HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_GUS_06.12.2015Notice of Meeting for the
Georgetown Utility System Advisory Board
of the City of Georgetown
June 12, 2015 at 2:00 PM
at Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown TX
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the
ADA, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please
contact the City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City
Hall at 113 East 8th Street for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the
Regular Session that follows.
B Introduction of Visitors
Employee Recognition
C -- Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council
Actions. – Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
D Industry Updates
Legislative Regular Agenda
E Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GUS Board meeting held on
May 8, 2015. - Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
F Consideration and possible recommendation regarding the 2015 Impact Fee Committee’s
approved Maximum Fee Calculation and recommendation for City Council. -- Christopher Foster,
Manager of Resource Planning and Integration
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
Page 1 of 38
I, Jessica Brettle, City Secretary for the City of Georgetown, Texas, do hereby certify that this Notice
of Meeting was posted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a place readily accessible to the general public
at all times, on the ______ day of __________________, 2015, at __________, and remained so
posted for at least 72 continuous hours preceding the scheduled time of said meeting.
____________________________________
Jessica Brettle, City Secretary
Page 2 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
June 12, 2015
SUBJECT:
Call to Order
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene in Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General
Manager of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the
Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular
Session that follows.
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Page 3 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
June 12, 2015
SUBJECT:
-- Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council
Actions. – Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
ITEM SUMMARY:
GUS Projects:
Berry Creek Wastewater Interceptor
EARZ 2013-14
EARZ 2014-15
Public Training Facility Offsite Wastewater
Rabbit Hill Elevated Water Storage Tank (EST)
Sequoia Spur Elevated Storage Tank (EST)
Shell Road Waterline Improvements
Snead Drive Streets and Wastewater Improvements
Westinghouse Regional Lift Station (LS)
Council Actions
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Michael Hallmark
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GUS Project Reports Backup Material
Council Action Backup Material
Page 4 of 38
Page 5 of 38
Page 6 of 38
Page 7 of 38
Page 8 of 38
Page 9 of 38
Page 10 of 38
Page 11 of 38
Page 12 of 38
Page 13 of 38
GUS BOARD ITEMS FORWARDED TO COUNCIL
May 26, 2015
L Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order CDM-15-006 with CDM Smith, Inc. of Austin,
Texas, for professional services related to the Rabbit Hill Elevated Water Storage Tank in the amount
of $389,200.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager
M Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve Task Order CDM-15-007 with CDM Smith, Inc. of Austin,
Texas, for professional services related to the Berry Creek Wastewater Interceptor Improvements in the
amount of $994,770.00 -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director and Michael Hallmark, CIP
Manager
N Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve a Third Amendment to the Non-Standard Water and
Wastewater Service Agreement for Highland Meadows -- Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director
O Forwarded from the Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board (GUS):
Consideration and possible action to approve a Water Agreement for the Caughfield Tract -- Wesley
Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
ITEMS PASSED
Page 14 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
June 12, 2015
SUBJECT:
Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the regular GUS Board meeting held on
May 8, 2015. - Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
ITEM SUMMARY:
Board to review, revise and/or approve the minutes from the regular meeting held on May 8, 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Sheila K. Mitchell/GUS Board Liaison
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
GUS May 8, 2015 DRAFT Minutes Backup Material
Page 15 of 38
Minutes of the Meeting of the
Georgetown Utility Systems Advisory Board and the
Governing Body of the City of Georgetown, Texas
May 8, 2015 at 2:00PM
at Georgetown Municipal Complex, 300-1 Industrial Avenue, Georgetown, TX
The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If
you require assistance in participation at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA,
reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. Please contact the
City at least four (4) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512)930-3652 or City Hall at 113 East 8th
Street for additional information: TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711.
Board Members Present: Bill Stump– Chair, Robert Kostka, Steve Fought, Ed Pastor – Vice
Chair, Patty Eason (arrived at 2:02PM)
Board Members Absent: Joyce Mapes, Mike Cunningham – Secretary
Staff Present: Jim Briggs, Mike Babin, Glenn Dishong, Wesley Wright, Micki Rundell, Jimmy
Sikes, Michael Hallmark, David Munk, Chris Foster, La’Mar Kemp, Leticia Zavala, Paul Diaz,
Bridget Chapman (joined at 2:04pm), Sheila Mitchell, Paul Elkins (joined at 2:51PM)
Others Present: Jim Clarno/citizen – Sun City/Property and Grounds Committee, Allen
Woelke/CDM Smith, Brenda Scensebury/Caughfield Ranch, Ltd., Erin Gonzales/BGE (joined at
2:04pm)
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any purpose
authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. Call to Order – Called to order by Chair at 2:00PM
The Board may, at any time, recess the Regular Session to convene an Executive Session at the
request of the Chair, a Board Member, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, General Manager
of Utilities, City Council Member, or legal counsel for any purpose authorized by the Open Meetings
Act, Texas Government Code Chapter 551, and are subject to action in the Regular Session that
follows.
B. Introduction of Visitors -- Jim Clarno/citizen – Sun City/Property and Grounds Committee,
Allen Woelke/CDM Smith
Employee Recognition – Chris Foster announced Public Service Innovation Team Award to be
received by Foster, Briggs and Neil McAndrews, from the Central Texas Chapter of the American
Society of Public Administration; awarded for work on wind and solar. Banquet will be on June 14.
C. Discussion regarding the Project Progress Report, timelines including projects and Council Actions. –
Michael Hallmark, Project Manager
Discussion: Hallmark stated reports in board packet and up to date; available for questions. No
further discussion.
D. Industry Updates
Discussion: Briggs noted Brazos Region G Plan to be sent out latter part of this month. A link
will be added to City website for public viewing; will include the Little River off-channel
reservoir in Milam County. The Plan will go to the Water Development Board in the fall for
adoption. Regarding Legislative issues, the Farney sponsored bill (4172) moved from the
committee and is waiting to move to House floor. There will be some opposition on the House
floor; possibly the end of next week. This is CCN transfer bill to dissolve CTSUD board after
going through the PUC process, will require a 2/3 vote by CTSUD board to finalize. Stump asked
what was opposition in Bell County and Briggs explained resistance to change to Georgetown
taking over system. Depositions for Hearing will be conducted this month as well.
