HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 960109-X - Approve Cap Improv PlansRESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTIONOF ► OF
GEORGETOWN, • • • •VING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
IMPACTPLAN TO BE USED TO DEVELOP WATER AND WASTEWATER
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown Texas has appointed an Impact
Fee Advisory Committee, as per the provisions of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government
Code, to guide the development of planning, land use, capital improvements plan and impact fee
information for the existing and future water and wastewater utilities; and
WHEREAS, the Impact Fee Advisory Committee reviewed and approved the Capital
Improvements Plan at its meeting of September 26, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvements Plan will be used by the City of Georgetown in
its evaluation and consideration of impact fee ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Georgetown called for a Public Hearing at
its regularly scheduled session of October 24, 1995, to seek public comment on the proposed
Capital Improvements Plan and the general nature of the proposed capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown made requisite public notice of such Public Hearing
for three consecutive weeks in a general circulation local newspaper, the first such notice
appearing September 17, 1995; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown made publicly available on or before the date of the
first publication of the notice various information concerning the Public Hearing issues; and
WHEREAS, the City of Georgetown has received public testimony on October 24, 1995,
from the general public, appointed representatives of the Advisory Committee, and technical
consultants to the Advisory Committee;
NOW, i 1 BY THE CITY COUNCILOF
OF i' i
SECTION 1. The facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this resolution are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct, and are incorporated by reference herein and
expressly made a part hereof, as if copied verbatim.
The City Council hereby finds that this resolution implements the following policies of
the Century Plan - Policy Plan:
Capital Improvements Plan Resolution No.
Page 1 of 2
I . Economic Development Policy 5, which states "The City has a self-sustaining
economy"; and
2. Facilities and Services Policy 1, which states "The City enjoys a high quality of
life with excellent facilities and services and the provision of new services which
meet the specific needs of the community"; and
3. Finance Policy 4, which states "Sufficient financial resources for both short term
and long term needs are provided".
The City Council further finds that the adoption of this resolution is not inconsistent or
in conflict with any other Century Plan Policies, as required by Section 2.03 of the
Administrative Chapter of the Policy Plan.
SECTION 2. The Georgetown City Council hereby adopts the attached Capital
Improvements Plan which will be used to develop water and wastewater impact fees may as
required under the provisions of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED this ' day of 'ry 1996.
r ,
x
ATTEST: THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN:
PY.
4, .. ✓ ry'
Sandra Lee
City Secretary
NARROVED AS TO FORM
Marianne Banks
City Attorney
Capital Improvements Plan Resolution No. / X
Page 2 of 2
s
�J
By: LEO WOOD
Mayor
D95-0079.01
i
Prepared for:
City of Georgetown, Texas
PO Box 409
Georgetown, Texas 78627-0409
(512) 930-3575
James Duncan and Associates
13276 Research Blvd., Suite 208
Austin, Texas 78750
(512) 258-7347
Prepared by:
July, 1995
Rimrock Consulting Company
PO Box 163643
Austin, Texas 78716
(512) 442-1435
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
4:4
DEVELOPMENT
WATER AND
WASTEWATER
IMPACT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The 70th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 336 (subsequently codified as Chapter 395 of the Texas
Local Government Code) regulating various types of utility fees, defined in the legislation as "impact
fees". Such fees include not only traditional impact fees, but also capital recovery, lot, acreage, frontage
and other typical utility fees, as well as facility dedication programs. The legislation laid out very specific
requirements for the technical development of these fees as well as the procedures necessary for
enactment of such fee programs.
The City of Georgetown abolished water and sewer impact fees in 1990. With the expectation of high
growth in the community due to the development of Sun City and other ongoing community growth, the
City Council has decided to develop water and sewer impact fees, under the requirements of Chapter
395, in order to reduce the growth -related cost impacts on the community. James Duncan and
Associates, in association with Rimrock Consulting Company, was engaged by the City to perform the
technical study, required under State law, for the enactment of these fees. The study consists of two
phases: Phase I considers the 'land use assumptions", or planning basis of the capital improvements
program and fees. Phase I was completed in December 1994 with a public hearing and adoption of land
use planning assumptions. This report presents the technical results of Phase II of the study, which
consists of capital improvements plans for the water and sewer utilities, and the development of impact
fees.
2.0 TECHNICAL BASIS OF IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
2.1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLANS
Chapter 395 requires the following elements be included in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) used
as the basis for impact fees:
Table of service usage for each category of capital improvements and a conversion table
of service- units per acre (or other measure) of at least residential, commercial and
1
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Nl� Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK.CONSULTING COMPANY
..... _......n ._.... ... .> v ... s .s..rr.>.>r.v.. s.wu....-.>.
;` ? : i:;i::::i. %i: •i:: ..:i i'':%jyA: jii:; is :::jr sn iii:; : <j: iii :i'y :::'>'-' :•r'i .... :: "i:%t :i"`-is i:" e- ":<::: ii'` ':;: k': yi y: ::% t: ;::: ;y:: ? .....
industrial land uses
• Projections of total service units for new development, within the service area:
® At full buildout
® Within 10 years or less
Description of existing capital improvements, including:
® Existing capital improvements within the service area
® Analysis of total capacity of existing improvements
® Analysis of current usage of existing improvements
• Analysis of commitments for usage of existing capacity
® Costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand or replace facilities for existing needs
® Description of capital improvements needed to serve new development within the next 10
years or less (based upon adopted service area, land use and unit usage assumptions),
including:
® All or portions of the existing CIP
® All or portions of the future CIP
® Costs associated with both existing and future CIP facilities needed for new
development
2.1.1 Table of Service Usage
The City's engineering consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), provided service usage standards
for the study. These are expressed in a number of gallons per capita and are shown in Table 2-1 and
Table 2-2.
2
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
. . .........
TABLE 2-1
CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER FACILITIES
FACILITY
BASIS
CAPACITY/CAPITA
Supply
Average Day
182 gallons/capita/daily
Treatment
Peak Day
297 gallons/capita/daily
Pumpage
Engineer's Analysis
495 gallons/capita/daily
Ground Storage
Key Fire Rate
130 gallons/capita
Elevated Storage
Key Fire Rate
55 gallons/capita
Major Transmission
Peak Day
297 gallons/capita/daily
SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee.
TABLE 2-2
CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER FACILITIES
FACILITY
BASIS
CAPACITY/CAPITA
Treatment
Max Month
102 gallons/capita/daily
Pumpage
Engineer's Analysis
255 gallons/capita/daily
Major Collection
Max Month
102 gallons/capita/daily
SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee.
2.1.2 Conversion Table
Section 395.014(a)(4) of the Impact Fee Act requires:
. an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various
types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial ....
3
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
In order to comply with this provision of the law and utilize the City's unique Land Intensity Plan, the
Consultants had to perform several steps:
8 Identify a "service unit' to measure both current and future demand
® Calculate the number of service units currently served by each utility and determine the
number of gallons of demand associated with each service unit
Identify the number of service units associated with each category of land use in the City's
land use projections, consistent with the Land Intensity Plan
2.1.2.1 Service Unit Identification
The first task for the Consultants was to identify a "service unit", which is defined as "a standardized
measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an individual unit of development
calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular
category of capital improvements or facility expansions". Most typically, service units for water and sewer
utilities are based upon the capacity attributable to water meters in the utility system. The reason for this
is that water meters are physical elements, in various sizes, which limit the maximum capacity demand
of various users. Table 2-3 shows the number of service units attributable to various meters in the City
water system.
