O-1783-11-99ORDINANCE NO. 1783-11-99
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN
COUNTY, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1068-12-91 AND ORDINANCE
NO. 1031-11-94, UPDATING AND ADOPTING A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AND
ROADWAY FACILITIES AND IMPACT FEES FOR WATER, WASTEWATER
AND ROADWAY FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABHdTY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING FOR A REPEALING CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, previously adopted Ordinance
No. 1068-12-91 and Ordinance No. 1031-11-94 which imposed impact fees for water and wastewater
facilities for the financing of capital improvements required by new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, has determined that the City of
Allen, Collin County, Texas should also impose impact fees for roadway facilities for the financing of
capital improvements required by new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 395, Tex. Loc. Gov't Code regulates impact fees on new development, and the City
Council finds that the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, has complied with Chapter 395 in all respects to
amend the impact fees for water and wastewater facilities and to adopt impact fees for roadway facilities;
and
' WHEREAS, the City Council established and appointed a Capital Improvements Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, with the advice and assistance of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee,
amendments to the land use assumption for water and wastewater facilities and land use assumptions for
roadway facilities dated September 1999 have been prepared and approved by City Council by resolution
following a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, based upon the amendments to the land use assumptions for impact fees for water and
wastewater facilities and the land use assumptions for impact fees for roadway facilities, amendments to the
Capital Improvements Plan for water, wastewater and roadway facilities have been prepared consisting of
water, wastewater and roadway impact fee update 1999 to 2009 dated September 1999 by Shimek, Jacobs
& Finklea, LLP, consulting engineers; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee has filed written comments on the Capital
Improvements Plan for water, wastewater and roadway facilities, and the City Council has received and
reviewed those written comments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, has given the notices and held
public hearings required by Section 395 of the Texas Local Government for the imposition of impact fees
for the financing of capital improvements required by new development within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interest of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas,
and its citizens to approve and adopt the Capital Improvements Plan for water, wastewater and roadway
facilities, the amendments to the land use assumptions for water, wastewater facilities and roadway
facilities to establish impact fees consistent with the Capital Improvements Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALLEN,
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 1068-12-91 as amended by Ordinance No. 1031-11-94 is hereby
amended so that Impact Fee Capital improvements Plan for water, wastewater, and roadway facilities
consisting of the Water, Wastewater and Roadway Facilities Impact Fee Update, 1999 to 2009 dated
September 1999 prepared by Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, LLP, and the amendments to the land use
assumptions for water and wastewater facilities and the land use assumptions for roadway facilities dated
September 1999 are hereby approved and adopted as the amended land use assumptions for the water,
wastewater and roadway facilities, and the Capital Improvements Plan of the City of Allen, Collin County,
Texas, for water, wastewater and roadway impact fees.
SECTION 2. That Article III of Ordinance No. 1068-12-91 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Section 3.01
The land use assumptions and capital improvement plans upon which impact fees are based shall be
updated at least every three (3) years. Alternatively, the City Council may pursuant to the
provisions of TEX. Loc. GOVT CODE § 395.0575, make a determination that no such update is
required."
SECTION 3. That Ordinance No. 1068-12-91 and Ordinance No. 1301-11-94 is hereby amended in part
by substituting new Exhibit "A" bnpact Fee Rates, and new Exhibit "B" Equivalency Table and
Impact Fees for water and sewer and by adopting new Exhibit "C" Transportation Impact Fee per
acre by Land Use and new Exhibit "D" Map of Transportation Service Areas.
SECTION 4. That Ordinance No. 1068-12-91 is hereby amended by amending Section 2, Article IV,
Section 4.01 and Article V, Section 5.01 in part to read as follows:
"Sec. 4.01
a. Water and sewer impact fees shall be assessed for new development at the time
final plats for single family residential are released for recordation and due and
payable prior to or at the time of recordation of final plat.
b. Water and sewer impact fees for other than single family residential shall be
assessed at any time and shall be due and payable prior to connection to the City's
water or sanitary sewer.
C. Irrigation meters in single family residential are additional service units and will be
assessed and fees collected at time of connection to the City's water or sanitary
sewer.
d. Transportation impact fees shall be assessed for new development at the time final
plats are released for recordation and due and payable prior to or at the time of
recordation of final plat."
"Sec. 5.01
a. Impact fees shall be determined for water and sewer by referring to Exhibit B.
b. impact fees for transportation service areas shall be determined by referring to
Exhibit C.
C. Map of transportation service areas are attached as Exhibit D."
Ordinance No. 1783-11-99 Paget
SECTION 5. For development for which an application for preliminary plat approval has been filed with
' the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas prior to January 1, 2000, the amount of impact fees for water,
wastewater and roadway facilities shall be determined according to Ordinance No. 1068-12-91 and
Ordinance No. 1301-11-94 prior to its amendment herein.
SECTION 6. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance, or Ordinance No. 1068-12-91, be adjudged or held to be void or unconstitutional, the same shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of said ordinance or Ordinance No. 1068-12-91, as
amended hereby, which shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 7. That all ordinances of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed; provided, however that all other
provisions of Ordinance No. 1068-12-91, said ordinances not in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 8. That any violation of this ordinance may be enjoined by suit filed in the name of the City of
Allen, Collin County, Texas in a court of competent jurisdiction; and this remedy shall be in addition to
any penal provision in this ordinance or in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Allen, Collin County,
Texas, as amended.
SECTION 9. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and publication in
accordance with its provisions of the Charter of the City of Allen, Collin County, Texas, however, the
impact fees for water, wastewater and roadway facilities established herein shall apply to development for
' which an application for preliminary plat approval has been submitted after December 31, 1999 and it is
accordingly so ordained.
DULY PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALLEN, COLLIN
COUNTY, TEXAS, ON THIS THE 0 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1999.
APPR
Stephen Terrell, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
Peter G. Smith, ACITY ATTORNEY J49y Mor0son, CMC, CITY SECRETARY
Ordinance No. 1783-11-99 Page
I
EXHIBIT A
IMPACT FEE RATES
Ordinance No. 1783-11-99
SERVICE
AREA
MAXIMUM
IMPACT FEE
PER SERVICE
UNIT EQUIV.
ADOPTED
IMPACT FEE
PER SERVICE
UNIT EQUIV.
WATER FACILITIES
ALL
$
1,114
$
1,114
WASTEWATER FACILITIES
ALL
$
473
$
473
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
1
$
2,632
$
2,632
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
2
$
4,504
$
4,504
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
3
$
850
$
850
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
4
$
3,739
$
3,739
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
5
$
2,164
$
2,184
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
6
$
1,812
$
1,812
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
7
$
618
$
618
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
8
$
2,853
$
2,853
Ordinance No. 1783-11-99
I
1,
EQUIVALENCY TABLE AND
IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND SEWER
WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES
WATER METER SIZE
SERVICE UNIT
EQUIVALENT
SERVICE UNIT
EQUIVALENT
WATER
IMPACT FEE
3.5•
SEWER
IMPACT FEE
High Density Residential
21.4•
3.8
Commercial/Retail
10,890"
11.5.50%
5/8"
1.0
$
1,114
$
473
PublidSemi-Public
10,890'•
3.5
3/4"
1.5
$
1,671
$
710
1" Simple
2.5
$
2,785
$
1,183
1 12" Simple
5.0
$
5,570
$
2,365
2" Compound
8.0
$
8,912
$
3,784
3" Compound
16.0
$
17,824
$
7,568
4" Compound
25.0
$
27,850
$
11,825
6" Compound
50.0
$
55,700
$
23,650
18" Compound
80.0
$
89,120
$
37,840
10 "Compound
115.0
Is
128,1101
$
54,395
THOROUGHFARE FACILITIES
LAND USE TYPE
AVG. AREA
COVERAGE
SERVICE UNIT
EQUIVALENT
Low/Medium Density Residential
3.5•
1
High Density Residential
21.4•
3.8
Commercial/Retail
10,890"
11.5.50%
Office
13,070••
5.5.50%
Industrial
13,070"
3.6.50%
PublidSemi-Public
10,890'•
3.5
Dwelling Unit (DU)
•• Gross Square Fast (GSF) Building Area per Acre
1763-11-99
I
Ll
h
N
d
m
n
d
N
N
m
Iv
r
mom
m
�
W
h
lV
th
r
tG
N
W
m
m
MMMMMMMM
m
n
O
O
m
N
N
m
M
O
M
M
m
m
n
m
n
m
N
Ip
o
d
W
-
m
M
M
-
m
C
O
N
m
J
C
m
-
Ivj
W
W
W
N
M
O
O
M
m
M
W
w
m
O
d
N
M
M
N
m
m
n
OJ
,g
n
N
N
O
m
d
n
y�
U
N
O
m
Lo
H
W
MIN
M
Ml
H
W
W
mma
W
m
M
m
ana
m
N
e
h
N
O
N
N
O
f7
ID
O
m
N
a
U
C
N
m
O
m
M
t0
�
S
N
N
N
aWa
p
W
fi
aD
O
n
M
d
m
W
N
O
t
�
m
m �
�
a
a
VI
d'
y
E
mm
W
r�mloW
y N
d C
� d
a
J 'y
C
N
Z
W
N
N
W
N
W
N
N
N
ry
'C
Q
Qy
Qy
Qy
Q
Qm
Q
yQ�
'w
2
Z
2
z
z
2
t
2
m
m
v
w
d
m
m
w
v
K
W
fn
W
W
In
W
m
N
h
11
a
n
W
N
Q
j
a
a
F
f
J
d
F
a
W
g
.Wi
7
a
Yz
2=
O
LU
LL
J
J
V
i!y
C
00
mi
l^
Q
a
w
of
H
LL
dU
Y
U y
o�a,o
m
u
o
w
11
a
n
WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY
IMPACT FEE UPDATE
1999 TO 2009
Submitted To
CITY OF, ALLEN
Submitted By
SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P.
