Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC 2010-03-08 Agendas
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY HALL CITY COUNCIL WORKROOM 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Monday, March 8, 2010 5:00 P.M. A.1 Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting A.2 IR 2010 -018 2010 Bond Sale (5 Minutes) A.3 IR 2010 -019 Review City of North Richland Hills'Shop NRH' Program (15 Minutes) A.4 IR 2010 -020 Emergency Management Update (5 Minutes) B.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code B.1 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.071 Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation - 1) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096- 236530 -09); 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067 - 241297 -09); 3) Venue at Hometown vs. City of North Richland Hills, et al (No. 352 - 237213 -09) B.2 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.072 Texas Government Code to Discuss Land Acquisition in the area of 6701 Davis Blvd C.0 Adjournment Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland ills, Texas in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on March 5, 201 00A ` ist nt City Secretary This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking spaces are available. Requests for accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary's office at 817 - 427 -6060 for further information. The City Council may confer privately with its attorney to seek legal advice on any matter listed on the agenda or on any matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. NRH City Council Agenda — March 8, 2010 Page 1 of 4 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 P.M. Copies of the full City Council agenda information packet are accessible prior to every regularly scheduled Monday Council meeting according to the following locations and schedule: ❑ City Hall on the day of the meeting (hard copy available) Additionally, the agenda packet is available for download from the City's web site at www.nrhtx.com after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday prior to every regularly scheduled Council meeting. A.0 Call to Order - Mayor Trevino A.1 Invocation - Councilman Sapp A.2 Pledge - Councilman Sapp A.3 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Proclamation for National Intellectual and Development Disabilities Awareness Month presented by Councilman Whitson A.4 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Recycle More School Art Contest Winners presented by Councilman Barth A.5 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Proclamation for Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative - presented by Mayor Pro Tern Turnage A.6 Citizens Presentation An opportunity for citizens to address the City Council on matters which are not scheduled for consideration by the City Council or another City Board or Commission at a later date. In order to address the Council, please complete a Public Meeting Appearance Card and present it to the City Secretary prior to the start of the Council meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation by the Council of any subject which is not on the posted agenda, therefore the Council will not be able to discuss or take action on items brought up during the citizens presentation. A.7 Removal of Item(s) from Consent Agenda NRH City Council Agenda — March 8, 2010 Page 2 of 4 B.0 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All consent agenda items listed below are considered to be routine items deemed to require little or no deliberation by the City Council and will be voted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered. B.1 Approval of Minutes of February 2, 2010 Community Meeting B.2 Approval of Minutes of February 22, 2010 City Council Meeting B.3 GN 2010 -019 Resolution Establishing a No Build Zone around Little Bear Creek Park Gas Well Pad Site - Resolution No. 2010 -014 C.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS C.1 ZC 2010 -01 Appeal Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Robert and Karah Nordyke for a Zoning Change from R -3 - single family to R -1 -S - special single family for Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (located at 6613 Harmonson Road - 1.25 acres.) - Ordinance No. 3089 C.2 ZC 2010 -02 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Life Church for a Zoning Change from R -2 - Single Family to U - School, Church, Institutional for Lot 1, Block 1, House of Grace Addition (located at 7850 Davis Boulevard - 7.45 acres.) - Ordinance No. 3088 C.3 PW 2010 -013 Public Hearing and Action on Ordinance Amending Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater and Amend Impact Fee Regulations - Ordinance No. 3090 D.0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Items to follow do not require a public hearing D.1 FP 2010 -01 Consideration of a Request from David Thorne to Approve a Final Plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Thorne Addition (located in the 6500 Block of Crane Road - 1.43 acres.) E.0 PUBLIC WORKS No items for this category. F.0 GENERAL ITEMS F.1 PU 2010 -006 Award RFB 10 -020 to BBC Construction Group, Inc. in the Amount of $73,240.00 for the Replacement Construction of the Public Works Storage Facility. F.2 PU 2010 -007 Award RFB 10 -021 to Airwise Heat & A/C in the amount of $55,900 for HVAC Replacement. NRH City Council Agenda — March 8, 2010 Page 3 of 4 G.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS G.1 Action on Any Item Discussed in Executive Session Listed on Work Session Agenda H.0 INFORMATION AND REPORTS H.1 Announcements - Councilman Lewis H.2 Adjournment Ail items on the agenda are for discussion and /or action. Certification I do hereby certify that the above notice of meeting of the North Richland Hills City Council was posted at City Hall, City of North Richland Hills, Texas in compliance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code on March 5, 2010 at Q.15 W%- /I a/� ,'' � Nit � : _ /1 A , This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking available. Requests for accommodations or interpretive services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary's office at 817 - 427 -6060 for further information. The City Council may confer privately with its attorney to seek legal advice on any matter listed on the agenda or on any matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code. NRH City Council Agenda — March 8, 2010 Page 4 of 4 City of North Richland Hills City Council Work Session Meeting Agenda North Richland Hills City Hall City Council Workroom 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Monday, March 8, 2010 5:00 P.M. A.1 Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting A.2 IR 2010 -018 2010 Bond Sale (5 Minutes) A.3 IR 2010 -019 Review City of North Richland Hills 'Shop NRH' Program (15 Minutes A.4 IR 2010 -020 Emergency Management Update (5 Minutes) B.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code B.1 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.071 Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation - 1) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096- 236530 -09): 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067 - 241297 -09): 3) Venue at Hometown vs. City of North Richland Hills, et al (No. 352 - 237213 -09) B.2 Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.072 Texas Government Code to Discuss Land Acquisition in the area of 6701 Davis Blvd C.0 Adiournment CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. A.1 Subject: Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 2010 -018 Date: March 8, 2010 Subject: 2010 Bond Sale In the adopted FY 2009/2010 Capital Projects Budget, City Council approved debt financing for projects and equipment. Projects totaling $6,025,000 (see attached list) make up the proposed general obligation (G.O.) portion of the sale. The G.O. sale includes 2003 bond election street projects. Projects and equipment in the amount of $23,740,000 make up the proposed certificate of obligation (C.O.) portion of the sale. The C.O. sale (see attached list) includes funds for equipment replacement, utility water and wastewater projects, drainage projects, NRH2O strategic plan projects, TIF 1 expansion projects and the TIF 2 recreation center project. The total recommended debt issuance is $29,765,000, including G.O.'s of $6,025,000 and C.O.'s of $23,740,000. The G.O. bonds are all voter approved and follow the bond election plan of 2003. Debt service payments for the C.O.'s will be made from the Aquatic Park Fund, Drainage Utility Fund, Fleet Fund, TIF 1 taxes, TIF 2 taxes, and Utility Fund respectively. A Council resolution authorizing the intent to sell C.O.'s is required prior to issuance of the certificates. Such a resolution will be recommended for approval at the March 22, 2010 City Council meeting. A tentative calendar for the bond sale includes the following items: Mon, March 22 Council resolution authorizing intent to sell certificates of obligation Wed, April 14 Rating Agency reviews Mon, May 10 Receive competitive bids and present recommendations for Council approval Tue, June 15 Delivery of funds to the City of North Richland Hills ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS Staff has carefully looked at these projects and the City's ability to prudently finance and pay for these, and we have discussed the potential sale with our financial advisor, First Southwest. We believe that the City of North Richland Hills can adequately and soundly handle the financing of these projects and that we should be able to receive a favorable interest rate. We look forward to discussing these with Council Monday evening. Respectfully Submitted, Larry Koonce Director of Finance 2010 Bond Sate Projects CIP Budget Page No. Approved Budget FY 2009.10 Project Amount Needed Explanation for Revision Budgeted General Obligation Projects 2003 Bond Election Street improvement Projects 41 Douglas Lane Street Improvements (Hightower to Starnes) $ 950,000 $ 950,000 75 Starnes Road (Rufe Snow Drive to Crosstimbers Lane) 600,000 600,000 79 Terry Drive (Susan Lee Lane to North Richland 65,000 65,000 Boulevard) Engineering /Design 77 Tabor Street (Rufe Snow to Steven Street) 70,000 70,000 Engineering /Design 57 Shady Grove Road Street Improvements (Davis to Clay- 500,000 500,000 Hibbins) Construction of the 27 Briley Drive Street Improvements (Lariat Tr. To Rufe 430,000 200,000 Project is almost Snow Road) complete at just under $200,000 33 Cloyce Court Street Improvements (Northeast Loop 820 650,000 650,000 to Maplewood Ave.) 35 Colorado Blvd. Street Improvements (Boulevard 26 to 700,000 700,000 Harwood Rd.) 45 Mackey Drive Streets Improvements (Briley Dr. to 540,000 540,000 Glenview Dr.) 63 Trinidad Drive Street Improvements (RUfe Snow Dr. to 970,000 970,000 Holiday Lane) This Project was 65 Yarmouth Avenue (Mid- Cities Blvd. to Newcastle PI.) 470,000 480,000 presented to Council as needing an additional $10,000. 109 Meadowview Estates Channel Drainage improvements 300,000 300,000 (Engineering / Design) Total G.O. 2003 Bond Election Projects 6,245,000 6,025,000 Total 2010 G.O. Bonds Budget $ 6,245,000 $ 6,025,000 1\nrh- data\ finance3 lFinance_Admin\FN_Data\ACCT\Bond Presentation\2010 Bond12010 Project List Reimbusement Res. 10 -26.09 2010 Bond Sale Projects CIP Budget Page No. Approved Budget FY 2009 -10 Project Amount Needed Explanation for Revision Budgeted Certificates of Obligation Projects Recreation Center Project tort Recreation Center (TIF 2) Construction 18,800,000 18,800,000 Subtotal C.O. Recreation Center Project 18,800,000 18,800,000 TIF 1 Expansion Only need $1,000,000 for engineering and design in 237 Intersection Improvements / Utility Burial 3,500,000 1,000,000 FY 2010. The remaining $2,500,000 for construction will be issued in 2011. Subtotal C.O. TIF 1 Expansion 3,500,000 1,000,000 Community Center South of Loop 820 Project Selling bonds for this 209 Community Center South of Loop 820 Construction 1,920,000 project has been postponed to FY 2010 -11. Subtotal C.O. Community Center South of Loop 820 1,920,000 Walkers Creek Park Phase 2 (Adult Softball) Project 185 Walkers Creek Park Phase 2 (Adult Softball) Project 500,000 This project will begin design in FY 2011 if funds Engineering and Design permit. Subtotal Walkers Creek Park Phase 2 (Adult Softball) Project 500,000 Aquatic Park Projects 191 Food Service Building (Professional Services) 55,000 55,000 192 New Attraction 2011 (Professional Services) 170,000 170,000 Subtotal C.O. Aquatic Park Project 225,000 225,000 'dnrh- data\ finance $tFinance_AdminiFN_Data1ACCT \Bond Presentation\2010 Bond\2010 Project List Reimbusement Res. 10 -26 -09 2010 Bond Sale Projects CIP Budget Page No. Approved Budget FY 2009 -10 Project Amount Needed Explanation for Revision Drainage Projects 89 Briarwoods Estates Improvements 1,615,000 1,615,000 105 Heidelburg Court Drainage Improvements (Engineering / 25,000 25,000 Design) 91 Brookhaven Drive Improvements 220,000 220,000 Construction has just started, and staff has 99 Odell Street Improvements 520,000 475,000 adjusted the amount to the estimated project cost. 101 Steeple Ridge Improvements 130,000 130,000 Subtotal C.O. Drainage Projects 2,510,000 2,465,000 Utility Capital Projects 41 Douglas Lane Street Utility Relocation (Hightower Dr. to 455,000 455,000 Starnes Road) 145 Telemetric Water Meter Annual Replacement (2010) 350,000 350,000 Subtotal C.O. Utility Capital Projects 805,000 805,000 Capital Equipment Replacement 215 Aerial Bucket Truck Replacement Unit 604 130,000 130,000 220 Ambulance Replacement Unit 946 245,000 245,000 221 Backhoe /Loader Replacement Unit 502 85,000 70,000 Actual Amount of bid awarded on 2 -22 -10 Subtotal C.O. Equipment Replacement 460,000 445,000 Total 2010 C.O.s $28,720,000 $23,740,000 TOTAL 2010 G.O.s AND C,O.s $34,965,000 $29,765,000 Unrh- detalfinance$ ?Finance _AdminlFN_Data1ACC'nBond Presentationt2010 Bond +2010 Project List Reimbusement Res. 10 -26 -09 INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 2010 -019 Date: March 8, 2010 X Subject: City of North Richland Hills'Shop NRH' Program A core component for every Economic Development Department is business retention, which helps prevent businesses from closing down or moving elsewhere by facilitating their ability to grow and become more competitive. One common retention tactic is developing, managing and promoting a "Shop Local" campaign. As the third largest City in Tarrant County, NRH has a tremendous amount of buying power, which significantly impacts the area's economy. A conscious effort for every NRH resident to "Shop Local" could be quite powerful. For example, if every NRH family dined out in NRH one extra time per week, it would infuse an additional $24 million into the NRH economy (17,000 families X $27 for average family meal X 52 weeks). The $24 million could be absorbed by many NRH businesses whose success or failure may hinge over a few thousand dollars. Not only would $24 million significantly impact NRH businesses, it would also impact the City's capacity for services. Residents would enjoy the additional benefit of approximately $240,000 in services provided from the General Fund, in addition to $120,000 each for additional services from the Police Department and Parks & Recreation. Therefore, City staff is proud to present you with Shop NRH. A program that caters to both businesses and residents, Shop NRH is a website that contains discounts from NRH businesses, making them available to 66,000 NRH residents, 24,000 NRH households and 17,000 NRH families. From a business perspective, Shop NRH is a free online advertising vehicle that reaches a targeted audience who will grow to know the program through the City's numerous communication vehicles. You'll recall from the citizen survey that readership and viewership of the City's Newsletter, News & Notes and website is quite high. The ability to reach and attract customers is key to the success of any business. The ability to do it for free is priceless. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS � From a resident or daytime professional perspective, Shop NRH is a website that provides exclusive discounts that are not necessarily available to the general public. Given today's economic conditions, the ability to save money and directly benefit from services funded from local sales tax dollars can also be perceived as priceless. Shop NRH is designed for easy navigation whereby the user can view multiple offers from multiple businesses over a set time period on one web page. Once an offer is identified, the user can print and present it to the business. Not only does this program benefit NRH businesses, residents and even daytime professionals, the Shop NRH website is developed by 365 Schedule Limited, an NRH business. They have agreed to provide a license and ongoing support for Shop NRH free of charge in hopes that this will become a popular solution for other cities on a fee basis. The rollout of Shop NRH will be in the following stages: Early March — Launch to NRH Businesses • NRH businesses informed about Shop NRH through the mail and City staff outreach • Businesses begin to enter their offers into Shop NRH Late March — Soft Launch to Residents • Link to Shop NRH placed on www. nrhtx. com April — Official Launch to Residents • Promotion of Shop NRH to residents through the City's News & Notes and Newsletter We're excited to present Shop NRH and look forward to your feedback and guidance. Respectfully Submitted, Craig Hulse Director, Economic Development INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL No. IR 2010 -020 Date: March 8, 2010 Subject: Emergency Management Update As spring time approaches in North Texas, it is time for the City of North Richland Hills to begin preparing for the 2010 spring severe weather season. Last year, 2009, was a relatively quiet season with winter weather being more noteworthy. As a result, it is anticipated that this spring will be a busy weather year. In preparation for 2010, the Office of Emergency Management Homeland Security has taken the following prevention, preparedness, and response actions: 1. All eligible disaster 2007 recovery projects have been submitted to FEMA and are waiting for final funding and closure of this disaster. 2. CodeRED refresher training continues for city staff and the system is currently up to date and ready for deployment. 3. The Emergency Management/Homeland Security Division hosted a Northeast Tarrant County cities' severe weather storm spotting class on January 5th at Fire Administration. This was attended by approximately 50 members of Community Emergency Response Team (CERT), Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES), Citizens Fire Academy (CFA) and Citizens Police Academy (CPA) members. This training allows the City of North Richland Hills to maintain the Storm Ready status which was achieved in 2005 and reaffirmed in 2008. 4. The Emergency Management/Homeland Security Division along with the department directors will again be revising and updating the entire Emergency Operations Plan, which includes the basic plan and 22 functional annexes. The plan will be submitted to the State of Texas and for advanced level approval. 5. The City of North Richland Hills continues to train and meet the National Incident Management System requirements. The Emergency Operations Center Command and General Staff are about to complete the 300 and 400 segments of the NIMS requirements. These are the toughest as they require 3- 4 days of training in the classroom environment. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER I NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS 6. Completed CERT Class #8 with 25 members, bringing the NRH CERT members trained to over 198. CERT members will also receive monthly continuing education training throughout this next year to maintain involvement and skills. 7. The Emergency Management/Homeland Security Division assisted the Birdville Independent School District, North Hills Hospital and other regional cities in disaster mitigation and planning. This planning includes the utilization of local churches as self sustaining shelters. The City of North Richland Hills has two standing self- sustaining shelters and one of these shelters is designated as a shelter that can accept pets. 8. The Emergency Management/Homeland Security Division continues to maintain the readiness of 10 outdoor emergency warning sirens. This year, Tarrant County College added a siren at their Northeast campus which will be controlled by NRH and Hurst. 9. The Emergency Management/Homeland Security Division continues to work closely with the Fire, Police and Public Works departments in homeland security mitigation, preparedness and planning. The Emergency Management / Homeland Security Division will continue to strive to make North Richland Hills the safest community in Tarrant County and continue to be prepared for potential natural and man -made disasters while continuing to build relationships among other cities and parties with similar interests. Respectfully submitted, Sean Hughes Emergency Management Coordinator CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. B.0 Subject: EXECUTIVE SESSION - The City Council may enter into closed Executive Session to discuss the following as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. B.1 Subject: Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.071 Texas Government Code for Consultation with Attorney regarding Pending Litigation - 1) Hometown Urban Partners, Ltd. vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 096- 236530 -09); 2) Arcadia Land Partners 25 Ltd., et al vs. City of North Richland Hills (No. 067 - 241297 -09); 3) Venue at Hometown vs. City of North Richland Hills, et al (No. 352 - 237213 -09)) CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. B.2 Subject: Executive Session: Pursuant to Section 551.072 Texas Government Code to Discuss Land Acquisition in the area of 6701 Davis Blvd CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. C.0 Subject: Adjournment City of North Richland Hills City Council Regular Meeting Agenda North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, TX 76180 Monday, March 8, 2010 7:00 P.M. A.0 Call to Order - Mayor Trevino A.1 Invocation - Councilman Sapp A.2 Pledge - Councilman Sapp A.3 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Proclamation for National Intellectual and Development Disabilities Awareness Month presented by Councilman Whitson AA Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Recycle More School Art Contest Winners presented by Councilman Barth A.5 Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Proclamation for Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative - presented by Mayor Pro Tern Turnage A.6 Citizens Presentation An opportunity for citizens to address the City Council on matters which are not scheduled for consideration by the City Council or another City Board or Commission at a later date. In order to address the Council, please complete a Public Meeting Appearance Card and present it to the City Secretary prior to the start of the Council meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation by the Council of any subject which is not on the posted agenda, therefore the Council will not be able to discuss or take action on items brought up during the citizens presentation. A.7 Removal of Items) from Consent Agenda B.0 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All consent agenda items listed below are considered to be routine items deemed to require little or no deliberation by the City Council and will be voted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered. B.1 Approval of Minutes of February 2, 2010 Community Meeting B.2 Approval of Minutes of February 22 2010 City Council Meeting B.3 GN 2010 -019 Resolution Establishing a No Build Zone around Little Bear Creek Park Gas Well Pad Site - Resolution No. 2010 -014 C.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS C.1 ZC 2010 -01 Appeal Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Robert and Karah Nordyke for a Zoning Change from R -3 - single family to R -1 -S - special single family for Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (located at 6613 Harmonson Road - 1.25 acres.) - Ordinance No. 3089 C.2 ZC 2010 -02 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Life Church for a Zoning Change from R -2 - Single Family to U - School, Church, Institutional for Lot 1 Block 1 House of Grace Addition (located at 7850 Davis Boulevard - 7.45 acres.) - Ordinance No. 3088 C.3 PW 2010 -013 Public Hearing and Action on Ordinance Amending Land Use Assumptions Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater and Amend Impact Fee Regulations - Ordinance No. 3090 D.0 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Items to follow do not require a public hearing D.1 FP 2010 -01 Consideration of a Request from David Thorne to Approve a Final Plat of Lot 2 Block 1 Thorne Addition (located in the 6500 Block of Crane Road - 1.43 acres.) E.0 PUBLIC WORKS No items for this category. F.0 GENERAL ITEMS F.1 PU 2010 -006 Award RFB 10 -020 to BBC Construction Group, Inc. in the Amount of $73,240.00 for the Replacement Construction of the Public Works Storage Facility. F.2 PU 2010 -007 Award RFB 10 -021 to Airwise Heat & A/C in the amount of $55,900 for HVAC Replacement. G.0 EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS G.1 Action on Any Item Discussed in Executive Session Listed on Work Session Agenda H.0 INFORMATION AND REPORTS H.1 Announcements - Councilman Lewis H.2 Adiournment CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Mayor Oscar Trevino Subject: Call to Order - Mayor Trevino Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Agenda No. A.0 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Councilman Ken Sapp Subject: Invocation - Councilman Sapp Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Agenda No. A.1 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Councilman Ken Sapp Agenda No. A.2 Subject: Pledge - Councilman Sapp CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Councilman David Whitson Agenda No. A.3 Subject: Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Proclamation for National Intellectual and Development Disabilities Awareness Month presented by Councilman Whitson r4FtH CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the month of March, 2010, has been designated as "National Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Awareness Month" (NAIDDA) in order to celebrate and recognize people with disabilities; and WHEREAS, disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of people with disabilities to make choices, contribute to society and experience in full the many blessings of American society; and WHEREAS, family members, friends and the community at large all play a role in supporting people with disabilities as they pursue their dreams; and WHEREAS, the goals of the City properly include helping people with disabilities realize full access to housing, employment and the recreation activities which help create productive and satisfying lives, and to live as independently as possible. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Oscar Trevino, Mayor of the City of North Richland Hills do hereby proclaim the month of March, 2010, as "NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL & DEVELOPMENT DISABILITIES AWARENESS MONTH" in the City of North Richland Hills, and call upon the citizens of North Richland Hills to observe the month with appropriate programs and activities. Furthermore, I encourage the citizens of North Richland Hills to seek information from those organizations with expertise in matters concerning developmental disabilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of North Richland Hills to be affixed this the 8th day of March 2010. Oscar Trevino, Mayor CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Neighborhood Services Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Justin Welborn / Councilman Tim Barth Agenda No. A.4 Subject: Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Recycle More School Art Contest Winners presented by Councilman Barth Keep NRH Beautiful sponsored the 2 "d Annual Recycle More School Art Contest to combine student creativity with recycling and litter prevention education. The contest packet provided teachers with facts on recycling as well as all Keep NRH Beautiful programs. The contest offered different activities for different grade levels and prizes for students /teachers. Eight hundred eighty -eight (888) students created excellent book mark designs, reusable shopping bag designs, audio and video public service announcements. The winning entries will be used to promote recycling and litter prevention. The 2010 winners will be asked to stand and be recognized as a group. Academy at C. F. Thomas Foster Village Elementary Green Valley Elementary Holiday Heights Elementary Mullendore Elementary North Ridge Elementary Smithfield Elementary Walker Creek Elementary North Richland Middle North Ridge Middle I Smithfield Middle Birdville High Birdville Tech Center Richland High Kylee Baade, Galilea Gutierrez Jimena Carreon, Christina Vangpradith Katelyn Robinson, Kalia Oropeza, Ricquell Yielding Makenzia Walters Hayden Lopez Natalia Moran, Landon Seale, Breanna Lucas Isabel Magee, Keria Murphy, Destiny Reyes Lauren Cram, Jaycee Ortiz William Patterson Grace Green Dylan Barth Angelica Correa, 1St Place Jasmine Torres, 2nd Place Drew Thomas & Matt Clark, 1 st Place Meagan Shugert, 2nd Place Emma Stroup, 1St Place Linzi Vanmeter, 2nd Place CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Parks and Recreation Presented by: Mayor Pro Tern Turnage Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Agenda No. A.5 Subject: Special Presentation(s) and Recognition(s) - Proclamation for Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative - presented by Mayor Pro Tern Turnage In an effort to promote physical activity, which is fundamental to leading a healthier life, the City of North Richland Hills is introducing the community to the Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative. The mission of the Mayor's Health and Fitness Initiative is to support and encourage our citizens to improve their fitness level by encouraging regular physical activity. The Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative for 2010 will consist of multiple components, with activities and support designed for all ages of the community. These components include: • American Heart Association Start! Walking Program -The City of NRH has joined with the American Heart Association's Start! Walking program, which allows our residents to enroll on -line, track their daily activity and receive a customized walking plan, recipes and tips. • NRH Fit Districts -The City has been divided into six (6) fit districts that have each been color coded. At the end of 2010, the Fit District with the most steps logged will be recognized as the "Fittest District" within NRH. • The Mayor's Fun Walk will be held on April 10, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. It is a 3 mile walk for the entire family. • Team NRH will be at the Susan G. Komen's Race for the Cure in downtown Ft. Worth on April 24, 2010. • BISD Elementary Youth Fitness Pledge - In August, 2010 elementary students will be offered the Mayor's Youth Fitness Pledge that will challenge the students to walk a total of 26.2 miles over an eight week period. • City Employee Fitness Challenge (Sportsfest) will be held in September, 2010. It will promote city employee involvement and fitness. Teams will compete in events such as Dodgeball, Basketball, Volleyball, Mini Golf and much more. Mr. Dvorak, from Holiday Heights Elementary, and his 4th and 5th grade students will be on hand to help with the proclamation. N RH CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Heart Disease is the number one killer in the nation, and WHEREAS, the number of overweight or obese children has doubled in the last 20 years, and WHEREAS, Texas now has the 14th highest rate of obese adults in the U.S., at more than 27 %, and WHEREAS, the Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative will help move our community, and WHEREAS, the goal of the campaign for 2010 is to support, inspire and engage the community to improve its fitness level by encouraging regular physical activity and improved nutrition, and WHEREAS, The Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative will work to provide partnerships and activities to improve the health and wellness of North Richland Hills residents, and WHEREAS, North Richland Hills cares deeply about all of its citizens and the future health of its children, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Oscar Trevino, Mayor of the City of North Richland Hills, do hereby proclaim, March 8, 2010 as: "THE KICK -OFF OF THE MAYOR'S HEALTH & FITNESS INITIATIVE" in the City of North Richland Hills and urge all citizens to participate in the Mayor's Health & Fitness Initiative activities to promote exercise, nutritional eating and living healthier and better lives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of North Richland Hills to be affixed this the 8th day of March, 2010. Oscar Trevino, Mayor CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. A.6 Subject: Citizens Presentation An opportunity for citizens to address the City Council on matters which are not scheduled for consideration by the City Council or another City Board or Commission at a later date. In order to address the Council, please complete a Public Meeting Appearance Card and present it to the City Secretary prior to the start of the Council meeting. The Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits deliberation by the Council of any subject which is not on the posted agenda, therefore the Council will not be able to discuss or take action on items brought up during the citizens presentation. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Presented by: Subject: Removal of Item(s) from Consent Agenda Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Agenda No. A.7 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. B.0 Subject: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All consent agenda items listed below are considered to be routine items deemed to require little or no deliberation by the City Council and will be voted on in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. B.1 Subject: Approval of Minutes of February 2, 2010 Community Meeting Recommendation: To approve the minutes of the February 2, 2010 North Richland Hills Community meeting. MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY MEETING HELD AT THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS BAPTIST CHURCH 6955 BOULEVARD 26, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS WORSHIP CENTER FEBRUARY 2, 2010 City Council Present: Oscar Trevino Mayor Scott Turnage Mayor Pro Tern David Whitson City Council, Place 5 Tom Lombard City Council, Place 3 The meeting began at 7:12 p.m. City Manager Mark Hindman, Managing Directors Mike Curtis and Vickie Loftice and Economic Development Director Craig Hulse presented information on various city projects recently completed or on going south of Loop 820. Members of the audience then asked questions pertaining to the presentations given and other topics. The meeting ended at 8:21 p.m. Oscar Trevino — Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. B.2 Subject: Approval of Minutes of February 22, 2010 City Council Meeting Recommendation: To approve the minutes of the February 22, 2010 City Council meeting. MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820 — FEBRUARY 22, 2010 WORK SESSION The City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas met in work session on the 22 "d day of February 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Room prior to the 7:00 p.m. regular Council meeting. Present: Oscar Trevino Mayor Scott Turnage Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Place 6 Ken Sapp Council, Place 2 Tom Lombard Council, Place 3 (present at 5:48 p.m.) Tim Barth Council, Place 4 (present at 5:38 p.m.) David Whitson Council, Place 5 Tim Welch Council, Place 7 Staff Members: Mark Hindman City Manager Jared Miller Assistant City Manager Karen Bostic Assistant City Manager Jimmy Perdue Director of Public Safety Mike Curtis Managing Director Vickie Loftice Managing Director Patricia Hutson City Secretary Monica Solko Assistant City Secretary George Staples City Attorney Mary Peters Public Information Officer Elizabeth Reining Assistant to City Manager John Pitstick Director of Planning & Development Larry Koonce Director of Finance JoAnn Stout Director of Neighborhood Services Chris Amarante Director of Facilities & Construction Craig Hulse Economic Development Director Gregory VanNieuwenhuize Assistant Public Works Director Jimmy Cates Operations Manager — Public Works Bill Thornton Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Sharon Davis Assistant Parks & Recreation Director Dave Pendley Chief Building Official Absent: John Lewis Council, Place 1 Call to Order Mayor Trevino called the work session to order at 5:31 p.m. A.1 Discuss Items from Regular City Council Meeting There were no questions from Council. A.2 IR 2010 -012 2009 Racial Profiling Report Chief Perdue, Director of Public Safety, presented to Council the 2009 Racial Profiling Report. Council was advised the 2009 report shows the Department to be consistent in the racial /ethnic composition of motorists it comes in contact with each year. Four racial profiling complaints were received during 2009 and all were determined to be unfounded. A.3 IR 2010 -013 Update on New Recreation Center Design Development and Progress Ms. Vickie Loftice, Managing Director, gave an introduction to the design development of the new Recreation Center and introduced DeWayne Brinkley, Brinkley Sargent Architects. Mr. Brinkley presented a PowerPoint presentation giving an update of the schematic design development for the new Recreation Center. (Councilmen Barth joined the meeting at 5:38 p.m. and Councilman Lombard joined the meeting at 5:48 p.m.). Council was presented with an overview of the concept site plan, conceptual design of the floor plans and an update on the project status. Council was advised the design development is to be complete April 2, construction to begin October 2010 and the substantially completion date is anticipated to be December 2011. Mr. Brinkley responded to questions from Council on the information presented. A.4 IR 2010 -011 Expansion of the Neighborhood Initiative Program Mayor Trevino recognized Tarrant County Commissioner Gary Fickes and asked Commissioner Fickes to join the Council at the Council table. Ms. JoAnn Stout, Director of Neighborhood Services, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed expansion of the Neighborhood Initiative Program. The current program consists of the following sub - programs: 1. M -NIP — includes minor exterior work, including yard work (majority of current NIP projects fall into this category) 2. E -NIP — Emergency repairs to bring homes into suitable living conditions 3. H -NIP — Tarrant County Home Funds — City's 25% matching requirement for HOME funds, requires coordination with Tarrant County for major system repairs. Staff is proposing two new expansion programs — Neighborhood Initiative Program — Cash Rebate (R -NIP) and Neighborhood Initiative Program — Volunteers (V -NIP). The goal of the R -NIP program is to remove code /building violations in neighborhoods by encouraging families to reinvest in their homes. The homeowner will be given a rebate of 10% from total cost of renovations made to their home up to a maximum per household of $3,000. The V -NIP program involves volunteer groups who will participate in larger exterior and interior repairs with monetary support from the City. In this program, the City and volunteer groups will contribute monetarily and the volunteer groups will provide labor. The homeowner is not expected to contribute financially. Council was advised of the guidelines and requirements for participation in the new programs, the available funding and the breakdown of the NIP Program expenditures. Commissioner Fickes expressed his support of the program and that he would like to see Tarrant County provide funding to the V -NIP program on an annual basis. The Council requested Staff to include in the information provided to the homeowners that the City does not certify any contractor on the list of approved contractors or his capabilities. Council concurred with moving forward with the two new programs. A.5 Adjournment Mayor Trevino announced at 6:43 p.m. that the Council would adjourn to the regular Council meeting. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING A.0 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Trevino called the meeting to order February 22, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. Present: Oscar Trevino Scott Turnage Ken Sapp Tom Lombard Tim Barth David Whitson Tim Welch Staff: Mark Hindman Jared Miller Karen Bostic Jimmy Perdue Mike Curtis Vickie Loftice Patricia Hutson Monica Solko George Staples Absent: John Lewis ROLL CALL Mayor Mayor Pro Tem, Council, Place 6 Council, Place 2 Council, Place 3 Council, Place 4 Council, Place 5 Council, Place 7 City Manager Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager Director of Public Safety Managing Director Managing Director City Secretary Assistant City Secretary Attorney Council, Place 1 A.1 INVOCATION Councilman Lombard gave the invocation. A.2 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Councilman Lombard led the pledge of allegiance. A.3 SPECIAL PRESENTATION(S) AND RECOGNITION(S) No items for this category. None. None. A.4 CITIZEN PRESENTATION A.5 REMOVAL OF ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA B.0 APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED B.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING B.2 PW 2010 -009 APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY USE AGREEMENT (NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CROSSING) WITH METROPLEX BARNET SHALE LLC, OPERATING ON BEHALF OF DDJET LIMITED LLP B.3 PW 2010 -010 APPROVE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF RICHLAND HILLS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT B.4 PW 2010 -012 AWARD PROJECT RFB NO. 10 -015 TO HUMPHREY & MORTON CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $79,373.50 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 2010 IRON HORSE GOLF COURSE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (DR1003) B.5 GN 2010 -016 GRANTING APPROVAL TO THE TARRANT COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR THE USE OF THE PROCEEDS OF ITS SERIES 2009 SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE HOME MORTGAGES FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY - RESOLUTION NO. 2010-011 B.6 PU 2010 -004 AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF A BACKHOE TRACTOR LOADER FROM KIRBY -SMITH MACHINERY IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,050 COUNCILMAN SAPP MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MAYOR PRO TEM TURNAGE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 6 -0. No items for this category. PUBLIC HEARINGS C.0 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT D.0 Items to follow do not require a public hearing. No items for this category. PUBLIC WORKS E.1 PW 2010 -011 AWARD A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT TO LEE ENGINEERING LLC FOR THE DAVIS BOULEVARD AND CREEK VIEW DRIVE/POST OFFICE TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROJECT (ST1005) APPROVED Jimmy Cates, Public Works Operations Manager summarized the item. The item is to consider the award of a professional services agreement for the Davis Boulevard and Creek View Drive traffic signal project which also includes re- configuring the Post Office driveway to align with Creek View Drive. The City requested Requests for Qualifications (RFQ's) in accordance with city policy and qualifications were received from twelve firms. The City's selections committee reviewed and evaluated the proposals and is recommending award of the professional service agreement to Lee Engineering, LLC in an amount not to exceed $56,800. COUNCILMAN WELCH MOVED TO APPROVE PW 2010 -011. COUNCILMAN BARTH SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 6-0. GENERAL ITEMS F.1 PU 2010 -005 AWARD PROPOSAL NO. 09-025 FOR AUTOMATED MOBILE HANDHELD CITATION ENTRY SYSTEM TO BRAZOS TECHNOLOGY IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $219,151 APPROVED Larry Koonce, Finance Director, summarized the item. Item is to consider the award of proposal for automated mobile handheld citation entry system. The City requested Requests for Proposals in accordance with city policy and proposals were received from three firms. The City's evaluation committee reviewed the proposals and is recommending award of proposal to Brazos Technology in an amount not to exceed $219,151. COUNCILMAN SAPP MOVED TO APPROVE PU 2010 -005. MAYOR PRO TEM TURNAGE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 6 -0. F.2 GN 2010 -017 TEXAS GOVERNOR'S OFFICE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS COMPETITIVE GRANT — RESOLUTION NO. 2010-012 APPROVED Jimmy Perdue, Director of Public Safety, summarized the item. The Criminal Justice Division (CJD) of the Texas Governor's Office has notified the Police Department that grant funds have been allocated to assist in funding law enforcement programs in the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) under the 2010 CJD Criminal Justice Programs Competitive Grant. If awarded, the Police Department plans to use the funds to purchase a Mobile Elevated Observation Platform. The total of this grant request is $80,000 which is the maximum allotted under CJD for a Criminal Justice Program grant award. There is no requirement for a cash match under the terms of the CJD grant. CJD rules require formal action from the governing body prior to the application being submitted. MAYOR PRO TEM TURNAGE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -012. COUNCILMAN LOMBARD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIED 6 -0. INFORMATION AND REPORTS H.1 ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilman Barth made the following announcements. NRH2O is searching for team members who want a fun job this summer. Applicants must be at least 15 years old. For a list of upcoming job fairs and more information, please visit nrh2o.com /jobs. The City invites residents to a Spring Gardening Seminar from 9 a.m. to noon on Saturday, March 6th. Guest speakers will provide tips on preparing your yard for the upcoming growing season. The seminar will be held in the Community Room at the North Richland Hills Public Library. Admission is free. For more information, please call 817- 427 -6600. Volunteers from AARP are continuing to assist residents with their tax returns each Monday through April 12th at the NRH Public Library. To make an appointment or get more information, please call the Library at 817 -427 -6814. Kudos Korner - Robert Raley and Mark Hill, Public Works Department. A call was received from a resident regarding a possible water leak. Robert and Mark met with her, showed her where the water cut -off was and explained about leak detection. She had high praises for them and said they were both polite and helpful. H.2 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Trevino adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Oscar Trevino — Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning and Development Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: John Pitstick Agenda No. B.3 Subject: GN 2010 -019 Resolution Establishing a No Build Zone around Little Bear Creek Park Gas Well Pad Site - Resolution No. 2010 -014 A resolution is being brought forward obligating the City of North Richland Hills not to construct any buildings within 150 feet of the outside wall of the Little Bear Creek Park gas well site as required by the Gas Drilling and Production Ordinance. The Gas Drilling and Production Ordinance was passed in 2005 to regulate high safety standards and aesthetics for gas drilling and production. Chapter 104 -6(o) of the Gas Drilling Ordinance stipulates that prior to the issuance of a gas well permit, the operator shall provide a recordable easement prohibiting residences, religious institutions, retail or commercial buildings within 150 feet of the outside wall around the final production gas well site. There is an exception to the requirement of a "no build easement' for public institutions if the public institution provides a resolution obligating not to construct any buildings within 150 feet around a gas well site. Similar resolutions have been provided to the City of North Richland Hills by the Birdville Independent School District for the BISD gas well site off Richland Plaza Drive and by Tarrant County College District for the TCCD Northeast Campus gas well site. The City has a surface agreement with Chesapeake Energy to establish a gas well site and frac pond on the western portion of Little Bear Creek Park. A three (3) acre gas well pad site has been established that meets all setback and other regulations. Chesapeake is now in the process of getting permit approval for the first gas well (called Little Bear South 1 -H). As part of the gas well permit, Chesapeake Energy has provided a survey identifying the required 150 foot no build zone and is requesting a resolution from the City of North Richland Hills for conformance to Chapter 104 -6(o) requirements. A resolution is included which commits that no building will be constructed within 150 feet of the outside wall around the final production gas well site within Little Bear Creek Park. The Parks & Recreation staff is aware of the proposed gas well pad site and the no build zone. There are no current plans for future park improvements in this area with the exception of a potential hike and bike trail. Recommendation: Approval of Resolution 2010 -014. NKH RESOLUTION NO. 2010-014 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A 150 FOOT NO BUILD ZONE FROM THE OUTSIDE WALL OF THE LITTLE BEAR CREEK PARK GAS WELL PAD SITE. WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills has passed a Gas Drilling & Production Ordinance that encourages natural gas production within North Richland Hills with high standards for safety and aesthetics to allow gas wells in certain areas of the city; and WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills, as part of the Gas Drilling & Production Ordinance, requires that no building be constructed within 150 feet of a gas well pad site; and WHEREAS, the City of North Richland Hills has an agreement with Chesapeake Energy to allow a gas well pad site on the west side of Little Bear Creek Park; and WHEREAS, a formal gas well drilling application has been submitted to the City of North Richland Hills to begin drilling in Little Bear Creek Park; and WHEREAS, Section 104 -6(0) of the Gas Drilling and Production ordinance provides that public institutions, instead of providing an easement restricting such building in the vicinity of a drill site, may enact a resolution committing not to construct any buildings within 150 feet of a drill site, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, THAT SECTION 1. The City of North Richland Hills City Council commits through the enactment of this resolution that it will construct no building within 150 feet of the outside wall or other screening around the final production gas well site within Little Bear Creek Park. AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 8th day of March, 2010. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS By: Oscar Trevino, Mayor ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Pitstick, Director of Planning & Development 114�) M,11 D 1 10,1 \;L !,,,I )�( )", st f", W I R 1 Ind ii 1 i pit rd A IT, Ott '4"phot Flt ix'! it, WiIW 4 —11;1% t I , 't' "I,: k "j '\t it !J:n;d Hill'. qC It )I fit ih VOIN 1 14 ot �'I' it, 1 2 O.o9s 1w I i L,, i A 'tt i )d I it t t i tit k t it pt i�t i: I i I t I if �fj I it I fill, S T u it It I I k- j E-XI- iE31�T °B� i 8 4 -.�. . 7fsr`d h.1 t7i rgFF i� E ?Rt�N7 i � ���.��'!(�. �%��'ll�ti� kr•NE��7C7Nd7i'1 ZfYEhA � r CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. C.0 Subject: PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning and Development Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Eric Wilhite Agenda No. C.1 Subject: ZC 2010 -01 Appeal Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Robert and Karah Nordyke for a Zoning Change from R -3 - single family to R -1 -S - special single family for Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (located at 6613 Harmonson Road - 1.25 acres.) - Ordinance No. 3089 Case Summary: The applicants, Robert and Karah Nordyke, are requesting a zoning change on a 1.249 acre parcel where they currently reside from R -3 (single family) to R- 1-S (special single family). Currently the Nordykes are in negotiations to sell the property. As a condition of the sale the perspective purchasers requested that the Nordykes secure a zoning classification which would permit the purchasers to keep livestock on the property. The prospective purchasers indicated they desire to keep one or two horses on the property. Section 118- 331(b) of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances states that R -1 -S zoning allows for the keeping of livestock in a residential setting. This parcel meets the one (1) acre area minimum for R -1 -S zoning, as well as the minimum lot width of 85 feet (the subject tract is 90 feet in width). Any livestock kept in R -1 -S zoning is also subject to all the provisions in Chapter 14 Animals, which includes provisions for health, sanitation and stables. A petition of protest has been submitted that includes the signatures of twenty percent (20 %) (14 out of 25) of the surrounding property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property. Staff has verified that the names on the request match those on the property owner notifications that were mailed. The west property boundary of the subject tract abuts seven (7) R -3 single family residential lots located in the Glenwyck Villas Addition that was developed in 2002/2003. This zoning change request is somewhat unique because in a typical R -1 -S zoning change request that has been heard the subject tract or lot is typically wider and abutting other large tracts or lots. The request was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A letter of appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission's action has been received from the applicant. Because a letter of protest was filed, this zoning change request must receive a three - quarters vote from the City Council to be approved. Plat Status: This parcel is currently not platted. The zoning change request itself does not trigger platting requirements. However, the applicant has been informed by staff that platting of the property would be triggered if the primary structure is expanded beyond its current footprint or an additional accessory structure of a square footage requiring a building permit is constructed. Existing Site Conditions: A residential structure is located on the southern end of the property near Harmonson Road. Approximately 100 feet from the rear of the house are two accessory structures. Several mature trees are scattered throughout the parcel. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan depicts low density residential uses for this area. Thoroughfare Plan: The lot has frontage on Harmonson Road which is designated as an R2U residential street. The parcel has access to Jackie Lee Street on the north end. Surrounding Zoning / Land Use: North: R -3 Residential Structures & Jackie Lee Street ROW East: R -3 zoned drainage easement, city property (maintenance facility) South: LR Local Retail West: R -3 Residential Structures Zoning History of the subject parcel: 1977 zoning maps show this parcel and those adjacent to it as being in the IF -7 zoning district (7,000 square feet minimum lot area.) The next sequential record is a zoning map dated 1983 where zoning categories have been reconfigured and the parcel is zoned R -3 (7,500 square feet minimum lot area.) Staff Recommendation: When reviewing this case DRC evaluated the configuration of the subject tract and the surrounding properties. While the subject tract is somewhat narrower than the typical zoning change request for R -1 -S on most tracts, it does exceed the required width for R -1 -S and is of significant depth to create adequate area for livestock. The code allows for the use of various fencing types in order to confine livestock if it is necessary. Because the lot meets both the acreage and lot width requirement of R -1 -S district, DRC recommends approval of Zoning Change request ZC 2010 -01. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: Motion to deny carried 5 -1. Review Schedule: Application: 1/20/10 Final Hearing: 3/8/10 Staff Review: 2 weeks Applicant Revision Time: 1 week Scheduling Time: 4 weeks Total Review Time: 7 weeks This case will require a super majority vote by City Council to receive approval. IQ 10 t] LOCATION MAP I iview Drive l JP: �nson Road - -- i AERIAL it APPEAL LETTER FROM APPLICANT SiPOONER& 309 Byer and At, #100tes, Inc 309 Byers Street, #100 ASSOCIATES Tel 81, 28 7603e Tel 817 281..2355 Fax 817685 8508 Febnrary 28, 2010 Hon. Oscar Trevino, Mayor And Counccimembers City of North Richland Hills Re: Zoning Change Case ZC 2010-01- R -3 to R -1-S 6613 Harmonson Road - NRH Mayor Trevino and Councilmemebers: I am the Applicant and Owner in the ahove reverenced Zoning case, in which I am requesting a zoning change from R -3 to R-1 -S for 6613 Harmonson Road. This request is Ming appealed to you from the February 18 decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Below is an outline of items that support my request and feet they will be beneficial to your deftrafions. 1. Although hoses are not currently located on the property, It Is the owners understanding that horses have been kept on the property in the past. To the best of the owner's understanding, there has never been a history of issues between livestock and adjoining properties. 2. The entire east line of the su *ct property adjoins City of North Richland Hill property which limits the probability of future issues with NRH property owners. 3. The property is very narrow which limits ability of future development under current zoning taws. Without the ability to rezone to R -1-S, this property owner's land value is considerably diminished. 4. Be it legal or not many properties within the surrounding area are currently keeping horses. To the best of the owner's understanding, the City has not received complaints from its citizens concerning the horses. We ask this Council to consider all the Items described above in your consideration of this request. Of Course, we will be available to meet with the Council to discuss, or otherwise address any questions or concerns you may have with this request. We appreciate the Councirs time and consideration on this matter. Sincerely, 4 Robert Nordyke Property Owner PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL Case #: ZC 2010- 01 Applicant: Robert & Karah Nordyke Location: 6613 Harmonson Road You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner of record within 200 feet of the property shown on the attached map. Purpose of Public Hearinq: A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from Robert & Karah Nordyke for a zoning change from "R -3" Single Family Residential to "R -1 -S" Special Single Family on Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (located at 6613 Harmonson Road - 1.249 acres.) Public Hearing Schedule: Public Hearing Dates: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010 If recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this zoning request will be heard by the City Council on: CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010 Both Meeting Times: 7:00 P.M. Both Meeting Locations: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 N. E. LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS If you have any questions or wish to submit a petition or letter concerning the above request, please contact: Planning Department - City of North Richland Hills 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 Phone (817) 427 -6300 Fax (817) 427 -6303 LIST OF NOTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS Don G & Norma G Hunt 629 Muirfield Rd Keller Tx 76248 -8283 Joe V Etux Linda L Wade 6420 Diamond Loch N Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8456 Doris E Moore Est 4028 Jackie Lee St Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8707 Tom Cochran 4025 Jackie Lee St Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8707 Margaret E McInnis 3901 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8772 Ryan Etux Serah McMickle 3913 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8772 Primitivo Etux Sonia Sanchez 3925 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8772 Jeromme W Etux Micah M Lawler 3920 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Shawna L Houston 3908 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Raymond W & Hazel Anderson Est 6608 Harmonson Rd Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8706 Robert Etux Karah Nordyke 6613 Harmonson Rd NRH Tx 76180 -8703 Gary L Grammer 4019 Rita Beth Ln Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8711 Alberto Etux Sarah J Carrillo % Sarah Carrillo 4017 Jackie Lee St NRH Tx 76180 -8707 Patricia N Harper 3905 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8772 Current Owner 3917 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 Richard Algood 16525 Preston Trail Dr Dallas Tx 75248 -2113 Florine Waters 3909 Rule Snow Dr Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8843 Doris E Moore Est % Jerry N Moore PO Box 820767T Fort Worth Tx 76182 -0000 James Goodwin 4021 Jackie Lee St NRH Tx 76180 -8707 Lois L Parker 3909 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8772 Brian Etux Melanie Birmingham 3921 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8772 C Joseph Etux Amanda H Everly Tzaisheng Etux Shoujen Liu 8316 Westwind Ln 3924 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -1498 NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Anthony Etux Carol Hojnacki 3916 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Hannemarie Futch 3904 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Steven D Etux Cynthia Thomas 3912 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Al M Etux Jean N Houghton 3900 Lochridge Ct NRH Tx 76180 -8771 Marlen Drew Dennis L Etux Cheryl L Hunt Kimberly Gill 6516 Towne Park Dr 4000 Chapel Park Dr 4004 Chapel Park Dr NRH Tx 76180 -8710 NRH Tx 76180 -8746 Fort Worth Tx 76180 -8746 PETITION SIGNED BY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET Case #: ZC 2010- 01 Applicant: Robert & Karah Nordyke Location: 6613 Harmonson Road You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner of record within 200 feet of the property shown on the attached map. Purpose of Pubic Hearinu: A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from Robert & Karah Nordyke for a zoning change from "R -3" Single Family Residential to "R -1 -S" Special Single Family on Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (bated at 6613 Harmonson Road —1.249 acres_) I protest the above proposed zoning change. I feel It will have a negative impact on my property value. I feel it will have a negative Impact on the use and enjoyment of my property. I request my City Council to not allow the zoning change. Printed Name Address Signature 3900 Lochridge Ct A/, / r f i- 2�l Z 3904 Lochridge Ct 3905 Lochridge Ct 3908 Lochridge Ct CG 3909 Lochridge Ct m pc, 3912 Lochridge Ct C/ Jj A 3913 Lochridge Ct rV1 c_)< , 3916 Lochridge Ct l L 3917 Lochridge Ct L� Q1rfl l MG' La w lely 3920 Lochridge Ct q 1(tf , t- )JVI, l 3921 Lochridge Ct j Tit 5 ; u r. 3924 Lochridge Ct 7 _ i-'< L j U� Aac�1 3925 Lochridge Ct 3929 Lochridge Ct 4017 Rita Beth St 4019 Rita Beth St 4016 Jackie Lee St 14028 Jackie Lee St PETITION SIGNED BY PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET (CONT.) Case #: ZC 2010- 01 Applicant: Robert & Karah Nordyke Location: 6613 Harmonson . toad You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner of record within 200 feet of the property shown on the attached map. 1!uro2se of Public tiearina A Pubtic Hearing to Consider a Request from Robert & Karah Nordyke for a zoning change from 'R -3" Single Family Residential to 'R -1 -S' Special Single Family on Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (located at 6613 Harmonson Road —1.249 acres.) I protest the above proposed zoning change. I feel it will have a negative impact on my property value. i feel it will have a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of my property. I request my City Council to not allow the zoning change. Printed Name Address Signature 4021 Jackie Lee St OGgN�J 4017 Jackie Lee 5t 0 67, f 4025 Jackie Lee St nn Y ` (l J 6516 Towne Park Dr R 4000 Chapel Park Dr 4004 Chapel Park Dr 3q01 CACb !I T—A—Z y' % ti, �C . �1 o c�'►tin.o ORDINANCE NO. 3089 ZONING CASE ZC 2010 -01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS; AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AND REZONING A 1.249 ACRE TRACT OF PROPERTY FROM R-3 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO R -1-S (SPECIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING; ESTABLISHING A PENALTY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was sent to real property owners within 200 feet of the property herein described at least 10 days before such hearing; and, WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 15 days before such hearing; and, WHEREAS, public hearings to zone the property herein described were held before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has heretofore made a recommendation concerning the zone change; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zone change herein effectuated furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of North Richland Hills; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: Section 1: That the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and the zoning map of the City of North Richland Hills are hereby amended by rezoning a 1.249 acre tract of land located in the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas, more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A from R -3 (Single Family Residential) to R -1 -S (Special Single Family Residential) zoning. Section 2: Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended hereby shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon final conviction thereof fined in an amount not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day any such violation shall be allowed to continue shall constitute a separate violation and punishable hereunder. Section 3: The City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause the publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clauses of this ordinance as an alternative method of publication provided by law. Section 4: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately after passage. AND IT IS SO ORDAINED. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 8th day of March, 2010. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary Oscar Trevino, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Pitstick, Planning & Development Director EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE REZONED. Being a tract of land situated in the Mahaly Lynch Survey, Abstract Number 953, City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas and being all of that certain tract of land described to Don G. Hunt and wife, Norma Hunt by instrument recorded in Clerk's No. D204224396, Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas (D.R.T.C.T.), said tract of land being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a PK nail found in the center of Harmonson Road for the southwest corner of said Hunt tract, said PK nail being South 00 105'53" West, a distance of 25.00 feet from the southwest corner of that certain tract of land described to the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas by instrument recorded in Volume 9287, Page 2105, D.R.T.C.T.; THENCE West, along the common southerly line of said Hunt tract and said center of Harmonson Road, a distance of 90.00 feet to a PK nail found for the southwest corner of said Hunt tract; THENCE North 00 °08'24" East (deed call NORTH), along the westerly line of said Hunt tract and a distance of 25.00 feet joining the easterly line of Block 1, Gleawyck Villas Addition, Phase H, an addition to the City of North Richland Hills as recorded in Cabinet A, Slide 7973, Plat Records of Tarrant County, Texas (P.R.T.C.T.) for a total distance of 607.06 feet (deed call 605.0 feet) to a 5/8 -inch iron rod found for the common northwest corner of the said Hunt tract and the northeast corner of said Glenwyck Villas Addition; THENCE South 88 040'58" East (deed call EAST), along the northerly line of said Hunt tract, a distance of 89.57 feet (deed call 90.0 feet) to a 3/8 -inch iron rod found for the common northeast corner of said Hunt tract and the westernmost northwest corner of Lot 14, Block 2, J.L. Autrey Addition an addition to the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas as recorded in Volume 388 -Q, Page 567, PRTCT; THENCE South 00 005'53" West (deed call SOUTH), along the common easterly line of said Hunt tract and the westerly line of said Lot 14 and the aforementioned City of North Richland Hills tract, a distence of 605.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and CONTAINING 1.249 acres of land, more or less. ZONING EXHIBIT HARAK I$lw qrlp l vico,rly "r w to scu ZONING CHANGE EXHIBIT rl?oiw P-3 TO P-1—s MAHALY LYNCH SURVEY ABSTRACT No. 951 KWO 1.249 ACRES Of LAM Sln%rW M THE CRY Of MOM WRIAW MUr, rARRAW COLMFY. MOS AM REYM CCW.TrEO By WAR&4M DEED AS RECORDED W TARRAW COUNrY CLERK1 ViST*LWW Na D208258838, DEEP RECORDS, fARRW COUNTY, IrKAS. JANUARY 2010 . .. . ..... . vico,rly "r w to scu ZONING CHANGE EXHIBIT rl?oiw P-3 TO P-1—s MAHALY LYNCH SURVEY ABSTRACT No. 951 KWO 1.249 ACRES Of LAM Sln%rW M THE CRY Of MOM WRIAW MUr, rARRAW COLMFY. MOS AM REYM CCW.TrEO By WAR&4M DEED AS RECORDED W TARRAW COUNrY CLERK1 ViST*LWW Na D208258838, DEEP RECORDS, fARRW COUNTY, IrKAS. JANUARY 2010 EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ZC2010 -01 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Robert and Karah Nordyke for a Zoning Change from R-3- Single Family to R -1-S- Special Single Family for Tract 2G7, Abstract 953 (located at 6613 Harmonson Road -1.25 acres.) Eric Wilhite said that this is a request for a zoning change from R -3 to R -1 -S. It is located on this aerial in the red on Harmonson Rd. There are some newer developments to the west of this project and a lot of the other vacant land and larger tracts on the right side are also R -S lots. This particular applicant is coming in requesting this property be rezoned. It is 1.249 acres so it does meet the R -1 -S acreage size and lot width requirements. It is an unusual lot because it is not as wide compared to the depth. Although it does meet the R -1 -S requirements for acreages, the R -1 -S zoning classification permits for livestock. This is the intent of the request for the zoning change so they can have a horse on the property. If they are able to get the zoning change there are other parts of the ordinance that would control the livestock regulations as far as Chapter 14 in the code of ordinances that deals with animals and sanitation. It does show on the comprehensive land use plan that this area is for low density residential and R -1 -S does meet that requirement. Staff has reviewed the request and recommends your approval. Public Hearing opened 7:09 p.m. Karah Nordyke, 6613 Harmonson Rd, North Richland Hills, TX 76180, came forward as applicant. She stated that they were trying to sell the property and the buyers would like the zoning change so they can have their horse on the property. Don Bowen asked if there were other properties in this area that had horses? Karah Nordyke said that she believed that there was another property down further on Harmonson away from Rufe Snow. She said that she thinks that there are some on both sides of Harmonson. Don Bowen said that he wanted to make sure that this wasn't a unique situation. Bill Schopper asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in favor of the request. Daniel Bennett, 8116 Irish Circle, Fort Worth, TX came forward to speak in favor of the zoning change request. Mr. Bennett stated that he is the potential buyer for the property. He stated that he wanted to place one horse possibly 2 depending on what Chapter 14 of the code of ordinances would allow. The only intention for the zoning change is to place a couple of horses on the lot. I know that in Richland Hills and Haltom City and the Northeast side of North Richland Hills and Keller they all allow livestock on acreage that meets the guidelines. Bill Schopper asked if there was going to be a house also or just have a horse on the property? Mr. Bennett said that there is an existing home on the property. Mike Benton asked if he was intending to build a stable in the back? Mr. Bennett stated that he did intend on building a run in which is just a covered area to start with depending on what regulations would allow and would look into building a stable at a later time. Don Bowen asked staff if there was any type of regulation with R -1 -S that required a minimum distance for residences that are set to the left? Eric Wilhite said that there are setback requirements in the Code of Ordinances and animal controls the stable location for setbacks and those types of things. The City of North Richland Hills doesn't have a specific control on the number of head of livestock per acre like some municipalities. So he could have one or two horses but if he got in the excess of that or if there were complaints of any health related type issues with run off, flies, or sanitation they would have to be addressed through the animal control and neighborhood services department. This property currently isn't platted so at any time any additional structures would be placed on it they would have to come back to plat the property in order to get a building permit for current city codes. As of now they are going to be using the existing house on the property so there is nothing that triggers them at this point in time to have to plat the property. Mike Benton asked if besides the two horses would be allowed to have any other type of livestock on the property? Eric Wilhite said that the livestock definition is pretty broad in our ordinance. They could get chickens or something like that. Typically people can't get Roosters because they violate the noise ordinance. If they want rabbits or swine that all falls in the classification of livestock. That goes back to the Chapter 14, the animal portion of the ordinance on sanitation. Bill Schopper asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against the zoning change? Shawna Houston, 3908 Lochridge Ct, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 came forward to speak against the zoning change. Ms. Houston stated that her house backs up to the property in question. You can tell from the aerial that our yards are not that big and so it would be infringing on the use and enjoyment of my property. The fences that the subdivision put up are also not equipped to handle large animals. The horse could easily knock down the fence jeopardizing the health and safety of my children and animals. There is not enough room back there for multiple horses. It is a long lot and it is not that wide and on the right side of that lot is where it backs up to the storm drain. That would jeopardize the safety of the animal as well. For the people that are currently living on Lochridge Ct and the safety of the animal I don't feel that this zoning change would be in the city's best interest. Also Karah had stated that there were other horses on Harmonson. This is not correct. There are not any other horses on Harmonson Drive in North Richland Hills or in that area. Bill Schopper asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak against the zoning change? Cindy Thomas, 3912 Lochridge Ct, North Richland Hills, TX 76180 came forward to speak against the zoning change. She stated that they have petitions that were signed by many of the neighbors against the zoning change. My concern is that I have small grandchildren that live in my home and they go out in the backyard to play. The fences are not good back there. This goes up right behind our property. There is no way we could sit outside and enjoy the outside on a hot summer day with horses back there with the flies. This is a $215,000 home that we bought and we saved for this home but we did not want to have horses behind our home. We have offered to buy the property behind us and at one time Robert was willing to do that and since then has changed his mind. Many of the neighbors on this side have offered to buy the property directly behind them. I do hope that you take that into consideration for the safety of my children and grandchildren. The lot is just too small. Steven Cooper asked about the fencing that is behind the homes? Ms Thomas said that it is just the standard picket fencing that was put in by the homebuilder. They are just not very good. This property backs up directly behind our house. There was a horse back there at one time during a storm and the horse went crazy. I can't have that liability of the possibility of my grandchildren getting hurt. There are houses in Richland Hills that have those huge backyards that are over an acre that are very wide but this lot is very narrow. Don Bowen said that we might mention that the petition has no affect on this body but I think that the Planning Department or City Secretary will determine if it has any validity at the city council meeting. Eric Wilhite said that is correct. In Chapter 118 in the zoning ordinance does allow for petition of protest if they have 20 % of the affected property owners within the 200 foot notification area or within that subdivision sign that protest then it does take a super majority at City Council to approve it. The petition has no affect on the Planning & Zoning Commission. It will be passed on to city council. Mike Benton asked about what would be required as far as the fencing? Eric Wilhite said that he isn't sure. I'm sure that there is some kind of safety requirement that the applicant should adhere to if they do get the zoning change and has an animal out there that there is the safety concern with the wood stockade fences that are on the back of the single family homes. He would probably have to put up some type of wire or fencing to prevent the livestock from being able to penetrate into the wood fences. I'm not sure what our ordinances would be in the safety aspect of it. Mike Benton asked if there some type of an easement? Eric Wilhite said that the City of North Richland Hills would require them to fence to keep the horses out of the drainage easement. Bill Schopper asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak? Norma Height came forward to speak in favor of the zoning change. She stated that she owns the store across the street at 6608 Harmonson Rd. We have had horses before on that property. The fence over there is 8 foot and we never had any problems or complaints at that time. I think there were horses towards the end of the street. Don Bowen stated that she is correct there were horses at the corner of Dawn Dr and Harmonson Rd. Shawna Houston, 3908 Lochridge Ct., North Richland Hills, TX 76180, came forward and stated that the horses being on the property was prior to the subdivision being built. Prior to the subdivision being built it was all vacant and it was a different situation at that time. Bill Schopper asked if we could get any more information on the fencing? Daniel Bennett, 8116 Irish Circle, Fort Worth, TX came forward and stated that as far as the fencing that there is no way you would leave a 2000 lb. animal at the mercy of a wooden picket fence. On Rumfield east of Davis there are numerous horse properties and they all have some type of pipe fencing with either cable runners or cattle panel to fill in the space below the pipes. Any animal owner has to take the proper precautions and there are numerous designs of fence that are fully capable of keeping the horse within the fence. The fence will not be an issue you wouldn't leave a horse right up against a picket fence. Steven Cooper asked if it is his intention to build a fence? Mr. Bennett said that he has already planned out the fence and it would be one of the first things he would do after purchasing the property. Mark Haynes asked if he intended to have the horses running the full length of the property up to the house? Mr. Bennett said that the property would be cross fenced. They would not be going all of the way up to the house. There would be a pasture fence but I haven't quite decided where that will be. I have not had an opportunity to walk the property completely. There will be cross fences across the back part of the property so the horses will not have full roam of the full acre. During storms and inclement weather they will be put up in stalls once those have been built. Mike Benton said that as of right now we are only voting on the zoning. There is no way we could hold you to the pipe fencing. That seems to be the main issue with the neighbors. Eric Wilhite said that is something that we can look at between now and city council based on what your recommendation is we can look into it. I am going to make an assumption that there is probably some kind of provision that says that they have to be properly confined in the pastures. Does it specifically spell out if there is a wood stockade fence on back side of single family residential you still have to do piping? I'm not sure but if it is a safety concern I'm sure there is some way we can leverage getting it done. Public Hearing closed at 7:27 p.m. Don Bowen, seconded by Mike Benton motioned to deny ZC2010 -01 for zoning change. The motion was carried (5 -1) with Mark Haynes in opposition. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning and Development Presented by: Eric Wilhite Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Agenda No. C.2 Subject: ZC 2010 -02 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Life Church for a Zoning Change from R -2 - Single Family to U - School, Church, Institutional for Lot 1, Block 1, House of Grace Addition (located at 7850 Davis Boulevard - 7.45 acres.) - Ordinance No. 3088 Case Summary: Life Church currently owns a total of 11.406 acres. Only 7.45 acres of its ownership is currently platted and developed with a church building and parking areas. The remaining area is undeveloped and unplatted. The church is requesting a zoning change on the developed and platted portion. While churches are a permitted land use in the R -2 (single family) zoning district other code regulations can be affected. At this time, the church desires to install a monument sign with an electronic message board. Chapter 106 Signs Section 106 -12 only permits this type of signage, outside the freeway overlay zoning district, in U (school, church, institutional) zoning. Therefore the church is requesting this U zoning. This zoning change will also place the development in a more appropriate zoning district for the land use that exists and what the property is being used for. Plat Status: The final plat associated with this property was approved by City Council in February, 2002. Existing Site Conditions: The church building and parking lot occupy the western two /thirds (2/3) of the lot with a wooded area to the east adjacent to Northfield Park. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan depicts public /semi - public uses for this area. Thoroughfare Plan: The lot has frontage on Davis Boulevard which is designated as a P6D Principal Arterial. Surrounding Zoning / Land Use: North: R -3/ Vacant West: C-1/Vacant South: CS & AG / Jerry Conger's Paw Spa & Tipps Canine Hollow Dog Park East: AG / Northfield Park Zoning History of the subject parcel: This parcel was rezoned from AG to R -2 in August, 2000. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Zoning Change request ZC 2010 -02, Ordinance No. 3088. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: Approval with a 6 -0 vote. Review Schedule: Application: 1/25/10 Final Hearing: 3/8/10 Staff Review: 2 weeks Applicant Revision Time: 0 weeks Scheduling Time: 4 weeks Total Review Time: 6 weeks 10 is I %I LOCATION MAP Cou r Northfield Park Tipps Canine Hollow Dog Park_ `` O _ Y� LLI Y • \ 1 y AERIAL ,�Bursey Road c e } R -�' Northfield Cut, R Park mv s , t m N rthfield CD, " Tipps).Canine` r �* Hollow D`og Park -7- y % Green Valley Drive PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Case #: ZC 2010- 02 Applicant: Location AND CITY COUNCIL Sam Pena on behalf of Life Church 7850 Davis Boulevard You are receiving this notice because you are a property owner of record within 200 feet of the property shown on the attached map. Purpose of Public Hearing: A Public Hearing to Consider a Request from Sam Pena on behalf of Life Church for a zoning change from "R -2" Single Family Residential to "U" School, Church, Institutional on Lot 1, Block 1, House of Grace Addition (located at 7850 Davis Boulevard — 11.409 acres.) Public Hearing Schedule: Public Hearing Dates: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2010 If recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this zoning request will be heard by the City Council on: CITY COUNCIL MONDAY, MARCH 8, 2010 Both Meeting Times: 7:00 P.M. Both Meeting Locations: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7301 N. E. LOOP 820 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS If you have any questions or wish to submit a petition or letter concerning the above request, please contact: Planning Department - City of North Richland Hills 7301 Northeast Loop 820 North Richland Hills, Texas 76180 Phone (817) 427 -6300 Fax (817) 427 -6303 LIST OF NOTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS House of Grace Jerry M Conger Tryon Development Corp Aka Lifechurch 7800 Davis Blvd 1330 N White Cpl Blvd PO Box 820367 N Richlnd His Tx 76182 -6901 Southlake Tx 76092 -4321 Fort Worth Tx 76182 -0367 Labrecque Family LP 6214 Ld Lockett Rd Colleyville Tx 76034 -6539 Johnny Etux Janice Gilliland 2 Country Place Dr Fort Worth Tx 76182 -8924 Robert Etux Cathy Vaughn Lewis E Etux Carolle R Young 7901 Country Oak Dr 7900 Country Meadow Dr N Richlnd His Tx 76182 -8944 N Richlnd His Tx 76182 -8945 ORDINANCE NO. 3088 ZONING CASE ZC 2010 -02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS; AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AND REZONING A 7.445 ACRE TRACT OF PROPERTY FROM R -2 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) TO U (INSTITUTIONAL) ZONING; ESTABLISHING A PENALTY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, notice of a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission was sent to real property owners within 200 feet of the property herein described at least 10 days before such hearing; and, WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 15 days before such hearing; and, WHEREAS, public hearings to zone the property herein described were held before both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, and the Planning and Zoning Commission has heretofore made a recommendation concerning the zone change; and, WHEREAS, the City Council is of the opinion that the zone change herein effectuated furthers the purpose of zoning as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and is in the best interest of the citizens of the City of North Richland Hills; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: Section 1: THAT the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and the zoning map of the City of North Richland Hills are hereby amended by rezoning a 7.445 acre tract of land located in the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas, more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A from R -2 (Single Family Residential) to U (Institutional) zoning. Section 2: Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended hereby shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon final conviction thereof fined in an amount not to exceed Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day any such violation shall be allowed to continue shall constitute a separate violation and punishable hereunder. Section 3: The City Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to cause the publication of the descriptive caption and penalty clauses of this ordinance as an alternative method of publication provided by law. Section 4: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately after passage. AND IT IS SO ORDAINED. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 8th day of March, 2010. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS M ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary Oscar Trevino, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: John Pitstick, Planning & Development Director EXHIBIT A Metes and Bounds Description of Lot 1, Block 1, House Of Grace Addition BEING a 7.445 acres tract of land situated in the STEPHEN RICHARDSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT No. 1266, in the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas, and being all of lot 1. Block 1, House Of Grace Addition as recorded in Cabinet 'A' Slide 7500 of the Plat Records of Tarrant Counrty, Texas and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at a 518 inch iron rod found in the east line of Davis Boulevard (F.M.1938) {12(r R.O.W.) and the north line of an asphalt road (50' R.O.W) as described in dead to the City of North Richland Hills, recorded in Volume 4054, Page 427, deed Records, Tarrant County, Texas, said iron rod also being the southwest comer of said Lot 1, Block 1 House Of Grace Addition; THENCE the following dills along the said east right cf -way line of Davis Boulevard; North 00" 45'00" East, 197.10 feet to a 518 Inch iron rod found for comer; North 01 ° 30' 00" East, 64.00' feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found for comer; North 04° 00'00" East, 100.00 feet to a 1/4 inch iron rod found for comer, North 06" 53'58* East, 1.72 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found for comer, said iron rod being the northwest comer of said Lott, Block 1, House Of Grace Addition; THENCE Noerth 82" 5T 05" East, 420.46 feet departing the aforementioned east rlghtaFway line of said Davis Boulevard along the north property line of Lot 1, Block 1, House of Grace Addition to a 5/8 Inch Iron rod found for comer, said iron rod being the northeast comer of said Lot 1, Block 1, House Of Grace Addition; THENCE South 01" 25' 57" East, 355.95 feet along the east property line of Lot 1, Block 1, House of Grace Addition to a 5/8 Inch iron rod found for comer, said Iron rod lying in the north line of the aforementioned asphalt road and being the southeast comer of said Lot 1, Block 1, House Of Grace Addition; THENCE South 83" 37' 52" West, 916.87 feet, along said north line and south property line of said Lot 1, Block 1, House Of Grace Addition to the point of beginning containing 7.445 acmes or 324,314 square feet of land more or less. ZONING EXHIBIT ` _ SWE LIFE CHURCH ZONING CHANGE E)GUBIT or 1. BLOM 11 11 Ho ~^ °, ~~~`` ` _ SWE LIFE CHURCH ZONING CHANGE E)GUBIT or 1. BLOM 11 11 Ho OMW R-2 KMMW� TO | --------- ' |' ---���---- ` _ SWE LIFE CHURCH ZONING CHANGE E)GUBIT EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ZC2010 -02 Public Hearing and Consideration of a Request from Life Church for a Zoning Change from R -2- Single Family to U -School, Church, Institutional for Lot 1, Block 1, House of Grace Addition (located at 7850 Davis Boulevard — 7.45 acres). Eric Wilhite said that Life Church has been developed for several years now. They came to staff not long ago wanting to put in an electronic changeable message sign. Currently churches are permitted in all zoning classifications so when they came in to do their site plan and development they kept the R -2 zoning that it is currently zoned. In order to be able to do the electronic changeable message board and meet the sign ordinance they have to be zoned Institutional. This prompted them to come in and request a zoning change to U, so they can be a zoning classification that would allow them to do the sign that they would like to do. This meets the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The development is there now and this is a good thing that they are coming because it is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to do the zoning change. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 pm With no one wishing to speak, Public Hearing was closed at 7:30 p.m. Mike Benton seconded by Steven Cooper motioned to approve ZC2010 -10. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Public Works Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Gregory Van Nieuwenhuize Agenda No. C.3 Subject: PW 2010 -013 Public Hearing and Action on Ordinance Amending Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plans and Impact Fees for Water and Wastewater and Amend Impact Fee Regulations - Ordinance No. 3090 Summary: The Council is being asked to conduct a which approves 1) land use assumptions, wastewater, 3) impact fee rates for water impact fee regulations. Public Hearing and to adopt an ordinance 2) capital improvement plans for water and and wastewater, and 4) amends the City's Background: In September, 2001 the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 243 which describes the procedure all municipalities shall follow to implement an impact fee. An impact fee is defined as a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to such development. The City has been collecting water and wastewater impact fees on new service connections since June, 1990 in accordance with state law. State law requires those cities collecting impact fees to review their land use assumptions, capital improvement plans and impact fees every five (5) years and update if necessary. As such, the maximum time frame between updates is five (5) years. The last update to the City's Impact Fee Program was performed in March, 2005. On October 26, 2009, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement to Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) for updating the City's Water/Wastewater Master Plan and updating the Impact Fee Program. These two studies are a major portion of the Capital Improvement Project identified as the "Water/Wastewater Master Plan, Rate Study & Impact Fee Update" (Project No. UT1006). An Impact Fee Program consists of three (3) major components: 1) land use assumptions, 2) capital improvement plans, and 3) impact fee rates. All of these components have been reviewed and approved by the City's Capital Improvement Advisory Committee (reference Attachment 1). Relative to the City of North Richland Hills, these items are specifically defined as follows: 1. Land Use Assumptions Land use assumptions are exactly that — the assumed future use of land throughout the City. The land use assumptions are formulated based on growth trends, population projections and development patterns. The basis for many of these assumptions is rooted in the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This plan represents the type of development the City is expecting to occur within its city limits. For Impact Fee Program purposes, the time period into the future that is considered is the next 10 years. The City Council most recently fully updated the Comprehensive Lane Use Plan in 2007. The plan was updated last year with the adoption of the Transit Oriented Development districts. Another significant part of the land use assumptions are the population projections. The City had a total 2009 population of 66,100. The following table illustrates the historical population data: Year 1998 -.• 53,100 •• Growth - 1999 54,300 2.26% 2000 55,635 2.46% 2001 56,800 2.09% 2002 58,550 3.08% 2003 59,800 2.13% 2004 60,400 1.00% 2005 61,650 2.07% 2006 63,520 3.03% 2007 64,050 0.83% 2008 65,750 2.65% 2009 66,100 0.53% Average 2.01% As cities approach build -out, the growth rate tends to slow. For the future 10 year population projection used to calculate impact fees, an average yearly growth rate of 1.06% was determined to be a reasonable rate at which the City can be expected to grow. This rate equates into a 2019 population of 73,118, which is a net growth of 7,018. The growth rate of 1.06% was determined from recent population data provided by the North Central Texas Council of Governments. This data has been broken down into various sectors throughout the City. From this, each sector (termed as a Traffic Survey Zone) was analyzed in terms of its growth potential relative to the Comprehensive Lane Use Plan over the next 10 years. The last item comprising the land use assumptions is the future 10 year development of non - residential property. Essentially, the development of commercial acreage is considered for this calculation. The developed commercial acreage for 2009 is 1,754 acres. This number is anticipated to increase to 1,940 acres in 2019, a net growth of 186 acres. This increase in developed acreage is primarily projected in both Transit Oriented Development districts. 2. Capital Improvement Plans for Water and Wastewater These plans represent the capital improvements that are required to provide water and sanitary sewer service to the areas of the City that are projected to develop during the next 10 years (through 2019). The Capital Improvement Plans for Water and Wastewater are included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 to this cover sheet. The specific water infrastructure projects in the Capital Improvement Plans for Water, including the costs attributable to future development, are indicated in the following table: No. Description of Project Project Costs Impact Fee Eligible Amount EXISTING PROJECTS A TRA Pump Station Expansion $5,000 $2,000 B 8 -inch WL from Davis Blvd. east and south to Northfield Drive $123,360 $37,008 C 12 -inch WL south along Winter Park Dr., 12 -inch WL along Bridge St. and 30 -inch $450,659 $67,599 WL along Mid Cities Blvd. D 16 -inch WL from Mid -Cities Blvd. South along Tecnol Blvd. East along industrial $846,642 $211,661 Park Blvd, South along Holiday Ln. to Janetta Dr. E 12- inch /16 -inch WL along Holiday Ln from Mid - Cities Blvd to existing 12 -inch WL $347,587 $121,655 north of Bogart Dr. 12 -inch WL along College Circle from Holiday Ln to Ross Rd. PROPOSED PROJECTS 1 Two Motor Operated Valves inserted on water lines along Holiday Ln and $276,000 $55,200 Grapevine Hwy in the south. 2 12 -Inch Water Line along Grapevine Hwy. to replace existing 8 -inch WL from $794,310 $278,009 Harwood to Cardinal Ln. 3 10- inch /12 -inch WL near the Mid - Cities Blvd. and Amundson Dr. intersection and $537,600 $188,160 12 -inch line from Mid - Cities Blvd. and Cardinal Ln. intersection to Grapevine Hwy. 4 16 -inch WL along Smithfield Rd north of Mid Cities Blvd. $1,533,370 $766,685 5 12 -inch WL and a Motor Operated Valve across Hwy 820 east of Meadow Lakes Dr. $313,540 $47,031 6 20 -Inch WL along Mid Cities Blvd. from Rufe Snow Dr, to Smithfield Rd. $2,136,630 $961,484 7 24 -Inch WL along Watauga Rd. from Rufe Snow Dr. to existing 16 -inch WL east of $2,737,330 $1,231,799 Watauga P.S. and GST T _ 16 -Inch WL from existing 16 -inch WL north of Commercial Dr. along Janetta Dr., 8 16 -inch WL along Loop 820 from Holiday Ln. to existing 16 -inch WL west of $879,790 $175,958 Thaxton Pkwy 9 Expand Pumping Capacity and Ground Storage at Watauga P.S. $6,048,000 $1,814,400 SO 16 -inch WL from Davis Blvd., east on Clark St., north on Colorado Blvd., east on $1,015,260 $152,289 Harwood Rd. to Grapevine Hwy, 11 Offsite Water Supply Improvements from Fort Worth $2,545,540 $763,662 12 12 -inch WL along Eagle Crest Dr. from Rufe Snow Dr. to existing 10 -inch WL $303,330 $60,666 Northwest of industrial Park Blvd. 13 Proposed 8- Inch Water Line along Country Place Dr. south of Northfield Dr. $50,790 $15,237 Total Capital Improvements Cost $20,944,738 $6,950,503 The specific wastewater infrastructure projects in the Capital Improvement Plans for Wastewater, including the costs attributable to future development, are indicated in the following table: No. Description of Project Project Costs Impact Fee Eligible Amount EXISTING PROJECTS Aegon Lift Station Expansion from 0.9 MGD to 1.6 MGD Capacity, New 15 -inch A WW Lines to replace 8- inch /10- inch /12 -inch Upstream and Downstream of lift $966,060 $386,424 Station PROPOSED PROJECTS 1 27/24 -inch Interceptor Replacement along Highway 820 $1,728,390 $251,854 2 15 -inch and 12 -inch Seever Line Replacement along Maplewood Ave. and Susan $654,200 $68,622 Lee Ln. 3 27 -inch Interceptor Replacement going North from Grapevine Hwy. to $1,308,460 $130,846 Mockingbird Ln. to replace existing 10/12/21 -inch WW Lines, 4 30 -inch Interceptor Replacement of 24 -inch WW Line along Industry Park Blvd. $799,010 $79,901 North of Holiday Ln. 24 -inch Interceptor replacement of existing 18 -inch line along Little Ranch Rd. South of Mid - Cities Blvd.;18 -inch Interceptor replacement of existing 12 and IS- 5 inch lines along Little Ranch Rd. from Hightower Dr. to Mid - Cities Blvd.; New 12 $2,163,910 $108,196 and 15 -inch lines along Hightower Dr. to replace existing 10 -inch and 12 -inch Lines. 