2014 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY

Transcription

1 204 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY Prepared by: Impact Fee Advisory Committee City of Universal City, Texas Assisted by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 440 West Gate Blvd, Ste. 400 Austin, Texas April 204

2 204 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY Table of Contents Section Page.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY IDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT 7.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 4 ii

3 204 UPDATE OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY The City of Universal City is in the process of updating its new water and wastewater impact fees. This report presents HDR Engineering, Inc. s maximum impact fee determination for consideration by the City s Impact Fee Advisory Committee and the City Council of Universal City. Consistent with State law, the methodology that determines the maximum fee amount considers for each fee component either: () consideration of 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 amount equal to 50 percent of the unit capital cost of providing new service. By maximum amounts, this means that the determined fee amount was calculated as the highest that can be lawfully levied by the City, given the prospective land uses and capital improvements plan, the cost of existing and new utility capacity, and consideration of a credit to new customers for 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 maximum impact fees were developed in component pieces. For instance, the overall water fee is comprised of separate amounts for water supply, treatment, pumping, elevated storage, ground storage, and transmission. 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 only certain portions of the fee. The maximum fee amounts do not include capital costs for any donated facilities provided by developers at their own expense. Planning, service demand, and design factors assumptions used in the water and wastewater facility sizing and costing were developed by HDR engineers and City staff. Data on current utility demand, existing utility assets, outstanding utility debt and prospective cash versus debt financing were obtained from or coordinated with the City of Universal City staff. HDR combined these elements into the maximum impact fee calculations presented in this report.

4 2.0 UTILITY SERVICE AND FEE APPLICATION AREA The City s existing incorporated limits and its future ETJ was used as the primary basis for the impact fee service area of the City shown in Figure. This fee application area boundary will comprise the area in which Universal City may levy the impact fees, inpart or infull, if City service is provided. This boundary does not, however, imply a legal obligation of the City of Universal City to serve beyond its incorporated limits. If the City does not provide service, in full or inpart, then the impact fees would not apply. Figure Water and Wastewater Impact Fees Application Area 2

5 3.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Table provides an estimate of the current and future land use patterns of the potential service area with information obtained from the City of Universal City. As indicated, about 45% of total City area is currently in residential land uses with 7% in commercial/industrial land uses, 3% in dedicated open space, and 25% in open space and undeveloped land. Over time as the City grows internally and outward into its ETJ, developed land areas will both increase and become a higher percentage of overall land uses. Projected residential land uses are expected to increase to 59% of total potential service land area with nonresidential land uses growing slightly to 20%, and open space and undeveloped lands decreasing to 2% of total land area, respectively. The current 204 water service area population is estimated at about 9,926 persons. A projected water service area population of about 22,39 persons is anticipated by the end of 2023, reflecting an anticipated 0year growth of about 2%. TABLE EXISTING AND PROJECTED LAND USE CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY 0yr Item Increment Current City Area Detached Housing,276, Attached Housing NonResidential Dedicated Open Space Undeveloped (336) Subtotal Acres 2,886 2,886 Current ETJ Residential Open Space (94) Subtotal Acres Total Acres 3,04 3,04 Assumes avg water use per acre of: Detached Housing,30,30 gals/acre/daily Attached Housing 6,600 6,600 " " " NonResidential " " " Dedicated Open Space " " " 3

6 4.0 CURRENT AND PROJECTED UTILITY DEMAND AND SUPPLY Table 2 relates the number of water and wastewater utility connections by water meter size and what is termed a Living Unit Equivalent (or LUE) conversion factor for meters of varying sizes. Historically, al single family residential house in Universal City used a 5/8 water meter. Now because of typically larger flow demands due to automated sprinkler systems, the City is now requiring ¾ meters (instead of 5/8 meters) as the minimum standard residential meter size, and for purposes of planning, this will be considered equal to LUE. Based on American Water Works Association standards, the equivalent number of ¾ meters can be determined for water meters of larger size. In this manner, larger meters can be stated in terms of the equivalent demand of a number of single family homes. For this reason, the LUE concept is a useful tool for being able to apply a base fee amount to service requests of varying meter sizes. TABLE 2 METER COUNT AND LUE CONVERSION CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY, TEXAS Living Units Number of Number of Meter Equivalent (LUEs) Meters LUE's Size Type per Meter (a) in 203 (b) in 203 WATER UTILITY 5/8" Simple.00 3,726 3,726 3/4" Simple.00,750,750 " Simple " Simple " Simple " Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine Total Water 5,848 7,704 WASTEWATER UTILITY 5/8" Simple 0.7 3,726 2,484 3/4" Simple.0,748,748 " Simple " Simple " Simple " Compound 5.3 2" Turbine 6.7 3" Compound " Turbine 6.0 4" Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine 6.3 8" Compound " Turbine " Compound " Turbine Total Wastewater 5,8 6,380 (a) Derived from AWWA C700C703 standards for continuous rated flow performance scaled to 5/8" meter. (b) Source: City of Universal City, meter count as of September