' ❑ CONSULTING ENGINEERS
DALLAS, TEXAS
In Association With
LEE ENGINEERING, L.L.C.
DALLAS, TEXAS
September, 1999
is
SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
8333 Douglas Avenue, #820 Dallas, Texas 75225-5816 In (214) 361-0204 Phone (214) 361-7900
ROSS L. JACOM, P.E.
RONALD V. CONWAY, P.E.
JOHN a1W(HOFF, P.E.
JOE R. CARTER. P.E.
GARY C. HENDIUM, P.E. December 16, 1999
I C. FINKLEA, P E.
PAUL A. CARLINE. P E.
MAW HICKEY, P.E.
Mr. George Conner, P.E.
Director of Public Works
City of Allen
One Butler Circle
Allen, Texas 75002
Re: Water, Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Update
1999 to 2009
Final Report
Dear Mr. Conner
We are pleased to present the results of the City of Allen Water Wastewater and Roadway Impact Fee Update
for the planning years 1999 through 2009. This report includes discussions on methodology, calculations,
maps, and impact fee tabulations.
Table Number 14 summarizes the findings and maximum calculated impact fee for water and wastewater
services based on various size water meters. Table Number 6 summarizes the calculated maximum Roadway
Impact Fee for each of the eight roadway service areas developed for this study.
We have certainly enjoyed working with you and the City of Allen on this important project. The cooperation
and input we received from you and the staff of the Engineering, Public Works, Planning Department and the
Impact Fee Advisory Committee was invaluable. We are available to discuss the findings and conclusions of
this impact fee update further at your convenience and look forward to our continued working relationship.
Sincerely yo
X44
Pg� DF �e
Gary C. ,XRE.
GARY C. HENDRICKS .9
6
4-q 65226 ���
CITY OF ALLEN, TEXAS
WATER, WASTEWATER AND THROROUGHFARE
IMPACT FEE REVIEW AND UPDATE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
A. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1
B. Land Use Assumptions Summary .......................................................................................... 3
C. Definition of A Service Unit - Water and Wastewater........................................................... 4
D. Calculation of Water and Wastewater -Living Unit Equivalents .......................................... 5
E.
Water Distribution System.....................................................................................................
6
1) Existing Pump Stations, Ground Storage Reservoirs & Elevated Storage Tanks
........... 6
2) Distribution Lines............................................................................................................
7
3) Water Supply...................................................................................................................
7
4) Water Distribution System Capital Improvement Projects .............................................
8
5) Cost of Existing and Proposed Facilities.........................................................................
8
6) Utilized Capacity...........................................................................................................
16
F.
Wastewater Collection System.............................................................................................
18
1) Collection Lines.............................................................................................................
18
2) Treatment........................................................................................................I..............
18
3) Capital Improvement Program......................................................................................
19
4) Utilized Capacity...........................................................................................................
21
G.
Calculation of Maximum Impact Fees - Water and Wastewater Systems .............................
25
H.
Thoroughfare Capital Improvement Plan .............................................................................
27
1) Existing Facilities..........................................................................................................
27
2) Proposed Facilities.........................................................................................................
27
I.
Impact Fee Calculation.........................................................................................................
33
1) Introduction...................................................................................................................
33
2) Assumptions and Evaluation Criteria.............................................................................
33
3) Eligible Costs.................................................................................................................
36
4) Determination of Standard Service Unit & Equivalency ..............................................
38
J.
APPENDIX
Tables................................................................................................... 2A thru C, 3A, 5A, 5B
GARY C. HENDRICKa
65226
S ctiona A ug G Iohfe�s:�?
jmmd��m�.��..�bn.�
JOSEPH T. SHORT S <
q;, 79093 ..... .��J:� (2 9
tt:CSSiiic ei E?: Sections H through J
Shi.A, Jacobi & Fi.Hea, L.L.P.
CITY OF ALLEN
THREE YEAR REVIEW AND UPDATE
OF THE
WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEES
A. INTRODUCTION
An "Impact Fee" is a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision for new
development within its service area 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 City of Allen water and wastewater service area is all land within the city
limits. The roadway service area is further divided into eight smaller areas for the purpose of
the impact fee calculation. The first step in determining an impact fee is to prepare land use and
growth assumptions for the service area for the next ten years. Next, a Capital Improvements
Plan must be created to describe the water, wastewater and roadway infrastructure that will be
necessary to serve the anticipated land uses and growth. The following items can be included in
the impact fee calculation:
1) The portion of the cost of the new infrastructure that is to be paid by the City, including
engineering, property acquisition and construction cost.
2) Existing excess capacity in lines and facilities that will serve future growth and which were
paid for in whole or part by the City
3) Interest and other finance charges on bonds issued by the City to cover its portion of the
cost
These items are summed and the utilized capacity is calculated over the impact fee period. The
total utilized capital improvement cost is divided by a standard service unit to determine the
maximum impact fee that could be charged per new service unit in order to recover the City's
portion of the cost of facilities that were installed to serve new developments.
The City of Allen established water and wastewater impact fees by Ordinance No. 1068-12-91
on December 5, 1991. Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code requires an update of the
land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fees every three years, unless it is
itrgmumw�inr�mwm.i ao. - t -
Shimek, Jacobs & Fixklea, L.L.P.
determined by the political subdivision after a review that such an update is not necessary. In
1994, the City Council determined that an update was unnecessary. However, by Ordinance
1301-I1-94, increased the amount charged for water impact fees to the predetermined maximum
as provided by Ordinance No. 1068-12-91.
This document constitutes the 1999 update of the City's water, wastewater and roadway portion
of the Capital Improvements Plan, and the resulting revision of the maximum allowable impact
fees. As required by state law, the study period is a ten-year period with 1999 as the base year.
The engineering analysis of the water, wastewater and roadway systems is based on established
land use in the year 1999, projected land use patterns through the year 2009, and on the existing
and proposed infrastructure.
The engineering analysis portion of the City of Allen, 1999 Impact Fee Update determines
utilized capacity cost of the water distribution, wastewater collection and roadway systems
between the year 1999 and the year 2009. Concurrently with this Impact Fee Update, the City's
Water Distribution Master Plan has been updated. The Master Plan updates reflect a significant
increase in the maximum daily demand for water. This is largely due to the additional per capita
water demand placed on the system as demonstrated from water consumption records from last
summer.
' P. 831, Texas local Goveraosent Code, West's Texas Statutes and Codes, 1998 Edition
itmwrvusw-ium.ww I -2.
Shi.ek. j=br & Fink1w, L.L.P.
B. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY
The Impact Land Use Assumptions used in this update were prepared by the City of Allen
Planning Department and are presented in a separate document. The Land Use Assumptions for
the 1999 Impact Fee Update projects an ultimate residential population of approximately
121,275 in the City Allen. This is actually a lower ultimate population that projected in the land
us assumptions for the 1991 impact fee calculation, which estimated a residential population of
136,383. More significantly however, is the expected growth rate over the next ten years. The
current land use assumptions for impact fees indicates a total of 86% of available land will be
developed by the year 2009. This growth rate results in a 10 -year residential population growth
of 67,838. This is a significant increase from the 10 -year projection of 10,492 persons projected
in the 1991 impact Fee analysis.
The service area for the water distribution, wastewater collection and roadway system
evaluations includes all area within the current city limits and the City of Allen's extraterritorial
jurisdiction. Service area maps are shown on the Capital Improvements for Impact Fee Maps at
the end of this report.
The eligible Impact Fee facilities for both the water distribution and wastewater collection
systems are shown on Figure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively included at the end of this report.
3 -
Shimek, Jacobs & Finkle., L.L.P.
' C. DEFINITION OF A SERVICE UNIT — WATER AND WASTEWATER
Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code requires that impact fees be based on a defined
' service unit. A "service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use generation, or
Idischarge attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with
' generally accepted engineering or planning standards. The City of Allen has previously defined
' a water and wastewater service unit to be a 5/8 -inch water meter and has referred to these
' service units as SFLUE's. The service unit is based on the continuos duty capacity of a 5/8 -inch
water meter. This is the typical meter used for a single family detached dwelling, and therefore
is considered to be equivalent to one "living unit". Other meter sizes can be compared to the
5/8" meter through a ratio of water flows as published by the American Water Works
Association as shown in Table No. 1 below. This same ratio is then used to determine the
r, proportional water and sewer impact fee amount for each water meter size.
■`, TABLE NO. I
LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENCIES
FOR
VARIOUS TYPES AND SIZES OF WATER METERS
Meter
", Type
Meter
- Size
-Continuous DuTy
Maximum Rate (mad) (a)
.Erving Unit Per Meter
Size
Simple
5/8"
10
1.0
Simple
1"
25
2.5
Simple
1-1/2"
50
5.0
Simple
2"
80
8.0
Compound
2"
80
8.0
Turbine
2"
100
10.0
Compound
3"
160
16.0
Turbine
3"
240
24.0
Compound
4"
250
25.0
Turbine
4"
420
42.0
Compound
6"
500
50.0
Turbine
6"
920
92.0
Compound
8"
Soo
80.0
Turbine
8"
1,600
160.0
Compound
10"
1,150
115.0
Turbine
10"
2,500
250.0
Turbine
12"
3,300
330.0
w Some: AW WA Standard 0700 (1995) - C703 (1996)
i:mi�rvomos�-,.eon -4-
Shimek, Jacobs & Finkfea, L.L.P.
D. CALCULATION OF WATER & WASTEWATER - LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENTS
1999-2009
The City of Allen provided the existing water meter count by size category as of August 1999.
In total, there are 14,529 water meters serving the existing population of 40,122 residents and
business. The table below shows the number of existing meters, the living unit equivalent factor
and the total number of living unit equivalents for 1999.
