The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda CC 09.21.2021 SpecialN otice of M eeting of the Governing B ody of the C ity of Georgetown, Texas S eptember 2 1, 2 02 1 The Georgetown City Council will meet on September 21, 2021 at 11:00 AM at P ublic Safety Training and Operations Center - 3500 D B Wood Rd. Georgetown, Texas 78628 The City of Georgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (AD A). If you require assistance in participating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the AD A, reasonable assistance, adaptations, or accommodations will be provided upon request. P lease contact the City Secretary's Office, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or City Hall at 808 Martin Luther King J r. Street, Georgetown, TX 78626 for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. Re gular Se ssion (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 Council Work/Study Session on Water/Wastewater P lanning This session is part of the City Council's quarterly work/study sessions. No formal action will be taken at this meeting Adjournme nt Ce rtificate of Posting I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was pos ted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily ac cessible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2021, at __________, and remained so pos ted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said meeting. __________________________________ R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary Page 1 of 64 City of Georgetown, Texas City Council Special Meeting September 21, 2021 S UBJEC T: Council Work/Study Session on Water/Wastewater P lanning This session is part of the City Council's quarterly work/study sessions. No formal action will be taken at this meeting I T EM S UMMARY: Council Work/Study Session on Water/Wastewater P lanning 1. Brazos River Authority – B R A personnel will present regional work underway to secure long range ground water supply for Georgetown and Williamson County 2. Water/Wastewater Infrastructure Master P lanning 1. Council goals 2. Growth Assumptions 3. Rate Structure 4. Impact Fees 5. Current P ressures F I NANC I AL I MPAC T: -- S UBMI T T ED BY: Robyn Densmore, City Secretary AT TAC HMENT S : Description Brazos R iver Authority P res entation Water/Wastewater S taff P resentation 2018 F inancial Imprac t F ee R eport Page 2 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Alternative Water Resources Page 3 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Meeting Date: July 27, 2020 Page 2Page 4 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 AF / Y R Bell and Williamson County Demand Projections Bell County Williamson County Page 3 •Demand increase of over 200,000 AF by 2070 •Averaging almost 40,000 AF increase each decade Page 5 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Preliminary Observations Page 4 •Internal and external studies support projected demands •Regional groundwater resources available •Hydrologically feasible •Flexibility and complexity •Implementation strategy •Risk mitigation •Multiphase process Page 6 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Page 5 •Long-Term Resource Security •Local Control •Cost Associated with Risk •Timing of Implementation •Phasing •Permit Amendments •Other Projects in GCD •GCD Process for Permits •Project Experience •Permit Amendments •Partnering •Distance from Delivery Point •Change of Permit Use Type Challenges Page 7 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Request for Competitive Sealed Proposal Transparent, public process Proposals tailored to BRA specifications Allows for QA exchanges Complies with BRA procurement requirements Pathway to negotiations Page 6Page 8 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y RFCSP Components Ownership, Control of Resource •Source identification, Permitting, Yield, Water Quality Project Solution •Project Description, Implementation, Benefits/Adverse Impacts Price and Financing •Unit Pricing, Capital Cost, Financial Model Project Management •Team Background, Experience, Qualifications QA/QC Page 7Page 9 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Concurrent Activities Monitor GCDs •DFC and other pertinent project activities •Permitting actions •Supported by hydrology consultant Integrated Water Resource Plan •What else and what next? •Portfolio of projects and roadmap to implementation Page 8Page 10 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y IWRP Page 9 Benefits •Guide for development of integrated, reliable, resilient, and sustainable water supply resources •Incorporates advanced planning, modeling, and decision making •Considers risk and uncertainty in the planning process •Includes stakeholder involvement •Establishes a repeatable framework for project evaluation and prioritization Page 11 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y What’s next •Continue monitoring GCD/GMA activities •Focus on impacts to potential projects •IWRP project •Identify future Little River Watershed strategy Page 10 Post Solicitation Review Responses Contract Negotiations Page 12 of 64 B r a z o s R i v e r A u t h o r i t y Questions? Page 11Page 13 of 64 Work Session Water Utility September 21, 2021 Page 14 of 64 Agenda •Introductions •Council Goals •Brazos River Authority Raw Water Regional Planning •City of Georgetown Master Planning •Growth/Demand Pressures •Rates •Impact Fees •Commercial Development •Questions/Discussions Page 15 of 64 Council Goals 2.1 Proactively Plan for Growth Discuss Strategic Locations 2.1.3 Update Master Plans to Respond to Rapid Growth Master Plan in progress, ETA 9 months 2.2 Ensure Financial Capacity to Manage Growth 5 yr CIP/Annual Budget, Rate Studies, Impact Fee Update 2.2.2 Update and Implement Impact Fees Update Eta 9 months 2.3 Develop and Manage Water Supply Sources and Treatment Capacity for Future Growth BRA, Master Plan, IWRP, ASR Study, South Lake Water Treatment Plant (January Bid) 2.3.1 Improve Water Conservation Through Adoption of City Codes, Rate Structures and Active Enforcement of Watering Restrictions Conservation Rates, Update Ordinances, Western District Meter Replacement 2.3.2 Actively Develop Additional Water Resources BRA, Master Plan, IWRP, ASR Study, South Lake Water Treatment Plant (January Bid), Leander, Round Rock Page 16 of 64 •David Collinsworth, •General Manager/CEO Brazos River Authority, Regional Water Resource