Page 16 of 38
Legislative Regular Agenda
The Board will individually consider and possibly take action on any or all of the following items:
E. Review and possible action to approve the minutes from the Regular GUS Board meeting held on
April 10, 2015. – Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
Discussion: None. Motion by Kostka, seconded by Eason to approve the minutes from the
Regular GUS Board meeting held on April 10, 2015. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes, Cunningham
absent)
F. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order CDM-15-006 with CDM Smith,
Inc. of Austin, Texas, for professional services related to the Rabbit Hill Elevated Water Storage Tank
in the amount of $389,200.00. – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director/Michael Hallmark,
CIP Manager
Discussion: Wright noted project was a major item in last year’s CIP; proposed on Windmill Hill
tract off Westinghouse Road and FM1460 to help with fire flow for retail development and
system in area. Stump asked and Hallmark/Wright explained this job for construction is about
$1.5 million. Motion by Eason, seconded by Fought to approve. Eason noted official process of
parliamentary procedure is to motion to open discussion and then can proceed. Wright noted
costs include some environmental assessment and breakdown of cost is included in Task Order.
CDM has done other work for the City. No further discussion. Motion stands to approve Task
Order CDM-15-006 with CDM Smith, Inc. of Austin, Texas, for professional services related to the
Rabbit Hill Elevated Water Storage Tank in the amount of $389,200.00. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes,
Cunningham absent)
G. Consideration and possible recommendation to approve Task Order CDM-15-007 with CDM Smith,
Inc. of Austin, Texas, for professional services related to the Berry Creek Wastewater Interceptor
Improvements in the amount of $994,770.00. – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director/Michael Hallmark, CIP Manager
Discussion: Wright explained project was in last year’s and this year’s CIP and noted location on
map. Motion by Eason, seconded by Fought to approve. Wright explained this will ultimately
connect Sun City Lift Station to Pecan Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant. This portion for
design is from Sun City to Berry Creek; Task Order is for preliminary design. Fought asked if Sun
City developer is putting funds toward project; Wright explained this is in the Queens tract and
technically not currently in Sun City. Through and agreement the developer to supplement
approximately $2 million and has posted fiscal. Briggs noted this will serve the new Westside
Park so without improvement, no services will be available at park; will open up Shell Road for
development. Further discussion continued on details of project. Pastor asked about capacity on
existing lift stations and Wright explained. No further discussion. Motion stands to approve Task
Order CDM-15-007 with CDM Smith, Inc. of Austin, Texas, for professional services related to the
Berry Creek Wastewater Interceptor Improvements in the amount of $994,770.00. Approved 5-0-2
(Mapes, Cunningham absent)
H. Consideration and possible recommendation on a Third Amendment to the Non-Standard Water and
Wastewater Service Agreement for Highland Meadows. – Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering
Director
Discussion: Wright noted proposed residential development in Western District between Ronald
Reagan and Hwy183, south of Hwy29; 850 units of water. Adding additional 20 acres; no
additional water. Motion by Eason, seconded by Kostka to approve. Wright further explained
development is a proposed MUD, to come forward next month to board. No further discussion.
Motion stands to approve a Third Amendment to the Non-Standard Water and Wastewater
Service Agreement for Highland Meadows. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes, Cunningham absent)
I. Consideration and possible recommendation on a Water Agreement for the Caughfield Tract. –
Wesley Wright, P.E., System Engineering Director
Discussion: Wright noted another proposed Western District development; approximately 1500
units. Some in Leander area, some in Georgetown CCN/Liberty Hill ETJ, which is what we are
obligated to serve. Located south of Hwy29 just East of Hwy183; 1095 units of water; there’s a
major line down Hwy183 capable to serve them; will need future loop. Planned creation of
multiple MUDS. Agreement is only for water service for the area we’re allowed to serve. Stump Page 17 of 38
asked and Wright explained this is where Liberty Hill meets Leander , referencing map in
agreement. Motion by Eason, seconded by Fought to approve a Water Agreement for the
Caughfield Tract. No further discussion. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes, Cunningham absent)
J. Presentation, discussion and possible recommendation on the Utility Capital Improvement Plan for
Fiscal Year 2015-2016. – Wesley Wright, P.E., System Engineering Director
Discussion: Wright presented Water and Wastewater CIP from packet distributed at meeting. He
reviewed what the CIP is, what we use for and timeline for inclusion in budget. Wright discussed
where funding comes from (cash and some bonds), coordination with Transportation needs, etc.
Various discussion and questions from board. Wright discussed water projects. Wright noted no
planned expenditures this year for Western District projects; plans will be included for next
year’s CIP. No further discussion on water. Wright continued to Wastewater projects, noting the
last five years have not had a lot of activity, however with needs, is rapidly increasing. Fought
asked about experimental project for reclaimed water in Sun City and Wright/Briggs it is not
included however discussions are continuing and depends on flow.
Elkins joined meeting at 2:51PM.
Fought would like to see this issue continue to be considered and further explained the reclaimed
water, xeriscaping, etc. Briggs noted City does not have the water as Pulte water is under
contract; they own the water. Further discussion continued about irrigation on/near golf course,
gray water systems, etc. Babin spoke on topic regarding new plumbing codes. Wright continued
wrap up of projects. Motion by Pastor, seconded by Kostka to approve the Utility Capital
Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes, Cunningham absent)
Motion by Eason seconded by Kostka to enter into Executive Session. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes,
Cunningham absent)
K. Executive Session
In compliance with the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes,
Annotated, the items listed below will be discussed in closed session and are subject to action in the
regular session.
