HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 1708
ORDINANCE NO. 1708
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCES NO. 1679 AND 1701 OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS ADOPTING ADDITIONS TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR
WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS; INCREASING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT
FEE RATE SCHEDULES; AND ESTABLISHING IMPACT FEE COLLECTION FEE LEVELS IN THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS.
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of North Richland Hills, Texas, that:
SECTION 1
Section 2 of Ordinance No. 1679 shall hereinafter read as follows:
"section 2. CaDital ImDrovements Plan
The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee Study Capital Improvements Plans, copies of which are attached
hereto as Exhibit "B", Exhibit "C", and Exhibit "D". Exhibit "B" addresses
the portion of the overall North Richland Hills Capital Improvements Plan to
be accomplished within the Service Area shown in Exhibit "A". Exhibits "C"
and "D" are Capital Improvements Plan for Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
covering the City of Fort Worth's systems which include service to North
Richland Hills as a wholesale customer. A copy of the Water and Wastewater
Impact Fee Study Capital Improvements Plan which includes Exhibits "B", "C",
and "D" shall be maintained at all times in the City Hall."
Section 4 of Ordinance No. 1679 shall hereinafter read as follows:
"Section 4. Impact Fee Schedule
A fee shall be charged against each lot or tract of land and the owner
thereof whose water and/or wastewater line shall be connected with any water
line and/or wastewater line in the Systems, and fees shall be charged at the
following rates based on the water meter size:
* North Richland Hills' System Impact Fees are shown on attached
Schedule "A".
* Fort Worth's System Impact Fees are shown on attached Schedule "B"."
Section 15 of Ordinance No. 1701 shall hereinafter read as follows:
"Section 15. Effective Date
This ordinance shall be effective immediately from the date of passage
and approval. From June 19, 1990, the City shall impose and collect impact
fees shown on Schedule "A" based upon 50% of each item.
Impact fees shown on Schedule "B" shall be imposed and collected at the
levels shown on Schedules "C" and "D" during the time periods specified. All
impact fees collected based on Schedule "B" will be paid to the City of Fort
Worth on a quarterly basis."
SECTION 2
This amendment to Ordinances No. 1679 and 1701 shall be in full force
from and after its date of passage and publication as required by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS this 28th day of January, 1991.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
/--
SCHEDULE "A"
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
(North Richland Hills Systems)
Meter Size Equivalency Factor ~ Wastewater Total
5/8 x 3/4 inch or 1.00 $ 725 $ 225 $ 949
3/4 inch
1 inch 1.67 1,211 374 1,585
1-3/4 inch 2.77 2,008 620 2,628
1-1/2 inch 3.33 2,414 746 3,160
2 inch 5.33 3,864 1,194 5,058
3 inch 10.00 7,250 2,240 9,490
4 inch 16.67 12,086 3,734 15,820
6 inch 33.33 24,164 7,466 31,630
8 inch 60.00 43,500 13 , 440 56,940
10 inch 96.67 70,086 21,654 91,740
SCHEDULE "B"
Water and Wastewater Impact Fees
(Fort Worth Systems)
Meter Size Equivalency Factor Water Wastewater
3/4" 1 $ 839.00 $ 1,285.00
I" 1. 75 1,468.25 2,248.75
1-1/2" 4 3,356.00 5,140.00
...,,, 7 5,873.00 8,995.00
¿,
3" 16 13 ,424.00 20,560.00
4" 28 23,492.00 35,980.00
6" 64 53,696.00 82,240.00
8" 100 83,900.00 128,500.00
10" 150 125,850.00 192,750.00
..
SCHEDULE "C"
Water Impact Fee
Collection Schedules
(Fort Worth System)
FW Impact Fee schedule to be collected, effective January 1, 1991.
Meter Size
Equivalency Factor
Water Impact Fee
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
1
1. 75
4
7
16
28
64
100
150
$ 251. 70
440.48
1,006.80
1,761.90
4,027.20
7,047.60
16,108.80
25,170.00
37,755.00
FW Impact Fees schedule to be collected, effective October 1, 1991.
Meter Size
Equivalency Factor
Water Impact Fee
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
1
1. 75
4
7
16
28
64
100
150
$ 293.65
513 . 89
1,174.60
2,055.55
4,698.40
8,222.20
18,793.60
29,365.00
44,047.50
FW Impact Fee schedule to be collected, effective October 1, 1992.
Meter Size
Equivalency Factor
Water Impact Fee
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
1
1. 75
4
7
16
28
64
100
150
$ 335.60
587.30
1,342.40
2,349.20
5,369.60
9,396.80
21,478.40
33,500.00
50,340.00
-
SCHEDULE "D"
Wastewater Impact Fee
Collection Schedules
(Fort Worth System)
FW Impact Fee schedule to be collected, effective the date of execution.
Meter Size
Equivalency Factor
Wastewater Impact Fee
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
1
1. 75
4
7
16
28
64
100
150
$ 161. 00
281. 75
644.00
1,127.00
2,576.00
4,508.00
10,304.00
16,100.00
24,150.00
FW Impact Fees schedule to be collected, effective October 1, 1991.
Meter Size
Equivalency Factor
Wastewater Impact Fee
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
1
1. 75
4
7
16
28
64
100
150
$ 449.75
787.06
1,799.00
3,148.25
7,196.00
12,593.00
28,784.00
44,975.00
67,462.50
FW Impact Fee schedule to be collected, effective October 1, 1992.
Meter Size
Equivalency Factor
Water Impact Fee
3/4"
I"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
1
1. 75
4
7
16
28
64
100
150
$ 514.00
899.50
2,056.00
3,598.00
8,224.00
14,392.00
32,896.00
51,400.00
77,100.00
I
-
FlU:: CO
EXHIBIT "e"
Part of Ordinance No. 1708
I CAPITAL S
MPROVEMENT
P LAN
For Water Impact Fees
February 1990
~
.-
Prepared by the Fort Worth Water Department
~
-L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CAPITAL S
M PROVE ME NT
P LAN
For Water Impact Fees
February 1990
~~~"''''''''
........... €. OF.,. '"
.:- ~~..······"··.f..r 't,
:4'.... * '..'" I,
... . '\S"I
~ ..: ". * I
1..~.:............. ';.. ~
~ ~:~~~.E.~..~:~'~.~~~1:~:,::~~1
I ...... 50 . ^" ,
" ~". ~ 108 :'¡¡¡
',~....~ Q....~
't ~.s·..~/ST . ..'
t, .f¡Ò·....··
LJt!i¡t144
e
---""'\
--~f,. OF r~ ,
F('\""'·..*....·..·~~~..
/If * ... . "
"'* ',.~
~..... ....... .... II .... ..... ....... "I.
1. NOWZAR DINYf.\RIAN ~
~ ... ...... ill...... ~ I ~..... ...,.., ~.. ~
Lo\ 53025 I· f.':!t:'-
~..~\ 10 :Q. ,~.:,;;:
"" 0 ..'~ Q..~' .' ~L.I.,' '"
1:t ~~::.~!STE:~... ,:s:- d . _A'I
"~~/ÓN"".t.~v do ,rp'-"
N"'b ç(t 790
Prepared by the Fort Worth Water Department
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
I ~
INTRODUCTION 1
I ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE SERVICE DEMANDS 1
ELIGIBLE FACILITIES 4
I Raw Water Sources and Treatment Facilities 4
Storage Requirements 5
Pump Station 7
Associated Facility 12
I Water Master Plan Study 12
COST ALLOCATION 12
I METHODOLOGY FOR COST ALLOCATION 12
Cost Derivation 13
I SERVICE UNIT DETERMINATION 13
MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION 16
I APPENDIX 18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
Iitk
Table 1. Water Capital Improvements Plan Project
for Impact Fees
Table 2. Storage Requirement for Existing System
Table 3. Comparison of Existing Storage Needs and
Year 2000 Storage Needs
Table 4. Example Calculating Future Storage Needs
Table 5. Pumping Capacity Available and Capacity Needed
for the Future
Table 6. Equivalent Meter
Table 7. Total Water Equivalent Meters
Table 8. Water Equivalent Meter Ratios
Table 9. Increase in Service Units
Table 10. Examples of Meter Sizes for Categories of
Application
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Tit 1 e
Exhibit 1. Proposed Capital Improvements Plan Projects
Exhibit 2. Projected System Demands and Plant Capacities
ii
~
2
8
9
10
11
14
14
15
15
17
£üe
3
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FOR
IMPACT FEES
CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS
I NTRODUCTI ON
The Water Capital Improvements Plan ("CIplI) for the consideration of impact fees
for the City of Fort Worth ("City") identifies those water capital improvements
and their associated costs which serve new development within the City's water
service area and which could be financed, in part, through impact fees assessed
against new development in the City, from 1990 to 2000. The water CIP serves as
the basis for calculation of water impact fees which may be charged within the
City's benefit area (city limits and extraterritorial jurisdiction). The
proposed capital improvements and projected costs are set forth in Table 1 and
are illustrated in Exhibit 1.
This water improvements report consists of several elements. Existing water
services provided within the City of Fort Worth and its extraterritorial
jurisdiction and those provided to its wholesale customers are briefly described.
The need for capital improvements to serve new growth through the year 2000 then
is established, using data contained in the 1989 Water Master Plan. It is based
upon the land use assumptions approved on January 30,1990 by the City Council
for the water service area.
The allocation of the costs of needed water improvements between existing
development, development which occurs during the period 1990 to 2000, and
development which occurs thereafter is sunmarized both in the text and in the
tables. The method of deriving the costs of facilities is also described.
This document also contains the determination of the number of new "service
units" (expressed in terms of equivalent meters) which are projected to occur
from 1990 to 2000. This information, in conjunction with the facilities costs,
is used in the final section of the report to calculate the maximum impact fee
per service unit which may be assessed against new development within the
be n e fit are a bas e d u po nth e 1 i s t 0 f i mp r 0 verne n t sse t for t h i n Tab 1 e 1. T his
section also gives examples of impact fees which may be charged against
different types of land uses based upon the maximum water impact fee.
The Appendix to this report contains a detailed description of each project
included in the Water CIP.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING AND FUTURE SERVICE DEMANDS
As described in the Land Use Assumptions for water, the City of Fort Worth
provides both retail and wholesale potable water services to the Fort Worth
metropolitan area, which includes most of surrounding Tarrant County. Included
within the water service area are 24 wholesale customers, all or part of which
are served by Fort Worth.
The following information presented is obtained from the recently completed
Water Master Plan. The primary objective of the Master Plan was to identify
requi red improvements to the exi st i ng water treatment and di stri but i on system,
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!!
....
....
-..
~
z
c
-'
~
I!!
z
lI!æ
~~
"'-
i::æ
-~
æ-
::I!i
~ ...
c
....
'"
~
c
,.
I
I
I
...:
~
:=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ê!!58
c-~
~~L.-
ðe:.!!-
.... c-
- ~
,,>I,:> ....
...........
....
...
~B8
a:-c>
....'" N
9~b-'
2:!:
¡Sea:
.... >-
...
.... c>
..... ...
5~
co
-' a::
-' ""' -
c ....
>- -
.....
"'C:>
." .....
U
..,
.....
....Ju~ _
~~~-
c:> c:> u
..... ""
~
....
. .
sjjB;~OO~~oooo5~
õõo:.ñ,.:,.; ";0:
....:7i...~ -::; -!!!!
~op::e:~2~g:?;g~g~~
~ ~ "! ~r.:..~ ~"'! -:. "'...... "'1 0-......._
:::;a~~;;;~;!;~E~EL1~!!
Ñ Ñ
oooooc>oooooooo
".
=:
..... ....
~i
1§
....
......G:lIf')"ON,...,..o.........,.,V":!....g..o......
O-Ø'-O"-O'-O'-D-O'o..IP'-O'-cr-o-o-
. I I I , r I I I I I I ,
1~-;-:::§";·I':;D'~·§e
-....-..c:>...-..Jt"..ã...il....'"
~;;i;~~i;~;::;.;;;;~å~å
~;;;
:==
~ 6
'" .
"" -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
..... ....
"" .....
:!g
'"
..o........¡,n_NV")OOfo"').....,.,W":I"O
oo-oo-o-ÞO-o-O--O'-D-O-o--o--cr-O'"Ct-
I I I I It' I I I I
i: ~g'~:; g:-:-§ e--= :;.¡;t:;
~CZ:_:II:~«EU'1..,U':I~_..CI
..!....!....!....!...l..!..~.!....!.....!...!....!.....!....!...
000000.0000000000
~:7i:G:7i:7ig~:7i:7ig:7i~C>2
""-: ~-:.~O'-..~~o-.."_"'l....~~~
:;1~~:C:¡:;~~:=:=~~~~~~
CD -0 ~ ant"'ool';.N';. ,...,
.... ....
~
=
-
....
....
...
c:>
'"
...
Ii
!:!:!
ê~
'" '"
z z
c ..,
EE_
~~!j
i i i ::;~
!:!:! - !:!:! !:!:! iïiss
LWW= ""'....""'..... ~~
:;::ã¡;;i;;;ii~~
!!j!t!1I!1I! ~!t!III!J!I!!!I;;;;;;
~Þ-cc .....~=.¡¡........