2.1.2.2 Service Unit Demand
The next step was to calculate the approximate number of service units currently served by the City's
water and sewer system. Table 2-4 shows the number of water meters of various sizes currently active
in the City's water system, and the conversion of the capacity represented by the meters to service units.
The table indicates that there are approximately 2.906 persons per service unit. Since the sewer service
population is estimated at 18,833 (according to previously adopted land use assumptions), the number
of service units is estimated to be 6,480.
Using the estimate of 2.906 persons per service unit, the capacity demand requirements shown in Table
2-1 and Table 2-2 were re -expressed as capacity demand per service unit. These service unit demands
are shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6.
0
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK. CONSULTING COMPANY
... . ... ........
TABLE 2-3
SERVICE UNIT EQUIVALENCIES FOR VARIOUS TYPES AND
SIZES OF WATER METERS
SOURCE: AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703.
5
CONTINUOUS
METER
METER
DU-fY MAXIMUM
RATIO TO
TYPE
SIZE
RATE
3/4" METER
WPM)
SIMPLE
5/8" x 3/4"
10
0.667
SIMPLE
3/411
is
1.000
SIMPLE
1.1
25
1.667
SIMPLE
1-1 /2"
50
3.333
SIMPLE
2
80
5.333
COMPOUND
---------------------------------------------------------
2"
80
5.333
TURBINE
2"
100
6.667
COMPOUND
------------
-------- ----------------------------------------------TURBINE
3"
------------
160
--------------
10.667
------------
TURBINE
3"
240
16.000
COMPOUND
4"
250
16.667
----------------------------------------------------------
TURBINE
4"
420
28.000
COMPOUND
----------------------------------------------------------
6"
500
33.333
TURBINE
6"
920
61.333
COMPOUND
-----------------------------------------------------
8"
800
53.333
----
TURBINE
8"
1600
106.667
COMPOUND
----------------------------------------------------------
101,
1150
76.667
TURBINE
101,
2500
166.667
TURBINE
12"
3300
220.000
SOURCE: AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703.
5
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
3..•�:,:;.:>�a;;w.,;<:;c.:;a:�sx><;•a;auxx->,<..;z>;:a�•::;8:..=:•��^.a.. s.:. :...,.. ._ r...._ _ _ _. ._ «.......,,...<.t„.. ......�
CURRENTTABLE 2-4
•COUNT AND ESTIMATION OF SERVICE UNITS
Classification, Inside or Outside
Citylocation
Meter Size
Number of
Meters [a]
Units per
Meter
Number of
Service Units
Residential, Inside
3/4"
4,534
1.000
4,534
Residential, Outside
3/4"
1,546
1.000
1,546
Residential, Inside
1"
159
1.667
265
Residential, Outside
ill
62
1.667
103
Residential, Inside
1-1/2"
17
3.333
57
Residential, Outside
1-1/2"
6
3.333
20
Residential, Outside
2"
4
5.333
21
Commercial, Inside
3/4"
397
1.000
397
Commercial, Outside
3/4"
8
1.000
8
Commercial, Inside
1"
70
1.667
117
Commercial, Outside
1'"
2
1.667
3
Commercial, Inside
1-1/2"
46
3.333
153
Commercial, Outside
1-1/2'
2
3.333
7
Commercial, Inside
2"
41
5.333
2
Commercial, Outside
2"
2
5.333
11
Commercial, Inside
3"
8
10.667
85
Commercial, Inside
4"
3
16.667
50
Commercial, Outside
4"
2
16.667
33
School, inside
3/4"
10
1.000
10
School, Inside
1"
3
1.667
5
School, Inside
1-112"
3
3.333
10
School, Inside
2"
16
5.333
85
School, Inside
3"
3
10.667
32
School, Inside
4"
4
16.667
67
School, Inside
6"
1
33.333
33
Industrial, Inside
3/4"
12
1.000
12
Industrial, Inside
1""
4
1.667
7
Industrial, Inside
1-1/2"
9
3.333
30
Industrial, Inside
2"
8
5.333
43
Industrial, Outside
2"
1
5.333
5
Industrial, Inside
31"
4
10.667
43
Industrial, Inside
4"
1
33.333
33
City lift Stations
2"
1
5.333
5
Total
6,989
7833
Population
22,767
Population per Service Unit
2.91
[a] Source: City of Georgetown Finance Department.
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
............: .:. �. .::.......:.�.v:.:::'s. '�+'.} isF.iti::::•Yi::i':?.::.:::i;•.':%5:::::::in � ni:::_ '.: � �'!::w:i:?� �:::i:::if 2<:Y�v �'v::�'� �::Vs:ii J J:.ii5'� ii)?
TABLE 2-5
CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER FACILITIES
SERVICE UNIT BASIS
FACILITY
BASIS
CAPACITY/SERVICE UNIT
Supply
Average Day
530 gallons/unit/daily
Treatment
Peak Day
864 gallons/unit/daily
Pumpage
Engineer's Analysis
1,440 gallons/unit/daily
Ground Storage
Key Fire Rate
378 gallons/unit
Elevated Storage
Key Fire Rate
160 gallons/unit
Major Transmission
Peak Day
864 gallons/unit/daily
SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee.
TABLE 2-6
CAPACITY DEMAND REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWER FACILITIES
SERVICE UNIT BASIS
FACILITY
BASIS
CAPACITY/SERVICE UNIT
Treatment
Max Month
296 gallons/unit/daily
Pumpage
Engineer's Analysis
741 gallons/unit/daily
Major Collection
Max Month
296 gallons/unit/daily
SOURCE: Camp, Dresser & McKee.
2.1.2.3 Land Use Conversion Table
Table 2-7 and Table 2-8 show the peak water demand and average sewage flows, respectively, for
various land uses, as shown in the City's Land Intensity Plan. For each land use, the service demand
is divided by the value of a service unit (864 gallons/day for water, 247 gallons/day for sewer) to
determine how many service units are applicable for each land use for each utility.
7
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
...
......... t.',.':.:_-'-_'.-
..
......... ..-.....
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION CHART FOR VARIOUS LAND USES
WATER UTILITY
LAND USE ACTIVITY>
PEAK DAY
DEMAND
GPD/Measure
(a)
FEE SERVICE
UNITS g 864
GPD/Measure
MEASURE
Agriculture
1,157
1.34
Dwelling Un.
Detached SF Residential, Large Lot
1,157
1.34
Dwelling Un.
Detached SF Residential, Average Lot
998
1.16
Dwelling Un.
Attached SF Residential
650
0.75
Dwelling Un.
Multi -Family Residential
528
0.61
Dwelling Un.
Mobile Home Residential
650
075
Dwelling Un.
Lodging
192
0.22
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Institutional
343
0.40
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church with Day Care
308
0.36
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church without Day Care
186
0.22
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Recreational
34
0.04
Acre
Medical Office
416
0.48
1,000 Sq. Ft.