Sec. 551.086 Competitive Matters
Discussion and possible recommendation on the 2015-2016 Electric Capital Improvement Plan. –
Wesley Wright, P.E., Systems Engineering Director
Motion by Pastor, seconded by Fought to return to Legislative Session. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes,
Cunningham absent)
L. Action from Executive Session
Discussion: No further discussion. Motion by Pastor, seconded by Kostka to approve the 2015-
2016 Electric Capital Improvement Plan. Approved 5-0-2 (Mapes, Cunningham absent)
Stump thanked Eason for her many years of service to the community. This is her official last meeting
with the GUS Board.
Adjournment
Motion by Eason, seconded by Kostka to adjourn the meeting. Adjourned at 3:32PM. Approved 5-0-2
(Mapes, Cunningham absent)
__________________________ _____________________________
Bill Stump – Board Chair Mike Cunningham – Secretary
_________________________________
Sheila K. Mitchell, GUS Board Liaison
Page 18 of 38
City of Georgetown, Texas
Utility System Advisory Board
June 12, 2015
SUBJECT:
Consideration and possible recommendation regarding the 2015 Impact Fee Committee’s
approved Maximum Fee Calculation and recommendation for City Council. -- Christopher Foster,
Manager of Resource Planning and Integration
ITEM SUMMARY:
On June 3rd the Impact Fee Committee voted to approve the land use assumptions, Capital
Improvement Plan, and calculated Maximum Impact Fee for Water and Wastewater in the current
and potential Georgetown service area. They also voted to recommend that Council adopt the
maximum fees with a caveat that Council discuss the impact to future development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
These fees are designed to recover the 10 year capital costs of adding new service units to the
water and wastewater systems. Expected recovery is $137,666,700 over 10 years. Impact fees are
reviewed/updated every 3-5 years.
SUBMITTED BY:
Christopher Foster, Manager of Resource Planning and Integration
Maximum Fee Recommended Fee Current Adopted Fee
Water $7,039 $7,039 $3,511
Wastewater $2,997 $2,997 $1,694
South Fork WW $4,453 $4,453 $2,927
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
2015 Impact Fee Report Backup Material
Page 19 of 38
2015 Update of Water and
Wastewater Impact Fees
Prepared for the City of Georgetown
Prepared by:
Georgetown Utility Services and Chisholm Trail Special
Utility District Capital Improvements Advisory Committees
And
HDR and CDM
June 3, 2015
Page 20 of 38
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1
2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA 2
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 3
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY 4
5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS 9
6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT 13
7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS 15
8.0 COMPARABLES 15
9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16
Page 21 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
1
2015 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES
FOR THE
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The City of Georgetown is again going through the process of reviewing and updating its impact
fees and conducting the associated public coordination to keep the fees current with its
expanding service area and to update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) with improved
information. This report constitutes the City’s Impact Fee Consultants maximum impact fee
determination and the Impact Fee Advisory Committee’s required reporting to the Georgetown
City Council on the updating and public coordination process.
In addition, since the City of Georgetown is in the process of obtaining ownership of the
Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD), this report has been presented to the CTSUD’s
Impact Fee Advisory Committee, so that the CTSUD Board can consider updating its impact
fee. This impact fee will remain in effect until such time that ownership is transferred to the City
of Georgetown.
Consistent with State Law, the methodology that determines the maximum fee amounts for
each fee component either considers: 1) a credit for other methods of payments for utility capital
by a new customer, such as through utility rates or taxes or alternatively, 2) a reduction of
maximum fee amounts equal to 50 percent of the unit capital costs of providing service.
Maximum amounts mean that the determined fee amounts were calculated as the highest that
can be lawfully levied by the City, given the prospective capital improvements plan, the cost of
existing and new utility capacity, and consideration of a credit to new customers for net capital
contributions made through rate payments. The City Council can decide to enact fees less than
the maximum amounts shown in this report.
As detailed later in this report, the City’s consultant and Advisory Committee have also
addressed the overall water and wastewater maximum fees in component pieces. For instance,
the overall water maximum fee is comprised of separate amounts for water supply, treatment,
pumping, storage and transmission. The overall wastewater maximum fee is similarly
comprised of wastewater treatment, pumping, and interceptor components. This will facilitate
the consideration of offsets or credits from the applicable fee if a developer builds and dedicates
eligible facilities to the City or the City provides wholesale service to a neighboring utility and
wishes to charge certain portions of the fee to be collected by the wholesale customer and then
passed to the City.
The maximum fee amounts do not include any capital costs for local (neighborhood) water
distribution or wastewater collection systems as these facilities are, by City policy, provided by
developers at their own expense, or if funded by the City, are typically used to provide service to
Page 22 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
2
existing development. In either case, these local facilities would not be applicable for the impact
fee charge.
Planning, service demand, and design factor assumptions used in the facility sizing and costing
as well as data on current utility demand, outstanding utility debt and prospective cash versus
debt financing were obtained from or coordinated with the City of Georgetown staff. HDR
combined these elements into the maximum impact fee calculations presented in this report.
2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA
The City’s future ETJ boundary and other nearby areas, including the Chisholm Trail Special
Utility District that may ultimately request city utility service were used as the primary basis for
the larger future impact fee service area of the City shown in Figure 1.
This fee application area boundary in Figure 1 and Figure 2 would constitute the area in which
Georgetown may levy the impact fees, in-part or in-full, if City service is provided. This
boundary does not, however, imply a legal obligation of the City of Georgetown to serve beyond
its incorporated limits. If the City does not provide service, in-full or in-part, then the impact fees
would not apply. It is acknowledged that this proposed fee application boundary, in some areas,
extend beyond the City’s predicted future ETJ and also encroaches on the ETJs and service
areas of neighboring utilities. This broader boundary is only intended to provide flexibility for the
City, its neighboring utilities, and the development community in developing or negotiating future
wholesale or retail arrangements for serving these areas.
[this area intentionally left blank]
Page 23 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
3
Figure 1
Page 24 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
4
3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Table 1 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the potential service
area. The overall acreage shown in Table 1 is reflective of the City’s ETJ and its certificated
water and wastewater service area. The potential water service area encompasses over 45,452
acres with about 21% of that currently developed and served. The sewer service area extends
over 54,537 acres with about 17% currently developed and served.
