The URL can be used to link to this page

Ord. 1091 01-27-03ORDINANCE NO. 1091 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS, REVISING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PEARLAND; UPDATING IMPACT FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND A REPEALER CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION, CODIFICATION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, by virtue of Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, Volume 3, Local Government Code, Chapter 395 ("State Law"), the City Council has found it necessary and appropriate to revise the City's capital improvements plan and update impact fees to comply with the provisions of said State Law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has employed qualified professionals to revise the capital improvements plan and calculate updated impact fees, and has held a public hearing, as required by State Law, at which hearing all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to adopt the revised capital improvements plan and levy an updated impact fee in accordance with said State Law; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS: Section 1. The facts and matters set forth in the preamble of this Ordinance are hereby found to be true and correct. Section 2. The capital improvements plan, included in a study by Freese and Nichols entitled Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Update 2002 (the "Study"), is incorporated herein as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof for all purposes. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1091 Section 3. The updated impact fee calculations, included in the Study, and more particularly, Table 15 located at page 40, and Table 2, page 4 of the Shadow Creek Ranch supplement 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. 1091 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 on March 31, 2003 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 13th day of January , A. D., 2003. ATTEST: NG Y SE%' ETARY day of TOM REID MAYOR PASSED and APPROVED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING this the 27th January , A. D., 2003. 3 TOM REID MAYOR ATTEST: NC 01-r- �- RETAR APPROVED AS TO FORM Ce4L_, DARRIN M. COKER CITY ATTORNEY VOTING RECORD SECOND AND FINAL READING JANUARY 27, 2003 Voting "Aye" Councilmembers Tetens, Viktorin, Owens, Marcott, and Seeger. Voting "No" - None. Motion passes 5 to 0. PUBLICATION DATE: January 29, 2003 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2003 PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 3.10 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF PEARLAND, TEXAS TABLE 15 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROD NO.. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.:. PRE-2002 2002 2012 : `•2012.2022 ! IMPACT FEE.. :: EL'LIGIBLE_.' , . IMPACT FEE. ::REM.. - FM 518 16" Transmission Line: Cullen to Kirby $1,065,039 $1,050,526 $525,263 1 Dixie Farm Road 16" Waterline: Mary's Creek Bypass to Clear Crk. $926,706 $914,078 $457,039 2 State Hwy. 35 Transmission Line: Broadway to South . $849,305 3 Magnolia Dr. & Veterans Dr. Transmission Lines , $572,890 $572,890 $286,445 4 500,000 Gal. Elev. Stor. @ Garden Rd. Water Plant . $944,000 5 Southeast Water Plant (Water Well No. 9) $2,762,469 $2,762,469 $1,381,235 6 Elevated Storage at Southeast Water Plant $1,504,500 $195,735 $97,868 7 Barry Rose - Green Tee WP Transmission Line $831,503 8 Veterans Dr. - Bailey Rd. to CR 100 . $1,150,363 9 Bailey Rd. - SH 35 to FM 1128 $4,578,508 $4,578,508 $2,289,254 10 Houston Monroe Connection & 24" Transmission Line $5,386,700 2 11 Pearland Pkwy. 16" WL - Mary's Creek to Oiler Dr. - $597,670 . $597,670 $298,835 12 FM 1128 16" WL - Broadway to Bailey Rd. $949,015 $949,015 $474,508 13 Bailey Rd. - FM 1128 to SH 288 $3,986,630 14 SH 35 16" WL- Dixie Farm to South $695,905 15 Cullen Blvd. & Hughes Ranch Rd. Transmission Lines $1,325,435 $1,325,435 $662,718 16 FM 518: Sherwwod to Plnd. Pkwy. $247,210 $247,210 $123,605 17 FM 518: Prind. Pkwy. to East $1,287,675 $1,287,675 $643,838 18 FM 518: Harkey to Texas $1,167,315 19 Water Treatment Plant & 24" Transmission Line $112,840,450 20 Cullen & Stone Rd. Transmission Lines $756,085 $756,085 $378,043 21 Broadway 16" Transmission Line - Kirby Rd. to CR 48 $479,670 22 Shadow Creek Pkwy. 16" Trans. Line - Kirby Rd. to SH 288 $744,285 23 SH 35 Transmission Line: Broadway to Clear Creek $1,848,618 $1,823,427 $911,714 1 24 Roy Road 12" Transmission Line . $585,870 $585,870 $292,935 25 Max Road 12" Transmission Line $539,998 $539,998 $269,999 26 Pearland Pkwy. 16" WL - Oiler Dr. to Dixie Farm Rd. $421,850 - Old City Hall Water Plant Pumps upgrade and 3rd Pump $35,000 - Green Tee Water Plant 3rd Pump $25,000 - McLean Rd. Water Plant Pumps upgrade and 3rd Pump $35,000 - Water Well No. 10 & Water Plant $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,125,000 - Water Well No. 11 & Water Plant $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,125,000 - Water Well No. 12 & Water Plant $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,125,000 - Water Well No. 13 & Water Plant . $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,125,000 - Water Well No. 14 & Water Plant $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $1,125,000 - Water Well No. 15 & Water Plant $2,250,000 - Water Well No. 16 & Water Plant $2,250,000 - Water Well No. 17 & Water Plant $2,250,000 - Administration $21,000 $21,000 $10,500 SUBTOTAL $1,065,039 $35,235,349 $130,861,276 $29,457,591 $14,728,796 WATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 8,102 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS $3,636 $1,818 WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPACT EE ' PROP. 3 NO.. PROJECT: DESCRIPTION PRE-2002 ..::2002-2012 . ;;:.,2012-2022 ::. ELLIGIBLE.;. IMPACT FEE . REM:' - Pre-198TExisting WVVTIcess Capacity $3,766,000 ', •0,,: $450,414 - SWEC, Barry Rose, Longwood WWTP's Expansions $8,418,244 $7,534,371 $3,767,186 1 - Magnolia -Veterans, Fite -Harkey, SCR Phase 1, Westgate • $5,446,263 $4,745,8.64 $2,372,932 1 1 Longwood WWTP Expansion $11,800,000 $1,855,550 $927,775 2 Longwood - Paul Trunk Sewer $379,665 3 Texas - N. & S. Broadway Trunk Sewer $527,460 4 FM 1128 Trunk Sewer: Fite to Bailey $1,042,117 5 Broadway - Garden Rd. Trunk Sewer $1,974,435 6 Barry Rose - Huges Rd. Trunk Sewer $2,499,093 7 Dixie Farm Rd. Trunk Sewer- Longwood WWTP to Oakbrook $2,148,619 $2,119,340 $1,059,670 1 8 SH 35 Sewer Improvements - Broadway to Clear Creek $1,450,368 $1,430,604 $715,302 1 9 FM 518: SH 288 to Cullen Blvd. $2,775,958 $2,775,958 $1,387,979 10 Pearland Pkwy. - John Lizer - Old Alvin Road Trunk Sewer $1,767,640 11 SH 35 Trunk Sewer - Magnolia Ave. to Dixie Farm $2,011,753 12 McHard Trunk Sewer $983,088 $983,088 $491,544 13 Magnolia Trunk Sewer- Veterans Dr. to Railroad $491,618 $491,618 $245,809 14 Dixie Farm:.SH 35 to Cowart's Creek $757,560 $757,560 $378,780 15 SH 35 - Dixie Farm Ad. to South $1,537,938 16 New WWTP North of FM 518 $4,425,000 17 WWTP Expansion at SWEC $11,800,000 $1,855,550 $927,775 18 Veterans = Bailey - Wells Dr. Trunk Sewer $2,285,365 19 Kirby Rd. & Kingsley Trunk Sewer Oversizing $242,556 $242,556 $121,278 20 Far Northwest WWTP Expansion Oversizing $13,629,000 21 Dixie Farm Rd. - Cowart's Creek to Oakbrook $521,029 $521,029 $260,515 22 Harkey Truhk Sewer - Bailey to CR 100 $1,259,945 23 Broadway - Roy Rd. Trunk Sewer $1,580,905 _ 24 Broadway - Max Rd. Trunk Sewer $1,380,895 25 Cullen to New WWTP Trunk Sewer $1,629,580 26 Cullen Blvd. - Chocolate Bayou Rd. Force Mains $290,870 27 Shadow Creek Pkwy. Trunk Sewer Oversizing - Phase 2 $1,105,916 $950,302 $475,151 1 - 1 Administration $21,000 $21 000 $10,500 SUBTOTAL $17,630,507 $34,097,712 $38,221,661 $27,185,217 $13,592,609 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 8,102 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS $3,355 $1,678 TOTAL WATER .&WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE 6;991 Remarks: 1. Proposed impact fee figure reflects debt service cost for the 10-year period. 2. Project is proposed for the 10-year period, however, it is not listed as impact fee eligible unless an agreement is reached with Houstbn. Then, this project will be substituted. for a number of water plants, depending on how much water is purchased. 3. Proposed impact fee reflects 50% of impact fee eligible cost. AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION The Pearland Reporter News 2404 South Park Pearland, Texas 77581 State of Texas Brazoria and Harris Counties I, Randy Emmons, hereby certify that the notice hereby appended was published in Brazoria and Harris Counties in THE REPORTER NEWS, a newspaperof.general circulation in Brazoria, Harris & Galveston Counties, for / issues, -as follows: No. / Date i - Z q 20 0 3 No. Date 20 No. Date 20 No. Date .20 No. Date 20 Subscribe and sworn to before me this J 20 c 3 LAURA ANN EMMONS Notary Public, State of Texas Commission Expires 09-09-2006 Laura Ann Emmons,Publisher Notary_ Public,. State of Texas Ordinance 1091 Published 01/29/03 PublishedJan 2%; mm -- !ORDINANCE NO. 1091 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 INIACCOR- DANCE WITH STATE LAW; • MAKING CERTAIN FIND- INGS; , PROVIDING A ' PENALTY FOR VIOLATION; ' CONTAINING A SAVINGS G CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY ' CLAUSE AND A REPEALER ; CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION, CODIFICA- TION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Section 5. Penalty. Any person who shall violate the , provisions 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 exceeding Five Hundred , Dollars ($500.00): . PASSED .and APPROVED ON SECOND: AND FINAL READING this the; 27th day of January, A. D:, 2003. /s/ Tom Reid Mayor ATTEST:, /s/ Young Lading '• City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM /s/ Darriri M. Coker City Attorney . VOTING RECORD SECOND,' AND FINAL READING JANUARY 27, 2003 ; Voting °Aye"- Councilmembers Tetens , Viktoriri;-Owens,_ Marcdtt-= { and Seeger. Voting "No" -None. ', 0 Motion passes 5 to . PUBLICATION DATE: January 29, 2003 EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 2003 -PUBLISHED AS REQUIRED - BY SECTION 3.10 OF THE CHAPTER OF THE CITY OF ' PEARLAND, TEXAS Exhibit "A" Ordinance No. 1091 WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY 2002 UPDATE E 01 j FREESE o NICHOLS 1 Tr FILE COPY CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE DO NOT REMOVE r("1 LJ r FNI JOB NO. 02-305 CITY OF PEARLAND BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY 2002 UPDATE January 2003 Prepared By: FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. ENGINEERS • ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS • ARCHITECTS 2010 EAST BROADWAY PEARLAND, TEXAS 77581-5502 281-485-2404 FAX 281-485-4322 r r r E fl J n 0 114 n CONTENTS CITY OF PEARLAND WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY 2002 UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. PREFACE v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi - viii INTRODUCTION A.GENERAL 1 B. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 C. CHAPTER 395, TEXAS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 2 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS A. GENERAL 3 B. POPULATION 5 C. POPULATION/HOUSING DENSITY ... 5 D. CONSTRUCTION TRENDS 9 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN A. EXISTING CONDITIONS 11 i Li B. WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 16 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN A. EXISTING CONDITIONS B. WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS A. GENERAL B. SERVICE UNITS C. EXISTING FACILITIES D. IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION E. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION EXAMPLES IMPACT FEE ADOPTION A. PUBLIC HEARING B. ORDINANCE EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 1 WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 2 WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 3 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR SHADOW CREEK RANCH WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ii fl J 22 26 33 33 36 39 41 45 45 APPENDICES A. PEARLAND ECONOMIC/MARKET DATA BY CDS RESEARCH B. CHAPTER 395, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE C. WATER FACILITIES' CAPACITY CRITERIA D. 10 & 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN COST ESTIMATES E. RESERVE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS F. PRESENTATION BY FREESE & NICHOLS, INC. AT PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPACT FEE UPDATE JANUARY 6, 2003 G. ORDINANCE. FIGURE 1 Population and Growth 1960-2022 8 TABLES Table 1 Pearland Land Use Projections 2002-2022 .... 4 Table 2 Population Trends 1970-2022 6 Table 3 Population/Housing Statistics 7 Table 4 Construction Trends 1980-2022 10 Table 5 Existing Water Facilities 12 Table 6 Water Use 1985-2022 13 Table 7 Water Demand and Capacities 2002-2022 14 Table 8 Wastewater Flow 2000-2002 23 Table 9 • Wastewater Treatment Demand and Capacities 2002-2022 27 iii r E r �j LI p LJ r-1 Table 10 Service Unit Factors 34 Table 11 Commercial Service Units 10-year Projection 35 Table 12 City -Wide Service Unit Projections 37 Table 13 Capital Improvements Projects with Capacity for Future Development 38 Table 14 Cost Data for Capital Improvements Projects with Reserve Capacity 38 Table 15 Impact Fee Calculation 40 iv r 0 r r PREFACE The City of Pearland, under an agreement executed on May 13, 2002, retained Freese and Nichols, Inc. as Engineering Consultant to update the 1999 impact fee for water and wastewater improvements pursuant to Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code (with 1989 and 2001 amendments). 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 above Chapter 395 to remain in effect. Following these requirements, the City obtained an update of its Comprehensive Development Plan (1988 Update) and a Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study. Subsequently, in 1993, 1996 and 1999 the City obtained the second, third and fourth updates of its Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study. As required by 2001 amended Chapter 395, the City must update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at minimum every five years. Previous regulation required the update every three years. This study encompasses those items as required by amended Chapter 395 to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee assessment. A separate update of water and wastewater impact fee study is prepared for the Shadow Creek Ranch development. The Shadow Creek Ranch service area is treated separately in accordance with the TIRZ and Development Agreement with the City (See Attachment). Mehran (Ron) Bavarian, P. E. Associate Houston Area Manager ..7.613.4. 7or P�Eof.4.1 RAN BAVARIAN .0% 48811 v iE r r I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report represents an update of 1999 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study. Report is prepared pursuant to Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code (with 1989 and 2001 amendments). The report studies a 20-yr. period however, for the impact fee assessment only those costs and service units associated with the first 10-yr. period are accounted for. The 1999 report included a separate supplemental impact fee study for the Shadow Creek Ranch (SCR) development. For 2002 update, the supplemental impact fee study for the SCR development is also updated. Pearland City limits encompass approximately 44.57 square miles or 28,525 acres of which 5.41 square miles or 3,467 acres is in the Shadow Creek Ranch development. The Census 2000 reports a population of 37,640 people for Pearland. The mid 2002 population is estimated to be 45,153 people. The year 2012 and year 2022 projected populations are 68,009 and 83,859 people, respectively. For the purpose of impact fee assessment, all types of uses are converted to an equivalent service unit, being a single-family dwelling. Currently, City has 16,626 connections of different types. Using the conversion factors stated in the report, this equals to 18,199 equivalent service units. The 10-yr. and 20- yr. equivalent service unit projections are 26,301 and 32,331, respectively. For the purpose of impact fee computations, the net equivalent service unit increase between current and the first 10-yr. period, or 8,102 is used. vi r L City's current water supply sources consist of 8 water wells and one surface water Econnection in Green Tee Subdivision, totaling approximately 7,963 gallons per minute (gpm) capacity. The McHard Road surface water connection in the far northwest quadrant of the City is water connection Fin Green Tee Subdivision, totaling approximately 7,963 gallons per minute (gpm) capacity. The McHard !"? Road surface water connection in the far northwest quadrant of the City is currently under construction thus not accounted for in this update. Available ground and elevated storage capacities are 3,295,000 gallons and 2,500,000 gallons, respectively. To meet the current and projected service units demand, the City will need approximately 2,957 gpm well capacity for current demand and 7,818 gpm and 11, 436 gpm for years 2012 and 2022, respectively. There will be a shortage of 130,100 gallons of elevated E7, storage for year 2012 and 733,100 gallons for year 2022. r- ,� City's current wastewater treatment system consists of three plants, totaling 1 7.100 MGD capacity. Based on the average annual flows for the past two years, there is currently 2.695 11 MGD reserve capacity. To meet projected service units demand, 0.629 MGD and 2.347 MGD capacity expansions are needed for year 2012 and year 2022, respectively. .;I To meet the current and future demands, water and wastewater projects were developed for �I -,, this report update. Twenty-six water and twenty-seven wastewater projects were identified. Some of the projects costs include the 10-yr. debt service due to their funding method. The total water projects exceed [1 twenty-six due to the number of water wells needed to meet demand however, except for one, the rest have been costed but not identified due to uncertainty on location. The estimated total cost of all water projects is $29,457,591. The estimated total cost of all wastewater projects is $27,185,217. Therefore, the total eligible water and wastewater projects cost is projected to be $56,642,808. vii r !"9 ei r1 Li [1 r [1 Fl 1� To compute the proposed water and wastewater impact fee rate, the proposed projected cost of $28,321,404 is divided by the projected 10-yr. service units of 8,102, to obtain a proposed rate of $3,496. The City's current rate established in 1999 is $2,968. For the SCR development, the projected 10-yr. service units is 11,538. To meet future demand, two water and three wastewater projects were identified. The total eligible water and wastewater projects are estimated to be $30,827,772. This total cost includes 10-yr. debt service for some projects currently underway. To compute the impact fee rate for the SCR development, the above cost is divided by 11,538 projected service units to obtain a rate of $2,672. The SCR development current rate established in 1999 is $2,678. The proposed impact fee is 100% of the eligible rate. This is due to the development agreement between the City and SCR development in which the development is to compensate the City for any rate less than 100% assessment. The list of water and wastewater projects and their locations, projected Land Use Assumption, and a Market Study are contained in this report. viii C r fl 0 r INTRODUCTION A. General The City of Pearland, under an agreement executed on May 13, 2002, retained Freese and Nichols, Inc. to update the 1999 impact fee for water and wastewater improvements. The update and impact fee determination are based on amended Chapter 395, Texas. Local Government Code requirements, for adoption of an impact fee. B. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to update the 1999 impact fee determination as described in the report entitled "Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study 1999 Update", by Freese and Nichols, Inc. (formerly 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 wastewater improvements. A description of the existing water and wastewater 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 Market Research, Inc., a marketing research firm located in Houston (see Appendix A) Also presented in the report are individual water and wastewater capital improvements identified by the City of Pearland that will be required to meet the 10-year and 20-year demand. A study of existing and future land use assumptions is described in the report. An impact fee, based on the new land use assumption, is determined according to the requirements of amended Chapter 395. A public hearing on the new land use assumptions is also required by amended Chapter 395. The ordinance required for adoption of the impact fee are also included in the report. 1 L. C. Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code On June 20, 1987 the Texas Legislature passed into law the impact fee assessment. 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. This law was codified in Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code Book. The intent of the law is to ensure that these impact fees, when collected, are used strictly for the construction of capitalization or maintenance of new or existing capital improvements. The law requires that the political subdivision conduct a public 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). The most recent revisions to Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code occurred in 1989 and 2001. See Appendix B for the impact fee regulations. r-- �"9 r LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS A. General "Land use assumptions", as defined by amended Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code, "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 this impact fee determination, is the area bounded by the existing city limits with the exception of Shadow Creek Ranch development (see Attachment for separate update). For Shadow Creek Ranch, a separate service area and impact fee is developed in the Attachment. Pearland City limits encompasses approximately 44.57 square miles or 28,525 acres of which 5.41 square miles or 3,467 acres is in the Shadow Creek Ranch development. 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 downtum to the City as a result of the oil industry slump. The City recovered from the economic downturn of the 1980's and is currently experiencing a period of tremendous growth again. During the 1970's and 1980's, Pearland experienced a shift from agricultural land use to urban usage because of developmental demands. In the 1990's, especially in the past eight years, Pearland has experienced tremendous growth in the residential and commercial developments. Forecast of land use for Pearland for the next 10 and 20 years are presented in Table 1. The City, excluding the Shadow Creek Ranch, is expected to need approximately 3,368 acres for new developmental purposes during the next 10 years, with 2,700 acres, or 80% of that land, required for residential demand (single and multi -family). Commercial and industrial uses will require approximately 668 acres or 20% of the total new acreage. 3 4 _ri= L__ C� �v_ l f ,� C-z 6 a_ �9 ET ** Pearland TABLE 1 PEARLAND LAND USE PROJECTIONS 6/2002 - 6/2022 -'._�-:•,- --+.rr`da 4 • E.rrt ' •.zg. vY 'R° <cjyt '. ^1,�}.,� �� .•7 ,,.' f7 S , ,� � 1 *: r 2 -.rs_ 4x • lfT airl ', n i. "� .4ad "' FF£4744':e\i... ,g64z.4"i , .✓"`` 4r :ar.c,. e..ad�'y1 iypm. Yh ' �...ax,y a Z^ �a,`"A.�a 1.am... ary'j a ',Mt h,[Tt$' tl � ,. �::°7 y. , t,. v , VPF% . .7 a'j I Single Family 5,549 1,400 6,949 1,300 8,249 1,000 9,249 1,000 10,249 Multi -Family 135 20 155 11 166 • ' 0 166 0 166 Subtotal 5,684 1,420 7,104 1,311 8,415 1,000 9,415 1,000 10,415 Commercial * 1,730 300 2,030 300 2,330 200 2,530 200 2,730 Industrial ** 598 15 613 22 635 22 657 15 • 672 Total 8,012 1,735 9,747 1,633 11,380 1,222 12,602 1,215 13,817 Based on: 2.5 Single Family Units per acre. 15 Multi -Family Units per acre. 2.4 Acres per Commercial Connection, dropping to 1.6 acres past 2012. 7.5 Acres per Industrial Connection. * Commercial acreage includes: Retail, office, service centers, warehouse, etc. Industrial acreage includes new light industrial projects in city limits. Source: CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston 4 1 I n n F 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 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 census data, the City of Pearland population accounted for 5.9%, 7.8%, 9.8% and 15.6% of the Brazoria County population, respectively. Based on the estimated population for June 2002, this percentage is now 17.7%. The City grew by 18,943 persons during the 1990's and currently has an estimated population of 45,153 persons as of June 2002. The City's year 2012 population is projected to be 68,009 persons (20.7% of Brazoria County) while the year 2022 population is projected to be 83,859 persons (20.2% of Brazoria County) . These projections exclude proposed Shadow Creek Ranch development. Figure 1 presents a graphical description of the City's growth over the past 40 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 wastewater facilities can be determined. Information used for this conversion ispresentedin Table 3. The average occupancy level per housing unit (single and multi- family) for the City and the County for the past three census' are shown in Table 3. Based on the 2000 census data, the City's average household size was 2.84 persons per housing unit and the average family size was 3.17 persons per family housing unit (See Table 3). The migration of family units to the City in the 1990's and early 2000's has shifted towards the single-family category. During the 1990's , the number of single family dwellings increased by 4,315 units while the multi -family has increased by 988 ---1 ` ` . r [ _ I 1 i C71 E 1 n_ 1 z 11 r=7: 1 ** TABLE 2 POPULATION TRENDS PEARLAND AND SELECTED AREAS 1970 — 2022 r Y�}.,...g:e ,a �h . < t,-.�..f'.4 i .., - 1i+,� ) a Q>� . Z.''•��7- sI .�...�,t, f:,� 1,. C�t s�lb'va.: . . 'ir ,G•., K }+.,t.. �:: �ta�1. ,<9,,9_ 0., ,,�..... .aA,.,, F �^.� ' �rQ..m.r:amv2vt- Y. 20 2 ` �y. ...,, , , 20ry17 _ . Houston M.S.A.* 2,169,100 2,735,766 3,322,025 4,177,646 4,345,372 4,764,422 5,646,408 6,445,094 7,165,091 Brazoria County 108,300 169,588 191,707 241,767 255,390 283,149 328,500 370,244 415,784 Percent of M.S.A. 5.0% 6.2% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.8% City of Pearland** 6,400 13,200 18,697 37,640 45,153 57,199 68,009 75,934 83,859 % of Brazoria County 5.9% 7.8% 9.8% 15.6% 17.7% 20.2% 20.7% 20.5% 20.2% * Six County Metropolitan Statistical Area includes: Harris, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Liberty, Walker and Chambers Counties. Does not include Shadow Creek Ranch Development. Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000; Claritas Information Services; Texas State Data Center; City of Pearland; and CDS Market Research Note: Figures exclude Shadow Creek Ranch development CDS Market Research, Houston 6 Population TABLE 3 POPULATION/HOUSING STATISTICS Brazoria County Pearland 1980 Census 1990 Census 2000 Census 1980 Census 1990 Census 2000 Census 2012* 2022* 169,588 191,707 241,167 13,200 18,716 37,640 68,009 83,859 Occupied Housing Units 53,907 64,019 81,954 Person Per Occupied Housing Unit 4,333 6,577 13,192 21,454 26,454 3.15 2.99 2.82 3.05 2.84 2.84 3.17 3.17 * Projected Source: U.S. Census Data Note: Projections exclude Shadow Creek Ranch development. 7 88 80 72 - 64 66 - POPULATION (1000'S) 83,859 2022 (PROJECTION) 68,009 2012 (PROJECTION) 45,153 2002 (EST.) YEAR POPULATION TREND 1960-2022 CITY OF PEARLAND FIGURE 1 NOTE: PROJECTIONS EXCLUDE SHADOW CREEK RANCH DEVELOPMENT L -7710 Research in Appendix A). This trend in housing tends to show that a higher occupancy rate per unit should be used for projections. Therefore, the Census 2000 rate of 3.17 persons per family household unit is used for the population projections. D. Construction Trends Historical construction data by type, beginning in 1980 are presented in Table 4. As shown, a total of 4,315 single-family building permits in the City (within City limits) were 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 all permits issued was 2,097 or an average of 210 permits per year. During the 1990's, the total number of all permits issued was 5,472 or an average of 547 permits per year. The 1990's average annual value of 547 permits is well over double the average annual value of 210 permits during the decade of the 1980's. During the period of 2000 to mid 2002, the total number of all permits issued was 2,869 or 1,148 permits per year. This is more than double the 1990's average annual value of 547. Existing major subdivisions in the City with vacant lot inventory include Pearland Farms, the Park at Walnut Bend, Clear Creek Estates, the Lakes of Highland Glenn, Cabott Cove, and Park Village Sections 5 and 6, West Oaks Village, Bellavita, Sonrise Lakes, Towne Lake Estates, Centennial, Ravenwood, Audubon Place, and Autumn Lakes. 9 CA * N .- 0 O n a ti (o co • 1n N 0 cD R. 11 Np 'C CD 0- 1=0N >4 C9 CD c O a Co z a co cn CD ▪ .73 C7 0, CA CA CA • N N N • 1-+ F+ F+ F+ 1-+ 1-+ f-+ 1-+ 1-+ ►r • 1--+ H-+ F+ I-+ - 1-, O O O C 0 VD VD VD VD VD 0 '0 VD VD (-T.VD 0 VD VD VD 0 ,VD 0 0 _ O O O 'y. VD 0 0 VD \D 0 0 VD `D 0 O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 • N- O .Id.+ VD 00 v 0 Ch A W N 1--& O • VD 00 -4 01 C/1 A W N F-+ O r+ N �l 1--+ 00 A A A U1 W W A A C.a.)A 1-+ 1� M-+ 1-+ -4 N Lk)Fr ON VD • I(1k F- Iv' F-+ 1-+ .4 A 000 O 00 O IN W W N • W O 1-+ A A 00 W 00 0V1 VD O N F+ N 1r W W W F+ A 0 N O Co.) OIO O O VD °I° NA 41 N 0 0 0- A CO ON � 1oW 0 00�O11O\0 1--+ W CI1I�-+ N �+ ►+ IN N W 1--+ 1-•+ 1-+ F-+ 1--+ H-+ 00 N IW N 1•-+ O C 4 O A 1-+ W r•-+ N N 1--+ V N W O VD W N TA Q� i--+ (O -.1 (I1 00 A VD 00 )+ 00 cc tJ 00 • I-+ W Vt U1 I.1--+ -4 U1 V1 W W A U1 W 1-+ H-+ 1 -+ r•-+ (A W O CO N O th J \D J VD 1-+ O N W UI J O U1 N N Fes+ F+ �1U1 AAO W A 0 00 CT 001--+A1-+JNA N A -1 LAInuug ai u!s zAlImg,1131nR1 0 5 et J 0 G' fr WATER SYSTEM 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 provides potable water from eight wells plus 100,000 gallons per day purchased from Harris County MUD 13. Table 5 presents the wells and their pumping and storage capacities. Historical and current water usage are presented in Table 6. The per capita demand for potable water has been steady during the 1990's. The average consumption over the last ten years is 117 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). The GPCD usage represents total potable water produced by the City which is either consumed or lost due to leakage. Public consumption includes lawn and garden watering. The Texas Water Commission sets forth standards which regulate public water systems. These criteria were used to evaluate the current level of demand 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 Texas Water Commission criteria and the computations to determine existing and future demand are presented in Appendix C. The existing water supply facilities have sufficient capacity to meet current and future demand in some facilities but are deficient in others. Currently, total well capacity is short 2,957 GPM 11 E - i i I=31i 1 [ l =_i r_ € E— L _ it [ 1 [ _ 1 TABLE 5 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES Well Booster Pumps Ground Elevated Station Name Capacity (gpm) No. Capacity (gpm) Storage (gal.) Storage (gal.) FM 518 774 3 2,260 350,000 Liberty 1,392 3 3,130 500,000 500,000 Magnolia 984 3 3,150 400,000 McLean 545 2 990 300,000 500,000 Old City Hall 548 2 790 200,000 Alice 815 3 2,600 300,000 500,000 Green Tee 2081 2 1,220 212,000 Garden Road 1,397 3 2,980 428,000 Cullen Blvd. 1,300 3 4,500 605,000 1,000,000 Total 7,963 23 21,6202 3,295,000 2,500,000 1. City is receiving an equivalent of 208 gpm surface water from HCMUD 13. 2. Total system -wide capacity. Note: Facilities exclude Shadow Creek Ranch development 12 r I E'er 7-1 1 J =A UTi L.171EJ �_ (_ R_ t i=1 ETA TABLE 6 WATER USE 1985-2002 (million gallons) Month 1985 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Jan 62.91 66.58 71.14 83.95 79.47 90.08 84.65 93.46 92.36 90.45 104.38 128.17 123.09 r 133.16 Feb 55.73 59.71 72.44 79.15 72.96 81.28 76.76 86.69 77.38 86.73 89.56 125.82 118.74 119.54 Mar 61.35 68.95 76.38 84.55 78.03 89.22 87.16 96.78 88.07 01.09 100.51 148.94 130.85 133.74 Apr 68.02 63.28 74.34 81.05 85.30 86.08 96.46 108.48 88.39 117.12 118.37 143.99 145.32 150.48 May 60.74 77.73 75.70 90.70 87.40 94.39 108.89 132.60 93.42 167.85 128.09 151.15 155.33 189.16 Jun 83.41 108.55 79.60 89.73 89.40 96.53 107.88 131.42 98.39 169.21 105.122 162.34 133.68 168.06 Jul 84.75 96.31 91.22 100.30 117.48 128.39 122.49 141.39 135.91 165.24 118.708 229.28 174.51 Aug 106.24 118.94 96.47 112.78 145.36 102.49 115.85 112.27 127.44 148.77 169.268 198.97 174.25 Sep 81.22 92.39 81.66 90.86 112.00 95.90 128.78 89.59 112.22 116.13 160.898 162.03 137.27 Oct 72.37 89.10 96.76 107.31 97.54 96.74 106.62 95.75 99.20 100.07 129.919 147.11 134.79 Nov 63.24 73.55 77.96 82.34 85.92 87.79 85.32 90.72 91.69 97.95 143.838 121.85 134.29 Dec 14.23 29.07 48.67 69.09 78.63 80.85 79.54 88.36 83.55 88.38 120.994 128.12 124.61 Total 194.88 350.38 673.18 869.07 993.72 974.52 1082.26 1139.22 1132.42 1209.24 1492.63 1847.77 1686.73 894.14 Average Monthly 72.42 82.81 81.21 90.19 94.93 94.37 100.77 105.87 99.91 122.03 124.39 . 153.98 140.56 149.02 Population Est. 14,050 19,861 20,948 22,461 23,000 26,030 29,060 32,090 33,040 34,627 37,039 38,749 43,341 45,153 GPCD 169 137 127 132 136 119 114 109 100 116 110 131 107 110 Source: Water Works Monthly Reports 13 TABLE 7 WATER DEMAND AND CAPACITIES 2002 - 2022 Required Capacities Current Capacity 2002 2012 Population 45,153 Connections/ Service Units 18,199 Well Capacity (GPM) 10,920 Booster Pumps1(GPM) 16,000 68,009 26,301 15,781 28,000 Excess or (Deficiency) 2022 2002 2002 2012 2022 83,859 32,331 19,399. 34,000 Ground Storage (Gallons) 1,819,900 2,630,100 3,233,100 Elevated Storage (Gallons) 1,819,900 2,630,100 3,233,100 Total Storage (Gallons) 3,639,800 5,260,200 6,466,200 7,963 (2,957) (7,818) (11,436) 11,8002 3,295,000 2,500,000 5,795,000 1 Governing criteria is the number of booster pumps required per station to provide a total capacity of at least 1,000 gpm with the largest pump out of service. 2 Total capacity computed based on meeting the minimum requirements stated above. Note: Figures excluded Shadow Creek Ranch development 14 (4,200) (16,200) (22,200) 1,475,100 664,900 61,900 680,100 (130,100) (733,100) 2,155,200 534,800 (671,200) r or approximately 1.42 MGD) of meeting the current demand. To meet 2002 demand and have a surplus, a minimum of 3 wells at 1,300 GPM capacity should be drilled. Three more wells with a minimum 1,300GPM capacity each will be required to meet the need for the next 10 years. The well water demand requirements will change when City purchases surface water from the City of Houston. An approximate conversion between ground well capacity and surface water purchase is 0.625 MGD surface water to 1,300 gpm well. Therefore, a volume equivalent to the 6 needed wells could be met by a surface water connection of 3.75 MGD or more. 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 Green Tee station. The existing pumps at McLean Road and Old City Hall stations are currently rated below 500 gpm. These pumps need to be upgraded to increase their capacity above 500 GPM and then one additional pump with minimum capacity of 600 GPM be installed at each station. Each new well drilled will require a minimum of two booster pumps (three pumps recommended) with a minimum capacity of 1,000 GPM each (1,500 GPM each is recommended). 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, currently has adequate total combined storage capacity (ground and elevated storage) to meet demand for the next 10 years. However, at the present level of growth, some elevated storage (130,100 gallons) will be needed to meet the year 2012 demand. It is recommended that a minimum 500,000-gallon elevated storage be installed before the total equivalent single-family connections reach 25,000. 15 F E E r r r B. Water Capital Improvements Plan Twenty six projects have been identified and are proposed for the 20-year Capital Improvements Plan. Fifteen of these projects are for the first 10-year period and eleven are for the second 10-year period. These projects are briefly described below: 1. Dixie Farm Road Water Line: A 16-inch water line to replace an existing 8-inch line. The line will extend from just north of Mary's Creek bypass to near Clear Creek, approximately 8,763 feet long. This line will provide more water in this corridor. Existing tie-in lines are already 16-inch diameter. (10-yr. project) 2. State Highway 35 Water Line (Broadway to South): Approximately 9,800 feet of 16-inch waterline along State Highway 35, extended from Broadway (FM518) to near Oiler Drive. This line will provide more water along Pearland's major north -south corridor. (20-yr. proj ect) 3. Magnolia Drive and Veteran's Drive Water Lines: Approximately 4,800 feet of 16-inch waterline on Magnolia Drive between State Highway 35 and Veteran's Drive and approximately 2,000 feet of 12-inch waterline on Veteran's Drive, north of Mary's Creek. These lines will provide adequate water in this area. (10-yr. project) 4. Elevated Storage Tank: A 500,000-gallon elevated storage tank at the Garden Road Water Plant. This elevated tank will provide the required elevated storage needed for the second 10-year period. (20-yr. project) 5. Southeast Water Plant: A new water plant at Bailey Road and railroad with a minimum 1,300 GPM water well, 1 million -gallon ground storage tank, booster pumps, and a 16-inch 16 r L E connecting line. The well will provide some of the needed well capacity requirement. (10-yr. project) 6. Elevated Storage Tank: A 1 million -gallon elevated storage tank at the proposed southeast water plant site. The tank will be needed to meet and exceed the 2012 elevated storage requirement. (10-yr. project) 7. Barry Rose to Green Tee Waterline: Approximately 8,700 feet of 16-inch waterline extending from Barry Rose to vicinity of Green Tee Terrace Water Plant. This line will provide looping and additional water for the area north of Clear Creek. (20-yr. project) 8. Veteran's Drive Water Transmission Line: Approximately 5,100 of 24-inch water transmission line, extending from the proposed 30-inch water transmission line on Bailey Road (CR101) to Massey Ranch Road (CR 100). This line will provide water supply in this sector. (20-yr. project) 9. Bailey Road Water Transmission Line: A 30-inch line approximately 20,600 feet long, extending from State Highway 35 to FM 1128 with three short 12-inch and 16-inch stub - outs at Harkey Road, McLean Road, and Veteran's Drive. This large transmission line is to provide water for the areas north and south of Bailey Road. (10-yr. project) 10. Houston Monroe Connection: A water plant consisting of a metering station, 1,660,000- 17 E 0 0 l i i7 gallon ground storage tank, 15,000-gallon pressure tank, booster pumps, and other related components to be constructed to purchase water from City of Houston. Approximately 11,400 feet of the 24-inch transmission line will follow the proposed Pearland Parkway and McHard Road routes, and supply Alice Road Water Plant with surface water. (10-yr. project) 11. Pearland Parkway Water Line (Mary's Creek to Oiler Dr.): Approximately 7,000 feet of 16-inch water line, extending from Mary's Creek to Oiler Drive along existing Pearland Parkway. This line will provide water for future developments along this corridor. (10-yr. project) 12. FM 1128 Water Line: A 16-inch waterline, approximately 10,800 feet long, extending from Broadway (FM 518) to Bailey Road (CR 101). This line will provide water along the FM 1128 corridor. (10-yr. project) 13. Bailey Road Water Transmission Line: A 36-inch line, approximately 18,000 feet long, extending from FM 1128 to SH 288. This transmission line will be the extension of the 30-inch line on Bailey Road, east of FM 1128, and will provide water in the southwest sector of the City and a connection point to future surface water supply from Gulf Coast Water Authority. (20-yr. project) 14. State Highway 35 Water Line (Dixie Farm Road to South): A 16-inch water line, approximately 8,000 feet long, extending from Dixie Farm Road to the City limits. This line will provide water for areas south of Dixie Farm Road. (20-yr. project) 18 0 15. Cullen Blvd. and Hughes Ranch Road Water Lines: Approximately 3,600 feet of 20-inch transmission line on Cullen Boulevard and approximately 4,300 feet of 12-inch waterline on Hughes Ranch Road. These lines will provide water for the areas north of Hickory Slough. (10-yr. project) 16. Broadway (FM 518) Transmission Line (Sherwood to Pearland Parkway): A 16-inch water line, approximately 2,800 feet long, to replace a 10-inch line. The line will extend from Sherwood Street to Pearland Parkway. This line will provide more water in this corridor. (10-yr..project) 17. Broadway (FM 518) Transmission Line (Pearland Parkway to East): Approximately 15,000 feet of 16-inch water line to replace old substandard -size lines in order to provide more water along this route. (10-yr. project) 18. Broadway (FM 518) Transmission Line (Harkey Road to Texas Avenue): Approximately 14,000 feet of 16-inch water line to replace old substandard -size lines in order to provide more water along Broadway, west of the railroad. (20-yr. project) 19. Surface Water Treatment Plant and Transmission Line: Approximately 12,000 feet of 24- inch water transmission line and purchase of approximately 15 MGD surface water from a potential regional surface water treatment plant. (20-yr. project) 19 20. Cullen and Stone Road Transmission Lines: Approximately 11,100 feet of 12-inch water line along Cullen Boulevard and Stone Road to provide water for developments along these routes. (10-yr. project) 21. Broadway Water Line: A 16-inch waterline, approximately 5,400 feet long, extending from Kirby Road to County Road 48. This line will provide water for the areas north and south of Broadway. (20-yr. project) 22. Shadow Creek Parkway Water Line: A 16-inch waterline, approximately 7,800 feet long, extending from Kirby Road to east of SH 288 and then north along this highway. This line is to extend water service to this area from the far northwest water plant. (20-yr. project) 23. State Highway 35 Water Line (Broadway to Clear Creek): Approximately 7,300 feet of 16-inch water line and 5,000 feet of 12-inch water lines along State Highway 35. These lines will replace old substandard -size lines as part of the SH 35 roadway widening and will provide more water in this major north -south corridor. (10-yr. project) 24. Roy Road Transmission Line (City limits to Broadway): Approximately 8,500 feet of 12- inch water line along Roy Road from the north city limit to the south of Broadway (FM 518). This line will provide water for areas along Roy Road. (10-yr. project) 25. Max Road Transmission Line (City limit to Broadway): Approximately 7,800 feet of 12- inch water line from the north city limit line to the south of Broadway (FM 518). This line will provide water for areas along Max Road. (10-yr. project) 20 r r ,lam; 26. Pearland Parkway Water Line (Oiler Dr. to Dixie Farm Road): Approximately 5,000 feet of 16-inch water line, extending from Oiler Drive to Dixie Farm Road along future Pearland Parkway. This line will provide water for future developments along this corridor. (20-yr. project) Because amended Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code allows a political subdivision to impose an impact fee for only those improvements that provide service to new development, not all projects can be completely eligible for the impact fee calculation. Cost estimates for these projects are included in Appendix D. Locations of the projects are shown in Exhibit 1. 21 E WASTEWATER SYSTEM A. Existing Conditions The wastewater 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 three WWTP's with total permitted capacity of 7.60 MGD to serve the City (excluding the Shadow Creek Ranch WWTP). The Barry Rose WWTP is located at the end of Barry Rose Road at Clear Creek. The current capacity of the plant is 3.10 million gallons per day (MGD). The Longwood WWTP is located on Dixie Farm Road at Clear Creek. The current permitted capacity of this plant is 2.50 MGD. However, due to limited capacities of clarifiers and sand filters, this plant can not feasibly reach its 2.50 MGD permitted capacity without jeopardizing effluent quality. Therefore, for the purpose of the capacity requirement for this report a practical capacity of 2.00 MGD will be used. The Southwest Environmental Center (SWEC) WWTP is located on Harkey Road at Mary's Creek. The current capacity of the plant is 2.00 MGD. Table 8 summarizes the average flows for periods July 2000 to June 2001 and July 2001 to June 2002 at each treatment plant. The Barry Rose WWTP had an average daily flow of 1.133 MGD in 2000-2001 period, while the 2001-2002 period average daily flow increased to 1.270 MGD, or a 0.137 MGD increase. Both average flows are considerably smaller than previous years due to the fact that the SWEC plant came on line in April 2000. A considerable amount of flow from the west part of the City was directed to this new plant thus reducing the Barry Rose plant average flows. The Longwood WWTP had an average daily flow of 1.021 MGD in 2000-2001 period, while the 2001-2001 period average daily flow increased to 22 r Month July 2000 August September October November December January 2001 February March April May June 2000-2001 Avg. July 2001 August September October November December January 2002 February March April May June Barry Rose Plant Daily Avg (MGD) 0.688 0.639 0.670 0.724 1.898 0.762 1.294 0.816 1.761 1.063 1.112 2.169 TABLE 8 WASTEWATER FLOWS JULY 2000-DUNE 2002 Longwood Plant SWEC Plant Total Daily Daily Avg (MGD) Daily Avg (MGD Avg (MGD) 0.811 0.679 0.874 0.826 1.783 0.900 1.310 0.660 1.011 0.939 0.918 1.536 0.924 0.955 1.040 1.050 1.386 1.141 1.578 0.860 1.098 0.755 0.744 1.382 1.133 1.021 1.080 1.009 1.477 1.999 1.256 1.100 1.980 1.142 0.958 1.067 1.209 1.027 1.015 2001-2002 Avg. 1.270 0.956 1.376 1.681 1.183 1.157 1.655 1.131 0.914 1.134 1.305 1.034 1.071 0.801 1.195 1.296 1.203 0.996 1.359 1.085 1.024 1.076 1.164 0.946 0.897 2.423 2.273 2.584 2.600 5.067 2.803 4.182 2.336 3.870 2.777 2.804 5.087 3.234 2.766 4.048 4.976 3.642 3.253 4.994 3.358 2.896 3.277 3.678 3.007 2.983 1.216 1.087 3.576 23 L U 1.216 MGD or a 0.195 MGD increase. The SWEC plant had an average daily flow of 1.080 MGD for the 2000-2001 period while the 2001-2002 period average daily flow was 1.087 MGD, or a 0.007 MGD increase. The total average daily flow for all plants combined was 3.234 MGD in the 2000-2001 period and 3.576 MGD in 2001-2002 period. Based on the 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 period population estimates, the average daily flows per capita of 82 GPCD and 83 GPCD were computed for the above periods. The above wastewater flow rates are considerably smaller than the 110 GPCD average for the previous two years. This is partly due to a very dry year in 2000, a successful I & I abatement program, and an increasing percentage of new collection lines in the overall wastewater collection system. Infiltration is defined as water entering the wastewater collection system from the ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. Inflow is defined as water discharged into a wastewater collection system from such sources as a roof, yard and area drains, cooling -water discharges, manhole covers, and surface runoff. For analysis purposes of older systems, I & I is assumed to be 20% of the average daily flow. The following wastewater 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 Freese and Nichols, Inc. (formally 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 24 Population Future Service Units 'Wastewater Flow/ Person for Future Growth (GPCD) Existing Service Units Total Service Units 2Wastewater Flow/ Person from Existing Service Units (GPCD) 3EquivalentPersons/ Service Unit Total Wastewater Flow (MGD) TABLE 9 WASTEWATER TREATMENT DEMAND AND CAPACITIES 2002-2022 Required Capacity Current Capacity Excess or (Deficient) Capacity 2002 2012 2022 2002 2002 2012 2022 45,153 68,009 83,859 8,102 14,132 110 110 18,199 18,199 18,199 18,199 26,301 32,331 115 115 2.48 2.59 2.59 3.405 5 7.729 9.447 7.10 4 3.695 (0.629) (2.347) Includes 10% incorrectable I & I 2 Includes a 20% I & I from the existing system 3 Population estimate divided by total service unit 4 Existing total capacity of Barry Rose, Longwood, and SWEC with Longwood capacity limited to 2.00 MGD instead of 2.50 MGD 5 Based on July 2001-June 2002 average annual flow 27 2. Longwood — Paul Trunk Sewer: Approximately 2,700 feet of 18-inch trunk sewer along Longwood and Paul Drives. This sewer line will help bring the new development flows to the Longwood WWTP. (20-yr. project) 3. Texas Avenue and Broadway Trunk Sewers: Approximately 4,300 feet of 12-inch trunk sewer along Texas Avenue and along north and south of Broadway. (20-yr. project) 4. FM 1128 Trunk sewer (Bailey Road to Fite Road): Approximately 6,810 feet of 18-inch trunk sewer along FM 1128, from Bailey Road (CR 101) to an existing trunk sewer on Fite Road. This line will provide sewer service along this corridor. (20-yr. project) 5. Broadway — Garden Road Trunk Sewer: Approximately 11,000 feet of 15-inch, 18-inch, and 30-inch trunk sewers along Broadway (FM 518) and along Garden Road to the northern city limit and a lift station. These lines will serve the areas along these two roads. (20-yr. period) 6. Barry Rose - Hughes Road Trunk Sewer: Approximately 11,600 feet of 18-inch and 36-inch trunk sewers and a lift station along the future extension of Barry Rose to Hughes Road and along Clear Creek on the north side of Clear Creek. This line will serve the future developments north of the Clear Creek. (20-yr. project) 7. Dixie Farm Road Trunk Sewer Line: A 30-inch, 27-inch and 21-inch trunk sewer system, approximately 6,650 feet long, with one lift station and approximately 4,600 feet of 12- inch force main. This line will serve the anticipated developments along Dixie Farm Road 28 LI� {! L 0 and eliminate smaller existing lift station/force main systems along this road. (10-yr. project) 8. Sewer Improvements Associated with State Highway 35 Widening: During the construction of the proposed SH 35 widening, the City plans to replace existing substandard -size lines with larger lines and construct a lift station at Hickory Slough Crossing. (10-yr. project) 9. FM 518 Trunk Sewer (SH 288 to Cullen Blvd.): Approximately 10,500 feet of 12-inch, 18-inch, 24-inch, and 30-inch deep trunk sewers and two multi -pump lift stations along FM 518 from SH 288 to Cullen Blvd. The trunk sewer will provide sanitary sewer service in this sector. (10-yr. project) 10. Pearland Parkway/John Lizer/Old Alvin Road Trunk Sewer Line: A 15-inch through 21- inch trunk sewer line, approximately 10,200 feet long, with two lift stations and 2,150 feet of 10-inch force main along Old Alvin Road, John Lizer Road and Pearland Parkway. This trunk sewer line will serve the anticipated developments in this sector. (20-yr. project) 11. State Highway 35 Trunk Sewer (Magnolia to Dixie Farm): Approximately 9,000 feet of 24-inch trunk sewer, 2,400 feet of an 10-inch force main and one lift station at Magnolia Avenue and John Lizer Road. This trunk sewer will serve the anticipated development along SH 35, south of Magnolia Avenue. (20-yr. project) 12. McHard Parkway Trunk Sewer Line: An 18-inch trunk sewer line, approximately 4,800 feet long, with one lift station and 1,300' of 12-inch force main. This line will direct 29 wastewater flows from an area west of State Highway 35 and along McHard Road to an existing 30-inch trunk sewer along Pearland Parkway. (10-yr. project) 13. Magnolia Drive Trunk Sewer (Veterans Drive to Railroad): Approximately 2,700-feet of 24-inch trunk sewer, along Magnolia Drive. The trunk sewer is to serve areas east of Veterans Drive and receive flow from the lift station in project 11. (10-yr. project) 14. Dixie Farm Road Trunk Sewer (SH 35 to Cowart's Creek): Approximately 4,400 feet of 18-inch trunk sewer and one lift station along Dixie Farm Road. The trunk sewer will provide sanitary sewer service for development east and west of this road. (10-yr. project) 15. State Highway 35 Trunk Sewer (Dixie Farm Road to South): Approximately 9,700 feet of 18-inch trunk sewer and one lift station to serve the area south of Dixie Farm Road. (20-yr. project) 16. New WWTP North of FM 518: A 0.750 MGD first phase wastewater treatment plant to serve the areas north of FM 518. Expansion of an existing WWTP currently serving Brazoria county MUD's No. 4 and 5 can be an alternative to this new plant. (20-yr. project) 17. SWEC Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion: A 2.00 MGD plant expansion of the plant at Southwest Environmental Center. The first phase of the plant, a 2.00 MGD plant, went in operation in April 2000. (10-yr. project) 18. Veterans Road -Bailey Road -Wells Drive Trunk Sewer: Approximately 12,900 feet of 30 • 18-inch and 24-inch trunk sewers along Veterans Road, Bailey Road (CR 101), and Wells Drive. These trunk sewers are to serve area along the three roadway corridors. (20-yr. project) 19. Kirby Road and Kingsley Trunk Sewer Oversizing: Cost associated with the oversizing of trunk sewer lines on Kirby Road and Kingsley Road (County Road 48) in the Shadow Creek Ranch development. Oversizing is to serve areas outside the development. (10-yr. project) 20. Far Northwest WWTP Expansion Oversizing: The City's share of 2.00 MGD wastewater treatment plant expansion serving the area west of S.H. 288. The City's share is to serve areas outside of the Shadow Creek Ranch development. (20-yr. project) 21. Dixie Farm Road Trunk Sewer (Cowart's Creek to Oakbrook): Approximately 3, 350 feet of 21-inch trunk sewer to be extended from Oakbrook Drive to Cowart's Creek. This line is to serve areas east and west of Dixie Farm Road. (10-yr. project) 22. Harkey Road Trunk Sewer (Bailey Road to Massey Ranch Road): Approximately 8,350 feet of 18-inch trunk sewer to be extended from north of Bailey Road (CR 101) to south of Massey Ranch Road (CR 100). This line will serve areas east and west of Harkey Road. (20-yr. project) 23. Broadway - Roy Road Trunk Sewer: Approximately 10,400 feet of 15-inch, 31 L! 0 i fl 18-inch and 24-inch trunk sewers along Roy Road from north city limit line to north of Broadway (FM 518) and then along Broadway (FM 518). This line will serve areas along Broadway and Roy Road. (20-yr. project) 24. Broadway - Max Road Trunk Sewer: Approximately 9,600 feet of 15-inch and 18-inch trunk sewers along Max Road from north city limit line to north of Broadway (FM 518) and then along Broadway (FM 518). This line will serve areas along Broadway and Max Road. (20-yr. project) 25. Cullen Blvd. to WWTP Trunk Sewer: Approximately 8,200 feet of 24-inch trunk sewer along Cullen Blvd. and projection of Stone Road west of Cullen Blvd., to a new WWTP. This line will serve areas in this sector. (20-yr. project) 26. Cullen Blvd.