General Office
364
0.42
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Mixed
650
0.75
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Restaurant
1,560
1.81
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Store
325
0.38
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Employment Center
364
0.42
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Warehouse
57
0.07
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Mini -Warehouse
4
0.005
1,000 Sq. Ft.
(a) Source: Georgetown Century Plan, Land Intensity.
I
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Ap Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
N "WINTIN-M., _1*1611eff
LAND USE ACTIVITY
PEAK DAY
FLOW
GPD/Measure
(a)
FEE SERVICE
UNITS @
247
GPDIMeasure
MEASURE
Agriculture
289
1.17
Dwelling Un,
Detached SF Residential, Large Lot
289
1.17
Dwelling Un.
Detached SF Residential, Average Lot
250
1.01
Dwelling Un.
Attached SF Residential
175
0.71
Dwelling Un.
Multi -Family Residential
156
0.63
Dwelling Un.
Mobile Home Residential
193
0.78
Dwelling Un.
Lodging
61
0.25
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Institutional
92
0.37
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church with Day Care
83
0.34
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church without Day Care
50
0.20
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Recreational
5
0.02
Acre
Medical Office
112
0.45
1,000 Sq. Ft.
General Office
91
0,37
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Mixed
163
0.66
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Restaurant
480
1.94
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Store
88
0.36
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Employment Center
91
0.37
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Warehouse
14
0.06
1 1,000 Sq. FL
Mini -Warehouse
1
0.004
1 1,000 Sq. Ft.
(a) Source: Georgetown Century Plan, Land Intensity.
9
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees R/MROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
2.1.3 Projected Service Units for New Development
The estimated demand per capita shown in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 was applied to projected
populations adopted after the City's hearing on land use assumptions to yield the estimated water and
wastewater service demands shown in Table 2-9 and Table 2-10, expressed in service units. As required
by the legislation, projections are shown for both 2005 and ultimate buildout.
TAB! E 2-9
ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WATER UTIUTY
EAC1LiT`( TYPE
VOLUME
1995
2005
ULTIMATE
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS (a)
7,833 12,855 44,021
WATER SUPPLY AVG MGD:
Estimated Demand (b)
4.151
6.813
23.331
Existing Capacity (g)
20.608
20.608
20.608
Excess/(Deficiency)
16.457
13.795
(2.723)
WATER TREATMENT PEAK MGD:
Estimated Demand (c)
6.768
11.107
38.034
Existing Capacity (g)
10.200
10.200
10.200
Excess/(Deficiency)
3.432
(0.907)
(27.834)
BOOSTER PUMP PEAK MGD:
Estimated Demand (d)
11.280
16.511
63.390
Existing Capacity (g)
63.360
63.360
63.360
Excess/(Deficiency)
52.080
44.849
(0.030)
GROUND STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (e)
2.960
4.857
16.633
Existing Capacity (g)
5.750
5.750
5.750
Excess/(Deficiency)
2.790
0.893
(10.863)
ELEVATED WATER STORAGE MG:
Estimated Demand (f)
1.252
2.055
7.037
Existing Capacity (g)
2.500
2.500
2.500
Excess/(Deficiency)
1.248
0.445
4.537
(a) 1995 service units based on count of equivalent 314' meters. 2005 and ultimate service units
determined by design demand per capita: Service Unit = 2.91 persons
(b) Capacity Demand = 530 gallons/service unitldaily
(c) Capacity Demand = 864 gallons/service unit1daily
(d) Capacity Demand = 1,440 gallons/service unit/daity
(e) Capacity Demand = 378 gallonslservice unit
(0 Capacity Demand = 160 gallons/service unit
(g) Existing Capacity details are contained in Capital Improvements Program Inventory.
10
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
..,.4vv:i Vii::.u....«v..+..v.:.r...:✓wwss.o>......_a:..._..n._.✓f..-.,.:.....-..............+,.vt>..:.c:..,.-..a...:.............-....::........ .+.-.e-.+-....x_
::•i::i:v'Civ:•ii:^�:?'is4i:: isJi:::A: :vi::•:: `:iini: i:..v:..:-::":::-::: •i:^:''ii:�iii::::::::::::::-::::::•::::-::•:_ii}i::::6:yi:::tyvi:Lii:•}i::: i::tiiiLi:•ii: {�i:::: ii:::::: i.; ::: :::::::::::p
TABLE 2-10
ESTIMATED SERVICE DEMAND BY FACILITY TYPE
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY TYPE
VOLUME
1995 ;
2005
ULTI[ViATE
TOTAL SERVICE UNITS (a)
6,480
12,855
44,021
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PEAK MGD: i
Estimated Demand (b)
1.921
3.811
13.051
Existing Capacity (d)
3.840
3.840
3.840
Excess/(Deficiency)
1.919
0.029
(9.211)
WASTEWATER PUMPING PEAK MGD:
Estimated Demand (c)
4.802
9.528
32.627
Existing Capacity (d)
16.100
16.100
16.100
Excess/ Deficient
11.298
6.572
16.527
(a) Service units determined by design demand per capita served: Service Unit = 2.91
persons
(b) Capacity Demand = 296 gallons/service unitldaily
(c) Capacity Demand = 741 gallonslservice unitldaily
(d) Existing Capacity details are contained in Capital Improvements Program
2.1.4 CIP Development for Existing and Future Needs
Facility unit statistics shown in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 were used to project facility needs for both
existing and future customers. Table 2-9 and Table 2-10 show current needs for existing customers, as
well as projected capacity needs for growth. No deficiencies for existing customers were identified by
the City's consulting engineers.
Table 2-11 and Table 2-12 present the inventory of facilities as required in Chapter 395. They show the
required allocation of existing and future CIP facility needs for existing development; future development
within the next ten years; and excess capacity for subsequent future development. For each generation
of utility customers, these tables show facility needs which will be met by Existing Facilities and Future
Facilities.
11
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
Cost allocations are also shown in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12. Cost estimates for each facility were
taken from actual cost of existing facilities and projected costs of future facilities. Costs were expressed
on a per -service unit basis. Finally, an appropriate cost share was attributed to 1995-2005 growth, as
determined from capacity allocations shown. Total capital costs for 1995-2005 growth were then
summed for each utility.
TABU 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY
CONSTRUCT
COST
FACILITY CAPACITY (rrrgd or gats)
1995-
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
1995 -
2005
COST
PER
SERVICE
UNIT (a)
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
FOR
CURRENT
CUST_
EXCESS
< 10
YEARS
EXCESS
> 10
YEARS
SUPPLY
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
Downtown Well #1
$15,403
1.440
Downtown Well #2
$18,397
1.720
San Gabriel Park Well #1
$14,705
3.600
San Gabriel Park Well #2
$6,127
1.500
Klein Well
$20,104
0.900
Lake Georgetown
$104,144
6.000
Stillhouse Hollow Reservoir
$0
(b)
5.448
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$178,880
1 20.608`
4.151
12.662
113.795
1 $23,104
FUTURE FACILITIES
Stillhouse Raw Water Line $5,605.765 5.448
Subtotal Future Facilities $5,605,765 5.448 0.000 0.704 4.744 $724,037
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES $5,784,645 20.608 4.151 2-662 13.795 $747,141 $148.77
12
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
....... .
m .........
... .