Table 2 provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the potential service
area for the CTSUD area, hereon referred to as the Western District Area. The overall acreage
shown in Table 2 is reflective of the certificated area of the Western District. The potential water
service area encompasses over 287,500 acres with about 13% of that currently developed and
served.
Over time as the City grows into its future ETJ and potential utility service area in the Western
District, developed land areas will both increase and become a higher percentage of overall
land uses. In the City service area, about 30% of the developed water service area and 26% of
the wastewater service area is expected to be served at the end of the 10-year planning period.
TABLE 1
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
ITEM Acres %Acres*%
Water Service Area
Residential 7,191 15.8%10,159 22.4%
Non-Residential 2,209 4.9%3,650 8.0%
Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 36,052 79.3%31,643 69.6%
Total Land Use Acreage 45,452 100.0%45,452 100.0%
Wastewater Service Area
Residential 7,252 13.3%10,536 19.3%
Non-Residential 2,209 4.1%3,843 7.0%
Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 45,076 82.7%40,158 73.6%
Total Land Use Acreage 54,537 100.0%54,537 100.0%
Current 2025
TABLE 2
CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS - WESTERN DISTRICT
ITEM Acres %Acres*%
Water Service Area
Residential 37,000 12.9%62,150 21.6%
Non-Residential 500 0.2%628 0.2%
Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 250,000 87.0%224,722 78.2%
Total Land Use Acreage 287,500 100.0%287,500 100.0%
Current 2025
Page 25 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
5
In the Western District, about 20% of the developed water service area is expected to be served
at the end of the 10-year planning period.
4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY
Table 3 indicates the number of water and wastewater utility connections by water meter size
for both the City and the CTSUD CCN area and what is termed a standard Service Unit (SU)
conversion factor for meters of varying sizes. A typical single family residential house in
Georgetown is issued a ¾” water meter, and this is considered to be one SU. However, the
City’s current impact fee ordinance also allows for small, affordable houses to be issued a 5/8”
meter, which is rated at two-thirds (2/3, or 0.67) of an SU. The SUs for meters larger than ¾”
area are scaled to the flow capacity of the ¾” meter.
Based on the American Water Works Association standards, the equivalent number of standard
service units (SUs) can be determined for water meters of larger size. In this manner, meters of
larger size (i.e. larger potential service demands) can be couched in terms of the equivalent
demand of a number of typical single family homes. For this reason, the SU concept is a useful
tool for being able to apply a base fee amount to service requests of varying meter sizes.
[this area intentionally left blank]
Page 26 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
6
Table 4 provides the growth projections for the water system that are used throughout the
impact fee model for the 10-year period. The growth assumptions for the City are based on 900
additional service connections per year for 5 years and then 1,000 additional service
connections for the next five years. For the Western District area, the model assumes 600
additional service connections per year.
TABLE 3
SERVICE UNIT CONVERSION FACTORS
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Service Units Number of Number of
(SUs)Meters SUs
Meter Size per Meter (a) in 2014 (b) in 2014
WATER
3/4"1.0 29,960 29,960
1"1.7 1,228 2,047
1.5"3.3 275 917
2"5.3 349 1,861
3"10.7 122 1,301
4"16.7 34 567
6"33.3 12 400
8"106.7 4 427
10"166.7 - -
Total Water 31,984 37,479
WASTEWATER
3/4"1.0 20,313 20,313
1"1.7 698 1,163
1.5"3.3 189 630
2"5.3 226 1,205
3"10.7 42 448
4"16.7 27 450
6"33.3 6 200
8"106.7 2 213
10"166.7 - -
Total Wastewater 21,503 24,623
(a) Derived from AWWA C700-C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 3/4" meter.
(b) Source: City of Georgetown, December, 2014.
Page 27 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
7
Table 5 provides the growth projections for the wastewater system that are used throughout the
impact fee model for the 10-year period. The model assumes an additional 1,000 service
connections per year.
Table 6 summarizes the City and Western District’s current and projected water service
demands and existing supply (service) capability by facility. Table 7 summarizes the City’s
current and projected wastewater service demands and existing supply (service) capability by
facility. The number of existing SUs in these tables are reflective of the system’s actual level of
water and wastewater service demand, whereas the meter inventory in Table 3 reflects the
number of SUs embodied in each customer’s ultimate meter capacity. Simply said, the
customers are, on the average, using less than the maximum rated flow capacity of the meters.
