,300
$535,964
1
Yost Blvd. 8" Interconnect
$10,900
$10,900
2
Dixie Farm Road 16" Waterline
$171,000
$171,000
$171,000
3
Golfcrest 12" Interconnect
$24,500
$24,500
4
High School 12" Waterline
$295,800
$295,800
$132,800
5
Garden Rd. 12" WL- Butler to FM 518
$221,000
$221,000
$221,000
6
O'Day -Hatfield 12" WL
$93,000
$93,000
7
Garden Rd. 12" WL- W.P. to North
$178,300
$178,300
$178,300
8
Alice Rd. 12" Tie-in
$72,000
$72,000
$72,000
9
FM 518 16" WL- O'Day to FM 1128
$308,000
$308,000
$183,000
10
SH 35 16" WL- Magnolia to Exist. 16"
$164,000
$164,000
$164,000
11
500,000 Gal. Elevated Storage
$715,000
• $715,000
$715,000
12
Water Well/Water Plant No. 9, at SWEC
$1,243,000
$649,000
$649,000
13
Water Well/Water Plant No. 10 & 16" WL
$2,464,000
14
FM 518 16" WL- Water Plant to SH 288
$488,000
15
SH 35 12" WL- South of Dixie Farm Rd
$352,000
-
Mary's Creek Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
Old City Hall Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
Green Tee Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
McLean Rd. Water Plant 3rd Pump
$25,000
-
Water Well/ Water Plant No. 11
$1,100,000
$649,000
$649,000
-
Water Well/Water Plant No. 12
$1,100,000
$649,000
-
Water Well/Water Plant No. 13
$1,100,000
-
Administration
$10,000
$10 000
$10,000
SUBTOTAL
$2,934,746
$5,806,500
$4,404,000
$5,427,959
$3,145100
WATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 5,838 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
$930
$539
WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
1 NO.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PRE-1996
1996-2006
2006-2016
IMPACT
ELLIGIBLE_ IBLE]
IMPACT FEE
-
Existing WWTP's w/ Excess Capacity
3,766,000
$1,384,380
1
Centennial/Clear Creek Gravity Line
$1,171,000
$1,171,000
$854,800
2
Old Alvin/ J. Lizer Trunk Sewer
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$300,000
3
Shadycrest Lift Station Modifications
$152,000
4
Dixie Farm Rd. Trunk Sewer
$835,000
$625,000
$835,000
$417,500
5
Scott St. Trunk Sewer
$549,000
$1,631,500
$549,000
6
Magnolia to SWEC Trunk Sewer
$1,651,500
$1,651,500
$800,000
7
Longwood WWTP Expansion
$1,800,000
$1,238,400
$1,238,400
8
Barry Rose WWTP Expansion
$1,000,000
$688,000
$688,000
9
New WWTP at SWEC
$5,900,000
$4,070,360
$4,070,360
10
12" F.M. & Lift Station Mod. on Veteran
$460,000
$460,000
11
SH 35 Trunk Sewer S. of Dixie Farm
$672,000
12
FM 518 Trunk Sewer to SH 288
$130,000
$2,336,000
$130,000
$130,000
13
New WWTP North of FM 518
$2,242,500
-
Administration
$10,000
10 000
10 000
SUBTOTAL
$3,766,000
$14,658,500
$7,507,000
$13,187,640
$8. 09 0601
WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 5,838 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
$2,259
$1,4581
TOTAL WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE
$3,189
$1,997
43
improvements (Appendix D), and administration costs. Six of the
sanitary sewerage project costs listed in Table 15 require further
explanation. These are the Centennial Blvd./Clear Creek Parkway,
Dixie Farm Road, Scott Street, Old Alvin/J. Lizer, FM 518 Trunk
Sewer to SH 288, and the WWTP's expansions.
The costs for the Centennial Blvd./Clear Creek Parkway,.
Dixie Farm Road, Scott Street, and Old Alvin/J. Lizer sanitary
sewerage projects included in the impact fee determination are the
portions of the projects that will be constructed within the next
five years as described by SB 336. In FM 518 trunk sewer to SH
288 project, the eligible cost is for a permanent lift station of
a temporary wastewater treatment facility which might be built
there to accommodate development. The WWTP expansion cost is
based upon the average cost per gallon to expand the Longwood WWTP
and the Barry Rose WWTP and the amount of additional capacity
required by year 2006 (2.478 MGD) that is above the existing
capacity level (4.0 MGD). The calculations for the WWTP's
expansions are presented in Appendix E.
The administration costs allowed by SB 336 are those
costs paid to an independent qualified engineer preparing or
updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of
the political subdivision.
The impact fee charged, per equivalent service unit, is
44
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
$1,997 (eligible impact fee rate is $3,189), or 63% of the
eligible fee. The previous impact fee of $1,097 represented 62%
of the eligible fee of $1,782 from the 1993 study. Although this
fee is to be charged on a system -wide basis within the service
area, it is the fee to be charged to an equivalent service unit,
i.e., a single family residential housing unit. Determination of
the impact fee to be charged to a multi -family housing project or
a commercial project will require the use of Table 10.
E. Impact Fee Calculation Examples
The following examples illustrate the proposed impact
fee to be assessed to various types of new development.
1. A single family residential house is to be constructed
in a new development. From Table 10, for a residence,
single family, the service unit factor is 1.00 per
unit. The unit is a dwelling unit. Therefore, the
impact fee to be assessed to this project is:
Impact Fee = $1,997 x Service Unit Factor
= $1,997 x 1.00 per dwelling unit
x 1 dwelling unit
Impact Fee = $1,997
2. A multi -family apartment complex with 20 apartments
is to be constructed. From Table 10, for a
residence, apartment, the service unit factor is
45
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
0.70 per unit. The unit is a dwelling unit.
Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to this
project is:
Impact Fee = $1,997 x Service Unit Factor
= $1,997 x 0.70 per dwelling unit
x 20 dwelling units
Impact Fee ,= $27,958
3. A full service restaurant with seating for 100
patrons is to be constructed. From Table 10, for a
restaurant, general full service, the service unit
factor is 0.11 per unit. The unit is a seat.
Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to this
project is:
Impact Fee = $1,997 x Service Unit Factor
= $1,997 x 0.11 per seat x 100 seats
Impact Fee = $21,967
4. A 6,000 square foot office building is to be
constructed. From Table 10, for an office building
the service unit factor is 0.00031 per unit. The
unit is a square foot. Therefore, the impact fee
to be assessed to this project is:
Impact Fee = $1,997 x Service Unit Factor
46
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
= $1,997 x 0.00031 per sq. ft.
x 6,000 sq. ft
Impact Fee = $3,.715
5. A self-service gas station with four islands, a
self-service tunnel carwash and a 1,000 square foot
convenience store is to be constructed. From Table
10, for a gas station, self service, the service
unit factor is 0.80 per unit. The unit is an
island. For a carwash, self service tunnel, the
service unit factor is 6.25 per unit. The unit is
a lane. For a convenience store, the service unit
factor is 0.00022 per unit. The unit is a square
foot. Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to
this project is:
Impact Fee = $1,997 x Service Unit Factors
= $1,997 x (0.80 per island x 4 isl.
+ 6.25 per lane x 1 lane + 0.00022
per sq. ft. x 1000 sq. ft)
= $1,997 x (3.2 + 6.25 + 0.22)
Impact Fee = $19,311
Because Table 10 does not include factors for industrial
projects, a constant service unit factor of 6 equivalent service
units per industrial project should be used to assess each
industrial project unless sound judgement dictates otherwise.
47
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
V. IMPACT FEE ADOPTION
A. Public Hearing
SB 336 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. Thehearing was held on , 1997,
at the Pearland City Hall. The text of the testimony by Walsh
Engineering, Inc. and the minutes of the public hearing are
presented in Appendix F.
B. Resolution and 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 Council Meeting on
, 1997, Council adopted the impact fee update assessment that
was presented at the public hearing. A copy of Resolution
adopting the impact fee update assessment, is presented in
Appendix G.
48
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
EXHIBITS
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
PROJECT NAME
1. YOST BLVD.
2. DIXIE FARM ROAD
3. GOLFCREST
4. HIGH SCHOOL
5. GARDEN RD.: BUTLER TO FM 518
6. O'DAY - HATFIELD
7. GARDEN RD.: W.P. TO NORTH
8. AUCE RD.
9. F M 518: O'DAY TO FM 1128
10. SH 35: MAGNOLIA TO SOUTH
11. ELEVATED STORAGE
12. NEW WATER PLANT AT SWEC
13. NEW WATER PLANT & TRANSMISSION LINE
14. FM 518: WATER PLANT TO SH 288
15. SH 35: SOUTH OF DIXIE FARM RD.
WATER UNE
WELL
GROUND STORAGE
ELEVATED STORAGE
LEGEND
10 YEAR 20 YEAR
CIP CIP
• A
4
2010 E. BROADWAY PEARLAND, TEXAS
F
A
a
MPROVEMENTS
J
0_
U
CC
W
DATE
APRIL 1997
EXHIBIT NO.
1
thimme 1pm gm
Wm_
11 �oF�
pow
%11
APARCI% V2 ►LE
IWNEL CITY MIS
!VIM
Liginhirrx
fuumunk
improrun
11111
��
PROJECT NAME
1. CENTENNIAUCLEAR CREEK
2. OLD ALVIN/J.LIZER
3. SHADYCREST LS. MOD.
4. DIXIE FARM RD.
5. SCOTT ST.
6. MAGNOLIA RD. TO SWEC
7. LONGWOOD WWTP
8. BARRY ROSE WWTP
9. NEW WWTP AT SWEC
10. WALNUT ST. LS. MOD. & F.M.
11. SH 35: DIXIE FARM RD. TO SOUTH
12. FM 518 TO SH 288
13. NEW WWTP NORTH OF FM 518
GRAVITY LINE
FORCE MAIN
UFT STATION
TREATMENT PLANT
LEGEND
10 YEAR
CIP
20 YEAR
CIP
MI MI MS MI UM MI NB N
III
0
1J
1•.l000
6030
cox
DATE
Q
0-
W
CC
CC
v♦
APRIL 1997
EXHIBIT NO.
2
APPROX LQ L&f
I
WASSEY FINCH RD.
r
^`I(• 111' uuua rT
{ 1114
pi 111 1
1��11111.11 ,1�•
r
liur agromr!�!�`�.
AI abal l s� AREA
PEARL.AND-ET
PROJECTIONS 1996 - 2006
SINGLE FAMILY
MULTI FAMILY
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
TOTAL
TOTAL UNITS
4750
600
152
10
e000 0
SERVICE UNITS
4750
420
608
60
5838
NOTE: AREAS SHOW DISTRIBUTION AS UNITS.
EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS ARE
OBTAINED BY MULTIPLYING UNITS BY
APPROPRIATE CONVERSION FACTOR.
e000
WALSH ENGINEERING, INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2010 E. BROADWAY PEARLAND, TEXAS
z
0
0-
2
co
w
z
DATE
APRIL 1997
EXHIBIT NO.
3
APPENDIX A
PEARLAND ECONOMIC/MARKETING DATA
CDS RESEARCH, INC.
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
PEARLAND TEN YEAR WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM UPDATE
PEARLAND, TEXAS
Prepared for:
WALSH ENGINEERING, INC.
2010 E. Broadway
Pearland, Texas 77581
Prepared by:
CDS RESEARCH
9225 Katy Freeway
Suite 322
Houston, Texas 77024
March 1997
019704
Pearland
INTRODUCTION
CDS Research is pleased to submit this update to the Pearland Water and Sewer
Capital Improvements Program. CDS Research was involved in the preparation of the
initial report in September 1993.
This 1996 update examined and redefined data in the following categories:
• Population
• Demographics
• School Enrollment
• Park Facilities
• Wage, Salary and Employers
• Thoroughfare Improvements
• Residential Growth
• Commercial Growth
• Land Use
Data was collected and examined from many areas and agencies. Each table has been
sourced and all data was analyzed by CDS Research for consistency and completeness.
Most information has been reduced to table form for ease of assimilation into the
Capital Improvements Program Report.
Page 1
CLEAR CREEK
F.M. 518
EXHIBIT I
1. McHARD ROAD
2. PEARLAND/HARRIS CO.
3. EXTENDED CITY LIMITS
CITY OF PEARLAND
BALM Y RD.
BELTWAY 8 (SOUTH BELT)
Corrigan r
� kh
Jarvis •
Middle School
r—
L___
CITY ANTS
Or
KNAPP RD.
Junior
High
West
Rustic Oak
E1erneatary
l30C /
\ f
Pearland
SECTION I
PEARLAND
STUDY
PEARLAND
DEMOGRAPHICS
POPULATION TRENDS
Table 1 shows the population trends of Pearland in relation to Brazoria County and
the Greater Houston area. Brazoria County comprised 5.2% of the Houston area in
1990 and was estimated at 5.6% by the end of 1996. Projections through the year
2016 show Brazoria County to keep increasing population share up to 6.5% of the
Houston Area.
Pearland is increasing it's share of population of Brazoria County. The 1990 census
gave Pearland just under 10% (9.8%) of the county's population. Pearland was
estimated to be 14.1 % of the county at the end of 1996 and increased to 17.8% by
the year 2016.
Current Pearland population is estimated at 32,090 persons. The 20-year projection
period through 2016 will add another 29,920 persons, nearly doubling the current
population, for a total of 62,010.