Planning, Surface Water Management •John King •Special Projects & Strategic Initiatives Manager, Brazos River Authority •Allen Woelke, PE •CDM Smith, Water/Wastewater Master plan, Hydraulic Modeling, Integrated Resource Plan Introduction of Guests Page 17 of 64 Brazos River Authority Planning (separate presentation) Page 18 of 64 Infrastructure Planning Page 19 of 64 •Every 3-4 years •Last Completed in 2018 •Kick off for 2022 MP 9-13 -2021 •Duration 6-9 months •0-5, 5-10, 20 yr, buildout •System needed projects identified (0-10 yr) will be analyzed for potential inclusion in the impact fee •Impact Fee Study to follow MP Utility Master Plan Page 20 of 64 Current Growth 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 New Meters/Total Mtr Count Yearly Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 ytd Meter Count 23,179 31,981 34,026 36,148 38,486 40,714 43,908 48,217 52,250 Meter Growth 104%106%106%106%106%108%110%108% New Meters per year 2,045 2,122 2,338 2,228 3,194 4,309 4,033 2015-western district was added with over 7,633 metersPage 21 of 64 Utility Growth Rates Yearly Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD Meter Count 23,179 31,981 34,026 36,148 38,486 40,714 43,908 48,217 52,250 Meter Growth 104%106%106%106%106%108%110%108% New Meters per year 2,045 2,122 2,338 2,228 3,194 4,309 4,033 2015-western district was added with over 7,633 meters Yearly Total 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 YTD Service Count 25,139 26,956 28,773 30,590 32,407 34,224 36,041 37,858 39,675 Growth 107%107%106%106%106%105%105%105% New Services per year 1,401 1,537 1,820 2,047 2,537 3,152 3,916 1,817 Water Meters Wastewater Services Page 22 of 64 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150 155 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 MG D Treated Water Capacity Treated Water Capacity 10Page 23 of 64 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 RAW Water Resources BRA System - Lake Georgetown BRA System - Lake Stillhouse BRA System - Lake Stillhouse (CTSUD) BRA System - Lake Stillhouse (Jonah)Edwards Aquifer LCRA Colorado HB (Leander Treated Contract) Roundrock Highlands Roundrock CR 175 BRA System - Lake Belton Opportunities Blanchard Sale baseline mid max Resource Projections Round Rock Additional Capacity, offsets ~4,500 acre ft Blanchard Claw-back 1,200 acre ft BRA Colorado River Basin Additional Resources to be obtained 11Page 24 of 64 Utility Master Plans Existing Condition Zoning/ Current Land Use Population Projections Growth Corridors/ Trends Development PipelineWhere How Big Development Pipeline Future Land Use Map Comp Plan 0-5 5-10 20 Buildout Existing Condition Future Land Use Map When Growth Corridors/ Trends Development Pipeline Builder Take Down Estimates Development Pipeline Future Land Use Map Comp Plan Zoning/ Current Land Use Page 25 of 64 Population Projections Growth Corridors Williams Drive Redevelo Development Pipeline M Comprehensive Plan Zoning Plan Cost COG Master Planning Page 26 of 64 Planning Territory 2018 Page 27 of 64 Sources of Revenue •Rates (Charged to all customers)(update in progress) •Based upon cost of service •Reviewed every three years •Funds Operations and Capital Projects •Debt Service •Impact Fees (System Growth –new meters) •Based upon Impact Fee Study •Conducted every three to five years •Impact Fee analyzes 10 yr CIP •Impact Fees can fund debt service •Funds only Capital Projects Revenue Bonds, Typical 20-year terms Page 28 of 64 Rate Cost Philosophy •Fixed Costs (Not proportional to Demand) •Internal Service (F&A,IT,Legal,Eng,CustCare) •Debt Service •Employees •WCRRWL Contract •Raw Water Contracts –Not used •Variable Costs (Proportional to Demand) •ROI •Raw Water Contracts –Used •Electricity •Maintenance •Operating Capital •Chemicals/Sludge Disposal Page 29 of 64 What are Impact Fees? “A charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against a new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the cost of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development.” Mechanism to recover infrastructure costs required to serve future development •Governed by Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code •One-time fee •Only assessed to new development •Impact Fee is assessed at Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, or Connection depending on type of development •Impact Fee is paid at Building Permit, or Final Plat •Impact fees Typically Cover 40-60% of Impact Fee projects, rest covered by rates Page 30 of 64 2018 Impact Fee Study Comparables Page 31 of 64 •Aggressive Planning and Funding of Infrastructure •Existing Customers cover the cost of development •Different mix of development occurs than planned (rezoning), potential capacity concerns (last one in won't have capacity or will need to do costly upgrades) •Development does not occur in timely manner, will not collect enough impact fees and rates will have to cover debt •Medium Conservative to Medium Aggressive •Include additional lines in plan •Increases Impact fee, if impact fee credit given for developer driven infrastructure, it reduces available impact fee revenue for overall needed system projects. •Conservative, Reasonable Growth, Development Philosophy •Development pays for new infrastructure to the greatest extent possible, less reliance on rates and existing customers. Approaches to Infrastructure Planning and Risks Page 32 of 64 Sites with interest in industrial development Page 33 of 64 •Proactively Plan for Growth •Water and Wastewater •Priority Locations? •HWY 195 and IH 35 (WW) •Aviation and Airport (WW/W) •SE Inner Loop (W) •Wastewater East of SH 130 •Others •Western District (W) •Neighboring Communities •How are we using utilities to further economic Development •Financing District •MUDs, PIDs, TIRZ •Strategic Partnerships •WRDG, Titan •System Expansion •City CIP •Annexation Council Priorities Page 34 of 64 •Given the discussion, rates and impact fees, what are Council’s priorities related to master plan updates and intensity of infrastructure planning •Aggressive Planning and Funding of Infrastructure •Medium Aggressive •Medium Conservative to Medium Aggressive •Conservative •What commercial areas does Council want to make sure are included in this update of the W/WW Master Plan and Impact Fee Study? •How should we utilize the tools available for commercial development? Council feedback to Infrastructure Planning and Risks Page 35 of 64 Upcoming