- Chocolate Bayou Road Force Mains: Approximately 6,100 feet of 8-inch and 10-inch force mains to divert flows from a lift station at Cullen Boulevard and Broadway to the north to future Cullen Blvd. trunk sewer, and to the south along Chocolate Bayou Road to existing Fite Road trunk sewer. (20-yr.. project) 27. Shadow Creek Parkway Trunk Sewer (Phase 2): City's share of Phase 2 trunk sewer along this parkway to serve areas outside of the Shadow Creek Ranch development. (10-yr. project) Cost estimates for these wastewater projects are included in Appendix D. Locations of the projects are shown in Exhibit 2. 32 IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS A. General An impact fee, as defined by amended Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code, "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 above amended Chapter 395, "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 Census 2000, the average occupancy of a single-family unit currently is 3.17 persons per unit. Based on 1992 thru 2001 period's water consumptions, the average water usage per person is estimated to be 117 GPCD for a total of 371 gallons per day to an equivalent service unit. The average wastewater flow per person is 115 GPCD for a total of 365 gallons per day for an equivalent service unit. Table 10 gives the equivalent number of service units for development which {? may occur in Pearland. 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. 33 rn L c L� f' 17 17 LJ TABLE 10 CITY OF PEARLAND SERVICE UNIT FACTORS ITEM NO..: .;TYPEAF.,,DEVELOPMENT <_ .`. JNIT OF ., . MEASURE.: SERVICE UNIT .'EQUIVALENCY < REMARKS .. 1 Bakery Square Foot 0.00070C' 2 Barber Shop Chair 0.47000C 3 Beauty Shop Chair 0.47000C 4 Bowling Alley Lane 0.635000 1 5 Car Repair Square Foot 0.00016C 2 6 Carwash, Tunnel Self Service Lane 6.35000C 7 Carwash, Wand Type Self Service Bay 1.22000C 8 Carwash, Tunnel with Attendants Lane 31.43000C 7 9 Church, Administration Occupant 0.04700C 9 10 Church, Auditorium Seat 0.003200 11 Church, Classroom Seat 0.00470C 12 Club/Tavern/Lounge Seat 0.031000 13 Convenient Sore Square Foot 0.00022C 14 Country Club Occupant 0.39000C 9 15 Day Care Center Occupant 0.031700 9 16 Dormitory Bed 0.286000 17 Driving Range Tee 0.210000 18 Fire Station Employee 0286000 19 Funeral Home Embal. Station 2.14000C 20 Gas Station, Self-service Island 0.800000 2 21 Gas Station, Full -service Island 0.86000C 2 22 Grocery Store Square Foot 0.00026C 1 23 Health Club Occupant 0.016000 9 24 Health Club w/ Whirlpool or Swimming Pool Occupant 0.03200C 9 25 Hospital Bed 0.635000 3 26 Hotel/Motel Room 0.25100C 1 27 Hotel/Motel with Kitchenettes Room 0.43000C 28 Ice Cream Parlor with Seating Seat 0.04700C 29 Indoor Entertainment/Amusement Occupant 0.031000 1,9 30 Industrial Laundry 501bs 0.95000C 31 Manufacturing Square Foot 0.00016C 4 32 Nursing Home Bed 0.286000 33 Office Building Square Foot 0.000335 34 Photo Store, 1-Hour Processing Store 4.000000 35 Post Office, Excluding Dock Square Foot 0.000254 36 Racquetball Club Court 0.510000 37 Recreation Vehicle Park Space 0238100 38 Resident, Apartment Dwelling Unit 0.70000C 5 39 Resident, Condominium Dwelling Unit 0.70000C 40 Resident, Duplex Dwelling Unit 1.00000C 41 Resident, Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 0.70000C 42 Resident, Single Family Dwelling Unit 1.00000C 43 Resident, Town House Dwelling Unit 1.00000C 44 Restaurant, Full Service, General Seat 0.11000C 45 Restaurant, Fast Food with Seating Seat 0.04700C 46 Restaurant, Fast Food without Seating Square Foot 0.002300 47 Restaurant, Buffet with Seating and non -disposable dinnerware & flatware Seat 0.11000C 48 Restaurant, Buffet with Seating and disposable dinnerware & flatware Seat 0.070500 49 Retail Store Square Foot 0.000223 50 School, High Seat 0.04760C 6 51 School, Other Seat 0.031700 6 52 Skating Rink Occupant 0.016000 9 53 Swimming Pool Occupant 0.01600C 9 54 Stadium Seat 0.01000C 55 Theater, Drive-in Space 0.016000 56 Theater, Indoor Seat 0.016000 57 Toilet (Non-specific) Toilet 0254000 58 Transportation Terminal without Restaurant Passenger 0.01600C 59 Warehouse Square Foot 0.000100 60 Washaterla Machine 1.58000C. Remarks: 1. Does not include restaurant. 2. Does not include carwash. Island is defind as one pumping station. 3. Patient care area, does not include designated office areas. 4. Average value, each development must individually evaluated. 5. Basic Service Unit. 6. Does not include resident dormitory. 7. Does not include reclamation. 8. All developments not matching one of the above types will be evaluated individually based on data submitted by the developer. 9. Occupancy loads as established by the adopted buildling codes of the City. r 34 -w, C n TABLE 11 CITY OF PEARLAND COMMERCIAL SERVICE UNIT 10-YEAR PROJECTION Rem r.leNo.. , ,....... Type ofDevelopmeAt ' . ... .::, Number UNITOF MEASURE? Profectetl Avg:"'Size Service Und ' Equivalettt Service ; Units 1 Bakery 3 Square Foot 2,000 0.000700 4.20 2 Barber Shop 6 Chair 4 0.470000 11.28 3 Beauty Shop 8 Chair 4 0.470000 15.04 4 Bowling Alley Lane 0.635000 5 Car Repair 10 Square Foot 3,500 0.000160 5.60 6 Carwash, Tunnel Self Service 1 Lane 1 6.350000 6.35 7 Carwash, Wand Type Self Service 1 Bay 5 1.220000 6.10 8 Carwash, Tunnel with Attendants 1 Lane 1 31.430000 31.43 9 Church, Administration 5 Occupant 5 0.047000 1.18 10 Church, Auditorium 5 Seat 300 0.003200 4.80 . 11 Church, Classroom 15 Seat 15 0.004700 1.06 12 Club/Tavem/Lounge 3 Seat 50 0.031000 4.65 13 Convenient Sore 20 Square Foot 3,600 0.000220 15.84 14 Country Club 1 Occupant 125 0.390000 48.75 15 Day Care Center 8 Occupant 50 0.031700 12.68 16 Dormitory Bed 0.286000 17 Driving Range 1 Tee 15 0.210000 3.15 18 Fire Station 3 Employee 3 ' 0.286000 2.57 19 Funeral Home 1 Embal. Station 6 2.140000 12.84 20 Gas Station, self-service 9 Station 8 0.800000 57.60 21 Gas Station, full -service 4 Station 8 0.860000 27.52 22 Grocery Store 3 Square Foot 35,000 0.000260 27.30 23 Health Club 1 Occupant 150 0.016000 2.40 24 Health Club, with Whirlpool or Swimming pool 1 Occupant 150 0.032000 4.80 25 Hospital 1 Bed 100 0.635000 63.50 ' 26 Hotel/Motel 2 Room 50 0.251000 25.10 27 Hotel/Motel with Kitchenettes 1 Room 50 0.430000 21.50 28 Ice Cream Parlor with Seating 3 Seat 20 0.047000 2.82 29 Indoor Entertainment/Amusement 2 Occupant 100 0.031000 6.20 30 Industrial Laundry 50 lbs 0.950000 31 Manufacturing 6 Square Foot 9,000 0.000160 8.64 32 Nursing Home 1 Bed 100 0.286000 28.60 33 Office Building 40 Square Foot 3,500 0.000335 46.90 34 Photo Store, 1-Hour Processing 4 Store 1 4.000000 16.00 35 Post Office, Excluding Dock Square Foot 0.000250 . 36 Racquetball Club 1 Court 4 0.510000 2.04 37 Recreation Vehicle Park Space 0.238100 38 Restaurant, Full Service, General 10 Seat 100 0.110000 110.00 39 Restaurant, Fast Food with Seating 10 Seat 100 0.047000 47.00 40 Restaurant, Fast Food without Seating 8 Square Foot 1,450 0.002300 26.68 41 Restaurant, Buffet with Seating and non -disposable dinnerware & flatware 1 Seat 150 0.110000 16.50 42 Restaurant, Buffet with Seating and disposable dinnerware & flatware Seat 0.070500 43 Retail Store 35 Square Foot 3,500 0.000233 28.54 44 School, High 1 Seat 1,500 0.047600 71.40 45 School, Other 4 Seat 500 0.031700 63.40 46 Skating Rink 1 Occupant 125 0.016000 2.00 47 Swimming Pool Occupant 0.016000 48 Stadium Seat 0.010000 49 Theater, Drive-in Space 0.016000 50 Theater, Indoor Seat 0.016000 51 Toilet (Non-specific) Toilet 0.254000 52 Transportation Terminal without Restaurant Passenger 0.016000 53 Warehouse 6 Square Foot 20,000 0.000100 12.00 54 Washateria 3 Machine 20 1.580000 94.80 TOTAL 250 1000.759 35 L '1 nut num 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 8,102 units. Projections exclude proposed Shadow Creek Ranch development. See Attachment for this development's proj ections. 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. 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. All of these improvements depleted their reserve capacity except for Barry Rose and Longwood WWTP's. These WWTP's improvements and their actual costs are given in Table 13. Because these projects meet the requirements of amended Chapter 395, they are included in the impact fee calculation. In the previous Impact Fee Updates, the costs of these projects with reserve capacity was proportionately allocated to future demand. Since they still have reserve capacity, a proportional cost is used for this update as well. 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 36 C j f L Type of Development Single Family Multi -Family Commercial Industrial Total 2002* TABLE 12 CITY-WIDE SERVICE UNIT PROJECTIONS Service Unit Connections Factor * As of end of June 2002 13,872 1.0 2,027 0.7 727 4.0 0 6.0 16,626 Note: Projections exclude Shadow Creek Ranch Equivalent Service Units 13,872 1,419 2,908 0 18,199 2012 Service Unit Connections Factor 20,622 1.0 2,487 0.7 977 4.0 5 6.0 24,091 37 Equivalent Service Units 20,622 1,741 3,908 30 26,301 2022 Service Unit Connections Factor 25,622 1.0 2,487 0.7 1,227 4.0 10 6.0 29,346 Equivalent Service Units 25,622 1,741 4,908 60 32,331 TABLE 13 PRE-1989 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS WITH CAPACITY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Facility Construction Cost Barry Rose WWTP & Expansion $ 2,094,000 Longwood WWTP & First Expansion $ 1,672,000 $ 3,766,000 TABLE 14 COST DATA FOR CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS PROJECTS WITH RESERVE CAPACITY Cost Qualifying Facility Actual Cost For Impact Fee Longwood & Barry Rose WWTP with First Expansions Note: See Appendix E for computation. $ 3,766,000 $ 900,827 38 L 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. 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 unitsprojectedto 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 and sanitary sewer line projects with debt service, existing WWTP's with excess capacity and debt service (Appendix E), proposed water and wastewater improvements projects (Appendix D), and administration costs. Some of the proposed water and wastewater capital improvements projects, which are to be constructed within the first 10-year period, will have excess capacity beyond the period's demands, therefore, their costs were proportioned for the purpose of the impact fee determination. Also, for some of the projects which are proposed to be constructed by use of bonds, the average annual debt service for 10 years is used for the impact fee calculations. 39 The administration costs allowed by amended Chapter 395 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 proposed impact fee, per equivalent service unit, is $6,991, however, Chapter 395, as revised in 2001, requires the impact fee actually charged be discounted 50% from the calculated fee. Therefore, the eligible impact fee rate proposed is $3,496 which is 50% of above amount. The previous impact fee of $2,968 represented 70% of the eligible fee of $4,229 from the 1999 study. Although this fee is to be charged on a system -wide basis within the service area (excluding Shadow Creek Ranch), 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 = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor = $ 3,496 x 1.00 per dwelling unit x 1 dwelling unit Impact Fee = $ 3,496 41 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 0.70 per unit. The unit is a dwelling unit. Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to this project is: Impact Fee = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor = $ 3,496 x 0.70 per dwelling unit x 20 dwelling units Impact Fee = $48,944 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 = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor = $ 3,496 x 0.11 per seat x 100 seats Impact Fee = $ 38,456 4. A 6,000 square foot office building is to be constructed. From Table 10, for an office building the service unit factor is 0.000335 per unit. The unit is a square foot. Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to this project is: Impact Fee = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor = $ 3,496 x 0.000335 per sq. ft. x 6,000 sq. ft Impact Fee = $ 7,027 42 n Ii 5. A restaurant, stylenon-disposable with non-dis osable dinnerware and flatware with seating for 150 fj patrons is to be constructed. From Table 10, 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 : 0 Impact Fee = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor L = $ 3,496 x 0.11 per seat x 150 seats { Impact Fee = $ 57,684 �! 6. A restaurant, buffet style with disposable dinnerware and flatware with seating for 150 patrons is to be constructed. From Table 10, the service unit factor is 0.0705 per unit. The unit is a seat. Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to this project is: 7 9 I Impact Fee = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor �i = $ 3,496 x 0.0705 per seat x 150 seats Impact Fee = $ 36,970 7. A self-service gas station with four islands, and a self-service carwash and a 1,000 square foot convenience store is to be constructed. From Table 10, for a gas station -self service, the 7 service unit factor is 0.80 per unit. The unit is one island. For a carwash, self-service tunnel, Li the service unit is 6.35 per unit. The unit is one lane. For a convenience store, the service unit L factor is 0.00022 per unit. The unit is one square foot. Therefore, the impact fee to be assessed to this project is : 0 0 43 r C Impact Fee = $ 3,496 x Service Unit Factor = $ 3,496 x (0.80 per island x 4 + 6.35 lane x 1 +0.00022 per sq. ft. x 1000 sq. ft.) = $ 3,496 x (3.2 +6.35 +0.22) Impact Fee = $ 34,156 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 judgment dictates otherwise. In Li L C r C r C IMPACT FEE ADOPTION A. Public Hearing Amended Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code requires a public hearing to be held to present any update of the impact fee. The presentation shall include a discussion of the new land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. The hearing was held on January 6, 2003, at the Pearland City Hall. The text of the presentation by Freese and Nichols, Inc. and the minutes of the public hearing are presented in Appendix F. B. 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 , 2003, Council adopted the impact fee update assessment that was presented at the public hearing. A copy of Ordinance , adopting the impact fee update assessment, is presented in Appendix G. 45 r EXHIBITS 0 (D cn C Cr Cl. m 0 3 0 CD 0 N ' 7) -D"D3 0 0 0 0 o (n - Op 11 J. a _0 O CD cn am O c z C) 1 (D (D 0 FDI � m m v CDCap cs fl- (n ao 0 C) (<0D OO• (n o - II m CD t< 0 O N (n D -0 O 0 a rn < c • TOTAL WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE En CT O CO 3 Eta 0 QD 0) IPROJTi NO. PROJECT DESCRIPTION En C NJ N ND NJ ND NJ DJ NJ-4 -4 -' 4-4 -' -' -4 -' 1-4 4-4 ....A to ' 1 , CD Co co O U).P W ...A CO NJ CD o CO -4 CD cn 4> CO ND -4 aJ -10Cna -A -1 -ncnDCIW-n DCA00WQJSU-n7C<zODC) E: n-o- o o E:CCn a r C_ c 1 1 nl R.CD S X n1 n S v S X_ Q1 a (p x C O < 6� too r w v a,� h aaM Z." �a) "�� 0 v -1 �a`° o ** o -0 77 O * N * * N v 0- O 0o .Z7 ' O O - In O i -. S 7r O -n S do nl x•, in C- to N Zi 0 00 `< cn. O A- N = a) Q- -o x O ' co m 0 ,< o W ' co cn W — P.m co * c H r O P'* O 0i (D 1 o- 3 0 (D c_ O 1 c N 7 a —I (n N .0 o 0 o t< v m sg x * �rs.m T:.o a m x77;Um �aa� s 2, ET -1 -I �� m v cn n. c�1 o E BASED ON 8,102 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS �o —3 U)aEL6 *'gym rn 0-cc W--mc<'�«o' m1700m m(D0)c n) cn C 7 O < 0 `< S C cn X (0 N +. c• W m 0* (D 7.- T. -a 0 N ?- N (D < PI Cp c O el) 0 0) W 0 C H* 77 11) noonP*0 • 2'< 1=Doc0cR-o_ co cn D•<m cnoW ( (n m 0 —I c (n v a m a CO 00 0 C7 Q O 0 0 D N < W <-1 • Cn Cn cxi 0 1 0 m aO m� �10 0p(n y m 0<(cpn 00 0 - 1 1 v a� 00xe� -0-D0 p. � 0 0 - o =� Mtn m cnm .a) S .7) 1tV.N' x•o CD O iu o N• O Como cn x n) n • (D a 000 "O C a 0 CD 0 1 -n t v 0 O < v —I —I o v 1 v (n a C 1- C o' � 3 c 0o C- m c O (n CD m CD CD (D O N.)6' a)-' o O $17,630,507 -.. Ea r OD PS 1 NJ O COCa. NN N w .aa l$34,097,712 2002-2012 En 1 En EH Efl -& En -. 1 N3 -3. N ----1 :P11 co Off) Efl1 •a(.0 (n CO CO •J (n a 0 N O N 0 •a •J-'W CI, OCX) 0 -'Cn -' N 0 -0-CD COn0W)O O -' N ((n CD O))-'OOo CD 0) CO O O OCOoo CO CO CO O En Efl {fl 69 En 69 69 E-n En 69 EA En CO N"' �� W Ni S N-' CO En_ -A -s. _ En er) iv iv b cn C-4 N CO N N W -ACD QD-4•PN CNoNCO CO -A J CO aN-JCO OCO00(O CO 01 CD -� --I O a (A Cl 00 in c 0 co O W O CO (A -P AA 0 Co CD 6) 07 �4CbCOO4 O O) O CO cna -A OO(ncn cn O cn CD CO WO WCI-IO(n -' ::v.. r.%s : r ELLIGIBI $3,355 $27,185,217 en Eta En En EAEn-6n " ----le) N -� N -P 69 EA EH b9 En ----.1 -.a -69NP OI) N (WnaWo alcnCCn(0OOo (3)traO Cn J-'W CnOCO -s0 -' N -cn -co -co O W O In Cn 0 0 (0 O (n O)CnCa W (I W (n0) V N CD CD N (h -'Oo O J O O CO CO CO o -P -' O N 0 CA •a g - 69 En 69 EA r -' D ( W N.) CO r 69 ER EA EA 69 J) n EA EA 69 En W ''.10 co o- a 01 En is No-' CO CO N.)-P - - CO cn N J cn (I Co -I o) N N i a Co --' Efl -' -J CO cn --.1 cn CO JN-IOm N O Cn O -A .S -, in 144 in <O -J CO m 0 0 al iv �I W W a) -' •a -' •J W Co m cn J J Co o -I o �I -1 -I O o -� .a NO (nNO) 01 CO CI OCOa CO -P Co CO CD --1 73 ,� m E WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS -v D ZX C �(JI.Np.W N jN_.-._.��.�_..ii-'CON�ICAV1aW N-. ' ' i' i' i i i' i" P W N O OO W 000(X)-.ICDcn m -I OA -n-n nncnmm uSco<oomc?s cn0„ *��Epp-o�70cncnmc) Q**** m Sv a c �c Sm,Pv o m <0 08 v R. D n) v v v m m av v as X° v 3 <v Z 01 W<�ao orlj -p r m m m m m m rn m m m m ""m v C C�1 r- 77(naam <� o CA`< n) < J o ,c) co co Ow 0 CCCCCCCCCCC CCCCiv 7).**GG«<G= * N o aa) Ofljg �` n. s?3� •• at) °D ��73 OCO°- Q(CD n0) m m 0 m 0 3co -{ m rn CD :. 3 v aroC m n<0)� Om Cn v rn Tio..aD3 _s-0K 0`.. nSi T 1 ' Oo Cr.) v • 3 SLQ() O zzzzzzzz <—NNtn Cp (n',' �'3--I fmrl 3. ��-n = O o O o o O o o O -- r. lD N m Sio m v* .. (D CD O= N noj SVEI WC(o ( 63 —I HH -0� S < _.—'_._.�—_.—� m v �`< and r m • CO m -' d � a 0 T O 3 0"' rn a CO N" O gi 0 0• c co (n O -0 (�D J O al CD 7 n 0 I) 0 c rn� 9o9o9oQoQo9oQo9o- m `< ODW*o °ij v �<3 m• o m -Icnn w 3 'n 0 w 3 PRO r'< Er mQm p �v v m O'Dxjo o_rCp ��v "m r-0 c o • 0 (n D 0u' nx) O. o 2 C O W D vi 0) ale; ....cmcan , ' to o N �* mo °' O m m m m <(�Do m m rn m m 01 0 o N *�o a W O o 3 °) p S o 1 1 w o m r 1 1 1 1 1 1 W y -1 a Z .3- c c m 30 <rro = 03 l3 r01 m v RJEC1 w v v ��0)Egg`< Co --I goCNo23-Ia' m n�i ill (v m CO Cll Cb p O (n 3_o 00 m n. m j N * aO N G*O'_ c) nr0+•p �� WO �< ,«=-'•,O,. `• < N C I_"' • n 'A 0 N m c ' 'C^ 0 co Cll In C f DESC__ r O m O < -+ 3 W 0 0 3 < -I Z fD p v c cc?) < v o) O a -0• a n (n cn ap Cey- D, (7r(0*5 nO 23 O a0 (n a E rt 3 _T. WENT SERVICE UNITS • m O m o W- nao m 00 W o. W< 1 1 c-) 0 cn `< a Qn2. �j 7-o� 3 : °m m m OD 0 Cr. v 1 0 Fe 1 $1,065,039 $35,235,349 $130,861,276 PRE-2002 2002-2012 2012-2022 E!) -s 0) 01 0 W CO 69 EA Efl EA Efl 69 Ef) Efl En EA EA 69 -'E)V' -N 4 ' NNNNN Efl N N N EnEfl Er) 496gOi N N EA to 69 U) cn co �I N No W WCbCl Oo.PN EA .E3 CO..01CO ()) n cn -J C)) CO COCX)�I OCT J N N (ncn(ncnCh WNW -P •a (D JO)Co PN N O) OOOOOCPclCn (OCIW 0 v-4Cn -co -a'co --i O 00000000 O O O)N•P O0 J al Cn-a -4"W " 400 CD CO O O 00000000 CO -I -' CO CD O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO O Co. (n (l o th (YI O O CO O CO 0 0) En 69 EA EH " En En EA N ' N N N {n 69-69 " 6W 9 EA kn EA -co' CDCfl ."CO CO co NNN a CIA �I a Cl CO CO to CO a a cn cn cn N -P a (O O J CJ) CD O -' •a (0 O 0 O -' ID Cn-' o W CDO O O 000 cn CX)-I 000 O cn CD CD cn too CO CO O (n $29,457,591 -EA E9 EA EA En En EA 613 En Efl cn NNNNN EAr) _-' ''E)-'. En En EflN En 0) ..-a IJ N N N CO (0 (l in J cn CO O N N N (n ()•I co J -A Eta co a No a o v 0 CD J CP N (n to on cn (l co Cb NJ cn -' C)) •J�ICA COI CO ClN N a 00000 CC) 0)W CO -A. -co b 0 Cb O 07 N A O CA in J O in O O O O O O •P :P J-' CO O CO 0) CO -IN co O 00000 co N) co -AJ O) O O O O O O CO O J cn (n C CP 01 0 CO (1 CO 0 CO CA PROP. 3 IMPACT. FEE. $14,728,796 EA En 69 EA Efl En En N -' -' ..A.Et) EA EA EA EA EA EA EA 69 Efl E l Efl -A -.-�-� W CDaN N 69 -CO N PCD En NNCO -'O) O)COJ RICO CO COCO CO CnN NNNNN -A •PNCO 69 -' CO WN aOo CO 0) vCI O (n(lClCnCS) CON-' CO �I-' -' 'co -co b CX)O)J -cn i0) N W N a ON (P OOOO OOP a WO OW (I 0W 0.) 0) O 00000 COWS -' _P (O cn a W CO Cl Co CO Cn a CO Cl Cl (0 0) CO" 0 00000 23 • N m - g WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS .D 0 m� m m03 Dm nc.n C r •Di 0 z 'ON 119IHX3 300Z iidaS :31Va 0"0 rm S1N31413nO11dW n 1=1 an m m O Cca D o� NZ C� m • • d10 d10 HVaA-9Z HV3A-01. QN3O3'1 • • • • • • • 11. • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11. • • Mr • • • • • • • • • • 1NV Id 1131VM 30VJUflS NOI103NNO0 A`iddfS H31VM 3OV1:1O1.S 031VA313 30V1:1OSS ONAOUO T13M 3Nfl H3LVM AHycmioo8 Pia arn1 V3d • 0 . • • • • • • • 0 a•. • • `• y:_,•ss - --.--_r;: .. 0 tr • • 1 • • • 1. 4y 0: .y,.. . .. • • l• • . z; p_ to. Q • •v:. • 41 • • •.-^rrY;..; ..J •..._. .b7 • nNtiYxi. Y 1 • • • -•• •- . a• nia. vt M I. fi • 2 • _ • S• to a'• • • • • • • • • Qd W1:IVd 31X10 01 Ha H3110 : AVMNHVd ONYIUV3d slau ROAQVO1:19 01 S1IYVfl A1I0 • 0Y08 XVVA 9� AVMaVOH9 01 Suuvn A110 : avoa AO1I 'fZ )1331:10 HY3-10 01 AVMUVO119 9E AVMHOIH 31V1S eS3 883 .HS V AMNd:)1331:10 MOOVH$ '33 9t Ha 01 A91:1IN : AVMGVOH 9 3Nf1 'SHALL OVOU 3NO±S 1 N3T1f10 DZ 3NII NOISSIWSNVHS 'Q 1NY1d 1:131VM 30Vdaf1S 3AV SVX3101 QH A3NIHVH : 3N11 NQISSIINSNVHI 819 YV4 'Bt 1.SV3 OIL AMNd GNV1HV34:1: 3Nf1 NOISSIWSNVHI St9 Wd 'dl. AMNCJ ONV1HV301 01 00OMa3HS : 3Nf NOISSINSNVLII H31VM 8t9 W4 '9t OH S3HEN1H '8 CIA19 N3T1f O 9t Hif1oS 01 VVHVd 31X1Q : 9£ AVMHIDIH 31V1S '`14 88M HS 01 nit PH : aH A31IY9 'St OH A3'11V8 Ol AVMOYOHB : 8lu NU ti. Ha 83110 01 N1331:10 SAWN : MINOR:Rid C NVlUY3d 3Nf1 NOISSMSNVHI '9 NOL103NNOO 301:1NOYI NO.LSOOH U- m VVd 019E HS : Qa A3'1IV9 '6 001 HO Ol Old A31fb8 : Ha SNVH31.3A se VAR 331. N33HO 01 MOH AHHVB '1 3OVd01$ Q3LYA313 OW 1Nr1d WILVM 1SV3H1110$ '9 1NY'1d H3LVM GU NBCIHVO' 1V SOVHo1S 031VA3,3 .i, HQ SNVH313A '8 3AV VfONOYVl H.L lOS 01 AVMQVOHB 98 AVMHOIH 3.LV1S avOH V► UV4 31X10 1. 140111YO SONUSYH • • • • • • • • HONV ,A3SSVYt 001 '8'0 • cO 0 r4.31id8 to csits • • VOQt QYYV - • es. . •;. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t • • • r 1; • 1 s: 3 co Q • S • 8' t 0 . :10Q3HLOOS o r ••. • • • • 3WVN .103POHd • _ - �°' i�f+�: ••l :.h rny V.4 hl� :• u. • • r + ista 0, o • • • 0 Wan ALIO NOJ.Sf1OH AO ALIO 01 NOLLO2NNOO • -- L• . I Q' ya-[we- 21. z to '08 314OlS tit • • AdONnO8 ri3 a rru • • 3 it4 di . 44 •• ............. 1... ..ram.•: 6n L. •- . _- tl_ _• t •1 .-•• • • • • • • 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • iffY . Ifl ' •T . e, • :at.. IP • ki as Faristni S3H`JQH _ • : . . . • • • • • z rn 1s: • • R ,WM1138 AYN11IOS t101S0OH IMYS 1r, C . . • 91 MS WZte • • • • • • • f 1 ; • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • se7 it, Oi • HIEION Z 'ON .U9IHX3 ZOOZ '1d3S alma 0 1 .__ 0 rri hni tt 1N, MI C 10 z a® aro 0 111 2 N UNm -n comoz crn0,z › ♦♦n ow Vl Xoz um. XvDOZ PPly � � A _ m • S1D31IH02!V dip d10 uy3A- UV3A- 1. • • • • ON3031 • 41.4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a. • • • • • • • • .rya to , ato 1NYld IN31(1.LY38U. U31YM31SYM NOIJY1.S .1111 NNW 30a0d MB S Al lAY :10 AtivONnOS C13 aNr1 d • • • • ` c -.;.: • Ma • • • • • • • • • • ...•.•. • • • • Y • Oleos -•e• • L.b • "b • • • i' • • •-- l 'OH t M nVO SJNusVH 1 I' .qaver rtva :A.Te3ss � . • :OH A.31w9 telt It µ1 j.A•tti r.. • • • • 'Nnowevv!', c• 5_ •1, • .r • ..a _'. ' • 1(11J'NM Y ti • J . • coal.• • • 4 • • • • • • • k • • • 3JNYa0... a:tJ 8. t. • • • • • •0 • .Q ONIZISH3A0 Z 3SYHd - AMNd N33a0 MOGYHS SNIVV4 30UOd '0U nOAY9 31Y1000H0 - N371110 d1MM 01 N3T1n0 �93M3S MITA '0U XV64-AVMOVOU9 U3M3S NNnU1. 0H AOU-AYMOv0t19 0Q14 U0. 01 A3'11Y$ s�.U3Mas )INnkLL A331UVH N00HBN1V0 01 N33a0 S'1UVMOa a 'aa. Vv8V4 31x10 ONIZISU3A0 NOISNVdX3 d1MM 1S3M HUWON UY ONIZISU3AO U3M39 )Nf7dl A31SONIN V 'aU ABHDI U3M39 NNfU ST13M�-A311V9-SNYa313A 03MS IV NOISNYdX3 d1MM 819 Wd d0 HIUON d1MM M3N H1n0S 01 '�]H wand 31X10 : SS AVMHOIH 31Y1s aO SJ.UVMOO 01 9S HS : INUV4 aIXIU OVOU1LYU 01 VG SNYUBJ$A - U3M3S )1Nnau. vnONovw a3M3S )INfU1 'AM)1a ONV1UV3d - 4UVH°W '3AY YnONOVW 40 HMOS U3M3S )INnal 9s HS b3M3S a3Z11 r /NIA1V (10 PAMNw aNrnHV3d 'OAia NBT1nO al. 9n HS = 9L9 v4d AMMO UV310 01 AVMOVOa9 - SLN3113AOHdW1• b13M3S 9E HS )IOOU9NVO 01 d1AAM QOOMONO1 • awns, )INnl ' 'OH ONNVM 3IXIO H3M3S NNnal TM S3OflH - 3SOa. AUUV9 k13M3S )INfla1 '(]a` N30UVO AVMOVOW U3M3S )INf1a1, 9ZU VU U3M3S NNnHU AVMOYOHS 'S `N - SYX31 a3M3S )INnlll. lfVd - GOOMON01 NOISNV4X3 dLMM 000MONO1 1 • • • • • • • a • ao 7 es• • 4 :. r.li :I• • • • . • .i • 1 • 1 — i • o•• U. 9; .414 flos • ••; 1`4-- �� 000000 • • op • i • • •r • JVWN £03POt3d • .171 sy;• 3 • r . 