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Table 2 displays selected demographic characteristics of Pearland as they were in 1990
and how they compare to 1996. As shown the overall population is aging slowly as
expected. Educational levels are increasing and the member of college graduates is
up significantly. Household income is growing with 68.60/0 of households with
incomes of $35,000 or more. This compares with 60.8% in 1990. Both median
household and median family income is up over $7,000. "Single Family housing units
by year built" shows that 34% of all single family housing in Pearland has been built
in the 1990s.
Page 3
Pearland
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
Pearland school enrollment has increased between 5% and 6% in the last few years
and has surpassed current student projections. CDS Research found a correlation
between overall population growth for the city and projected school enrollment from
the entire school district.
About 30% of new city population growth is close to new student enrollment even
with the Pearland School District covering more than the city limits. Taking 30% of
the projected city wide population increase results in projected school enrollment for
the district. This is displayed in Table 3.
PARK FACILITIES
Pearland park facilities are displayed in Table 4.
EMPLOYMENT
Wage and salary data is surveyed monthly for Brazoria County, but not for sub areas
such as Pearland. Census year 1990 is the only true tracking point for the city. See
Table 5.
In 1990, Pearland commanded 14.6% (9,990) of all employment in the county.
Employment in the service sector was highest followed by wholesale and retail trade
and durable goods manufacturing. Brazoria County was strongest in non -durable
goods manufacturing followed by wholesale and retail trade and government.
Table 6 shows the current listing of Pearland's major employers. These employers are
mostly a mixture of wholesale and retail trade, services and administrative.
Page 4
Pearland
TABLE 1
POPULATION TRENDS
PEARLAND AND SELECTED AREAS
1970-2016
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria C.M.S.A.*
2,169,100
3,101,300
3.711,000
4,101:565
4,361,942
4,752,507
5,012,883
5,403,448
Brazoria County
108.300
169,600
191,707
228,028
252,242
288,563
312,777
349,099
Percent of C.M.S.A.
5.0%
5.5%
5.2%
5.6%
5.8%
6.1
6.2%
6.5%
City of Pearland
6,400
13,200
18,697
32,090
39,130
49,210
54,330
62,010
Percent of Brazoria County
5.9%
7.8%
9.8%
14.1%
15.5%
17.1%
17.4%
17.8%
* Eight County Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area.
SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1970. 1980 and 1990:
Donnelley Marketing Information Services/Demographics on Call:
Houston -Galveston Area Council:
City of Pearland
CDS Research
Page 5
Pearland
TABLE 2
SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS
PEARLAND
1990-1996
C:;t�: Atii`'<ii;'C::::::::»:<::>:::::::<<:<:<:::<:<:::::::::>:>:<:>::::<::::::::<:.:
..arl . +� �9 G.....11':ea
. a 3I3
Age
Under 18
27.4%
28.8%
18-24
10.5%
8.5%
25-34
12.8%
17.9%
35-44
18.4%
17.6%
45-54
13.6°/v
11.1
55-64
8.4%
8.1 %
65+
8.9%
8.0%
Median Age
Total Population
34.5%
32.5 Years
Adult Population
42.0%
40.0 Years
Education
H.S. Grads/Some College
56.6%
54.3%
College Grads including Associate
Degree
28.4%
17.7%
Household Income
Under $10,000
.5.3%
6.3%
$10,000-$14,999
3.2%
4.2%
$15,000-$24,999
10.80/o
13.7%
$25,000-$34,999
12.1%
15.0%
$35,000-$49,999
18.8%
19.9%
$50,000474,000
26.0%
25.3%
$75,000+
23.8%
15.6%
Median Household Income
49,858
42,565
Median Family Income
56,064
47,863
Number
Percent
1990-1996
2,848
34.3%
1985-1989
666
8.0%
1980-1984
977
11.8%
1970-1979
2,303
27.7%
1960-1969
1.168
14.1%
1950-1959
207
2.5%
1949-Before
136
1.6%
Total
8,305
100%
SOURCE: Donnelley Marketing Information Services/Demographics on call;
CDS Research
Page 6
Pearland
TABLE 3
PEARLAND PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
2000-2016
1990
6,440 '
1993
7,263
1996
9,000
2000
7,040
11,112
2006
10,080
14,136
2010
5,120
15,672
2016
7,680
17,976
SOURCE: Pearland Independent School District;
CDS Research
Page 7
Pearland
TABLE 4
PARK FACILITIES IN PEARLAND
1996
City Parks
Independence Park
50.0 Ac.
Playground, pool, 4 tennis courts, BBQ
shelter, soccer fields, 2 restroom facilities, 1
large pavilion, 2 small pavilions, 18 picnic
units, 2 basketball courts
Centennial Park
Neighborhood Parks
Corrigan Park
Sonny Tobias Memorial
Park
45.7 Ac.
1.5 Ac.
1.0 Ac.
Playground, 2 picnic pavilions, 2 basketball
courts, 4 lighted and fenced softball fields,
4 tennis courts, 1-mile jogging trail, bank
fishing and 2 playgrounds.
Basketball court, playground
Playground, 3 picnic units
Twin Creeks Park
4.8 Ac.
1 tennis court
Woodcreek Park
Pasternak Memorial
Hyde Park
6.0 Ac.
0.75 Ac.
1.3 Ac.
6 picnic units, swing set
Playground, 3 picnic units
Playground, 3 picnic units, 1/6 mile walking
trail
Other
Heritage Plaza at City
Hall
1.3 Ac.
Gazebo and fountain
TOTAL
111.05 Ac.
'talFac;Ites
33
Picnic Units
1
Pool
9
8
5
4
2
Tennis Courts
Playgrounds
Basketball Courts
Softball Fields
Small Pavilions
1
1
1
1
1
Large Pavilion
Jogging Trail (1 mile)
Walking Trail (1/6 mile)
Bank Fishing Area
Barbecue Shelter
2
Picnic Pavilions
Soccer Fields
SOURCE: City of Pearland Parks Department; CDS Research
Page 8
Pearland
TABLE 5
NONAGRICULTURAL WAGE AND SALARY EMPLOYMENT
SELECTED AREAS
1987-1996
Durable Goods Mfg.
+ 1.3
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.4
3.5
Nondurable Goods Mfg.
Mining
-0.2
11.6
11.8
12.0
12.3
12.7
13.4
12.9
12.5
12.0
11.8
-0.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.9
Contract Construction
+3.1
8.7
8.3
9.9
9.7
8.9
11.4
10.2
8.5
6.8
5.6
Transp. & Public Utilities
Trade
+ 0.6
+2.7
3.1
13.8
3.0
13.8
2.8
13.8
2.6
13.2
2.6
12.8
2.8
12.9
3.0
12.4
2.7
11.5
2.6
11.1
2.5
Finance. Ins., Real Estate
-0.3
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.1
Services
+ 3.9
13.5
13.2
12.4
11.6
11.6
10.8
10.0
8.9
8.3
9.6
Government
+ 2.9
13.7
13.4
13.1
12.9
12.4
12.2
12.0
11.4
11.0
10.8
Total Employed
+13.5
72.4
71.4
71.8
70.0
69.0
71.2
68.2
62.8
59.2
58.9
* Data is shown in thousands of jobs.
Durable Goods Mfg.
Nondurable Goods Mfg.
Mining
arc>Pear#a
„grent;
1.079
749
10.8%
7.5%
3.800
12.900
5.6%
18.8%
380
3.8%
2.000
2.9%
Contract Construction
729
7.3%
10.200
15.0%
Transp. & Public Utilities
Trade
849
2.158
8.5%
21.6 %
3.000
12.400
4.4%
18.2%
Finance. Ins.. Real Estate
689
6.9%
1.900
2.8%
Services
2.917
29.2%
10.000
14.7%
Government
440
4.4%
12.000
17.6%
Total Employed
9,990
100%
68,200
1 00%
SOURCE: Texas Workforce Commission: U.S. Census of Population 1990: CDS Research.
Page 9
Pearland
TABLE 6
MAJOR EMPLOYERS
PEARLAND
1996
Aggreko. Inc.Air
conditioning equipment
45
Associated Equipment
Welding equipment
115
Davis -Lynch, Inc.
Oil tools
100
Koza's, Inc.
Embroidered textiles
80
N RG Products Manufacturing Corp.
Steel doors &security screens
80
Packaging Service Co., Inc.
Solvents & chemicals
100
Pauluhn Electric Manufacturing
Industrial and marine lighting equipment
135
Replacement Parts Corporation
Air compressor parts
30
Texas Honing, Inc.
Machine job shop
70
Pearland I.S.D.
Public education
1.064
City of Pearland
Public administration
190
K-Mart
Retail sales
120
Kroger
Grocery sales r
125
Walmart
Retail sales
325
Strickland Chevrolet
Auto Dealer
92.
Bell Bottom Foundations
Foundations
50
Third Coast Packaging
Specialized packaging
65
Dragers Welding Service
Instrument Welding
50
Weatherford Enterra
Oil field equipment
190
CPI Group
Wire Cloth
84
Western Atlas
Oil field equipment
80
Bredaro Price Co.
Pipe coatings
74
Metallurgical Technologies, Inc.
Thermal spray powders
70
TOTAL
3,334
SOURCE: Texas Manufacturer's Register, 1996;
Pearland Chamber of Commerce;
CDS Research
Page 10
, Pearland
SECTION II
PEARLAND
STUDY
PEARLAND
GROWTH FACTORS
TRAFFIC PLANNING/LAND DEVELOPMENT
The most critical new road completion in the Pearland area is the final link of Beltway
8. This will give Pearland quick access east and west bound and tie in directly with all
other major Houston area thoroughfares. Prior to completion of Beltway 8, Pearland
was "land locked" in relation to transportation. The city was tied to FM 518 with slow
access to SH 288 and IH 45.
Opening in Spring 1997, Beltway 8 is projected to carry 36,000 average daily trips
(ADT) by the year 2000 and 50,000 ADT by the year 2020. Texas Department of
Transportation (TXDOT) has modeled these numbers for the Pearland area. TXDOT
and CDS Research believe these projections to be low.
Highway 35 has been planned to expand to six lanes divided and realigned for years
but, will not likely be started within the next 10 years. Highway 35 traffic counts
were 21,000 ADT in 1995, projected to 29,000 ADT in 2010. If kept in its current
configuration. Highway 35 is expected to carry 46,000 ADT by the year 2020.
FM 518 carried 8,000 ADT in 1990 and more than doubled to 17,200 ADT by 1995.
This shows the strong east/west vehicle pressure put on FM 518 as a result mostly of
Pearland's growth. By 2000, FM 518 will increase to 20,500 ADT and to 28,000
ADT by 2020. These latter projections will be adjusted with the opening of Beltway 8.
Centennial Boulevard, already under construction, will travel northeast from Highway
35 south past the Pearland city limits to Hughes Road. Additionally, Clear Creek
Parkway after the year 2000 will eventually Zink Beltway 8 to Century Parkway.
These two projects will open up developable land for Pearland well into the next
century. Pearland will have more central area (south of FM 518) land opened for
immediate development followed by expansion of Pearland's northeast quadrant.
Timing of facilities will be determined by the speed and depth of development in the
area.
One other project which will have bids by summer 1997 is the extension of McHard
Road from Mykawa Road to Highway 35. This is the first step in opening the
northern portion of Pearland which currently is physically divided by the railroad.
Page 11
Pearland
There are about 1,000 to 1,200 acres of land which can be developed within the next
5-10 years in Pearland. Probably twice that much acreage could be developed in the'
next 10-15 years. Development pressure, again, is the key which will determine
timing and acreage.
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
Table 7 shows single family and multi -family construction permits issued since 1988.
From 1990 through 1996, an average of 407 single family permits have been issued.
Comparing Table 8 with Table 7 shows that only one multi -family project has been
constructed since 1985. CDS Research examined 1,430 multi -family units in Pearland.
Of those, 1,375 or 96.2 % were occupied. Pressure to build more multi -family units
is very strong not only from the inquiries by developers to the city, but by the
numbers themselves. Very high occupancy with average rents mostly over $0.70 per
square foot in a high growth area are what multi -family developers strive for.
NEW DWELLING UNIT DEMAND
Table 9 shows the breakdown of single family and multi -family housing demand from
the population projections. Based on our interviews in Pearland and trends in the last
few years, 89% of all new housing will be single family and 11% will be multi -family
from the end of 1996-2006. The latter 10 years through 2016, will see a slight ratio
change to 90% single family and 10% multi -family.
Actual numbers project a demand for 5,350 new single family homes through 2006
and 600 multi -family units. The second decade 2007 through•2016 shows a demand
for 4,000 new single family homes and 400 multi -family units.
Page 12
Pearland
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION TRENDS
Residential growth makes the strongest case for continuing commercial expansion.
Table 10 shows how commercial permits have kept pace with the growth in residential
permits. Since 1990, Pearland has averaged over 13 permits annually. In the last
five years, commercial permits have averaged 15 per year.
CDS Research estimates the number of commercial permits will increase as the
residential sales continue to grow and new areas are developed. New road
construction and access and most new city annexation is located in areas of
commercial frontage, creating new commercial opportunities.
UTILITY CONNECTIONS BY TYPE
Table 11 shows the number of utility connections by use types from the end of 1996
through 2016. Total of all connection types in 1996 is 10,530. By 2006, total
connections will increase by 5.512 to 16,042 or an increase of 65.6%. Through the
year 2016 another 4,130 connections will be added bringing the total to 20,172.