7 Tables 3 and 4 summarize the City s current and projected water and wastewater service demands and existing supply (service) capabilities by facility. Current and future service demands are also compared with the existing service capacity of the utility systems. Water and wastewater demand was forecast using population forecasts from the City s land use data, State Data Center population estimates, and meter count/lue estimates from the City Utility Administration Section Much of the nearterm demand for new water and wastewater service can be satisfied by existing excess capacity. With the remaining growth faced by the City as it nears buildout, potable water utility demand in certain service areas is expected to exceed the available capacity of raw and treated water supply and transmission during the planning period. Additional water supply will be needed to provide service and additional transmission lines will be needed to expand service within the service area. Additional wastewater interceptors will be needed to expand wastewater service within the service area. 5

8 TABLE 3 PROJECTED WATER DEMAND, EXISTING CAPACITY AND CURRENT/FUTURE CAPACITY NEEDS CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY 0yr Demand Facilty Type Increment SUPPLY Existing 204 Capacity (avg day mgd) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 2,69 2,69 Est. Service Demand 8,037 8, LUEs Excess (Deficiency) 4,654 4,6 WATER TREATMENT Existing 204 Capacity (peak day mgd) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 9,3 9,3 Est. Service Demand 8,037 8, LUEs Excess (Deficiency), PUMPING Existing 204 Capacity (peak hr mgd) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 6,97 6,97 Est. Service Demand 8,037 8, LUEs Excess (Deficiency) 8,60 7,622 GROUND STORAGE Existing 204 Capacity (mg) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 27,50 27,50 Est. Service Demand 8,037 8, LUEs Excess (Deficiency) 9,3 8,575 ELEVATED STORAGE Existing 204 Capacity (mg) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 5,000 5,000 Est. Service Demand 8,037 8, LUEs Excess (Deficiency) 6,963 6,425 TRANSMISSION Existing 204 Capacity (peak hr mgd) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 20,493 20,493 Est. Service Demand 8,037 8, LUEs Excess (Deficiency) 2,456,98 * Assume LUE conversion factor of : 355 gpd/lue for supply (avg day) peaking factor gpd/lue for treatment (peak day ) gpd/lue for pumping (peak hr) 00 gals/lue for ground storage 00 gals/lue for elevated storage 70 gpd/lue for transmission (peak hr) 2.00

9 TABLE 4 PROJECTED WASTEWATER DEMAND, EXISTING CAPACITY AND CURRENT/FUTURE CAPACITY NEEDS CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY 0yr Demand Facilty Type Increment INTERCEPTORS Existing 204 Capacity (peak hr mgd) Est. Service Demand mgd Excess (Deficiency) Existing 204 Capacity (LUEs) * 7,094 7,094 Est. Service Demand 6,656 6, LUEs Excess (Deficiency) 0,438 0,208 * Assume LUE conversion factor of : 234 gpd/lue for avg day peaking factor 527 gpd/lue for pumping (peak hr) % percent of 204 flows served by LS.0% percent of 2023 flows served by LS 527 gpd/lue for interceptors (peak hr) INDENTIFIED MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS AND COSTS Given the projected growth in water and wastewater demands, existing capacity, and the modeling of additional infrastructure needs, various additional facilities have been identified to help meet the needs for the next ten years. The City s 0year capital need for new water capacity totals about $3.9 million for water and about $0.8 million for wastewater. Tables 5 and 6 show the details related to the existing capacity of the water and wastewater systems and proposed new facilities along with their cost, capacity, unit cost, and allocation of existing and projected demand to these facilities. A weighted unit cost of service ($ per LUE) is then calculated by facility type based on the proportionate share of use of existing and new facility capacity by the growth anticipated over the next ten years. 7