41 li • ili • :` "▪ 41. . wn ;u10 : ; f�a . . ! .I• • • • • • • • • • • • 9 ,kVM .T38 • • t • • • 4. • • sit 1.1 ila ..... . •. • co• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ALIO t. • • • 12 • 01 11:111 14 • 44 • • • • • I tot • • • • • • • • • • • • 41 • • • • • • r•Sa Vitt • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I it 4. El at • •• :vglilZ • ett c 'ON 1I9IHHX3 ZOOZ 143S I.va r 0 oo v c m c 0 z N -U N rn 1,11 oornoz COI XI ▪ >r*trn 1111 CA Z win $ 171 XoZ II II ;1:! (1) er, �DZ NIV co th °° Z ' z l N w N • 3 • • I .•''� • aMalillttIt'astiu11/Ij� j�I/I,'' �:'� Q. 0 aN% 0 AI�i ��'r�.i ...��,. _ 4 en / ♦ OZ wop 09E • AS ` OY'- • • • 6. • • ✓ - gore 0£ 0001. Z?£ 09E9 S.UN1'1 3OIAUIS 9 Ogg 09)' ogJ_ 9 sum 1VMLO.L * ao - BOO SNOU.03r011d A8Var nos r, : atirtiY3d .ice • .t 4 ,. • �'�� • �1. k .. • �• et•o t S • ' ,yii1dr .•-• ••• 1••-- COt.- .. 'i:• trIllitiltitltittttf>: ___—t_ 9C :fQ as, t... .:...,.. \T• ..��,..-.:+f,4!e_•�'.=7•}_�)�f--•.Yr!•-i�'1. t / 7rt•1-• it • 4a* 91- WOO. 008 AS � • s '001 IlflgtlltL.?CiC371ttliClitCS.',ii1L:'.v:e;:]ii'R:1�:l4Hti- + -• 4. • • • 19 taus!tlti'tsy�f fi' •O.L t 10. - 4- I: t - 0• o ONI OOL 3W' Ar•tre. 9 woo •• oov d -•• • '-fjl„ • 03W o0E 3S 14 V32id ,N,LOi -IYIt.t.snaNI 1VI3} 31AMOO Al'lI Mid u.1nw AlIWH4 3'IONIS 3/411 4. I,,I,,,, /Aliitltwillril►1% • • ▪ • • • • • • • r !, % ••9• -1. ,f• • • • • 1: a y� s i I` - '- is •••,,� - - • ,-• Mp i • • 1 P.• lit sort • :L 'i �i r ►Of /eslit�1}tt�itatntl iti} lUltllli n1uE�(t1 t Il1nYt�u114_.. �* a ,tea .. • • • -�I - s ••;, `OZ woo 009 AS ,��'"�, •� o �� OaNI 03W• • • 0. inttrttitittftflat ,ab •• ♦ • ? "A* ju • �- - • , (�++ N/ vim/ • • w ▪ >- •1" W :::�,..:i;;. ,� ▪ .�, . # _ • • ,jib. .•t{n tn•. J1 ,. t4�t41 �� yfir, .L SS e' ,I,'�oo/4 ,�44.. WOO •ate J Ci J�! • 5 .-. d4• ' -'• •k-•' ,. y • .jti` 16141 :. • r :: '. 03 RtJJ OOL AS EL Hitiv • t r tr • I. 1 • • • r.-... _ • •• . - -t . .. . CC o N � Q• y - '� {: e: O (NI d,�`,ir' :4. OZ INN). • • I�i,� ssit♦; ` 14' e `i . :; • VI 1i to • •03W OO£•3S 1` . • • • • :_i - • • • • •'• •• • • f r1111f111:)11lL (c IIOIHX3 1 N3WHOV11{d 1l10d32J 33S) 1N3Wd013A30 HONd2� >133210 MOOVHS S3afl1OX3 * '3O1OV3 tIOISc13ANO11 31WIddO2iddV }3 :limn 1VftLCN °NI)1d111(IW •' 3 G3NIt'180 J d V S.l.iufl 3Ou1d3S !••1IW•7J TOMS 1N31VAIfl03 • �111•111 1w IsDv .dO NOlitleiaLSIQ MOHS SN3dy :31•0N co • 8. 8: U: '11 tlltlitititt1111111{tiN11/111t1t1lUt/.:: • • • • • 613NI 09 iv' x ... I- ;42lO S ' OZ WOO 009 3S % • &t.::....; •. flTtftr • •'•• - •••• • 000000000 vneravw _• • .. -, J. 1_••.•Y • .. • 'MI ram ?r; 1u. VtI a -•a s - . II 0 aNl 91,WOO • -08 H3NV8.l�3SSVfl 001 • LVR8V1.1 • • , ....• = . ; 9Z WOO 009 3S z- LONI 03W `N .. .:... 9 • w lid t r - A It CtiitL • 1, -4 • - I -i • ! �tllttltittt� r 8 ♦04•(••,•• ittt¢ltF • ♦ • o I'•• •- I,w l Y _• a j) 1.1 �Lttsilt�' •• • r ▪ - I . • _:`. "� litl>;l1iC1ASF+~!t[li1�tl1�!tilt il1�t+�IlI1��)��>hl�¢11l['61'i �t{�t�k" -• - • o •¢jll11y111/111111tlttltitfl/tIM iitlill t Ililt111tiN1tltlfuitlt11 uuI r d3ad • = : aY: S lr 5. 2'• vj Yr • jJ 'dwa• gs 3 in N I a • • `tom „1,' llitlil. V9JV , - .115.04 S' .♦ 411 _ •• �. � .btcnitlftr • ' ' ti1111$IttII lltllti �IIIIl1r _ • • • • • • • it• ;1i%J• _.A• •-. • �trit 1'lutltifiiiteiliitu�letlnfulutuuu r r at =. 2 • • o aN� o 3w : = . _ y J8Od32i �3S) • .. ... ;' ''9Z WOE - 099 3S ...... • ▪ :. 0 E7NI 0 3W, (1N�WNOtf11 • g read = ^ : 0£ WOO (09 S: �a3a{1�ONl tow) d 3wao-r3n3a 16 • ' o� d3ad- ' : d3a w ss Q: . ? kW- W0Nv2i_ S3K.s.03.4 . �. • - .. • �i0 w 4 Fi�Nb2# �i33 o 4 4 • Q~-. Z + latt11t11ttiltitlit{Iilllitiltit[Ittii.¢1� • • .. -� �-. p:.. r •.hu... >p3i10 MQCM'' • • • :;,... - ME W ig 01, • • • • •• ••,,2 nib tit - w ].• w J-. -M• w r i L rn ��, `� ' t`L aNl 0 AW tau 3r101S :.-.•_s ;i•- .• see' it,tRjft .: .j ttlub!t6t� yIi +4,. ty!�ilTf}�I/t� N �.. � j ..A `iiiLiialiiCittliitl �J ▪ Z 1yrrl vlft `=/ fr AIt11itH1tlll4 a' • • -w a0 ,� ' ,•` ,Ste • 40i•'1N00 001- 3S ;•1. ✓i a• l Z 1-I•`-32id.4i_ � _ �•-• .. t ltii4 R K Mi•139 intll� itoittttittttattiluuuioiitll¢um� Av1A•1101 HMS MVS R u1lt1l;s eimm ut! i t. • :• • tt 444-•7{ : 69 a Oa - o �w� t.' .. �: o aNl 011!• 3S- - • 111Y- �s} ....................'•Z� �13d -• • •• • • • • • • • • • 02i 1S0d• -441%u • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 • fe • • • • • • 1 fge II �e e • ' ttu111t�►Nuiiy • 1- • u�tileittfilctltli q�lt t l l : }4c •........• -•.. t .....2ti • • ii • • • • w t,,tal�ytEaljtili6itit+ltl 1llt l= V • • • • • • • f •r..•.•._. .••- , • UZI arc isorasiammumellis HIEION E E L1 J 0 n �I 0 ATTACHMENT SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE STUDY FOR SHADOW CREEK RANCH 2002 UPDATE E I. E U A. General Shadow Creek Ranch is a 3,467 acre master plan development located on the west side of State Highway 288, south of McHard Road, in the City of Pearland. The development will ultimately include residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional sites. Planned amenities include a regional park, recreation centers, pools, lakes, pocket parks, and a trail system throughout the community. Sites for 4 elementary schools, 2 middle schools, and 1 high school are also included. The purpose of this supplemental report is to update the 1999 supplemental report for the same development, defining the water and wastewater improvements projects to meet the developmental needs and updating the impact fee cost. 1. Service Area The service area, as defined for the purpose of the impact fee update, is the 3,467 acre development. (See Attachment Exhibit No. 3) 2. Population Projection The construction of this development is currently underway. A population projection is estimated based on a proposed ultimate development by year 2015. Based on the previous information received from the City of Pearland, the year 2015 single-family and multi -family are projected to be 7,697 and 3,876, respectively, or a total of 11,573 units. Using a 3.17 persons/unit factor (same as rest of Pearland), a population projection for the year 2015 is estimated to be 36,686 (11,573 x 3.17 = 36,686) people. �! 3. Service Unit Projections A "service unit", as defined by amended Chapter 395 of Texas Local Government Code, "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. For the purpose of converting Shadow Creek Ranch's different types of developments to an equivalent service unit, it is proposed to use the same service unit factors as the City. Based on the previous information received from the City, projections are made for the years 2012 and 2022. These projections are presented in Table 1. 1 --1 ri 5. Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements Two water and three wastewater projects are proposed for the Shadow Creek Ranch development. All of these projects are for the first 10-year period. These projects are briefly described below: Water Projects: 1. Water Plant (Phase 2): The Phase 2 construction will consist of a 1,660,000-gallon ground storage tank, a 15,000-gallon pressure tank, and other related components. This expansion will allow a total purchase of 4 MGD surface water from the City of Houston. 2. Water Plant (Phase 3): The Phase 3 construction will consist of a 1,660,000-gallon ground storage tank, a 1 MG elevated storage tank, an addition of one booster pump, and other related components. This expansion will allow a total purchase of 6 MGD surface water from the City of Houston. Wastewater Projects: 1. Shadow Creek Parkway Trunk Sewer (Phase 2): The development's share of a trunk sewer project on Kingsley Drive (CR 48), to serve development along this corridor. This share would be to serve the Shadow Creek Ranch development. 2. Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion: A 2.00 MGD expansion of Far Northwest Wastewater Treatment Plant to serve the Shadow Creek Ranch development. The total expansion is for the development. 3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion: Another 2.00 MGD plant expansion at the Far Northwest WWTP. This expansion will serve this development and areas outside of the Shadow Creek Ranch development. The development's share of this expansion is 38% while the City's share is 62%. Cost estimates for these projects are listed in Table 2 of this Attachment. Location of these projects are shown in Exhibits 1 and 2 of this Attachment. 6. Impact Fee Calculation The proposed impact fee is presented in Table 2. Eligible projects include existing and under - construction water and wastewater projects with debt service (See Appendix E), as well as the above proposed projects. Based on a projected 11,538.equivalent service units and total impact fee eligible cost of $30,827,772 the combined water and wastewater impact fee is $2,672 per service unit. 2 r r fl L L n SHADOW CREEK RANCH SERVICE UNIT PROJECTIONS 2012 2015 Service Equivalent Service Equivalent Type of Unit Service Unit Service Development Units Factor Units Units Factor Units Single Family 6,450 1.0 6,450 7,697 1.0 7,697 Multi -Family 2,625 0.7 1,837 3,876 0.7 2,713 Commercial 608 4.0 2,435 821 4.0 3,284 Industrial 35 6.0 210 35 6.0 210 Assisted Living 1,676 (Beds) 0.286 479 1,676 (Beds) 0.286 479 Hospital 200 (Beds) 0.635 127 200 (Beds) 0.635 127 11,594 11,538 14,305 14,510 3 r e- WATER IMPROVEMENTS TABLE 2 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION SHADOW CREEK RANCH PROD NO. 1 2 McHard Surface Water Connection & Line Water Plant - Phase 1 Water Plant - Phase 2 Water Plant Phase 3 & 1 MG Elevated Storage Administration SUBTOTAL $72,703 $297,856 $370,559 $346,889 $1,421,160 $1,570,875 $3,308,425 $15,000 $6,662,349 $308,875 $1,265,420 $1,574,295 WATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 11,538 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS MPACT FEE i! ELLIGIBLE,'.'-- $419,592 $1,719,016 $1,570,875 $3,308,425 $15,000 $7,032,908 $610 $419,592 $1,719,016 $1,570,875 $3,308,425 $15,000 $7,032,908 $610 1 1 WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS PROD. NO.: 1 2 3 Shadow Creek Parkway Trunk Sewer - Phase 1 Wastewater Treatment Plant - Phase 1 Shadow Creek Parkway Trunk Sewer - Phase 2 Wastewater Treatment Plant - Phase 2 Wastewater Treatment Plant - Phase 3 Administration SUBTOTAL $165,465 $1,068,650 $155,991 $1,390,106 $809,053 $8,409,888 $754,243 $9,086,000 $3,339,574 $15,000 $22,413,758 WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE BASED ON 11,538 EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS $634,587 $9,623,216 $598,253 $10,856,056 IMPACT FEE;; ELLIGIBLE $965,518 $9,478,538 $910,234 $9,086,000 $3,339,574 $15,000 $23,794,864 $2,062 $965,518 $9,478,538 $910,234 $9,086,000 $3,339,574 $15,000 $23,794,864 $2,062 ;`REMARK 1 1 1 2 TOTAL.WATER & WASTEWATER IMPACT.F.EE ..... :.. _ ....: $2,672 $2,672 1. Figure in impact fee eligible column reflects 10-yr debt service plus pre-2002 amount. 2. Project cost reflects developer's share of total projection at 38%. 4 WATER PROJECT NO. 21 r r E WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BROADWAY 16" TRANSMISSION LINE: KIRBY RD. TO CR 48 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO. 1 2 4 5 7 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $15,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 5,400.00 11.00 4.00 11.00 1.00 5,400.00 10.00 $243,000.00 $14,300.00 $12,000.00 $5,500.00 $15,000.00 $5,400.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 21/53 $325,200.00 $81,300.00 $406,500.00 $73,170.00 $479,670.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 22 r L r Li WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SHADOW CREEK PKWY. 16" TRANSMISSION LINE: KIRBY RD. TO SH 288 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM; 1 2 4 5 7 8 16" C-900 WATER LINE 16" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $150.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 7,300.00 500.00 16.00 5.00 16.00 1.00 7,300.00 10.00 $328,500.00 $75,000.00 $20,800.00 $15,000.00 $8,000.00 $20,000.00 $7,300.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 22/53 $504,600.00 $126.150.00 $630,750.00 $113.535.00 $744,285.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 23 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS -' STATE HIGHWAY 35 WATER TRANSMISSION LINE - BROADWAY TO CLEAR CREEK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE f r NO :ITEM DESCRIPTION :UNIT ;:.. UNIT _ .___COST,... QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 BUDGET SET FOR 12" & 16" WATER TRANSMISSION IMPROV./ RELOCATION LS $1,253,300.00 1.00 $1,253,300.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL Note: Estimate was obtained from SH 35 widening project consultant APPENDIX D - 23/53 $1,253,300.00 $313.325.00 $1,566,625.00 $281.993.00 $1,848,618.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 24 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ROY ROAD 12" TRANSMISSION LINE PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12" C-900 WATER LINE 12" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 12" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $33.00 $120.00 $1,300.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 8,400.00 100.00 17.00 4.00 17.00 1.00 8,400.00 15.00 $277,200.00 $12,000.00 $22,100.00 $4,000.00 $8,500.00 $20,000.00 $8,400.00 $45,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 24/53 $397,200.00 $99.300.00 $496,500.00 $89.370.00 $585,870.00 r r r r r L r cA LYYE. WATER PROJECT NO. 25 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MAX ROAD 12" TRANSMISSION LINE PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 12" C-900 WATER LINE 12" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 12" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $33.00 $120.00 $1,300.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 7,700.00 100.00 16.00 4.00 17.00 1.00 7,700.00 13.00 $254,100.00 $12,000.00 $20,800.00 $4,000.00 $8,500.00 $20,000.00 $7,700.00 $39,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D — 25/53 $366,100.00 $91.525.00 $457,625.00 $82.373.00 $539,998.00 C WATER PROJECT NO. 26 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PEARLAND PARKWAY 16" WATERLINE: OILER DR. TO DIXIE FARM ROAD PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $5,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 5,000.00 10.00 3.00 10.00 1.00 5,000.00 8.00 $225,000.00 $1.3,000.00 $9,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $24,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @18% GRAND TOTAL Li APPENDIX D - 26/53 $286,000.00 $71,500.00 $357,500.00 $64,350.00 $421,850.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 1 L r r L_ -71 WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS LONGWOOD WWTP EXPANSION PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO :. ..... ITEM ,:; . -: UN1T .:UNIT COST: ..QUANTITY. ,:; AMOUNT ..; =. 1 2.00 MGD WWTP EXPANSION GAL $4.00 2,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 27/53 $8,000,000.00 $2,000.000.00 $10,000,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $11,800,000.00 r WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 2 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS LONGWOOD - PAUL TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 28/53 $70.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $10,000.00 2,700.00 13.00 700.00 2,700.00 1.00 $189,000.00 $39,000.00 $14,000.00 $5,400.00 $10,000.00 $257,400.00 $64,350.00 $321, 750.00 $57.915.00 $379,665.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 3 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TEXAS - NORTH & SOUTH OF BROADWAY TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 12" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LF EA LF LF LS $50.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $40,000.00 4,300.00 24.00 1,100.00 4,300.00 1.00 $215,000.00 $72,000.00 $22,000.00 $8,600.00 $40,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 29/53 $357,600.00 $89,400.00 $447,000.00 $80,460.00 $527,460.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 4 L PLANT EXPANSION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FM 1128 TRUNK SEWER: FITE RD. TO BAILEY RD. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 4 5 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LF EA LF LF LS $70.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $20,000.00 6,810.00 20.00 6,810.00 6,810.00 1.00 $476,700.00 $60,000.00 $136,200.00 $13,620.00 $20,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 30/53 $706,520.00 $176.630.00 $883,150.00 $158.967.00 $1,042,117.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 5 L OOP SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BROADWAY - GARDEN RD. TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LIFT STATION (TRIPLEX) 15" PVC SAN. SWR. 18" PVC SAN. SWR. 30" SAN. SWR. MANHOLE 12" FORCE MAIN WELL POINTING HICKORY SLOUGH CROSSING (CASED) TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LS LF LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LS $150,000.00 $60.00 $70.00 $105.00 $3,000.00 $33.00 $20.00 $250.00 $2.00 $50,000.00 1.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 2,000.00 30.00 200.00 10, 000.00 100.00 11, 000.00 1.00 $150,000.00 $270,000.00 $315,000.00 $210,000.00 $90,000.00 $6,600.00 $200,000.00 $25,000.00 $22,000.00 $50,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 31/53 $1,338,600.00 $334,650.00 $1,673,250.00 $301,185.00 $1,974,435.00 C C C C 004 4 fI 7.1 C C r WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 6 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BARRY ROSE - HUGHES RD. TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO_;; 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LIFT STATION (TRIPLEX) 18" SAN. SWR. 36" SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION 12" FORCE MAIN 12" F.M. CROSSING @ CLEAR CREEK LS LF LF EA LF LF LS LF LF $150,000.00 $70.00 $120.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $30,000.00 $33.00 $130.00 1.00 5,000.00 6,400.00 32.00 11,400.00 11, 700.00 1.00 300.00 300.00 $150,000.00 $350,000.00 $768,000.00 $96,000.00 $228,000.00 $23,400.00 $30,000.00 $9,900.00 $39,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 32/53 $1,694,300.00 $423,575.00 $2,117,875.00 $381,217.50 $2,499,092.50 r r r L n WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 7 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DIXIE FARM RD. TRUNK SEWER: LONGWOOD WWTP TO OAKBROOK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE :ITEM NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LIFT STATION (TRIPLEX) 27" SAN. SWR. 21" SAN. SWR. 21" SAN. SWR. IN CASED BORE 8" SAN. SWR. SERVICE LINES 30" SAN. SWR. 30" SAN. SWR. IN CASED BORE 12" PVC SAN. SWR. 12" SAN. SWR. IN CASED BORE MANHOLE (EXTRA DEEP) 12" FORCE MAIN 12" FORCE MAIN IN UNCASED BORE 12" F.M. IN CASED BORE 12" F.M. CROSSING @ MARY'S CREEK WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LS LF LF LF LF LS LF LF LF LF EA LF LF LF LF LF LF LS $150,000.00 $90.00 $80.00 $305.00 $34.00 $15,000.00 $105.00 $370.00 $50.00 $140.00 $3,000.00 $33.00 $60.00 $140.00 $130.00 $20.00 $2.00 $33,000.00 1.00 2,630.00 1,822.00 200.00 1,280.00 1.00 1,990.00 268.00 770.00 240.00 31.00 3,920.00 435.00 110.00 150.00 4,100.00 13,070.00 1.00 $150,000.00 $236,700.00 $145,760.00 $61,000.00 $43,520.00 $15,000.00 $208,950.00 $99,160.00- $38,500.00 $33,600.00 $93,000.00 $129,360.00 $26,100.00 $15,400.00 $19,500.00 $82,000.00 $26,140.00 $33,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 33/53 $1,456,690.00 $364.173.00 $1,820,863.00 $327.756.00 $2,148,619.00 r WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 8 r r" 0 J 411 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STATE HIGHWAY 35 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS (BROADWAY TO CLEAR CREEK) PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO.. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT 1 BUDGET SET FOR SAN. SWR. IMPROV./RELOCATION ASSOCIATED LS $983,300.00 1.00 $983,300.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL Note: Estimate was obtained from SH 35 widening project consultant APPENDIX D - 34/53 $983,300.00 $245.825.00 $1,229,125.00 $221,243.00 $1,450,368.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 9 r SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BROADWAY (FM 518): SH 288 TO CULLEN BLVD. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE i r r 11 L ITEM NO.. ITEM. DESCRIPTION ... _ UNIT : UNITCOST QUANTITY..: AIUIOUNT ...- 1 MOBILIZATION LS $75,000.00 1.00 $75,000.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $112,500.00 1.00 $112,500.00 3 18" GRAVITY SEWER (18' - 24') LF $90.00 2,315.00 $208,350.00 4 24" GRAVITY SEWER (10' - 26') LF $97.00 2,905.00 $281,785.00 5 30" GRAVITY SEWER (12' - 16') LF $97.00 4,226.00 $409,922.00 6 MISC. 8", 12", 18" GRAVITY SEWER LS $13,775.00 1.00 $13,775.00 7 8" AND 14" FORCE MAIN LS $28,000.00 1.00 $28,000.00 8 MANHOLE (4', 5', 6' DIAMETER) EA $4,553,00 33.00 $150,249.00 9 MANHOLE DROPS (8" & 12") LS $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 10 LIFT STATIONS (MULTI -PUMP) INCL. SITE & ACCESS WORK (2 STATIONS) LS $438,300.00 2.00 $876,600.00 11 WELL POINTING LF $24.00 9,481.00 $227,544.00 12 TRENCHLESS CONST. FOR 12" SAN. SWR. W/ 18" STEEL CASING LF $250.00 225.00 $56,250.00 13 TRENCHLESS CONST. FOR 18" SAN. SWR. W/ 24" STEEL CASING LF $300.00 325.00 $97,500.00 14 TRENCHLEES CONST. FOR 24" SAN. SWR. W/ 30" STEEL CASING LF $450.00 180.00 $81,000.00 15 TRENCHLESS CONST. FOR 30" SAN. SWR. W/ 36" STEEL CASING LF $600.00 235.00 $141,000.00 16 TRENCHLESS CONST. FOR 14" FORCE MAIN LF $250.00 100.00 $25,000.00 17 MISC. WATER LINE WORK LS $31,340.00 1.00 $31,340.00 18 TRENCH SAFETY LF $1.00 10,238.00 $10,238.00 19 SITE PREPARATION & RESTORATION INCL. PAVEMENT WORK LS $98,000.00 1.00 $98,000.00 20 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN LS $20,000.00 1.00 $20,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 10% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, ROW ACQUISITION SUBTOTAL LESS PEDC COMMITMENT TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST Note: Estimate was obtained from CIP Consultant. APPENDIX D - 35/53 $2,949,053.00 $294.905.00 $3,243,958.00 $862,000.00 $4,105,958.00 ($1,330,000.00) $2,775,958.00 r r WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 10 r L i SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PEARLAND PKWY. - JOHN LIZER - OLD ALVIN ROAD TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO' 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 LIFT STATION (DUPLEX) 15" PVC SAN. SWR. 18" PVC SAN. SWR. 21" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE 10" FORCE MAIN WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION 10" F.M. CROSSING @ MARY'S CREEK LS LF LF LF EA LF LF LF LS LF $125,000.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $3,000.00 $27.00 $20.00 $2.00 $20,000.00 $120.00 2.00 5,700.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 30.00 2,000.00 3,000.00 12,200.00 1.00 150.00 $250,000.00 $342,000.00 $140,000.00 $200,000.00 $90,000.00 $54,000.00 $60,000.00 $24,400.00 $20,000.00 $18,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 36/53 $1,198,400.00 $299.600.00 $1,498,000.00 $269.640.00 $1,767,640.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 11 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STATE HIGHWAY 35 TRUNK SEWER: MAGNOLIA AVE. TO DIXIE FARM RD. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LIFT STATION (TRIPLEX) 24" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE 10" FORCE MAIN WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION 10" F. M. IN CASED BORE LS LF EA LF LF LF LS LF $150,000.00 $97.00 $3,000.00 $27.00 $20.00 $2.00 $20,000.00 $120.00 1.00 9,000.00 24.00 2,100.00 6,700.00 11,100.00 1.00 300.00 $150,000.00 $873,000.00 $72,000.00 $56,700.00 $134,000.00 $22,200.00 $20,000.00 $36,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 37/53 $1,363,900.00 $340.975.00 $1,704,875.00 $306.877.50 $2,011,752.50 n WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 12 u L 0 i L 0 0 61110 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS McHARD TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LIFT STATION (DUPLEX) 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE 12" FORCE MAIN WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LS LF EA LF LF LF LS $125,000.00 $70.00 $3,000.00 $33.00 $20.00 $2.00 $20,000.00 1.00 4,800.00 27.00 1,300.00 2,000.00 10,800.00 1.00 $125,000.00 $336,000.00 $81,000.00 $42,900.00 $40,000.00 $21,600.00 $20,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 38/53 $666,500.00 $166.625.00 $833,125.00 $149,963.00 $983,088.00 e WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 13 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MAGNOLIA TRUNK SEWER: VETERANS DR. TO RAILROAD PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 7 24" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL L r, r i n L APPENDIX D - 39/53 $97.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $5,000.00 2,700.00 7.00 2,000.00 2,700.00 1.00 $261,900.00 $21,000.00 $40,000.00 $5,400.00 $5,000.00 $333,300.00 $83.325.00 $416,625.00 $74.992.50 $491,617.50 L WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 14 A j I r L' iL I! L i C r SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DIXIE FARM RD.: SH 35 TO COWART'S CREEK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO... 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 LIFT STATION (DUPLEX) 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE 10" FORCE MAIN 10" F. M. CROSS. @ COWART'S CRK. SERVICES (CONNECT EXIST.) WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LS LF EA LF LF LS LF LF LS $125,000.00 $70.00 $3,000.00 $27.00 $120.00 $5,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $6,000.00 1.00 4,400.00 9.00 200.00 100.00 1.00 800.00 4,600.00 1.00 $125,000.00 $308,000.00 $27,000.00 $5,400.00 $12,000.00 $5,000.00 $16,000.00 $9,200.00 $6,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 40/53 $513,600.00 $128.400.00 $642,000.00 $115.560.00 $757,560.00 L WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 15 fl 0 r r c r i L, 0 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STATE HIGHWAY 35: DIXIE FARM ROAD TO SOUTH PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 4 5 7 LIFT STATION (TRIPLEX) 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE 8" FORCE MAIN WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LS LF EA LF LF LF LS $150,000.00 $70.00 $3,000.00 $25.00 $20.00 $2.00 $15,000.00 1.00 9,700.00 24.00 300.00 7,300.00 10,000.00 1.00 $150,000.00 $679,000.00 $72,000.00 $7,500.00 $146,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 41/53 $1,089,500.00 $272.375.00 $1,361,875.00 $176.063.00 $1,537,938.00 L WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 16 WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEW WWTP NORTH OF FM 518 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE r, SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL c C r APPENDIX D - 42/53 $3,000,000.00 $750.000.00 $3,750,000.00 $675,000.00 $4,425,000.00 r WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 17 F'} r f 0 C II C L' r C WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WWTP EXPANSION AT SWEC PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO ... ITEM. DESCRIPTION.... UNIT UNITCOST QUANTITY .;:AMOUNT 1 2.00 MGD WWTP GAL $4.00 2,000,000.00. $8,000,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 43/53 $8,000,000.00 $2.000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $11,800,000.00 r r r r r Li Li WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 18 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS VETERANS - BAILEY - WELLS DR. TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 24" PVC SAN. SWR. 