This nearly doubles (91.6%) those from the end of 1996.
Page 13
Pearland
TABLE 7
RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TRENDS
1988 - 1996
1996
479
2
481
1995
340
0
340
1994
362
0
362
1993
481
0
481
1992
402
160
562
1991
381
4
385
1990
403
2
405
1989
123
0
123
1988
131
3
134
1990-1996 Total
2,848
168
3,016
Includes mobile homes.
2 Includes duplexes and apartments.
SOURCE: City of Pearland, Permits Division;
CDS Research
Page 14
I
Pearland
TABLE 8
PEARLAND SURVEYED APARTMENTS
1996
1983
Name
Strawbridge Apts.
UMITS
171
100
552.8362573
0.728267903
759.1111111
1972
Windmill II Apts.
298
91 485.3020134
0.655486561
740.3691275
1972
Salem Village Apts.
141
98 541.0283688
0.630027585
858.7375887
1976
Silver Maple Apts.
152
97 0
0
0
1979
Pearland Village Apts.
130
98 484.6153846
0.690925841
701.4
1970
Park Place Apts.
100
95 504.2
0.648071979
778
1985
Whispering Winds Apts.
286
97 644.4405594
0.717438692
898.2517483
1993
Remington Apts.
152
97 747.6315789 •
0.773197981
966.9342105
TOTAL
1 ,430
96.2%
SOURCE: CDS Research
Page 15
Pearland
TABLE 9
PEARLAND
NEW DWELLING UNIT DEMAND FORECAST
12/1996-2016
Forecast Population Increase
IMOi4VM,WORMgaiMON.
7,040 10,080
17,120
.0WWW
5,120
7.680
12,800
29.920
New Dwelling Unit Demand
3.2 p/ndu*
2,200 3,150
5,350
1,600
2.400
4.000
9,350
Single Family Unit Demand
89% 89%
1,960 2,790
89%
4,750
90%
1,440
90%
2,160
90%
3.600
89%
8.350
Multi -Family Unit Demand
11% 11%
240 360
11%
600
100/0
160
1 0°/0
240
100/0
400
11%
1 .000
* p/ndu = persons per new dwelling unit.
SOURCE: CDS Research.
Page 16
Pearland
TABLE 10
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION TRENDS
1988 - 1996
1996
5,189,850
19
273,150
1995
3,762,900
13
289,454
1994
2,997,021
12
249,752
1993
6,475,570
15
431,705
1992
6,849,000
16
428,063
1991
2,501,000
11
277,364
1990
1,197,840
8
149,730
1989
298,550
3
99.517
1988
681,000
2
340,500
199.0-1996 Total
28,973,181
94
308,225
Not adjusted for inflation.
2 Includes industrial, office and retail buildings.
SOURCE: City of Pearland, Permits Division;
CDS Research
Page 17
Pearland
TABLE 11
PEARLAND UTILITY CONNECTIONS BY TYPE
1996-2016
Single Family
8,305
10,265
13,055
14,495
16,655
Multi -Family
1,723
1,963
2,323
2,483
2,723
Sub Total
10,028
12,228
15,378
16,978
19,378
Commercial
502
570
654
694
774
Industrial
0
4
10
14
20
Total
10,530
12,802
16,042
17,686
20,172
SOURCE: City of Pearland;
CDS Research
Page 18
Pearland
SECTION III
PEARLAND LAND
STUDY USE
The Texas Department of transportation (TXDOT), in conjunction with the Houston -
Galveston Area Council (HGAC), is the only agency in the Houston region which
attempts to tabulate land use. In Brazoria County's case, TXDOT has compiled land use
information by traffic analysis zones (TAZ). These TAZs are grouped to form 1990 U.S.
Census tracts providing land use information for the entire county.
CDS Research has taken the land use information for Brazoria County and filtered the
information to approximate the City of Pearland, including the new city land
annexations through the end of 1996. CDS Research compiled land use figures then
approximated the new city boundaries. To most accurately assess the acreage figures,
on -ground surveys would have to be ,completed which far exceeds the limits of this
project. What we have determined is a land use "base" from the most current
information available.
Pearland's land use acreage and population figures from TXDOT after adjusting for new
city boundaries are displayed in the appendix. The total land use acreage for the city
are displayed in Table.12. Examining Table 12 shows the number of dwelling units
and population figures are below those actually known in Pearland at the end of 1996.
These uncorrected numbers do, however, give useful unit/acre and persons/acre ratios
for the city. Non-residential land uses also give acreage estimates and person/acre.
Total acreage surveyed was 13,226 about 86% of the known 15,369 acres currently
controlled by the city. These figures only surveyed the Brazoria County portion of
Pearland. The Harris County portion is not included.
To compensate for the survey shortfalls CDS Research adjusted the figures in Table 12
by the known factors from the city. Population and residential unit figures and
adjustments to the acreage of residential and non-residential land use types produced
Table 13. Table 13 adjusted figures still total 10.3% below known total acreage
figures (13,788 acres vs. 15,369 acres) but is as dose as known data permits.
Using Tables 12 and 13 as our baseline through the end of 1996, we have applied
population and utility connections to project future land use by acreage in Table 14.
Page 19
J
Pearland
TABLE 12
PEARLAND LAND USE TOTALS*
1996
SINGLE FAMILY
7,501
21,097
3,001
2.5
7.03
MULTI -FAMILY
1.258
2.495
70
17.97
35.64
MOBILE HOME
418
1.146
112
3.73
10.23
TOTAL
9,177
24,738
3,183
2.88
7.77
�.w
COMMERCIAL
485
51.01
INDUSTRIAL
470
52.63
EDUCATION
185
133.72
TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES
4,323
32.7%
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED ACRES
8,903
67.3%
TOTAL ACRES
13,226
100%
* From Appendix - Pearland Land Use
NOTE: Only includes acreage from Brazoria County. not portion of Pearland in Harris County.
SOURCE: Texas Department of Transportation;
CDS Research
J
Page 20
Pearland
TABLE 13
PEARLAND ADJUSTED LAND USE FIGURES
1996
SINGLE FAMILY
8,305
26,576
3,322
2.50
8.00
MULTI -FAMILY
1,723
5,514
96
17.97
57.44
SUBTOTAL
10,028
32,090
3,418
3.20
9.39
.57
COMMERCIAL
629
51.01
INDUSTRIAL
598
52.63
EDUCATION
240
133.72
TOTAL
4,885
6.57
I>>NunabE
TOTAL DEVELOPED ACRES:
4,885
.35.4%
TOTAL UNDEVELOPED ACRES:
8,903
64.6%
ACTUAL ACREAGE:
15,369
100%
ADJUSTED TOTAL:
13,788
89.7%
BALANCE
1,581
10.3%
NOTE: Only includes acreage from Brazoria County, not portion of Pearland in Harris County.
SOURCE: Texas Department of Transportation; CDS Research
Page 21
Pearland
TABLE 14
PEARLAND LAND USE PROJECTIONS
1996-2016
.........................
{
Single Family
3,322
784
4,106
1,116
5,222
576
5,798
864
6,662
Multi -Family
96
16
112
24
136
11
147
16
163
SUBTOTAL
3,418
800
4,218
1,140
5,358
587
5,945
880
6,825
Commercial*
1,227
166
1,393
205
1,598
98
1,696
196
1,892
industrial**
0
30
30
45
75
30
105
45
150
TOTAL
4,645
996
5,641
1,390
7,031
715
7,746
1,121
8,867
Based on:
2.5 Single Family Units per acre.
15 Multi -Family Units per acre.
2.44 Acres per Commercial Connection.
7.5 Acres per Industrial Connection.
* Commercial acreage includes: Retail, office, service centers, warehouse, etc., includes industrial listed acreage from Table 13.
** Industrial acreage includes new light industrial projects in city limits.
SOURCE: CDS Research
Page 22
Pearland
APPENDIX
I TOTALS
co
0
N
CO
1 602.32
O
000
N
��N
rn
N
0
N
1 602.22
O
0000
N
NN
co
N
rn
Al
NN
rn
N
602.22
1 602.12
0
0
N
I.3
1 602.12
1 602.12
01
0000000000000000
N
...-NNNNNN-6-6+-•-•�+-a
0
N
0
,�
01
0
01
0
,�
0
�.
0
01
01
0
00)
0
0)
-
(�
-I
V
O
N
O)
N
W
A
V
O
Cfl
-.
A
O
CJ-
N
V
CO
A
-'
N
co
CO
01
A
O
V
W-.
5
CO
-.
N
Z
m
V
A000
+
A
A
O
2
NO
0
07
ON
AA
N
_
—
O0.1
WV
f00
SiOW
tAO
COO
AO
N
O
0
N
VN
01
in
-n
v00000-+Ot,00.400O000OO-.NOOAOOOOO
t0
V
O
N
J
�
O
00�00
j0�00�00�000�-•03ItOA—ON0000o0
T
-.
O
O
A
O
O
A
A
O
O
o
co
O
D
O
O
O)
-.
N
-+
O
O
O
W
Or,
0
0
0
t
O
3
=
A00
W�ON0000-+NON000NO-.AOVAO-.000-.0
1
CO
6.1
Al
O
-+
A
N
O
0A)
O
A
N
O
N
W
60L 1
N
A
-+
CO
-
al
L 367
A
—.
O
01
181
...
r
_.
�N
COO
O
O
-+
CO
CO
-.
ONC/I
O
W
COA
W
CO
0
0
01
W
0
18
C=
= 0
�tCi1
y m
O
CO
V
0
A
1 283
CO
N
--.
e
W
N
�).
CON
792
COO
PO
--.
V
1 7741
T
V
N
—•
CO
V
W
15
V
N
0o
.NI
A
1.3
0D
-+
N+
-
N
3,0341
N
?�
�
III
379
N_
0
0
_
-+
V
—
50
-
p
0
0
0
0
o
N
0
g
0 0 j 15
0
o�000000
NOCOO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
C0
0
0
0
0
0
V,
0
09 N
Ni
-o0W00-.ON
CM
803
-`N12Or.0000OOCO09T
AOv-'A000000
CA
�
W
122
00tI03
1A000
269 1
0M000
80 1
009=
�
V
0
0
m
A
0
W
0
0
0
N-.
0
N
0
0
0
W
0
0
0
0
V
0
0
V
0
0
0
0
0
O
O 1
W
J
0
0
0
0
W
J
0
0
0
0
0 • 43. 5 0 0 • 3 I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 94 9
N
CA
O
A
CO0
A
-.
W,
0
O
...
0
O
-•
Co
N
-.N
O
A
CO
A
CO
0)-
�
A
N
.1
A
OoOO
O
W
�.+N
CO
m
O
V
N
0
V
Cfl
V
W
C.)
0
Al
C71C1
0
-
W
W
A
O
O
-6
Cfl
W
-a
N
N
W
0
V
N
C2)
A
V
—6
1
0
A
C71
0
0
N
_
0
0
-.
-•
ID
W
0
0
0
v -1
O�
N
01
0
O
V
JJ
CO
01
6 3
O
A
O
-.
JJOca
V
0
AA
A
O
O
N
N_
CD
O0
CDN
CD
AO
O
O
OVWVN0N
O-+
S. T
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
f0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
W
0
n N
0
0
0
0
0
0
1'
0
W
0
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
0-.
A
0-.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n T
N0I3—
00-•—N
OWO8OONO-.00OOWoCOo00-On=
3Sf1 ONV1 0NVIUIV3d
PEARLAND LAND USE
TOTAL
AC '
245
030)
N
01
iv)
2221
N
ID
N
M
t0
{�
t0
—
M
d
a)
to
CO
tb
0)
c0
N
CD.-
to
.t
N
CO
M
01
tO
01
d
01
In CI
10
'
.-
.-
0
O
n
0
to
CO
5881
t0
10
I 5451
O
'ID"
I 2871
ID
M
^
.-
01
cl
(O
ID
N
M
r-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
RR I VACANT
O 220
tD
N
10 2081
.-
..--
O I 1231
O 4671
CO
.-
O 1 4361
N
ID
NN
(0
N
M
01
n
O I 4451
0 853
h
.-
CNN
M
N
M
�0 I 461
M
O
N
f 0 I 3081
d
tO
l0
to
d‘-M
0)
O
10
(O
108'1
tO
01
06_ I
1 44
d
CO
to
8,543
to
Tt
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t0
V
u
O
N
ro
t0
0
0
0
0
0
0.-
N
ro
0
N;1;
(O
O
O
O
(Nino
•t
O._
ow
O
O
d
ao
;
�+
d 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
0
0
0
02
0
10
Vct
461D
N
or)
n
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
N
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
M
EDUCATION
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
co
0
0¢
0
0
17 J
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
N
O
N
0
0
0
0
0
0
C0
AIRPORT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INDUST
ONI
441
0,00NOtnd0
03
M
N
01•-NO
401
•-0coN0cod
M
I 48i
ONOO)Dco
.-
N
d
1 4701
I COMM
0)
n.-(D.-NN
4M
.-M.N
.-
NMM
dM
Odpoi
tONdMO._N
ONMDtDNd0cDd•-
I 485
APPENDIX B
STATE SENATE BILL 336.
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
Art. 1269j-4.11. Impact fees for capital improvements or facility expansions
Definitions
Sec. 1. In this Act:
(1) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this Act which identifies
capital improvements or facility expansions pursuant to which impact fees may be
assessed.