Using the residential growth rate provided by the Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees, a
straight-line extrapolation of 5/8 -inch residential meters was calculated resulting in 38,152
meters in the year 2009. This represents a residential living unit equivalent growth of 24, 207
LUEs.
Meters larger than 5/8 -inch were assumed to be commercial or retail meters. Growth projection
for these sizes were based on the total non-residential land developed today and the projection of
non-residential land expected to be developed by the year 2009.
Table No. 2 below summarizes the existing and projected water meter counts over the impact
fee period. Table No. 2 also presents the calculation of the total number of new Living Unit
Equivalents by water meter size for the 10 -year period.
TABLE NO. 2
WATER AND WASTEWATER LIVING UNIT EQUIVALENTS 1999 - 2009
jtivioMmMlONepoVgvN.bs -$
-'1999
2009
Siie ;
Number
of Water
Meters
Living
- Unit -
Equivaleol
Total
Number.of
Living Units
Number of
Nater
Meters
Living
Unit
Equivalent
Total
Number of ,
Living Units
Pew Living Unit
Equivalents During.
Impact Fee Period
5/8"
13,945
1
8,152
1
38,152
24,207
3/4"
3
1
#290
16
1
16
13
1"
116
3
623
3
1,558
1,268
1-1/2"
81
5
405
1 435
5
2,175
_. 1,770
T.
261
8
2,088
1,402
8
11,216
- 9,128
3"
106
16
1,696
569
16
9,104
7,408
4"
13
42
546
70
42
2,940
2,394
6"
4
92
368
21
92
1,932
1,564
8"
0
160
0
0
160
1 0
0
Totals:
14,529
19,341
41,288
1 67,093
47,752
jtivioMmMlONepoVgvN.bs -$
Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea, LL.F.
E. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Computer models for the years 1999 and 2009 were prepared based on the City's Water
Distribution Master Plan that is concurrently being prepared by Shimek, Jacobs & Finklea,
L.L.P. Consulting Engineers. The models were developed from residential population
projections by planning units as provided in the Land Use Assumptions Report prepared by the
City of Allen's Planning Department. Employment population was considered in a similar
manner. The land areas follow closely to the construction of major facilities in the system as
outlined in the Water Distribution Report. These facilities include major distribution lines,
pump stations, ground storage reservoirs and elevated storage tanks.
All computer models were run for the Maximum Hourly Demand and the Minimum Hourly
Demand to insure proper sizing of the facilities to meet peak demand periods.
1) Existing Pump Stations Ground Storage Reservoirs & Elevated Storage Tanks
The existing water distribution system includes the facilities as shown below:
TABLE NO. 3
Water Distribution System -- Existing Pump Stations & Ground Storage
-
Pump Station
Number of
'. Pumps
Rated
Capacity
(MGD)
Number of
Ground
Storage Tanks
Total Ground
Storage Available ;.
(Million Gallons).,
Stacy Rd. Pump Sta.
5
19
2
6.00
Lucus Pump Sta.
3
4.5
1 1
2.00
Total:
8
23.5
1 2
6.00
Elevated Storage Tanks
Rowlett Elevated Storage Tank
Hillside Elevated Storage Tank
Capacity in
Million Gallons
............ 2.0
.......................................... 0.5
Total 2.5
The pump stations and ground storage facilities were analyzed on the maximum daily
demand, while elevated storage acts dynamically and therefore was analyzed utilizing the
difference between the Maximum Hourly Demand and the Maximum Daily Demand.
i mmoiwimwcioT�m.uym�-� es
-6-
Shimek, Jambs & Finhlea, L.L.P.
2) Distribution Lines
The distribution lines consist of all lines within the service area planning boundary
supplying water to customers in the City of Allen. Lines vary in size from 3/4 -inch line
services to 30 -inch transmission lines. Unless a smaller diameter water line is expected to
be constructed by the City of Allen, only those water lines larger than 12 inches in diameter
were considered in the Impact Fee calculations. The cost of water lines includes
construction cost, appurtenances (water valves, fire hydrants, taps and the like), utility
relocations, purchase of easements and engineering costs. Actual cost were used for those
existing projects where records were available. Financing cost is included for each project
assuming a bond rate of 6% over a 20 -year term.
Unit cost for water lines larger than 12 inches in diameter, which are anticipated to be
constructed by private development, include the City's oversize cost participation only.
City initiated water lines include the full cost of the proposed facility. Developer initiated
water line projects which are 12 inches or less in diameter are not included in this Impact
Fee analysis, as the cost for these size lines are the responsibility of the developer.
3) Water Supply
The City of Allen currently receives all of its water supply from North Texas Municipal
Water District (NTMWD) as a Wholesale Customer City. At the direction of the City, we
have specifically excluded Allen's allocation of the capital cost of services as a wholesale
customer of the North Texas Municipal Water District.
If included, Allen's share of these NTMWD capital cost could include the original
construction cost, expansion cost and financing cost of the following components:
• Water Rights Cost in Lake Lavon
• Raw Water Intake Structures
• Raw Water Pump Stations
• Treatment Plant and Expansion
• High Service Pump Stations
• Transmission Lines
• NTMWD Owned Ground Storage Facilities
t a¢m�•hwa.,.es
.7-
Skimek, Jacobs & Finkiea, L.L.P.
4) Water Distribution System Capital Improvement Projects
The additions to the 1999 Water Distribution System model, which are included in the
Impact Fee study period, is tabulated on the following page.
In order to meet the demands of the anticipated growth over the next 10 -years, as provided
in the Land Use Assumption, certain water distribution system improvements are required.
Figure No. 1 shows the recommended system improvements and Table No. 5 itemizes each
project and the project cost. These recommended improvements form the basis for the
Water System Impact Fee Calculation and totals $29,640,650.00. Adding the cost of
financing brings the total 10 -year Water System Capital Improvement cost to just over
51 million dollars.
5) Cost of Existing and Proposed Facilities
Actual capital cost, including construction, engineering and easements of the various
elements of the existing water distribution and wastewater collection system was utilized
where the information was (mown. The existing cost of facilities was determined from
records provided by the City of Allen. Where actual costs are not known, an average cost in
1999 dollars has been calculated. The average unit cost is from a limited survey of projects,
which bid recently, plus an estimated cost for engineering and easements. The fust six
columns of Table No. 6 itemizes the cost of the existing and proposed pump stations,
ground storage reservoirs and elevated storage facilities included in the impact fee update.
Table No. 7 itemizes and presents the cost and utilizes capacity of existing water
distribution lines included in the Impact Fee Study. Table No. 8 presents the proposed
waterlines included in the impact fee period, calculates anticipated cost and utilizes
capacity.
i - a -
U mea
as
3�
4
$ J
� F J
6_ �w
p p y u s e wf—
M Z
W H g
W
QU)a
O>
Ill
on oa
O
0-
W
L
L^ccQ
� J
T W i -
U mea
as
3�
4
$ J
� F J
6_ �w
p p y u s e wf—
H
F
«y
x
U
ea°O
a
888.
=ra
.�'•«w».�
i"i'�.i«www.nw«�
_^l
�,
«min"«
V
n-
.f
33
�$
«m
�o�
fSf
ESfE
n
k
a
a
a
a
N
y
N
N
o
E
e
N
e
o
g_
L
U^
m
C
v
f
}6�.3
osLL"s
v
§�C3��3a��m=3����g3
z°�•
333o
t�c°e-a
ti
-g
e
'�'x"off
s
5
�-
2
6
yy
S
�§33§3""§o33G33"y§v
"G�"�
Ye
EEE
e92
c3
`§
a9i
9c�i
chi
mopp
s'>
i8�3c�3e39
9
<mxily<mmndl
u'2if
�8�8
88
8888IRIM
E:
v
:z
:
-
m
a
-
.
a
?
- _
-
__
_
_
-
-
e
2
;Im
r
r
n
'11L,
V
I
ky R
sss
I
-al
Rim
IR
as
ss aR
P_
««ss
!In
ass
x
«
9y$
m
8
S
l
^
_y
-y
-y
mac$
gx
y y,
yXyt
y
a88
8
3m8
88
888'R
S88
E
S
n
16
ug g
u
a
n.
nee
0000
..^n
o00
�
o
�
S
nm«
spa
s<o n
a
r
_
«wl
n
Fe
s
Ea
gg 8 8
nn
i�
OG
VV
VVVV
UVV
VV
3
n
n
-
MSP
e
n
E
'.."J
Mei ✓'.
° «
S
its
01-
iNy
1.
:yah
G
Ss
ry -
� =
_
ddes8
CE
u
466 LS V Vy2
Vq
E `
all
BAD
U
C
.ryp
vuW
SIM
EV
I
-131
t
33
Ylx
6I� .
y5555pp
EY'
S5pp�+y5,_',
Qp
�3A yypp
o
eW8
.�SwX_GS
SC=i=aCp=
-G ?
G? F
S Gb P]SgH:�G�
SkR CF �dd�F'^E3
^_• 9`
.`.YeaFx
-"
-: �+
__.??
x»GGG
.qqR.
»tl$
»
G
«s!"RLP�Fva
v R�I955AtG.
S._¢
];:Fci E
ss
F� a#
"e agc.E,
»
a
3 an »G
M
w
ngg
sR n
GOZ�GSOG
x23»E
GS»
G '-.'•'•.»'. S--xaF
G -S C�
»'..
32RF_
_�Aa
al
Li
».gGYG:
G3w
G._777'
3»GG ......MTr
9'J .GS»
..
a8
€a mI 1X111
Mf
19H, *26919
€M19
v
ME
at
-get
kg:t
rtEE-. s` s
xx `:
Via;
ata
fY
u
"«««««««G
-
=
R
i
L
i9
M a a=
.^.9 ��5I»#»
F.