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LF LF EA LF LF LS $97.00 $70.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $50,000.00 7,800.00 5,100.00 34.00 12,900.00 12,900.00 1.00 $756,600.00 $357,000.00 $102,000.00 $258,000.00 $25,800.00 $50,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 44/53 $1,549,400.00 $387,350.00 $1,936,750.00 $348,615.00 $2,285,365.00 7 <- WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 19 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS KIRBY RD. & KINGSLEY TRUNK SEWER OVERSIZING PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM .: NO,..,.... ;.....ITEM DESCRIPTION:: UNIT UNIT :.:..COST 1 CITY'S SHARE FOR OVERSIZING LS $194,045.00 1.00 •$194,045.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGECIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL C fl APPENDIX D - 45/53 $194,045.00 $48,511.00 $242,556.00 $43,660.00 $242,556.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 20 Li 1119 r [71 WWTP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FAR NORTHWEST WWTP EXPANSION OVERSIZING PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO . . -ITEM DESCRIPTION _.. .::UNIT..=. UNIT . _ _; . C.OST ,.._ _ QUANTITY .._ ...::..AMOUNT .:- .....:: 1 CITY'S SHARE FOR OVERSIZING GAL $2.75 3,360,000.00 $9,240,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 46/53 $9,240,000.00 $2,310.000.00 $11,550,000.00 $2,079,000.00 $13,629,000.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 21 r iI l la; r SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DIXIE FARM RD.: COWART'S CREEK TO OAKBROOK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM: NO 1 2 3 4 5 7 21" PVC SAN. SWR. 21" PVC SAN. SWR. IN CASED BORE MANHOLE CONNECT EXIST. SERVICES WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LF LF EA LS LF LF LS $80.00 $250.00 $3,000.00 $6,500.00 $20.00 $2.00 $20,000.00 3,320.00 30.00 9.00 1.00 1,000.00 3,320.00 1.00 $265,600.00 $7,500.00 $27,000.00 $6,500.00 $20,000.00 $6,640.00 $20,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 47/53 $353,240.00 $88.310.00 $441,550.00 $79.479.00 $521,029.00 r WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 22 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HARKEY ROAD TRUNK SEWER: BAILEY TO CR 100 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LF EA LF LF LS $70.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $20,000.00 8,350.00 22.00 8,350.00 8,350.00 1.00 $584,500.00 $66,000.00 $167,000.00 $16,700.00 $20,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. © 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 48/53 $854,200.00 $213,550.00 $1,067,750.00 $192,195.00 $1, 259, 945.00 tomo WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 23 n P n SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BROADWAY — ROY ROAD TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 4 5 7 8 15" PVC SAN. SWR. 18" PVC SAN. SWR. 24" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION HICKORY SLOUGH CROSSING (CASED) LF LF LF EA LF LF LS LF $60.00 $70.00 $97.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $40,000.00 $250.00 4,000.00 4,400.00 2,000.00 28.00 8,000.00 10,400.00 1.00 100.00 $240,000.00 $308,000.00 $194,000.00 $84,000.00 $160,000.00 $20, 800.00 $40,000.00 $25,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. © 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D — 49/53 $1,071,800.00 $267.950.00 $1,339,750.00 $241,155.00 $1,580,905.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 24 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BROADWAY - MAX ROAD TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15" PVC SAN. SWR. 18" PVC SAN. SWR. MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION HICKORY SLOUGH CROSSING (CASED) LF LF EA LF LF LS LF $60.00 $70.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $35,000.00 $250.00 3,300.00 6,300.00 26.00 7,000.00 9,600.00 1.00 100.00 $198,000.00 $441,000.00 $78,000.00 $140,000.00 $19,200.00 $35,000.00 $25,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 50/53 $936,200.00 $234.050.00 $1,170,250.00 $210.645.00 $1,380,895.00 60 'ON 1.18IHX3 'N3t/1I1Od11Y ?OM °1d S 11 aij w 0 0 r= z 0 rno 0 ra coo �® m c a - 1 Mo Q rnm r to • 70 rn VP rein * o sa D Z Plas rn z frl Z P • • • r• • . • di3 UV3A-01 °Nasal • • t • • ilb • • • • • •.�t• f ` • k__.�* , • • • • We Irli. •' s • • • • • • • • • • e . vrn ktt, �. a. PC. • • • I •;e NOLIMINNOO AldldflS UMW fEMNOIS G9.LYA313 3eb1:IOi8 GNfObiO 3Nfl 113.1.YM UYaPnas. ra.�. aNvluvad ti , - s. i 44 • • tS 1y: . •- _! • • oftr, • • • • • • • • • •.••... , _3 - • _ • • IL O, 3• . • '013 I4ONHV3 SfNU.S`1H • • • • • via 1prroa.3ssvw oot • •bs •••r•• • -: ;:_ "•. .. - : ., ;, 31N8 tat a . o'� ' .tN. rye r� ; ' • < •Al dam ''it �i6 0•• . • • ... lain • 'r tib• k • .�•/ 4• :. J° m :t•. at- OleOai.re— :.. • "t.• • • • . • .•f',� • J -' _ . ..., :. -.... 2. -f iriMroM s a�= ..6. • `ate "• '--ViVa.�t t p '- �• M1 • �>' G.t : ••i• 'O .... _.N. .._. ._i...t.,.• :.. • • • '• '� •:: MD t. .. .O•.... ` •.. 4 : . '; • e' • 1 • : • • .- •-• ... t 4 . rt t • ....../.,...• , fvnos• adw j.,..• ._ • . . • • • ;is 4:, lc • • • S P • t • • • • • • • • t • a. • • • C 3SVHd :iC »f*iO1S '1i313 /M NO1SUV&C .1111Fld z 3SVHd - NoisNvdn .LNY1d 113.11.VM 1 • Q _ --•-•• • • i, .._ 22J6 •• • • • "• • • • _ •... •v. d• o•, V: ,mihos • • • •':i{:\-f. i:.:r?,mrr-i'+'Yi•; :. '=-?tS'!A•'jN?`T /�.i*•t�:Jit- .it r • • atest t, o • • • •, • • • • .•• '• t• I•t ,- .• •-i. • 39ttb2i0 • Ps*. ._..•..• >a' �.. Q.. 1 .• ! S * 9. n • 1• _ :. • • 8 'OH 3NO S - . ,_._ •.r ..:t.., -• eit • -•- 0.4 z :rn • 1 • • • }• t • - ;-• • 0.;• ..v.`..t Y•• •s:?•r. • • ID tta :;3 .r 0)14 • a(W ,1-,r.4e:.'tr• •�:�C'i_{yF-.Titf!`t:•." /SINVYLOQ w • ....... •- Y t • 36+MVN 103f`O8c1 • • aims r a. aNribiraci 20 . • • :S • y•t • .� _ CO.4 _.r.r F1' - V = �1 .... ....... ••••, 9 4P• S ba/''} Qy - - {r� _- . • - •••'.l:; • • • • •]•• • ;.t •..... . .. • • • • • • ?•3• ••• •• • • • • •• • • • • • • -- • • • • • • • • • • •.. rM I •••• y • • • • Jinn as • • • • • •3Ry • • • • sec r I 1 .000a 40009 4000V •000Z 0 Hi ) ON 'OVA 1NI 1.181WX3 HOY'S.d 3o 03 °J1d S N3310 MOCIVOrcllS v VEIVEM.,,LSVM 1 LN _ CD0 c Tam U N Vtal 0 NUNrTI min Somoz 04 70 z coi�Z� 0w(�j) U�Y N.,- - 8 -1m 70 4�4 •$ >c0 Z Imp x*.4DZ co co (a co it i— v; 0 N 0) t,+ rrn N to • S13311HO21V ) 0 U' co • • • t • • • • d13 uvaA-Al. (nasal • u:: c• i. 14. `• • lE-.. �s .. �..' •_ , •:.v•1t: crL•i-S„u NMa :A3SSVW 001 •Zi•tJ 4. .. .. • I •i. t• . ... .♦: t• • 4. t. • -:?• . l '. t. !NV1d .�f�laIALLV]H1 Hn1VM 1SVM H3M�1S ALIAYUO AiVawfl08 r. t1 d t = . ENIaVHS 1S00 S 38\iNd - .LMM t ESVHd • d1MM '3 �)NIHVHS 1800 3 3£`y=•-id • 8JM3S NNf W. AVAANUVd N33H0 MOGYHS 1 (3a t20NNVO S`ONUSVH • i • • • • -P 94.�••f••• • •. • •t• rr• •4.• • i 4.M '♦ • ' /. .. . 'r. ,r��l s •r;• .�.F.t}+•%-+?I:: •Ya!y1 I TI• B 1Ot t9•J ,• . .i • it • ry • r� t i • • 8 • • • di • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i r• • • • O`•. � y,- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - - 45 �d i'7a ¢e . ?. �., 4-t 1. i "• v�� ate/ de i tib .4 ifat l ...s� gas •,. rr{fHG. h 'i{ t • :i t...: 5 ... Oare ;i2'.� '•. •=u=•- • • • • _ it • • •;.•s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • r' •i • •.; 5.7 t: • as ...., •€e to - a CO a i VilpNJdw:, .• ... . i 1 .lam t • • • • •1.r• 1nrrnM .• • . ; 0:•r ; . , ._ ,O� n - �• • t • - • Z a {x al 5• 2;t to L 2 k .; •O. . • . ••� • • ./u.. •�y�••y -1; L4r11•A 6. • O. QP•n_I1 • .t •il .All• j^ • !E 4 •4 7.4 IS • 4, :t t• I Fit • t• 1.1 • Lf t. l• E • 4• t . • • b t ii „ ! _T.,,_ ... •_ ,;l ,:_��s _ ?__'l+i4iiY•R^` ^=v "F<.s',Y SSian t^ . �.3 ' j, •..y t, :: ,-•:^ iill••'.F.W : M•••tk!=tCIil :K_ a: O 9 . - — i 11� '7•. ILi:ii'��7S�1,yyjJ'.,'V'a"i•!L•'stt:-?'tIG�:1.•v.•s"'-•� Jt ' _ (t.�-r { • ay ACI • 1- 8• S • 0 .; p: • •.• 1 se.4; ••. {�•• a. ti • Ar 3NVN 10 f'O Id • AkiVQNAO8 Pia tlNisi d • '= 4 •'�z • 4,1 • L•tZ _� -• C ' : Qt 3J.13 •..- ..i t• • ta r• • • i 1 • r z w a • • • •• • • • • • a: • t of i • il 'Q8.t 3N01STE'. , �.� O Mite z ..rn • • Id V .1 i r. - • • • • • • • 11. •' ••&S• t. r5t: tired :lti :.ie :; 1:: .•r.:•i . •08 1SOd • 4; s 'y�• -• •t -.• Oi•''• -- •dr#• _ -i • • • t! 1. i_.. ' •,A • 2:;::: :i.1:421 as • di . • • . - - - • - • •-a-• 1 t 69 •23'0 9 ,l'OIAi•T38 FgNV24-S314onH,,1. ..,.. t' .: • ,it t• • .n•`.11 if• - mitt • • • • • • • 6Vs • ...... a:/t• • - n£ZZ 14'3 i . �;.,rniuc. ,,.. At • .4},. , • _ • • t • • 1 • / • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 r• • • t-.t • • • • • • • 0 • • • 4 • •r •••-,•^••• . •,•.- ! r 41 a 4 Vet •-••-...... 1 _ • tee • .000s .000a ,0004 •000z 0 1 S 'ON JJSIHX3 1N!W HOVIIV Z003 `ADDS atva z 0 L-19 hid V 0 C 0 • • A 0 S =I rn I• • to • • • • ,. • • • • • T• • • • • • • • • • •)e- ti'r4:Z731.11,s/e, v T J." • s` .r • • • :ram • • • • • • • • • • • t. • yY4 •: � • • • fil 6Lp (seas} 003 (SOBS) 9L9'L 98 909 939`3 SLIM WW1 eOO smolio9rOHd AUYO.N_. n..,os rat aced • • •• • • �r�J• • • • .• • ,r {ONNVO S9Nt1SVH • .•,. 4._ a. •- 1 • 1 1 ii si 1011 WHYS =A3SSVN 50V 'H•3 • • • • • • • • f T . • y4• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ,• • • • • • • j. r .4 �+ . •f s . • t } . • .II s . 3 ' • i '! L ,",,, ...�-:08 A31roe t•Set• 'WO i. . - v i . • W . • .• I Q. C...-; _.. �M1 ' • _—___J • • 1 • f • ,••. Cr s as frifletiv‘seitl./.1 fir t,4�•'• • • I. • £` a \�;3 ;• ely • • •l3• .` • ,�� i, tit•. C 1:5 '" 't��.(p. e y : • • >_ • • i • • • 1 • • •a3 3.0 ;r •• •:. • • A }• - U 1N3Wd013/130 H01Wfl >133i3 MOOVHS Jl1NO S30f110N1 * • • • • • •�JO13U t`10tS83ANO3 31V1880 ddV •A•8 SlLNn 1VA.L)V 9NIAldtllnf A8 C13NIy18O 38V SIINt1 3ZIAd3S A1MVJ 31ONIS 1t431VAIflO3 •S1INf1 1Vn1Oa JO NOI1n8Id15I0 MOMS SV3dV :310N • • ..S• i.+r as ji yfrb':^•':YS'.•E*,!•+ltY'r•%F.''./5+ • a�'•)) W. �tyaJ:F:.r�4.y".r;L:+tc.�in ,:.xS..:.:.��: E•=�i:.'•�''i1 1i: ��7' f • • . r - - - ,• • •• r ritk5 aL�.'='s e } •, IA . • : • • 4• . • • 3.. •• _ - a z ; r� .- 3; 04 Qs 0• • • 4 '141 ,'} fide i.•1C:..1: ?t••' •ts:i: X•f'i:.Y.:*3g'li'i%':: ) IA . s, 4 i • • • te —r". ••s :* J i •a. •1 • • • • ;.. r• Q' 0; ltf; O. • • • • • a • • • • • • • • 1 I •_� 608 3NO3S • • i_.S:c: z9:)•: ivw 47. •.• 0 2 r0 • 410 r 5 t • • • ......... • • r`•?Y `.41=•• )t S! 'UN isOd A1ivaNnos I13 QNVIN 6 • or • 1r • / f3 ice• ��:i �w �a7,3yltvi;�kbr�erC,rti•�L-' :.;71if011 1t:tlellt. •.• ��1i1=Itittil{111fffljf/t�llfflf= •r� f itfpilieifitii. �Y/�f►gv088 .•.•..•-' - • a Y • -f:k• 4,4 -- ON1 ;)4+ t _., • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • y • • • • 1•• • • i • • • • • Uei • f Y •• k _ �(( a • • . • _ • • i•-'-•j - .. - . y scree) OQ� SOH (9338) 9Z9'; -w 5E CiNI 05b'3.�S _ of 809 WOa _�,- - • • • itCre WA tjjiscl VS& Sibri tCottlibrer • • • • • • 4 • • • • • • • • 0 0 • • • • • • • ,.+• %' '•\, iza WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 25 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CULLEN TO WWTP TRUNK SEWER PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 4 5 24" PVC SAN. SWR. 24" SAN. SWR. IN CASED BORE MANHOLE WELL POINTING TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION LF LF EA LF LF LS $97.00 $450.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $2.00 $30,000.00 8,200.00 100.00 18.00 8,200.00 8,200.00 1.00 $795,400.00 $45,000.00 $54,000.00 $164,000.00 $16,400.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL C C r i APPENDIX D - 51/53 $1,104,800.00 $276.200.00 $1,381,000.00 $248.580.00 $1,629,580.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 26 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CULLEN BLVD. - CHOCOLATE BAYOU RD. FORCE MAINS PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 8" FORCE MAIN 10" FORCE MAIN 10" FORCE MAIN IN CASED BORE TRENCH SAFETY SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION CONNECTION TO EXISTING LINES LF LF LF LF LS EA $27.00 2,500.00 $25.00 3,600.00 $85.00 100.00 $2.00 6,100.00 $15,000.00 1.00 $2,000.00 2.00 $67,500.00 $90,000.00 $8,500.00 $12,200.00 $15,000.00 $4, 000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 52/53 $197,200.00 $49.300.00 $246,500.00 $44,370.00 $290,870.00 WASTEWATER PROJECT NO. 27 SANITARY SEWER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SHADOW CREEK PKWY. TRUNK SEWER OVERSIZING - PHASE 2 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 CITY'S SHARE FOR OVERSIZING OF SHADOW CREEK PKWY 36" & 30" TRUNK SEWERS - PHASE 2 LS $749,773.00 1.00 $749,773.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGECIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 53/53 $749, 773.00 $187.443.00 $937,216.00 $168.700.00 $1,105,916.00 APPENDIX E RESERVE CAPACITY CALCULATIONS DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS c E L' r 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 1.00 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 Expansions: Barry Rose: $2,094,000 Longwood: 1,672,000 Total: $3,766,000 Wastewater Demand Based on 2001 - 2002 average Barry Rose: 1.201 MGD Longwood: 1.118 MGD SWEC: 1.083 MGD Total: 3.402 MGD Capacity Available for Future Demand: Cost Available for Future Demand: Projected 10-year Demand: Proportion of Cost to be Allocated to Future Demand: 4.0 MGD - 3.402 MGD = 0.598 MGD $3,766,000 x 0.598 MGD = $900,827 2.50 MGD 8,102 s.u. x 2.59 Equival. person/s.u. x 110 gal/person Demand = 2.308 MGD 2.308 = 3.86 * 0.598 Construction Cost to be Allocated to Future Demand: $900,827 x 1.0 = $900,827 * This implies that more capacity will be required than is currently available to meet the demand in year 2012 r APPENDIX E -1/7 r C C r i r L ANALYSIS OF WWTP CAPACITY EXPANSIONS DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS Recently Completed. Expansions: New WWTP at SWEC Longwood WWTP Expansion Barry Rose WWTP Expansion Total Completed Expansions Debt Service Allocations Are As Follows: Project Cost SWEC 6,020,376 Barry Rose 609,914 Longwood 1,787,431 Total Issuance 2% Expense Total Cost 120,408 6,140,784 12,198 622,112 37,589 1,917,020 (2.000 MGD) ( .750 MGD) ( .850 MGD) (3.600 MGD) $6,020,376 1,787,954 609,914 $8,418,244 Percent Issue 10 yr Total Issue of Issue Debt Service Allocation 8,870,000 69.2 $ 7,793,198 $5,395,303 17,100,000 3.64 14,405,737 524,093 17,100,000 11.21 14,405,737 1,614,975 $7,534,371 Since entire 3.6 MGD expansion is needed to meet current and future demand, the total allocation is impact fee eligible. c APPENDIX E - 2/7 i r ANALYSIS OF WWTP CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS TO MEET YEAR 2012 DEMAND Existing Service Units = 18,199 s.u. 10-year Projected Increase = 8,102 s.0 Wastewater Flow: (18,199 s.u.)(2.59 persons/s.u.)(115 gal/person) = 5.420 MGD ri, Existing Service Units: r L. 10-year Projection: (8,102 s.u.)(2.59 personls.u.)(110 gal/person) = 2,308 MGD Total Wastewater Demand by yr. 2012: Available Capacity: Additional Capacity Required by yr. 2012: New Expansion at SWEC New Expansion at Longwood 7.729 MGD 7.100 MGD* 0.629 MGD (2.00 MGD) (2.00 MGD) EAverage Cost per Gallon Expansion Cost: $5.90/gallon L' 1" i� 1 $11,800,000 11,800,000 $23,600,000 Cost to Expand Current Capacity to Meet 2012 Demand: 629,000 gallons x $5.90/gallon = $3,711,100 Proportion this cost for each plant based on ratio of 0.629MGD/4.00 MGD. New Expansion at SWEC = $1,855,550 New Expansion at Longwood = $1,855,550 $3,711,100 *Available capacity of 7.100 MGD takes into account a 0.500 MGD reduction in Longwood WWTP. 7 APPENDIX E - 3/7 ANALYSIS OF COMPLETED WATER & SEWER PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS Recently Completed Trunk Sewers: Magnolia -Veterans Fite -Harkey Shadow Creek Parkway Oversizing— Phase 1 Cullen/Westgate Recently Completed Water Transmission: FM 518 Water Transmission Debt Service Allocations Are As Follows: Magnolia -Veterans (SWEC — Walnut) Fite -Harkey (SWEC to CR 89) Shadow Creek — Phase 1 (Oversizing) Cullen/Westgate FM 518 Water Trans. (Cullen to Kirby) Issuance Project Cost 2% Expense $ 1,787,954 2,253,497 1,173,084 231,728 $ 5,446,263 $1,065,039 Total Cost Total Issue $1,787,954 $35,759 $1,823,713 $ 8,870,000 2,253,497 45,070 2,298,567 17,100,000 1,173,084 23,462 1,196,546 17,100,000 231,728 4,635 236,363 17,100,000 1,065,039 21,301 Percent Issue 10-yr. of Issue Debt Service Allocation 20.56 $ 7,793,198 $1,602,318 13.44 14,405,737 1,93 6,406 7.00 14,405,737 1,008,019 1.38 14,405,737 199,121 $4,745,864 1,086,340 8,000,000 13.58 7,736,260 1,050,526 APPENDIX E - 4/7 L L is E L r r ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS COMMITTED BOND DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS Proposed Committed Bond Projects: Dixie Farm Water Line (SH 35 to Clear Creek) $ 926,706 State Highway 35 Water Line (FM 518 to Clear Creek) $1,848,618 Dixie Farm Trunk Sewer (Longwood to Oakbrook) $2,148,619 State Highway 35 Trunk Sewer (Clear Creek to FM 518) $1,450,368 Shadow Creek Parkway Oversizing — Phase 2 $1,105,916 Debt Service Allocations Are As Follows: Issuance Percent Issue 10-yr. Project Cost 2% Expense Total Cost Total Issue of Issue Debt Service Allocation Dixie Farm Water Line (Mary's Creek Bypass $ 926,706 $18,534 $ 945,240 $8,000,000 11.82 $ 7,736,260 $ 914,078 to Clear Creek) State Highway 35 Water Line (FM 518 to Clear Creek) $1,848,618 36,972 $1,885,590 8,000,000 23.57 $ 7,736,260 1,823,427 Dixie Fm. Trunk Sewer (Longwood to Oakbrook) $2,148,619 42,972 $2,191,591 8,000,000 27.39 $ 7,736,260 2,119,340 State Highway 35 Trunk Sewer (Clear Creek to FM 518) $1,450,368 29,007 $1,479,375 8,000,000 18.49 $ 7,736,260 1,430,604 Shadow Creek Parkway Phase — 2 (Oversizing) $1,105,916 22,118 $1,128,034 17,100,000 6.60 $14,405,737 950,302 APPENDIX E - 5/7 , i=. L c r C C r r C r r SHADOW CREEK RANCH COMPLETED WATER & SEWER PROJECTS DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS Recently Completed Trunk Sewers: Shadow Creek Parkway Cost Sharing — Phase 1 Recently Completed Water Project: McHard Surface Water Connection & Line McHard Water Plant — Phase 1 Debt Service Allocations Are As Follows: Issuance $1,040,282 $ 406,281 $1,664,480 Percent Issue 10-yr. Project Cost 2% Expense Total Cost Total Issue of Issue Debt Service Allocation Shadow Creek Parkway— Phase 1 . $1,040,282 $20,806 (Cost Sharing) McHard Surface Water Connection & Line 406,281 8,126 McHard Water Plant -Phase 1 1,664,480 Wastewater Treatment Plant — Phase 1 10,000,000' $1,061,088 $17,100,000 6.22 $12,853,786 $ 800,053 414,407 8,000,000 5.18 6,696,596 346,889 33,290 1,697,770 8,000,000 21.22 6,696,596 1,421,160 Included Pre-2002 Debt Service: Shadow Creek Parkway — Phase 1 = McHard Surface Water Connection & Line = McHard Water Plant — Phase 1 = Wastewater Treatment Plant — Phase 1 'Plus $600,000 Cash on hand 10,000,000 10,000,000 100 8,409,888 8,409,888 $ 165,465 $ 72,703 $ 297,856 $1,068,650 T:PRL02305AppendixEShadow APPENDIX E - 6/7 SHADOW CREEK RANCH ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS COMMITTED BOND DEBT SERVICE ALLOCATIONS Proposed Committed Bond Projects: Shadow Creek Parkway (Cost Sharing) — Phase 2 $980,718 Debt Service Allocations Are As Follows: Issuance Percent Issue 10-yr. Project Cost 2% Expense Total Cost Total Issue of Issue Debt Service Allocation Shadow Creek Parkway Phase— 2 (Cost Sharing) $980,718 $19,614 $1,000,332 $17,100,000 5.85 $12,853,786 $ 754,243 Pre — 2002 Debt Service: $ 155,991 T:PRLO2305AppendixEShadow APPENDIX E - 7/7 APPENDIX F PRESENTATION BY FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPACT FEE STUDY January 6, 2003 J ree+ n 0 0 C The Public Hearing for the impact fee was conducted on January 6, 2003. Mr. Mehran Bavarian, P.E., of Freese & Nichols, Inc. presented an overview of the impact fee update. The overview included presentation of projected land use, population, and service units. Water and wastewater facilities and their current capacities versus current and projected demands were presented. The Water and Wastewater Capital Improvements projects with their associated cost were presented. An impact fee of $3,496 was proposed. For Shadow Creek Ranch development, project population and service units were presented. Proposed water and wastewater capital improvements projects were presented. An impact fee of $2,672 was proposed. The Executive Summary of this report provides a more detailed text of the presentation at the Public Hearing. ORDINANCE APPENDIX G APPENDIX A r PEARLAND ECONOMIC/MARKETING DATA CDS MARKET RESEARCH C C 6 J f L fl fl E TEN & TWENTY YEAR WATER AND SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM UPDATE - 2002 TO 2022 PEARLAND, TEXAS *+� 040232 Prepared for: Freese & Nichols 2010 E. Broadway Pearland, Texas 77581 Prepared by: CDS Market Research 9225 Katy Freeway Suite 322 Houston, Texas 77024 August 2002 L; n --, Introduction CDS Market Research is pleased to submit this update to the Pearland Water and Sewer Capital Improvements Program. CDS Market Research was involved in the preparation of the previous reports in September 1993, March 1997 and November 1999. This June 2002 update examined and redefined data in the following categories: • Population • Demographics • School Enrollment • Employment • Traffic planning/Capital Improvements • Residential Growth • Commercial Growth • Land Use Data was collected and examined from many areas and agencies. Each table has a source and all data was analyzed by CDS Market Research for consistency and completeness. Most information has been reduced to table form for ease of assimilation into the Capital Improvements Program Report. The Shadow Creek Ranch Development was not included in our growth analysis. Shadow Creek Ranch is considered separately for the purpose of impact fee study. Its physical presence will draw homebuyers in much the same way as Silverlake has over the last years. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 1 Pearland Study Section I 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 5.8% of the Houston area in 1990 and was again at 5.8% by the 2000 census. Projections through the year 2022 show Brazoria County to grow at almost the same rate as the Houston CMSA. Year 2022 projects Brazoria County population at 415,784, up 160,000 people from the 2002 estimate. Pearland is increasing its share of the population of Brazoria County. The 1990 census gave Pearland just under 10% (9.8%) of the county's population. By the 2000 census Pearland had increased to 15.6% of the county's population and is estimated to be at 17.7% currently in mid-2002 with a population of 45,153. The 20-year projection period through 2022 will add another 38,706 persons, increasing the current 2002 population by 85.7% to 83,859. Again, this does not include the Shadow Creek Ranch Development. Demographic Characteristics Table 2 displays selected demographic characteristics of Pearland as they were in 1990 and how they compare to 2002. As shown the overall population is aging slowly as expected. Educational levels are increasing and the number of college graduates is up significantly by nearly three times. Household income is growing with 63.6% of households with incomes of $50,000 or more. This compares with 38.4% in 1990. Both median household and median family income is up by $20,000 to $25,000. "Single Family housing units by year built" shows that 56.7% of all single family housing in Pearland was constructed from 1990 to 6/2002. School Enrollment Pearland school enrollment has increased between 5% and 6% in the last few years and has surpassed former projections of student growth. The Pearland School District covers more than the city limits, but does not include Shadow Creek Ranch which is in the Alvin Independent School District. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 2 Pearland From 2002 to 2007 the school district enrollment is expected to grow by 5,725 pupils. By 2022 the expected enrollment is projected to reach 23,650 in essence doubling the existing 2002 student population. These figures are displayed in Table 3. Employment Employment statistics for Pearland and Brazoria County from 1990 through June 2002 show a steadily increasing labor force with similar figures for employment. Unemployment has remained consistently below 5% until mid -year 2002. Pearland's labor force has increased by 1,404 or 12.7% since 1990. At the same time employment increased by 1,086 jobs or 10.1 %. Brazoria County has increased its labor force by 13.7% and employment has increased by 9.4% since 1990. As noted in Table 4 the employment figures for 6/2002 are for June only, the highest unemployment month of the year. One month earlier in May 2002 unemployment was only 4.2% in Pearland and 6.9% in Brazoria County. Table 5 shows the employment by industry in Brazoria County and employment by classification in both Brazoria County and Pearland. Since 1990, manufacturing has been replaced by trade as the largest employment classification in Brazoria County. The largest increase in employment classification is in services with an increase of 5,600 new jobs, only 600 jobs Tess than trade. Breaking down employment by classification for Pearland and Brazoria County shows the higher incidence of white-collar employment in Pearland, comprising managerial & professional, technical, sales and support and service. Pearland has 73.8% employed in white-collar occupations vs. 66.4% in Brazoria County. Table 6 shows the current listing of major employers in the Pearland area with 4,648 employees. These employers are mostly a mixture of wholesale and retail trade, services, manufacturing and administrative. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 3 ** Pearland TABLE 1 POPULATION TRENDS PEARLAND AND SELECTED AREAS 1970 — 2022 .., rrs. .., r.. L ,.,, . r. .. `FK ...: .,.. .,: .w .,... ....Y. :., .., .. >n .:: S.'. _. FF..,.r. -:i .<..� � fr. Y.-F k ... s. .. .. A.:.'rl.:.[ ... r,_...�.,�. ..E.,_.� >z,:. .,.� � etxt Qi :'. :....�...:?_.,x,<. S.✓'.. ,_.... .r.a.,..ay.,. A . :r_..e. a �..... _. ,..„.. Y .t ,,....r, u, r �: ,, ,.,.> ... µ...., s;. .�� v-::' t ',....i. .t f v .a. *i .. .. at. '.X. . :.. ,7 .:di:, �:»�� ."'+;,. .v :.,,: '�'.. '..ir . t,,.., d. .f. Y ..SS .. ,� ,._-.::-'#...,.. r:., 7'iY"... -... r..,.Y.:, .9,...,'u,r.... a.. ..< F F.,, ••' ,w . {.r .