!i!i~~S!ihdl!!!!~~.
:::;;;;;1111;....
!!!!!!!!:;;:;;:;;:;;!I
!iiiiiiii~~~~ii
II I! I! I! I! I! II II I! I! II II! I! I! II
-
cnlnlln__NN""'~NNN""'N"'"
:::
'"i'7~'i',..,.~~-r"'77"'T
~~~~~~¡;;:;;g~~t:::~;¡:
0000000
¡;;:~
,.:rë
19¡§;:~
..õõr:fJi";·
_::a:a_ ..."
ooco-co
... c>
CI>....
..:ë
...
..... CD ..0 ,... ..0 .......
""'00-00-""'0--0"-
t I I I I I
-;~'t"":r:
.,.._....~CEIf'=
i;~~;;;å~
~~~~~~
..o.......¡n..o¡n.ø
00-0'-0-0-0""0--
I I I I I
:r:¡:....ge:r:
CClil...."'CI
..!...!..~~~..!..
0000000
§§¡§~~
~~~'¡~ri
... ... -
i
!:!:!
II
c c
... ...
!!..
--....
---
c c
--il""I"
...... I! =-
~~77ii
==..tñt;
·..==ww
1""1==--
ut&ncc
~~~~
11515__==
- ~~"''''
æi!ll~t
...1____
e:::a! III l1li111
--NN__
Q6~6~=,
2
00000
§§gæ~
ÕÕ2':~
;::r:lól;!:;;
.;,,;,,; .;
....
OOO"CÞ
... c>
... ..,
-...
... ...
... -
.,;
N N NN..o
CP-D'-o-CDCD
, I I I I
';fii~t:
....,~-cp
;:;;;~~~
.... ..,.........
NNN.........,
00.00....,
CP-".CDCD
I I I I I
-e-e-e-t:
!!!~!
000000
~§~p. .~
~~~ ~
........, 0. M
-- i
:::
.
!:!:!
i
¡
E
Ii
i..
---
... i!!
.... ...........
=l1li ......
::;:at""==
;~~!!"''''
...ã:W=:j:1
;~...;::
~.!ií=::;::;
!!i!11
II
.... ....
òó
, ,
c cc
....
....
...
:;!
8g~
.,;õ~
.....t!?~
......, ...
...... CI>
.;e.~
-.. en ""
';;i;å
~~:;;
=:~~
I .
...-...
. ... ..
cc:>...
, , ,
õõõ
§§~
ri~~
... ...
~
S§
~~
ï=ï=_
...IICIICW
.... ....
-.........-
---
---=
=E!~E
.....e¡
$!!u!!i
¡III!-
.ili
K
¡ ¡
U .ñ
r: s
K Ñ
:1
"
"
K
"
::
:1 ~
"
K ...
I: ~
"
· ...
" ...
"
·
"
"
"
:: ~
!1 ~
~ m
"
"
"
"
"
"
::
"
"
"
"
!!
·
·
·
·
·
c
"
ñ
·
"
"
"
"
"
::
=
~
"
·
· ...
::~
r. ~
= 0;.
" ...
" ...
II
·
"
"
¡ a!
a _
n ~
·
ï I
·
·
i
"
E
u
r:
c
n
Ë
i
"
·
Ë
n
:
-
~i
=~
=.
;*~
i~~
ð&·
_\:!IH
=Ii!
It;¡~!!:
s;s
i!!!I=
.......~
"'I! -'
Et ëi!
~--
~!!5§
«$!:£;';Z0>
'H«H 1M ItdPftOve:f.fENTS
11"5--2000 IMPRØIÆf.fENTS
.
A PUtoIP ItdPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT 1 . Proposed Capital Improveme
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
through the year 2010, and to outline an orderly plan for the implementation of
these improvements. In order to accomplish the primary objective, a computer
model of the water distribution system was developed.
The analysis of the existing Fort Worth water system and the design of the
future improvements and expansion were predicted on the historical and projected
water demands. The projected water demands were determined from a consideration
of the following factors: population and employment, population density and
distribution, and water use characterstics.
The existing Fort Worth system is comprised of eight pressure planes. Pressure
planes are defined as different ground elevations within the City's boundary,
varying over several hundred feet, to accommodate an efficient water
distribution system. As the system grows and encompasses a larger service area,
some of these pressure planes will grow in size, and new planes will be created.
The primary determinant behind the creation of new pressure planes is change in
ground surface elevation.
Each of the existing eight Fort Worth pressure planes was thoroughly analyzed.
These analyses were performed with a water distribution pipeline network
computer program developed by the University of Kentucky. The results of these
analyses were evaluated by comparing them to the State Health Department general
design criteria. The Texas Department of Health establishes minimum standards
for "Approved" systems.
A set of alternatives was prepared for each of the eight pressure planes. Then
the necessary engineering calculation on each reasonable alternative was
performed to reach a conclusion on the most cost-effective solution. These
conclusions form the basis for recommending water system capital improvements.
ELIGIBLE FACILITIES
Under state law, impact fees for water facilities may be imposed only to finance
capita 1 improvement s whi ch serve new development. The water CI P i dent ifi es
those treatment facilities which will provide service to new development in the
City of Fort Worth, within its extraterritorial jurisdiction and to its
who 1 esa 1 e water customers. Those improvements recommended by the 1989 Water
Master Plan which are to be constructed solely to serve existing development
have been excluded from the list of capital improvements in Table 1. The City
has elected to exclude water distribution facilities which serve new development
within the service area. Distribution facilities are proposed to be financed
through funding sources other than impact fees.
This Capital Improvements Plan includes treatment facilities, pump stations, and
storage facilities. Also included are associated facilities required to support
the water system, including the Northside Satellite Service Center.
Raw Water Sources and Treatment Facilities
Fort Worth and its whol esa 1 e customers are present ly served from three water
treatment plants. The two Holly (North and South) water treatment plants are
located in the center of the system near the central business district. The
Holly plants receive raw water from the West Fork of the Trinity River system
via GO-inch and 72-inch gravity-feed 1 ines drawing from Lake Worth. Raw water
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
also can be supplied from the Clear Fork of the Trinity River via a 60-inch pipe
from the Clear Fork pump station, which is supplied with water from releases at
Lake Benbrook.
The third water treatment plant, Rolling Hills, receives raw water from Cedar
Creek reservoir and Richland-Chambers reservoir. The Tarrant County Water
Control and Improvement District Number 1 ("TCWCID") supplies the water via
large balancing reservoirs located near Kennedale. Raw water from Cedar Creek
flows by gravity from the balancing reservoirs through an 84-inch diameter line
to the headworks of the plant. Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant is fed from
Richland-Chambers through an 84-inch and a 90-inch/102-inch pipeline, and it has
a nominal rated capacity of 160 million gallons a day ("mgd").
The North and South Holly plants have a combined rated capacity of 129 mgd and a
safe overloaded capacity of 160 mgd. The Rolling Hills plant was constructed in
1973 in two 40-mgd units totalling 80 mgd and was designed to permit expansion
to 160 mgd by doubling the existing facilities. Because of the rapid growth of
the City1s south and east sides and a projected water demand increase, an
additional 80-mgd expansion of the Rolling Hills plant was constructed in 1983.
This expansion is expected to meet water demands up to the year 1995. The
combined capacity of the Holly and Rolling Hills water treatment plants is 320
mgd.
The total maximum day flow of the Fort Worth water system (including wholesale
customers) is projected to increase from a level of 282 mgd in year 1990 to 335
mgd in 2000, as shown in Exhibit 2. Because the current available treatment
capacity is limited to 320 mgd, additional treatment capacity will be needed.
Hence, plans are under way to construct a new treatment plant in the vicinity of
the Eagle Mountain Lake, which will have a capacity of 30 mgd. With the
construction of the proposed Eagle Mountain Lake plant, the total available
treatment capacity would be 350 mgd by the year 2000. Construction of the Eagle
Mountain Lake plant, including the raw water and intake structure, is
reconmended as one of the Capita 1 Improvements Pl an projects. Also i ncl uded in
the Capital Improvements Plan is that portion of the expansion cost of the
Rolling Hills WTP which serves the new development.
Storage Requirements
Total storage requirements are calculated based on providing sufficent volume to
store t he a verage-day water consumpt ion (exc 1 udi ng who 1 esa 1 e customers).
Elevated storage is calculated based on providing the sufficent volume for
operational storage and emergency storage. Operational storage is defined as
the volume of water required to supply the peak demands above maximum day demand
rate. Thi s equates to about 20 percent of the maximum-day demand for all
pressure planes. This is based on evaluation of diurnal demand curves of the
existing pressure planes. Emergency storage has been set at one million gallons
based on a fire flow rate of 4000 gallons per minute ("gpm") and a duration of
four hours.
This fire flow is calculated on a "per pressure plane" basis. As a general rule
for storage tank operation, sufficient elevated tank volume should be maintained
to supply fire demand plus projected demand that would have to be supplied if
major pumping facilities were to be totally out of service (i.e. electrical
power failure). The volume associated with the latter is dependent on expected
5
--
Q 0 0
~ · C\
I 'c:: ·
·
Q.,"", 0 ·
><0 ~ ·
LuCJ ·
I (I):i I :
"'¡o
:::h... - ·
~...... ·
~ ·
·
I t Ll)
"'"! 0
~ ; 0
~ C\I
~
I
::: ~
I ¡ · 0
en · ~ ~
I · ~
Q ~ · !" ).. 0
I · ~
Z(/) 0
; ~\ ~~ · I, .., 0
<tLIJ I · ~ ~ C\
·
:1- 0 i ~
I WI- u. 0
· )(
c- ~ · ~
0 ·
Q ·
N:I< ,¿ · I
~ .. ...¡ ,
I · ~
wO- · ~
::::...< 0 · 0
Lt) ·
,Q(/)O C") ~ .... Ll) Q:
0) q:
I .- > ~ ,..J 0) Lu
oCCJ)1- ....
)( Z - ~ )..
WC<C :x:
Q.
I W...I ~Q
...0- ..
...(!) r-
Oc ::¡ ·
~ ·
I Wz 0 ·
~ ·
""'J<t ·
0 L& !. 0
0)
1% ~ · 0)
· -
I c. ·
I ·
Q ·
¡ ·
·
I ·
0 · I
C'I¡ · ·
C") · ·
· ·
~ · ·
I ~ · ·
~ ·
~ Lt)
CO b
t ¡ 0) :...
- ... I:
- III
I ~~ 0 e
tI)
Q, CÞ
C\ Q
!If § (,) e
... Q)
I 0 t: ...
!! .!! II/)
:...
~ Q. U)
~ 0
I
I
I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 It"I ~ L'1 0 It"I 0 111 0 It"I
<.:> It"I or . I") I") N N -
(p6w) aN\f~3a
G
co
00)
0-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
response time of repair crews. A response time in emergency situations would be
in the order of four hours. Therefore, storage sufficent to supply a pressure
plane demand for a duration of four hours must be maintained in the zone.
Fort Worth's distribution system contains numerous storage facilities. A ground
storage tank located at sufficient elevation may act both as elevated storage in
a lower plane and ground storage in a higher plane. The allocation of storage
to each pressure plane is done in a manner to minimize overall system storage.
Reservoirs acting as elevated storage in the lower plane can be allocated as
ground storage in higher planes if pumping facilities are present to enable the
higher plane to use this stored water. However, storage volume can be counted
only once. Therefore, once a specified volume of water has been allocated for
use in a particular pressure plane, it cannot be counted again in any other
pressure plane.
Storage capacity needed to serve new growth for each pressure plane was
calculated based on average daily water consumption. State criteria requires
that sufficient storage be provided to meet average daily water demand.
Elevated storage required is calculated based on 20 percent of the maximum day
flow plus one million gallon. Table 2 compares available storage capacity,
total storage required based on the State criteria, and additional storage
needed to meet exi st i ng water demand through year 1990. Tabl e 3 compares the
available storage with the existing and planning period needs. To obtain the
storage needed for the planning period (Year 1990-2000), the total available
storage for each pressure plane is added to the existing (Year 1990) total need
and subtracted from the total storage required for the planning period. Table 4
illustrates an example to calculate planning period needs. This storage is then
identified as a capital improvement project and included in Table 1.
Pump Station
The pump station operation evaluation was performed to identify the
inefficiencies in the system and to highlight concerns in expanding the existing
capacity to meet the future demands. The pump station capacities are based on
maximum day flow simulations with corresponding pumping capacity and head
determined from actual pump curves. These capacities are used in the evaluation
of existing and future system pumping needs for each pressure plane. Table 5
presents the available existing pumping capacity for each pressure plane. It
also includes the total pumpage required and additional pumpage needed for
the year 1990 and planning period (Year 1990-2000). The additional pumping
capacity needed for the year 1990 and for the planning period is calculated by
comparing the existing available capacity to the maximum-day flow for Year 1990
and the planning period. The additional pumpage needed for Year 2000 for each
pressure plane is identified in Table 1 as a Capital Improvements Plan Project.