Es.s
FaSCG��«R9=�=
H vsYa?
y__„
SAwEf»AR
'c
zaa 3�
afi
PPP
HH
_
»G
S.C3.`y?'
Ex§x
GyR:3
ExFG$�»qj y}9999
yAg
Rn,
4FFP3
ng
AP'q»[»i»R'«
'".Man
#QRS¢
wCr�.�-.��E.�tECF
G-G��:�
Eee�LG
xRi��4,??y[WR7
iy
5ppa8.
9^GG:FgqCS
��QM
IF=RFry(
3{
=5R
^wA
a»� R
A #EvG3
py3q
y
9
G��xG�G
»
F»G»G
» GG
G
x
5Y
's5§S FS
.T, I
A.A.-AA
,...,-A
3G�SC"a
Y
flY
Y
pppppppp
�EgSS
#Cg ji #�yy��
Inn
pppp ppgg���6d
�,
68
1111111111
_
"
R��s�°
ytaa
E p3➢pp s2pppn ➢➢ p5
� � ;t 1
Mill
a2eaaa
���3�
Tp. FCZCCI•¢y ySC 388
d ]33339333
41!1 ael
Q YY L+e I+YYke
as 33335 MIAMI
.111
$�A �����`�!`
CIaEE=
MIA
i
• F
d$�i
M
�
ii
cfe'sss1m it
188EE12=EES
FFFFCFFR 'z =x
I1ig3i
�€
.a
i3lttt t;ij
64l8$d'till'
Yd;gy;1 fill
{$111$
111111
111111
Jill
Lifill!
{y�
MN.-
H.
HIM A
1y
gal
gra
ffG
Y
"a6
#c.
x$
-al
8F8G=
»«a�
G»��»g�.aR
a'»
eanF
SaY3
a`
$ 'i
n= u$F6
g^-1gy j$
=a_ 4as��
ya3
ate. #!
�F
.»G
_-
GF
»G
2F..n-.F
GGG GaC'"
"»G�.^..GG#C
F
Ga
It
e
-
3^
334.
mil
9M
Li 11::6
$
ga
"--
9a
'
d
a-
�a`a
:��a�
-as➢_
6 n
Agana='.°
=
3
da
a
33
cp
asa
q'
954^
?==a
En -MQ
2ga
E
Gx
-a.
dy
H'
Z✓ -FG
�y
.�^,
^$�
ga xg
a�d4�R
aa6'Fa»gyp
qn
$x»»£ass
G=
g
xy,
»G
aF
$.F
••
»G
�
VH
Epi.
J S a
F
F
p
#e»»a
»3
i aa"Nal
»$£'e PEA.
a
a i
G
,8
8&t
»'»'
R_C.$H$
-
9ax•a»9F
'eeQ e.Rg=xw
§l
»_
w
...
SS.
aaaaa
sing
�SaSSSSs==
=
SS
figx»p,g8
epp:gg9:
!_RSS
FGRxxGZZi
„
Z=_
C
2$ pG
g$
�.NiN Ni
aaa
a
3'iiTE I »a`�
HIM.,
HEE
: x
H
pz f.+
'All
'Al
ia:a;
�[i6[e
9a
qH
����
9HpH§F
�y``
a��``a(Qesse HsHi�➢
x.^Ns,
4E3&4RR3!
9��
a
pEs
pEepp
r'.ccx
�ji
'H?
OHIO
:
$$ $
gg
_ H
gggqpp££ppgg
31 14
55fQ4g5p
���
'�1�
6;id8
.c
g$3
gg gg¢¢
1111111
&3§
94
¢SSB
`3 �s.
il
aaaaa
zx
aaa
I a F
Z-2.
M9_ acE. _ s
a_
__ 2 __A
d
s
f aG �
6 3 c t3 su2G Rs a961p 3 saFl HA-„a
Elisgg
EBiiA
p AAA _ ___„ v _x_ve xxx _
a9 x-a a xass �a aaasgR ;d3R -
Z
*t •�Vv GO �Ei 6l F EYP➢$j@➢pE ��666
H£SyyR9 II8E II�6 g➢€9a5Y Ygti L€NNNE �Y`��S�Fy evvv+ pp k
HAM AMA ##1 �
Ria3A
aI
@
s?
as
Ail. SS#
88Bt
AAAAA
888t
A0.
as
A0.
86
8A0.
88•
AAA0.
8t
8A
AAR
8At
AR
8t
A0.
8t
a
f
U€
11
fit
i
f
if
6f
€
1
[
£
€€!
€sax
xsx
s
x
s
€
ss
xx
xxa
x
s
xx
x
€
!
x
£_1
€d§
list
9d9
9
3
!
€
39
3€
d€€
€
9
€a
9§
9
e
9
5•
AB•5
ml
=�Y_
F'Py
A.^'.tl3
G'i
at
yG-
S
GFiG
€.
3a
�E
R�
.Q GG
5GY
Ftl
E£
SS
S
$d
.
:�
3G£i
ASA3G
14
aalByG
p£
#6#
PG
C#b
FP£
QGGil�43
11
}i
tl
•
y{C
�8
kill
Spkili(
x
i
aG
fl6
QG
S.-{
gggg
ia.
Ea Ea
g!
t'A 6
0.
of
x
A0.
At
A0.
At
l
Ba
5'a
5a,j
3
as
3
dq!
5a"s
qq #
s 5A
!3
xx
RZ
R £EEEc
SGA
gq
`ad
3
99
##
a5
Q
33
53_ 41
Asia
-P-
9
I
a
a
9a
MR
a
a
1 95
5A
#
d
It
a
f
f
159
4
G9#x'
=9�9
�:
99
xs
#e
#ge
;I
! gag
15
!3
IF!
;d�
33
19
jS
Gxx
XA89
xxx
_
_
a
_
C3
AAR
i
-
__
--
_
_
_
d=
.3j
iA
I
3£££
3 5
#
8
££
BE
£G3
3
a
�
t
dg
�j{ 3�{� aai8 �.
d pEy�
1 yy
d
g{
3a
t EEd
dE66E 3382 �3a3aa
i
33RI�aaaa•
�a`
#3�ag6aaa=a;iaae4i3
Jim`EFEAa�a�a$yy
'+3333333
144
3333aax
#
3:eaa3ia�a
as
33•
e.33�94�saaa33'31
���
"
sa
;:
FF
e 'AAI!!lddi
e $4$4
1.!! €
313 �¢ d?.
�,��� ZZ
.
. 31
3
k 11,4
��
i
333
�;
3 _fFa
i
;#6
q
Rp9g
33,
qqgg
4iZ`!j
EE
{gi
AZ
{ 6f 33
<<
!
33,_
_I
Is
34It
? t
�� �
Sbimek, Awbs & Fmklea, L.L.P.
6) Utilized Capacity
Utilized capacity for the water distribution system was calculated based on the size water
line required for each model year (1999, 2009 and build out). Master planning of the water
distribution system is based on the average daily demand, maximum daily demand,
maximum hourly demand, and the minimum hourly demand. Pump station capacity is
generally based on the maximum daily system demand while transmission and distribution
facilities are sized based on either the maximum hourly demand or the min mmn hourly
demand, whichever demand is greater for a particular water line. Often times, the capacity
of a water line is determined by the flows generated by the minimum hourly demand. The
minimum hourly flows are usually higher in those lines which are used to refill elevated
storage. Table No. 9 below shows the unit flows used for analysis of each element of the
distribution system:
TABLE NO. 9
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS
BASIS OF DEMAND CALCULATION
Type of Facilities,, `
Demand Type.
Impact Fee Per'Caprta Use..
Pumpage
Maximum Day
468 gallons/day
Distribution System
Maximum Hour
814 gallons/day
Ground Storage
Maximum Day x 6/24 Hours
Elevated Storage
I Maximum Hour - Maximum Day x 6/24 Hours
For each line segment in the water distribution model, the build -out flow rate in the line
was compared to the flow rate in the same line segment for the 1999 and the 2009 models.
The percent utilized capacity was then calculated for each year based on the build -out
capacity. The utilized capacity during the Impact Fee period is the difference between the
year 2009 capacity and the year 1999 capacity. The utilized capacity for each water
distribution facility, both existing and proposed, is presented in detail in Impact Fee
Capacity Calculation Tables Nos. 6, 7 and 8. Table No. 10 below summarizes the project
cost and utilized cost over the impact fee period of 1999 - 2009 for each element of the
Water Distribution System.
III
(
!
\
kq!
I
�
!
§
-
}!
!
\
-
}!
!
a :
) \ \ )
}
!
\
Shimek, Jacobs & Finkle., LLP.
F. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
1) Collection Lines
The wastewater collection system analysis, a more static system than the dynamic water
distribution model, covered all of the drainage basins within the study area. Each collection
system was analyzed for line sizes 12 inches in diameter and larger. Eliminating line sizes
smaller than 12 inches in diameter from the study leaves only the interceptor and trunk lines
included in the study. The wastewater project cost includes necessary appurtenances
(manholes, aerial crossings and the like), purchase of easements, utility relocation,
pavement removal and replacement, and engineering costs. For existing Impact Fee
projects, actual costs were utilized where known. Future project cost estimates were based
on 1999 average unit cost per linear feet and includes engineering, easements, and
construction cost.
All eligible sewer projects in the Rowlett Creek, Watters Branch, Cottonwood Creek and
East Allen service basins were included in the Impact Fee Study. The major basins, along
with the eligible existing and proposed wastewater facilities are shown on Figure No. 2 at
the end of this section.
2) Treatment
The North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) provides Allen with a significant
portion of its wastewater collection, and transportation. NTMWD also owns and operates
Wilson Creek Treatment Plant and provides all of Allen's wastewater treatment. Allen pays
NTMWD for the cost of this service according to the City's present contribution of
wastewater flows in each of the regional facilities in any given year.