Year
Service
Connections
Service Units
(SU)
Avg. Day
Demand
(mgd)
Peak Day
Demand
(mgd)
Peak Hour
Demand
(mgd)
Ground
Storage
Rqmts (mg)
Elevated
Storage
Rqmts (mg)
Annual
Growth
Rate
2014 31,984 37,479 16.245 32.490 58.482 9.240 5.172
2015 33,484 39,237 17.007 34.014 61.225 9.674 5.415 4.69%
2016 34,984 40,995 17.769 35.538 63.968 10.107 5.657 4.48%
2017 36,484 42,753 18.531 37.062 66.711 10.540 5.900 4.29%
2018 37,984 44,511 19.293 38.585 69.454 10.974 6.142 4.11%
2019 39,484 46,268 20.055 40.109 72.196 11.407 6.385 3.95%
2020 41,084 48,143 20.867 41.734 75.122 11.869 6.644 4.05%
2021 42,684 50,018 21.680 43.360 78.047 12.331 6.902 3.89%
2022 44,284 51,893 22.493 44.985 80.973 12.794 7.161 3.75%
2023 45,884 53,768 23.305 46.610 83.899 13.256 7.420 3.61%
2024 47,484 55,643 24.118 48.236 86.824 13.718 7.679 3.49%
2025 48,784 57,166 24.778 49.556 89.201 14.094 7.889 2.74%
TABLE 4
FORECAST OF WATER CUSTOMER BASED AND UTILITY DEMAND
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
Year
Service
Connections
Service Units
(SU)
Avg. Day
Demand
(mgd)
Peak Hour
Demand
(mgd)
Annual
Growth
Rate
2014 21,503 24,623 5.688 20.476 4.65%
2015 22,503 25,768 5.952 21.429 4.44%
2016 23,503 26,913 6.217 22.381 4.25%
2017 24,503 28,058 6.481 23.333 4.08%
2018 25,503 29,203 6.746 24.286 3.92%
2019 26,503 30,348 7.010 25.238 3.77%
2020 27,503 31,494 7.275 26.190 3.64%
2021 28,503 32,639 7.540 27.142 3.51%
2022 29,503 33,784 7.804 28.095 3.39%
2023 30,503 34,929 8.069 29.047 3.28%
2024 31,503 36,074 8.333 29.999 3.17%
2025 32,503 37,219 8.598 30.951 3.08%
CITY OF GEORGETOWN
TABLE 5
FORECAST OF WASTEWATER CUSTOMER BASED AND UTILITY DEMAND
Page 28 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
8
TABLE 6
EST. WATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Facilty Type 2015 2025
Supply
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)46.6 46.6
Est. Service Demand 17.0 24.8
Excess (Deficiency)29.6 21.8
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *107,511 107,511
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)68,273 50,344
Treatment
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)38.1 38.1
Est. Service Demand 34.0 49.6
Excess (Deficiency)4.0 (11.5)
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *43,895 43,895
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)4,658 (13,271)
Pumping
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)72.2 72.2
Est. Service Demand 61.2 89.2
Excess (Deficiency)11.0 (17.0)
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *46,264 46,264
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)7,027 (10,902)
Ground Storage
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)14.4 14.4
Est. Service Demand 9.7 14.1
Excess (Deficiency)4.7 0.3
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *58,408 58,408
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)19,171 1,242
Elevated Storage
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)8.4 8.4
Est. Service Demand 5.4 7.9
Excess (Deficiency)3.0 0.5
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *60,870 60,870
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)21,632 3,703
Transmission
Existing 2015 Capacity (mgd)52.5 52.5
Est. Service Demand 61.2 89.2
Excess (Deficiency)(8.7) (36.7)
Existing 2015 Capacity (SUs) *33,646 33,646
Est. Service Demand 39,237 57,166
Excess (Deficiency)(5,592) (23,521)
* Assume SU conversion factor of :433 433 gpd/SU for water supply
867 867 gpd/SU for treatment
1,560 1,560 gpm/SU for pumping
247 247 gals/SU for ground storage
138 138 gals/SU for elevated storage
1,560 1,560 gpd/SU for transmission
Page 29 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
9
The projected growth of the utility system and service demands reflect an average of 1,500 new
SUs per year for the system. As indicated in Table 3, the level of current and future utility
demand varies by whether water and/or wastewater service is provided. For instance, some
developments in the City use municipal water supplies and infrastructure, but not wastewater or
vice-versa. Wastewater service is not typically provided in the Western District area.
Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the
utility systems. As can be seen, with the realized and anticipated rapid growth of the City and
surrounding areas, service demand is expected to exceed the available capacity of most of the
City’s current facilities by the year 2025, such that infrastructure improvements are needed in
most of the various facility components that provide utility service.
5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS
With the completion of the Lake Stillhouse Hollow pipeline to Lake Georgetown, the City has
effectively addressed its future water supply needs for many years. Given the considerable
growth facing the City in the next ten years, improvements are needed in all other components
TABLE 7
EST. WASTEWATER SERVICE DEMAND & AVAILABLE CAPACITY
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Facilty Type 2015 2025
Treatment
Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd)7.0 7.0
Est. Service Demand 6.0 8.6
Excess (Deficiency)1.0 (1.6)
Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) *30,303 30,303
Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219
Excess (Deficiency)4,535 (6,916)
Pumping
Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd)30.7 30.7
Est. Service Demand 21.4 31.0
Excess (Deficiency)9.3 (0.2)
Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) *36,953 36,953
Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219
Excess (Deficiency)11,185 (266)
Interceptors
Existing 2014 Capacity (mgd)77.8 77.8
Est. Service Demand 21.4 31.0
Excess (Deficiency)56.3 46.8
Existing 2014 Capacity (SUs) *93,506 93,506
Est. Service Demand 25,768 37,219
Excess (Deficiency)67,738 56,287
* Assume SU conversion factor of :231 231 gpd/SU for wastewater treatment
832 832 gpd/SU for wastewater pumping
832 832 gpd/SU for interceptors
Page 30 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
10
of water utility infrastructure, including water treatment, pumping, ground and elevated storage,
and transmission pipelines.
Georgetown will also need noticeable improvements to its wastewater system, including two
wastewater treatment plant expansions and the construction of a new treatment facility.
Improvements are also identified for wastewater pumping (lift stations) and interceptor pipelines
that would serve future growth.
Specific projects that accomplish these service capacity goals are identified in Table 8 and
Table 9a along with their costs, capacity, unit cost, and allocation of existing and projected
demand to these facilities. Project costs were projected to the anticipated date of construction
using an inflation rate scaled over time using an index from the Association of General
Contractors. A weighted unit cost of service ($ per SU) is then calculated by facility type, based
on the proportionate share of use of existing versus new facility capacity by the growth
anticipated over the next ten years.
For water transmission mains, the modeled system capacity at current and 2025 conditions
were used to calculate the unit costs. For wastewater pumping and interceptors, each project
was separately examined as to whether it added to overall system capacity.