10 TABLE 5 WATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY WATER SUPPLY EXISTING FACILITIES Construction Construction Capacity Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total Facility Name Cost Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 0 Years after 0 Years Capacity avg day mgd Existing Water Supply Edwards $,066, ,299 $ 46 7,299 (0) 7,299 Existing Water Supply Carrizo $ 2,270, ,02 $, ,003 2,02 Groundwater Supply $,847, ,380 $ ,62 3,380 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 5,84, ,69 $,82 8, ,64 2,69 FUTURE FACILITIES Groundwater Supply $ 2,600, ,257 $ 2,068 49,209,257 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 2,600, ,257 $ 2,068 49,209,257 TOTAL WATER SUPPLY $ 7,784, ,948 8, ,373 3,948 WATER TREATMENT EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $,843 peak day mgd Existing Water Treatment Ground Water 3.9 7,299 $ 7,299 (0) 7,299 Existing Water Treatment Carrizo $ 422,500. 2,02 $ ,6 2,02 Groundwater Supply $ 76, ,380 $ ,955 3,380 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 499, ,69 $ 20 8, ,6 2,69 FUTURE FACILITIES $ Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL WATER TREATMENT $ 499, ,69 8, ,6 2,69 PUMPING EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 20 peak hr mgd Existing Pump Stations $ 24, ,97 $ 8 8, ,622 6,97 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 24, ,97 $ 8 8, ,622 6,97 FUTURE FACILITIES Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL PUMPING $ 24, ,97 8, ,622 6,97 GROUND STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 8 mill. gals. Existing Ground Storage Tanks $,900, ,50 $ 70 8, ,575 27,50 Subtotal Existing Facilities $,900, ,50 $ 70 8, ,575 27,50 FUTURE FACILITIES Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL GROUND STORAGE $,900, ,50 8, ,575 27,50 ELEVATED STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 70 mill. gals. Existing Elevated Storage Tanks $,200, ,000 $ 80 8, ,425 5,000 Subtotal Existing Facilities $,200, ,000 $ 80 8, ,425 5,000 FUTURE FACILITIES Subtotal Future Facilities $ $ TOTAL ELEVATED STORAGE $,200, ,000 8, ,425 5,000 TRANSMISSION EXISTING FACILITIES AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 80 peak hr mgd Existing Transmission System $,9, ,493 $ 546 7, ,947 20,493 Subtotal Existing Facilities $,9, ,493 $ 546 7, ,947 20,493 FUTURE FACILITIES Bore across 976 $ 75,750 8" Line from Corinth to Hotel at I35 $ 467,070 2" Line to ETJ $ 723,20 Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs) Subtotal Future Facilities $,366,030.0,408 $ ,374 TOTAL TRANSMISSION $ 2,557, ,90 7, ,32 2,90 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 573 WATER TOTAL Existing $ 20,099,575 Future $ 3,966,030 Total $ 24,065,605 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 2,784 8

11 TABLE 6 WASTEWATER CIP INVENTORY AND COSTING CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY INTERCEPTORS EXISTING FACILITIES Construction Construction Capacity Cost Existing Growth Use in Excess Capacity Total Facility Name Cost Total LUEs per LUE Customers Next 0 Years after 0 Years Capacity peak hr mgd Existing Intecptors (455 miles) $ 8,579, ,094 $,087 6, ,328 7,094 Subtotal Existing Facilities $ 8,579, ,094 $,087 6, ,328 7,094 FUTURE FACILITIES Service to Joe Marks Tract $ 22,490 Stubout from Branch Hollow Along Almond Bend $ 223,070 Sewer to I35 Frontage Hotel $ 37,940 Subtotal Future Facilities $ 753, ,97 $ 630 0,087,97 TOTAL INTERCEPTORS $ 9,333, ,29 6, ,45 8,29 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 858 Facility Capacity Allocations (LUEs) WASTEWATER TOTAL Existing $ 8,579,544 Future $ 753,500 Total $ 9,333,044 AVERAGE CAPITAL COST PER NEW LUE = $ 858 9