(2) "Capital improvement" means water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities;
wastewater collection and -treatment facilities; storm water, drainage, and flood control
facilities; whether or not located within the service area, or roadway facilities, with a life
expectancy of three or more years, owned and operated by or on behalf of a political
subdivision.
(3) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility
which serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in
order that the .existing facility may serve new development "Facility expansion" does
not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to
better serve existing development
(4XA) "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 costa
of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to such
new development As used in this Act, the term "impact fee" includes amortized charges
as well as lump -sun charges and includes capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of
construction, and any other fee which functions as described in this definition.
(B) Impact fees do not include (i) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu
thereof to serve park needs; (6) dedication of rights -of -way or easements, or construction
or dedication of on -site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities, or
streets, sidewalks, or curbs when such dedications and construction are required by valid
ordinances and are necessitated by and attributable to the new development; or (iii) 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; provided, however, no item
which is included in the capital improvements plan shall be required to be constructed,
except pursuant to Subdivision (2) of Subsection (h) of Section 2 of this Act, and no owner
shall be required to construct or dedicate facilities. and pay impact fees for the same
facilities.
(5) "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of
changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population therein over at least a 10-year
period.
57
Art. 1269j-4.11 CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Title t8
(6) "New development" means the subdivision of land; or the construction, reconstruc-
tion, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any
structure; or any use or extension of the uae of land; any of which increases the number
of service units.
(7) "Political subdivision" means a city or town, whether operating under general law
or under special or home -rule charter, 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 in Section 10 of this Act, certain counties described in Section 10.
(8) "Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads which have been
designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together
with all necessary appurtenances, but does not include any roadways or .associated
improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system.
(9) "Service area" means the area within the corporate boundaries, or extraterritorial
jurisdiction as defined by the Municipal Annexation Act (Article 970a, Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes) i of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or
facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan, except roadway facilities.
The service area, for the purposes of this Act, may include all or part of the land within
the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities.
For roadway facilities, the service area is limited to an area within the corporate
boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed a distance equal to the average
trip length from the new development, but in no event more than three miles, which
service area shall be served by the roadway facilities designated in the capital improve-
ment plan.
(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 for a particular category of capital
improvements or facility expansions.
1 Repealed; see, now, V.T.C.A. lad Government Code, f 43.001.
Authorization of Impact Fee
Sec. 2. (a) Unleas otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this Act, no
governmental entity or political subdivision shall enact or impose an impact fee. Political
subdivisions are authorized to enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate
boundaries .or extraterritorial jurisdictions only. by complying with this Act, except impact
fees shall not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway
facilities. A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except for
roadway facilities, to an area outside of its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial
jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee pursuant to the contract, but if an impact fee is
charged therein, the municipality must comply with this Act.
• (b) An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the coats. of constructing capital
improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the construction contract
price, surveying and engineering fees, land acquisitions costa (including land purchases,
court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees), and the fees actually
paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant
preparing or updating the capital improvementa plan who is not an employee of the
political subdivision. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Edwards
Underground Water District or a river authority, which is authorized elsewhere by state
law to charge fees which function as impact fees as defined in this Act, may use impact
fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under
this Act. Projected interest charges and other finance costa may be included in determin-
ing 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) Impact fees shall not be adopted or used to pay for any of the following:
(1) construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital
improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan;
68
CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES Art. 1269j-4.11
Title 28
(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 costa of the political subdivision, except the Edwards
Underground Water District or a river authority, which is authorized elsewhere by state
law to charge fees which function as impact fees as defined in this Act, may expend
impact fees to pay its administrative and operating costs;
(6) principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebted-
ness, except as allowed by Subsection (b) of this section.
(dX1) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital
improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan shall
contain specific enumeration of the following items:
(A) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the
coats to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace such improvements to meet existing
needa and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards,
which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform such
professional engineering services in the State of Texas;
(B) 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 such professional engineering services
in the State of Texas;
(C) a description of all or the portions of the capital improvements or facility expan-
sions and their costa 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 such professional engineering services in the
State of Texas;
(D) 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 but not limited to residential,
commercial, and industrial;
(E) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based op the approved land use assumptions and
calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria;
(F) 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.
(2) The impact fee per service unit shall not exceed the amount determined by dividing
the costs of the capital improvements described in Paragraph (C) of this subsection by the
total number of projected service units described in Paragraph (E) of this subsection. 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 costa of the portion of the capital improvements necessitated by
and attributable to projected new service units described in Paragraph (F) of this
subsection by the projected new service units described in that paragraph. The analysis
required by Paragraph (C) of this subsection may be prepared on a system -wide basis
within the service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility
expansion for the designated service area.
(ex1) This subdivision applies only to impact fees adopted and land platted prior to the
effective date of this Act. For land which has been platted in accordance with Chapter
231, Acta of the 40th Legislature, Regular Session, 1927 (Article 974a, Vernon's Texas
Civil Statutes),I or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision prior to
the effective date of this Act, or land on which new development occurs or is proposed
59
Art. 1269j-4.11 CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Title 28
without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during
the development approval and building process and, except as provided in Subsection (h)
of this section, 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.
(2) This subdivision applies to impact fees adopted prior to the effective date of this Act
and land platted subsequent to the effective date of this Act. For new development
.which is platted in accordance with Chapter 231, Acts of the 40th Legislature, Regular
Seasion, 1927 (Article 974a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), or the subdivision or platting
procedures of a political subdivision after the effective date of this Act, the political
subdivision may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation and, except as
provided in Subsection (h) of this section, 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.
(3) This subdivision applies only to impact fees adopted subsequent to the effective date
of this Act. For new development which is platted in accordance with Chapter 231, Acts
of the 40th Legislature, Regular Session, 1927 (Article 974a, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision prior to the
adoption of an impact fee, no impact fee shall be collected on any service unit for which a
valid building permit is issued within one year subsequent to the date of adoption of the
impact fee.
(4) This subdivision applies to land which is platted in accordance with Chapter 231,
Acta of the 40th Legislature, Regular Session, 1927 (Article 974a, Vernon's Texas Civil
Statutes), or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision subsequent to
adoption of an impact fee which is adopted after the effective date of this Act. The
political subdivision shall assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation of a
subdivision plat or other plat pursuant to Chapter 231, Acta of the 40th Legislature,
Regular Session, 1927 (Article 974a, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), 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 and, except as provided in
Subaection (h) of this section, 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.
(6) For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting,
'the political subdivision may assess the impact fee 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.
(6) Assessment means a determination of the amount of .the impact fee in effect on the
date or occurrence provided in this subdivision and is the maximum amount which can be
charged per service unit of such development. No specific act by the political subdivision
is required.
(f) After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or
execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, no additional impact fees or
increases thereof shall be assessed against such tract for any reason, unless the number
of service units to be developed on such tract increases. In the event of the increase in
the number of service units, the impact fees to be imposed shall be limited to the amount
attributable to the additional service units.
(g) 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.
(h) Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed, but shall not be
collected, in areas where services are not currently available unless:
60
CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES Art. 1269j-4.11
Title 2b
(1) collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion which has
been identified in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to,
within two years, commence construction, pursuant to duly awarded and executed
contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work required to
provide service, and 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 costa
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 coats from impact fees
paid from other new developments which 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.
(i) Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid shall be entitled to the
permanent use and benefit of the services for which the fee was exacted and shall be
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.
(j) Political subdiviaiona are authorized to expend funds from any other lawful source
to pay for all or a portion of the.capital improvements or facility expansions to reduce the
amount of impact fees.
. (k) Political subdivisions and other governmental entities are authorized to pay impact
fees imposed pursuant to this Act.
(1) 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 such develop-
ment.
1 Repealed; see, now, V.T.C.A. Local Government Code, 212.001 et seq.
Procedures for Adoption of Impact Fee
Sec. 3. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, an impact fee as authorized by
Section 2 of this Act shall be levied by a political subdivision only upon complying with the
provisions set forth in this section.
(b) A political subdivision intending to impose an impact fee shall adopt an order,
ordinance, or resolution establishing a public hearing date to consider land use assump-
tions within the designated service area that will be used to develop the capital improve-
ments plan.
(c) Not later than the day of adoption of such order, the governing body of the political
subdivision shall appoint an advisory committee in accordance with Section 7 of this Act.
(d) On or before the date of the first publication of the notice, the political subdivision
shall make available to the public its land use assumptions, the time period of the
projections, and a description of the general nature of the capital improvement facilities
which may be proposed.
(e) The political subdivision shall provide public notice of the hearing.
(1) At least 30 days before the hearing, the political subdivision shall send a notice of
the hearing by certified nail to any person who has given written notice by certified or
registered mail to the city secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision
requesting notice of such hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the
resolution or order setting the public hearing.
(2) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing once a week for three
consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear at least 30, but not more than 60 days before
the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each
county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority which is
authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees which function as impact fees as defined
61
Art. 1269j-4.11 CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Title IS
in this Act may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the
service area lies. The notice of public hearing shall not be in the part of the paper in
which legal notices and classified ads appear and shall 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.
(3) The notice shall contain the following:
(A) a headline to read as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS RELATING TO
POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES"
(B) the time, date, and location of the hearing;
•
(C) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions
that will be used to develop a capital improvements plan pursuant to which an impact fee
may be imposed;
(D) an easily understandable map of the service area to which the land use aaaumptiona
apply; and
. (E) 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.
(f) After the public hearing, the political subdivision shall determine whether to adopt
or reject an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions.
(g) The political subdivision shall have 30 days from the date of the public hearing
within which to approve or disapprove such land use assumptions.
(h) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving land use assumptions shall not be
adopted as an emergency measure.
(i) If the governing body adopts an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land
use assumptions, the political subdivision shall provide for a capital improvements plan to
be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and plan-
ning practices in accordance with Subsection (d) of Section 2 of this Act.
(1) Upon completion of the capital improvements plan, the governing body shall adopt
an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the adoption of the plan and
imposition of the impact fee.
(k) A public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to
discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution adopting a capital improvements plan
and imposing an impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice,
the capital improvements plan shall be available to the public.
(1) The political subdivision shall provide public notice of the hearing.
(1) At least 30 days before the hearing, 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 city secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision
requesting notice of such hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the
resolution or order setting the public hearing.
(2) The political subdiviaion shall publish notice of the hearing once a week for three
consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear at least 30, but not more than 60 days before
the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each
county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority which is
authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees which function as impact fees as defined
in this Act may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the
service area lies. The notice of public hearing shall not be in the part of the paper in
which legal notices and classified ads appear and shall 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.
(3) The notice shall contain the following:
(A) a headline to read as follows:
62
CITIES, , TOWNS AND VILLAGES Art. 1269j-4.11
TIUe f8
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES"
(B) the time, date, and location of the hearing;
(C) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the adoption of an impact
fee;
(D) an easily understandable map of the service area on which the proposed fee will be
levied;
(E) the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and
(F) 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.
(m) The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the proposed capital
improvements plan and impact fees not leas than five business days prior to the public
hearing.
(n) The political subdivision shall approve or disapprove the adoption of the capital
improvements plan and imposition of an impact fee within 30 days after the public
hearing.
(o) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the capital improvements plan and
imposition of an impact fee shall not be adopted as an emergency measure.
Use ut Proceeds
Sec. 4. (a) The order, ordinance, or resolution levying an impact fee shall provide that
all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be depoaited in interest
bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvements or facility
expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. Interest earned on
impact fees shall be considered funds of the account on which it is earned and shall be
subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under the provisions of this Act.
Expenditures of impact fee funds shall be made only for the purposes for which the
impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital irnprovements plan and as authorized by
this Act. The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open
for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours.
(b) The governing body shall be responsible for supervising implementation of the
capital improvements plan in a timely manner.
Refunds
Sec. 6. (a) Upon the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has
been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fees 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 of time 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 pursuant to the provisions of Subdivision (1) of Subsection (h) of
Section 2 of this Act.
(b) Upon completion of the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the
capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall recalculate the impact fee using
the actual coats of the capital improvements or facility expansion. If the impact fee
calculated based on actual cost is less than the impact fee paid, the political subdivision
shall refund the difference if the difference exceeds the impact fee paid by more than 10
percent.
(c) The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or portion thereof which is not
expended as authorized by this Act within 10 years from 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 Article 1.03, Title 79, Revised Statutea (Article
6069-1.03, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), or its successor statute.
(e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund
is paid; provided, however, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or
governmental entity, payment shall be made to such political subdivision or governments)
entity.
63
Art. 1269j-4.11 CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Title IS
(f) The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political
subdivision or governmental entity which paid the impact fee shall have standing to sue
for a refund under the provisions of this section.
Ptan Update
See. 6. (a) A political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use
assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every three years, which three-year
period shall commence from the date of the adoption of the capital improvements plan.
(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 Section 2 of this Act.
(c) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days of receiving the
update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order
getting a public hearing to discuss and to review the update and shall determine whether
to amend the plan.
(d) 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, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan,
including the amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be
available to the public.
(e) The political subdivision shall provide public notice of the hearing.
(1) At least 30 days before the hearing, 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 city secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision
requesting notice of such hearing within two years preceding the data of adoption of the
resolution or order setting the public hearing.