TABLE 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
13
FACILITY
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
1995-
2005
CONSTRUCT
COST
2005
CAPITAL
COST
PER
FOR
EXCESS
EXCESS
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
CURRENT
< 10
> 10
COST
SERVICE
GUST.
YEARS
YEARS
TOTAL
UNIT (A)
-REATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
Lake Georgetown Treatment Plant
$4,660,317
5.450
San Gabriel Park Treatment Plant
$4,090,000
4.750
Subtotal, Existing Facilities
$8,750,317
10.200
6:768
3.432
0.000
$2,944,471
FUTURE FACILMES
Lake Georgetown WTP Exp #1
$5,625,000
6.000
Lake Georgetown WTP Exp #2
$5,625,000
6.000
Lake Georgetown WTP Exp #3
$5,625,000
6.000
Subtotal.. Future Facilities
$16,875.000
18.000
0.000
0,907
17.093
$850,136
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT -'
$25,625,317
28.200
6.768
4.339
17.093
$3,794.608
13
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
TABLE 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
:FACILITY1995.
CONSTRUCT
7CON
COST
COST
FACILITY CAPACITY (m9d or gals)
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
2005
COST
PER
SERVICE
UNIT (a)
TYPE
,
NAME
TOTAL
FOR
CURRENT
GUST.
EXCESS
< 10
YEARS
EXCESS
> 10
YEARS
PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
Lake Georgetown Raw Water P.S. 1
$10,800
3.024
Lake Georgetown Raw Water P.S. 2
$10,800
3.024
Lake Georgetown Raw Water P.S. 3
$10,800
3.024
L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P1
$13.480
3,744
L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P2
$13,480
3,744
L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P3
$13,480
3.744
L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P4
$13,480
3.744
L Georgetown WTP HS Pump, P5
$13,480
3.744
S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, Pi
$25.862
3.600
S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, P2
$25,862
3,600
S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump. P3
$25,862
3.600
S. Gabriel WTP HS Pump, P4
$25,862
3.600
Sequoia Spur HS P.S., P1
$13,333
3.600
Sequoia Spur HS P.S., P2
$13,333
3.600
Sequoia Spur HS P.S., P3
$9,333
2.520
Southside Booster P.S.. P1
$8,117
1.080
Southside Booster P.S., P2
$8.117
1.080
Southside Booster P.S- P3
$16,233
2-160
Southside Booster P.S.. P4
$16.233
2.160
Airport Booster P.S., PI
$1.826
0.324
Airport Booster P.S., P2
$1,826
0.324
Airport Booster P.S., P3
$12,174
2.160
Airport Booster P.S., P4
$12,174
2,160
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$315,946
63.360
11.280
1 5.116
1 46.965
1 $25,509
1
14
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
40 Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK- CONSULTING COMPANY
......... ....... . . . .... ...........
.7
TABLE 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
1995-
FACILITY FACILITY CAPACITY (n-igd or gals) 1995- 2005:
CONSTRUCT 2005 COST
COST FOR EXCESS EXCESS CAPITAL PER
CURRENT < 10 COST SERVICE
TYPE NAME TOTAL CA > 10
OUST. YEARS YEARS TOTAL UNIT (a)
FUTURE FACILITIES
MG
Sun City High Service P.S.
$437,500
8.210
Lake Georgetown HS P.S. 2
$625,000
6.000
Lake Georgetown HS P.S. 3
$625,000
6.000
Lake Georgetown HS P.S. 4
$625,000
6.000
Subtotal Future. Facilities
:,.TOTAL ,WATER :,PUMPAGE
$2,312,500
$2,628,446
26.210 0.000 2.116 24.094 $186,710
89.570 11280 7.232 71.059 $212,219
,ROUND STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES
MG
Sequoia Spur Booster Storage
$360,571
2.000
Lake Georgetown Clearwell 3 $625,000
1.000
Southside Booster Ground Storage
$150,000
1.000
Subtotal Future Facilities $2,500,000
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $3,405,571
gill
5.000 1 0.000 0M3 1 4.117-1
10.750 2.1960 1.898 5.893
$441,305
Park Plant Clearwell
$250,000
2.000
Lake Plant Clearwell
$145,000
0.750
Subtotal: Existing Facilities .
$905,571
5.750
2.960
1.015
I.775
$159,853
It FUTURE FACILITIES
Sun City Ground Storage $625,000
2-000
Lake Georgetown Clearwell 2 $625,000
1.000
Lake Georgetown Clearwell 3 $625,000
1.000
Lake Georgetown Clearwell 4 $625,000
1.000
Subtotal Future Facilities $2,500,000
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $3,405,571
gill
5.000 1 0.000 0M3 1 4.117-1
10.750 2.1960 1.898 5.893
$441,305
1
15
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMpANy
.0
TABLE 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
FACILJTY
CONSTRUCT
COST
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
199s-
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
2005
COST
PER
SERVICE
UNIT(a)
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
FOR
CURRENT
CUST.
EXCESS
< 10
YEARS
EXCESS
> 10
YEARS
ELEVATED STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES
MG
James St, Elevated Storage
$820.000
0.500
Leander Rd. Elevated Storage
$820,000
0.500
Central Elevated Storage
$820,000
0.500
Rabbit Hill Elevated Storage 1
$250,000
1 1.000 I
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$2.710,000
2.500
1.252
0.558
0.690
$604,356
FUTURE FACILITIES
Sun City Elevated Storage #1 $550,000 0.400
Sun City Elevated Storage #2 $962,500 0.700
Subtotal. future Facilities, $1,512,500 1.100 0.0001: 0.245 0.855
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE $4,222;500 1252 0.803 1.545 < >$941,659
TRANSMISSION
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
1977 Lines
$3,677,876
1983 Lines
$309,743
1984 Lines
$538,769
1985 Lines
$183,790
1986 Lines
$1,527,275
1987 Lines
$4,976,501
Post -1987 Lines
$2,074,056
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$13,288,010
9.200
6.768
0.517
1.916
$746,053
W91
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
TABLE 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
FACILITY
CONSTRUCT
COST,
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
- -
1995-
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
2005,
COST
SER\nCE
UNIT (a)
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
I I
FORPER
CURRENT
COST.
EXCESS
10>
RSYEARS
EXCES S
10
FUTURE FACILITIES
30' Sun City Water Main
$1,681,258
12' Hwy 81 to Ind Pk & Crystal Knoll
$272,500
24' Hwy 29 Line - IH35 to DB Wood
$700,000
12' Williams Or Improvements
$32,500
16' Urban Central Tank Line
$91,250
12' Oak Crest Tie Improvement
$52,500
16' IH35 Crossing by the River
$27,500
16' bored IH35 Crossing
$140,000
24' SW Loop (Phase 1)
$588,000
24' West Loop - Andice to Exist. 12*
$1,459,500
24' Sequoia Improvements
$588,000
24* SW Loop (Phase 11)
$441,000
24' bored IH35 Crossing
$315.000
24' bored RR Crossing
$105,000
24' bored BR 81 Crossing
$105,000
24' Hwy 116 Improvements (Ph. 1)
$409,500
24* Hwy 116 Improvements (Ph. 11)
$231,000
24' IH35 Improvements
$199,500
12' Leander Trunk Line
$325,000
16' Crystal Knoll
$342,500
17
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK- CONSULTING COMPANY
7
TABLE 2-11
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVENTORY AND COSTS
WATER UTILITY
TRANSMISSION FUTURE FACILITIES (Cont)
24' D.B. Wood Rd. Improvements $577,500
Shelf Improvements $350,000
Berry Creek Improvements $700,000
Subtotal 'Future Facilities $9,734,008 18.000 0.000 3.823 14,177 $2,067,161
TOTAL TRANSIMISSION $23,022
017j 272200 6.768 ::47339 16-093 $2,813,214 $560.17
WATER_ CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $64,688,496 89.109,939
$1,814
(a) Assumes the following gals per service unit conversion factors
Supply:
530 gallons/day
Treatment:
864 gallons/day
Pumpage:
FACILITY
Ground Storage:
FACILITY CAPACITY (mgd or gals)
1995-
2005
Transmission:
CONSTRUCT.:
COST
(b) There are no capital costs included in BRA charges to the City.