Decision Points •Bid award for South Lake Plant •Regional agreements •BRA ground water options for future water supply •Master Plan and Impact fee study results and discussion Page 36 of 64 Questions ? Page 37 of 64 Additional Slides if needed Page 38 of 64 Impact Fee Components •Service Areas •Land Use Assumptions •Capital Improvement Plans •Service Units (Analysis) •Impact Fee Calculation (Analysis) •Ordinance (Adoption) •Does not include oversizing for fire flow. Page 39 of 64 Service Areas Funds collected within a service area must be spent on projects within the same service area within 10 years Water Service Area: City Wide Wastewater Service Area: City Wide Page 40 of 64 Funds collected within a service area must be spent on projects within the same service area within 10 years Water Service Area: Water CCN Boundary Wastewater Service Area: City Limits and ETJ by Agreement (Encourage Annexation) Service Areas Page 41 of 64 What items are and are not payable with Impact Fees? Components that can be paid for through an impact fee program: Construction cost of capital improvements on the Impact Fee CIP Survey and Engineering fees Land acquisition costs, including court awards Debt Service of Impact Fee CIP Planning Studies Components that cannot be paid for through an impact fee program: 6 Projects not included in the Impact Fee CIP 6 Repair, operation, and maintenance of existing facilities 6 Upgrades to serve existing development 6 Administrative costs of operating the impact fee program Capital Improvements Plan Page 42 of 64 •Project Needed by the overall system •Not to individually serve one development •Typically Large transmission or collection lines •Typically along Major transportation corridors •Needed within next 10 years •Each project has a plan •How many units can it serve •When does it need to be built •Inflation Factor •Resultant cost per Unit Revenue Comes in with Each unit on a small percentage over time Impact Fee Projects Page 43 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 1 Report / June 8, 2018 2018 Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Page 44 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ........................................................................................4 2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA ............................................................4 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................7 4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY .......................................7 5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS ............................ 12 6.0 METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT ................................................................................... 13 7.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS ........................................................................ 15 8.0 COMPARABLES .................................................................................................................. 16 9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................... 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Water/Wastewater Current and Projected Land Use ...............................................7 Table 2– Current LUEs ...............................................................................................................8 Table 3 – Population Growth .....................................................................................................8 Table 4– Water Capacity .......................................................................................................... 10 Table 5 – Wastewater Capacities............................................................................................. 11 Table 6 – Water Supply and Treatment CIP ............................................................................ 13 Table 7 – Water Pumping, Ground Storage and Elevated Storage CIP ................................ 14 Table 8 – Water Transmission CIP .......................................................................................... 15 Table 9 – Total Water Cost of Capital and Total Weighted Average Cost per LUE ............. 15 Table 10 – Wastewater CIP ...................................................................................................... 12 Table 11 - Wastewater Total Cost of Capital and Total Weighted Average Cost per LUE .. 12 Table 12 - South/Middle Fork Interceptors ............................................................................. 13 Table 13 – Water/Wastewater Rate Credit .............................................................................. 14 Table 14 – South/Middle Fork Rate Credit .............................................................................. 15 Table 15 - Maximum Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Amounts ...................................... 15 Table 16 - Comparable Fees .................................................................................................... 16 Table 17 – Citywide Maximum Allowable Fees ...................................................................... 17 Table 18 – South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area ....................................................... 17 Page 45 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 3 Table 19 – Recommended Citywide Impact Fee .................................................................... 17 Table 20 – Recommended South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area ............................ 17 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Water Service Area ...................................................................................................5 Figure 2 – Wastewater Service Area .........................................................................................6 Page 46 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The City of Georgetown (City) is currently updating its impact fees to reflect the latest 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and conducting public outreach to keep citizens informed about potential changes to the fee. The CIP is continuously updated to reflect the latest information about future projects. This report, by the City’s Impact Fee Consultants, establishes the maximum impact fee applicable for the City and represents the Impact Fee Advisory Committee’s report to the Georgetown City Council. Since the last update the City of Georgetown has consolidated with the Chisholm Trail Special Utility District (CTSUD). These assets are now fully owned and operated by the City. As in the last update, this impact fee calculation breaks out the interceptor impact fee for the South/Middle Fork area, which represents the cost to provide service to that area. Raftelis has calculated a maximum impact fee that may be charged to all new connections based on meter size, beginning with 5/8” or ¾” meters. Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code states that either a rate credit for other methods of payment for utility capital by a new customer or a reduction of the unit capital costs by 50% may be used in the calculation of the maximum fee. The maximum fee amount is the maximum fee the city may lawfully charge based on given capital improvements, existing capacity, and the selected rate credit. City Council does not have to approve the maximum rate, and may select a fee lower than the maximum rate. Per this report, the City’s consultants and Advisory Committee have reviewed the overall water and wastewater maximum fees by classification. The water maximum fee is based on water supply, treatment, pumping, storage, and transmission categories. The wastewater maximum fee is based on wastewater treatment, pumping, and interceptor categories. By utilizing these classifications, the City may add or subtract categories to reflect partial developer contribution. For example, if a developer is contributing the water transmission lines then the water transmission category may be removed from the fee. In the future, if the City chooses to provide wholesale service to utilities, then these categories may be used to calculate impact fees for relevant customers. Local distribution lines are not included in the impact fee calculations. These lines are entirely provided by the developers and only provide capacity to a limited area. The design and service demand assumptions and planning costs were obtained from CDM Smith in coordination with the City. The existing debt service and assumptions for future debt funding were provided by the City. Raftelis utilized all this information to calculate a maximum impact fee. 2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA Figures 1 and 2 show the City’s service areas for water and wastewater. The boundaries, shown below, represent impact fee eligible areas. These fees may be levied if City service is provided. These boundaries do not mean the City must provide service to these areas. These boundaries provide the City with flexibility to negotiate with bordering utilities and developers to find the most equitable service solution for the area. Page 47 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 5 Figure 1 – Water Service Area Page 48 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 6 Figure 2 – Wastewater Service Area Page 49 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 7 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Table 1 displays the current and future land use assumptions in the model. The acres served represent the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and certified water/wastewater service area. Currently, 297,632 acres can be potentially served by the water service area with roughly 15% currently developed and served. The potential wastewater service area is 68,730 acres, with roughly 16% developed and served. Table 1 – Water/Wastewater Current and Projected Land Use Current 2028 ITEM Acres % Acres* % Water Service Area (City) Residential 41,439 13.9% 77,424 26.0% Non-Residential 4,560 1.5% 8,813 3.0% Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 251,633 84.5% 211,395 71.0% Total Land Use Acreage 297,632 100.0% 297,632 100.0% Wastewater Service Area Residential 8,313 12.1% 12,180 17.7% Non-Residential 2,397 3.5% 4,184 6.1% Undeveloped/Open Space/Unserved 58,020 84.4% 52,366 76.2% Total Land Use Acreage 68,730 100.0% 68,730 100.0% In ten years, it is estimated that roughly 29% of the water service area will be served. For wastewater, roughly 24% of the service area will be served. This growth is projected to be driven by development in the Western areas. 4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY Table 2 shows the existing number of connections by meter size as of 2018. The number of meters are converted to living unit equivalents (LUEs). The typical single-family household in Georgetown uses a ¾” meter. This meter represents one LUE. The LUE conversion factors are based on standard American Water Works Association meter equivalent ratios. Meters larger than ¾” are defined in terms of a ¾” meter. For example, a 2” meter has a conversion factor of 5.33 LUEs/meter. The conversion factors, along with the numbers of meters, are then used to determine the service demand for water and wastewater. This allows for an intuitive process when calculating correct impact fees for developments, especially for developments with meters larger than ¾”. Page 50 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 8 Table 2– Current LUEs Table 3, below, shows the growth in LUEs for water and wastewater service. For water, connections are assumed to grow by 25,000 over the ten-year period (2,500 per year). For wastewater, the connections are assumed to grow by 13,000 over the ten-year period (1,300 per year). These projections are based on the population projections, current/proposed platting, and in coordination with the City. The LUEs increase at the same rate as the connections. In 2028 water LUEs are projected to be at 73,500 LUEs and wastewater LUEs are projected to be at 44,021 LUEs. Table 3 – Population Growth Meter Size Living Unit Equivalents (LUEs per Meter) (a) Number of Meters in 2018 (b) Number of LUEs in 2018 WATER 3/4"1.00 36,544 36,544 1"1.67 1,304 2,178 1.5"3.33 290 966 2"5.33 379 2,020 3"10.00 169 1,690 4"16.67 62 1,034 6"33.33 1 33 8"53.33 4 213 Total Water 38,753 44,678 WASTEWATER 3/4"1.00 24,486 24,486 1"1.67 767 1,281 1.5"3.33 313 1,042 2"5.33 221 1,178 3"10.00 42 420 4"16.67 44 733 6"33.33 - - 8"53.33 3 160 Total Wastewater 25,876 29,301 (b) Source: City of Georgetown, meter count as of July 2018 (a) Derived from AWWA C700-C703 standards for continue rated flow performance scaled to 5/8" meter. Year Connections LUEs Population Connections LUEs Population 2018 38,753 44,678 104,760 25,876 29,301 