(2) The political subdivisicn shall publish notice of the hearing once a week for three
consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear at least 30, but not more than 60 days before
the data set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each
county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority which is
authorized elsewhere by state law to cheige fees which function u impact fees as defined
in this Act may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the
service area lies. The notice of public hearing• shall not be in the part of the paper in
which legal notices and classified ads appear and shall not be smaller than one quarter
page of a standard -size or tabloid -size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be
in 1&-point Dr larger type.
(3) The notice shall contain the following:
(A) a headline to read as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES"
(B) the time, date, and location of the hearing;
(C) 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;
(D) an easily understandable description and map of the service area on which the
update is being prepared; and
(E) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing
and present evidence for or against the update.
(f) The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the proposed amendments
to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee not leas than five
buaineaa days prior to the public hearing.
(g) The political subdivision shall approve or disapprove the amendment of the land use
assumptions and the capital improvements plan and modification of an impact fee within
30 days after the public hearing.
64
CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES Art. 1269j-4.11
Title 28
(h) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the amendment to the land use
assumptions, the capital improvements plan. and imposition of an impact fee shall not be
adopted as an emergency measure.
Advisory Committee
Sec. 7. (a) A .capital improvements advisory committee, composed of not lean than five
members, 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 shall
be representatives of the real estate. development, or building industries who are not
employees or officials of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If the political
subdivision has a planning and zoning commission, the commission may act as the
advisory committee, provided that 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 within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the
political subdivision, said membership shall include a representative from such area.
(b) The advisory committee shall serve in an advisory capacity and is established to
perform the following functions:
(1) to advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions;
(2) to review the capital improvements plan and file written comments;
(3) to monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan;
(4) to file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements
plan and to report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing the
plan or imposing the impact fee; and
(6) to advise the political subdivision of the need to update or revise the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee.
(c) The political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any profes-
sional reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan.
(d) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural rules for the
committee to follow in carrying out its duties.
Genera! Provisions
Sec. 8. (a) If the governing body of the political subdivision does not perform a duty
imposed under this Act within the prescribed time period, a person who has paid an
impact fee or an owner of land upon which an impact fee has been paid shall have 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 of the request. If the governing body of the political subdivision finds that the duty
is required under this Act and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to
commence within 60 days of the request and continue until completion.
(b) A record must be made of any public hearing provided for in this Act. Such record
shall be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision
for pt least 10 years after the hearing.
(c) Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a
political subdivision where an impact fee is proposed will be cumulative with the
restrictions in this Act.
(d) An impact fee which is in place on the effective date of this Act must, within three
yearn of said effective date, be replaced by an impact fee made pursuant to this Act;
provided, however, any political subdivision having an impact fee which has not been
replaced pursuant to this Act within one year of the effective date of this Act shall be
liable to any party who, after the one-year period, pays an impact fee which exceeds the
maximum permitted under Subaection (d) of Section 2 of this Act by more than 10 percent
for an amount equal to twotimes the difference between the maximum impact fee
65
Art. 1269j-4.11 CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Title ss
allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court
costs.
(e) This Act shall not be construed to prohibit, affect, or regulate any tax, fee, charge,
or assessment which is specifically authorized by state law.
(f) No moratorium shall 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 the
impact fee.
Appeals
Sec. 9. A person who has exhausted sll administrative remedies within the political
subdivision and who is aggrieved by a final decision is entitled to trial de novo under this
Act. A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days from the date of
adoption of the ordinance, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee. Except for
roadway facilities, a person who haq paid an impact fee or an owner of property on which
an impact fee has been paid shall be entitled to specific performance of the services by the
political subdivision for which the fee was paid. Nothing in this section shall require
construction of a specific facility to provide such services. Any suit must be filed in the
county in which the major portion 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. An impact fee shall not be held invalid because the public notice requirements
were not complied with if compliance was substantial and in good faith.
Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control
Sec. 10. (a) Any county with a population of at least 2.2 million, according to the most
recent federal census, oz which borders a county with a population of at least 22 million,
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) of this section is exempt
from the requirements of Section b, Section 6, and Subsection (d) of Section 8 of this Act,
unless the political subdivision proposes to increase the impact fee.
(c) Any political subdivision described in Subsection (a) of this section 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 such political subdivision and to the payment of any other contractual obli-
gations.
(d) An impact fee adopted by a political subdivision pursuant to Subsection (a) of this
pection shall 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 such political
subdivision and (2) the political subdivision agrees in such pledge or contract not to reduce
such impact fees during the term of such bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations.
Exempt Transactions
Sec. 11. (a) This' Act does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or
contributions paid by or charged to a district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the
Texas Constitution to another district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas
Constitution if both districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the
Texas Water Commission.
(b) This Act does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions
charged which are approved by the Texas Water Commission. Any district created
pursuant to Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution,
may petition the Texas Water Commission for approval of any such proposed fees. The
commission shall adopt rules for reviewing any such petition and may charge the
petitioner fees which are adequate to Dover the coat of processing and considering the
petition. The rules shall require notice substantially the same as that required herein for
66
CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES Art. 1269j-4.15
Title 28
the adoption of impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected parties to
participate.
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, 14 1 to 11, art. June 20, 1987.
Title of Act
An Act relating to financing of capital im-
provements by political subdivisions. Act` 1987,
70th Leg., ch. 957.
APPENDIX C
WATER FACILITIES' CAPACITY CRITERIA
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM REGULATIONS
Water Distribution
Pressure
Water Storage
Wells
Capacity
Distribution system shall provide a minimum
of 20 psi under peak conditions and a minimum
of 35 psi during normal operating conditions
(1.5 gpm per connection).
200 gallons of total storage capacity per
connection of which 100 gallon/connection
must be from elevated tanks.
Capacity Two or more wells provide at least 0.6 gpm
per connection.
Booster Each station shall have two or more pumps
Pumps having a total capacity of 2 gpm per
connection OR a total capacity of 1000 gpm
per station with the largest pump out of
services whichever is less and still meets
peak demands.
Auxiliary
Power
Provide 0.35 gpm per connection in case of
power outages.
APPENDIX C - 1/6
CALCULATION OF EXISTING AND
FUTURE DEMAND VERSUS EXISTING CAPACITY
1. Current Conditions: Population = 32,090 persons
Service Units = 11.519 units
Well Capacity:
11,519 connections x 0.6 gpm/connection
6,912 gpm required
6,878 gpm currently available (6,670 from wells and
208 gpm equivalent flow from surface water)
34 gpm needed to meet current demand
Booster Pumps:
Criteria 1:
11,519 connections x 2 gpm/conn.
= 23,038 gpm required
15,245 gpm available
Criteria 2:
Additional booster pumps required at Mary's Creek
station, Green Tee station, McLean station, and
Old City Hall station to provide a total of 2
pumps with a 1,000 gpm minimum capacity with the
largest pump out of service.
Auxiliary Power:
11,519 connections x 0.35 gpm/conn.
= 4,032 gpm required
4,800 gpm available
APPENDIX C - 2/6
Storage Capacity:
Total Ground and Elevated Storage
11,519 connections x 200 gal/connection
= 2,303,800 gal total required
4,140,000 gal total available
Elevated Storage
11,519 connections x 100 gal/conn.
= 1,151,900 gal total required
1,500,000 gal available
Distribution Pressure:
Capacity, as defined by maintaining minimum pressures
during normal and peak conditions, cannot be determined
without a detailed system analysis which is beyond the
scope of this study.
2. Year 2006 Conditions: Population = 49,210 persons
Service Units = 17,357 units
Well Capacity:
17,357 connections x 0.6 gpm/connection
= 10,414 gpm required
6.878 gpm currently available
3,536 gpm needed to meet future demand
Need three (3) minimum 1200 gpm wells. One well needed
to meet 1997 demand, the second and third wells needed
between years 1999 and 2006.
APPENDIX C - 3/6
Booster Pumps:
Criteria 1:
17,357 connections x 2 gpm/conn.
= 34,714 gpm required
Criteria 2:
2 booster pumps required with a total minimum
capacity of 1,000 gpm per station with largest
pump out. Therefore, need four (4) - 500-600 gpm
pumps to upgrade four existing water plants.
Install three minimum 1,200 gpm pumps at new water
plants.
Auxiliary Power:
17,357 connections x 0.35 gpm/conn.
= 6,075 gpm required
4,800 gpm available
1,275 gpm needed
Provide auxiliary power with new wells.
Storage Capacity:
Total Ground and Elevated Storage
21,777 connections x 200 gal/connection
= 4,355,400 gal total required
4,140,000 gal total available
Elevated Storage
17,357 connections x 100 gal/conn.
1,735,700 gal total required
1,500,000 gal available
235,700 gal needed
APPENDIX C - 4/6
Need one minimum 250,000 gallon elevated storage tank when
total connections reach 15,000, approximately year 2001. A
500,000 gallon elevated storage tank is recommended to have
more surplus capacity and take advantage of economy of
scale.
3. Year 2016 Conditions: Population = 62,010 persons
Service Units = 21.777 units
Well Capacity:
21,777 connections x 0.6 gpm/connection
= 13,066 gpm required
6,878 gpm currently available
6,188 gpm needed to meet future demand
Need five (5) minimum 1,200-1,300 gpm wells.
Booster Pumps:
Criteria 1:
21,777 connections x 2 gpm/conn.
= 43,554 gpm required
Criteria 2:
Two (2) pumps required with a total minimum
capacity of 1,000 gpm per station with largest
pump out. Therefore, need minimum four (4) - 500-
600 gpm pumps to upgrade four existing water
plants. Install three (3) minimum 1,200 gpm pumps
at new water plants.
APPENDIX C - 5/6
Auxiliary Power:
21,777 connections x 0.35 gpm/conn.
= 7,622 gpm required
4.800 gpm available
2,822 gpm needed
Provide auxiliary power with new wells.
Storage Capacity:
Total Ground and Elevated Storage
21,777 connections x 200 gal/connection
= 4,355,400 gal total required
4,140,000 gal total available
215,400 gal needed
Need additional 215,400 gallon storage.
Elevated Storage
21,777 connections x 100 gal/conn.
2,177,700 gal total required
1,500,000 gal total available
677,700 gal needed
Need three either three (3) minimum 250,000 gallon elevated
storage tanks, or two (2) 500,000 gallon elevated storage
tanks. The larger tank is recommended to provide additional
surplus capacity and take advantage of economy of scale.
APPENDIX C - 6/6
APPENDIX D
10-YEAR AND 20-YEAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
COST ESTIMATES
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
WATER PROJECT NO. 1
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
YOST BOULEVARD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
8" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$15.00
400.00
$6,000.00
2
8" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$500.00
1.00
$500.00
3
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
1.00
$2,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 1/28
$8,500.00
$850.00
$9,350.00
$1,550.00
$10,900.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 2
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
DIXIE FARM ROAD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
:'AMOUNT
1
16" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$40.00
2,900.00
$116,000.00
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
6.00
$6,600.00
3
16" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$3,000.00
2.00
$6,000.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
3.00
$6,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 2/28
$134,600.00
$13,460.00
$148,060.00
$22,940.00
$171,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 3
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
GOLFCREST STREET
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
12" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$30.00
500.00
$15,000.00
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
1.00
$1,100.00
3
12" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$900.00
1.00
$900.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
1.00
$2,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 3/28
$19,000.00
$1,900.00
$20,900.00
$3,600.00
$24,500.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 4
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
HIGH SCHOOL
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
:': UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
12" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$30.00
6,800.00
$204,000.00
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
14.00
$15,400.00
3
12" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$900.00
5.00
$4,500.00
3
8" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$500.00
2.00
$1,000.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
5.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 4/28
$234,900.00
$23,490.00
$258,390.00
$37,410.00
$295,800.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 5
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
GARDEN ROAD: BUTLER TO FM 518
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
..
UNIT
NO.
ITEM. DESCRIPTION
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
12" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$30.00
5,000.00
$150,000.00
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
10.00
$11,000.00
3
12" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$900.00
3.00
$2,700.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
5.00
$10,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 5/28
$173,700.00
$17,370.00
$191,070.00
$29,930.00
$221,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 6
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
O'DAY ROAD TO HATFIELD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
4
12" C-900 WATER LINE
FIRE HYDRANT
12" G.V. W/BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
UNIT
LF
EA
EA
TN
UNIT
COST
$30.00
$1,100.00
$900.00
$2,000.00
QUANTITY.
2,200.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
$66,000.00
$3,300.00
$2,700.00
$2,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 6/28
$74,000.00
$7,400.00
$81,400.00
$11,600.00
$93,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 7
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
GARDEN ROAD: WATER PLANT TO NORTH
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
'.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
12" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$30.00
4,000.00
$120,000.00
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
8.00
$8,800.00
3
12" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$900.00
2.00
$1,800.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
4.50
$9,000.00,
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 7/28
$139,600.00
$13,960.00
$153,560.00
$24,740.00
$178,300.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 8
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ALICE ROAD TO OLD ALVIN ROAD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT..