2005
CAPITAL
COST
PER
FOR
EXCESS
EXCESS
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
CURRENT
10
> 10
COST
SERVICE
CUST-
YEARS
YEARS
TOTALLIN
,
IT (a)
I I
TRANSMISSION FUTURE FACILITIES (Cont)
24' D.B. Wood Rd. Improvements $577,500
Shelf Improvements $350,000
Berry Creek Improvements $700,000
Subtotal 'Future Facilities $9,734,008 18.000 0.000 3.823 14,177 $2,067,161
TOTAL TRANSIMISSION $23,022
017j 272200 6.768 ::47339 16-093 $2,813,214 $560.17
WATER_ CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $64,688,496 89.109,939
$1,814
(a) Assumes the following gals per service unit conversion factors
Supply:
530 gallons/day
Treatment:
864 gallons/day
Pumpage:
1,440 gallons/day
Ground Storage:
378 gallons
Elevated Storage:
160 gallons
Transmission:
864 gallons/day
(b) There are no capital costs included in BRA charges to the City.
100
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
N�T Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
TABLE 2-12
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACII.M
CONSTRUCT,
COST
FACILITY CAPACITY
1995
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
2005
COST
PER
SERVICE
UNIT (a)
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
FOR �
CURRENT
CUST.
EXCESS
I I
< 10
YEARS
EXCESS
> 10
YEARS
TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
San Gabriel VVWTP
$3,070,028
2.500
Dove Springs WWTP
$2,300,000
1.240
Berry Creek VVVITP 1
$125,000
0.100
Subtotal'Existing Facilities
$5.495,028
3.840
1.921
0.607
1.312
$868,139
FUTURE FACiUTIES
Dove Springs WVV7P Expansion
$3,125,000
1.260
Pecan Branch 1
$3,450,000
1.500
Pecan Branch 2
$2,500,000
1.000
Berry Creek VAWP 2
$750,000
0.300
Subtotal Future Faciliti es:
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
$9,825000
$15.320.028:,
4.060
7.900
0.000
1.921,
1.283
1.890
2.777
4-089
$3,105,994
$3,974,133
$623.33
19
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
19 TABLE 2-12
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS
Ul WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY
TYPE-NAME-
CONSTRUCT,
COST
I
FACILITY CAPACITY
1995-
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
2005
COST
PER
SER\nCE
UNIT (a)
TOTAL
FOREXCESSEXCESS
CURRENT
CUST.
< 10
YEARS
> 10
YEARS
PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
River Road L.S.
$62,000
0.360
111
Scenic L.S.
$47,000
0.396
Park L.S.
$204,000
5.184
River Ridge L.S.
$86,000
0.864
Williams Dr. L.S.
$38.000
0.360
Golden Oaks L.S.
$55,000
0.432
Churchill Farms L.S. (c)
$0
0.720
Rork St. LS.
$51,000
1.584
South1fQfKk LS. (c)
u"
$0
0.792
Country Club L.S.
y
$65,000
1.325
Railroad & 15th L.S.
$40,000
D.25' ,
Pecan Branch LS,
$25,00
0.792
Smith Branch L.S.
C
$220,000
0.000
Interceptor L.S. (TriTract)
$75,000
1.080
Riverview L.S. (c)
$0
0.115
ACM Park East LS,
$58,000
0.432
IH35 Park 1 West L.S.
$58,000
0.620
River Ridge LS.
$71,250
0.792
Subtotal Existing Facilities
$1,157,250
16.100
4.802
4.604
6.694
FUTURE FACILITIES
Railroad Expansion
$25,000
0.233
Riverview Expansion
$12,500
0.066
j
uiner un siauons (u)
Subtotal, Future Facilities,:,, $37,500
0,299 0.000 0.122 0.177 $15,281
TOTAL WASTEWATER PUMPAGE (b) $1,194.750 16.399 4.802 4.725mm�
6.871 $346,186 $54-30
20
TABLE 2-12
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FACILITY
CONSTRUCT`
COS7
FACILITY CAPACITY
1995
2005
CAPITAL
COST
TOTAL
1965 -
2005
COST
PER
SERVICE
UNIT (a)
TYPE
NAME
TOTAL
FOR
CURRENT
GUST.
EXCESS
< 10
YEARS-
EXCESS"
> 10
YEARS
COLLECTION
EXISTING FACILITIES
MGD
1982 Lines
$1,691,493
1983 Lines
$77,839
1984 Lines
$67,276
1985 Lines
$129,456
Post -1985 Lines
$3,290,761
Subtotal Elasting Facilities
$5,256,825
7.300
1.921
1.228
3.000
$884,350
FUTURE FACILITIES
Pecan Branch
$1,740,900
21' Smith Branch interceptor Ph. I
$434,075
10' Hart Street Collector Ph. 1
$174,623
30' Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 2
$1,650,873
15' South Fork interceptor Ph. 1
$377,873
12' West Street Collector Ph. 1
$283,855
21' Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 3
$511,638
21' Smith Branch Interceptor Ph. 4
$579,664
8' William Dr. Lift Station Relief
$126,624
18' Pecan Branch Ph. 3
$501,184
15' Pecan Branch Ph. 4
$619,125
15' Pecan Branch Ph. 5
$588,255
21
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK. CONSULTING COMPANY
TABLE 2-12
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM INVENTORY AND COSTS
WASTEWATER UTILITY
FUTURE COLLECTION FACILITIES (Cont-)
12' Golden Oaks Lift Station Relief
$73,819
6' Oak Crest Improvements
$150,276
Sun City Force Main
$1,500,000
Berry Creek
1995
FACILITY
$900,000
FACILITY CAPACITY
$1,500,000
2005
$11,931,531 2.900, 0.0001:: 0:662 2.238 $2,724,053
$17,188,3156: 10200, 1.921: 1.890 5.236 $3,608,403 $565.9
MENNOMMOM NEENNEWMEMM
$33,703,134, :.$7.928,722 $1,244
CONS
CONSTRUCT
COST
.2005
CAPITAL
COST
PER
FOR:
EXCESS
EXCESS
TYPE::
NAME
L
TOTAL
CURRENT�
<10
> 10
COST
SERVICE
CUST-
YEARS
YEARS
TOTAL
UNIT (a)
FUTURE COLLECTION FACILITIES (Cont-)
12' Golden Oaks Lift Station Relief
$73,819
6' Oak Crest Improvements
$150,276
Sun City Force Main
$1,500,000
Berry Creek
$218,750
Effluent Return Ph. 1
$900,000
Effluent Return Ph. 2
$1,500,000
... Subtotal, Future Facilities
one==
I, : TOTAL COLLECTION'
,WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COSTIOTAL
$11,931,531 2.900, 0.0001:: 0:662 2.238 $2,724,053
$17,188,3156: 10200, 1.921: 1.890 5.236 $3,608,403 $565.9
MENNOMMOM NEENNEWMEMM
$33,703,134, :.$7.928,722 $1,244
(a) Assumes the following gals per unit conversion factors
Treatment: 296 gallons/day
Pumpage: 741 gallons/day
Collection: 296 gallons/day
(b) Feepayers requiring construction of additional new lift stations will also be assessed cost of their prorata share of the future lift station.