56,519 2028 63,753 73,500 172,342 38,876 44,021 84,914 Water Wastewater Page 51 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 9 Tables 4 and 5 display the existing capacities and estimated demands. Through consultation with City staff and CDM Smith, existing capacities were determined. These demands represent existing capacity in the existing facilities. Growth in demand is based on the growth in connections. The level of service, as seen in Table 1, explains the difference between water and wastewater connections. Some areas receive water service, but not wastewater service. The current and projected service demands are compared to the existing capacities. As can be seen in Tables 4 and 5, the capacities of most of the existing facilities will be insufficient to serve the projected growth in the next ten years. This means that in the next ten years, projects must be completed to ensure that the system grows concurrently with demand. The tables also show the assumptions used to calculate the number of LUEs that can be served by the existing capacity of system. The projected demand will grow at the same rate as the projected connections. The ground storage LUE factor was determined at 325 gallons/LUE and the elevated storage factor was determined at 138 gallons/LUE. These factors do not use the standard conversion determinants, due to the complex issues involving the calculation of storage factors. The wastewater service demand was determined at 200 gallons/LUE in 2018 and 244 gallons/LUE in 2028. These numbers were selected due to the difficulty in estimating flow from wastewater. A peaking factor of 3.6 was used to determine pumping and interceptor rates. This peaking factor is based on estimated peak flows that travel thru the system. [intentionally left blank] Page 52 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 10 Table 4– Water Capacity Facility Type 2018 2028 10-Yr Demand Increment 2018 LUE Conversion Factor 2028 LUE Conversion Factor Supply Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)46.96 46.96 Est. Service Demand 20.10 33.07 12.97 450 450 Excess (Deficiency)26.86 13.89 gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)104,356 104,356 Est. Service Demand 44,678 73,500 28,822 Excess (Deficiency)59,678 30,856 Treatment Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)44.10 44.10 Est. Service Demand 40.21 66.15 25.94 900 900 Excess (Deficiency)3.89 (22.05) gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)49,000 49,000 Est. Service Demand 44,678 73,500 28,822 Excess (Deficiency)4,322 (24,500) Pumping Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)88.34 88.34 Est. Service Demand 72.38 119.07 46.69 1,620 1,620 Excess (Deficiency)15.96 (30.73) gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)54,531 54,531 Est. Service Demand 44,678 73,500 28,822 Excess (Deficiency)9,853 (18,969) Ground Storage Existing 2018 Capacity (mg)14.45 14.45 Est. Service Demand 14.52 23.89 9.37 325 325 Excess (Deficiency)(0.07) (9.44) gallons/LUE gallons/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)44,462 44,462 Est. Service Demand 44,678 73,500 28,822 Excess (Deficiency)(216) (29,038) Elevated Storage Existing 2018 Capacity (mg)14.75 14.75 Est. Service Demand 6.17 10.14 3.98 138 138 Excess (Deficiency)8.58 4.61 gallons/LUE gallons/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)106,884 106,884 Est. Service Demand 44,678 73,500 28,822 Excess (Deficiency)62,206 33,384 Transmission (>6 inch) Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)79.90 79.90 Est. Service Demand 72.38 119.07 46.69 1,620 1620 Excess (Deficiency)7.52 (39.17) gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)49,321 49,321 Est. Service Demand 44,678 73,500 28,822 Excess (Deficiency)4,643 (24,179) Page 53 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 11 Table 5 – Wastewater Capacities Facility Type 2018 2028 10-Yr Demand Increment 2018 LUE Conversion Factor 2028 LUE Conversion Factor Treatment Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)8.50 8.50 Est. Service Demand 5.86 10.74 4.88 200 244 Excess (Deficiency)2.64 (2.24) gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)42,500 34,836 Est. Service Demand 29,301 44,021 14,720 Excess (Deficiency)13,199 (9,185) Pumping Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)20.23 20.23 Est. Service Demand 21.10 38.67 17.57 720 878 Excess (Deficiency)(0.87) (18.44) gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)28,092 23,026 Est. Service Demand 29,301 44,021 14,720 Excess (Deficiency)(1,209) (20,995) Interceptors Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)77.95 77.95 Est. Service Demand 21.10 38.67 17.57 720 878 Excess (Deficiency)56.85 39.28 gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)108,264 88,741 Est. Service Demand 29,301 44,021 14,720 Excess (Deficiency)78,963 44,720 South Fork Interceptors Existing 2018 Capacity (mgd)5.00 5.00 720 878 Est. Service Demand 0.71 1.57 0.87 gpd/LUE gpd/LUE Excess (Deficiency)4.29 3.43 Existing 2018 Capacity (LUEs)6,944 5,692 Est. Service Demand 980 1,790 810 Excess (Deficiency)5,964 3,902 Page 54 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 12 5.0 IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPRO VEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS The following tables (Tables 6 through 8) show the CIP by facility type for water. The tables show Georgetown’s need for water treatment, pumping, ground/elevated storage, and transmission projects. The tables show the cost of the project, start date, and amount capacity added by the projects. Project costs are based on estimates to complete the project with an inflation rate linked to the Association of General Contractors. Each section breaks out the allocation of growth between current and future facilities. The weighted average unit cost of service is based on the share of the existing versus new capacity (based on the projected growth in population). Table 9 shows the total original cost of the existing water facilities and the total projected cost of the future CIP. The table also shows the total weighted average cost of the water facilities. Table 10 shows the CIP by facility type for wastewater and the total original cost of the existing facilities. Table 11 shows the total weighted average cost of the wastewater facilities and total projected cost of the future CIP. For water transmission and wastewater interceptors the growth in capacity