12 TABLE 7 EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH UTILITY RATES CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY 6.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER METHODS OF CAPITAL PAYMENT For utilities that charge an WATER UTILITY impact fee, the new customer Supply generally pays for capital in two ways: () initially through the upfront impact fee, and (2) over the longerterm through monthly utility rate payments, where typically some portion of customer rate payments also funds debt service of capital projects. The 77th Texas Legislature amended Chapter 395 of the Local Government to require either: () a calculated credit for rate payments 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 impact fee amount. Update of Water Impact Fees Table 7 indicates the estimated cost per LUE that is projected to be borne in the utility rates by the average new customer. The rate credit calculation considered: (a) existing capital obligation to wholesale providers, (b) existing debt (c) future debt payments incurred in the year in which the facilities would be built and financed, and (d) the projected LUEs at the midpoint year of 205. NPV Midpoint of Debt Payments 209 Debt Payments Facility Type In Rates LUEs per LUE Existing Debt $ 84,99 22 Series $ 74,36 9 WATER UTILITY Subtotal Water Supply $ 259,27 3 Treatment Subtotal Water Supply 259,27 $ Existing Debt $,032 Series $ Series $ Subtotal Water Treatment $,032 Pumping Existing Debt Series $ 7,02 8,306 $ $ Series $ Subtotal Pumping Existing Debt $ 7,02 56,098 $ Ground Storage Existing Debt $ 56,098 7 Series Series $ 8,306 $ $ Subtotal Water Storage $ 56,098 7 Elevated Storage Subtotal Transmission Lines 45,963 $ Existing Debt $ Series $ Subtotal Water Storage Interceptors $ Transmission Existing Debt $ 7,02 Series $ 38,95 5 Subtotal Transmission Lines $ 45,963 6 Total Water * $ 46 WASTEWATER UTILITY Interceptors TABLE 7 EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED DEBT TO BE PAID THROUGH UTILITY RATES CITY OF UNIVERSAL CITY Supply Existing Debt $ 6,77 $ Series $ 6,77 $ Subtotal Interceptors $ 6,77 $ Total Wastewater $ Total Water and Wastewater $ 46 NPV Midpoint of Debt Payments 209 Debt Payments Facility Type In Rates LUEs per LUE Existing Debt $ 84,99 22 Series $ 74,36 9 Treatment $ 8,306 3 Existing Debt $,032 $ 8,306 Subtotal Water Treatment $,032 Pumping Existing Debt $ 7,02 $ 8,306 Subtotal Pumping $ 7,02 Ground Storage $ 8,306 7 Series $ Subtotal Water Storage $ 56,098 7 Elevated Storage Existing Debt $ $ 8,306 Subtotal Water Storage $ Transmission Existing Debt $ 7,02 Series $ 38,95 5 $ 8,306 6 Total Water * $ 46 WASTEWATER UTILITY Existing Debt $ 6,77 $ Series $ 6,77 $ Subtotal Interceptors $ 6,77 $ Total Wastewater $ Total Water and Wastewater $ 46 0

13 7.0 ALTERNATIVE IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS Table 9 summarizes the unit capital cost of providing new service and the two alternative credit calculations for new customers. The alternative approach that calculates a specific rate credit (Option A) results in the maximum impact fee calculation of $2,74 per LUE for water and $86 per LUE for wastewater, totaling $3,602 per LUE. As can be seen, the alternative 50% of capital cost method for calculating a rate credit (Option B) results in a lesser water impact fee of $,395 per LUE and wastewater fee of $43 per LUE, yielding an overall fee of $,826 per LUE. WATER Weighted Capital Cost of Option A Option B New Service Rate Less 50% Capital Max. Fee Amounts per LUE Highest of ITEM per LUE Credit Cost Adjustment Option A Option B Option A or B Supply $,843 $ 3 $ 922 $,82 $ 922 Treatment $ 20 $ $ 05 $ 209 $ 05 Pumping $ 8 $ $ 4 $ 7 $ 4 Ground Storage $ 70 $ 7 $ 35 $ 63 $ 35 Elevated Storage $ 80 $ $ 40 $ 80 $ 40 Transmission $ 573 $ 6 $ 287 $ 568 $ 287 Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost $ 2 $ $ 2 $ 2 Total Water $ 2,787 $ 46 $,392 $ 2,74 $,395 $ 2,74 WASTEWATER Optional Adjustments Optional Interceptors $ 858 $ $ 429 $ 858 $ 429 Allocated Impact Fee Study Cost $ 2 $ $ 2 $ 2 Total Wastewater $ 86 $ $ 429 $ 86 $ 43 $ 86 TOTAL WATER/WASTEWATER $ 3,647 $ 46 $,82 $ 3,602 $,826 $ 3,602 The fee methodology was replicated for each major facility type in the utility system (ex. supply, treatment, pumping, elevated storage, ground storage and transmission) so that the total fee amount is the sum of the component facility fees. This provides a basis for extending the fee to wholesale customers of the City or granting fee offsets if a developer costparticipates with the City on CIP projects.

14 8.0 COMPARABLES For comparison purposes, the current impact fees for a new standard residential connection ( LUE) in other nearby cities and utilities are listed below: City Water Wastewater Total Converse $ 975 $,350 $2,325 Universal City (current) $,604 $,088 $2,692 Universal City (maximum allowable) $2,74 $ 86 $3,602 New Braunfels $2,3 $,57 $3,882 Seguin $,875 $2,374 $4,249 Buda $2,87 $2,53 $4,78 Pflugerville $2,403 $2,44 $4,87 San Marcos $2,285 $3,506 $5,79 Round Rock $3,889 $2,073 $5,962 Georgetown $4,74 $,694 $6,408 Boerne $2,563 $3,629 $6,92 Austin (western city) $5,400 $2,200 $7,600 Schertz $4,240 $3,468 $7, COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Universal City s Impact Fee Advisory Committee met two times in 204 during the course of its deliberations. At its called meeting of April 7, 204, the Impact Advisory Committee unanimously adopted this report concerning the derivation of the maximum impact fee amount and also unanimously recommended that the City Council consider adoption of the maximum water and wastewater fees totaling $3,602 per LUE. 2