=` <. ,.�`.`. ., .. y. C . , ..�'.., ,.�r'4a rY. ... .L v+... i,. 5...... w. Y1,a. S*�..2 � �. r.. C'rk 3 � u 'i. .' ...D.. ■� `, Y.. Y w�,s�j '4�.. .. 5..) f,'h' Y:. .... �.. .'fi . C.e Us.4.c d 5.,.;. i 1. 4'1i ,a :.✓: !.. r � ns z �� t � :.._.. , .v.:, � � x :;;ar. ,,w.. , � g 55 i ....ts x ..r, 5-- ..• i'Y; :_. a.. :. .�: .� .: .: i.. -.. �w w�x Estimate;.. �s4 z:: ;a.+ : 5 rt 4 J .....�K. 4; :: ha:•.... �. r�s s.;-,.; �' 7a.. .l .:� �S ...:., t s -/ M^ 2 :'�. G t S "V -.: ,,:': '-.a F ,: ,... (`. ... F. .r .. .,. \ - � . r . �.,� . >b a � � ,,�� Forecast rr k"� ;..-..,�2k, .., 1 �... � 4 .... ... ..5...: 1....,x' ;: E_ � x�. .;• 1.. � ,..,. .. 1990 «rr, .�"�. u .. .. .ik 4/21b00 T [.,....` ..:r.. >.+✓... � J.�¢.r f,..,s:.�...,., �� u ��Flv� w �2022 }}. I;h , Houston M.S.A.* 2,169,100 2,735,766 3,322,025 4,177,646 4,345,372 4,764,422 5,646,408 r. .,. ,. ,.. ..... 6,445,094 .., .. ,_.,_. .. ...- 7,165,091 Brazoria County 108,300 169,588 191,707 241,767 255,390 283,149 328,500 370,244 415,784 Percent of M.S.A. 5.0% 6.2% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.8% 5.7% 5.8% City of Pearland** 6,400 13,200 18,697 37,640 45,153 57,199 68,009 75,934 83,859 % of Brazoria County 5.9% 7.8% 9.8% 15.6% 17.7% 20.2% 20.7% 20.5% 20.2% * Six County Metropolitan Statistical Area includes: Harris, Fort Bend, Montgomery, Liberty, Walker and Chambers Counties. Does not include Shadow Creek Ranch Development. Source: U.S. Census of Population and Housing 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000; Claritas Information Sorvices; Texas State Data Center; City of Pearland; and CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 4 C Pearland r r 7 r TABLE 2 PEARLAND - SELECTED DEMOGRAPHICS 1990 - 6/2002 {a §}qz f itsy a�,t Pearland 2002 Pearland ...1, t u to '3 �. * Y. t CHARACTERISTIC 5 � iy i r' (No) �} , ° 7 3 ( ) f.. �F k� ( ._. _._. o/a l � . _. �.._..._.._.�. Under 18 12,824 28.4% 5,385 28.8% 18 - 24 3,522 7.8% 1,589 8.5% 25 - 34 6,637 14.7% 3,347 17.9% 35 - 44 8,398 18.6% 3,291 17.6% 45 - 54 6,412 14.2% 2,075 11.1 55 - 64 3,612 8.0% 1,514 8.1 65+ 3,748 8.3% 1,496 8.0% Total 45,153 100.0% 18,697 100.0% Median Age 34.4 years 32.5 years .%''� t' ry i. -:Y S• Education (O�er Age 18) a ;"4 H.S. Grads/Some College no degree 17,522 54.2% 6,471 55.2% College Grads including Associate Degree/professional 9,214 28.5% 3,236 27.6% Household Inco Under $15,000 881 5.3% 937 11.3% $15,000 - $24,999 998 6.0% 1,178 14.2% $25,000 - $34,999 1,663 10.0% 1,211 14.6% $35,000 - $49,999 2,511 15.1% 1,783 21.5% $50,000 - $74,000 3,757 22.6% 2,073 25.0% $75,000 - $99,999 3,408 20.5% 705 8.5% $100,000+ 3,408 20.5% 406 4.9% Total 16,626 100.0% 8,293 100.0% Median Household Income $65,132 $42,272 Median Family Income $71,285 $46,528 Single -Family Housing Units By Year Built }' 1990-6/2002 7,134 56.7% 1985-1989 666 5.3% 1980-1984 977 7.8% 1970-1979 2,303 18.3% 1960-1969 1,168 9.3% 1950-1959 207 1.6% 1949-Before 136 1.1% Total 12,591 100.0% Source: Claritas Information Services; and CDS Market Research r CDS Market Research, Houston Page 5 Pearland r r r TABLE 3 PEARLAND PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT 2002 — 2022 Year h S.ey1 Actual F Enrollment;,{ Actual. and 4 C Projected . Population s r Projected x C' d 3£xi School Enrollments 1990 6,440 18,697 2000 10,185 37,640 2002 11,800 45,153 2007 57,199 17,525 2012 68,009 19,200 2017 75,934 21,415 2022 83,859 23,650 Source: Pearland Independent School District; and CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 6 C= CT-) f I n :E r j r -- r j j '7-3 Pearland TABLE 4 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS CITY OF PEARLAND AND BRAZORIA COUNTY 1990 - 6/2002 t .. k , (2' t a"7", a d.4.� YY' - 1 qni •c r :r Y d �. • M'M- ..t`fa al .�.. ,r:,� air , r:, _) 'Fi �T .: <.A' t j} i� .ate ".___.. Y.�i 71kYI^ '."... Labor Force � '+ , 4 o tF. iV'Q:.; . �.j ..' ... )�.a.]�... 11,084 �G +' =�4'� . 1y3;,. i LY a:y �:,,, J , "j "4 _A �ry'.FLnY��i9Lly'f'y-t 11,568 .,, • u--'. ".C: �'ntt� ,r;a fC;ve� e,. - '.v: 4: ♦ 'LC/a r�i.P- W ^ .*�'� . S"�.. uF i' a 6 _ `:` 3 ' nw _ - Wii:: �m&. +nnS� . ..V i:�, CT7,:fr�M' Nt' .pLii' e Mj, > 5 >r -' 4,-_sF .bT= �.a. .Sr i � 7�i' fi. J. tlE `.' 1 .q F . ': >b¢. .n y d..J*",,� :� , 7 '+3'i' ° .i ,li,S t ,ti 3+ : 3�:1" ,.!) oa4 t e l .. ar ,+,.v,. ,g. - r' "3 A _ yu-,h , . ' I.s ''4' Y Ac��'.':{J�S.C`.lir`t`i;S�'�i�^l 11,497 �u ,'dl'- )'° 0 'h+;t _-.- 11,668 [ '(1 � q o - ' , �l�Y��-"fl[[kf+,�'T4S,...rrxbli �" 11,977 ka r y ��,�; i,' "., . ?J6 '�lU'_:.1^3?�'Ai.ue�/llunr. � 11,835 ;,s. - 0 7 7 r,+ ., •� . ,' `�, p}-x a ... .;.: 1__""-__ 11,699 ;yN. a. ; t, � t,�r _.P i N• ` '^ A, 1, �w JbQ��..t194 ��-�.�..�,.4'�.S1:�Sii1 11,809 t a � ,,r yam" } �'y'; i u Y': , t 1 r "'+'� Jr�9�� ''� ., J- >:5'3.7hM_��.7i��`4J�)lh,...ko"it.� > 'L k$ 0 a a' .7 �nN- viS' rtL�,: VTR_'-'i?-.G.ss.•a,'.:N•_?i',`[, � , .:�7' 9�Y y' c. &.. iyj, F� �,i 11,920 11,773 12,010 12,074 12,488 Employment 10,772 11,233 10,990 11,115 11,448 11,297 11,217 11,282 11,480 11,290 11,556 11,640 11,858 Unemployment 312 335 507 563 529 538 482 527 440 483 454 434 630 Unemployment Rate 2.8% 2.9% 4.4% 4.7% 4.4% 4.5% 4.1% 4.5% 3.7% 4.1% 3.8% 3.6% 5.0% r _ _ _?� r2F _4. � - v�F'. iul JJ .0 • , v .1. ��', ,1 ui :6'F' . Illy, I .E la b '� �.;` OI r . 4�J5. i� u� eR P. �: '-'�+� • j4. 1 �w+- 'i j` •,yR' : E il. � Slwv.+'r.^n. m .:. - tr'3'$ �Y ^yk. »6 � - } - 5is., �,o..•,�'aE>.5v`S.Ln{i?,iik14�J.t�1T.u�.u'l!�'�rti ,"j�".�t�( ',�I ''..I .I 9. ' 7' a. , q„ j �t�$p i!t cam.} 1•C' a CJ • r ttr' . �.:e:a- _'-'.j3FT �Y.iS 'if: . � b',- : ,:t , ,p - A:J rC L f A'S.X,." c �� aliil..�! !�-.[: a'!?•.F' "9 • i . 3, G�i.,X..Ma��..a.".L./.a:•I -{7i !"•hrr•' ,p �:iro J2.i'.. `M fir 'jn.'. � �L }- n,'at:SFSRSk9Y� 7r :r .��r ,u ;�4 '}yj '•�j '.i •d i2:4.?rti�.7�'L - ( it `�y..v'�'Y} F�S:'.�'*i . N a{' . 2, �1i:. ,T'v �P 1.3',ce.L`'S�t.'w .. "E-e "1.. iSFixq. i` '=1�� - ( : . st'ct6'?�I��. � Sk =:4 'R` } � g ..'1 " .:'97 .r1''�, `}.� �M1 1.n� .l p1 yy�,- ' ;C' 1 4�' , d s 1 �4�•m'"if. ^^fi�r-^ ..[Rai• 't "kM1 i.'�h;: f v{ 1 . i • 4 t , ,.. r 4WAC .� YR 3'�,. ��o e ,,. mL:_;_U Zxfy_ ° ;,k 4L. i`! }-,%rs �� c 'i v. 7-r�,'.il!;$; _',. evtiY .. ..1 d. `" r _ r�.n. #k- _ _ '+, S � :k }£�''3, '�� : �`x", •' !, 6 ��1'�kki.� �-.>•;• '. -.�. _�f ?1J. � R•''° . _ _ f r , _ ..-....=lttr_� r ,7. _ n7,`�•-s.M,rro��.".2: 'M1,.•" _ f'n' p•`r'4 ly, _'-Tf"i ,�f� 4..ev t Z L'`c� 7"5a'-c��'c }C 'Aai:±Yt 2] 'l'�1�� . -�J: US A . "ti&J. <fit'.0 - . �`#s ..� '�.iv.. °:5' . � , M,'>•. � '� "..J'S. .i',.Vr��Yu'. W~ ;� ["y� �y+ ,fe Labor Force 98,079 102,650 102,832 104,604 107,218 106,312 ,,,,Mai 106,660 111,481 105,798 104,171 105,274 105,518 104,330 Employment 93,552 97,801 95,465 96,569 99,520 97,945 97,144 97,580 99,098 97,273 99,685 100,336 102,302 Unemployment 4,527 4,849 7,367 8,035 7,698 7,853 7,027 7,694 6,420 7,057 6,627 6,324 9,179 Unemployment Rate 4.6% 4.7% 7.2%_ 7.7% 7.2% 7.4% 6.7% 7.3% 6.1% 6.8% 6.2% 5.9% 8.2% Note: 6/2002 are for June 2002 only, not yearly or year to date. aggregates. June is the highest unemployment month of the year as the May 2002 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Pearland and 6.9% in Brazoria County. Source: Texas Workforce Commission, and CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 7 11 ' 1) -- -1 L7-71 f ' _ �3 E`T �� . i- F_71 TABLE 5 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT BY CLASSIFICATION 1990 - 2002 'gy. p iY�xv'• n C „tl q .. v.1�� +��h4 ou b �_ '� �! bi . 01 R. Y � ••t ..i� 1 t Y' 2 .u" E e� JY%fe.ta ' -v,v Ym .' x$ aui 'S i t I: alv�y "..: f�:y, �Y4 � � � `J�! F 'S 5 Z�fA 9 i_i �P... _�v up � .,� , .. i y� 1J vk.ki ` ,M, , f .. /, a.: a � PA} � irk t N FCC. _ 90 x� 9 0 Manufacturing (2.6) 14.1 14.0 14.5 15.7 15.7 16.4 16.4 16.7 17.1 17.6 17.3 ,�7t 16.7 Mining (0.5) 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.9 2.0 Construction 0.6 10.8 11.1 9.9 10.8 10.2 8.7 8.3 9.9 9.7 8.9 11.4 10.2 Transp. and Public Utilities (0.1) 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.0 Trade 3.8 16.2 16.0 15.5 14.9 14.8 13.8 13.8 13.8 13.2 12.8 12.9 12.4 Finance, Ins., Real Estate 0.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 . . 1.9 1.9 1.9 Services 5.6 15.6 15.2 14.5 13.8 11.2 13.5 13.2 12.4 11.6 11.6 10.8 10.0 Govemment 2.8 i 14.8 14.8 14.4 13.9 13.9 13.7 13.4 13.1 12.9 12.4 12.2 • 12.0 Total Employed 9.7 77.9 77.3 74.9 75.3 71.7 72.4 71.4'• 71.8 70.0 69.0 71.2 68.2 Note: Data is shown in thousands of jobs. ._L- ro. �6+� Mana.erial & Professional t i F.� �W a0 �r j , R�'°fkrt��3�l+�s�EGbK?�sj4.3 tal'XY'Y 6,157 29.6% '¢$ �1i. -1 ' : `�'�i= 28,518 6'4 ue' 24.5% Technical, Sales and Su..ort 7,363 35.4% 35,386 30.4% Service • 1,830 8.8% 13,386 11.5% Total White Collar 15,350 73.8% 77,290 66.4% Fannin., Forest and Fishins 230 • 1.1% 2,095 1.8% Precision, Production, Craft Re.air 3,286 15.8% 20,719 17.8% Operators, Fabricators and Laborers 1,934 9.3% 16,296 14.0% Total Blue Collar 5,450 26.2% 39,110 33.6% _ 4 k2; 1ry, kM4+ KC- Source: Texas Workforce Commission; U.S. Census of Population 2000; Claritas; and CDS Market Research Pearland CDS Market Research, Houston Page 8 L Pearland ri )� 1 TABLE 6 PEARLAND MAJOR EMPLOYERS 2002 k1 `^`S \ Y?� � CofnpanyE s <, d e.. � �. r:�,.....ir L . k f { J &£ t ��5 S `�, �",� �2 .. G�i LA . R 3z 6 'l F. '. f � ,y4 � { 4 -� v� � a�.'� .,,n,,s% kx �.3 h Industrjr .y .��+_ r_ �.... F f tir No 4 Emplo ees :'.t'A: ... r. Pearland I.S.D. Public education - 1,360 Walmart Retail sales 300 City of Pearland Public administration 250 Lowe's Building materials 225 Kroger Grocery sales 208 Third Coast Packaging Product packaging 200 TurboCare Machine manufacture/repair 180 Kemlon Electrical connectors, pumps 170 Weatherford Oil field equipment 160 Pauluhn Electric Manufacturing Industrial and marine lighting equipment 150 Randall's Groceries 125 Bredaro Price Co. Pipe coatings 100 Davis -Lynch, Inc. Oil tools 100 Packaging Service Co., Inc. Solvents & chemicals 100 Strickland Chevrolet Auto dealer 100 Tele-Flow, Inc. • Heating/ventilating/air-conditioning products 100 CPI Group Wire Cloth 85 Gate Concrete Products Precast hollow core concrete 80 Associated Equipment Welding equipment 78 Koza's, Inc. Embroidered textiles 72 Aggreko, Inc. Air conditioning equipment 70 Bell Bottom Foundations Foundations 70 Texas Underground Sewer cleaning equipment 70 Texas Honing, Inc. Machine job shop 67 Solvents & Chemicals Chemicals 50 Western Atlas Oil field equipment 48 Dragers Welding Service Instrument welding 47 Glass Machine Shop Oil Field Machinery 43 TAFA Material Technologies Thermal spray powders 40 Total 4,648 Source: Texas Manufacturer's Register, 2002; Pearland Chamber of Commerce; and CDS MarketResearch r CDS Market Research, Houston Page 9 r r Pearland Study Section 11 Pearland Growth Factors Traffic Planninq/Capital improvements The previous Facilities Planning Report from 1999 noted the completion of Beltway 8 as the most critical roadway improvement for Pearland in recent history. It provides limited access travel east and west between State Highway 288 and Interstate Highway 45, and the rest of the Greater Houston Area via Beltway 8. Since completion of the Beltway the City's most recent thoroughfare projects have been concentrated toward north -south access. Pearland Parkway will be extended to tie into McHard Road extension and Beltway 8. This additionally, will open up residential development in the northeast sector of the city. Barry Rose will also be extended to and past Pearland Parkway. Dixie Farm Road is scheduled to be widened and improved to four lanes divided. Bailey/Oiler Road will be upgraded and extended in the future to tie Highway 288 with Highway 35 and Pearland Parkway. This will provide access east and west for the southem sector of the city. Traffic improvements planned for the city include $92.5 million in street bond projects and another $25 million in other road projects. The City of Pearland is serious about funding growth and along with the street and road bonds, another $22.5 million is planned for drainage improvements. Residential Construction Table 7 shows single family and multi -family construction permits issued since 1990. From 1990 through 1999, an average of 432 single-family permits have been issued. Since 1999 permits have increased to 818 in 2000, 1,243 in 2001 and 758 for the first half -year of 2002. Total 2002 permits will likely reach 1,500. For the next five years to 6/2007 the number of single-family permits will likely continue at an average yearly rate of 700 annually. This is a conservative number, but is based on an increasing number of new housing absorbed in Shadow Creek Ranch. From 2007 to 2012 the average number of single-family permits will decrease slightly to 650, then to approximately 500 from 2021 to 2022. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 10 Pearland rg, The Pearland area currently has about 17,143 proposed Tots and 3,207 lots in active subdivisions. Factoring out Savannah and Shadow Creek Ranch, leaves about 7,100 lots available for development in the city in keeping with the parameters of this report. CDS Market Research believes this amounts to about a 10 year supply of lots. Shadow Creek Ranch Shadow Creek Ranch Development Company started selling housing lots to production and custom builders in 2002. Of the 12,723 potential housing units in the entire �- development about 7,000 will be single-family. There will be 533 Tots delivered in 2002 and plans call for an additional 800 lots by year-end 2003 with 360 of those planned as townhomes. As of June 2002 about 80 sales had been signed with house pricing from $155,000 to $315,000 for production housing (Perry, Emerald, Hammonds and Gehan builders) and from $375,000 to $600,000 for custom homes by Westport. By September 2002 Island Manor and Sunrise Creek subdivisions are scheduled to open within the development. Shadow Creek Ranch is located in the Pearland City limits, but the school district is Alvin Independent School District. Alvin is a good school district, but is not ranked as highly as Pearland. This will slow sales to families with children until the planned on -site schools are complete. The 360 townhomes planned for 2003 will tend to attract buyers with fewer school age children and increase sales rates while the new schools are planned and constructed. Multi-Familv Apartments Comparing Table 8 with Table 7 shows that the last 496 apartment units built in Enclave at Mary's Creek (240 units) and Westlake (256 units) were located in the City of Pearland. The projects constructed after 2000 The Club at Tranquility Lakes (212 units) and St. Andrews at Silverlake phases 1-and 2 (472 units total) were located -in the ETJ. L' There are three sites available for future apartments located in the city limits. Two of the sites with a total of 300 potential units will likely be developed by 2007. The third site may not be developed until after 2007 and may support 160 units. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 11 LJ Pearland CDS Market Research examined 2,125 multi -family units in Pearland. Of those, 97.1% were occupied with an average rental rate of $0.82 per square foot. Pressure to build more multi -family units is strong, but the city has no plans to increase the availability of land zoned for multi -family. Future multi -family land will be available in Shadow Creek Ranch. Commercial Construction Trends Population growth makes the strongest case for continuing commercial/retail expansion. Table 9 shows how commercial permits have kept an increasing pace similar to the growth in residential permits. From 1990 through 1999 Pearland averaged nearly 17 commercial permits annually with an average building value of $1,065,777. In the last three and one-half years from 2000 to 6/2002, commercial permits have averaged 20 per year. Average building values are $1,755,799. CDS Market Research estimates the number of commercial permits will level off in the range of 125 permits on average for each five-year segment through 2022. A number of the large retailers including Lowes, Home Depot, Super Target and Walmart are well represented and the majority of new retail users will be smaller in size. Currently, the FM 518 corridor is the highest commercial growth area. Industrial uses are not a separate permit type from retaiVcommercial use in Pearland. CDS Market Research has included from two to three new industrial uses for each five- year segment for a total of 10 from 6/2002 through 6/2022. Utility Connections By Type Table 10 shows the projected number of utility connections by type of use from April 2000 at the time of the 2000 census to 6/2002. Projections by five-year increments are included to 6/2022. Total of all residential connections in June 2002 was 15,899. By 6/2007 total residential connections will increase by 3,800 (3,500 single-family and 300 multi -family) to 19,699 for an increase of 23.9%. By 6/2022 another 8,410 residential connections will be added bringing the total to 28,109. This is an increase of 12,210 connections or a 76.8% increase of residential connections from mid-2002 to mid-2022. Commercial and industrial connections will increase by 510 from mid-2002 to mid-2022. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 12 Pearland -vie n TABLE 7 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED 1990 —1999 AND 2000 — 6/2002 7'F„ . x� Year T L 1 i �ngle 4 ^fy'S i^ 4 . ^Y f Units X *z' i. �'r � Multa �:i,h.>,. h"zt ,.••-i'-4 yE . 5 X ' >Units� k `{ ss ,�vyY r U, its z 6/2002 758 0 758 2001 1,243 0 1,243 2000 818 0 818 Subtotal 2000 — 6/2002 2,819 0 2,819 1999 536 496 1,032 1998 516 245 761 1997 415 79 494 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 Subtotal 1990 —1999 4,315 988 • 5,303 31. Paz �. fT. '"a mk SJx' Total f' Y { , f .T3 £f'y ,�34 r�=� .6 } , 988� 5 J I ��£ 1 h ? 8,122 £ . Notes 1 Includes duplexes and apartments. Source: City of Pearland, Permits Division; and CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 13 r— 1 r 1 r _ . r71 +_ _ c r - - - r---- t Pearland TABLE 8 PEARLAND SURVEYED APARTMENTS 6/2002 ,_:... ...., , ; F^+ :.:: ): _ a,,.. � ear{.Bu�lt/> ._ ptn � ,kr, Renov ed , r ram., i}.s....: `3 ar }; {. 4S( 3;Y., `het. r.Ay;4 4 M1. ;.:, �. } ..� rC.. 3.�.:. "4 3. t ra . > �<� ;� , � ,��,�� i w ''Jr. 9 § ? ciP *m m..»,,..^i4_ m s f� s, �.. s_ �, :, :� '{. < :.:?' k. rr � _�_ � ..�,t, F��. b : �t.. +,.& a•:& .s Units f �.,F G? .y ,Pd 4.. r k ,. a . �, , �� w :� � :� � . e � t ' - '�. ., kJ. f a cu ane, � [ 3.3: : 3 ... 4 r .:.. .F: .. ..,. � x..,. s ,r�rt... ? ;x �,*y� � nt/U Qt ■I�tyk k.�?: x 1 :; `.`� .. , , r { .. ra = e�p��r� � 9 �x ; �,..n.r f..: X::Y9rv1, ``• �•+� �rr� ��. �`� e�itlS �t 3- t ,: ua 3 �..�rAv r ..} �:s , J rota,,.;;• 1983 Strawbridge Apts. 171 98.0% $674 $0.88 802 1972 Royal Oaks Apts. 298 96.0% $623 $0.84 813 1972/1992 Salem Village Apts. 141 100.0% $644 $0.75 934 1976/1994 Silver Maple Apts. 152 99.0% $640 $0.74 909 1979/1989 Pearland Village Apts. 130 100.0% $561 $0.81 701 1970 Park Place Apts. 99 97.0% $597 $0.77 802 1985 Whispering Winds Apts. 286 95.0% $770 $0.86 923 1993 Remington Apts. 352 97.0% $849 $0.91 975 1999 Enclave @ Mary's Creek 240 93.0% $850 $0.93 959 2000 Westlake Apts. 256 96.0% $856 $0.84 1,021 Total/Average 2,125 97.1% $736 $0.82 903 Source: CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 14 Pearland TABLE 9 COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED 1990 —1999 AND 2000 — 6/2002 �z r z` S- di vX = k. K.S �i Y XN T �' TS '�th 1 - } :G � � � y , Year Y r i -rr ff t G _Yr "✓ t ''• ?S, X�� R�' Value of{ s Construction n� rxk f f *{^ {bkf. �Js t 'i '*F j % SY[ s,s,��No of Buildings r Average r m� ^k'2 U _ 3.. A'- y r' .E fi..X"21}'•'k�� d', 5 - Building 6/2002 $27,240,819 13 $2,095,448 2001 $10,773,000 20 $538,650 2000 $49,776,147 17 $2,928,009 Subtotal 2000 — 6/2002 1 $87,789,966 50 $1,755,799 1999 $127,661,680 22 $5,802,804 1998 $12,696,415 23 $552,018 1997 $10,785,050 30 $359,502 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 Subtotal 1990 —1999 $180,116,326 169 $1,065,777 Total $267,906,292 219 $1,223,316 Notes 1 Not adjusted for inflation. 2 Includes industrial, office and retail buildings. Source: City of Pearland, Permits Division; and CDS Market Research rof CDS Market Research, Houston Page 15 =.) r_1] ^_a TABLE 10 PEARLAND TOTAL UTILITY CONNECTIONS BY TYPE 4/2000 - 6/2022 Pearland -re. _ Y YI%- 1 6i.' i. ,. .1 • _ # a % 1 .. 4�. SH. .. M ,p -. ,....1n,. , 1 Y •. Y 4 _, � `. b. w•"f �c;i �y �' �'{' t .,tYYr`Mar .wu.tl 1'�"�m d.l'AY1 y-�'� � : s w , clE°i •.,. i 'rim, 711 �.P&_a t �• i� .. ,.-,.,.X ,�y�tr" ` 0 , n.. . I b 4Y , MEOWF �a r i . 88� �: �i� 1 x. -•. r.'.k1 �..T `, ,t i. w, .-°. Single Family 11,165 2,707 13,872 w 3,500 .✓L.. ,. 17,031 3,250 20,281 2,500. 22,781 2,500 25,281 Multi -Family 2,027 0 2,027 300 2,668 160 2,828 0 2,828 0 2,828 Total Residential 13,192 ** 2,707 15,899 3,800 19,699 3,410 23,109 2,500 25,609 2,500 28,109 Commercial 500 227 727 125 852 125 977 125 1,102 125 1,227 ' Industrial N/A N/A N/A 2 2 3 5 3 8 2 10 Grand Total 13,692 2,934 16,626 3,927 20,553 3,538 24,091 2,628 26,719 2,627 29,346 * Estimates of utility connections. ** Occupied housing units 2000 Census. Source: 2000 Census; City of Pearland; and CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 16 E itLi 'r+e d I 1J Pearland Study Section 111 Land Use CDS Market Research has used land use information from the Texas Department of Transportation as a basis for estimating current land use acreage in mid-2002. Originally surveyed in 1996 TxDOT recently began updated their land use information for Brazoria County. CDS Market Research has used this base data and updates to determine the developed land uses from single-family and multi -family new housing permits and connections, and new commercial permits. These permits were given an acreage factor by use type and updated to the 2000 census. The results are displayed in Table 11. Single-family and multi -family acreage amounted to 4,601 acres, and commerciaV industrial land amounted to another 1,788 acres for a total of 6,389 acres in 2000. By mid-2002, Pearland had added approximately 1,083 developed acres of residential land all single-family detached. Another 540 acres of commerciaVretail land was developed for a total of 8,012 acres. Projected developing acreage can be determined by projecting population and type of housing sought for residential acreage demand and commercial and industrial growth. Acreage figures are taken from units per acre of residential uses and acres per units of commerciaVretail and industrial use. Land use acreage projections from mid-2002 to 2022 shows developed residential land fl uses increasing by 4,731 acres (83.2%) from 7,104 acres in mid-2002 to 10,415 acres in 1 J mid-2022. Commercial/retail and industrial uses increase by 1,000 and 74 acres respectively. Total developed acreage increases by 5,805 acres (72.5%) to 13,817 acres aI by 2022. See Table 12. CDS Market Research, Houston Page 17 r"ai 171 a_ _ —:I f _ - —— Pearland TABLE 11 PEARLAND LAND USE FIGURES 2000 — 6/2002 14, ) f 1 -.:f( X _ y�Ik )Y-.4 J 'b -. Zf+... ',>>L'P ., �, f t 1 kT e�)•'l ,I,T :.?" P'Y y... ) i .. 3.. .. :..ia'� "A P� Yisf .t Y A C A. '� 5..:,, 1 "� s:. 1 'V?'n,. J ii r� . 2 OO fCens ' .,,,, F Y. S' 0 V ,......, )r. lhi.;:t s1.a 9 1" I's.,: } t ,Jn - 5 i }J: . :_ ,:r(: 4r Y: L1'ji �•f ) 3 l R' .41 , V1 }H `i'�i i3a..'u hl 16/'2002 'Y. 1 �k ,.v..::f Y?f '1 dk. I' ril, 1 r,y Y F.. { )'•S { ? F r2 ��k, `s1 4a.I',�J'y>Ixt..'_..C.5 ..v3.�lx. +rarrD"r-crbF��i.„.f,.r.et -. ,}. :.':es. F r3 �f°T J ttsi"!�.'; y.+r.Es.•.e,..,'.,X . , ��rS y .,:t�_. ins� . 'vM r"7 i i H'S l't:, ^. L2 FS.pft ,,Xa_ §:' �..�..iq.,n..>,.,,..,.. .v,.�t.t_i.,�-P.:. t'�...)gg.,.�..'�3Y 3tC. .) .�x.r.lt,T..,.:,.,�c.'. '. � {..� 4.'ti3,l.'... .I,�S, Xr;:9(# - ., r'Sr,.•,�,.a}�a >.ai1uYl..fN r4,:< Y.v�r-,:,Uu£..7xA:. v.. �,:.•... rr�^rt1.Qir�.. C ti t fi'� fi.Jt!':I{,.?, t:.,{:',,•,,,.7c •,,,.b .. dot�k. , .t�,l. .7.,,4`si c a .tukx.:P RaS,)v•�F.. Tsn„;..��v• . .srt-3,,.;.t. �n lzui „ r•uvk:1L,.J.::.ti....,a. 4 , tb.0.. .. .f..,a:m?-.i•1 '5dr`` �..}.- {f re �e Single Family 11,165 2.5 4,466 2,707 2.5 1,083 5,549 Multi -Family 2,027 15.0 135 0 15.0 0 135 Subtotal 13,192 N/A 4,601 2,707 N/A 1,083 5,684 Commercial * 500 0.42 1,190 227 0.42 540 1,730 Industrial ** 80 *** 0.133 598 0 0.133 0 598 Total 13,772 N/A 6,389 2,934 N/A 1,623 8,012 Based on: 2.5 Single Family Units per acre. 15 Multi -Family Units per acre. 2.4 Acres per Commercial Connection. 7.5 Acres per Industrial Connection. ** *** Commercial acreage includes: Retail, office, service centers, warehouse, etc. Industrial acreage includes industrial projects in city limits. Estimate based on acreage. Source: Texas Department of Transportation; City of Pearland; and CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 18 ** Pearland TABLE 12 PEARLAND LAND USE PROJECTIONS 6/2002 - 6/2022 . ....,..xn..a..�.l.,sT.r....,..:.,<.,�..v�.«,..,..v x,'..,..e :.�s V. . .� ntk, -,x�*al,<Y,.,t...a.f....,v: ..,4,. -r:z:....!.... :,;lr..'..,..� . iY.'. ^i'.' 1.'U•.r•.i,t.x...�'..e..ar�a,;..,..<......d..(.,. �.>(.<+<'. e... >'_.�`x.' .:; k.b.xxl�` . (.t.:Tf i. t., .x,...r'.f..YJ.s_�d ..l ,.� ` .� <, yy-;... •i=.,.x. S'a )iR,.. ...,..sk.. aO, k�_S r,.d (.�;.n t �x....a,�. .:,_,. :..t. . .':f4Y..... 4 d ..H.,. .,.,rcx,._ .S�.,�,3;,., i k.¢. xi,. :....J, .1..a... .rJi #x,�v. .:.... .. ...Y i.. .. F,+..�..�J.J.. ea M . ..�:..;:.N'S..-,�. t"i: . cX.� .aF...m. .r.Wi r... �.�cb� Y1 i 3 cr . .rY ..90.:it ✓,....!. �_-. ew x YA 1cr A. <��'✓. .s.fi.::..�:. "E � .... >, Single Family 5,549 1,400 6,949 1,300 8,249 1,000 9,249 1,000 10,249 Multi -Family 135 20 • 155 11 166 0 166 0 166 Subtotal 5,684 1,420 7,104 1,311 8,415 1,000 9,415 1,000 10,415 Commercial * 1,730 300 2,030 300 2,330 200 2,530 200 2,730 Industrial ** 598 15 613 22 635 22 657 15 672 Total 8,012 1,735 9,747 1,633 11,380 1,222 12,602 1,215 13,817 Based on: 2.5 Single Family Units per acre. 15 Multi -Family Units per acre. 2.4 Acres per Commercial Connection, dropping to 1.6 acres past 2012. 7.5 Acres per Industrial Connection. * Commercial acreage includes: Retail, office, service centers, warehouse, etc., from Table 11. Industrial acreage includes new Tight industrial projects in city limits. Source: CDS Market Research CDS Market Research, Houston Page 19 APPENDIX B AMENDED CHAPTER 395 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 395. FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS § 395.001. Definitions In this chapter: (1) "Capital improvement" means any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (A) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and (B) roadway facilities. Ll (2) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this chapter that identifies capital f'? improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. E (3) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. (4) "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump -sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this definition. The term does not include: (A) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; (B) dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of on -site or off -site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities, or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; (C) lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines; or (D) other pro rata fees for reimbursement of water or sewer mains or lines extended by the political subdivision. 