is based on estimated total capacity added by all projects. When elevated and ground storage are summed together, their additional capacity will serve the projected demand growth. The growth in water supply in the next ten years is completely served by current capacity. The growth in water treatment is partially served by current capacity, but the capacity will be filled, so the remaining projected growth is allocated to future treatment. For water pumping a portion of the projected growth is allocated to current capacity, but most of the projected growth will be served by the completion of future projects. Elevated water storage tanks currently show excess capacity, but the current excesses capacity is concentrated in the lower pressure plains. The growth projections show the demand occurring in the Western High pressure plain. This anticipated growth is in an area that cannot be supported by elevation from a lower pressure plain. Current wastewater treatment will serve a portion of the projected growth in the next ten years, but the remainder of the growth must be served by the future facilities. All the future wastewater pumping growth is allocated to future facilities. For interceptors, a portion of the future growth is allocated to current wastewater interceptors, but most of the growth is allocated to future interceptors. Both the Berry Creek interceptor and the San Gabriel interceptor will be used for some existing LUEs, but are proposed to serve primarily new areas not previously served, and to convey wastewater flow to locations where wastewater treatment capacity can easily be expanded. The Berry Creek interceptor will take the existing LUE's from the Sun City lift station in addition to new growth in the Berry Creek Basin, the Dry Berry Creek Basin, and in the Cowan Creek Basin from the Northern and Western portions of the Town. The San Gabriel interceptor will remove a bottle-neck from the Smith Branch interceptor and allow for existing capacity in Dove springs to be used by expected Page 55 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 13 growth in the Southeast by moving some LUEs to Pecan Branch. Most of these interceptors are to account for proposed growth in areas previously unserved. Table 6 – Water Supply and Treatment CIP [intentionally left blank] Date of Cost Existing Growth in Excess Total Facility Name Need Original Installed1 Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 10 Yrs Capacity Capacity WATER SUPPLY Existing Facilities Lake Stillhouse Hollow 21,308,434$ Existing Water Supply Facilities 2,417,772$ Total Existing Water Supply Facilities N/A 23,726,206$ 23,726,206$ 46.96 104,356 227$ 44,678 28,822 30,856 104,356 Future Facilities Subtotal Future Facilities -$ -$ - - -$ - 0 (0) - Total Water Supply 23,726,206$ 23,726,206$ 46.96 104,356 227$ 44,678 28,822 30,856 104,356 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 227$ WATER TREATMENT Existing Facilities Existing Water Treatment Facilities N/A 54,940,077$ 54,940,077$ 44.10 49,000 1,121$ 44,678 4,322 0 49,000 Future Facilities South Lake WTP New 2023 52,813,000$ 22.00 24,444 Lake WTP Intake Exp 2023 1,215,000$ - - Lake WTP Exp 2023 26,071,000$ 7.40 8,222 Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 80,099,000$ 29.40 32,667 2,452$ - 24,500 8,167 32,667 Total Water Treatment 54,940,077$ 135,039,077$ 73.50 81,667 1,654$ 44,678 28,822 8,167 81,667 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 2,252$ 1Assumes inflation if installation occurs after current year; if facility already exists this number is equal to original cost. Cost Capacity Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs) Page 56 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 14 Table 7 – Water Pumping, Ground Storage and Elevated Storage CIP [intentionally left blank] Date of Cost Existing Growth in Excess Total Facility Name Need Original Installed1 Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 10 Yrs Capacity Capacity WATER PUMPING Existing Facilities Existing Pumping Facilities N/A 12,433,826$ 12,433,826$ 88.34 54,531 228$ 44,678 9,853 0 54,531 Future Facilities South Lake WTP PS New (High)2023 4,298,000$ 8.60 5,309 South Lake WTP PS New (West)2023 12,531,000$ 25.20 15,556 Northlake PS Exp 2023 4,773,000$ 8.00 4,938 Hoover PS New 2028 2,799,000$ 1.50 926 Sequoia Spur PS Imp 2028 888,000$ - - Stonewall PS expansion 2021 2,388,000$ 4.00 2,469 Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 27,677,000$ 47 29,198 948$ - 18,969 10,228 29,198 Total Water Pumping 12,433,826$ 40,110,826$ 135.64 83,728 479$ 44,678 28,822 10,229 83,728 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 702$ GROUND STORAGE Existing Facilities Existing Ground Storage Facilities N/A 3,081,423$ 3,081,423$ 14.45 44,462 69$ 44,678 - (216) 44,462 Future Facilities South Lake WTP GST 2023 5,764,000$ 6.00 18,462 Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 5,764,000$ 6.00 18,462 312$ - 28,822 (10,361) 18,462 Total Ground Storage 3,081,423$ 8,845,423$ 20.45 62,923 141$ 44,678 28,822 (10,577) 62,923 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 312$ ELEVATED STORAGE Existing Facilities Existing Elevated Storage Facilities N/A 15,766,159$ 15,766,159$ 14.75 106,884 148$ 44,678 1,500 60,706 106,884 Future Facilities Braun EST 2023 5,872,000$ 3.00 21,739 Hoover EST 2028 3,682,000$ 1.00 7,246 Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 9,554,000$ 4.00 28,986 330$ - 27,322 1,663 28,986 Total Elevated Storage 15,766,159$ 25,320,159$ 18.75 135,870 186$ 44,678 28,822 62,370 135,870 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 320$ 1Assumes inflation if installation occurs after current year; if facility already exists this number is equal to original cost. Cost Capacity Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs) Page 57 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 15 Table 8 – Water Transmission CIP Table 9 – Total Water Cost of Capital and Total Weighted Average Cost per LUE Date of Cost Existing Growth in Excess Total Facility Name Need Original Installed1 Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 10 Yrs Capacity Capacity TRANSMISSION Existing Facilities Existing Transmission Facilities N/A 48,535,393$ 48,535,393$ 79.90 49,321 984$ 44,678 4643 0 49,321 Future Facilities Cedar Breaks EST to Pastor GST 2023 6,631,000$ Sun City Blvd and SH 195 2023 24,000$ SH 29 section under design 2023 2,538,000$ South Lake WTP to Ronald