This Impact Fee study includes the cost of the NTMWD regional collection, transportation
and treatment facilities, both existing and proposed. The City of Allen's cost participation
in each component of the regional system was provided the NTMWD staff and engineers.
The cost participation was then factored into the overall capital cost of the facilities either
built or proposed by the District and applied to the impact fee calculation. The NTMWD
had completed all of the first phase work of the regional system and is just beginning to re-
evaluate the second phase of construction. The key components expected to be constructed
in the next ten years in Phase 2 of the regional system improvements include:
• Rowlett Creek Parallel Trunk Main
• Rowlett Creek/Cottonwood Creek Parallel Transfer Sewer
• Wilson Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
;�Im L, W -ta -is-
Shimek Jaw& & Finklea, L.L.P.
Cost for these Phase 2 facilities were included in the impact fee calculation to the degree
that they were known with the understanding the Phase 2 planning efforts are still
underway. Other improvements in this regional system are expected to be constructed
beyond the 10 -year planning calendar of this impact fee update and are therefore beyond
this Impact Fee period of study.
3) Capital Improvement Program
The wastewater facilities shown in Figure No. 2 include City constructed collection lines,
trunk sewer lines 12 inches and larger in diameter, lift stations and force mains.
The cost of the City constructed lift stations, force mains and gravity sewers that are
included in the Impact Fee Update, along with the City's share of the proposed North Texas
Municipal Water District's facilities and are shown in Table No. 11. The project locations
are shown in Figure No. 2 at the end of this section.
The projects shown in Table No. 11 represent those required to meet the needs of the
projected growth as provided in the Land Use Assumptions for Impact Fees.
Y�1mswawaet1- -19-
Stun Jacobs and FitUea. LLP.
TABLE NO. 11
City of Allen
1999 Wastewater Impact Fee Update
Wastewater Collection System Capital Improvement Plan
1999-2000
Nates:
(1) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost includes engineering, testing and right-of-way acquisition
(2) Rounding cost based on 6% bonds over a 20 year term
Diameter
(Inches) I
Citybf Allem
Project
Capacity
Opioon of
Cost of
Participation
Total Project
Project Description
Length
(MGD)
Probable Cast (1)
Financing (2)
(s/.)
Cost
CITY OF ALLEN FACILITIES
I. Wastewater LIO Station vad Force Mains
Past Malone Lift Station &64mb F.M.
Na
0.5
SIOX
5118,991
100%
$278,991
West Malone Lift Station & 10 -inch F.M.
Na
3.2
$350,000
5260,292
1OOV.
$610,29
South Malone Lift Station
Na
0.5
5160,
$118,991
100%
$278,991
H. Gravity Truck Mains
Northeast Allen lntemeptor Sewer
6,500
24,27
5487,50
$362,549
10004
$850,04
Fart Exchange Parkway
4,000
12,18
$180,
$133,864
10014
$313,86
Malone Read 15 -inch Gravity Sewer
2,500
15
587,500
$65,073
IOOY4
5152,57
Ola Street lO-mcb Sanitary Sewer
6,000
10
$350,
$260,292
IOW%
$610,29
Soberest, City of Allen Faci idrs:
$1,775,00
51,320,05
331095,05
NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT FACILITIES
Rowlett Creek Parallel Track Main 28,3 36--54"
$5,452,92
54,055,28
SOY%
$4,754,10
RowleWCmearro al Parallel Transfer Sewer 36,250 6P-66"
$9,595,400
$7,136,01
11%
$1,840,45
Wilson Creek Wastcwater Treatment Plant Na
$ 60,000,000
$44,621,46
6.67%
$6,978,25
Subtotal, NTMWD Facilities
$75,048,32
1155,812,771
513,572,81
TOTAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: $76,823,320 $57,132,822 $16,667,96
Nates:
(1) Opinion of Probable Construction Cost includes engineering, testing and right-of-way acquisition
(2) Rounding cost based on 6% bonds over a 20 year term
Shimek ✓carobs & Finklea, L.L.P.
4) Utilized Capacity
Utilized capacity for the wastewater collection system was calculated based on land
absorption from population growth projections provided by the City of Allen's Land Use
Assumptions for Impact Fee Update and categorized by planning units. The population
growth in each wastewater drainage basin was determined utilizing the planning units.
Table No. 12 shows the results of this calculation, the total population growth in each basin
and the resulting percentage growth by sewer basin. In total, a 64% increase in utilized
capacity is expected over the entire wastewater collection system basin within the next
10 -years. Once calculated, utilized capacity for each facility in the basin was determined
based on the pro -rated population growth over the 10 -year period. For the regional
NTMWD facilities, the percent growth over the 10 -year period for the entire service
sanitary sewer service area was calculated and applied to the City of Allen's proportional
share of the cost
Utilized capacity costs for the wastewater collection system are shown on Table No. 13.
i:t�mwwm,vsiorv"�on.� coo
-21 -
III
,
�
!
L
{f\
[!ƒ
^
(
\
\
\
(
\
\
2
<{
,
k
/
}
/$
\
\\
\.
5
\��w
!
e
a
t
\
«
,
�
!
k9
14M
peg
hl
m$e�
AA aaaxa aaaa
6a 9iiig A x 5
Q?Qsp
34 a
hl
„8 o„
€
s
„„Ca
LL
sU
aefr
z
¢[rd.�f
o�yg�
5
; 3F
9q
gg�-3p„
�en
�tlxxxxxxx
aa3a3a
6a 9iiig A x 5
Q?Qsp
34 a
e
e
€
s
LL
sU
aefr
z
¢[rd.�f
o�yg�
5
; 3F
9q
gg�-3p„
z`
_
yy
6a 9iiig A x 5
��� gmtl�xxxx�
Sd
Q?Qsp
34 a
e
e
€
s
LL
sU
aefr
z
¢[rd.�f
o�yg�
5
; 3F
9q
gg�-3p„
z`
��� gmtl�xxxx�
Sd
n»»r^Q+=ra
S
e
z Lu
W7 aa5 111
I'S� jag
' Q d gg A @@F �F �lE 5 �y EdiE 3 z
�i w ¢ w o 814 �i Bi i9 i. € 6 i i
� U- Lu C i'�4 �4p g:g4.gy4 g€g p 4
CC
U
i► �
11 J
n
-1-77
TIF
-- --
h
r"T Y ;nom
I
J
j
F ~J
Shimek, Jawbs & Fink/ea, 1-1 P.
G. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM IMPACT FEES - WATER & WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
The maximum impact fees for the water and wastewater systems are calculated separately by
dividing the cost of the capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated and attributable
to new development in the service area within the ten year period by the number of living units
anticipated to be added to City within the ten year period as shown on Table No. 2. To simplify
collection, we recommend the fee remain fixed throughout the three-year period, unless changed
by Council.
j The water system impact fee is calculated as follows:
Maximum Impact Fee = Eligible Existing Facility Costs + Eligible Proposed Facility Cost
Number of New Living Unit Equivalent over the Next 10 Years
$6,035,792 + $47,161,280 = $53,197,072
47,752 47,752
fl Water Maximum Impact Fee = $1,114.03
The wastewater system impact fee is calculated as follows:
Maximum Impact Fee = Eligible Existing Facility Costs + Eligible Proposed Facility Cost
Living Unit Equivalency for Next 10 Years
$8,262,199 + $14,339,161 = $22,601,360
47,752 47,752
Wastewater Maximum Impact Fee = $473.31
Based on the Maximum Impact Fee Calculation for Water and Wastewater, Table No. 14 calculates
the maximum impact fee for the various sizes of water meters.
1 �m��ImW10"/vryvv4epin-1 E¢
-25-
Sbimek, Jambs &Fi Uw. L.L.P.
TABLE NO. 14
Maximum Fee per Living Unit Equivalent
Maximum Water Impact Fee per Living Unit Equivalent: $1,114.03
Maximum Sewer Impact Fee per Living Unit Equivalent: $473.31
Meter Type
Meter Size
Living Unit
Equivalent
Maximum Impact Fee; -
Water Sewer "Total" -
Simple
5/8"
1
$1,114.03
$473.31
$1,587.34
Simple
1"
2.5
$2,785.08
$1,183.28
$3,968.35
Simple
1-1/2"
5
$5,570.15
$2,366.55
$7,936.70
Simple
2"
8
$8,912.24
$3,786.48
$12,698.72
Compound
2"
8
$8,912.24
$3,786.48
$12,698.72
Turbine
2"
10
$11,140.30
$4,733.10
$15,873.40
Compound
3"
16
$17,824.48
$7,572.96
$25,397.44
Turbine
3"
24
$26,736.72
$11,359.44
$38,096.16
Compound
4"
25
$27,850.75
$11,832.75
$39,683.50
Turbine
4"
42
$46,789.26
$19,879.02
$66,668.28
Compound
6"
50
$55,701.50
$23,665.50
1 $79,367.00
Turbine
6'
92
$102,490.76 ,
$43,544.52
$146,035.28
Compound
8"
80
$89,122.40
$37,864.80
$126,987.20
Turbine
8"
160
$178,244.80
$75,729.60
$253,974.40
Compound
10"
115
$128,113.45
$54,430.65
$182,544.10
urbme
10"
250
$278,507.50
1 $118,327.50
1 $396,835.00
bine
12"
330
$367,629.90
1 $156,192.30
1 $523,82220
pamowbas.iorvm..b.o�-�� -26-
Shimek, Jawbs & Finklea, L.L.P.
H. THOROUGHFARE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The first step in the development impact fee study process is the development of a 10 year
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This capital improvement plan includes projects needed to
serve existing and future development.
1) Existing Facilities
The City of Allen arterial and major collector street system is partially developed at this
time. Several roadways in developed area are fully or partially built to current thoroughfare
plan standards. Many existing streets in undeveloped areas are two-lane (20'40' width),
asphalt roadways with open surface drainage.