[this area intentionally left blank]
Page 31 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
11
TABLE 8
WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN INVENTORY AND COSTING
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
WATER SUPPLY
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Supply 2,392,433$ 27.274 62,925 39,237 8,964 14,723 62,925
Lake Stillhouse Hollow 21,308,434$ 19.325 44,586 8,964 35,621 44,586
Subtotal Existing Facilities 23,700,867$ 46.599 107,511 220$ 39,237 17,929 50,344 107,511
FUTURE FACILITIES
-$ - - -
Subtotal Future Facilities -$ - - -$ - - -
TOTAL WATER SUPPLY 23,700,867$ 46.599 107,511 39,237 17,929 50,344 107,511
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =220$
WATER TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing WTPs 52,613,537$ 38.052 43,895 39,237 3,586 1,072 43,895
Subtotal Existing Facilities 52,613,537$ 38.052 43,895 1,199$ 39,237 3,586 1,072 43,895
FUTURE FACILITIES
New Treatment - Plant Expansion 50,000,000$ 12.500 14,420 3,468$ -
-$ - - -$ -
Subtotal Future Facilities 50,000,000$ 12.500 14,420 3,468$ - 14,343 77 14,420
TOTAL WATER TREATMENT 102,613,537$ 50.552 58,315 39,237 17,929 1,149 58,315
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =3,014$
WATER PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Booster Pump Stations 16,831,824$ 72.190 46,264 39,237 7,027 - 46,264
Subtotal Existing Facilities 16,831,824$ 72.190 46,264 364$ 39,237 7,027 - 46,264
FUTURE FACILITIES
Pastor Pump Station 5,200,000$ 11.400 7,306 712$
Central 7,383,000$ 12.600 8,075 914$
High PS 8,725,000$ 2.700 1,730 5,042$
Sun City PS 1,168,000$ - -
West PS 5,948,000$ 11.400 7,306 814$
Subtotal Future Facilities 28,424,000$ 38.100 24,417 1,164$ - 10,902 13,515 24,417
TOTAL WATER PUMPING 45,255,824$ 110.290 70,681 39,237 17,929 13,515 70,681
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =850$
GROUND STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES mg
GS Tanks 1,040,564$ 14.400 58,408 39,237 11,833 7,338 58,408
Subtotal Existing Facilities 1,040,564$ 14.400 58,408 18$ 39,237 11,833 7,338 58,408
FUTURE FACILITIES
Lake GST 3,763,000$ 2.000 8,112
Park GST 7,173,000$ 3.000 12,168
Subtotal Future Facilities 10,936,000$ 5.000 20,281 539$ 6,096 14,185 20,281
TOTAL GROUND STORAGE 11,976,564$ 19.400 78,689 39,237 17,929 21,523 78,689
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =195$
ELEVATED STORAGE
EXISTING FACILITIES mg
ES Tanks 6,445,296$ 8.400 60,870 39,237 11,833 9,799 60,870
Subtotal Existing Facilities 6,445,296$ 8.400 60,870 106$ 39,237 11,833 9,799 60,870
FUTURE FACILITIES
Central EST 4,762,000$ 1.500 10,870
High EST 5,106,000$ 1.500 10,870
Rabbit Hill EST 1,765,000$ 1.250 9,058
Braun EST - West Service Area 7,434,000$ 1.250 9,058
Subtotal Future Facilities 19,067,000$ 5.500 39,855 478$ - 6,096 33,759 39,855
TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE 25,512,296$ 13.900 100,725 39,237 17,929 43,558 100,725
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =233$
TRANSMISSION
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Transmission 35,361,940$ 52.500 33,646 33,646 - - 33,646
Subtotal Existing Facilities 35,361,940$ 52.500 33,646 1,051$ 33,646 - - 33,646
FUTURE FACILITIES*
Major Lines - Stillhouse 15,000,000$
Major Lines - Central 1,968,000$
Major Lines - High 24,329,000$
Major Lines - Rabbit Hill 3,039,000$
Major Lines - Sun City 1,487,000$
Major Lines - West 23,312,000$
Subtotal Future Facilities 69,135,000$ 37.000 23,712 2,916$ 5,650 17,929 133 23,712
TOTAL TRANSMISSION 104,496,940$ 89.500 57,358 39,296 17,929 133 57,358
AVERAGE COST PER NEW SU 2,916$
WATER TOTAL 313,556,028$
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =7,428$
Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs)
Capacity
Page 32 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
12
Table 9b identifies the expected average costs for the new South Fork wastewater service area.
Due to the noticeably higher costs of installing collection systems in this basin, the City wishes
to have a special wastewater interceptor fee for this area. Thus, capital costs for interceptors
for the South Fork wastewater service area were separately calculated from the rest of the City
TABLE 9a
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
TREATMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing WWTPs 13,193,352$ 7.000 30,303 25,768 3,435 1,100 30,303
Subtotal Existing Facilities 13,193,352$ 7.000 30,303 435$ 25,768 3,435 1,100 30,303
FUTURE FACILITIES
Northlands WWTP 12,000,000$ 1.500 6,494
Pecan Branch WWTP Expansion 1 9,000,000$ 1.500 6,494
Berry Creek WWTP Expansion 1,000,000$ 0.200 866
Subtotal Future Facilities 22,000,000$ 3.200 13,853 1,588$ 8,016 5,837 13,853
TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT 35,193,352$ 10.200 44,156 25,768 11,451 6,937 44,156
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =1,242$
PUMPING
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Lift Stations 4,352,198$ 30.730 36,953 25,768 3,691 7,494 36,953
Subtotal Existing Facilities 4,352,198$ 30.730 36,953 118$ 25,768 3,691 7,494 36,953
FUTURE FACILITIES
Berry Creek Interim LS/FM 7,700,000$ 7.500 9,019
Cowan Creek LS/FM 4,830,000$ 5.000 6,013
Dove Springs WWTP LS 4,354,000$ 6.500 7,816
McNutt LS/FM*4,335,000$ - -
San Gabriel Interim LS/FM*7,514,000$ - -
Stonehedge FM Re-Route 147,000$ 0.260 313
South Regional LS/FM*2,778,000$ - -
Park LS Expansion 5,076,000$ -
Subtotal Future Facilities 36,734,000$ 19.260 23,160 1,586$ - 7,760 15,400 23,160
TOTAL PUMPING 41,086,198$ 49.990 60,113 25,768 11,451 22,894 60,113
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =1,113$
INTERCEPTORS
EXISTING FACILITIES mgd
Existing Interceptors 29,669,269$ 77.760 93,506 25,768 8,588 59,150 93,506
Subtotal Existing Facilities 29,669,269$ 77.760 93,506 317$ 25,768 8,588 59,150 93,506
FUTURE FACILITIES
Berry Creek Interceptors*29,115,000$ -
Cowan Creek Interceptors 9,164,000$ 8.060
Mankins Basin Interceptors 7,089,000$ 9.750
McNutt Basin Interceptors*1,618,000$ -
San Gabriel (South) Interceptors*8,383,000$ -
San Gabriel (Lower) Interceptors 9,052,000$ -
Subtotal Future Facilities 64,421,000$ 17.810 21,416.55 3,008$ - 2,863 18,554 21,417
TOTAL INTERCEPTORS 94,090,269$ 95.570 114,923 25,768 11,451 77,704 114,923
AVERAGE COST PER NEW SU 990$
WASTEWATER TOTAL 170,369,818$
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =3,345$
* Does not add to system capacity.
Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs)
Capacity
Page 33 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
13
interceptor system. The South Fork system feeds into the City’s existing sewer interceptor
network, so a small allowable cost was also included for use of the existing wastewater system.
6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT
For Utilities that charge an impact fee for new or expended service, the new customer generally
pays for capital in two ways:
1. The up-front impact fee that gains the new customer an “equity buy-in” to the system,
and
2. Monthly utility rate payments, where a portion of rate payments are for debt service.
The recent 77th Texas Legislature amended Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code to
require that either: 1) consideration of a calculated credit for rate payments to be reflected in the
fee amount, or 2) a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of the capital
improvements plan be given in calculating the maximum fee amount.
Table 10 characterizes the present value of existing and prospective utility capital costs per SU
that is projected to be supported by the utility rates and attributable to the new customers. This
analysis considers the full term of existing or future bonds and is calculated using the number of
SUs that would be present in the year 2020 mid-way through the 10-year planning period.
The South Fork interceptor is expected to be developer-funded with reimbursements made to
those participating developers periodically through collections of the special impact fee for the
watershed’s interceptor system. Thus, the City will incur no debt for this project, but residents
connecting to this line will pay for capital through their utility rates. Thus, a rate credit calculated
for use of the City’s interceptor system would be applicable to the South Fork interceptor impact
fee calculation.
TABLE 9b
WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING
SOUTH AND MIDDLE FORK SAN GABRIEL WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA
Construction
Construction Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total
Facility Name Cost Total SUs per SU Customers Next 10 Years after 10 Years Capacity
INTERCEPTORS mgd
Existing Interceptor System 17,994,506$ 24.000 28,860
Future Facilities
South Fork Interceptor Expansion 1 2,940,000$ -
South Fork Interceptor Expansion 2 6,157,000$ -
Interceptors LS Remove & Replace 7,271,000$ -
Wolf Ranch LS/FM Expansion 3,566,000$ - -
Total Interceptors 37,928,506$ 24.000 28,860 1,314$ 1,500 27,360 28,860
AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW SU =1,314$
Capacity
Facility Capacity Allocations (SUs)
Page 34 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
14
TABLE 10
EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH UTILITY RATES
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Net Present Value Mid-point
of Debt Payments 2019 Debt Payments
Facility Type In Rates SUs per SU
WATER UTILITY
Supply
Existing Debt 654,720$ 48,202 14$
Series 2014-2023 -$ 48,202 -$
Subtotal Water Supply 654,720$ 48,202 14$
Treatment
Existing Debt 303,811$ 48,202 6$
Series 2014-2023 7,676,433$ 48,202 159$
Subtotal Water Treatment 7,980,244$ 48,202 166$
Pumping
Existing Debt 97,193$ 48,202 2$
Series 2014-2023 2,181,949$ 48,202 45$
Subtotal Pumping 2,279,143$ 48,202 47$
Ground Storage
Existing Debt 6,009$ 48,202 0$
Series 2014-2023 839,495$ 48,202 17$
Subtotal Water Storage 845,503$ 48,202 18$
Elevated Storage
Existing Debt 37,218$ 48,202 1$
Series 2014-2023 1,463,666$ 48,202 30$
Subtotal Water Storage 1,500,883$ 48,202 31$
Transmission
Existing Debt 345,209$ 48,202 7$
Series 2014-2023 5,307,102$ 48,202 110$
Subtotal Transmission Lines 5,652,311$ 48,202 117$
Total Water *392$
WASTEWATER UTILITY
Treatment
Existing Debt 217,063$ 31,494 7$
Series 2014-2023 3,028,263$ 31,494 96$
Subtotal WWTP 3,245,326$ 31,494 103$
Pumping
Existing Debt 71,604$ 31,494 2$
Series 2014-2023 2,528,187$ 31,494 80$
Subtotal WWTP 2,599,791$ 31,494 83$
Interceptors (not including South/Middle Fork System)
Existing Debt 784,187$ 31,494 25$
Series 2014-2023 4,433,721$ 31,494 141$
Subtotal Interceptors 5,217,908$ 31,494 166$
Total Wastewater 351$
Total Water and Wastewater 744$
Page 35 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
15
7.0 ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
Table 11 summarizes the unit capital cost of providing new service, the two alternative credit
calculations for new customers, and the maximum fee calculation for each of the rate credit
options. Separately calculated maximum fees are shown for the South Fork Service Area and
the remainder of the City. They differ only with respect to the wastewater interceptor fee
amounts.