Reagan Blvd 2023 39,396,000$ South Lake WTP eastward to DB Wood Rd 2023 3,331,000$ SH 29 near CR 260 2023 501,000$ Backfeed to Leander EST 2023 65,000$ Ronald Reagan Blvd 2023 4,099,000$ Daniels Mountain GST 2023 8,553,000$ CR-245 pipe 2023 1,112,000$ Fire flows south of FM 3405 2024 3,526,000$ Berry Creek 2028 678,000$ Berry Creek 2028 805,000$ Berry Creek 2028 4,327,000$ Supports future Hoover EST 2028 10,621,000$ Supports future Hoover EST 2028 8,874,000$ Rabbit Hill EST and Teravista 2028 2,473,000$ Ronald Reagan Blvd and CR 245 2028 7,261,000$ Line along Schell Rd 2028 8,011,000$ SH 29 east of IH 35 2021 1,001,000$ Southwest bypass, West 1778 ft section 2023 5,387,000$ Ronald Reagan Blvd east of SH 29 2023 16,643,000$ Ronald Reagan Blvd in West service area 2023 12,241,000$ Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 148,098,000$ 59.90 36,975 4,005$ - 24,179 12,796 36,975 Total Transmission 48,535,393$ 196,633,393$ 139.80 86,296 2,279$ 44,678 28,822 12,797 86,296 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 3,519$ Cost Capacity Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs) Water Facilities Cost Existing 158,483,085$ Future 271,192,000$ Total - Water 429,675,085$ Total Weighted Average Capital Cost per new LUE 7,333$ Page 58 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 12 Table 10 – Wastewater CIP Table 11 - Wastewater Total Cost of Capital and Total Weighted Average Cost per LUE Date of Cost Existing Growth in Excess Total Facility Name Need Original Installed1 Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 10 Yrs Capacity Capacity WASTEWATER TREATMENT Existing Facilities Existing Wastewater Treatment Facilities N/A 12,860,406$ 12,860,406$ 8.50 42,500 303$ 29,301 13,199 0 42,500 Future Facilities Berry Creek WWTP Expansion 2024 2,021,000$ 0.20 Cimarron Hills WWTP Expansion 2024 3,034,000$ 0.30 Pecan Branch WWTP Major Expansion 2022 39,628,000$ 3.00 Northern Land 2028 14,151,000$ 1.00 Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 58,834,000$ 4.50 18,443 3,190$ - 1,521 16,921 18,443 Total Wastewater Treatment 12,860,406$ 71,694,406$ 13.00 60,943 1,176$ 29,301 14,720 16,922 60,943 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 601$ WASTEWATER PUMPING Existing Facilities Existing Pumping Facilities N/A 4,975,223$ 4,975,223$ 20.23 28,092 177$ 29,301 (1,209) 28,092 Future Facilities Ronald Reagan LS and FM 2023 9,109,000$ - - San Gabriel Interceptor LS and FM 2021 21,560,000$ 18.00 20,492 Park LS Expansion 2019 5,211,000$ 3.50 3,985 Interceptors LS Remove & Replace 2020 8,220,000$ - - Cowan Creek 2028 10,604,000$ 5.00 5,692 Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 54,704,000$ 26.50 30,168 1,813$ - 14,720 15,448 30,168 Total Wastewater Pumping 4,975,223$ 59,679,223$ 46.73 58,260 1,024$ 29,301 14,720 14,239 58,260 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 1,813$ INTERCEPTORS Existing Facilities Existing Interceptor Facilities N/A 29,516,278$ 29,516,278$ 77.95 108,264 273$ 29,301 4,500 74,463 108,264 Future Facilities Berry Creek Interceptors 2026 2,842,000$ Berry Creek 2026 317,000$ Berry Creek Intercerptor 2018 17,253,000$ Berry Creek Intercerptor 2020 19,086,000$ Berry Creek Intercerptor 2020 11,001,000$ Cowan Creek (Somerset Hills)2020 7,733,000$ Cowan Creek (Somerset Hills)2021 4,994,000$ Cowan Creek (Ronald Reagan)2022 1,571,000$ San Gabriel Interceptor 2021 10,904,000$ San Gabriel WWTP Diversion 2026 1,673,000$ Subtotal Future Facilities -$ 77,374,000$ 32.05 36,487 2,121$ - 10,220 26,266 36,487 Total Interceptors 29,516,278$ 106,890,278$ 110.00 144,751 738$ 29,301 14,720 100,730 144,751 WEIGHTED AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = 1,556$ 1Assumes inflation if installation occurs after current year; if facility already exists this number is equal to original cost. Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs) Cost Capacity Wastewater Facilities Cost Existing 47,351,907$ Future 190,912,000$ Total - Wastewater 238,263,907$ Total Weighted Average Capital Cost per new LUE 3,970$ Page 59 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 13 Table 12 displays the planned interceptor projects in the South/Middle Fork basin. Due to the elevated cost of systems in this area; the South/Middle Fork is broken out. This allows for the calculation of an area specific interceptor fee. The South/Middle Fork fee will include this interceptor fee plus the regular Georgetown impact fees. The capacity in the South/Middle Fork basin upstream of the Wolf Ranch Lift Station was built for build out conditions. This part of the system is expected to convey some of the additional growth in the ten-year period, but capacity in this existing portion of the basin will not be fully utilized until buildout conditions are met. However, the conveyance downstream will be required to be upsized to be able add additional connections to the overall basin in the ten-year period. Table 12 - South/Middle Fork Interceptors 6.0 METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT The Texas impact fee law allows for two ways to pay for capital: • An up-front impact fee that allows the new customer to buy in to the system. • Monthly utility fees that go towards the debt service of the system. To calculate the impact fee, the law allows the utility to either use a 50% credit of the total projected cost of capital for all projects or to use a credit for rate payments. The utility may select the maximum fee amount after these credits have been assessed. Tables 13 and 14 summarize the present value of the existing and projected debt. The debt projections are based on a 50% debt funding target. The midpoint, in 2023, of LUEs are used to determine the rate credit. The total credit from existing and projected growth are then summed to arrive at a total rate credit number. [intentionally left blank] Page 60 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 14 Table 13 – Water/Wastewater Rate Credit Est. Debt Mid-Point Est. Debt in Facility Type in Rates LUEs Rates per LUE WATER UTILITY Supply Existing Debt 45,610$ 59,089 1$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth -$ 59,089 -$ Subtotal Water Supply 45,610$ 1$ Treatment Existing Debt 1,036,414$ 59,089 18$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 3,793,241$ 59,089 64$ Subtotal Treatment 4,829,655$ 82$ Pumping Existing Debt 234,557$ 59,089 4$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 1,788,593$ 59,089 