(c) Facilities contributed by developers without cost to the City.
22
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
2.1.5 Summary of CIP Analysis and Capital Cost Allocations
For all components in the utility systems, there is some excess capacity which will accommodate a
portion of growth demands. But additional facilities are also needed, not only because of the magnitude
of new growth anticipated, but also because of locational or operational requirements. The calculations
in Table 2-11 and Table 2-12 allocate a considerable portion of the excess capacity in existing systems
for use by new development, with the remainder of growth demand being met by new facility capacity.
This produces a weighted average cost for new development which acknowledges the fact that new
customers will use existing facilities, and will at the same time create a need for additional facilities.
Table 2-13 summarizes the cost analysis for new water and wastewater growth.
WATER ANDWASTEWATER CAPITAL • SUMMARY
UTILITY FACILITY
COST/SERVICE
UNIT
WATER Supply
$148.77
Treatment
$755.58
Pumping
$42.26
Ground Storage
$119.75
Elevated Storage
$187.67
Major Transmission
$560.17
Study Costs
$4.98
TOTAL WATER CAPITAL COSTS
$1,819.18
WASTEWATER Treatment
$623.33
Pumping
$54.30
Major Collection
$565.97
Study Costs
$3.92
TOTAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS
$1247.52
TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS;
$3,066.70
A service unit is equal to use by an average 314" water meter.
23
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Nl� Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
xv 4 4:5
�A ♦ ., .r r:. v. v ..:i'�ii- �::::Ci'"'J: v'::::iii �::J'wra. b. rN:,wtwv.w.r+!�..:a+.. .�.wr.
er.>'n '....ws n •' _. :.:........ ...... }sv .... ... ... w .. xw A...,,}Cii4.x.•..e%
2.2 FEE CREDITS
Chapter 395 states that the maximum fee amount may not exceed the full capital cost per unit. However,
the legislation also states that customers may not be charged a fee for facilities which they have already
constructed or dedicated; this may be interpreted to include dedication through rate or tax contributions.
Moreover, there is a body of case law and legal opinion that future rate contributions must be considered
in setting the fee amount.
2.2.1 The Equity Residual Model
This portion of the report describes the Equity Residual approach to calculating an impact fee. This
approach was devised by the Consultants to respond to Constitutional precedent which generally
requires that the fee calculation take into account all the various means by which feepayers may fund
capital facilities, including rate and/or tax payments.
This methodology provides that each new customer contributes "equity" in the utility systems comparable
to that owned by other existing users. Once that equity payment is made through the impact fee, each
new customer would pay the remainder of the capital -related cost of service through rate or tax
payments equal to the rate/tax payments of existing users. This minimizes cross -subsidization (one user
group paying for the costs of another) and provides for full cost recovery for the City.
This section contains a full discussion of that model.
2.2.1.2 Definition of Terms
Terms which will be used throughout the conceptual presentation of this approach are defined below:
Cost of Service (Construction) - The full off-site construction costs associated with
providing one unit of service, including costs of all major facilities required to provide a
single unit of service. Construction costs include engineering design costs and other cost
components permitted by the Impact Fees Act.
Cost of Service (Bonding) - Costs incurred in the issuance of bonds, such as ratings, fees
for financial advisors, bond counsel, etc.
24
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
Cost of Service (Interest) - The interest cost applied to construction costs and bonding
costs when payments are made over time.
Cost of Service (Full) - The sum of payments made for a single unit of utility service. This
is equivalent to capital construction costs only when cash payments are made instead of
bond financing. For bonded improvements, full cost of service includes construction,
bonding and interest costs.
User Class - A group of users with historically documented, common use characteristics.
Debt Service - Regular principal and interest payments made by the City to repay bonded
costs of facilities.
E ui - Value of contributions made toward full payment of cost of service; full cost of
service minus outstanding debt service payments.
Existing Users - All users of the utilities prior to the adoption of an impact fee ordinance.
Existing Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand in existence as of the date
of the proposed impact fee ordinance.
Future Users - New development after the date of impact fee ordinance adoption.
Future Service Unit Demand - One unit of service demand occurring on or after the date
of impact fee ordinance adoption.
Indebtedness (Debt Service Payback) - Total amount outstanding for all debt service
payments at the time an impact fee ordinance is adopted.
Times Coverage - Revenue collections beyond annual debt service amounts, required by
bond covenants to ensure the City's ability to meet its debt service revenue requirements
(for water and sewer utilities.) Minimum times coverage is generally 25% over the amount
of debt service; for greater security, greater times coverage is preferred.
25
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
7RP Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
2.2.1.2 Components of Capital Cost of Service
For purposes of this discussion, costs are defined for a common measurement of capacity and demand
-- the service unit. Each service unit has a capital cost associated with the comprehensive group of
facilities required to provide service (treatment, transmission, pumpage, storage, etc.). This value is the
Construction Cost of Service (see Figure 2-1).
If a facility is funded through bonding, however, three additional costs are incurred for each service unit
of demand: bonding costs, interest costs, and, for revenue -bond financed utilities, times coverage costs.
Bonding costs for bond issues are statistically small -- in the neighborhood of 3% to 10%. On the other
hand, interest costs can effectively double or triple costs, depending on the current interest rate and term
of the bonds. Times coverage provides revenues beyond debt service requirements and thus provides
funds to the utility for capital expenditures, or perhaps other uses. However, times coverage does not
add to the capital cost of services and therefore, times coverage is not included as a cost of service
element in the Equity Residual model, and is not shown on Figure 2-1.
2.2.1.3 Methods for Recovering Costs of Service
Generally speaking, costs can be financed through either the public sector or the private sector.
Financing through the public sector is primarily accomplished by bonding projects and recovering costs
through rates/taxes. Financing through the private sector occurs when a developer or builder contributes
assets, either facilities or cash, and passes along this cost (including carrying and financing costs) to
the ultimate buyer or renter of the development. An impact fee is one mechanism for private financing;
other examples are developer contribution, developer cost participation in facilities, etc.. Whether private
or public financing is more cost-effective is determined by many variables, including interest rates, term,
mark-up percentage, bonding costs, etc..