8.0 COMPARABLES
For comparison purposes, the current impact fees for area cities are as follows for a new
standard residential connection (1 SU):
TABLE 11
DERIVATION OF ALTERNATIVE MAXIMUM WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS
GEORGETOWN UTILITY SYSTEMS
Weighted
Capital Cost of - Option A -- Option B -
New Service Rate Less 50% Capital Highest of
ITEM per SU Credit Cost Adjustment - Option A -- Option B -Option A or B
WATER
Supply 220$ 14$ 110$ 207$ 110$
Treatment 3,014$ 166$ 1,507$ 2,848$ 1,507$
Pumping 850$ 47$ 425$ 803$ 425$
Ground Storage 195$ 18$ 98$ 178$ 98$
Elevated Storage 233$ 31$ 116$ 201$ 116$
Transmission 2,916$ 117$ 1,458$ 2,798$ 1,458$
Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost 4$ -$ 4$ 4$
Total Water 7,431$ 392$ 3,714$ 7,039$ 3,718$ 7,039$
WASTEWATER (outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area)
Treatment 1,242$ 103$ 621$ 1,139$ 621$
Pumping 1,113$ 83$ 556$ 1,030$ 556$
Interceptors 990$ 166$ 495$ 824$ 495$
Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost 4$ -$ 4$ 4$
Total Wastewater 3,349$ 351$ 1,673$ 2,997$ 1,676$ 2,997$
WASTEWATER (South/Middle Fork Service Area)
Treatment 1,242$ 103$ 621$ 1,139$ 621$
Pumping 1,113$ 83$ 556$ 1,030$ 556$
Interceptors 2,304$ 25$ 1,152$ 2,279$ 1,152$
Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost 4$ -$ -$ 4$ 4$
Total Wastewater 4,663$ 210$ 2,330$ 4,452$ 2,333$ 4,453$
TOTAL WATER/WASTEWATER
Outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area 10,780$ 744$ 5,386$ 10,037$ 5,394$ 10,037$
South/Middle Fork Service Area 12,094$ 603$ 6,044$ 11,492$ 6,051$ 11,492$
Optional Adjustments
Optional Max. Fee Amounts
Page 36 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
16
9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following summarizes the Advisory Committee activities during the impact fee updating
process:
• May 13, 2015 Committee Meeting – Presented draft report for the impact fee model where we
reviewed the following:
o Chapter 395 Impact Fee process and requirements
o Land Use and CIP information
o Unit Cost Calculations
o Maximum Fee Calculation
o Draft Report
Based on comments from the committee, the growth projections were modified slightly.
These changes reduced the impact fee a small amount.
• May 27, 2013 Committee Meeting – Presented updated numbers based on growth modifications.
Committee requested more information regarding maximum impact fees versus adopted impact
fees. That information is reflected in this report. The committee discussed various fee strategies.
The Advisory Committee makes the following findings and recommendations:
• The land use assumptions and Capital Improvement Plans underlying the maximum fee
calculations are consistent with State Law and good engineering practices.
• The Advisory Committee finds that the data and methodology underlying the maximum impact fee
calculation are reasonable and useful for City purposes.
City/Utility Last Updated Water Wastewater Total Water Wastewater Total Water Wastewater Total
Manville WSC 2008 2,800$ n/a 2,800$
Brushy Creek MUD*2008 2,095$ 1,804$ 3,899$ 2,095$ 1,804$ 3,899$ 100%100%100%
Austin
Desired Development Zone**2014 700$ 400$ 1,100$ ************
Desired Development Zone - Outside ETJ 2014 2,500$ 1,400$ 3,900$ ************
Lots platted on or after January 1, 2014 2014 5,400$ 2,200$ 7,600$ 5,415$ 2,284$ 7,699$ 100%96%99%
Cedar Park 2007 2,250$ 2,000$ 4,250$
Leander***2012 3,880$ 1,615$ 5,495$ 4,154$ 1,648$ 5,802$ 93%98%95%
Hutto 2013 3,625$ 2,128$ 5,753$ 3,625$ 2,128$ 5,753$ 100%100%100%
San Marcos 2014 2,285$ 3,506$ 5,791$ 2,285$ 3,506$ 5,791$ 100%100%100%
Round Rock 2012 3,889$ 2,073$ 5,962$ 3,889$ 2,073$ 5,962$ 100%100%100%
Pflugerville 2014 4,241$ 2,725$ 6,966$ 4,241$ 2,725$ 6,966$ 100%100%100%
Current Georgetown 2010 3,511$ 1,694$ 5,205$ 4,714$ 1,694$ 6,408$ 74%100%81%
Current Georgetown - South Fork Basin 2010 3,511$ 2,927$ 6,438$ 4,714$ 5,240$ 9,954$ 74%56%65%
Current CTSUD 2013 4,700$ n/a 4,700$ 7,954$ n/a 7,954$ 59%n/a 59%
New Max Georgetown 2015 TBD TBD -$ 7,039$ 2,997$ 10,037$ 0%
New Max Georgetown - South Fork Basin 2015 TBD TBD -$ 7,039$ 4,453$ 11,492$ 0%
West Travis County PUA - Hwy 71 Service Area 2014 7,476$ 11,644$ 19,120$ 9,968$ 15,525$ 25,493$ 75%75%75%
**Includes Central Urban Redevelopment Combining District & the area bounded by Lady Bird Lake, Lamar Blvd, 15th Street and IH 35
***Currently being updated
****Maximum Fee is determined and then fees to be charged are determined for these zones.
Maximum Impact FeeAdopted Impact Fee
*Impact Fee has not changed since the study done in 2003. The 2003 study was done through a TCEQ process that applies to Districts and that
does not require a rate credit, so it is somewhat different than this process.
INFO NOT REC'D
Adopted Impact Fee as % of Max
INFO NOT REC'D
Page 37 of 38
City of Georgetown | 2015 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee
hdrinc.com 4401 West Gate Blvd., Suite 400, Austin, TX 78745-1469
(512) 912-5100
17
• By a unanimous vote, the Advisory Committee concurs with the methodology used in the
calculation of the following maximum fee amounts:
MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATIONS
Citywide & Western District Fees (outside of South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area)
Water Impact Fee per SU $7,039
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $2,997
Total Combined Fee per SU $10,037
South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area
Water Impact Fee per SU $7,039
Wastewater Impact Fee per SU $4,453
Total Combined Fee per SU $11,492
• Consistent with State Law and by a unanimous vote, the Committee recommends that the
Council and the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District consider the water and wastewater impact
fees be set at the maximum calculated fees.
[this area intentionally left blank]
Page 38 of 38