The existing major arterial roadways within the City include S.H. 5, McDermott Road,
Bethany Road, Stacy Road, Exchange Road, Alma Road, and Allen Heights Drive. Some
of these arterial roadways are under the operation and maintenance jurisdiction of the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
2) Proposed Facilities
The City of Allen adopted a Comprehensive Plan including thoroughfare plan in 1998
which is the basis for development of the future street system. The thoroughfare system
was developed to support the forecast traffic demands of future land use and is a
conventional network conforming to a hierarchical, functional classification system.
The highest classifications are the Principle Arterial followed by the Minor Arterial type
facility. These roadways are generally of multi -lane (4, 6, or 8 lanes) with median dividers
that serve the function of controlling access, separating opposing traffic movements and
provide area for the storage of left turning vehicles. The lower classifications are the
collector facilities that are developed to serve the adjoining development. The size and
alignment of these collector roadways are determined by the character of the development
they are serving.
The thoroughfare facilities determined for inclusion in the Capital Improvement Plan of this
study are tabulated as Table lA and graphically illustrated in Figure 3. Each listed project
I'' Shimek Jawbs & FMk1w, LLP.
includes the determined project length, type of proposed street section, a description of
planned improvements, and estimated cost to the City. Projects listed Table 1B includes
facilities that have been built by the City with excess capacity included to serve future
development. The costs of these facilities are eligible for recoupment through impact fees.
Costs associated with TxDOT facilities can not be financed with impact fees.
Construction costs, without the benefit of detailed preliminary engineering study for each
project, have been determined based on typical unit costs of street facilities constructed to
identical or similar design standards. These costs are based on current unit costs of
construction. The components of the total estimated cost for each project listed include:
a) Paving construction cost,
b) Street drainage costs as a function of
• The percentage cost of the paving and,
• Identified additional costs of major structures
c) Costs of ancillary items such as traffic signals, sidewalks, slope/fixed object protection,
street lights, etc.,
d) Engineering design costs, right-of-way and easement costs,
e) Cost of financing
J W�imvs.io�nw,. i e -28 -
a
s
8
�
Y
8�
8
8
B
II
E
8
ffi
Y
e
a
e
c
i1
m
y
3
F
n
_
g
�mm'me�
�mAmEm�
�m�m��msm_
� m
F
_
a
yg�mN
46
lit
N
N
N
F
m
c
m$
a
`a
m
a
��
q
qq
gR
p
44
qq
QQ p
YY
Y
9
g
s
8
E
esbs
3,`s
m88
s
8=a
Sgg
3
Ea
Sg
=a s
e
s
m'
o
ry
gg
w
a
m
osis
Z
S2A R
B
zLu
Z
g
@
a
�i
IL
aw
��
f
xW
_«z
o g
'3'
zz
W= W
U- >0
O
$
0QOa-
CC
ov
cr
mo—
I
a
�
�
vwo suoox xm.
ll\
C
o
I4
s.
sn
010tl SgllYM
I
�`jY: �.
r
y
D
E
rt
JV
y�
I
E
�� / orou tlessm
\/
a
,
a_
;_
■
!
!
«
+
\
«
!
§
§
a
|
�
-
\
¢
i
�
)
!
!
|
k
§
§
Shimek, Jacobs & Fmldea, L.L.P.
I. IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
1) Introduction
The next step of the Development Impact Fee Study process is the determination of the
maximum fee per service unit obtained by dividing the costs of the Capital Improvements
identified as necessary to serve growth forecast to occur during the 10 -year planning period
by the number of service units of growth forecast to occur. The specific steps, as described
in following paragraphs of this section include:
a) Identification of that portion of the total Capital Improvements necessary to serve the
projected growth over the next 10 -year period;
b) Analysis of the total capacity, level of current usage, and commitment for usage of
capacity of existing improvements;
c) Determination of the "standard service unie, and equivalency tables establishing the
ratio of a service unit to the types of land use forecast for growth.
2) Assumptions and Evaluation Criteria
Determination of the eligible costs of capital improvements to serve the forecast growth
over the 10 -year period, 1999-2009, were based on known data and assumptions valid in
typical preliminary engineering analysis.
The basic criteria and assumptions made for this study include the following:
a) Costs of existing facilities constructed to serve new development have been included.
b) Bond interest costs are included.
c) Street facility improvements, although necessary for additional capacity by new
growth, will logically serve all existing and future growth by improved safety and
drainage characteristics. Therefore, the 10 -year eligible costs have been proportioned
as the ratio of the 10 -year growth to the total number of service units determined for the
build -out.
ym.�wrasau�wa�n.�,ao.
-33-
I' Shimek Jacobs & Fiaklea, L L.P.
Table 2 is used to pro -rate the identified costs, by individual service areas. Table 2 is
derived utilizing the data from Tables 2A, 2B, and 2C included in the Appendix.
Current development regulations of the City require a developer to participate in the
construction and pay for arterial streets adjacent to the development.
In order to maintain the equity of impact fee assessment, the cost for streets included in the
10 -year Capital Improvement Plan will include the total cost of the street facilities, not
reduced by any expected participation. Rather, construction by a developer of an arterial
facility within or off-site will be treated as a credit to the impact fee assessment.
",Nil_i e - 34 -
Table 2 - Summary of Acrage Distribution by Development Period
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
Note: Figures Shawn are a summary of those calculated in Tsbles 2A, 2B and 2C. Each of these tables summarize Neighborhood Districts by
Service Area. Neighborhood District Informagon was provided by Ne City of Allen.
Summary of A,., Div.Nsighb nhood Di,tnca Summary
Existing
1999-2009
Year 2009 - Ultimate
6¢rvice
Area
Acres of
Development
1999
Portion of
Fully Developed
Acreage
Acres of Portion of
Development Fully Developed
Added Acreage
1999.2009
Acres of
Development
Added
2009 -Ultimate
Portion of
Fully Developed
Acreage
Full
Development
Acreage
1
144.70
0.085
887.10 0.522
668.70
0.393
1,700.50
2
1 364.001
0.1941
1,235.62 0.660
272.92
0.146
1,872.54
3
1 879.67
0.4091
932.53 0.434
338.70
0.157
2,150.90,
1,524.15
0.590
1,055.75 0.409
4.00
0.002
2,583.90
1,059.08
0.375
1,330.92 0.471
436.18
0.154
2,826.18
1,175.50
0.563
787.13 0.377
126.40
0.061
2,089.03
t64
294.90
0.156
1,214.80 0.642
381.30
0.202
1,891.00
2,020.90
0.752
668.15 0.248
0.00
0.000
2,689.05
7,462.90
0.419
8,112.00 0.456
2,228.20
0.125
17,803.10
Note: Figures Shawn are a summary of those calculated in Tsbles 2A, 2B and 2C. Each of these tables summarize Neighborhood Districts by
Service Area. Neighborhood District Informagon was provided by Ne City of Allen.
Summary of A,., Div.Nsighb nhood Di,tnca Summary
Shimek, Jacobs & Fiaklea, L.L.P.
3) Eligible Costs
The "Land Use Assumptions" developed for this development impact fee study and adopted
by the City in 1999 defined 30 neighborhood districts encompassing the entire jurisdictional
limits of the City of Allen. These neighborhood districts were consolidated into eight
Service Areas. The purpose of these service areas is to forecast the growth and intensities
of growth for the ultimate development of the City and that portion of the development
expected to occur during the 10 -year period, 1999-2009.
The State Statute governing imposition of development impact fees require that collection
and expenditure of fees imposed for street facilities "..is limited to an area within the
corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed a distance equal to
the average trip length from the new development, but in no event more that three miles,
which service area shall be served by the roadway facilities designated in the capital
improvements plan. "
Costs of each of the individual street projects were accumulated, or apportioned, for the
service area in which they were located. Boundaries of the service areas were located to be
coincident with natural barriers, the center of existing or proposed street facilities included
in the capital improvements plan or along city limit lines. Therefore, the determined costs
of a particular street facility may have been apportioned to two (2) or more adjacent service
areas. Some projects were identified to be located on the boundary of the City where
participation by a jurisdiction other than the City of Allen was projected. Costs of these
projects included only those costs that will be paid for by the City of Allen.
Table 3 presents a summary of the street capital improvement costs for each of the eight
street service areas. A more detailed breakdown of street capital improvement costs by
project for each of the eight street service areas is presented in Table 3A in the Appendix.
The 10 -year portion of the total costs for each service area was then calculated utilizing the
data from Table 2.
%%our_e -36-
Z
IL
d
W
Q
F
J
LU
Lu
CC
Jw
A w
W
LU�
zz
W
U
J{
J
Qa
U
U
C
LUO
C2
U
01
j�y
L6
O
9LV
Q
�o
u
5
4
Shimek, J.wbs & Finkle., L.L.P.
4) Determination of Standard Service Unit and Equivalency
To determine the impact fee rate applied to Thoroughfare Facilities the standard service unit
selected was "I'M Peak Hour Average Vehicle Trip Ends". These basic data were
directly obtained or derived for each defined land use type from "Trip Generation, 6"
Edition" of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and is the standard data reference to
determine vehicle trip generation characteristics of particular land use types and densities.
The determination of growth of Service Units and resulting impact fee rates were made for
each of the eight Service Areas previously defined.
Table 4 presents the derivation of Service Unit Equivalents for each of the six defined land
use types based on the "typical' densities forecast in the Land Use Assumptions. Table 5
presents a summary of the calculations and resulting impact fee rates for each of the eight
service areas. Data from Table 5A and Table 5E, shown in the Appendix, are utilized to
calculate impact fee rates in Table 5. The rates range from $618 per acre of equivalent
single family land use in Service Area 7 to $4,504 in Service Area 2. The difference in the
rates can be attributed to the relative amount of forecast street improvements in each
Service Area relative to the amount of new service units of growth forecast.