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2. STORAGE REQUIREMENT FOR
EXISTING SYSTEM (YEAR 1990)
(Millions of Gallons)
Plane d
Ho 11 y 33.0 12.0 21.0 9.0 None None
Eastside II 28.5 11.0 23.5 10.5 None None
Southside II 22.0 11.0 33.0 14.0 11.0 3.0
Southside III 2.0 2.0 11.0 5.0 9.0 3.0
Westside II 9.5 6.5 20.0 9.0 10.5 2.5
Westside III 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 None None
Westside IV None None 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Northside I! 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 None None
Northside II! -M -M -L..Q ..J..J2 M ~
Total 106 . 5 54.0 121.5 56.5 32.0 10.0
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3. ŒWARI5œ (f EXISTI~ STŒAGE NEEDS ftK) YEAR 2(0) STCAAGE NEEDS
(Millions of Gallons)
Additional Storage Needs
Storage Needed To Projected Total For Year 200J
Mæt Existing Wate Storage Required Total Additional
Derand (Year 19'1)) For year 19'1) Required Needed
li 1 1 v 1 1 v 1 1 v li 1 El v t
Holly 33.0 12.0 f'Ðne tt>ne 33.0 12.0 21.0 9.0 None None
Eastside II 28.5 11.0 None f'Ðne 28.5 11.0 26.5 11.0 None None
Eastside II
( Low ) f'Ðne None f'Ðne f'Ðne 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Southside II 22.0 11.0 11.0 3.0 33.0 14.0 38.0 16.0 5.0 2.0
Souths i de II I 2.0 2.0 9.0 3.0 11.0 5.0 13.0 6.0 2.0 1.0
Westside II 9.5 6.5 10.5 2.5 20.0 9.0 20.0 9.0 None None
Westside III 5.0 5.0 None None 5.0 5.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 None
Wests ide IV None None 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 None None
Northside II 6.0 6.0 f'Ðne None 6.0 6.0 19.0 9.0 13.0* 3.0
North i de I II o 5 0.5 O. 1.0
TOTAL 1ŒJ.5 54.0 32.0 10.0 138.5 64.0 1149.5 68.0 25.0 9.0
*7 MG storage is provided by Eagle Mountain Lake WTP Clearwells (Phase I), and additional 7 MG is going to be
provided during the construction of Eagle Mountain Lake WTP Phase II.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4. EXAMPLE CALCULATING FUTURE STORAGE NEEDS
Southside II Pressure Plane
Fort Worth Projected Population for Year 2000: 121,000
Average Daily Flow for Year 2000: 316 gpdc x 121,000
= 38.2 mgd
Maximum Daily Flow for Year 2000: 38.2 mgd x 2 = 76.4 million gallons
Existing Available Storage: Ground: 11 mgd
Elevated: -II mgd
Total 22 mgd
Total Storage for Year 1990: 33 million gallons (Table 2)
Total Storage Required for Year 2000: 38 million gallons (Table 3)
Required Elevated Storage for Year 2000: 16 million gallons
based on 20% of Year 2000 Maximum Day plus 1 million gallons for emergency
storage
Conclusion: A need of 16 million gallons (38-22) exists in Year 2000 of which
11 million gallons (33-22) is for the year 1990. Hence, total storage
required for the planning period (1990-2000) = 16 mg - 11 mg = 5 mg
10
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5. P'lWIt£ CAPACITY AVAILABLE M{) CAPACI1ì' NEEDED FOR mE FUl1.RE
Pressure
Plane
I-blly
North l-b11y
South Holly
Eastside II
Rolli ng Hi 11 s
Eastside
Randol Mi 11
Fleet~
Booster(3)
Southside II
Roll ing Hi 11 s
Southside Reservoir
Ect.-.ards Ranch
Southside III
Alta ~sa
Russon Ranch
Westside II
Westside
Cam
Westside III
Stagecoach
Westside IV
Northside II
tt>rthside
Cantrell-Sanson
Cantrell-Sanson
Eagle Mtn. WTP
Northside III
Jenkins Hts.
Eagle Mtn. WTP
Northside IV
191) 2(0)
Max Day Additional Max Day Additional
Reqµi red Needed R~i red Needed
ExistirYi}
Capacity (l1!Id)
107
100
276
150
None
None
tt>ne
tt>ne
None
None
None
None
.2
14 (4 )
5(4)
9.0
112
None
122
43(1)
16(2)
15(1)
o (3)
91
None
~
110
40
46
None
40
46
1~
14(1)
46(1)
94
112
None
23
..1Q
43
22
27
None
~
~
61
54
59
None
16
o
9
.2
12
.3
None
.1
11.5(1)
9.0(1)
9.0(1)
o
14
:I)
~(4)
2.2(1)
o
o
5
9.0(4)
~: (1) Purp Station not used as prirmry source of water under future
conditions.
(2) Randol Mill PlITp Station will be upgraded with new plITps to ræet
future condition head/flC1N requiraœnts, due to the creation of a
separate pressure plane, ide~tified as Eastside II (LC1N).
(3) Additional booster purps will be needed to alleviate probl6T5
encountered during high water demand.
(4) Provided with the construction of Eagle l>buntain Lake WTP Phase
1.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Associated Facility
A Northside Satellite
maintenance and repair
further growth occurs.
reduce travel time.
Serv; ce Center wi 11 be constructed in order to support
activities on the northern portion of the service area as
Dispersion of equipment will allow faster response and
Water Master Plan Study
In 1986 the Growth Management Study completed by the City Planning Department
identified the need for the Water Department to have a Water Master Plan. A
comprehensive water study was initiated in 1986 to guide ;n an orderly and
comprehens i ve fashi on the Department I s future di rect i on. Capital improvement
projects and associated costs are identified in the plan.
COST ALLOCATION
The third column in Table 1 contains the total costs of each capital improvement
project which will be financed with impact fees. Since water impact fees are to
be assessed against only new development, it is necessary to allocate the costs
of some projects between costs attributable to providing service to existing
development (Column 7) and costs attributable to providin~ service to new
development (Column 8). (See next section for cost derivation.)
The date of the construction of a capital improvement is not necessarily a
determinant of whether the facility is designed to serve existing development or
new development. Some treatment facilities constructed in the 1983 expansion of
the Rolling Hills treatment plant were designed to serve new development
occurring after 1990. A portion of the total costs of the expansions have thus
been attributed to new growth.
Because of the necessity to provide capacity in advance of the demand, some
capital improvement projects have been sized to provide service beyond the year
2000. Because the impact fee assessed against new development must be
calculated only on the costs of capital improvements needed between the years
1990 and 2000, it is also necessary to prorate that portion of the total project
cost between the cost needed to provide service during the planning period and
the cost needed to provide service beyond the year 2000. The costs of capital
improvements attributable to new development occurring during the planning
period are set forth in Column 8 (Expansion before year 2000). Costs which are
attributable to new development occurring after the year 2000 are presented in
Column 9.
By adding the items in Column 8, the total costs of capital improvements
attributable to new development during the period of 1990 to 2000 can be
determined. This figure is estimated to be $54,187,919.
METHODOLOGY FOR COST ALLOCATION
The allocation of the costs of other capital improvements among existing
development, new development which occurs during the planning period and
development which occurs after the year 2000 was done in the following manner:
12
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rolling Hills WTP Expansion: Phase II of the Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant
raised the design capacity of the plant from 80 to 160 mgd. Since the present
demand on the plant is about 120 mgd. half of the 80 mgd expansion was allocated
to the existing service area needs. The remaining 40 mgd is required for
projected growth between 1990 and 2000. The costs of the expansion thus are
allocated equally between the existing development and the development between
the year 1990 and the year 2000.
Storage Tanks: The storage tanks costs were allocated based on the requi red
storage for year 2000. For example. if a five-mill ion-gallon storage tank is
constructed and only four-mi 11 ion-ga 11 on storage is needed by year 2000, the
cost of one million gallons was allocated beyond year 2000.
Water Master Plan Study: The Water Master Plan Study covered the planning period
from the year 1990 through the year 2010. As this Capital Improvements Plan is
for the year 1990 to year 2000. the cost was allocated equally between the
pl anned improvement between the year 1990 to the year 2000, and planned
improvements beyond year 2000.
Cost Derivation
As noted in the preceding section. total project costs for providing water
service within the water service area were used as the starting point for
allocating costs between existing and new development. Such costs include
engineering and design costs and construction costs. Where the projects had
already been constructed or contracts had been executed, actual costs were used.
Although state law permits the inclusion of interest charges and other
financing costs in the capital improvements plan. such costs have not been
included in the Water CIP. Because project costs are to be adjusted through the
amendment process mandated by state law, no inflationary factor has been
included in project costs.
SERVICE UNIT DETERMINATION
The City of Fort Worth has selected the equivalent meter unit as the appropriate
measure of the consumption of water services by new development. As used in the
Water CIP. a "service unit" is defined to be a unit which is equivalent to one
3/4" water meter. which is the average size meter servicing one single family
residential dwelling in the City.
The size of the water meter installed is a rough measure of the maximum usage
expected in a development. Each meter size can be related by an equivalent
meter by usi ng the formul a Q = VA. where Q represents the fl ow through the
meter. V represents the mean velocity, which for this purpose is assumed
constant for each size, and A represents the cross-sectional area of each meter.
Table 6 indicates the equivalency factor for each meter size.
13
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 6
EQUIVALENT METER TABLE
Actual Meter Size Equivalency Factor
3/4" 1.0
1" 1.75
1-1/2" 4.0
2" 7.0
3" 16.0
411 28.0
611 64.0
811 100.0
1011 150.0
The total number of service units for the City's water service area projected to
occur during the planning period can be determined by using the following
method, based upon the data in the Land Use Assumptions.
The first step in the calculation is to determine the total number of equivalent
meters in the City's water benefit area. This calculation is exhibited in Table
7. The total number of equivalent meters for residential (population) and
non-residential (employment) users in Fort Worth is listed for each meter size.
The total number of meters for each size is then multiplied by the appropriate
meter equivalency factor shown in Table 6. These numbers are then totaled for
residential and non-residential users. All meters that do not add to the demand
for water services, such as flag meters and fire line meters, were excluded from
the calculation of total equivalent meters in the benefit area. However, yard
meters were included in the calculation of total equivalent meters in the
benefit area.
TABLE 7. TOTAL WATER EQJIVALENT METERS
RESIDENTIAL .7511 ~ -1£ -L -L --L- ~ 1- ~ TOTAL
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL METERS 115,693 8, 100 1,æ3 1,749 8 25 24 3 1
X EQJIVALENT LNITS 1.0 ---L15 ~~~ ~ ...fátQ -1OOJ).l5M
RES. EQJIVALENT t£TIRS 115,693 14,315 ' 7,572 12,243 128 700 1,536 IX) 150 152,637
~ESIDENTIAL .7511 ~ ~ ~ -L --L- ~ 1- .-1OC TOTAL
TOTAL ~ESIDEN. f£rERS 7,477 2,045 1,215 2,478 226 205 98 22 20
X EQJIVALENT LNITS 1.0 ---L15 ~ -LD ~ ~ ~ ..ID1Q 15M)
~ESIDEN. EQJIV. 7,477 3,579 4,8ff) 17,346 3,616 5,7æ 6,272 2,200 3,000 54,118
ft£TERS
10TAL EQJIVALENT METERS 123,170 17,894 12,432 29,5æ 3,744 6,4f:ß 7,BOB 2,500 3,150 205,755
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The n e x t s t e p de fin est her a t i 0 0 f e qui val en t me t e r s top 0 P u 1 at ion and
employment in the water benefit area for the year 1990. These ratios are then
applied to the projected population and employment increases in the Fort Worth
water benefit area to determine the respective population and employment units
per equivalent meter. These calculations are shown in Table 8. The 1990
population is divided by the like number of 1990 equivalent meters for
residential units and the 1990 employment is divided by the number of 1990
equivalent meters for non-residential units.
TABLE 8
WATER EQUIVALENT METER RATIOS
a. Fort Worth Equivalent Meters - 1990
b. Fort Worth Population - 1990
c. Fort Worth Employment - 1990
Population Units per Equivalent Meter (b/a)
Employment Units per Equivalent Meter (cia)
RESIDENTIAL
152,637
477,108
NON-RESIDENTIAL
54,118
332,836
3.126
6.150
Table 9 relates the equivalent meters to total population and employment for the
water service area (water benefit area plus wholesale customers for the period
1990 to 2000). The population and employment equivalent meter units derived
from Table 8 are used in conjunction with the increase in population and
employment predicted in the Land Use Assumptions report. The ratios for units
of population and employment per equivalent meter from Table 8 were applied
separately to the increase for residential (population) and non-residential
(emp 1 oyment) to project the total increase in the number of servi ce uni ts in
the year 2000. The total projected increase in water service units for the
water service area equals 64,616.