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
12" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$30.00
1,700.00
$51,000.00
2
12" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$900.00
3.00
$2,700.00
3
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
2.00
$4,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 8/28
$57,700.00
$5,770.00
$63,470.00
$8,530.00
$72,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 9
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FM 518: O'DAY TO FM 1128
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
-
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
16" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$40.00
5,300.00
$212,000.001
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
11.00
$12,100.00
3
16" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$3,000.00
3.00
$9,000.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
6.00
$12,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 9/28
$245,100.00
$24,510.00
$269,610.00
$38,390.00
$308,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 10
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
STATE HIGHWAY 35: MAGNOLIA TO DIXIE FARM ROAD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
16" C-900 WATER LINE
FIRE HYDRANT
16" G.V. W/BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 10/28
$40.00
$1,100.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
2,700.00
6.00
3.00
3.00
$108,000.00
$6,600.00
$9,000.00
$6,000.00
$129,600.00
$12,960.00
$142,560.00
$21,440.00
$164,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 11
WATER SUPPLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEVATED STORAGE AT GARDEN ROAD WATER PLANT
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
' ITEM
UNIT
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
2
3
500,000 ELEV. STORAGE
FOUNDATION
PIPING
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
LS
LS
LS
APPENDIX D - 11/28
$500,000.00
$75,000.00
$15,000.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
$500,000.00
$75,000.00
$15,000.00
$590,000.00
$59,000.00
$649,000.00
$66,000.00
$715,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 12
WATER SUPPLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
NEW WATER PLANT AT SWEC
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1,200 GPM WELL
428,000 GAL. GST
BOOSTER PUMPS, ELECT., PIPING
16" C-900 WATER LINE
FIRE HYDRANT
16" G.V. W/BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
LS
LS
LS
LF
EA
EA
TN
$365,000.00
$150,000.00
$400,000.00
$40.00
$1,100.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2,500.00
5.00
2.00
4.00
$365,000.00
$150,000.00
$400,000.00
$100,000.00
$5,500.00
$6,000.00
$8,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES.@ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 12/28
$1,034,500.00
$103,450.00
$1,137,950.00
$105,050.00
$1,243,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 13
WATER SUPPLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
NEW WATER PLANT AT FM 518 & SILVER LAKE
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
: `
ITEM DESCRIPTION ``
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
1,200 GPM WELL
LS
$365,000.00
1.00
$365,000.00
2
428,000 GAL. GST
LS
$150,000.00
1.00
$150,000.00
3
500,000 GALLON EST
LS
$500,000.00
1.00
$500,000.00
4
EST FOUNDATION
LS
$.75,000.00
1.00
$75,000.00
5
BOOSTER PUMPS, ELECT., PIPING
LS
$415,000.00
1.00
$415,000.00
6
16" C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$40.00
12,000.00
$480,000.00
7
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
24.00
$26,400.00
8
16" G.V. W/ BOX
EA
$3,000.00
6.00
$18,000.00
9
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
18.00
$36,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 13/28
$2,065,400.00
$206,540.00
$2,271,940.00
$193,060.00
$2,465,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 14
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FM 518: WATER PLANT TO SH 288
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
16" C-900 WATER LINE
16" WL IN CASED BORE
FIRE HYDRANT
16" G.V. W/ BOX
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
LF
LF
EA
EA
TN
$40.00
$135.00
$1,100.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
7,000.00
500.00
15.00
4.00
10.00
$280,000.00
$67,500.00
$16,500.00
$12,000.00
$20,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 14/28
$396,000.00
$39,600.00
$435,600.00
$52,400.00
$488,000.00
WATER PROJECT NO. 15
WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
STATE HIGHWAY 35: DIXIE FARM ROAD TO SOUTH
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
`'
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
12° C-900 WATER LINE
LF
$30.00
8,000.00
$240,000.00,
2
FIRE HYDRANT
EA
$1,100.00
16.00
$17,600.00
3
12" G.V. W/BOX
EA
$900.00
4.00
$3,600.00
4
DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS
TN
$2,000.00
10.00
$20,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 15/28
$281,200.00
$28,120.00
$309,320.00
$42,680.00
$352,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 1
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
CENTENNIAL BLVD./CLEAR CREEK PARKWAY
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
TEM
NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LIFT STATION
24" SAN. SWR.
27" SAN. SWR.
30" SAN. SWR.
MANHOLE
10" CASED BORE
10" FORCE MAIN
LS
LF
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
$100,000.00
$55.00
$65.00
$70.00
$1,500.00
$85.00
$25.00
Q UAN.TITY:
2.00
1,800.00
4,400.00
4,600.00
30.00
100.00
300.00
$200,000.00
$99,000.00
$286,000.00
$322,000.00
$45,000.00
$8,500.00
$7,500.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 16/28
$968,000.00
$96,800.00
$1,064,800.00
$106,200.00
$1,171,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 2
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
JOHN LIZER AND OLD ALVIN ROAD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
LIFT STATION
LS
$100,000.00
3.00
$300,000.00
15" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$35.00
5,700.00
$199,500.00
18" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$45.00
2,000.00
$90,000.00
21" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$50.00
2,500.00
$125,000.00
MANHOLE
EA
$1,500.00
30.00
$45,000.00
10" FORCE MAIN
LF
$25.00
2,000.00
$50,000.00
12" CASED F.M. BORE
LF
$100.00
150.00
$15,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 17/28
$824,500.00
$82,450.00
$906,950.00
$93,050.00
$1,000,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 3
LIFT STATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SHADYCREST LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEMDESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1 LIFT STATION MODIF./FORCE MAIN
LS
$120,000.00
1.00
$120,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 18/28
$120,000.00
$12,000.00
$132,000.00
$20,000.00
$152,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 4
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
DIXIE FARM ROAD
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
':.COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
LIFT STATION
LS
$100,000.00
2.00
$200,000.00
2
18" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$45.00
6,100.00
$274,500.00
3
21" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$50.00
2,400.00
$120,000.00
4
24" SAN. SWR.
LF
$55.00
2,400.00
$132,000.00
5
27" SAN. SWR.
LF
$65.00
6,500.00
$422,500.00
6
MANHOLE
EA
$1,500.00
35.00
$52,500.00
7
10" CASED F.M. BORE
LF
$85.00
150.00
$12,750.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 19/28
$1,214,250.00
$121,425.00
$1,335,675.00
$124,325.00
$1,460,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 5
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
SCOTT STREET
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM: DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
LIFT STATION
LS
$100,000.00
1.00
$100,000.00
2
15" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$35.00
2,000.00
$70,000.00
3
18" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$45.00
2,100.00
$94,500.00
4
24" SAN. SWR.
LF
$55.00
2,100.00
$115,500.00
5
27" SAN. SWR.
LF
$65.00
1,800.00
$117,000.00
6
30" SAN. SWR.
LF
$70.00
1,800.00
$126,000.00
7
33" SAN. SWR.
LF
$75.00
3,600.00
$270,000.00
8
36" SAN. SWR.
LF
$85.00
9,400.00
$799,000.00
9
MANHOLE
EA
$1,500.00
46.00
$69,000.00
10
33" CASED BORE
LF
$185.00
150.00
$27,750.00
11
36" CASED BORE
LF
$210.00
150.00
$31,500.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 20/28
$1,820,250.00
$182,025.00
$2,002,275.00
$178,225.00
$2,180,500.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 6
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
MAGNOLIA TO SWEC
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
U
UNIT
_::. UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
LIFT STATION
LS
$100,000.00
2.00
$200,000.00
2
15" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$35.00
4,000.00
$140,000.00
3
18" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$45.00
10,900.00
$490,500.00
4
21° PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$50.00
1,700.00
$85,000.00
5
24" SAN. SWR.
LF
$55.00
1,800.00
$99,000.00
6
27" SAN. SWR.
LF
$65.00
1,800.00
$117,000.00
7
30" SAN. SWR.
LF
$70.00
1,800.00
$126,000.00
8
MANHOLE
EA
$1,500.00
56.00
$84,000.00
9
12" FORCE MAIN
LF
$30.00
400.00
$12,000.00
10
12" CASED F.M. BORE
LF
$100.00
150.00
$15,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 21/28
$1,368,500.00
$136,850.00
$1,505,350.00
$146,150.00
$1,651,500.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 7
PLANT EXPANSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
LONGWOOD WWTP
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
` ... ITEM`DESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1 .75 MGD WWTP EXPANSION
GAL
$2.00
750,000.00
$1,500,000.00'
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 22/28
$1,500,000.00
$150,000.00
$1,650,000.00
$150,000.00
$1,800,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 8
PLANT EXPANSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
BARRY ROSE WWTP
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
.85 MGD WWTP EXPANSION
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 23/28
AMOUNT
$765,000.00
$765,000.00
$76,500.00
$841,500.00
$158,500.00
$1,000,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 9
WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
NEW WWTP AT SWEC
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION :...
UNIT..
:.UNIT
COST
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
2.00 MGD NEW WWTP
GAL
$2.50
2,000,000.00
$5,000,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 24/28
$5,000,000.00
$500,000.00
$5,500,000.00
$400,000.00
$5,900,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 10
LIFT STATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
WALNUT ST. LIFT STATION MODIF. & FORCE MAIN
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
1
2
3
LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS
12" FORCE MAIN
12" CASED F.M. BORE
LS
LF
LF
$200,000.00
$30.00
$100.00
QUANTITY
1.00
5,300.00
150.00
AMOUNT
$200,000.00
$159,000.00
$15,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 25/28
$374,000.00
$37,400.00
$411,400.00
$48,600.00
$460,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 11
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
STATE HIGHWAY 35: DIXIE FARM ROAD TO SOUTH
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
LIFT STATION
12" PVC SAN. SWR.
15° PVC SAN. SWR.
MANH OLE
10° FORCE MAIN
10" CASED F.M. BORE
LS
LF
LF
EA
LF
LF
$100,000.00
$30.00
$35.00
$1,500.00
$25.00
$85.00
2.00
1,600.00
6,000.00
20.00
2,000.00
100.00
$200,000.00
$48,000.00
$210,000.00
$30,000.00
$50,000.00
$8,500.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 26/28
$546,500.00
$54,650.00
$601,150.00
$70,850.00
$672,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 12
SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FM 518: SH 288 TO NEW WWTP
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
ITEMDESCRIPTION ''
UNIT
UNIT
COST
.QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
LIFT STATION
LS
$100,000.00
3.00
$300,000.00
2
15" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$35.00
13,000.00
$455,000.00
3
18" PVC SAN. SWR.
LF
$45.00
12,000.00
$540,000.00
4
24" SAN. SWR.
LF
$55.00
8,000.00
$440,000.00
5
MANHOLE
EA
$1,500.00
85.00
$127,500.00
6
12" FORCE MAIN
LF
$30.00
4,200.00
$126,000.00
7
12" CASED F.M. BORE
LF
$100.00
500.00
$50,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 27/28
$2,038,500.00
$203,850.00
$2,242,350.00
$223,650.00
$2,466,000.00
WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 13
WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
NEW WWTP NORTH OF FM 518
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
ITEM
NO.
_
ITEMDESCRIPTION
UNIT
UNIT
C.OS:T
QUANTITY
AMOUNT
1
.75 MGD NEW WWTP
GAL
$2.50
750,000.00
$1,875,000.00
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCIES @ 10%
TOTAL EST. CONST. COST
ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING
GRAND TOTAL
APPENDIX D - 28/28
$1,875,000.00
$187,500.00
$2,062,500.00
$180,000.00
$2,242,500.00
APPENDIX E
RESERVE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
a
ANALYSIS OF PRE-1989 WATER LINE PROJECTS
WITH CAPACITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Construction Costs: $ 999,243
1989 Estimate of Total Service Units
as of March, 1988:
1996 Estimate of Current Total Service Units:
Incremental Increase in Total Service Units
from 1989 to 1996:
1989 Projected 20-year Incremental
Increase in Service Units:
7,721 s.u.
11,519 s.u.
3,798 s.u.
7,514 s.u.
Capacity Available for Future Demand:
7,514 s.u. - 3,798 s.u. = 3,716 s.u.
Costs Available for Future Demand:
$999,243 x 3,716 s.u. = $494,170
7,514 s.u.
Projected 10-year Demand: 5,838 s.u.
Proportion of Costs to be
Allocated to Future Demand:
5,838 s.u.
3,716 s.u.
= 1.57*
Construction Costs to be Allocated
to Projected 10-year Demand: $494,170 x 1.0 = $494,170
*This implies that more capacity will be required than is
currently available to meet the demand in year 2006.
APPENDIX E - 1/5
ANALYSIS OF PRE-1989 ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANKS
WITH CAPACITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Construction Cost: $807,203
1996 Estimate of Current Total Service Units: 11,519 s.u.
Demand for Storage for Current
Total Service Units: 11,519 s.u. x 100 gal storage/s.u.
= 1,151,900 gals
Capacity Available for Future Demand:
1,500,000 gal - 1,151,900 gal = 348,100 gal
Cost Available for Future Demand:
$807,203 x 348,100 gal = $187,325
1,500,000 gal
Projected 10-year Demand:
5,838 s.u. x 100 gal storage/s.u. = 583,800 gal
Proportion of Cost to be Allocated
to Future Demand:
583,800
348,100
= 1.67 *
Construction Cost to be Allocated
to Future Demand: $187,325 x 1.0 = $187,325
* This implies that more capacity will be required than is
currently available to meet the demand in year 2006.
APPENDIX E - 2/5
ANALYSIS OF GARDEN ROAD WATER PLANT AND TRANSMISSION LINES
WITH CAPACITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Cost: $1,128,300
Adjusted Construction Cost Without Water Well* $ 745,900
1989 Estimate of Total Service Units
as of June, 1993:
1996 Estimate of Current Total Service Units:
Incremental Increase in Total Service Units
from 1993 to 1996:
1993 Projected 20-year Incremental
Increase in Service Units:
9,481 s.u.