Table Number 6 presents a summary of the calculated maximum transportation impact fee
by land use for each of the eight service areas.
11iNir 1a -38-
Table 3 - Summary of Capital Improvement Cost by Service Area
city of Allan 1999 Imnact Fee Undate
service
Area
Zone Cost of
Thoroughfare
Portion of Capacity of New
Thoroughfare Attributed
to Growth (1999 - 2009)
Cost of New Thoroughfare
Attributed to Growth
(1999 -2009)
1
$30,024,144.04
0.574
$17,244,437.13
2
$33,246,302.78
0.647
$21,500,042.82
3
$9,621,290.07
0.434
$4,171,342.99
4
$25,386,502.41
0.390
$9,907,696.28
5
$11,655,676.99
0.432
$5,040,617.05
6
$15,054,480.69
0.381
$5,738,819.13
7
$5,018,512.36
0.186
$934,755.93
8
$13,560,604.66
0.264
$3,580,762.42
Totals
$143,569,514.00
$68,118,473.75
Note: Figures shown are a summary of data presented in Table 3A. Date in 3A list Individual projects and
Me proportion of each contained within each Service Area. Proportion of Capacity attnbuled to growth
is based on the anticipated growth presented in Table 2.
Table 4 - Thoroughfare Land Use Equivalency
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
Land Use
Unit
Units/Acre
PM Peak
Trips/Dev. Unit (1
SU/Acre
(2)
SU
Equivaleny
(3)
Lm/Medium Densitv Residnetial
DU
3.50
1.01
3.535 I
1.0
Hart Densitv
DU
21.40
0.62
13.288
3.8
Commerdal / Retail
1,000 sF.
10.89
3.74
40.729
11.5
Otfce
1,000 sf.
13.07
1.49
19.474
5.5
Industrial
1,000 sf.
13.07
0.98
1 12.809
3.6
PSP
1,000 sf.
10.89
1.12
12.1973.5
3U =S.M. Unit
Notes'
1 Based on Data ham One ITE Trip Generation Manual
2 PM Peak Hour Trip ends per acra based on assumed units per acre and rypkal PM Peak Hour Trip
Generation Rate.
3 Ratio of eaot land Ime to one etre of Lowetedian Density residential
Table 5 - Impact Fee Calculation for Thoroughfare by Service Area
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
Service Area
Cost of New Thoroughfare
Attributed to Growth
(1999.2009)
Number of New Service
Unit Equlvaience
(1998 •2009)
Coat Per Service
Unit Equivalent
Cost Per Service
Unit Equivalent
(Rounded)
1
$17,244,437.13
6.551.591
$2,632.1011
$2,632
2
$21,500,042.82
4,773.68
$4,503.88
$4,504
3
$4,171,342.99
4,906.14
$850.23
$850
4
$9,907,696.28
2,650.16
$3,738.53
$3,739
5
$5,040,617.05
2,329.21
$2,164.08
$2,164
6
$5,738,819.13
3,167.83
$1,81159
$1,612
7
$934,755.93
1,513.08
$617.78
$618
8
$3,580,762.42
1,255.04
$2,853.11
$2,853
Totals
$68,118,473.75
Notes:
7 From Table 3
2 Figures shown are calculated in Tables 5A and 5B. Table 5A summarizes the project acres of development by
land use type for each service area. Figures in Table 5B are derived by multiplying data in Table 5A by the
Service Unit Equivalent factors found In Table 4.
Rev 10/29199
IL
1L
1L
IL
IL
VA
Na
�nraN
MIO
o
r
r
a
o
m
O In
C
M
W
n a
N
0
m
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
�nv000M�n
rt0
m
N
N
V
N
O 0
V
r
h
N
CI
N
m
(2
M
M
r
(O
N
O
N
O
�
M
O
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
(O
N
N
NN
[O
07
N
rr
r<o
oeomm
y
r
eo
�O
m
m
M
N
mLriM
LD
O
w�»
ww
w»wen
w
eo
en
meomro
0
O
r
m
M
M
o
N
r
r
Of
OJ
W
M
ry
O
m
N
O
O
r
N
d �
�
E m
w
�
❑
o
U
v
C
J
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
O
r
M
V
OJ
(0
N
O
L '
❑ y
a
N
O
O
m
V
N
OJ
M
M
O
N
M
O
N
E
o
w
w
r
m
o
m
N
d
3 ❑ m
o a
J
Of
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
C
N
N
7
O
W
m
m
m
m
ea
m
m
m
d
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
V
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
�
to
w
tll
N
U
N
N
N
VA
SECTION J - APPENDIX
• TABLES 2A THRU C
• TABLE 3A
• TABLE 5A THRU B
Table 2A -Total Existing Development (Acres) by Land Use
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
Service N.D.
Area
LDR
ACRES I
MDR
ACRES
HDR
lACRES1
COMM
ACRES I
FICE
ACRES
INDUS
I ACRES
PSP
ACRES
TOTAL
ACRES
3
0.0
0.0
1 0.0 1
0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.0
0.0
1 0.0 1
0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 0.0
4.3
4.3
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
0.0
65.4
140.4
S.A.1 Total
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.0
0.0
0.0
69.7
144.7
2
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
61.3)
37.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
39.9
8
117.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.1
130.5
9(.8)
167.8
0.0
1 0.0 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.3
212.1
ISA. 2 Total 1
322.2
0.0
1 0.0 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
60.4
382.5
3
9 .2
41.9
0.0
1 0.0 1
0.0
1 0.0
0.0
11.1
53.0
12 1
0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0 1
31.3
1 0.0
0.0
1 0.0
31.3
13 1
91.1
1 0.0
1 0.0 1
0.0
1 0.0
0.0
1 10.0
101.1
18(.5)
222.4
1 0.0
1 0.0
16.3
1 0.0
0.0
1 27.0
267.7
31
42.8
0.028.2
60.0
1.6
0.0
294.0
426.6
6A. 3 Total
398.2
0.0
28.2
109.8
1.6
0.0
342.1
879.7
4
14
176.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
14.0
195.1
15
536.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
443
581.1
18(.5)
222.4
0.0
0.0
18.3
0.0
0.0
27.0
267.7
19
462.322.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
42.5
527.7
S.4 Total
A
1,397.6
22.9
0.0
18.3
5.0
0.0
1 127.8
1,571.6
5
6(.7)
86.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1 6.9
93.1
7
1 443.0
0.0
26.0
16.5
0.0
0.0
1 28.8
516.3
20
274.5
1 0.0
0.0
17.3
0.0
0.0
71.3
363.1
21
113.8
0.0
3.6
5.6
1.7
0.0
10.3
135.0
.A. 5 Total
917.5
0.0
29.6
41A
1.7
0.0
1173
1,107.5
6
16
192A
0.0
24.7
13.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
230.8
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
64.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
66.2
22
193.7
0.0
8.3
14.9
3.9
0.0
23.3
244.1
23
0.0
0.0
0.0
37.8
0.0
17.8
0.0
55.4
74
352
0.0
0.0
52.7
4.2
117.7
33.7
243.5
25(.51
225.8
40.3
7.7
10.3
4.7
0.0
59.1
347.7
S.A.6 Total
64].1
40.3
40.7
193.4
12.8
135.5
118.1
1,187.7
7
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.3
27.3
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.1
171.5
29
513.1
65.9
15.7
22.5
0.0
.9
675.1
A. 7 Total
513.1
65.9
15.7
22.5
0.0
.3
673.9
8
25.5
225.8
40.3
7.7
10.3
4.]
M.Vj
.1
347.7
28
563.5
34.4
0.0
10.2
0.0
.8
677.7
29
171.0
22.0
15.7
0.0
0.0
.0
208.7
30
185.0
0.0
0.0
13.3
0.0
2.0
210.3
S.A.B Total
1,165.3
96.7
23.
33.8
0.7
1,444.Total
,360.9
115.8
iJ7.5
493.
25.7
.
7, 91.9
Table 2B - 10 Year (1999 - 2009) Growth (Acres) by Land Use
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
R0v 1=8W
2fi
14].5
15.8
1 12.0 1
21.8 1
0.0
1 0.0
1 21.4
218.3
39
88.8
10.1
.0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.1
116.9
90
86.0
12.0
0.0
16.7
0.0
0.0141.]
BA.BTolal
126.2
1].fi
25.2
43.1
2.4
7.0
14.9
5185
Total
2,600.6
266.7
1 294.7 1
1,152.5
467.8
995.7
1,043.3
1 6,M1.3
R0v 1=8W
Table 2C - Ultimate Total Development (Acres) by Land Use
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
Service N.D.