The Equity Residual methodology recognizes and utilizes the concept that all users pay part or all of
their cost of service through public -sector financing by virtue of the fact that they pay rates/taxes to retire
debt service. The central tenet of the Equity Residual approach is that future users will partially pay for
their own costs of service through rate payments in an amount typically equal to the remaining debt
service payback for existing users. The remainder of their costs of service, or the 'residual" amount, will
be subject to payment through an impact fee. Thus, future users will be permitted to pay a portion of
their costs of service through the rates, similar to existing users. However, existing users will not, in the
long-term, bear the cost of facilities for future users. Thus, the Equity Residual approach allows future
users to pay their costs of service partially through the public sector (with rate payments equal to existing
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
FULL COST
OF SERVICE PAYMENT
(COS) METHODS
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
(COS) PAYMENT
-REMAINING
(Total Indebtedness) METHODS
1.N.DEBTEDNESS.
FUTURE RATE OR
INTEREST
TAX PAYMENTS
............
............. .... ------
.....
INTEREST'.*-
......
....
.......
NDESTE &NESS —
1-.oFUTURE RATE
OR TAX
.......... PAYMENTS
AVOIDED
... .........
............
BONDING AND
........ .....
........
INTEREST
COS
..........
.............
............
SYSTEM EQUITY
.4 INc;.*GO$
PURCHASE
SYSTEM
.... . ............
EQUITY
RESIDUAL
:CONSTRUCTION PAST RATE
------ ..... OR TAX
OS
...................
CONSTRUCTION
... .... PAYMENTS
. ... ..... ** "
COST
--4 IMPACT
.......................
.............
FEE
..........................
.......... . ---
..........
i
EXISTING SERVICE UNIT DEMAND
27
FUTURE SERVICE UNIT DEMAND
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
fU:•:ii:v
axa.......�>.:<....✓... ..<..<nn... x�'eiCS.''::"�.:w+6.''i iA :�:iij�;: `iii iii::
<''".ius'i>i�'wve'i..(.i.<":i1f:'+:v::�a'� i.•"?<iw;d.:w'.'�4v "�+e++ssr a .-/ri�.<e:'
users) and partially through the private sector (through an impact fee). The following sections provide
a more detailed discussion of this conceptual approach.
2.2.1.4 System Equity and Remaining Indebtedness for Existing Service Unit Demand
On the left side of Figure 2-1 is a representation of the Cost of Service for each unit of existing demand
and the method for paying those costs. Theoretically, each existing unit of service has a full cost
associated with it, consisting of construction costs, bonding costs, and interest costs. (Prior to the
adoption of impact fees, construction costs were fully bonded and thus subjected to bonding and
interest costs.)
Users in this group have, for the most part, been permitted to pay their full Cost of Service through the
rates without an up -front cash payment of costs, as shown in the second bar for existing service
demand. The second left-hand bar is divided into two segments: system equity and remaining
indebtedness. Existing users, on the date an impact fee ordinance is adopted, will have theoretically
paid some portion of their full Cost of Service through past rate payments. Thus, they have a certain
amount of "equity" in the existing system. This is shown on the bottom portion of the second bar.
Existing users also have a corresponding amount of remaining indebtedness to be paid through future
rate payments over the next 25-30 years. This is depicted on the top portion of the bar. These two
payment components -- equity and remaining indebtedness -- thus describe the Total Payment of each
user's Full Cost of Service for existing service unit demand.
2.2.1.5 Calculation of Cost of Service for Future Service Unit Demand
On the right side of Figure 2-1 is a depiction of the Cost of Service for future service unit demand. The
Cost of Service for future users will be higher than that for existing users due to inflation and possibly
due to technological and regulatory changes. If these new facilities are bonded, they will have not only
construction -related costs, but also bonding and interest costs (similar to those for existing users).
These latter costs will also be higher than comparable costs for existing users because bonding and
interest costs are directly proportional to the higher new construction costs.
2.2.1.6 Fairness Between Users Through the Rate Structure
A key concept in the Equity Residual methodology is that rate payments of future users are dedicated
4.1
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
to retirement of debt for facilities for future needs, while rate payments of existing users are used to pay
for facilities for existing needs. Application of this concept has two primary results:
® Cross -subsidization between existing and future users is minimized; and
® Future users enter the systems on an equal basis with existing users.
This approach is effected by purposefully setting the total payback indebtedness of future users to the
same amount as the total payback for existing users. Thus, in Figure 2-1, the remaining indebtedness
for each service unit of existing demand is the same as for each service unit of future demand. in order
to accomplish this equalization, however, future users will have to submit a "system equity" payment to
contribute their remaining Cost of Service and to put them on a par status with existing users (see
discussion below).
2.2.1.7 Equity Residua[ and Equity Contribution for Future Service Unit Demand
The second bar in the right-hand diagram of Figure 2-1 shows the payment methods for future users.
At the top of the bar is indebtedness equal to that of existing users. This indebtedness includes
construction and bonding costs (both principal payments) and interest payments.
Below the indebtedness payback are shown the components of the remaining Cost of Service, or that
portion which must be paid to achieve fairness through the rate structure. This portion of the Cost of
Service has been designated "System Equity", similar to past debt payments by existing users. System
Equity has three components, as do all Costs of Service: construction cost, bonding cost, and interest
cost. If the construction costs in the System Equity portion of the Cost of Service were to be paid in
cash, corresponding bonding and interest costs would be avoided. The remaining construction costs,
or "residual", would be the actual payment necessary to achieve fairness -- or equity -- in the system.
This residual cost is the amount which should be subjected to payment in an impact fee.
In sum, the Equity Residual approach to funding improvements will result in a payment for Cost of
Service for future service demand which has the following characteristics:
® A portion of the Cost of Service will be paid through the rates; the total payback on this
portion of the Cost of Service will equal that for total capital indebtedness for existing
users reflected in the rate structure;
® New users will contribute equity status in the system by paying the remaining, unbonded
portion of construction costs ('residual") through an impact fee;
900
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
® Bonding and interest costs associated with residual construction costs will be avoided.
This approach will result in full cost recovery for growth from payments made by future
users.
2.2.2 Calculation of Credits for Future Rate Payments
Table 2-14 and Table 2-15 contain calculations of rate credits for each utility. These computations
attribute a portion of existing debt to current customers according to the capacity needed by these
customers. The remainder of existing debt responsibility is assigned to future customers.
Table 2-14 and Table 2-15 show the dollar amount of debt service payback proportionately attributed
to each service unit of existing service. This same amount of debt service payback is allotted to each
future customer and is converted to a capital [principal] credit against the full capital cost. Debt on
Georgetown -financed facilities was simply prorated between existing and future customers according
to the capacities of each facility allocated to each customer group.
2.3 FEE CALCULATION
2.3.1 Fees Per Service Unit
Table 2-16 shows the remainder of the fee calculation process and relates the numerical results to the
Equity Residual Model. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 also show the results according to the Equity Residual
Approach for water and wastewater, respectively. Referring to the table, construction [capital] costs for
water and wastewater service for future customers amount to $1,616 and $1,026, respectively. If these
costs were to be bonded, bonding soft costs are estimated to be approximately $48 and $31 respectively
while interest payments over the life of the bonds would be $1,478 and $939 respectively. The total
bonded costs for future service would sum to $3,142 for water and $1,996 for wastewater.