11,519 s.u.
2,038 s.u.
7,241 s.u.
Capacity Available for Future Demand:
7,241 s.u. - 2,038 s.u. = 5,203 s.u.
Costs Available for Future Demand:
$745,900 x 5,203 s.u. _ $535,964
7,241 s.u.
Projected 10-year Demand: 5,838 s.u.
Proportion of Costs to be
Allocated to Future Demand:
5,838 s.u.
5,203 s.u.
= 1.12**
Construction Costs to be Allocated
to Projected 10-year Demand: $535,964 x 1.0 = $535,964
*No excess capacity available in water well.
**This implies that more capacity will be required than is
currently available to meet the demand in year 2006.
APPENDIX E - 3/5
ANALYSIS OF PRE-1989 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROJECTS
WITH CAPACITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Barry Rose WWTP Original Capacity
1984 Expansion Program
Total Plant Capacity after Expansion
Longwood WWTP Original Capacity
1984 Expansion Program
Total Plant Capacity after Expansion
1.0 MGD
1.25 MGD
2.25 MGD
0.5 MGD
1.25 MGD
1.75 MGD
Total City-wide Plant Capacity after Expansion 4.0 MGD
Construction Cost of
Barry Rose:
Longwood:
Total:
Expansions:
$2,094,000
1.672.000
$3,766,000
Wastewater Demand January,
Barry Rose:
Longwood:
Total:
Capacity Available
Cost Available for
1996 - December, 1996
2.007 MGD
1.074 MGD
3.081 MGD
for Future
Demand:
4.0 MGD - 3.081 MGD = 0.919 MGD
Future Demand:
$3,766,000 x 0.919 MGD = $1,384,380
2.50 MGD
Projected 10-year Demand:
5,838 s.u. x 3.2 person/s.u. x 110 gal/person
Demand = 2.055 MGD
Proportion of Cost to be Allocated
to Future Demand:
2.055 = 2.23 *
.919 —
Construction Cost to be Allocated
to Future Demand: $1,384,380 x 1.0 = $1,384,380
* This implies that more capacity will be required than
is currently available to meet the demand in year 2006.
APPENDIX E - 4/5
ANALYSIS OF WWTP CAPACITY
REQUIREMENTS TO MEET YEAR 2016 DEMAND
Existing Service Units = 11,519 s.u.
10-year Projected Increase = 5,623 s.0
Wastewater Flow:
Existing Service Units:
(11,519 s.u.)(3.2 person/s.u.)(120 gal/person)
= 4.423 MGD
10-year Projection:
(5,838 s.u.)(3.2 person/s.u.)(110 gal/person)
= 2.055 MGD
Total Wastewater Demand by yr. 2006:
Available Capacity:
Additional Capacity Required by yr. 2006:
New WWTP at SWEC (2.00 MGD)
Longwood Expansion Cost (.7500 MGD)
Barry Rose Expansion Cost (.850 MGD)
Total Expansion Cost (3.6 MGD)
Average Cost per Gallon Expansion Cost:
6.478 MGD
4.0 MGD
2.478 MGD
$5,900,000
$1,800,000
1,000,000
8,700,000
$2.42/gallon
Cost to Expand Current Capacity to Meet 2006 Demand:
2,478,000 gallons x $2.42/gallon = $5,996,760
Proportion this Cost for each Plant Based on Ratio of 2.478
MGD/3.600 MGD:
New WWTP at SWEC = $4,070,360
Longwood Plant Expansion = $1,238,400
Barry Rose Plant Expansion = $ 688,000
$5,996,760
APPENDIX E - 5/5
APPENDIX F
TESTIMONY BY WALSH ENGINEERING, INC.
PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPACT FEE STUDY 1996
, 1997
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
RESOLUTION NO.
APPENDIX G
Walsh Engineering, Inc.
QUESTIONS ABOUT WATER & SEWER IMPACT FEES (06/23/971
What are Impact Fees? Sometimes called capital recovery charges, tap fees, or plant charges,
Impact Fees are charges a city imposes on new development to generate revenue for funding or
recouping the costs of capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the new development.
Such fees have been used by Texas cities for many years, but challenges to cities' authority to levy
impact fees and allegations that some cities' fees were unjustified led to the 1987 adoption of Senate
Bill 336 (SB 336). SB 336 standardized calculation of maximum impact fees for water, sanitary
sewer, drainage and street capital improvements. The City of Peariand considered only water and
sewer impact fees in its Impact Fee Study.
Why are we considering new Impact Fees? SB 336 requires cities that have adopted impact fees
to update the land use assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) at least every three years.
The amount of the - impact fee is calculated from the information derived from the land use
assumptions and capital improvements plan.
How are impact fees cakulated? Land use assumptions are made about the number of single family
home equivalents, or service units, expected to be built in the next ten years. Water and sewer
improvements to meet new demand are priced out in the CIP. Impact fees per service unit are
deter by dividing CIP costs by total service units. Once adopted, impact fees must be reviewed
by the City Council every three years.
Impact fees adopted by the City Council may not exceed those in the Impact Fee Study, which in
Peariands case are $3,189 per service unit. However, the Planning & Zoning Commission has
recommended water and sewer impact fees totaling $ 1,997 'per service unit. This represents an
increase of S900 over current fees, as shown below.
Fee Type Current
Sewer Tap S 0.00 0.00
Water Tap 0.00 0.00
Meter Set 100.00 100.00
Water & Sewer
Impact1097.00 1.997.00
Total S1197.00 S2,097.00
Increase Over Current Fees = S 900.00
Why is the full eligible amount not proposed for collection? The allowable impact fee calculated
in the .1993 study was S 1,782, so the previous fee of S 1,097 represented 61. S% of the eligible
amount. The proposed fee of S1,997 represents 62.6% of the eligible amount that could be charged.
1
OIIESTIONS ABOUT WATER & SEWER BIPACT\FEES (06/23/971
Why does the City of Pearland need to collect impact fees? Entlow and infiltration (I & I) of rain
water and ground water into our aging sewer system causes both treatment plants to violate permit
limits during rainy months. The E.P.A. and the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
can fine the city or even impose a moratorium on new construction until deficiencies are corrected.
Through an aggressive program to locate and correct I & I problems, stab has been able to defer the
need for waste water plant expansions, however, new development is rapidly consuming sewer
capacity gained from I & I reduction, making plant expansions an immediate necessity. Impact fees
will be used to expand treatment capacity and extend the collection system to allow for growth!
Impact fees will also be used to expand the water distribution system.
When in the development process will impact fees be collected? Under SB 336, fees may be
collected at platting or upon acceptance of the subdivision or at building permit issuance. The current
policy is to collect the .fee at building permit issuance; staff recommends the continuation of this
policy .
Will impact fees vary from one part of Peariand to another, like they do in Friendswood? No,
for the sake of simplicity, Walsh Engineering developed the 1993 impact fees uniformly throughout
the city. This policy is recommended to continue.
Aren't you going to stifle development by adding impact fees? We hope not. First, impact fees
have been in place for three years and development trends have continued to increase. Second, other
cities in the region were surveyed on their fees and charges. Impact fees have become a common
practice and the proposed'fees are within the range of those charged by other cities.
2
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES L
(Ascending order by Total Fees)
1
City
Sewer
Connection
Fee
Water
Connection
Fee
Sewer Impact
Fee
Water Impact
Fee
Other
Total Fees
Alvin (1)
50
i
50
10
i
, 110
Deer Park
275
305
-
580
Pasedena
350
250
600
Sugarland (8)
200
440
640
Kemah (WC&ID #R12) (4)
150
500
30
680
LaPorte (5)
250
184
140
146
720 i
Houston (3)
700
200
900
Friendswood-D (2)
161
790
951
Friendswood-E3&E4 (2)
161
790
951
Friendswood-bay Area (2)
294
790
1084
Friendswood-A (2)
378
790
1168
Friendswood.F (2)
378
790
1168
earland-Existing (7)
100
860
237
1197
friendswood-C (2)
285
293
790
1368
Friendswood-81&82 (2)
378
293
790
1461
F/iendswood-E1&E2 (2)
784
790
1574
League City (8)
250
200
728
522
1700
Seabrook
450
719.20
531.20
1700.4
Webster
150
225
500
850
1725
Friendswood-Melody Lane (2) t
450
_
854
790
2094
Friendswood-Mills&Murphy (2)
2532
790
3322
Revised May, 1997.
Notes:
(1) S50 are inspection fees; $10 is meter fee. Developer/Buider installs and pays for cost of meters and taps.
(2) Developer/Buider instals and pays for cost of meters and taps.
(3) Developer/Buider instals and pays for cost of meters and taps.
(4) Developer/t3uider instals and pays for sewer tap. District instals water meter.
5150 is "Sewer Inspection Fee". S30 is "Water/Sewer Permit Fee" ($15 each).
(5) Impact Fees based on 2000 sq. ft structure. Sewer. 57.00/100 sq. it. Water. 57.30/100 sq. ft.
(6) Fees in Impact Fee Columns are "Capital Recovery Fees".
') Developer instals and pays for water and sewer taps. 5100 is meter set fee.
Water/Sewer taps made in existing areas are made by City and charged at cost to the developer.
Based on residential sewer tap fee and 3/4" meter set and tap fee
COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
(Alphabetical)
Il
City
Sewer
Connection
Fee
Water
Connection
Fee
Sewer Impact
Fee
Water Impact
Fee
Other
Total Fees
Alvin (1)
4
50
50
10
110
Deer Park
275
305
580
Friendswood-A (2)
378
790
1168
Friendswood-B1&B2 (21
378
293
790
1461
Friendswood-C (2)
285
293
790
1368
Friendswood-D (2)
161
790
951
Friendswood-E1&E2 (2)
784
790
1574
Friendswood-E3&E4 (2)
161
,
790
951
Friendswood-F (2) ,
378
790
1168
Friendswood-Bay Area (2)
294
790
1084
Friendswood-Melody Lane (2)
450
854
790
2094
Friendswood- Mllts&Murphy (2)
2532
790
3322
Houston (3)
700
200
900
.emah (WC&ID #12) (4)
150
500
_
30
680
LaPorte (5)
250
184
140
. 146
720
League City (6)
250
200
728
522
1700
Pasadena
350
250
600
Pearlar d-Existing (7)
100
860
237
-1197
Seabrook
' 450
719.20
531.20
1700.4
send (8)
200
440
640
Webster
150 .
0 225
500
850
1725
Revised May. 1997
Notes:
(1) $50 are inspection fees; $10 is nieter fee. Developer/Builder instals and pays for cost of meters and taps.
(2) Developer/Buider instals and pays for cost of meters and taps.
(3) Developer/Builder instals and pays for cost of meters and taps.
(4) Developer/Buider instals and pays for sewer tap. -District instals water meter.
S150 is 'Sewer Inspection Fee". $30 is -Water/Sewer Permit Fee" ($15 each).
(5) Impact Fees based on 2000 sq. R structure. Sewer: $7.00/100 sq. ft Water: 57.30/100 sq. ft
(6) Fees in Impact Fee Columns are "Capital Recovery Fees".
(7) Developer instals and pays for water and sewer taps. 5100 is meter set fee.
Water/Sewer taps made in existing areas are made by City and charged at cost to the developer.
Based on residential sewer tap'fee and 3/4" meter set and tap fee.
CITY OF PEARLAND
OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY
3519 LIBERTY DR., PEARLAND, TX 77581-5416
. (281) 485-2411, EXT. 341
FAX (281) 485-.1106
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
TO: LW&K
FROM: Il0-e11r4 -4avidor-P
DATE: 444-0
NO. OF PAGES: c3 INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE.
SUBJECT: 4,6(44. '�te
a_t_ as V ucL6LJ
�'- °o"i pzIam
4*e
4L— /4rq7
) Agao
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES
6:00 P.M.
May ,19,1997
Council Chambers of City Hall
3,519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the amendment of
land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and
the imposition of an impact fee in. the service area
encompassed by the city limits.
Any member of the public has the right to appear at the
public hearing and present evidence, for or against the
update.
ID: APR 14'97 13:44
TRANSMIT (CONFIRMATION REPORT
NO. 015
RECEIVER REPORTER
TRANSMITTER
DATE APR 14'97
DURATION 02'09
MODE STD
PAGES 03
RESULT OK
13:44.
,95.055 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Title 12
j 395.055. Notice of Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions,
Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee
(a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on amendments to the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee, the political subdivision shall send ,
a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has give& 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 once a week for three
consecutive weeks, the firsnotice to appear before the 30th day but on or after the 60th
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 publi
the required newspa.er notice only in each county in which the service area lies. �e
notice o pu is earing may no . i the part oTthe paper ui which legal notices and
classified adsappear 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. •
(c) The notice must contain the follow%ng:a ,
(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;
(4) an easily understandable description and map of the service area on which the
update is being prepared; and .. . .
(5) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing
andpresent evidence for or against the update.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Historical and Statutory Notes .
Prior Laws:
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1 to 11.
Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 1269j-4.11, § 6(e).
§ 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 hearingon the
amendments. .
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. • • . • • .•
Historical and Statutory Notes
Prior Laws:
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1 to 11.
Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 1269j-4.11, § 6(f).
§ 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. •
146
.,.,r -.. - .