TABLE 9. INCREASE IN SERVICE UNITS
RESIDENTIAL
POPULA TI ON 2000
PER PROJECTED
1990 2000 POPULATION EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
POPULATION POPULATION INCREASE METER METERS
(a) (b) (b-a) (d) (b-a)/d
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
680,533 821,052 140,519 3.126 44,952
NON-RES I DENTI AL
EMPLOYMENT 2000
PER PROJECTED
1990 2000 EMPLOYMENT EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT INCREASE METER METERS
(a) (b) (b-a) (d) (b-a)/d
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
397,575 518,510 120,935 6.150 19,664
TOTAL INCREASE IN WATER SERVICE UNITS 64,616
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The North Centra 1 Texas Council of Governments was the source for a 11 the
population and employment data used to project equivalent meter units and in the
Land Use Assumptions.
MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
State law limits the amount of an impact fee which may be assessed against new
development. The maximum water impact fee which may be charged per service unit
of new development is calculated by dividing the total eligible costs of water
improvements during the period 1990 to 2000 by the total number of service units
expected to occur during such period. Applying this formula to the data
presented in the CIP results in a maximum impact fee per service unit of $839,
and is calculated as follows:
Total Cost of Capital Improvement Plan Up to Year 2000 (from Table l.
Col umn 8): $54,187,919
Total Increase in Water Equivalent Service Units (from Table 9): 64,616
Maximum Impact Fee: = $54,187,919/64,616
= $839
This calculated maximum impact fee does not represent all of the unit costs of
providing water treatment to new development within the service area. As
detailed above, the City has not included the costs of distribution mains or the
financing costs within the CIP. The inclusion of such projects would result in
a greater IImaximumll impact fee per service unit. The City intends to charge
water impact fees only within the City limits of Fort Worth and the City's
extraterritorial jurisdiction (the IIwater benefit areall). The costs of
providing services to wholesale water customers will be recovered through
lIaccess fees II assessed pursuant to the contract. The calculation of the maximum
impact fee per service unit, however, is based on the total costs of providing
service to one unit of new development within the service area. This lIunit
costll is constant, whether new development occurs within the benefit area or
within a customer jurisdiction.
Table 10 depicts some IItypicalll new residential, cOl11Tlercial and industrial
developments and the amount of an impact fee which would be due utilizing the
maximum impact fee per service unit determined herein. The total amount of the
fee is determined by multiplying the maximum impact fee per service unit by the
number of service units, i.e., the number of equivalent meters, to be generated
by the development. The table is intended for purposes of illustration only.
The number of equivalent meters purchased by a new development may vary with the
particular land use involved and the desire of the user for additional future
capacity.
Additionally, the actual impact fee per service unit adopted by the City may be
less than the maximum impact fee per service which could be charged.
16
I
I TABLE 10. EXAMPLES OF METER SIZES FOR CATEGORIES OF APPLICATION
I EQUIVALENT
METER METER CATEGORY DESCRIPTIVE
RESIDENTIAL SIZE RA TI 0 INFORMATION
I 3/4" 1.0 Single Family Home
Duplex
I COMMERCIAL
3/4" 1.0 Convenience Food Store 2,000 sq. ft.
I Clothing Store 2,000 sq. ft.
1.011 1.75 Auto Parts Store 68,000 sq. ft.
Clothing Store 2,000 sq. ft.
I 1.511 4.0 Apartment Complex 14 units
Laundry 36,000 sq. ft.
I 2.0" 20.0 Trailer Park 49 unit s
Car Wash 100 cars/day
I 3.0" 16.0 Restaurant 1,600 meals/day
Office Building 175,000 sf/800 empl.
I 4.011 28.0 Grocery Store Warehouse 700,000 sq. ft.
6.0" 64.0 Hot,=l 509 rooms
I 8.0 100.0 Shopping Center 70 stores/l,OOO,OOO sf
10.011 150.0 Large Hospital 684 beds
I
INDUSTPIAL
I 3.011 16.0 Golf Club and Golf Ball 130,000 sf/500
Manufacturing Company employees
I 4.011 28.0 Food Manufacturing 18,500 sf/400
Company employees
6.011 64.0 Pharmaceutical Company 800,000 sf/1,800
I employees
10.011 150.0 Aircraft Manufacturing 15,000 employees
I Company
10.011 150.0 Brewery 3,000,000 sf/900
I employees
I
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
Following is a brief description of proposed projects recommended to be included
in the Water Capital Improvements Plan:
PROJECT TITLE: 5-mg ground storage at Southern Site, S2-1
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of 5-mg ground storage to be located
at the southern tip of the Southside II pressure plane.
PURPOSE: I n order to meet the State storage regul atory requi rements and
hi gher water demand due to the projected popul at ion, addit i ona 1 storage
facilities are needed for the Southside II Pressure Plane. This improvement
is recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan Study.
ALLOCATION: Of the five-mill ion-gallon tank cost for two-mill ion-gallon
capacity is allocated to planning period expansion and three-million-gallon
capacity to beyond year 2000 expansion.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: 4-mg ground storage at Alta Mesa, S2-2
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of a 4-mg ground storage tank to be
located at the existing AHa Mesa reservoir site in the Southside II
pressure plane.
PURPOSE: Due to the future developments in Southside II and III pressure
plane, additional storage facilities are required to meet minimum State
storage requi rements. Thi s project is a 1 so recommended by the 1989 Water
Master Plan.
ALLOCATION: Of the four-million-gallon ground storage tank, cost for
one-million-gallon capacity is allocated to the planning period, and three
million gallon capacity to beyond year 2000.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: 2-mg ground storage at southern site, S2-4
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of ground storage tank (2-mg) to be
located at the southern part of the Southside II pressure plane.
PURPOSE: 1989 Water Master Plan recommends that an additional five million
gallons in storage capacity will be required by year 2000 to serve
Southside II demand, based on the storage requirement criteria. The total
requi red storage to meet Year 2000 water demand is 38 mi 11 ion ga 11 ons.
Available storage in year 1990 is 33 million gallons, hence an additional
eight million gallons in storage will be required by Year 2000.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALLOCATION: 100 percent of the costs of two-million-gallon storage tank is
allocated to the planning period.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: 3-mg ground Storage at southern site, S3-3
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of a three million gallon ground
storage to be located at the southeast part of the Southside I I I pressure
plane.
PURPOSE: In order to provide sufficient storage and supply for existing and
future conditions for Southside III pressure plane and meeting the State
storage regulatory requirements, the construction of the three-million
gallon-ground storage facility is recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan
Study.
ALLOCATION: Cost for the two-million-gallon tank capacity is allocated to
the planning period, and the remaining one-mill ion-gallon capacity to
beyond year 2000 expansion.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: 2-mg elevated storage in Blue Mound area, N3-4
DESCRIPTION: Design and Construct ion of an elevated tank (2-mg) at the
intersection of Harmon Road and Hicks Road in Northside III pressure plane.
PURPOSE: Based on the current Water Master Plan, the existing elevated tank
capacity for the Northside III pressure plane is not sufficient to meet
proj ected popul at i on water demand and to meet the state requi rement
criteria. Hence, additional elevated storage is recommended.
ALLOCATION: 100 percent of the cost of a two-mil 1 ion-gallon elevated tank
is allocated to the planning period.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: 2-mg elevated storage (Eastside low), E2-3
DESCRIPTION: The design and construction of two million gallon elevated
storage facility to be located in the vicinity of the intel"section of
Highway 183 and Highway 360 in the Eastside II Pressure Plane.
PURPOSE: Due to the creation of the Eastside II (Low) pressure plane and
meeting the storage regulatory requirements the design and construction of
this two-mill ion-gallon mg elevated storage to feed the new Eastside II
(Low) pressure plane is recommended by the 1989 Water Master Plan.
ALLOCATION: 100 percent of the cost is allocated to the planning period.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: 2-mg ground storage in Westside III pressure plane, W3-4
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of a 2-mg ground storage facility in
Westside III pressure plane.
PURPOSE: Due to the inadequacy of the existing storage facilities in the
Westside III pressure plane, and to meet the present and future demmand, as
well as the state storage regulatory requirements, the installation of this
two-mi 11 i on-ga 11 on ground storage facil ity is part of the recommended
Capital Improvements plan.
ALLOCATION: Cost for one-mill ion-gallon capacity is allocated to the
planning period, and one-million-gallon capacity beyond year 2000.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: Upgrade Randol Mill Pump Station, E2-1
DESCRI PTION: Construct Randol Mi 11 Pump Stat ion to upgrade to 40-mgd
capacity.
PURPOSE: The eastern-most arm of the Eastside II Pressure Plane will have
diffi cul ty ma i nta i ni ng adequate pressures under increased future demands.
Low pressure in this area is not a result of high ground elevation, but a
result of the configuration of the pressure plane and the distances
involved in transporting water from the Rolling Hills Treatment Plant. To
address this situation, this eastern arm must be isolated from the
remainder of the Eastside II zone, thus creating a separate pressure plane.
Elevated tanks located in this area will require lower overflow elevations
than the existing Eastside tanks. Therefore, this area is termed Eastside
II (Low). To serve this Eastside II (Low) pressure, the Randol Mill Pump
Station will be upgraded with new pumps.
ALLOCATION: 100 percent of the cost is allocated to the planning period.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: New Booster Pump Station, E2-2
DESCRIPTION: Design and installation of a new Booster Pump Station to be
located at North Beach Street.
PURPOSE: A booster pump stat ion is needed to serve the portion of the
Eastside II Pressure Plane located north of the Holly Pressure Plane and
west of Haltom City. This area is currently served by parallel 54-inch and
36-inch transmission mains. With increased demands in this area, it is not
po s sib 1 e to ma i n t a ins u f f i c i en t pre s sur e sin t his are a 0 r ma i n t a i n
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sufficient water levels in the North Beach Reservoir. Hence, an in-line
booster pump station is needed.
ALLOCATION: 100 percent of the cost is allocated to the planning period.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: New pump station at Westland tank - O.5-mgd, W4-1
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of a 0.5-mgd pump station to be
located at the Westland Reservoir site in the Westside IV pressure plane.
PURPOSE: Due to a lack of any pumping facilities in the Westside IV
pressure plane for exi st i ng condit ions and in order to meet the pressure
requirements for future demands, the installation of this pump station is
recomnended.
ALLOCATION: Cost for 0.2 mgd is allocated to the year 1990, 0.1 mgd to the
planning period, and 0.2 mgd to beyond year 2000.
STATUS: Planning stage.
PROJECT TITLE: Eagle Mountain lake Treatment Plant, (Phase I).
DESCRIPTION: Construction of the proposed Eagle Mountain Lake Water
Treatment Plant, including the intake structure, clear wells, pump station
and raw water line.
PURPOSE: As the development of the northern segment of Fort Worth continues
and additional water is required by our wholesale customers (Keller,
Southlake, Saginaw, Sansom Park, etc...), more potable water will be
needed, which will exceed existing water treatment plant capacity; hence a
new water treatment plant will be needed. The proposed Eagle Mountain Lake
water treatment plant will not only serve the Northside III pressure plane,
but also will serve a portion of demands in the Northside II pressure
plane.
ALLOCATION: 100 percent of the cost is allocated to the planning period.
STATUS: Construction is expected to be started in May 1990.
FACILITY EXPANSIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS
PROJECT TITLE: Rolling Hills Water Treatment Expansion to 160 mgd
DESCRIPTION: Design and construction of Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant
expansion to treat 160 mgd.
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
PURPOSE: Rolling Hills WTP was constructed in 1973 in two 40-mgd units and
was designed to permit expansion to 160 mgd by doubling the existing
facilities. Because of the rapid growth of the City's south and east sides
and projected water demand increase, it was recomnended in the 1979 Water
Master Plan.
ALLOCATION: Half of the 80-mgd expansion of the Rolling Hills Water
Treatment Plant costs was allocated to the planning period, and the
remaining to beyond year 2000.
STATUS: Construction was completed in 1986.
PROJECT TITLE: Northside Satellite Service Center
DESCRIPTION: Center will support maintenance and repair activities on the
northern portion of the service area.
PURPOSE: Expansion of the new Central Facilities will not be feasible due
to site restrictions. Dispersion of equipment will allow faster response
and reduce travel time to the northern service area.
ALLOCATION: Facility is needed to service development within the City
occurri ng between 1990 to 2000. 100 percent of the cost is a 11 ocated to
the planning period.
STATUS: Management study conducted in 1988.
PROJECT TITLE: Water and Wastewater Master Plan
DESCR I PTION: Eng i neeri ng st udy to prepa re Water and Wastewater Master
Plan.
PURPOSE: A comprehensi ve water and wastewater study is requi red to hel p
guide long-term Capital Improvement projects to ensure that the most
cost effective projects are constructed. In addition, it is necessary to
update the 1979 Water Master Plan and to develop a new Wastewater Master
Plan. No Wastewater Master Plan has ever been developed. Also, the
Growth Management Study done by the Planning Department had identified the
need for Water Department to have a Water and Wastewater Master Plan.
ALLOCATION: The Water Master Plan Study covered the planning period from
year 1990 through year 2010. The CIP covers the period 1990 through 2000;
the cost was allocated equally between the planning period and beyond year
2000.
STATUS: Study was completed in 1989.