30$ Subtotal Water Pumping 2,023,150$ 34$ Ground Storage Existing Debt 236,601$ 59,089 4$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 377,416$ 59,089 6$ Subtotal Ground Storage 614,017$ 10$ Elevated Storage Existing Debt 58,129$ 59,089 1$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 592,455$ 59,089 10$ Subtotal Elevated Storage 650,584$ 11$ Transmission Existing Debt 915,593$ 59,089 15$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 9,307,169$ 59,089 158$ Subtotal Transmission 10,222,763$ 173$ TOTAL WATER 18,385,779$ 311$ WASTEWATER UTILITY Treatment Existing Debt 1,452,422$ 36,661 40$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 7,435,236$ 36,661 203$ Subtotal Wastewater Treatment 8,887,658$ 242$ Pumping Existing Debt 561,889$ 36,661 15$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 7,435,236$ 36,661 203$ Subtotal Wastewater Pumping 7,997,125$ 218$ Interceptors Existing Debt 3,333,495$ 36,661 91$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 11,188,671$ 36,661 305$ Subtotal Interceptors 14,522,166$ 396$ TOTAL WASTEWATER 31,406,949$ 857$ TOTAL WATER AND WASTEWATER 49,792,728$ 1,168$ Page 61 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 15 Table 14 – South/Middle Fork Rate Credit 7.0 MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Table 15 summarizes the maximum allowable impact fees. The maximum fee for each category is calculated to establish the recommended maximum impact fee by facility type. The South/Middle Fork is shown separately, with the only difference in the interceptor amount. As shown, the impact fee for water is $7,023 per LUE and $3,115 per LUE for wastewater or a combined amount of $10,138. For the South/Middle Fork service area, the wastewater fee per LUE is $4,348 for a combined total of $11,371. Table 15 - Maximum Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Amounts Est. Debt Mid-Point Est. Debt in Facility Type in Rates LUEs Rates per LUE South Middle Fork Interceptors Existing Debt -$ 1,385 91$ Series 2018 - 2028 New Growth 274,534$ 1,385 198$ Subtotal Interceptors 274,534$ 289$ Weighted Capital Cost of Option A Option B New Service Rate 50% Cost Highest of Item per LUE Credit Adjustment Option A Option B Option A or B WATER Supply 227$ 1$ 114$ 227$ 114$ 227$ Treatment 2,252$ 82$ 1,126$ 2,171$ 1,126$ 2,171$ Pumping 702$ 34$ 351$ 668$ 351$ 668$ Ground Storage 312$ 10$ 156$ 302$ 156$ 302$ Elevated Storage 320$ 11$ 160$ 309$ 160$ 309$ Transmission 3,519$ 173$ 1,759$ 3,346$ 1,759$ 3,346$ Allocated Impact Fee Study Costs 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ Total Water 7,334$ 311$ 3,666$ 7,023$ 3,668$ 7,023$ WASTEWATER Treatment 601$ 242$ 301$ 359$ 301$ 359$ Pumping 1,813$ 218$ 907$ 1,595$ 907$ 1,595$ Interceptors 1,556$ 396$ 778$ 1,160$ 778$ 1,160$ Allocated Impact Fee Study Costs 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ Total Wastewater 3,971$ 857$ 1,985$ 3,115$ 1,986$ 3,115$ Wastewater (South/Middle Fork) Treatment 601$ 242$ 301$ 359$ 301$ 359$ Pumping 1,813$ 218$ 907$ 1,595$ 907$ 1,595$ Interceptors 2,591$ 198$ 1,296$ 2,393$ 1,296$ 2,393$ Allocated Impact Fee Study Costs 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ Total Wastewater (South/Middle Fork)5,007$ 659$ 2,503$ 4,348$ 2,504$ 4,348$ TOTAL WATER/WASTEWATER Outside of South/Middle Fork Service Area 11,306$ 1,168$ 5,651$ 10,138$ 5,654$ 10,138$ South/Middle Fork Service Area 12,341$ 970$ 6,169$ 11,371$ 6,172$ 11,371$ Optional Adjustments Page 62 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 16 8.0 COMPARABLES Table 16 lists comparable impact fees across utilities in the region. All fees are based on one LUE. Table 16 - Comparable Fees 9.0 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the Advisory Committee activities during the impact fee meetings: • March 9, 2018 Committee Meeting – Presented an overview of the impact fee process to the Committee. Presented schedule for the impact fee update. • April 13, 2018 Committee Meeting – Presented information related to the impact fee update. Specifically, Raftelis presented the Service Area Map, Land Use Assumptions, Population Projections, initial capacity calculations and 10-year Capital Improvement Plan. • May 11, 2018 Committee Meeting – Provided Draft Report prior to meeting. Presented changes made to assumptions since last meeting. Raftelis presented the Impact Fee Calculation based on the most recent assumption. In addition, comparable fees to similar utilities in the Central Texas area. During the May 11, 2018 meeting, the Advisory Committee made 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. • The Advisory Committee concurs with the methodology used in the calculation of the following maximum fee amounts found in Tables 17 and 18. • The Advisory Committee recommends that the Council adopt the fees found in Tables 19 and 20. Last City/Utility 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% Cedar Park 2007 2,250$ 2,000$ 4,250$ 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 2016 4,025$ 2,099$ 6,124$ 4,025$ 2,099$ 6,124$ 100%100%100% Pflugerville 2014 4,241$ 2,725$ 6,966$ 4,241$ 2,725$ 6,966$ 100%100%100% Leander 2017 4,309$ 2,820$ 7,129$ 4,309$ 2,820$ 7,129$ 100%100%100% Austin 2014 5,400$ 2,200$ 7,600$ 5,415$ 2,284$ 7,699$ 100%96%99% Current Georgetown 2017 7,039$ 2,997$ 10,036$ 7,039$ 2,997$ 10,036$ 100%100%100% New Max Georgetown 2018 7,023$ 3,115$ 10,138$ Current Georgetown-South Fork 2017 7,039$ 4,452$ 11,491$ 7,039$ 4,452$ 11,491$ 100%100%100% New Max Georgetown-South Fork 2018 7,023$ 4,348$ 11,371$ West Travis County PUA 2014 7,476$ 11,644$ 19,120$ 9,968$ 15,525$ 25,493$ 75%75%75% TBD TBD Adopted Impact Fees Maximum Impact Fee Adopted Impact Fee as % of Max Not recorded Not recorded Page 63 of 64 Raftelis | City of Georgetown Update of Water and Wastewater Impact Fees 17 Table 17 – Citywide Maximum Allowable Fees Utility Maximum Allowable Fee per LUE Water $7,023 Wastewater $3,115 Total Combined Fee per LUE $10,138 Table 18 – South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area Utility Maximum Allowable Fee per LUE Water $7,023 Wastewater $4,348 Total Combined Fee per LUE $11,371 Table 19 – Recommended Citywide Impact Fee Utility Impact Fee per LUE Water $6,921 Wastewater $3,115 Total Combined Fee per LUE $10,036 Table 20 – Recommended South/Middle Fork San Gabriel Service Area Utility Impact Fee per LUE Water $6,921 Wastewater $4,348 Total Combined Fee per LUE $11,269 Page 64 of 64