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Title 12
Historical
Prior Laws: • '
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1 t
§ 395.0575. Determination ,That
tal Improvements
(a) If, at the time an update under
determines that no change to the lan
impact fee is needed,it may, as an alt
395.052-395.057, do, the following •
(1) The governing body of .the po
update is .unnecessary and 60 days b
send notice of its determination n
improvements plan, and impact fee t
years preceding the date that the f
written notice by certified or regi
designated official of the political st
impact fees. The notice must conta
(2) The political subdivision shall
three consecutive weeks in one or- 1
county in which the political subd.
authorized elsewhere by state law
publish the required newspaper notic
The notice of public hearing may not
and classified ads appear and may n(
size 'or tabloid -size newspaper, and
larger type. •
(b) The notice must contain the folic
(1) a headline to read as follows:
"NOTICE OF DE'r1';RMINATIO?N
TIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMEI`
(2) a statement that the governing
that no change to the land use assum
necessary;
(3) an easily understandable descr
updating has been determined to be
(4) a statement that, if, within a sl
after publication of the first notice, a
official of the political subdivision r
improvements plan, or impact fee be
request by following the requiremen
(5) a statement identifying the n
political subdivision to whom a requ(
(c) The advisory committee shall file
land use assumptions, capital improv
business day before the earliest notic(
necessary is mailed or published. ,
(d) If, by the, date specified in SubsE
land use assumptions, capital improvem
body shall cause an update of the land
be prepared in accordance with Section
(e) An ordinance, order, or resoluti
assumptions, a capital improvements _ is
emergency measure.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1
CITY OF PEARLAND
OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY
3519 LIBERTY DR., PEARLAND, TX 77581-5416
. (281) 485-2411, EXT. 341
FAX (281) 485-1106
FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
TO: !MJ/— /4D0 u" ro /
FROM:
DATE:
LLkhq/ 649ndor I'
NO. OF PAGES: (g INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE.
SUBJECT: p6viv__ YIU, v_ixcYrtR LLd. QO I h-F
lei ide /irks Qr . s&t, .iC: QS goLtaos
rtn.L,
0/ctifix., 13o ke_ pzpo'
elamitad4 ror (.effred).
0.6� m'i 4,r2a',2fla-
'16 uwA4 /lectzex- 01 4 a3-9 7 *-36-97
10(1k- hav-e- an � o �d�,�
J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES
6:00 P.M.
May 19, 1997
-Council Chambers of City Hall
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the amendment of
land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and
the imposition of an impact fee in the service area
encompassed by the city limits.
Any member of the public has the right to appear at the
public hearing and present evidence for or against the
update.
,95.055 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Title 12
} 395.055. Notice of Hearing. on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions,
Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee
(a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on amendments to the land use
assumptions, capital improvements plan,. or 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 once a week for three
consecutive weeks, the first notice to appear before the 30th day but on or after the 60th . ; '
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 publi
the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. he
notice of public -nearing may not -n 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. •
(c) The notice must -contain the following .. ..
(1) a headline to --read as follows:
"NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES" ;r
(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;
(4) an easily understandable description and map of the service area on which the
update is being prepared; 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 update. , - ', - . .
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg.; ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989.
Historical and Statutory Notes ..
Prior Laws:
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1 -to 11.
Vernon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 1269j-4.11, § 6(e).
§ 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.
Historical and Statutory Notes
Prior Laws:
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1 to 11.
Vemon's Ann. Civ. St. art. 1269j-4.11, § 6(f).
§ 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.
146
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
TiUe 12
Historical
Prior Laws: •
Acts- 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 957, §§ 1 t
§ 395.0575. Determination That -
tal Improvements
(a) If, at the time an update under
determines that no change to the lan
impact fee is needed,it may, as an alt
395.052-395.057, `do the following: -
(1) The governing body of the po
update is unnecessary and 60 days b
send notice of its determination n
improvements plan, and impact fee t
years preceding the date that the f
written notice by certified or regi:
'designated official of the political si
impact fees. The notice must conta
(2) The political subdivision shall
three consecutive weeks in one or i
• county in which the' political subd:
authorized elsewhere by state law
publish the required newspaper notic
The notice of public hearing may not
and classified ads appear and may nc
size ortabloid-size newspaper, and
larger type. '
(b) The notice must contain the folic
(1) a headline to read as follows:
"NOTICE OF D1J1' i RMINATIO?\
TIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEME1\
(2) a statement that the governini
that no change to the land use assurr.
necessary;
(3) an easily understandable descr
_ updating has been determined to be
(4) a statement that if, -within a si
after publication of the first notice, a
official of the political subdivision r
improvements plan, or impact fee be I
request by following the requiremen
- (5) a statement identifying the n
political subdivision to whom a requ(
(c) The advisory committee shall file
land use assumptions, capital improv
business day before the earliest notice
necessary is mailed or published.
(d) If, by the date specified in Subse
land use assumptions, capital improvem
body shall cause an update of the land
be prepared in accordance with Section
(e) An ordinance, order, or resoluti.
assumptions, a capital improvements
emergency measure.
Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1
i s
•
ID: APR 14'97 14:56
TRANSMIT CONFIRMATION REPORT
RECEIVER
TRANSMITTER
DATE
DURATION
MODE
PAGES
RESULT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
016
7132206981
APR 14'97
02'02
STD
03
OK
1
14:56
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The Pearland Reporter News
2404 South Park
Pearland, Texas 77581
State of Texas
Brazoria and Harris Counties
I, Joan Cummings, hereby certify that the notice hereby appended was published
in Brazoria and Harris Counties in the REPORTER NEWS, a newspaper of general
circulation in Brazoria and Harris Counties, for / issues, as follows:
No.
Date ClhaziZA
19 /%
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
Editor
Subscribe and worn to before me this ZCI day of
19 /1
Notary Public, State of Texas
Laura Ann Emmons, Publisher
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT
OF IMPACT FEES
6:30 P.M.
, June 23, 1997
Council Chambers of City Hall
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas ;
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the amendment of
land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the
imposition of an impact fee in the service areaencompassed'
by the city limits.
CITY OF
PEARLAND„TEXAS
TO
HOUSTON
TO
ANGLETON
TO
HOUSTON
TO
ALVIN
TO
HWY. 45
Any member of the public has he right to appear at the public
hearing and present evidence for or against the update.
ti
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The Pearland Reporter News
2404 South Park
Pearland, Texas 77581
State of Texas
Brazoria and Harris Counties
ea z4pb
I, Joan Cummings, hereby certify that the notice hereby appended was published
in Brazoria and Harris Counties in the REPORTER NEWS, a newspaper of general
circulation in Brazoria and Harris Counties, for / issues, as follows:
No. % Date Jl.JLf 30 19 ��
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
Subscribe and sworn to before me this 3
19 111
Editor
day of i4.1(
NO
jiizAzi;$ Y COMaSQNEXPE`S%c Stategi AtFv'
S
'4;me'
Laura ArrnTEmmoq�®911. ic °,,.�•t fisher;
IC>;
ORDINANCE NO. 806
AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
!!{ CITY OF PEARLAND,.
TEXAS,I REVISING THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PLAN FOR THE CITY OF
PEARLAND; UPDATING
IMPACTTEES• IN ACCOR-
DANCE WITH STATE L AW;
MAKING CERTAIN FIND-
I INGS; !PROVIDING A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION;
CONTAINING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE; A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE AND A REPEALER -
CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR
,PUBLICATION, CODIFICA-
TION AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Section-5: Penalty -Any per _ 1
son who shall violate the pro-
visions of this section shall be
deemed guilty of a misde-
meanor and shall, upon con-
viction by a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction, be punished
by a fine in any sum not
i
r
exceeding Five Hundred
Dollars ($500.00). '
i
'PASSED and APPROVED on ,
First and Only Reading this
the 28th; day of July, A.D.,
1997.
/sfTOM REID
MAYOR-
4 ATTEST:
Is/ YOUNG LORFING.
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/AMY MOTES McCULLOUGH
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTING' RECORD (FIRST
AP:DONLY READING JM
28.1997)
Voting "Aye"- Councilmem-
bers Cole, Berger, Beck-
man, Tetens, & Wilkins
Voting"No"- None
Motion passed 5 to O.
PUBLICATION DATE: JULY
30,1997
EFFECTIVE DATE: AUGUST
10,1997
PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED
BY SECTION 3.10 OF THE
CHARTER OF -THE -CITY -OF
PEARLAND.
-t-
I •
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The Pearland Reporter News
2404 South Park
Pearland, Texas 77581
State of Texas
Brazoria and Harris Counties
I, Joan Cummings, hereby certify that the notice hereby appended was published
in Brazoria and Harris Counties in the REPORTER NEWS, a newspaper of general
circulation in Brazoria and Harris Counties, for / issues, as follows:
No. / Date 3/ y 19 17
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
()\I-UrtEd(-)itor
Subscribe and worn to before me this % day of
19 411
(7 Li A
1rd, StateSSION!'Aotot ES jxas
MY 09/09/98
.•! _. inrn; 0
Iisher
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT
OF IMPACT FEES
6:30 P.M.
June 23,1997
Council Chambers of City Hall
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the amendment of
land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the
imposition of an impact fee in the service area encompassed
bythe city limits.
PEARLAND, TEXAS
TO
HOUSTON
HUGHES RANCH RD. •
TO
ANGLETON
TO
HOUSTON
TO
ALVIN
TO
HWY. 45
Any member of the public has he right to appear at the public
hearing and present evidence for or against the update.
6208026
6420981
6421862
AFFADAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF TEXAS:
COUNTY OF HARRIS:
Before me, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for
the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared: JEFF
CAMPBELL, who after being duly swom, says that he is the
ADVERTISING ACCOUNTING ASSISTANT MANAGER of the
HOUSTON CHRONICLE, a daily newspaper published in Harris
County, Texas, and that the publication, of which is in the annexed
is a true copy, was published to -wit:
***ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED ON MAY 14, 1997***
***ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED ON MAY 21, 1997***
***ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED ON MAY 28, 1997***
JEF MPB LL
4 d% •
ASSISTANT MANAGER
ADVERTISING ACCOUNTING
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this the 3RD
day of JUNE A D 1997
and for the State of Texas
JACQUE W. BROWN
Notary Public, State of Texas
Commission Expires 06-19-2000
4100-5005
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES
6:30 P.M.
June 23, 1997
Council Chambers of City Hall
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland, Texas
The purpose of this hearing is to consider:'
the amendment of land use assumptions
and a capital improvements plan and the
imposition of an impact fee in the service
area encompassed bythe city limits. lo
Any member of the public has the right to •
-r , 06w, _ ,adpi9faticipresent
-r
iiot# %Ins
e uPdate.
-
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The Pearland Reporter News
2404 South Park
Pearland, Texas 77581
State of Texas
Brazoria and Harris Counties
I, Joan Cummings, hereby certify that the notice hereby appended was published
in Brazoria and Harris Counties in the REPORTER NEWS, a newspaper of general
circulation in Brazoria and Harris Counties, for / issues, as follows:
No. / Date J " 74 04 19 ill
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
No. Date 19
Subscribe and worn to before me this
19 airt
Editor
G
? Z day of Vh
d , P H t+ r9
Atv "' LAURA A. EMMONS
mo41, o; Io a PUBLIC ^ STATE nE
n E r rII ,f PA iRi
.'4r& Of q``
�n�ar�09/09/98
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT
OF IMPACT FEES
6:30 P.M.
June 23, 1997
Council Chambers of City Hall
3519 Liberty Drive
Pearland; Texas
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the amendment of
land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the-
!
imposition of an impact fee in the service area encompassed'
.by the ,city:limits.
-
Any member member of the public has he right to appear at the public
hearing and present evidence for or against the update.
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
The Pearland Reporter News
2404 South Park
Pearland, Texas 77581
State of Texas
Brazoria and Harris Counties
I, Joan Cummings, hereby certify that the notice hereby appended was published
in Brazoria and Harris Counties in the REPORTER NEWS, a newspaper of general
circulation in Brazoria and Harris Counties, for / issues, as follows:
No. / Date ?*--
No.
No.
No.
No.
Date
Date
Date
Date
1917
19
19
19
19
Subscribe and sworn to before me this / Y day of 4.
19 �n
tary Public, State of Texas
Laura Ann Emmons, Publisher
ook
Public NQke''
ORDINANCE NO. 806
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 ACCOR-
DANCE WITH STATE LAW;
MAKING CERTAIN FIND-
INGS; PROVIDING A
PENALTY FOR VIOLATION;
CONTAINING A SAVINGS
CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE AND A REPEALER
CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION, CODIFICA-
TION AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
i
Section 5. Penalty. Any per-
son who shall violate the pro-
visions of this section shall be
deemed guilty of a misde-
meanor and shall, upon con-
viction by a court of compe-
tent jurisdiction, be punished
by a fine in any sum not
exceeding Five Hundred
Dollars ($500.00).
PASSED and APPROVED on
Second and Final Reading
this the 11th day of August,
A.D., 1997.
/siTOM REID
MAYOR
ATTEST:
/s/YOUNG LORFING
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/AMY MOTES MCCUL-
LOUGH
CITY ATTORNEY
VOTING RECORD
Voting "Aye"- Council-
members Cole, Berger,
Beckman, & Tetens
Voting "No"- None
Absent- Councilmember
Wilkins
Motion passed 4 to 0.
PUBLICATION DATE:
August 13,1997
EFFECTIVE DATE:
AUGUST 23, 1997
PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED
BY SECTION 3.10 OF THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF
PEARLAND.