22
EXHIBIT "D"
Part of Ordinance No. 1708
I CAPITAL S
MPROVEMENT
P LAN
For Wastewater Impact Fees
February 1990
e
Prepared by the Fort Worth Water Department
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I CAPITAL S
MPROVEMENT
P LAN
For Wastewater Impact Fees
February 1990
~"""""""
......... fl!! OF 'rr- "
_.:"....~~.........~:.t .~
· ~~... * '.~.r-
~/..~" \ ..
, .
.......... .~...,. .,.... ..............
.....~:..~:., M~I':!~Y'f.~....J
. .~,
\....p, 51095 4:)...~
~~··~"'STt ~.,~
-". S,;... . r.J
(/Þt~~/Î 'v
.........',..,,, '\
--.....-: OF T~ \,\\
_-- ~v".,......:-t...:J "
.: ,,~...., '* .'.,'!I$' '1,
~ 0.:' ..... "
,.: .,..,
'.' ............'1,
~ '..':;:·;·:E..Nï:: CRUMB .JR."
~ STt:r-H .....:............,:....:::;
~............ .~,
~ -0'., 5010B" :'/'!-!;
i 1'..,'. i> ~y.: "",~
i" ~X;(:,~G/ST'i-~..... .:
I, '3S'"..,..,·
'\'\,/0
!jtd(~
¡ -"""'\
---f,. OF r '\
;-\~..........~:tf '.
;' ( * .... \S' t.
",. . ....,
i!* i ,*,
l.······..·,,· ..,,:11;''' ..~ c ~·:~)!·A··N·· ~
~ NOWZAR D!f! (~:,;\ . ',I
~ ................ .~.. 9'.,.. .ø~~...,
~ooCt\ 53U2::, ~ 1trr¡1
, ~O" -9~ ø,<! ."~; ;)
t, ';I';;.:~ (;151 ,£:.\''; ',S' ~ (,'Y'"
"~~ïò·"····~~v
;Yw' 1'" aD
S 18 !
. .
e
Prepared by the Fort Worth Water Department
I
I
,
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
INTRODUCTION 1
EXISTING SERVICES AND NEED FOR WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS 1
ELIGIBLE FACILITIES 4
Exi st i ng Pl ant
Phase I: Improvements to Existing Plant
Phase II: 24 MGD Expansion
Phase III: 17 MGD Expansion
Phase IV: Rehabilitation Projects
Satellite Facilities and Planning
Trinity River Authority Expansion
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
COST ALLOCATION
METHODOLOGY FOR COST ALLOCATION
Cost Allocation by Category
Cost Derivation
7
7
9
9
SERVICE UNIT DETERMINATION
MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
APPENDIX
Category A:
Category B:
Category C:
Category 0:
Category E:
Category F:
12
15
Improvements to Meet Present Flows 15
Expansion to Meet Future Flows 16
Expansion to Meet Present and 144 MGD
Flow 18
Expansion to Meet Existing and Future
Flows 20
Remote Facilities and Studies Facility
Expansions at Other Locations 21
Trinity River Authority Associated Costs 21
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
~
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
LIST OF TABLES
~
Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan Project
for Impact Fees 2
Equivalent Meter 10
Total Wastewater Equivalent Meters 10
Wastewater Equivalent Meter Ratios 11
Projection of Wastewater Equivalent Service Units 12
Examples of Meter Sizes for Categories of
Application 14
LIST OF EXHIBITS
~ ~
Exhibit 1. Phased Expansion of Village Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant 3
Exhibit 2. Allocation of Project Costs 8
~
I
I
I
I
I
ii
-
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
FOR
IMPACT FEES
City of Fort Worth, Texas
I NTRODUCTI ON
The Wastewater Capital Improvements Plan ("CIP") for the consideration of impact
fees for the City of Fort Worth ("City") identifies those wastewater capital
improvements and their associated cost, which serve new development within the
City's wastewater service area and which could be financed, in part, through
impact fees assessed against new development in the City, from 1990 to 2000. The
Wastewater CIP serves as the basis for calculation of wastewater impact fees
which could be charged within the City's wastewater benefit area (City limits
and extraterri tori a 1 juri sdi ct ion). The proposed capital improvements and
projected costs are set forth in Table 1 and are illustrated in Exhibit 1.
Thi s wastewater improvements report consi sts of severa 1 elements. Exist i ng
wastewater services provided within the City of Fort Worth and its
extraterritoria 1 juri sdict i on and those provided to its who 1 esa 1 e wastewater
customers are briefly described. The need for capital improvements to serve
growth through the year 2000 then is established using data contained in the
updated Wastewater Facility Plan, which was approved by the Texas Water
Development Board on July 26,1989. It is based upon the Land Use Assumptions
approved on January 30, 1990 by the City Council for the wastewater service
area.
The a 11 ocat i on of the costs of needed wastewater improvements between exi st i ng
development and development which occurs thereafter is sunmarized both in the
text and in the tables. The method of deriving the costs of facilities is also
described.
This document also explains the determination of the number of new "service
units" (expressed in terms of equivalent meters) which are projected to occur
from 1990 to 2000. This information, in conjunction with the facility costs, is
used in the final section of the report to calculate the maximum impact fee per
service unit which may be assessed against new development within the wastewater
benefit area based upon the list of improvements set forth in Table 1. This
section also gives examples of impact fees which may be charged against
different types of land uses based upon the maximum wastewater impact fee.
The Appendix to this report contains a detailed description of each project and
cost allocation in the Wastewater CIP.
EXISTING SERVICES AND NEED FOR WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS
As described in the Land Use Assumptions for wastewater, the City provides both
retail and wholesale wastewater services to the Fort Worth metropolitan area
which includes most of Tarrant County. The Wastewater service area also include
1
I
nlLll US!EUm mm~ IMPlCmlnS P~II pw!e!s
usmU!f. Im:1 ms
I '~!!L eosls eOS!S com
ram:1 1L~~~A~!~ A~~J:m: &~L~:ATE~
eOS! sml OëiAl:OI ,OIP~¡IIGI 10 ; gO 10 mAl::OI IOI!S !O mUSIOI
PUS! macl '11~t (S) ¡liE ¡Ioaths i om em::!! Im-m: melD mc
I 1 S ¡ 7 , I 10 ¡¡
_a....__..................................._...._................_..................................................................................................____.......
mUGl am UC:l.lIIES
aucon .: eOISm~IOI puwm 10 IIn pmOl PLOIS IE)
I t1~'101: 1190 - 2000 mUSIDI COSTS: m (JIILJCIILI !PI emsl
1-1-1 mOOI om ~UDPm 7,m,m ¡a~'i; 25 lag'l! 1,m.S!! 110,m(1I 143,IS¡
1-1-2 mmas UI mcmos Is,m,OIO I,,-Ii 18 11,-10 jU)UOO HUOO (1) m,ooo
1-1-3 InUllllm PlPmllS 1.14I,OCD IIr-" 5 &wl! 1.O!O,m 111, 7~9 (J) )US)
I anat I: UPUSIOI TO on 'mu PLOIS
t1I.OC1!1OI: mo ,2000 mUSIOI COSt: m (aPIm cml
11,& 24 IGI !IPUSIOI (PUSI IH) IDC) 111.010 la,'lI 3J Ptb'l! 13D.S'0 (S) IIUIC
11,' 24 IGI DPUSIOI (PWI IH) (CI/') ¡¡¡,m FIb-! I 24 reHI m,m (SI 1Ii,1Ji
I 11-' 14 IG) UPUSIOI (PlUI IH) 17,¡¡¡,m Ptb'l! 11 reHi 1),114,110 (SI UII.IIO
II-I 24 lei mUSIOI (PUn JI-II (m)' 1.134.10' lap'li 41 JaHO lIl.m (SI 21),101
II-I 24 IGD mUSIOI (PUll II-I) (ClIII' 1.1)4,10' ¡u,IO 10 Jal'll Ill, IDS (SI 2IUOI
II-I 24 IOD mUSIOI (PlUI 11'1)' 11,111,100 Iar'lO 21 "b-II 1,¡¡¡,lIS (S) ),¡¡¡,m
II-e 24 lei mUSI01 (PUS! ¡H) (0:) ¡¡¡,OOO Iwli 'S Oel-ll ii1.1SO (S) \I,1!O
I IH 14 ICD UPUSIOI (Plm ¡¡,C) (cm) 1l1,!QO Oct-Ii H SIp-II '1I,m(SI 10USO
II-C 11 leD umSIOI (PUSI !1-C) 13,000.030 Oct'!l 11 Sw!J usuo; is, U!O,C;O
¡:¡.a SCLICi UU UPUS:OI (0;\ "JIi,m IC"I\ II 10.,11 J3UH II) jo:l,lH
111-1 m:cs U!& mmlOI ,CI/I\ UIi,4CO laH' 11 eet-10GC HUH ;4) LeU,!H
1:1-1 SOL:C! Am UPAlSICI lU3:,e;, la,.,1 14 Oct ·i~JC I, :is, \:S r 4: 1¡,ii4,!1:
¡Hi &CULUiI nunc OIm~lFS iCII 10,ooe 1.1'10 1, lar-II UO:IS\ uce
I If'C} mmUT 10m; D:;mus lCO ,000 PtbolO lag-Ie Is,eoo IS; I¡,oOO
¡H: C:r.IO~ smEl! (¡Em :) 1m: IIU!O J,a-!! ~ 2 1&a-!O ill ili (S) ¡; ,II)
¡HI COIIIO~ STSIU (PUS! 1) (':1; ¡:uao J¡~. ,~ : ~ J,¡'\1 ¡1I,m IS) ¡UC
¡y,o: comOL ST!!n ImSE oj 1 ~.O, occ ~ ¡:¡. 90 II :Ia'll :.m,OO)(S) m,oe:
I,., mUll m;om FOIP emm (m', ¡¡;,cec Dtc-13 4 ip:'IO 112.~~~ (~~ JUoe
I I,., PlIIlII m;ml pm ,,;am (CI! 1;!, ~~o OcHO 11 hr-11 ".oc~ : 5) )1,CO:
n-, mWI IFPLm: POIP orelm 1 . ~(: ,OCO Oct-It 1: O;t·\; U¡¡,oOO IS; m,ooo
cmcm C: mUSiCllO 1m mmT m 144 KG: n:i
mOCUlOl' 1110 ' IDeo OPUSICI COSI ' 11\ tmI:U em . 1',3' mi:U COSt
I IH ¡~!mlæ mID IKPlOmmS im;' m,l:: 1"'1' I~ t!:-!: :1 ~ , Ii! 49.8i7 ;¡,iC!
In ¡~!:U!m mID ImOïtll!ITS ""I' ~H.::: lar-I; :¡ M¡r-9: ou:¡ i:,n ::,¡¡¡
¡Y-I Il!mjel~ mTU :mmmT5' UII,:¡¡ Ka:'!O .; ~ 10";1 3 . ç~ Ì, 8~ 4 S~), :' 1 j::.r,:
1...1 mcmeAL e!mmCI muml ill;) 40: ,eee Ju¡- 4 O!c'!{ );: ,)3: :: ,m :Ui'
I IHI !acmm CUEm!el mm¡OI tCI~ 100.0:, ¡!,-!{ :4 1C1- ¡ )33,)33 SUO: :! Ii1
¡Hi IUCmCAL emmIOI mUSIOI UOO,QCC Ot,-II 12 Ia!"! UIP!¡ m:o, nu,:
1,..1 conm STSlEII (rem 1:) (U;I l.i4I,m OCt'!! lJ I", ¡: m.if' :0,5:: 41.m
1"D2 COITlOL mUll (piAS! ll) (CI I ¡¡¡,m ¡aa- Ie li 10.,9; ~ z: , 2 ~ ~ 7U44 a,ll\
1,..1 como. mm IPim ::'11 1.Ico,;eo ¡a~'IC 11 1,,·1i 1. it: ,~:j :61 ,SO: ~~ ~~~
IH3 aIm uuctJIm I!IG I 100,000 JaHl ¡ Jçj-,l mj5) \O,¡;, lUll
I IH) aneT uuctMll! t:Mj 10UOO ,1»-1; ¡S &,,- !2 3J3,)J) S~,:: : :ili:
IH3 IIUCT Imem" \.IOU:) Jua'!i " Kar'!: 4,01) ,)) L:,~C: :CUI'
¡'I-S mm mlm:IC !;mKtI! (CI) 14U~, J,ud: .. Ipr-\4 :C4,CtJ ~ ~ , ~ c: :v ,:CC
1'1'1 ILUDct OmTUlIC I;omm 3,DiC ,e:; ¡aa-I¡ li It,·" 2 . 5~: . ~J~ )1:, SC: :: 7 . ~: c
1,1,' s~om :lImn; LAm:" ¡;';:p ,:11 ¡SI,e:: :tn- 9' I¡ l¡r-!4 ::1. 3~ 3 3 ~ . ::: ¡us:
I I-I,' mm ..mum LU:i:'~ !;m 3,;OO,C,0 JaHI H hp-I) :,IHH~ m,o:: 1 ~ j . ;;:
ancOll C: mm¡OI Te IE!! UISIIfO, 1\4 m lID mm
mocmOl : 1m ' mc unlSIOI COSTS: II' (C&PIt&~ COSTS, iU' cmu; com\
I 1-.'4 SLUtel Dn&,aIIC UCILI" (ClI I.III,OCO II!-!I 11 lap'14 1.4l1,m 2:1.1'0 ,:un
1,1'1 InDOI DnuOm nmITT IJ,7CC,C:C lap'!, 11 OcH) 11 "sue¡ 1.i1),144 UIo,m
CUIGeIt I: laOlE rmmm UI sm:ls
I 10ltlSIDI sumlT! snm! m 1m) 1!,m lug'!! 1; h,-I: 15, ;~o 0
10UlSIDI sulLLm sum! m m,DCO I...'S ,¡ lu~'\i m,OOo 0
US!!I&ID U!:EI P.II !OI,IO¡ Ptb-Ii 47 D,;-8! 4S.,2SQ 17j 4~U~0
cmcolJ r: nUITt mn &OTIom! usoc:mD com
I m canu nyp mUSIOI 1.3)7,114 (I) Oct'lI 41 hr- ) l.J!,,¡¡~
on,ol am 1m 1.3i!,ile III Ctc-Ii 1: hH\ 1.311,11:
..................................................-..........................-.....--..........-.-........-.........-...........---..............-....----....---------......