Area
LDR
ACRES
MDR
ACRES
HDR
ACRES
MM
ACRES I
OFFICE
ACRES
INDUS
I ACRES
PSP
ACRES
TOTAL
ACRES
1
3
0.0 1
0.0
1 0.0 1
142.0 1
28.0
26.0
0.0
194.0
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
93.0
40.0
41.0
35.0
209.0
5
0.0
0.0
0.0
157.0
41.0
73.0
6.0
277.0
10
0.0
0.0
25.0
81.0
125.0
257.0
71.0
559.0
11
0.0
0.0
0.0
151.0
0.0
83.0
71.0
305.0
SA.1 Total
0.0
0.0
25.0
624.0
232.0
480.0
183.0
1,544.0
2
1
0.0
0.0
21.0
95.0
120.0
126.0
90.0
452.0
2
0.0
1 0.0
1 0.0 1
80.0
50.0
45.0
35.0
210.0
6 .3
298.2
1 15.3
1 6.0 1
6.0
0.0
0.0
98.1
423.6
8
81.0
1 9.5
1 9.5 1
34.0
To
0.0
29.9
163.9
9(.81
392.0
1 4.0
1 16.0 1
16.0
0.0
1 112.0
65.6
605.6
ISA. 2 Total
7712
1 28.8
1 52.5 1
231.0
170.0
1 283.0
318.6
1,855.1
1.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
28.0
18.4
151.4
0.0
80.0
40.0
143.0
40.0
101.0
74.0
478.0
a3l98.0
123.0
13.0
37.0
72.0
88.0
236.0
43.0
612.0
215.0
0.0
0.0
47.0
0.0
0.0
27.5
289.5
125.0
1 10.0
1 28.0 1
80.0
1 83.0
0.0
294.0
620.0
S.A.3 Total
561.0
1 104.0
1 108.0 1
346.0
1 211.0
365.0
454.9
1 2,150.9
402.0
4.0
12.0
39.0
7.0
00
26.0
490.0
a15
830.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
2.0
0.0
89.0
215.0
0.0
0.0
47.0
0.0
0.0
27.5
289.5
834 4
F 45.010.0
2].0
0.0
0.0
152.0
868.4
SA.4Total
2,081.4
49.0
22.0
128.0
9.0
0.0
294.5
1 2,583.9
5
6 .7
695.8
1 35.7
1 14.0
14.0
2000
228.9
988.4
7
443.0
1 9.5
1 35.5
27.0
0.0
0.0
96.2
611.2
20
702.0
1 54.0
1 15.0
23.0
0.0
0.0
142.0
936.0
21
131.8
1 14.7
1 3.9
10.6
4.5
0.0
18.8
184.3
FSA. 5 Total
1,972.6
1 113.9
1 68A
74.6
4.5
0.0
485.9
2,7192
6
16
280.0
0.0
88.0
47.0
0.0
180.0
33.0
628.0
17
0.0
0.00.0
85.0
0.0
143.0
2.0
230.0
Z?
235.2
34.3
9.1
26.5
10.5
0.0
432
368.8
230.0
0.0
0.0
105.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
115.0
24
149.0
1 0.0
8.0
42.0
34.0
141.0
34.0
408.0
25.5)
1 231.5
1 40.1
21.0
15.0
7.0
7.01
61.5
383.1
S.A. 6 Total
I 895.7
74.4
126.1
320.5
56.5
1 471.0
1 178.7
2,122.8
27
1 264.0
32.0
0.0
35.0
15.0
0.0
208.0
554.0
280.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
369.0
16.0
385.0
29
513.1
65.9
15.5
74.0
0.0
0.0
57.9
726A
S.A.7 Total
777.1
97.9
15.5
10 9.0
15.0
369.0
281.9
1.665A
10.1
21.0
15.0
7.0
7.0
61.5
383.1
731.0
500
12.0
32.0
00
00
70
8960
ar231.5
259.932.1
15.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
18.1
325.6
271.0
12.0
0.0
30.0
0.0
00
450
358.0
,493.4
134.2
48.5
T].0
70
70
1956
1,827
,552./
602.1
66].0
1,910.1
705.0
1,975.0
2.393.1
76,60/.7
Table 3A - Capital Improvement Costs for Thoroughfare Facility by
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
SeMce Area
CIP
Project
Number
Proportion of
Total %of Project In Cost of Project Capacity
Attributable
cost of Service Area In Service Aroa to Growth
Project
cost of Project
Ahrlbute]to
Growth(1999-2009)
8I,
$0002.002
1a2
SB.0O2.M
57e%
14.598.02
III,
Va.
St
512.141.1)]
9.6%
S].ta].NI
1'la
5],614.]14
50
s3,819.702
WA%
5;190.855
136
$9.927,880
511
55.]58.1]8
$]A%
W.I. I.R2
Tent
149.989,727
530,026.1.
$17,20,43]
Sc
$1,611,1]1
II
$183111
N.]%
$125,431
30
14.96).148
1C0
14.141.149
$5.199.400
]e
$8.038.>39
1W
58.059,]38
664.7%4J%
N.]%
$5.212,150
]E
5]21.090
W
5388.90
81.7%
f23J.<t
]c
55,818,]18
#.2111.631
647%
$1,4 14.]00
118
$3,418.881
100N
13.41 11.631
61]%
f2.20.02
118
f2lb],J62
I9
511,956.109
N]%
5].]]1,9]1
120
f;630,1.
21
S1,fi06$]5
N.]%
S1,N].1
20
P 184
100
1455.86]
N.T%
sz95.1
Taut
ssr,nS,xW
1W33633m
sx;Wo,e6
3
]c
5$.]18.310
12
s]W.t9a
63.6%
330].
all
$5,]88,007
]
3105,2-5
6116%
31]S.fi]
5),6]8.601
$2.215.02)
4
I2.&
13[
$]11,428
W
53
0
51634]<
$,a
130
$9,02],889
62
.189.713
$1,166.011
43
1116%
13
tW
$1,]4].691
131%
5]55.9&2
TOY]
an, W.We
Sa1jR9,]8E
39,8x1,300
$1,1]1.le]
2a
$8051399
100
55.05+.299
39.0%
$1,9]1.236
Bi
0.7118.8]]
63
15.383.032
39.0%
52100.819
9a
fl
100
s3.Q6.W9
36.0%
51.33154]t
114
ol.
51+,528,162
100
$11.529.162
390%
51,053,1110
0
W
100
W
]9.0%
Tobi
f35,)03j0)
us,5ees03
f9,901.69fi
5
3a
Si%,3211
W
$1211.162
6%
558.1
30
f3.W;taa
59
Sw6
32
633%
5866.65]
3c
SLat+.vt
.
$708.
5]Oe.au
133%
]b
an+.eee
W
5300.916
003%
,as
52,142,]39
100
52.14;]]8
633%
51,099.
IN
$208,1]]
100
3263.1)1
633%
512891]
16
$1,206.]39
W
$8]3.3]0
0.2%
Si69,58
10
58.)9.663
82.5
55.652.1414
Ala%
II.35].W
Total
f1MB;eN
St1,653.6]]
fs,000.e1]
6
90
$3.082.168
N
E1.o1].TO
30.1%
f389.d>
se
s1.e11.pt
.
5 s
38.1%
52]o.t0
0
15,NA80B
to
$2,]]2.772. 30
%.l%
.
14.003.314
204
SWv611
30.+%
5191.21
6c
u,621.+Y2
5981.221
30,+%
s1fio.82
T[
55.918
W,3111 W
12900.159
30.1%.011
1A
5161,3&
100
$100.314
381%
553
..all
-
tb
Q,
147
52.1113,180
W,IWI%
0032X3
139
111426
$]11,426
17
S3J1M
19
f11.]9,EP6
3]5
f3,2]tA
Win
Win%
St 361,
I'll
Total
$]],3153.
313,814,631
$0.714,010
3a
E2%.3211
W
5128,162
10.6%
5211.8]2
b
$3,072.1411
1493,.,
18.8%
191.314
0
35,514,888
W
W
Ei,>11.316
+9.6%
$516.33111
M
S1,CQI.3N
W
SW+.7
1efi%
$93.4
592,06
19
n
1]9.)00
185%
$n2.0
+6
5 246,1n
5+3.,90
16
5189.08
1906
531.15
TObI
50.$14.314
55.01&SR
5931,75e
B
IB
5007..1
100
5007,111
26.0%
5133.965
10
51397.308
100
51397,300
28.4%
5362582
0
W,021.
W
51513.+0526.4%
$1]0,185
.
$3.396.on,
100
00.398.001
28A%
0056.]35
Sa
14300,008
100
14392.0%
Is
31.009,]02
iW
$1,069.]03
RN
28A%
1]
51.90.001
ICO
$1,214.891
MA%
0018,15
Total
f+8.68,332
$13,140.00$
00,140,733
NWas:
+ Sae Tablp+A vd 18IV Opuptlm dRy'tls
z see Table
Table 5A - Summary of 10 Year (1999 - 2009) Growth by Service Area (Acres)
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
an Use
1
2
3
Service Area
4 5
6
7
8
Low/Medium Density Residential
0.00
448.02
186.76
705.90
818.62
283.20
59.20
365.60
High Density Residential
25.00
46.50
81.00
22.00
9.80
85.45
•0.20
25.15
Commercial / Retail
390.90
178.50
214.85
109.75
33.20
113.05
69.00
43.25
Office
137.40
119.00
171.00
4.00
2.80
43.75
7.50
2.35
Industrial
268.00
186.90
205.50
0.00
0.00
238.40
89.90
7.00
Public I Semi Public
65.50
220.78
73.42
166.70
311.82
45.38
84.80
74.90
Total
886.80
1,199.70
932.53
1,008.35
1,176.24
809.23
310.20
518.25
Table 5B - Number of New Service Unit Equivalent
City of Allen 1999 Impact Fee Update
Land Use
i
1
2
3
Service
4
Area
5
6
7
8
Low/Medium Density Residential
0.00
448.02
186.76
705.90
818.62
283.20
59.20
365.60
High Density Residential
93.83
174.53
304.02
82.57
36.78
320.72
-0.75
94.40
Commercial / Retail
4,503.77
2,056.59
2,475.40
1,264.49
382.51
1,302.51
784.99
498.31
Office
756.94
655.57
942.04
22.04
15.43
241.02
41.32
12.95
Industrial
971.06
677.21
744.60
0.00
0.00
863.81
325.74
25.36
Public / Semi Public
225.99
761.76
253.32
575.16
1,075.87
156.57
292.59
258.43
Total
6,551.59
4,773.68
4,906.14
2,650.16
2,329.21
3,167.83
1,513.08
1,255.04
CITY OF ALLEN
THREE YEAR WATER, WASTEWATER & ROADWAY
IMPACT FEE REVIEW
1999 TO 2009
SHIMEK, JACOBS & FINKLEA, L.L.P.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
DALLAS, TEXAS