1 r However, an item included in the capital improvements plan may not be required to be constructed except in accordance with Section 395.019(2), and an owner may not be required to construct or dedicate facilities and to pay impact fees for those facilities. [1! 0 _ 0 0 0 (5) "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 10-year period. (6) "New development" means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units. (7) "Political subdivision" means a municipality, a district or authority created under Article III, Section 52, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, or, for the purposes set forth by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section. (8) "Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. The term includes the political subdivision's share of costs for roadways and associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system, including local matching funds and costs related to utility line relocation and the establishment of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage appurtenances, and rights -of -way. (9) "Service area" means the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined under Chapter 42, of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan, except roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. The service area, for the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. For roadway facilities, the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six miles. For storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service area may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, but shall not exceed the area actually served by the storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities designated in the capital improvements plan and shall not extend across watershed boundaries. (10) "Service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(e), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 2 SUBCHAPTER B. AUTHORIZATION OF IMPACT FEE § 395.011. Authorization of Fee (a) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee. (b) Political subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway facilities. (c) A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except roadway facilities, to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must comply with this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.012. Items Payable by Fee (a) An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the: (1) construction contract price; (2) surveying and engineering fees; (3) land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and (4) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or . financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (b) Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under this chapter. (d) A municipality may pledge an impact fee as security for the payment of debt service on a bond, note, or other obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion if: (1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvements plan; and 3 (2) at the time of the pledge, the governing body of the municipality certifies in a written order, ordinance, or resolution that none of the impact fee will be used or expended for an improvement or expansion not identified in the plan. (e) A certification under Subsection (d)(2) is sufficient evidence that an impact fee pledged will not be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 90, § 1, eff. May 16, 1995. § 395.013. Items Not Payable by Fee Impact fees may not be adopted or used to pay for: (1) construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (2) repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility expansions; (3) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards; (4) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (5) administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay its administrative and operating costs; (6) principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed by Section 395.012. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.014. Capital Improvements Plan (a) The political subdivision shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvementsplan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvements plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; 4 C r (2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial; (5) the total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; (6) the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years; and (7) a plan for awarding: (A) a credit for the portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan; or (B) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan. (b) The analysis required by Subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on a systemwide basis within the service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility expansion for the designated service area. (c) The governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervising the implementation of the capital improvements plan in a timely manner. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.015. Maximum Fee Per Service Unit (a) The impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by subtracting the amount in Section 395.014(a)(7) from the costs of the capital improvements described by Section 395.014(a)(3) and dividing that amount by the total number of projected service units described by Section 395.014(a)(5). 5 0 nks .J (b) If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to projected new service units described by Section 395.014(a)(6) by the projected new service units described in that section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 3, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.016. Time for Assessment and Collection of Fee (a) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted and land platted before June 20, 1987. For land that has been platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before June 20, 1987, or land on which new development occurs or is proposed without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development approval and building process. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political. subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (b) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted before June 20, 1987, and land platted after that date. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after June 20, 1987, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (c) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted after June 20, 1987. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee may not be collected on any service unit for which a valid building permit is issued within one year after the date of adoption of the impact fee. (d) This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after adoption of an impact fee adopted after June 20, 1987. The political subdivision shall assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation of a subdivision plat or other plat under Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting ordinance or procedures of any political subdivision in the official records of the county clerk of the county in which the tract is located. Except as provided by Section 395.019, if the political subdivision has water and wastewater capacity available: (1) the political subdivision shall collect the fees at the time the political subdivision issues a building permit; 1 6 (2) for land platted outside the corporate boundaries of a municipality, the municipality shall collect the fees at the time an application for an individual meter connection to the municipality's water or wastewater system is filed; or (3) a political subdivision that lacks authority to issue building permits in the area where the impact fee applies shall collect the fees at the time an application is filed for an individual meter connection to the political subdivision's water or wastewater system. (e) For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development and building process and may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (f) An "assessment" means a determination of the amount of the impact fee in effect on the date or occurrence provided in this section and is the maximum amount that can be charged per service unit of such development. No specific act by the political subdivision is required. (g) Notwithstanding Subsections (a)-(e) and Section 395.017, the political subdivision may reduce or waive an impact fee for any service unit that would qualify as affordable housing under 42 U.S.C. Section 12745, as amended, once the service unit is constructed. If affordable housing as defined by 42 U.S.C. Section 12745, as amended, is not constructed, the political subdivision may reverse its decision to waive or reduce the impact fee, and the political subdivision may assess an impact fee at any time during the development approval or building process or after the building process if an impact fee was not already assessed. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 980, § 52, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.017. Additional Fee Prohibited; Exception After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed against the tract for any reason unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. In the event of the increase in the number of service units, the impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.018. Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment A political subdivision is authorized to enter into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 7 1.41 § 395.019. Collection of Fees if Services Not Available L Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but may not be collected in areas where services are not currently available unless: (1) the collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion that has been identified ('1 in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to commence construction within two years, under duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work required to provide service, and to have the service available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event longer than five years; }j (2) the political subdivision agrees that the owner of a new development may construct or finance the t_I capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or funds advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development or agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such capital �' improvements or facility expansions, which fees shall be collected and reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its plat; or (3)an owner voluntarily requests the political subdivision to reserve capacity. to serve future Y q development, and the political subdivision and owner enter into a valid written agreement. 1st Leg., ch. 1, effAug.28, 1989. Added by Acts 1989, 7 g , § 82a)(, Au g wf § 395.020. Entitlement to Services Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and benefit �1 of the services for which the fee was exacted and is entitled to receive immediate service from any existing facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to compliance with other valid regulations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.021. Authority of Political Subdivisions to Spend Funds to Reduce Fees Political subdivisions may spend funds from any lawful source to pay for all or a part of the capital improvements or facility expansions to reduce the amount of impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.022. Authority of Political Subdivision to Pay Fees Political subdivisions and other governmental entities may pay impact fees imposed under this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. 8 § 395.023. Credits Against Roadway Facilities Fees Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of off -site roadway facilities agreed to or required by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited against roadway facilities impact fees otherwise due from the development. wi Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. J § 395.024. Accounting For Fees and Interest (a) The order, ordinance, or resolution levying an impact fee must provide that all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest -bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area for which the fee was adopted. (b) Interest earned on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under this chapter. (c) Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital improvements plan and as authorized by this chapter. (d) The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open .for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. J Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.025. Refunds (a) On the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or the political subdivision has, after collecting the fee when service was not available, failed to commence construction within two years or service is not available within a reasonable period considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1). (b) Repealed by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. (c) The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized by this chapter within 10 years after the date of payment. (d) Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Section 302.002, Finance Code, or its successor statute. (e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity. 1 (f) The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1396, § 37, eff. Sept. 1, 1997. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 7.82, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 9, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. SUBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEE § 395.041. Compliance With Procedures Required Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, a political subdivision must comply with this subchapter to levy an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.0411. Capital Improvements Plan The political subdivision shall provide for a capital improvements plan to be developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices in accordance with Section 395.014. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.042. Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or resolution establishing a public hearing date to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for the designated service area. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.043. Information About Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Available to Public On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall make available to the public its land use assumptions, the time period of the projections, and a description of the capital improvement facilities that may be proposed. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 10 L r r T § 395.044. Notice of Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing before the 30th day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. (c) The notice must contain: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN RELATING TO POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan under which an impact fee may be imposed; and (4) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.045. Approval of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) After the public hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions -and capital improvements plan. (b) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing, shall approve or disapprove the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. (c) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 11 § 395.0455. Systemwide Land Use Assumptions (a) In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service area, a political subdivision may, except for storm water, drainage, flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter. (b) Prior to adopting systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision shall follow the public notice, hearing, and other requirements for adopting land use assumptions. (c) After adoption of systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision is not required to adopt additional land use assumptions for a service area for water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities or wastewater collection and treatment facilities as a prerequisite to the adoption of a capital improvements plan or impact fee, provided the capital improvements plan and impact fee are consistent with the systemwide land use assumptions. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(b), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.047. Hearing on Impact Fee On adoption of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the governing body shall adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the imposition of the impact fee. The public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution imposing an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.049. Notice of Hearing on Impact Fee (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the imposition of an impact fee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order or resolution setting the public hearing. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing before the 30th day before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" 12 r 0 U 0 r 0 r, (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the adoption of an impact fee; (4) the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and (5) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the plan and proposed fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.050. Advisory Committee Comments on Impact Fees The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed impact fees before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the imposition of the fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.051. Approval of Impact Fee Required (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the imposition of an impact fee, shall approve or disapprove the imposition of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.052. Periodic Update of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required (a) A political subdivision imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every five years. The initial five-year period begins on the day the capital improvements plan is adopted. (b) The political subdivision shall review and evaluate its current land use assumptions and shall cause an update of the capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Subchapter B. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 6, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 7 13 0 1 0 0 0 fl 1 J 1 0 1 § 395.053. Hearing on Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan The governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days after the date it receives the update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order setting a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether to amend the plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.054. Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee A public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution amending land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, including the amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.055. Notice of Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee (a) The notice and hearing procedures prescribed by Sections 395.044(a) and (b) apply to a hearing on the amendment of land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee. (b) The notice of a hearing under this section must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of an impact fee; and (4) a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the update. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. w 14 § 395.056. Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments. f'' Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. E 0 L n 0 § 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, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.0575. Determination That No Update of Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or Impact Fees is Needed (a) If, at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the governing body determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is needed, it may, as an alternative to the updating requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057, do the following: (1) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon determining that an update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice under this section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee by certified mail to any person who has, within two years preceding the date that the final notice of this matter is to be published, give written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of hearings related to impact fees. The notice must contain the information in Subsections (b)(2)-(5). (2) The political subdivision shall publish notice of its determination once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or more newspapers with general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one -quarter page of a standard -size or tabloid -size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in 18-point or larger type. 15 L r" L L E (b) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF DETERMINATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES"; (2) a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determined that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is necessary; (3) an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the updating has been determined to be unnecessary; (4) a statement that if, within a specified date, which date shall be at least 60 days after publication of the first notice, a person makes a written request to the designated official of the political subdivision requesting that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body must comply with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052- 395.057; and (5) a statement identifying the name and mailing address of the official of the political subdivision to whom a request for an update should be sent. (c) The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the need for updating the land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the earliest notice of the government's decision that no update is necessary is mailed or published. (d) If, by the date specified in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body shall cause an update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Sections 395.052-395.057. (e) An ordinance, order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, § 1(d), eff.--Aug: 28, 1989. § 395.058. Advisory Committee (a) On or before the date on which the order, ordinance, or resolution is adopted under Section 395.042, the political subdivision shall appoint a capital improvements advisory committee. (b) The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdivision. Not less than 40 percent of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees or officials of a political subdivision or governmental entity. 16 n [I: If the political subdivision has a planning and zoning commission, the commission may act as the advisory committee if the commission includes at least one representative of the real estate, development, or building industry who is not an employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity. If no such representative is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the commission may still act as the advisory committee if at least one such representative is appointed by the political subdivision as an ad hoc voting member of the planning and zoning commission when it acts as the advisory committee. If the impact fee is to be applied in the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membership must include a representative from that area. (c) The advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: (1) advise and assist the political subdivision in adopting land use assumptions; (2) review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; (3) monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (4) file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the political subdivision any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and (5) advise the political subdivision of the need, to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. (d) The political subdivision shall make available to the advisory committee any professional reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan. (e) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural rules for the advisory committee to follow in carrying out its duties. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER PROVISIONS § 395.071. Duties to be Performed Within Time Limits If the governing body of the political subdivision does not perform a duty imposed under this chapter within the prescribed period, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land on which an impact fee has been paid has the right to present a written request to the governing body of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be performed within 60 days after the date of the request. If the governing body of the political subdivision finds that the duty is required under this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days after the date of the request and continue until completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. E 17 § 395.072. Records of Hearings ' A record must be made of any public hearing provided for by this chapter. The record shall be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10 years after the date of the hearing. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.073. Cumulative Effect of State and Local Restrictions Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision where an impact fee is proposed are cumulative with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. fa --' § 395.074. Prior Impact Fees Replaced by Fees Under This Chapter An impact fee that is in place on June 20, 1987, must be replaced by an impact fee made under this chapter on or before June 20, 1990. However, any political subdivision having an impact fee that has not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20, 1988, is liable to any party who, after June 20, 1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maximum permitted under Subchapter B by more than 10 percent for an amount equal to two times the difference between the maximum impact fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.075. No Effect on Taxes or Other Charges This chapter does not prohibit, affect, or regulate any tax, fee, charge, or assessment specifically ° authorized by state law. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.076. Moratorium on Development Prohibited A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of awaiting the completion of all or any part of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. +-' Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 441, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.077. Appeals (a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies within the political subdivision and who is Eaggrieved by a final decision is entitled to trial de novo under this chapter. 18 r i r r (b) A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee. (c) Except for roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to specific performance of the services by the political subdivision for which the fee was paid. (d) This section does not require construction of a specific facility to provide the services. (e) Any suit must be filed in the county in which the major part of the land area of the political subdivision is located. A successful litigant shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. § 395.078. Substantial Compliance With Notice Requirements An impact fee may not be held invalid because the public notice requirements were not complied with if L. compliance was substantial and in good faith. Added by Acts 1989, 71 st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. i fLirsi Th § 395.079. Impact Fee for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous County (a) Any county that has a population of 3.3 million or more or that borders a county with a population of 3.3 million or more, and any district or authority created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution within any such county that is authorized to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized to impose impact fees to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (b) The imposition of impact fees authorized by Subsection (a) is exempt from the requirements of Sections 395.025, 395.052-395.057, and 395.074 unless the political subdivision proposes to increase the impact fee. (c) Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise contractually obligate all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued or incurred by or on behalf of the political subdivision and to the payment of any other contractual obligations. (d) An impact fee adopted by a political subdivision under Subsection (a) may not be reduced if: (1) the political subdivision has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision; and (2) the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact fees during the term of the bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations. 19 C r Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 669, § 107, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. § 395.080. Chapter Not Applicable to Certain Water -Related Special Districts (a) This chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions: tftn (1) paid by or charged to a district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution to another district created under that constitutional provision if both districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; or (2) charged by an entity if the impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. r (b) Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution may petition the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for approval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The commission shall adopt rules for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shall require notice substantially the same as that required by this chapter for the adoption of impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected parties to participate. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, § 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 11.257, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. § 395.081. Fees for Adjoining Landowners in Certain Municipalities (a) This section applies only to a municipality with a population of 105,000 or less that constitutes more than three -fourths of the population of the county in which the majority of the area of the municipality is located. (b) A municipality that has not adopted an impact fee under this chapter that is constructing a capital improvement, including sewer or waterline or drainage or roadway facilities, from the municipality to a development located within or outside the municipality's boundaries, in its discretion, may allow a landowner whose land adjoins the capital improvement or is within a specified distance from the capital improvement, as determined by the governing body of the municipality, to connect to the capital improvement if: (1) the governing body of the municipality has adopted a finding under Subsection (c); and (2) the landowner agrees to pay a proportional share of the cost of . the capital improvement as determined by the governing body of the municipality and agreed to by the landowner. (c) Before a municipality may allow a landowner to connect to a capital improvement under Subsection (b), the municipality shall adopt a finding that the municipality will benefit from allowing the landowner to connect to the capital improvement. The finding shall describe the benefit to be received by the Municipality. r 20 L. (d) A determination of the governing body of a municipality, or its officers or employees, under this section is a discretionary function of the municipality and the municipality and its officers or employees are not liable for a determination made under this section. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1150, § 1, eff. June 19, 1997. § 395.082. Certification of Compliance Required (a) A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification verifying compliance with this chapter to the attorney general each year not later than the last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year. (b) The certification must be signed by the presiding officer of the governing body of a political subdivision and include a statement that reads substantially similar to the following: "This statement certifies compliance with Chapter 395, Local Government Code." (c) A political subdivision that fails to submit a certification as required by this section is liable to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the impact fees erroneously charged. The attorney general shall collect the civil penalty and deposit the amount collected to the credit of the housing trust fund. Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 345, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 21 APPENDIX C WATER FACILITIES' CAPACITY CRITERIA TEXAS WATER COMMISSION PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM REGULATIONS Water Distribution Pressure 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). t Water Storage Capacity 200 gallons of total storage capacity per connection of which 100 IJ gallon/connection must be from elevated tanks. Wells Capacity Two or more wells provide at least 0.6 gpm per connection. L Booster Each station shall have two or more pumps Pumps having a total capacity of 2 gpm per connection OR a total capacity r.� I , of 1000 gpm per station with the largest pump out of services L whichever is less and still meets peak demands. Auxiliary Provide 0.35 gpm per connection in case of Power power outages, if system does not meet the elevated storage requirement. 1.' r I'1 APPENDIX C - 1/6 r L I� CALCULATION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE DEMAND VERSUS EXISTING CAPACITY 1. Current Conditions: Population = 45,153 persons Service Units =18,199 units L L. L n r 1 r Well Capacity: 18,199 connections x 0.6 gpm/connection =10,920 gpm required 7,963 gpm currently available (7,755 from wells and 208 gpm equivalent flow from surface water) 2,957 gpm needed to meet current demand Booster Pumps: Criteria 1: 18,199 connections x 2 gpm/conn. = 36,398 gpm required 21,620 gpm available Criteria 2: Additional booster pumps required at 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: System meets the elevated storage requirement therefore, auxiliary power criteria is met. Storage Capacity: Total Ground and Elevated Storage APPENDIX C - 2/6 18,199 connections x 200 gal/connection = 3,639,800 gal total required 5,795,000 gal total available Elevated Storage: 18,199 connections x 100 gal/conn. = 1,819,900 gal total required 2,500,000 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 2012 Conditions: Population = 68,009 persons Service Units = 26,301 units Well Capacity: 26,301 connections x 0.6 gpm/connection = 15,781 gpm required 7,963 gpm currently available 7,818 gpm needed to meet future demand Need six (6) minimum 1300 gpm wells. Three wells needed to meet 2002 demand. Other wells needed between years 2002 and 2012. Purchase of surface water from the City of Houston in the amount to meet above APPENDIX C - 3/6 n ion requirements can be substituted for drilling new wells. Booster Pumps: Criteria 1: 26,301 connections x 2 gpm/conn. = 52,602 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 seven minimum 600 gpm pumps to replace and or add at McLean, Old City Hall, and Green Tee Water Plants. Install three minimum 1,500 gpm pumps at new water plants. Auxiliary Power: System meets the elevated storage requirement through approximately year 2010, at which time a new elevated storage should be installed, therefore, auxiliary power criteria will be met. However, it is recommended that all water plants be supplied with an auxiliary generator set. Storage Capacity: Total Ground and Elevated Storage 26,301 connections x 200 gal/connection = 5,260,200 gal total required 5,795,000 gal total available Elevated Storage: 26,301 connections x 100 gal/conn. APPENDIX C - 4/6 r ,,ram 1_. = 2,630,100 gal total required 2,500,000 gal available 130,000 gal needed Need one minimum 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank when total connectionsreach 25,000, approximately end of year 2010. 3. Year 2022 Conditions: Population = 83,859 persons Service Units = 32,331 units Well Capacity: 32,331 connections x 0.6 gpm/connection = 19,399 gpm required 7,963 gpm currently available 11,436 gpm needed to meet future demand . Need total of (9) minimum 1,300 gpm wells. Purchase of surface water from the City of Houston in the amount to meet above requirements can be substituted for drilling new wells. Booster Pumps: Criteria 1: 32,331 connections x 2 gpm/conn. = 64,662 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 three (3) — 500-600 gpm pumps to upgrade three existing water plants. Install three APPENDIX C - 5/6 ry (3) minimum 1,500 gpm pumps at new water plants. Auxiliary Power: If the system meets the elevated storage requirement as recommended below, the auxiliary power requirement will be met also. However, it is recommended that all water plants be supplied with an auxiliary generator set. Storage Capacity: Total Ground and Elevated Storage 32,331 connections x 200 gal/connection = 6,466,200 gal total required 5,795,000 gal total available 671,200 gal needed Need additional 671,200 gallon storage. Elevated Storage: 32,331 connections x 100 gal/conn. = 3,233,100 gal total required 2,500,000 gal total available 733,100 gal needed Need two (2) minimum 500,000 gallon elevated storage tanks. APPENDIX C - 6/6 APPENDIX D 10-YEAR AND 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN COST ESTIMATE WATER PROJECT NO. 1 n WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DIXIE FARM ROAD 16" WATERLINE: MARY'S CREEK BYPASS TO CLEAR CREEK PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 16" C-900 WATER LINE 16" WL IN UNCASED BORE 16" WL CROSSING AT MARY'S CREEK 8"WLINCASEDBORE 8" C-900 WL FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 8" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX 16" T.S. & VALVE SERVICES SITE CLEANING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF LS LF LF EA EA EA EA EA LS LS LF TN $45.00 $75.00 $20,000.00 $75.00 $25.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $600.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $17,300.00 $30,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 7,600.00 1,163.00 1.00 226.00 76.00 19.00 9.00 6.00 19.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7,600.00 12.00 $342,000.00 $87,225.00 $20,000.00 $16,950.00 $1,900.00 $24,700.00 $27,000.00 $3,600.00 $9,500.00 $4,500.00 $17,300.00 $30,000.00 $7,600.00 $36,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 1/53 $628,275.00 $157,069.00 $785,344.00 $141.362.00 $926,706.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 2 fr-.) r r rot WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STATE HIGHWAY 35 WATER TRANSMISSION LINE - BROADWAY TO SOUTH PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 9,800.00 20.00 3.00 20.00 1.00 9,800.00 20.00 $441,000.00 $26,000.00 $9,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $9,800.00 $60,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 2/53 $575,800.00 $143.950.00 $719,750.00 $129.555.00 $849,305.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 3 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS MAGNOLIA AVE & VETERANS DR. TRANSMISSION LINES PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 16" C-900 WATER LINE 16" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE 12" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 12" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF LF EA EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $150.00 $33.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 4,700.00 100.00 2,000.00 14.00 4.00 2.00 14.00 1.00 6,700.00 10.00 $211,500.00 $15,000.00 $66,000.00 $18,200.00 $12,000.00 $2,000.00 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 $6,700.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 3/53 $388,400.00 $97.100.00 $485,500.00 $87.390.00 $572,890.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 4 r, WATER SUPPLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEVATED STORAGE AT GARDEN ROAD WATER PLANT PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 500,000 ELEV. STORAGE FOUNDATION PIPING LS LS LS $550,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 $550,000.00 $75,000.00 $15,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 4/53 $640,000.00 $160.000.00 $800,000.00 $144.000.00 $944,000.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 5 WATER SUPPLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SOUTHEAST WATER PLANT (WATER WELL NO. 9) PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1,300 GPM WELL 1,000,000 GAL. GST BOOSTER PUMPS, ELECT., PIPING 16" C-900 WATER LINE 16" CONNECTION AT 30" WL 16" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LS LS LS LF LS EA LS LF TN $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $800,000.00 $45.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 300.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 360.00 10.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $800,000.00 $13,500.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $20,000.00 $360.00 $30,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 5/53 $1,872,860.00 $468.215.00 $2,341,075.00 $421.394.00 $2,762,469.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 6 WATER SUPPLY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEVATED STORAGE AT SOUTHEAST WATER PLANT PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM UNIT NO ITEM: DESCRIPTION UNIT_ , .. ;,COST QUANTITY AMOUNT .,;; 1 1,000,000 ELEV. STORAGE LS $750,000.00 1.00 $750,000.00 2 FOUNDATION & PAINTING LS $250,000.00 1.00 $250,000.00 3 UNDERGROUND PIPING LS $20,000.00 1.00 $20,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL r r C APPENDIX D - 6/53 $1,020,000.00 $255,000.00 $1,275,000.00 $229,500.00 $1,504,500.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 7 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BARRY ROSE TO GREEN TEE WATER PLANT TRANSMISSION LINE PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 6" G.V. W/BOX 16" G.V. W/BOX 16" T.S. & VALVE CLEAR CREEK CROSSING TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $4,500.00 $60,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 8,700.00 18.00 18.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 8,700.00 25.00 $391,500.00 $23,400.00 $9,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,500.00 $60,000.00 $8,700.00 $75;000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 7/53 $587,100.00 $146,775.00 $733,875.00 $97,628.00 $831,503.00 r WATER PROJECT NO. 8 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS VETERANS DRIVE: BAILEY RD. TO CR 100 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 24" WATER LINE COWART CREEK CROSSING FIRE HYDRANT 24" BUTTERFLY VALVE 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LS EA EA EA LS LF TN $100.00 $35, 000.00 $1,300.00 $10,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 5,100.00 1.00 11.00 4.00 11.00 1.00 5,100.00 50.00 $510,000.00 $35,000.00 $14,300.00 $40,000.00 $5,500.00 $20,000.00 $5,100.00 $150,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL r APPENDIX D - 8/53 $779,900.00 $194 975.00 $974,875.00 $175.488.00 $1,150,363.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 9 Cl i\ rin r WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BAILEY RD.: SH 35 TO FM 1128 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM; NO.: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 30" WATER LINE 16" WATER LINE 12" C-900 WATER LINE 30" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 30" BUTTERFLY VALVE 6" G.V. W/BOX 16" G.V. W/BOX 12" G.V. W/BOX 16" T.S. & VALVE SITE CLEARING AND RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LF TN $110.00 $45.00 $33.00 $350.00 $1,300.00 $12,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,500.00 $50,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 20,400.00 1,100.00 2,500.00 200.00 50.00 15.00 50.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 24, 000.00 100.00 $2,244,000.00 $49,500.00 $82,500.00 $70,000.00 $65,000.00 $180,000.00 $25,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,500.00 $50,000.00 $24,000.00 $300,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 9/53 $3,104,500.00 $776,125.00 $3,880,625.00 $697.883.00 $4,578,508.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 10 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS HOUSTON MONROE CONNECTION & 24" TRANSMISSION LINE PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 C.O.H. CONNECTION & METER 1,660,000 GAL. GST BOOSTER PUMPS, ELECT., PIPING 15,000 GAL. PRESSURE TANK 24" WATER LINE 24",WL CROSSING AT CLEAR CREEK 24" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 24" BUTTERFLY VALVE 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LS LS LS LS LF LS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $150,000.00 $750,000.00 $900,000.00 $40,000.00 $100.00 $200,000.00 $300.00 $1,300.00 $10,000.00 $500.00 $40,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 11, 000.00 1.00 400.00 20.00 8.00 20.00 1.00 11,000.00 75.00 $150,000.00 $750,000.00 $900,000.00 $40,000.00 $1,100,000.00 $200,000.00 $120,000.00 $26,000.00 $80,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,000.00 $11,000.00 $225,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 10/53 $3,652,000.00 $913.000.00 $4,565,000.00 $821.700.00 $5,386,700.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 11 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PEARLAND PARKWAY 16" WATERLINE: MARY'S CREEK TO OILER DR. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $10,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 7,000.00 14.00 4.00 14.00 1.00 7,000.00 12.00 $315,000.00 $18,200.00 $12,000.00 $7,000.00 $10,000.00 $7,000.00 $36,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D -11/53 $405,200.00 $101.300.00 $506,500.00 $91,170.00 $597,670.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 12 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FM 1128 16" WATERLINE: BROADWAY TO BAILEY RD. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX MARY'S CREEK CROSSING 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA LS EA LS LF TN. $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $20,000.00 $500.00 $15,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 10, 800.00 22.00 6.00 1.00 22.00 1.00 10,800.00 18.00 $486,000.00 $28,600.00 $18,000.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,800.00 $54,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 12/53 $643,400.00 $160.850.00 $804,250.00 $144.765.00 $949,015.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 13 r�? L r r WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BAILEY ROAD: FM 1128 TO SH 288 PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36" WATER LINE FIRE. HYDRANT 6" G.V. W/BOX 36" BUTTERFLY VALVE SITE CLEARING AND RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $120.00 $1,300.00 $500.00 $15,000.00 $40,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 18, 000.00 36.00 36.00 10.00 1.00 18,000.00 90.00 $2,160,000.00 $46,800.00 $18,000.00 $150,000.00 $40,000.00 $18,000.00 $270,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D -13/53 $2,702,800.00 $675.700.00 $3,378,500.00 $608.130.00 $3,986,630.00 r WATER PROJECT NO. 14 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS STATE HIGHWAY 35 16" WATERLINE: DIXIE FARM ROAD TO SOUTH PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 6" G.V. W/BOX 16" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 14/53 $45.00 $1,300.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 8,000.00 16.00 16.00 4.00 1.00 8,000.00 16.00 $360,000.00 $20,800.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00 $15,000.00 $8,000.00 $48,000.00 $471,800.00 $117,950.00 $589,750.00 $106,155.00 $695,905.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 15 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CULLEN BLVD. & HUGHES RANCH RD. TRANSMISSION LINES PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM NO ry 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 20" WATER LINE 20" WL CROSSING AT HICKORY SLOUGH 12" WATER LINE 12" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 20" BUTTERFLY VALVE 12" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LS LF LF EA EA EA EA LS LF TN $85.00 $35,000.00 $33.00 $120.00 $1,300.00 $8,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 3,600.00 1.00 10,700.00 100.00 29.00 3.00 7.00 29.00 1.00 14,300.00 25.00 $306,000.00 $35,000.00 $353,100.00 $12,000.00 $37,700.00 $24,000.00 $7,000.00 $14,500.00 $20,000.00 $14,300.00 $75,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL n L E APPENDIX D - 15/53 $898,600.00 $224.650.00 $1,123,250.00 $202.185.00 $1,325,435.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 16 L sr� L rio 7 E r I r WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FM 518 TRANSMISSION LINE: SHERWOOD TO PEARLAND PKWY. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $4,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 2,800.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 1.00 2,800.00 5.00 $126,000.00 $7,800.00 $9,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,800.00 $15,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D — 16/53 $167,600.00 $41.900.00 $209,500.00 $37.710.00 $247,210.00 r E L E L L' r L E. r WATER PROJECT NO. 17 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FM 518 TRANSMISSION LINE: PEARLAND PKWY. TO EAST PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE ITEM' NO= 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX 16" WL AT MARY'S CREEK CROSSING SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 15, 000.00 30.00 8.00 30.00 1.00 1.00 15, 000.00 20.00 $675,000.00 $39,000.00 $24,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 $60,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 17/53 $873,000.00 $218.250.00 $1,091,250.00 $196.425.00 $1,287,675.00 L WATER PROJECT NO. 18 C 0 0 r C WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FM 518 TRANSMISSION LINE: HARKEY TO TEXAS PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 7 16" C-900 WATER LINE FIRE HYDRANT 16" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $45.00 $1,300.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 $25,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 14,000.00 28.00 7.00 28.00 1.00 14,000.00 17.00 $630,000.00 $36,400.00 $21,000.00 $14,000.00 $25,000.00 $14,000.00 $51,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D -18/53 $791,400.00 $197.850.00 $989,250.00 $178,065.00 $1,167,315.00 �I c_ r WATER PROJECT NO. 19 L WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT & 24" TRANSMISSION.LINE PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE PEARLAND SHARE FOR 15 MGD 24" WATER LINE 24" BUTTERFLY VALVE SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 19/53 $5.00 $100.00 $10,000.00 $50,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 15,000,000.00 12,000.00 6.00 1.00 12,000.00 60.00 $75,000,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $12,000.00 $180,000.00 $76,502,000.00 $19,125.500.00 $95,627,500.00 $17.212.950.00 $112,840,450.00 WATER PROJECT NO. 20 WATER LINE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS CULLEN & STONE ROAD TRANSMISSION LINES PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12" C-900 WATER LINE 12" WATER LINE IN CASED BORE FIRE HYDRANT 12" G.V. W/BOX 6" G.V. W/BOX SITE CLEARING & RESTORATION TRENCH SAFETY DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS LF LF EA EA EA LS LF TN $33.00 $120.00 $1,300.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $20,000.00 $1.00 $3,000.00 11,000.00 100.00 22.00 7.00 22.00 1.00 11,000.00 20.00 $363,000.00 $12,000.00 $28,600.00 $7,000.00 $11,000.00 $20,000.00 $11,000.00 $60,000.00 SUBTOTAL CONTINGENCIES @ 25% TOTAL EST. CONST. COST ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, ETC. @ 18% GRAND TOTAL APPENDIX D - 20/53 $512,600.00 $128.150.00 $640,750.00 $115.335.00 $756,085.00