..............-..............-..................................-...-----...-............................................--...----....-.....---.---...................-....-...--.
I ,cu~ IS'llln~ n:;I=' ~~~, lsun,:c. ¡U!S,;¡~ !1.l)U;) )),;;UC:
, STlT! mOLfIlG pm macl - &mem {S 1m:!:!; mllAL c:¡: !~~CC!m IC !m ::::
It sun nmme rulO raOJler ' Amm ,I I~;;;AT¡)J !C PRIsm PWI mumn 11 m IS 1;1::
(1) 1.3\ m;ICIIU m !PI 01111 (1 e:m sum tQCI~:T mlm m":IG PEP:;, m POSI !!II '. f ~
,..
I (II II ¡mIen;! rOI m em: (! 1." 0' !:£ c:~~s TO ::~! IT conn:!. '~F~ j;~!g S!lH :;'
(3) ¡U, IImm~t rei m elm :! )i\ C/ IE! eCSls Tû C:IT I! nTH:: ~~;, PLQVS ':E?':':::~ : ~~
(4 ¡ 33\ rOI Tol lOCO (TlO or SI! DlCISms ItQcm: rOI muslo'
2
I
-
~
~
Id
~ I
~
...
~
:
rF.
~
~
~
"'I) I I E I I I I I I i I
<! S i lit ! I Ï
I I i I ; I I ~ I I I I I
I ! I I ~ ~ ~
I I I I I ¡
I I I
I i
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
23 wholesale customers, all or parts of which are served by the Fort Worth
Wastewater System. Within the city 1 imits of Fort Worth, are areas which the
Trinity River Authority ("TRA") provides some level of wastewater service.
Almost all of the wastewater within the service area is treated at the Village
Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Construction of the treatment plant commenced
in 1953. Since then the plant has undergone three major capacity expansions,
consisting of numerous capital improvements. The plant has a rated capacity of
120 million gallons per day (mgd) average daily flow. The plant is presently
operating at or near its rated capacity. The 201 Facilities Plan, completed by
Camp Dresser & McKee in 1983, recomnended a phased improvement and expansion
plan to be implemented through the year 1992. The Phase I improvements were to
accommodate wet weather peaks, improve sludge processing and to rectify the odor
problems for existing facilities. The Phase II and Phase III expansions will
incrementally increase the capacity of the plant to accommodate flow generated
by growth within the service area.
The Updated 201 Facilities Plan, completed by the Water Department in 1989,
confirmed the recommendations of the original Facilities Plan, updated cost
estimates, refined the project descriptions, and revised the schedule for the
needed upgrading and expansions through the year 2010.
Based on projected population and employment growth, as detailed in the Land Use
Assumptions, the City estimates that at least 18 mgd of the 24 mgd expansion
will be utilized by new development in the wastewater service area by the year
2000. The TRA has also developed projections for the need for additional
capacity to serve growth within the service area over the same period. Other
improvements are needed within the planning period to increase the overall
effect i veness and effi ci ency of the treatment process and wastewater system.
Such improvements are intended to benefit both existing development and new
growth.
ELIGIBLE FACILITIES
Under state law, impact fees for wastewater faci 1 ities may be imposed only to
finance capital improvements which serve new development. The Wastewater CIP
identifies those treatment facilities which will provide service to new
development within the City of Fort Worth, within its extraterritorial
juri sdi ct i on, and to its who 1 esa 1 e wastewater customers. Those improvements
recorrrnended by the Facilities Plan which are to be constructed partially or
wholly to provide treatment for flows generated by new development and expanded
population are listed in Table 1. The City has elected to exclude sewage
collection facilities which serve new development within the service area.
Collection facilities and lift stations are proposed to be financed through
funding sources other than impact fees.
The improvements in Table 1 are summarized in the remainder of this section.
More complete descriptions of individual projects appear in the Appendix.
Exi st i n9 Pl ant
The Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is rated at 120 mgd average daily
flow. It consists of barscreens, primary treatment facilities, primary effluent
pump stations, aeration basins and final clarifiers for secondary treatment, and
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fi Hers for po 1 i shi ng the effl uent.
chlorination. The sludge processing
thi ckeners, cent rifuga 1 concentrators,
beds.
Disinfection of the effluent is by
facilities consist of primary sludge
anaerobic digesters, and sludge drying
Major support facilities include digester gas compression and storage
facilities, engine generators for energy recovery, and blowers for air supply to
the aeration basins.
Phase I: Improvements to Existin9 Plant
The High-Flow Expansion: Facilities were provided to fully treat the peaks in
flow generated by heavy rainfalls without bypassing and process facilities. Four
final clarifiers and five filters were added. Construction was completed in
1988.
The Sludge Management Plan: Four dissolved air flotation thickeners to
concentrate the secondary sludge, four anaerobic digesters to stabilize the
sludge, a sludge landfill, a sludge processing facility and associated pump
stations, pipelines, and equipment are included.
Odor Control Improvements: Wet chemi ca 1 scrubbers were constructed to prevent
the odors associated wi th primary c 1 arifi ers and part i cul ar buil di ngs from
affecting neighboring residential areas.
Phase II: 24 MGD Expansion
Phase II expands the liquids portion of the treatment plant through additional
capac ity in the fi Her, act i vated sludge and prima ry treatment areas. It
includes disinfection, filters, secondary treatment, primary clarifiers, and bar
screens. The expansion was designed under one design project and will be carried
out in three increments.
Phase III: 17 MGD Expansion
The final expansion of the plant included in the Facilities Plan is scheduled to
start in 1996. The expansion will take place in two phases. Phase IlIA will
expand the secondary treatment area through the addition of filters, three final
clarifiers, and two aeration basins. Phase IIIB will increase the solids
treatment capacity with four to six digesters and possible additional secondary
sludge thickeners.
Phase IV: Rehabilitation Projects
The 1975 expansion more than doubled the capacity of portions of the plant.
Since then, the infrastructure of the plant (including electrical distribution,
gas collection, hot water, and control systems) have been maintained but not
replaced or improved. During this period, the corrosive atmosphere, general wear
and tear, and additional loads have led to a critical need to renovate or
replace these critical systems and subsystems.
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Satellite Facilities and Planning
Satellite Service Center: A satellite service center will be constructed in
order to support maintenance and repair activities on the northern portion of
the service area as further growth occurs. Di spersi on of equi pment wi 11 a 11 ow
faster response and reduce travel time.
Wastewater Master Plan: In 1986 the Growth Management Study completed by the
City Planning Department identified the need for the Water Department to have a
Wastewater Master Plan. A comprehensive wastewater study was initiated in 1986
to guide the Department's future direction in an orderly and comprehensive
fashi on. Capital improvement projects and associated costs are i dent ified in
the Plan.
Trinity River Authority Expansion
Expansion of Trinity River Authority Central Regional Wastewater Treatment
Facility: The City has participated in a contractual agreement with TRA for the
purpose of constructing a wastewater interceptor to collect wastewater generated
by the portions of Fort Worth within the Big Bear Creek and Denton Creek
watersheds. In addition, the City has contracted with TRA for the purpose of
;::onstructing facilities to enable it to provide treatment to Fort Worth's
wastewater in the Big Bear Creek and Denton Creek watersheds. The area in
question drains to the Big Bear Creek and Denton Creek sewersheds. The portion
of the area in the Big Bear Creek sewershed wi 11 be served by TRA' s planned
extension of the Big Bear Creek Interceptor. Future Fort Worth sewers will
connect to the new TRA interceptor near the City of Roanoake. Treatment will be
provided at TRA's existing Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The
treatment plant expansion is currently under construction and is expected to be
completed by March 1993. The interceptor is scheduled for completion in late
1990. The Ci ty is expected to contri bute 1.2% of the increased fl ow to the
Central Regional Plant during the planning period.
Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment Pl ant: The area of Fort Worth north of the
Big Bear Creek sewershed is inTRA I s Denton Creek Regi ona 1 Wastewater System
servi ce area. The future Fort Worth sewers wi 11 connect to the proposed TRA
Henri etta Creek and Cade Branch I nterceptors, and to a trunk extendi ng to the
new All i ance Airport. Treatment wi 11 be provi ded at the proposed Denton Creek
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The treatment plant and interceptor system
are currently under construction and will be in service by early 1990. The City
of Fort Worth I s proport i onate share of the capi ta 1 costs needed to provi de
capacity at the Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant shall be a percentage
obtained by dividing Fort Worth's estimated annual flow of wastewater discharged
in TRA's system into the total flow. Currently, based on the projected
population, it is estimated that Fort Worth's projected flow would utilize
approx imate 1 y 38 percent of the tota 1 Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment Pl ant.
For the purpose of calculating the potential impact fee, the expense associated
with the collection system is not included.
COST ALLOCATION
Column 3 in Table 1 contains the total project costs of each capital improvement
project to be financed with impact fees. Since wastewater impact fees can be
assessed against only new development, it is necessary to allocate the costs of
some projects between costs attributable to providing service to existing
development (Column 8), costs attributable to providing service to new
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
development until 2000 (Column 9) and costs attributable to new development
beyond year 2000. (Column 11) (See next section for cost derivations.)
The estimated date of the construction of a capital improvement is not
necessarily a determinant of whether the facility is designed to serve existing
deve 1 opment or new deve 1 opment. Some treatment fac il it i es const ructed in the
Phase I and II expansions of the Village Creek Treatment Plant were designed to
serve new development occurring after 1990. A portion of the total costs of the
expansions have thus been attributed to new growth.
Because of the necessity to provide capacity in advance of the demand, some
capital improvement projects have been sized to provide service beyond the year
2000. Because the impact fee assessed against new development must be calculated
only on the costs of capital improvements needed between the years 1990 and
2000, it is also necessary to prorate that portion of the total project cost
between the cost needed to provi de servi ce duri ng the p 1 anni ng peri od and the
cost needed to provide service beyond the year 2000. The costs of capital
improvement s whi ch are attri butabl e to new deve 1 opment occurri ng duri ng the
planning period is set forth in column 9 (Expansion before Year 2000). Costs
which are attributable to new development occurring after the year 2000 are
presented in column 11.
The total costs of capital improvements attributable to new development from
1990 to 2000 can be determined by adding the individual projects costs in Column
9 (Expansion before Year 2000). This figure is projected to be $56,135,613.
METHODOLOGY FOR COST ALLOCATION
The allocation of the costs of capital improvements among existing development,
new development which occurs during the planning period and development which
occurs after the year 2000 is based on the following methodology. Derivations
of allocation ratios are illustrated in Exhibit 2.
Cost Allocation by Category
Category A projects, are EPA-funded projects which are designed primarily to
treat the existing flows at 120 mgd, but include some allowance for expansion.
The projects are those which will replace the existing sludge handling and
disposal. The cost for these projects are allocated primarily to the existing
facilities. Costs allocated to the planning period are those which the EPA
disallowed as grant-eligible cost associated with future growth capacity.
Category B projects are those which are designed to treat additional flows
subsequent to 1990. The costs are allocated between the planning period
(1990-2000) and the future (beyond Year 2000). Costs are prorated between the
planning period (1990-2000) and beyond using the ratio of anticipated additional
flows in the year 2000 (138 mgd - 120 mgd) to the total capacity of the
expansion (24 mgd). This ratio is 0.75.
Category C projects support both the existing plant and the expansions. Costs
are allocated to the existing plant based on the ratio of existing (120 mgd) to
future (144 mgd) flows (83.3%). Allocation of the cost to the 1990-2000
expansion is based on the ratio of the expansion required by year 2000 (138-120
7
I
I 0
C\I _
0
C\I
I a AMOÐ3.L .,:)
".... · '''/,,
~ ... · O~l·.rl
I ,... H'·"t
I \
If(JIØI.,tIX3 ooo~-oee I 0
I 110:# ...