In contrast, each existing service unit is responsible for $961 in total water bond payback and $291 in
wastewater payback. This represents the outstanding capital costs of existing customers which they will
pay through their rates. Thus, in order to establish future customers on an equity basis with existing
customers, $961 and $291 for water and wastewater respectively are subtracted from the total payback
for future customers, leaving a remainder of $2,181 (water) and $1,705 (wastewater). Because the intent
of the impact fee is to avoid bonding, these balances must subtract the assumed bonding and interest
payments to leave solely the principal capital amount. Thus the resulting maximum fees are $1,122 for
water and $877 for wastewater for each service unit.
MEW
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
. ....... .. ..
I-Exuallaqw,
FACILITY
TYPE/NAME
BOND ISSUE
FACILITY CAPACITY
EXISTING:,
DEBT
PAYBACK,
PER,
CURRENT
SERVICE
UNIT
ISSUANCE
DATE
ISSUANCE
AMOUNT
REMAINING
PAYBACK
TOTAL
FOR
CURRENT
COST_
TREATMENT
Georgetown Lake VVTP
1991 Ref.
$3,352,227
$4,534,126
5,450
3.616
San Gabriel Park WTP
1991 Ref.
$3,402,136
$4,601,632
4.750
3.152
Subtotal Treatme9V
$6,754,364
$9,135,758
10.200
6.768
$774
GROUND STORAGE
Ground Storage Repairs
1991 Ref.
$133,091
$180,015
5.750
2.960
Subtotal Ground Storage
$133,091
$180,015
5.750
:2.960
$12
ELEVATED STORAGE
Leander Rd. Elevated Storage
1991 Ref.
$682,091
$922,577
0.500
0.250
Subtotal Elevated StoraQe,
$682,091,
$022,577
0.500
1 0,250T
$59:1
TRANSMISSION
Existing Water
991 Ref. $915,000 $1,237,603 9.200 6.768
'-Subtotal. Transmission Lines $915,000 :,
$1,237,603, 9.200 6.768
, $116,
:WATER OUTSTANDING DEBT TOTAL, $8;484,545 $1.1.475.952 $961:
31
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
6 0.
32
LU
lL
(n
co
N
v
r�
O
Ln
N
L')
Cl)
to
v
to
n
v
v
69
O
Z
E!i
6N9
fH
64
EH
bv969
U CC
w
C
w W
CL
v
�
Ov
6"
O
v
cep
u7
n
64
n
U) o Z w a �,
u>
yr
69
0 z Ui I
CO :z
o U
(n
to
N
CO
C`7
O
tD
W
[D
O�
v
c0
to
W . W j -
d
6s
Q
ca
���yy
6a
t»
NM
69
m
U
W W p
ti
60
m
tn
��
Y
Z U 2 CL
y� W N y69
<
t1N1 W
N m Q
Lu
co
to
v!
0
69
M
NN69
(D
m
.
ti
N
C)
W Y
0 Cl)
U :
¢wa<0,
�
�
(0
to
�
�
w°
U;.
W CL
2
w
N
Cl)
_LID
m
Cl)�
N
O
O
W
64
g
Z
LO
co
u)
COQ
�
W N
H w
<
q 0 to
'W
m Z,
0
6
169
EA
d...
J
o LUL
W
m
�.
m
w
N
O
w
O
m
O
v
cD
v
69
! J
d
U
69
69
c4
69
69
E!3
co
(0
69
u)
CCto
(CODS�
64 69
z
U
m
C
O
N
U)
�i
H
a0i
T
cc
8� . C . W
T
d
a
�y
?
Q
q~y
.a
Q <Q
E
6
�5
(IyUU
F 2 U
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
FIGURE 2-2
34
EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
PAYMENT
(COS)
METHODS
$3,537
S3,537
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
(COS) PAYMENT
.:-REMAIN(NG
(Total Indebtedness) METHODS
IN DEBTIED.N.E.S.S.
FUTURE RATE OR
INTEREST
TAX PAYMENTS
PAYMENTS
AVOIDED
INTEREST
dos
PURCHASE
SYSTEM
PAST RATE
_WW�MV.
PAYMENTS
IMPACT
FEE
EXISTING SERVICE UNIT DEMAND
It
I
FUTURE SERVICE
UNIT
DEMAND
34
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
FIGURE 2-3
►lVIM144-17,
35
EQUITY RESIDUAL MODEL
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
PAYMENT
(COS)
METHODS
$2,426
$2,426
FULL COST
OF SERVICE
(COS) PAYMENT
(Total Indebtedness) METHODS
......... r.. .
............
REMAINING
INDEBTEDNESS
FUTURE RATE OR
TAX PAYMENTS
:INDEBT - E D . . _..4_ FUTURE RATE
...
. ......... OR TAX
$291:
PAYMENTS
.... ....
......
.......
...........
AVOIDED
.......
BONDING AND
......... ...
INTEREST
$37s.
$1,037
SYSTEM EQUITY
PURCHASE
..........
SYSTEM
.......... EQUITY
:CONSTRUCTION PAST RATE
OR TAX.
PAYMENTSIMPACT
...... ........ ..........
..
........
C
..........
FEE
RESIDUAL
CONSTRUCTION
COST
$1,098
EXISTING SERVICE UNIT DEMAND
I---
FUTURE SERVICE
UNIT
DEMAND
35
JAMES DUNCAN AND ASSOCIATES
Georgetown Impact Fees RIMROCK CONSULTING COMPANY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.2 Fees by Land Use
The final step in developing the water and sewer impact fees is to assign fees by land use category,
consistent with the City's Land Intensity Plan. Fees would be charged according to the criteria, or fee
measurements, shown in the table below. Table 2-17 applies the maximum impact fees per service unit
from Table 2-16 to the water conversion table (Table 2-7) and wastewater conversion table (Table 2-8).
ww.....M
...,,LAN.D USEACTIVITY
MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE PER MEASURE
--T-WASTEWATER
_
MEASURE
M:URE
WATER
TOTAL
Agriculture
$1,774.34
$1,284.32
$3,058.66
Dwelling Un.__
Detached SF Residential, Large Lot
$1,774.34
$1,284.32
$3,058.66
Dwelling Un.
Detached SF Residential, Average Lot
$1,530.50
$1,111.01
$2,641.51
Dwelling Un.
Attached SF Residential
$996.82
$777.71
$1,774.52
Dwelling Un.
Multi -Family Residential
$809.72
$693.27
$1,502.99
Dwelling Un.
Mobile Home Residential
$996.82
$857.70
$1,854.52
Dwelling Un.
Lodging
$294.45
$271.09
$565.53
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Institutional
$526.01
$408.85
$934.86
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church with Day Care
$472.34
$368.85
$841.19
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Church without Day Care
$285.24
$222.20
$507.45
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Recreational
$52.14
$22.22
$74.36
Acre
Medical Office
$637.96
$497.73
$1,135.70
1,000 Sq. Ft.
General Office
$558.22
$404.41
$962.63
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Mixed
$996.82
$724.38
$1,721.20
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Restaurant
$2,392.37
$2,133.33
$4,525.50
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail, Store
$498.41
$391.07
$889.48
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Employment Center
$558.22
$404.41
$962.63
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Warehouse
$87.41
$62.22
$149.63
1,000 Sq. Ft.
Mini -Warehouse
$6.13
$4.44
$10.58
1,000 Sq. Ft.
36 &-a. 7 1