... 0
. o . . A IIOÐ.JJ. .,0 C\I
... ~.~ . ..~/...
.
I fë ... · OZI·.r.. en
w l-
. ..~ · oz..·......
I en
I * 0
i I 0
~ g I-
...
I .... 0 0
u . C\I
~ ~ W
~ au .,
u III 0
I ~ CI)
It C\I c:
~ ~ ..
&u - a..
.. ). e
I ~ ~ La.
.... ~
- 0
u
§I i
CI) z
I ...
\ 0
-
\ l-
I \ <
I 0
~I \ 0
I Q , -J
(!) 0 \ -J
. C\ 0
... \ CID <
CID n CI)
fit = \ ...
I ...
II
= 0 AJ./O"d~ oee I \
~ IIO;J
0 0 o AilØØ3.( .,0
I ~ CI) "t·t, · ....t/O~l
.
0 ... o~..
0
0
C\I
I ,tt
f
CI)
e 0 0 0 0 0 0'"
ID 'D . .., C\I
I ... ... ... ... ... ...
foe,,) AA01:1N' 3e~1I3" ~
I
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
mgd) and the capacity of the expansion (24 mgd) or 75% of the remalnlng capital
cost not attributed to the existing plant. Allocation to the future costs are
based on the remaining capital cost not attributed to the existing plant or to
the 1990-2000 expansion.
Category D projects will support present demand, facilities added with the Phase
II expansion, and facilities which include additional room for expansion beyond
the Phase II design flows of 144 mgd. The Sludge Processing Facility is
intentionally designed to process sludge produced by the Phase III expansion to
161 mgd. The costs are allocated between the planning period and later based on
the ratio of the expansion required by year 2000 (138 mgd - 120 mgd) and the
capacity of the Phase II (24 mgd) and Phase III (17 mgd) expansion providing an
overall capacity of 161 mgd. The ratio assigned to the planning period is 18
mgd/41 mgd or 44%.
Category E projects provide services to the collection system and the treatment
plant but are not located at the treatment plant. Costs are allocated as
described in the detailed descriptions of the projects.
Category F contains costs for the portion of the expansion of the Trinity River
Authority facilities which serve customers within the City of Fort Worth service
area. The portion of the costs assigned are determined by the City's increase in
flow contribution between 1990-2000.
Cost Derivation
As noted in the preceding section, total project costs for providing wastewater
treatment within the service area were used as the starting point for allocating
costs between existing and new development. These costs include engineering and
design costs, land acquisition costs, construction costs and, in some cases,
construction management costs. For projects which have already been constructed
or contracts have been executed, actual costs were used.
Although state law permits the inclusion of interest charges and other financing
costs in the capital improvements plan, such costs have not been included in the
Wastewater CIP. Because project costs are to be adjusted through the amendment
process mandated by state law, no inflationary factor has been included in
project costs.
SERVICE UNIT DETERMINATION
The City of Fort Worth has selected the equivalent meter unit as the appropriate
measure of the consumption of wastewater services by new development. As used in
the Wastewater CIP, a "service unit" is defined to be a unit which is equivalent
to one 3/4 inch water meter, which is the average size meter servicing one
single family residential dwelling in the City.
Water meters are the best measure of the relative demands placed on wastewater
treatment facilities by users. The size of the water meter installed is the
approximate measure of the maximum usage expected in a development. Since water
usage is directly related to the volume of waste flow entering the collection
system, the sewage collection and treatment system requirements are generally
proportionate to the capacity of the water meters measuring the water
consumption.
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
Each meter size can be related by an equivalent meter concept using the formula
Q = VA, where Q represents the flow through the meter, V represents the mean
velocity, which for this purpose is assumed constant for each size, and A
represents the cross-sectional area of each meter. Table 2 indicates the
equivalency factors for each meter size.
TABLE 2
EQUIVALENT METER TABLE
Actual Meter Size
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
4"
6"
8"
10"
Equivalency Factor
1.0
1.75
4.0
7.0
16.0
28.0
64.0
100.0
150.0
The total number of service units for the City's wastewater service area
projected to occur during the planning period, can be determined by using the
following method, based upon the data approved in the land Use Assumptions.
The first step in the calculation is to determine the total number of equivalent
meters in the City's wastewater benefit area (City limits and ETJ). This
calculation is exhibited in Table 3. The total number of equivalent meters for
residential (population) and non-residential (employment) users in Fort Worth
are listed for each meter size. The total number of meters for each size is
multiplied by the appropriate meter equivalency factor shown in Table 2. These
numbers are then totaled for residential and non-residential users. All meters
that do not add to the demand for wastewater services, such as yard meters, flag
meters and fire line meters, were excluded from the calculation of total
equivalent meters in the benefit area.
TABLE 3
TOTAL WASTEWATER EQJIVALENT t£TERS
RESIDENTIAL .75" 1" 1.5" 2" 3" 4" 6 8" 10" TOTAL
--- --
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL t£TERS 115,535 7,ffÐ 1,831 1,691 8 25 24 3 1
X EQJ!VALENT LNITS 1.0 1.75 4.0 7.0 16.0 æ.o 64.0 100.0 1~.0
--- --
RES. EQJ!VALENT t£TERS 115,535 13,824 7,324 11,837 128 700 1,536 DJ 1~ 151,334
~IDENTIAL .75" 111 1.511 211 3" 411 6 811 1011 TOTAL
--- --
TOTAL NJ+-RES. t£TERS 7,357 1,813 1,004 1,870 225 199 96 21 20
X EQJ!VALENT LNITS 1.0 1.75 4.0 7.0 16.0 æ.o 64.0 100.0 1~.0
--- --
NJ+-RES. EQJ! V. t£TERS 7,357 3,172 4,376 13,(R) 3,fOO 5,572 6,144 2,100 3,())) 48,411
TOTAL EQJ!VALENT t£TERS 122,892 16,936 11,700 24,927 3,7æ 6,272 7,600 2,400 3, 1~ 199,745
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The n e x t s t e p de fin est her at i 0 0 f e qui val en t me t e r s top 0 P u 1 at ion and
employment in the wastewater benefit area for the year 1990. These ratios are
then applied to the projected population and employment increases in the Fort
Worth wastewater benefit area to determine the respective population and
employment units per equivalent meter. The 1990 population is divided by the
number of 1990 equivalent meters for residential units and the 1990 employment
is divided by the number of 1990 equivalent meters for non-residential
units. These calculations are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
WASTEWATER EQUIVALENT METER RATIOS
RESIDENTIAL NON-RES I DENTI AL
a. Fort Worth Equivalent Meters - 1990 151,334 48,411
b. Fort Worth Population - 1990 477,108
c. Fort Worth Employment - 1990 332,836
Population Units per Equivalent Meter (b/a) 3.153
Employment Units per Equivalent Meter (cia) 6.875
Table 5 relates the equivalent meters to total population and employment for the
wastewater service area (wastewater benefit area plus wholesale customers) for
the period 1990 to 2000. The population and employment equivalent meter units,
derived from Table 4, are used in conjunction with the increase in population
and employment predicted in the year 2000 for the wastewater service area
established in the Land Use Assumptions report. The ratios for units of
population and employment per equivalent meter for Table 4 were applied
separately to the increase for residential (population) and non-residential
(employment) units to project the total increase in the number of service units
in year 2000. The total projected increase in wastewater service units for the
wastewater service area equals 43,693.
The North Central Texas Council of Governments was the source for all population
and employment data used to project equivalent meter units and in the Land Use
Assumptions.
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5
PROJECTION OF WASTEWATER EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
BY POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
RESIDENTIAL
POPULATION
PER
1990 2000 POPULATION EQUIVALENT
POPULATION POPULA TI ON INCREASE METER
(a) (b) (b-a) (d)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
830,229 923,071 92,842 3.153
NON-RES I DENTI AL
EMPLOYMENT
PER
1990 2000 EMPLOYMENT EQUIVALENT
EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT INCREASE METER
(a) (b) (b-a) (d)
---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
422,931 520,885 97,954 6.875
TOTAL INCREASE IN WASTEWATER EQUIVALENT SERVICE UNITS
MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE DETERMINATION
2000
PROJECTED
EQUIVALENT
METERS
(b-a)/d
----------
29,445
2000
PROJ ECTED
EQUIVALENT
METERS
(b-a)/d
----------
14,248
43,693
State law limits the amount of an impact fee which may be assessed against new
development. The maximum wastewater impact fee which may be charged per service
unit of new development is calculated by dividing the total eligible costs of
wastewater improvements duri ng the peri od 1990 to 2000 by the total number of
service units expected to occur during such period. Applying this formula to
the data presented in the CIP results in a maximum impact fee per service unit
of $1,285 and is calculated as follows:
Total Cost of Capital Improvement Plan (1990-2000) (from Table 2.
Column 9) = $56,135,613
Total Increase in Wastewater Equivalent Service Units (from Table 5):
43,693
Maximum Impact Fee = $56,135,613/43,693
= $1,285
This calculated maximum impact fee does not represent all of the unit costs of
providing wastewater treatment to new development within the service area. As
detailed above, the City has not included the costs of collection facilities or
the financing costs within the CIP. The inclusion of such projects would result
in a greater "maximum" impact fee per service unit.
The City intends to charge wastewater impact fees only within the city limits of
Fort Worth and the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (the "wastewater benefit
area "). The costs of provi di ng servi ces to whol esa 1 e wastewater customers will
be recovered through "access fees" assessed pursuant to contract. The
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
calculation of the maximum impact fee per service unit, however, is based on the
tota 1 costs of provi di ng servi ce to one unit of new development withi n the
service area. This "unit cost" is constant, whether new development occurs
within the benefit area or within a customer jurisdiction.
Table 6 depicts some "typical II new residential, comnercial and industrial
developments and the amount of an impact fee which would be due utilizing the
maximum impact fee per service unit determined herein. The total amount of the
fee is determined by multiplying the maximum impact fee per service unit by the
number of service units, i.e., the number of equivalent meters, to be generated
by the development. The table is intended for purposes of illustration only.
The number of equivalent meters purchased by a new development may vary with the
particular land use involved and the desire of the user for additional future
capacity. Additionally, the actual impact fee per service unit adopted by the
City may be less than the maximum impact fee per service unit which could be
charged.
13
I
TABLE 6
I EXAMPLES OF METER SIZES FOR CATEGORIES OF APPLICATION
EQUIVALENT
METER METER CATEGORY DESCRIPTIVE
I RESIDENTIAL SIZE RATIO INFORMATION
3/4" 1.0 Single Family Home
I Duplex
COMMERCIAL
I 3/4" 1.0 Convenience Food Store 2,000 sq. ft.
Clothing Store 2,000 sq. ft.
I 1.0" 1.75 Auto Parts Store 68,000 sq. ft.
Clothing Store 2,000 sq. ft.
I 1.5" 4.0 Apartment Complex 14 units
Laundry 36,000 sq. ft.
2.0" 20.0 Trailer Park 49 units
I Car Wash 100 cars/day
3.0" 16.0 Restaurant 1,600 meals/day
I Office Buil di ng 175,000 sf/800 empl.
4.0" 28.0 Grocery Store Warehouse 700,000 sq. ft.
I 6.011 64.0 Hotel 509 rooms
8.0 100.0 Shopping Center 70 stores/1,000,000 sf
I 10.011 150.0 Large Hospital 684 beds
I INDUSTRIAL
3.011 16.0 Golf Club and Golf Ball 130,000 sf/500
I Manufacturing Company employees
4.011 28.0 Food Manufacturing 18,500 sf/400
Company employees
I 6.011 64.0 Pharmaceutical Company 800,000 sf/1,800
employees
I 10.0" 150.0 Aircraft Manufacturing 15,000 employees
Company
I 10.011 150.0 Brewery 3,000,000 sf/900
employees
I
I
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PHASES AND COST ALLOCATION METHODS
CATEGORY A: IMPROVEMENTS TO MEET PRESENT FLOWS
PROJECT TITLE: Sludge Only landfill, 1-8-1
DESCRIPTION: The 156-acre landfill and solids processing area will provide
capacity to bury dewatered sl udge through year 2010. The area surrounded
by the levee also provides a location for the sludge processing facility.
The new landfill is sealed from exfiltration by a clay slurry curtain and
the underlying impermeable strata.
PURPOSE: The existing sludge drying beds are an inexpensive and effective
way to dry the digested sludge. However, the area is too small and
unreliable in wet weather for the projected plant flows.
ALLOCATION: Costs to existing plant determined by percent eligible for EPA
Grant Funds. (92.7% of construction costs). Costs to 1990 to 2000 period
based on percentage of 24 mgd Expansion applied to planning period. (75%
of remaining costs.) Remaining costs applied to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Construction is complete.
PROJECT TITLE: Digesters and Thickeners, 1-8-2
DESCRIPTION: Four dissolved air flotation thickeners will replace the
gravity sludge thickener and centrifuges. Four digesters and a blend tank
will provide for sludge stabilization.
PURPOSE: The four sludge thickeners concentrate the waste activated sludge
prior to digestion. The sludge is mixed with primary sludge in a blend
tank and distributed to the anaerobic digesters for fermentation. The four
additional digesters are being added to assure sufficient detention time
for complete reduction of the organic compounds. Once the project is
complete and on line, the gravity thickener will be converted to a final
clarifier, thereby adding capacity to the activated sludge system.
ALLOCATION: Costs to existing Plant determined by percent eligible for EPA
Grant Funds. (92.0% of construction costs). Costs to 1990 to 2000 period
based on percentage of 24 MGD Expansion applied to planning period. (75%
of remaining costs.) Remaining costs applied to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Construction is scheduled for completion in 1990.
PROJECT TITLE: Intenmediate Pipeline, 1-8-3
DESCRIPTION: Four pipelines linking the treatment plant with the sludge
only landfill, conversion of existing pipelines to the sludge drying beds.
15
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PURPOSE: Pipelines are required to transport the stabilized sludge from the
plant to the sludge only landfill and to return the sidestream from the
sludge processing facility and working disposal area. Piping modifications
were required in the existing sludge drying beds to accomnodate revised
piping.
ALLOCATION: Costs to existing plant determined by percent eligible for EPA
Grant Funds. (87.7' of construction costs). Costs to 1990 to 2000 period
based on percentage of 24 mgd expansion applied to planning period. (75'
of remaining costs.) Remaining costs applied to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Pipelines were completed in 1989.
CATEGORY B: EXPANSION TO MEET FUTURE FLOWS
PROJECT TITLE: Filter Area and Chlorination, II-A
DESCRIPTION: Project includes the construction of continuous backwash
filters, a new chlorination facility, chlorine contact basins, and
expansion of the existing chlorine contact basins.
PURPOSE: The result will be a great ly enhanced abi 1 ity to fi lter the
cl ari fi er effl uent and wi 11 improve abil ity to di scharge low-turbidity
effluent during wet weather periods.
ALLOCATION: All costs allocated to 24 mgd expansion. Planning period costs
are 75' ((138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Completion of this project in 1990 sets the stage for Phase II-B.
PROJECT TITLE: Aeration Area, II-B
DESCRIPTION: The construction consists of two large aeration basins, three
final clarifiers and a dechlorination facility.
PURPOSE: The aeration basins and clarifiers extract the organic matter from
the settled sewage and reduce the oxygen demand on the river. The
dechlorination facility was added to the Project to meet the new standard
for discharging a non-chlorinated effluent.
ALLOCATION: All costs allocated to 24 mgd expansion. Planning period costs
are 75' ((138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Construct i on on the second phase of the 24 mgd expansion is
expected to start by early 1990.
PROJECT TITLE: Control System (Phase I) IV-Dl
DESCRIPTION: The existing central control system will be replaced with a
modern distributed process control and information management system. The
fi rst phase establ i shes control over the Phase IIA Project and the entire
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
solids handling system. It also establishes costs for the remainder of the
equipment necessary to finish the conversion.
PURPOSE: The existing control system was installed in 1975. It has
suffered severe corrosion since construction, is now at capacity, and is
difficult to maintain. The new system will employ distributed processing
system for improved reliability and expandability.
ALLOCATION: All costs allocated to 24 mgd expansion. Planning period costs
are 75% ((138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Construction will start in January 1990.
PROJECT TITLE: Auxiliary Heating Facility, IV-Cl
DESCRI PTION: The exi st i ng gas fi red boil er wi 11 be moved from the
Engine/Blower Building to the digester area and installed in a temporary
building.
PURPOSE: The boiler is required to provide heat to the four new digesters.
ALLOCATION: All costs allocated to 24 mgd expansion. Planning period costs
are 75% ((138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
STATUS: The construction scheduled for March 1990.
PROJECT TITLE: Primary Effluent Pump Upgrade, IV-F
DESCRIPTION: Addition of primary effluent pumps, revision of wet wells, and
improvement to storm water pumping and electrical feeds.
PURPOSE: Primary pump stations are unable to pump all of the projected wet
weather flows to secondary area, leading to possibility of flooding in
primary area.
ALLOCATION: All costs allocated to 24 MGD Expansion. Planning period costs
are 75% ((138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Design analyses under way.
PROJECT TITLE: Primary Area Expansion, II-C
DESCRIPTION: Construct i on of two addit iona 1 primary cl ari fiers, addit iona 1
effluent pumping capacity, influent bar screens, and an influent line well
provide solids separation capacity as the sewage enters the plant.
PURPOSE: Increased flows required capacity expansion of the primary area to
effectively remove the settleable sludge that settles and pump the flows to
the expanded secondary area.
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
ALLOCATION: All costs allocated to 24 mgd expansion. Planning period costs
are 75% ((138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
STATUS: Construction is scheduled to start in October 1991. The design of
the facilities is essentially complete.
PROJECT TITLE: Solids Area Expansion, III-B
DESCRIPTION: Increase the solids treatment capacity by adding four to six
digesters and possible additional secondary sludge thickeners.
PURPOSE: Increased solids loading due to increased primary sludge and
secondary sludge requires additional heated anaerobic digester space to
adequately reduce the organic material and make it suitable for dewatering
and 18 n d fill i n g . Add it ion a 1 d i s sol v e d air f1 0 tat ion t h i c ken e r s ma y
be necessary to condense the secondary sludge prior to digestion.
ALLOCATION: Since only two of the six digesters are required for the 24 mgd
Expansion, 33% of the costs were allocated to the 24 mgd expansion.
Seventy five percent of these costs were allocated to the planning period.
The remaining costs were allocated to beyond year 2000.
STATUS: Planning.
CATEGORY C: EXPANSION TO MEET PRESENT AND 144 MGD FLOW
ALLOCATION: Improvements to the existing plant which will also service the 24
mgd expansion facilities. Costs to present facilities are the ratio of present
capacity and expanded capacity, or 83.3% (120/144). Planning period costs are
75% (138-120)/24) of costs. Remaining costs allocated to beyond 2000.
PROJECT TITLE: Electrical System Improvements, IV-B
DESCRIPTION: The original 2400-volt feeders in the primary area replaced
with a high-voltage system. Replace engine/generator control and switching
systems. Provide synchronization gear.
PURPOSE: The primary electric distribution system at the plant is badly in
need of upgrading. Improvements in generator controls and switching will
allow more efficient utilization of plant-generated power. Generated power
frequency wi 11 match ut i 1 i ty power and a 11 ow shared use to feeders and
improved efficiency.
ALLOCATION: Category C standard (83.3% present, 75% of remai nder to
planning period, and remaining to beyond 2000).
STATUS: Construction scheduled for March 1990.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT TITLE: Control System (Phase II), IV-D2
DESCRIPTION: Phase II will utilize the equipment selected in Phase I, and
will include software development and installation of the remainder of the
control system to provide centralized control of the entire plant.
ALLOCATION: Category C standard (83.3% present, 75% of remainder to
planning period, and remaining to beyond 2000.
PURPOSE: Project will replace existing computer control system.
STATUS: Phase II is presently under design and will be under construction
by January 1991.
PROJECT TITLE: Energy Management, IV-C3
DESCRIPTION: Construct a methane and natural gas boiler facil ity in the
digester area. Install hot-water supply lines and engine heat exchangers.
Install a gas compressor facility and storage sphere.
PURPOSE: Digesters must be maintained at 90-95° F to effectively stabilize
the sludge. The present heating system uses jacket heat from the engines.
Mechanical breakdowns in winter and potential hot water line failure made
it necessary to provide an alternate source of heat for the entire digester
area. The gas compression and storage facilities are required to
effectively utilize the methane gas produced in the additional digesters
and improve the utilization of the gas from the existing digesters. The
heating facility will be constructed in the 91-92 fiscal year to provide
heat to all the digesters so that the engines can be repaired without
allowing the digesters to lower temperatures and fall out of compliance
with the State permits.
ALLOCATION: Category C standard (83.3% present, 75% of remainder to
planning period, and remaining to beyond 2000).
STATUS: Construction scheduled for 1991.
PROJECT TITLE: Sludge Processing Equipment, 1-8-5
DESCRIPTION: Purchase of belt sludge presses to concentrate wastewater
sludge. Vendor assigned to general contractor.
PURPOSE: Presses wi 11 be purchased under separate contract to a 11 ow
separate evaluation.
ALLOCATION: Category C standard (83.3% present, 75% of remainder to
planning period, and remaining to beyond 2000).
STATUS: Design complete.
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PROJECT TITLE: landfill Operating Equipment, I-B-6
DESCRI PTION: Purcha se of equi pment requi red to operate the 1 andfi 11
includes pier hole drillers, heavy dump trucks, maintainers, and a variety
of other specialized equipment.
PURPOSE: Equipment is required to dig holes for sludge disposal, haul
sludge from adjacent sludge processing facility, and support the
landfilling operations.
ALLOCATION: Category C standard (83.3% present, 75% of remainder to
planning period, and remaining to beyond 2000).
STATUS: Design complete.
PROJECT TITLE: Electrical Generation Expansion, IV-B2
DESCRIPTION: Expansion of the energy recovery capacity of the plant by
adding large engine-driven generators.
PURPOSE: Generators will utilize the methane generated by the digesters to
power engines and drive generators which will provide power to the plant
electrical distribution system. Waste heat from the exhaust gases and the
jacket water will be used to heat the digesters).
ALLOCATION: Category C standard (83.3% present, 75% of remainder to
planning period, and remaining to beyond 2000).
STATUS: Planning stage.
CATEGORY D: EXPANSION TO MEET EXISTING AND FUTURE FLOWS
PROJECT TITLE: Sludge Processing Facility, I-B-4
DESCRI PTlON: Facil i ty i ncl udes sl udge storage tanks, press areas, 1 oadi ng
areas, chemical storage and feeding area, and support facilities. The
sludge drying facility will be located in the sludge only landfill area.
PURPOSE: Increased flows and improved solids separation generate sludge
which must concentrated prior to landfilling or land application.
ALLOCATION: Improvements to the existing plant which will also service the
24 mgd Phase II expansion and the 17 mgd Phase III expansion. Cost
allocated to present facilities is based on the ratio of present capacity
(120 mgd) to future capacity for which the project was designed (161 mgd),
or 75%. The remai ni ng cost allocated to the expansi on must be further
allocated the planning period (1990-2000) by the ratio of the expansion
required in 2000 (138 mgd - 120 mgd) and the capacity of the expansion (41
mgd). The ratio assigned to the planning period is 18 mgd/41 mgd, or 44%.
STATUS: Design completed in 1988, construction scheduled for 1994.
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CATEGORY E: REMOTE FACILITIES AND STUDIES FACILITY EXPANSIONS AT OTHER
LOCATIONS
PROJECT TITLE: Northside Satellite Service Center
DESCRIPTION: Center will support maintenance and repair activities on the
northern portion of the service area.
PURPOSE: Expansion of the new Central Facilities will not be feasible due
to site restrictions. Dispersion of equipment will allow faster response
and reduce travel time to the northern service area.
ALLOCATION: Facility is needed to service development within the City
occurri ng between 1990 and 2000. One hundred percent of the cost is
allocated to the planning period.
STATUS: Management study conducted in 1988.
PROJECT TITLE: Wastewater Master Plan
DESCRIPTION: The Wastewater Master Plan projects the collection system
flows and needs through year 2010.
ALLOCATION: The Wastewater Master Pl an Study covered the pl anni ng peri od
from year 1990 through year 2010. The CIP covers the period 1990 through
2000; therefore, half of the Master Plan cost is allocated to the periOd
beyond 2000 and the rest to the planning period.
STATUS: Complete.
CATEGORY F: TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY ASSOCIATED COSTS
PROJECT TITLE: TRA Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
DESCRIPTION: A portion of the construction costs of the Trinity River
Authority (TRA) treatment facilities will be included in the computation of
the impact fee. The portion of the area within the Fort Worth jurisdiction
served by the TRA includes the far eastern and northern side of Fort Worth,
which cannot be served by gravity to the Village Creek WWTP.
ALLOCATION: The capacity of the existing TRA Central Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant is 100 mgd. It is proposed that an additional 35 mgd
expansion of the Central plant will be needed to serve projected population.
The flows contri buted by the Fort Worth servi ce area wi 11 be about 0.43
mgd, or 1.2 percent of total design capacity of 35 mgd. The 35 mgd
expansion is fully used at the end of the planning periOd.
STATUS: The Central Plant expansion is under way.
PROJECT TITLE: Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
DESCRIPTION: Expansion in the northern tier of the service area will be
routed to the Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. Costs for thi s
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
service will be billed to the City of Fort Worth and will be eligible for
impact fee assessment. The portion of the construction cost assumed by the
City in the contract with TRA is included. The plant is only expected to
accommodate flows prior to year 2000.
ALLOCATION: The costs will be allocated in proportion to the portion of
the total flow generated within Fort Worth Service area (38%). Costs are
allocated to the planning period (1990-2000). Additional expansion to
the Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment P1 ant wi 11 be necessary to
accommodate flows past year 2000.
STATUS: Complete.
22