6 18 -inch Interceptor Replacement of existing 15 -inch WW line from Amundson Dr. $833,690 $125,054 to Cardinal Ln. along Walker Branch Creek 7 24 -inch Interceptor Replacement of existing 12 -inch WW line along Richland Plaza $617,710 $308,855 Dr. from Onyx Dr south to Broadway Ave. 15 -inch and 12 -inch Interceptor Replacement of existing 10 -inch WW lines along 8 Whitefield Ct., northeast along Whitefield Dr., east along Maple Dr., north to Mid- $1,779,120 $177,912 Cities Blvd. Total Capital Improvements Cost $10,850,550 $1,637,664 3. Impact Fee Rates Impact fee law is contained in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. This chapter states that the maximum impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the total cost of capital improvements needed by the total number of service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period, less a credit to account for water and wastewater revenues and property taxes used to finance the capital improvements. The law allows this credit to be equal to one -half (th) the maximum calculated impact fee. For example, if the maximum calculated fee was $2,000, then the credit would be half of $2,000, which is $1,000. For the current Impact Fee Program, staff asked FNI to calculate the maximum allowable impact fee rates. Staff desired this information because the approved impact fee rates can be any amount up to this maximum amount. Due to the current economic climate, staff wanted to be provided with the big picture so that this information could be forwarded to the Council when setting the eventual impact fee rates. This maximum allowable rate includes the capital improvement costs, financing costs and other associated costs (cost of the impact fee study and cost of financial maintenance during the life of the impact fee program). Once these costs are defined, a maximum calculated fee as indicated in the previous paragraph can be determined. The maximum allowable impact fees for both water and wastewater are indicated in the table below: Cost Item Water Wastewater Capital Improvement Costs $ 6,950,503 $ 1,637,664 Costs $ 2,360,936 $ 556,279 -Financing Other Associated Costs $ 176,500 $ 176,500 Total Eli ible Costs $ 9,487,939 $ 2,370,443 Projected 10 Year Growth into Service Units 2,679 2,501 -(equated Maximum Impact Fee $ 3,542 $ 948 Maximum Allowable Impact Fee per Service Unit $ 1,771 $ 3,542 X' /2 = $ 1,771 $ 474 $ 948 X'h = $ 474 The current impact fee rate per service unit is $1,087 for water and $306 for wastewater. This table indicates the maximum allowable impact fee per service unit is considerably greater than the fee that is currently being charged. Another item of note is the line item for financing costs. While Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code allows cities to include this cost in the impact fee calculation, the City has not included financing costs in previous impact fee updates. If financing costs are not included the impact fee per service unit is lower than the maximum calculated fee. A comparison of the maximum allowable impact fee for both water and wastewater, the impact fee rates without including Financing Costs and the current impact fee rates are indicated in the table below: Cost Item Water Wastewater Maximum Allowable Impact Fee per Service Unit $ 1,771 $ 474 Impact Fee Rate without Financing Costs $ 1,330 $ 363 -including Current Impact Fee Rate per Service Unit $ 1,087 $ 306 The "without Financing Costs" impact fee rates are still approximately twenty percent (20 %) higher than the existing rates. Staff is highlighting this information because of the concerns expressed by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (reference Attachment 1) when the CIAC discussed their recommendation to the City Council. The CIAC specifically recommended that while the Council should approve the updated land use assumptions, the updated capital improvement plans for Water and Wastewater and the calculated impact fee rates, the CIAC further recommended that the Council consider a "phasing approach" for the adoption of the new impact fee rates. The CIAC was very concerned with the impacts that increasing development fees might have on the development community in the current economic climate. Since, only a handful of residential building permits have been issued since the beginning of the year, keeping the rates the same for the first few years may be very reasonable. Additionally, a transition year, as recommended by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, could be appropriate before assessing the maximum (without Financing Costs) impact fee rate, on a per service unit basis. The table below proposes to keep the impact fee rates at their current levels for Year 1 and Year 2 (April 1, 2010 — March 30, 2012), then increase the rates halfway up to the "without Financing Costs" rate in Year 3 (April 1, 2012 — March 30, 2013) and finally, assess the full "without Financing Costs" in Year 4 and Year 5 (April 1, 2013 — March 30, 2015): Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 3090. Enclosures: Attachment 1 — February 26, 2010 CIAC Letter to Mayor & City Council (2 pages) Attachment 2 — Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Water (1 page) Attachment 3 — Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Wastewater (1 page) Ordinance No. 3090 Tables 1 & 2 Exhibit A — Water Wastewater Service Areas Exhibit B — North Richland Hills Impact Fee Report Exhibit D — Final Report - City of Fort Worth Capital Improvements Plan Water Facilities Exhibit F — Final Report - City of Fort Worth Capital Improvements Plan Wastewater Facilities Year Water Wastewater Year 1 Aril 1, 2010 — March 30, 2011 $ 1,087 $ 306 Year 2 (April 1, 2011 — March 30, 2012 $ 1,087 $ 306 Year 3 (April 1, 2012 — March 30, 2013 $ 1,209 $ 335 Year 4 (April 1, 2013 — March 30, 2014 $ 1,330 $ 363 Year 5 (April 1, 2014 — March 30, 2015 $ 1,330 $ 363 Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 3090. Enclosures: Attachment 1 — February 26, 2010 CIAC Letter to Mayor & City Council (2 pages) Attachment 2 — Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Water (1 page) Attachment 3 — Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Wastewater (1 page) Ordinance No. 3090 Tables 1 & 2 Exhibit A — Water Wastewater Service Areas Exhibit B — North Richland Hills Impact Fee Report Exhibit D — Final Report - City of Fort Worth Capital Improvements Plan Water Facilities Exhibit F — Final Report - City of Fort Worth Capital Improvements Plan Wastewater Facilities Attachment 1 (February 26, 2010 CIAC Letter to Mayor & City Council) February 26, 2010 Mayor & City Council City of North Richland Hills North Richland Hills, TX RE: Impact Fee Program Mayor & Council Over the past few months the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (CIAC) has been engaged in the process of updating the City's Impact Fee Program as required by Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code- This chapter requires the CIAC to: 1 advise and assist the Mayor & Council in adopting land use assumptions. 2. review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; 3. monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; 4 file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the Mayor & Council any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and 5 advise the Mayor & Council of the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. Further, Chapter 395 requires the documentation of specific items to be completed at least every five (5) years for cities that desire to adopt/continue an Impact Fee Program To comply with these requirements, the Committee has performed the following tasks: 1 Prepared, reviewed and approved updated Land Use Assumptions that encompass the geographic area within the boundaries of the City 2 Prepared, reviewed and approved impact fee program related Capital Improvement Plans for Water and Wastewater which will be necessary to serve the anticipated development in accordance with the Land Use Assumptions. 3 Using the information contained in the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plans, we have determined the maximum allowable Impact Fee charges for the next five -year period are as follows: i Water $ 1,771 ii Wastewater $ 474 Letter. Mayor 8 City Council Impact Fee Program February 26, 2010 Page -2of2- These calculated Impact Fees are the maximum charges allowable per Meter Unit Equivalent (MUE). A comparison of these maximum allowable fees per MUE to the current impact fees per MUE are shown in the table below: Maximum Allowable Fee Current Imp act Fee Utility Type per MUE per MUE Water $ 1,771 $ 1,087 Wastewater $ 474 $ 306 As the Table indicates, these new maximum allowable fees are much greater than the currently charged amounts. Consequently, the CIAO had quite a bit of discussion on whether to recommend to the Council that the maximum amount be charged or some other amount. The CIAC is very concerned with the current economic climate and the affect that the maximum allowable fees might have on development in the City. The CIAC also discussed keeping the impact fees the same or incrementally increasing the impact fees over time. The end result was that the CIAC voted in the affirmative to recommend to the Council that the Council use a "phased in approach" to be determined by the Council up to the calculated maximum amounts. Therefore, in summary, as required by Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code, the CIAC recommends that the City Council approve the updated Land Use Assumptions, the updated Capital Improvement Plans for Water and Wastewater and the above calculated Impact Fees per MUE based on those documents. However, the CIAC recommends that the Council consider a "phasing in approach" for the adoption of the new impact fees Should the CIAC be needed to provide any additional information to you or the Council related to this subject, we would be happy to do so at your convenience Respectfully, 4, Randall Shiflet, Chairman Capital Improvements Advisory Committee Es Attachment 2 (Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Water) IIt,I RI ; -I C'IiYOF NOR] H RICHLAND HILLS N"AII R ,)'`11 I\IMt I I I I LAPI! 11 111II'RgAI VI NIAIII \ �_- I ;! YI ■ naw°.+uxa cs•.�+ -. !».wEw.+'n..... ._1. � y 4 � - ...w v.w �nawwaE Vl'•wlw. � 1 �� 1 i !..will MaYSWM•iN SNIn. ' N R H r -� NICNOLS .i r= FREESE - - 4 t °) 3 evn Ea, WrM ` , „L i • 4��2 __ T 10 �- r .. • i it yt'` `w • Lt { ^h -- rl _1••�, • 1 r � I R d �A rat `• _�. i � i , ��,� I,�,�;, . It I V Attachment 3 (Impact Fee Capital Improvement Plan for Wastewater) 1101 R1 1_2 - - -- CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS , 1YA�II U \I I R �)1,1I \I I\IP. \l 11I I t \I'll 1l I%IIIRI� \I \II\IsIII \\ � w s.-.r s.-r �... ww•, N R H M NICEIM _ 1 } l�ol _� 6 � • � . �t 4 9 _ a C\ i• x , ¢ 1 ' I f E x 6 I q s` N i f� ORDINANCE NO. 3090 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 110 AND APPENDIX A OF THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CODE OF ORDINANCES; AMENDING LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS; AMENDING WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code, provides a procedure enabling municipalities to enact and update impact fees; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 1997, the City Council first imposed impact fees by passing Ordinance 2241 which fees have been previously reviewed as provided by law and last updated after a public hearing on March 28, 2005; and, WHEREAS, on March 8, 2010, the City Council conducted a public hearing, after compliance with all legal prerequisites, to consider amendments to the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan upon which the City's impact fees are based, as well as to consider amendments to such impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the updated land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for water and wastewater improvements (the "Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Report ") attached hereto as Exhibit "B" which was considered at the March 8, 2010 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt the updated capital improvements plans and impact fee calculations for water and wastewater improvements to the City's water and wastewater system, including City of Fort Worth Wholesale Systems attached hereto as Exhibits "D" and "F" which was considered at the March 8, 2010 public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the impact fees heretofore imposed by adopting the water and wastewater fees established herein for the service area shown on Exhibit "A" hereto; and WHEREAS, the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Report and Capital Improvements Plans were developed by qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering and planning practices in accordance with Section 395.014 of the Texas Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds and determines that all legal prerequisites have been complied with; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: Section 1: Inclusions. THAT all of the above recitations are found to be true and correct and are incorporated into the body of this ordinance as if copied in their entirety. Section 2: Capital Improvements Plan. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Update Report and Capital Improvements Plans, copies of which are attached as Exhibit "B ", Exhibit "D ", and Exhibit "F ". 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 "D" and "F" are the Capital Improvements Plans 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 Update Report and Capital Improvements Plan which includes Exhibits 'A," "B ", "D", and "F" shall be maintained at all times in the City Hall. Section 3: Chapter 110 of the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by a new Article XIX which shall read as follows: "ARTICLE XIX IMPACT FEES Sec. 110 -520. In general; purpose; policy. This article is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 395, Texas Local Government Code, as well as under the authority of Article 11, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution. This article implements a policy of the city to impose fees upon each new development project to pay the costs of constructing capital improvements and facility expansions necessary to serve new development. Sec. 110 -521. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply: Assessment: The determination of the amount of the maximum impact fee per service unit which can be imposed on new development pursuant to this article. Building permit. Written permission issued by the city for the construction, repair, alteration or addition of a structure associated with an increase of one or more service units. Capital improvement: Water supply, treatment and distribution facilities, and wastewater collection and treatment facilities that have a life expectancy of five (5) or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of the city. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee: The city's planning and zoning commission. Capital improvements plan: A plan contemplated by this article that identifies capital improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. City: The City of North Richland Hills, Texas. Credit: The amount of the reduction of an impact fee for fees, payments or charges for or construction of the same type of facility. Facility expansion: The expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an otherwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. Final plat approval or approval of a final plat: The point at which the applicant has complied with all conditions of approval and the plat has been released for filing with the county clerk. Fort Worth access fee. The fee imposed upon the City of North Richland Hills by the City of Fort Worth for providing water and /or sanitary sewer service to new development contained within the incorporated city limits and to which service is provided either directly or indirectly by the City of Fort Worth water and /or sanitary sewer system(s) Impact fee: A charge or assessment imposed as set forth in this article against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump -sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this definition. The term does not include: (a) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; (b) dedication of rights -of -way or easements or construction or dedication of on -site or off -site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities, or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; (c) lot or acreage fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines; or (d) other pro rata fees for reimbursement of water or sewer mains or lines extended by the political subdivision. However, an item included in the capital improvements plan may not be required to be constructed except in accordance with Section 395.019(2), Texas Local Government Code, and an owner may not be required to construct or dedicate facilities and to pay impact fees for those facilities. Land use assumptions: A description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a ten - year period which has been adopted by the city and upon which the capital improvements plan is based. Meter equivalent: The flow capacity of a water meter compared to the base three - fourths -inch meter. The water meter equivalents shown on Conversion Table 2 and in the Impact Fees Capital Improvements Plan serves as the standardized measure of use or generation attributable to the new unit of development. New development: The subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of a structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units. Offsite: Located entirely on property which is not included within the bounds of the plat being considered for impact fee assessment. Onsite: Located at least partially on the plat which is being considered for impact fee assessment. Service area: The entire area within the corporate limits of the city to be served by the capital improvements and facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan. Service unit. The three - fourths -inch water meter equivalent as shown on Conversion Table 2 attached hereto and in Appendix A as Table 3.5 in the Impact Fees Capital Improvements Plan which serves as the standardized measure of use or generation attributable to the new unit of development based on historical data and trends applicable to the city during the previous ten (10) years. Wastewater facility: An improvement for providing wastewater collection and treatment, including, but not limited to, land or easements, treatment facilities, lift stations, or interceptor mains. Wastewater facility excludes sanitary sewer lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from pro rata charges paid by developers or owners of property in other subdivisions as a condition of connection to or use of such facility. Water facility. An improvement for providing water supply, treatment and distribution service, including, but not limited to, land or easements, water treatment facilities, water supply facilities or water distribution lines. Water facility excludes water lines or mains which are constructed by developers, the costs of which are reimbursed from pro rata charges paid by developers or owners of property in other subdivisions as a condition of connection to or use of such facility. Sec. 110 -522. Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. (a) The capital improvements advisory committee shall consist of the city planning and zoning commission. If the commission does not include at least one (1) representative of the real estate, development or building industry who is not an employee or official of a political subdivision or governmental entity, the city council shall appoint at least one (1) such representative as an ad hoc voting member of the advisory committee. (b) The capital improvements advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: (1) Advise and assist the adoption of land use assumptions; (2) Review the capital improvements plan and file written comments; (3) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (4) File semi - annual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the city council any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and (5) Advise the city staff and council of the need to update or revise the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fee. (c) All professional reports concerning the development and implementation of the capital improvements plan shall be made available to the advisory committee. (d) The capital improvements advisory committee shall elect a chairperson to preside at its meetings and a vice - chairperson to serve in his absence. All meetings of the committee shall be open to the public and posted at least seventy -two (72) hours in advance. Robert's Rules shall, insofar as applicable, govern the conduct of the committee's business. A majority of the membership of the committee shall constitute a quorum. Sec. 110 -523. Periodic updates required. The land use assumptions and capital improvements plan upon which impact fees are based shall be updated at least every five (5) years, beginning with the next such update to be on or before March 7, 2015. Alternatively, the city council may, pursuant tothe provisions of Section 395.0575 of the Local Government Code make a determination that no such update is required. Sec. 110.524 Adoption of Updated Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan and Impact fees; Impact fee required. (a) The 2010 land use assumptions, capital improvements plan and impact fees proposed by staff and on file in the office of the City Secretary along with the Tables referred to herein are hereby adopted. (b) No building permit shall be granted to new construction of any property, nor shall any original water or sewer service connection be made unless or service commenced unless and until impact fees required by this article are assessed and collected or a contract providing for payment as approved by the city entered into. Sec. 110 -525. Assessment of impact fees. (a) Assessment of the impact fee per service unit shall occur as set forth in Sec. 110 -526. (b) Additional impact fees or increases in fees shall not be assessed unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. Should the service units be increased, impact fees shall be increased in an amount equal to the current impact fee per service unit multiplied by the difference in number of service units. Sec. 110 -526. Collection of impact fees. (a) At the time building permits are requested (or, if property is to be connected to mains without such permits, at the time connection to mains is requested), the number of service units shall be determined from the number of residential meters using, if necessary, the meter equivalency Table 2 attached hereto. (b) The amount of the impact fee due shall be determined by multiplying the number of service units times the amounts of the impact fees together with the applicable Fort Worth access fee for water and wastewater contained in Table 1 attached hereto. (c) The impact fee due shall be collected at the time a building permit is issued or, if connection is to occur without a permit, prior to connection to the city main. (d) The determination of impact fees shall be reduced by any allowable credits for the category of capital improvements as provided by section 110 -527. (e) The owner of property for which there is a recorded plat may enter into a written agreement with the city providing for the time and method of payment of impact fees, which agreement shall prevail over any contrary provision of this article. (f) Impact fees may be assessed, but not collected, for property where service is not available unless: (1) The city commits to commence construction of necessary facilities identified in the capital improvements plan within two (2) years and have service available in a reasonable time not exceeding five (5) years; (2) The city agrees in writing to permit the owner of the property to construct or finance the required capital improvement or facility expansion and agrees that the costs incurred or funds advanced will either: a. Be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development; b. Reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such capital improvements or facility expansions in which case fees shall be reimbursed to the owner at the time collected; or C. The owner voluntarily requests that the city reserve capacity to serve future development and the city, and the owner enter into a valid written agreement. Sec. 110 -527. Credits. (a) Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of any facility appearing on the capital improvements plan which is required to be constructed by the owner as a condition of development shall be credited against the impact fees otherwise due for the same category of impact fees otherwise due from the development. (b) The amount of each credit for required construction of a facility on the capital improvements plan shall be calculated by multiplying fifty percent (50 %) by the number indicated in the column titled "10 -Year (2009- 2019)" of Table 3 -3 of Exhibit B for water infrastructure projects and the column titled "10 -Year (2009- 2019)" of Table 3 -4 of Exhibit B for wastewater infrastructure projects. (c) As an alternative to the foregoing, the city and the owner may enter into an agreement providing that in addition to the credit, the owner will be reimbursed for all or a portion of the costs of such facilities from pro rata charges collected from others who connect to such facilities and from impact fees as received from other new developments that will use such capital improvements or facility expansions. Pro rata charges paid shall be credited against impact fees in the same manner as expenditures for facilities constructed as set forth in subsection (b) hereinabove above. (d) An owner shall be entitled to a credit against any category of impact fee as provided in any written agreement between the city and the owner. (e) No credit for construction of any facility shall exceed the total amount of impact fees due from the development for the same category of improvements. Sec. 110 -528. Expenditure and accounting for fees and interest. (a) All impact fees collected shall be deposited in interest bearing accounts clearly identifying the category of capital improvements or facility expansions within the service area for which the fee is adopted. (b) Interest earned shall be credited to the account and shall be subject to the same restrictions on expenditures as the funds generating such interest. (c) Impact fees and the interest earned thereon may be spent only for the purposes for which such fee was imposed as shown in the capital improvements plan. (d) The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and copying during ordinary business hours. Sec. 110 -529. Refunds. (a) On the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, impact fees shall be refunded if existing facilities are available and service is denied or if the city failed to commence construction of facilities required for service within two (2) years of payment of the fee or if such construction is not completed within a reasonable time, but not in any event in more than five (5) years from the date of payment of the fee. (b) Any impact fee funds not expended within ten (10) years after payment shall be refunded. (c) Refunds shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate set forth in Section 302.002, Texas Finance Code. (d) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity. (e) The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. Sec. 110 -530. Certification of compliance required. (a) Each year the city imposes an impact fee it shall submit a written certification verifying compliance with this chapter to the attorney general each year not later than the last day of the city's fiscal year. (b) The certification must be signed by the mayor of the city and include a statement that reads substantially similar to the following: This statement certifies compliance with V.T.C.A., Local Government Code chapter 395. (c) In the event the city fails to submit a certification as required by this section, it is liable to the state for a civil penalty in an amount equal to ten (10) percent of the amount of the impact fees erroneously charged. The attorney general shall collect the civil penalty and deposit the amount collected to the credit of the housing trust fund." Section 4: Appendix A to the North Richland Hills Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding thereto Tables 1 and 2 attached hereto. Section 5: Severability and Savings, Partial Repeal of Prior Ordinances If any section, article, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereto, or any person or circumstance, is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed such remaining portions of the ordinance despite such invalidity, such remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. All ordinances or any parts thereof in conflict with the terms of this ordinance shall be and are hereby deemed repealed and are of no force or effect provided that such repeal shall be only to the extent of such inconsistency and in all other respects this ordinance shall be cumulative of other ordinances regulating and governing the subject matter covered in this ordinance. Specifically, prior ordinances establishing impact fees are hereby saved from repeal except to the extent this Ordinance establishes impact fees effective after the date of this ordinance. Section 6: Effective Date This ordinance shall be effective immediately from the date of passage and approval hereof. AND IT IS SO ORDAINED. PASSED AND APPROVED on this 8th day of March, 2010. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS m ATTEST: Patricia Hutson, City Secretary Oscar Trevino, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: George A. Staples, City Attorney APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Mike Curtis, P.E., Managing Director Table 1 * Fort Worth Water Access Fee changes annually. The annual rate will be the base rate shown multiplied by the NRH Ratio which is to be determined annually. The NRH Ratio will be calculated as the percentage of the overall water that the City of North Richland Hills purchases from the City of Fort Worth. Table 2 Meter /Service Unit Equivalency Table Meter Size Maximum Flow (gpm) Service Unit Equivalents Fort Worth Access Fees 30 NRH NRH Water 1.67 1 1/2" Year Water Wastewater Wastewater Fee NRH 350 11.67 4" Base Rate Ratio 6" Year 1 46.67 8" 1800 80 (April 1, 2010 — $ 1,087 $ 306 $ 867 66% $ 185 March 30, 2011 Year 2 (April 1, 2011 — $ 1,087 $ 306 $ 867 $ 185 March 30, 2012 Year 3 (April 1, 2012 — $ 1,209 $ 335 $ 867 * $ 185 March 30, 2013 Year 4 (April 1, 2013 — $ 1,330 $ 363 $ 867 $ 185 March 30, 2014 Year 5 (April 1, 2014 — $ 1,330 $ 363 $ 867 $ 185 March 30, 2015 * Fort Worth Water Access Fee changes annually. The annual rate will be the base rate shown multiplied by the NRH Ratio which is to be determined annually. The NRH Ratio will be calculated as the percentage of the overall water that the City of North Richland Hills purchases from the City of Fort Worth. Table 2 Meter /Service Unit Equivalency Table Meter Size Maximum Flow (gpm) Service Unit Equivalents 3/4" 30 1 ill 50 1.67 1 1/2" 100 3.33 2" 160 5.33 3" 350 11.67 4" 600 21 6" 1250 46.67 8" 1800 80 I^ I I I I 1 EXHIBIT A CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA LEGEND Streets Streams j ! Service Area Rail Road Lakes 0 1.250 2,500 F■RE ES,Ec SCALE IN FEET INKH rm -s ,CHOLS C] Exhibit B Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study FINAL DRAFT February 2009 Prepared for: NRH09410 City of North Richland Hills NKH Prepared by: Freese and Nichols, Inc. 4055 International Plaza Suite 200 Fort Worth, TX 76109 8 17/735 -7300 NICNOLS Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................. ...........................ES -1 1.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................... ............................1 -1 2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 Residential Land Use ............................................................ ............................2 -1 2.2 Non - residential Land Use ...................................................... ............................2 -2 3.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN .................................. ............................3 -1 3.1 Water and Wastewater Load Projections .............................. ............................3 -1 3.2 Water and Wastewater System Improvements ................... ............................... 3 -2 3.3 Impact Fee Analysis ........................................................... ............................... 3 -7 3.3.1 Service Units .................................................................. ............................3 -7 3.3.2 Maximum Impact Fee Calculation ................................. ............................3 -9 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. LIST OF TABLES Table 2 -1 Historical Population ..................................................... ............................2 -1 Table 3 -1 Projected Water Demands .............................................. ............................3 -1 Table 3 -2 Projected Wastewater Flows .......................................... ............................3 -1 Table 3 -3 Cost Allocation for Water Impact Fee Calcul ation ..... ............................... 3 -3 Table 3 -4 Cost Allocation for Wastewater Impact Fee Calculation .......................... 3 -4 Table 3 -5 Service Unit Equivalency Table ................................. ............................... 3 -8 Table 3 -6 Projected Water Service Units for 2009 -2019 ............ ............................... 3 -8 Table 3 -7 Projected Wastewater Service Units for 2009 - 2019 ...... ............................3 -9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2 -1 Population by Traffic Survey Zone ................................ ............................2 -3 Figure 2 -2 Non - residential Acreage ............................................. ............................... 2 -4 Figure 3 -1 Water System Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan . ............................3 -5 Figure 3 -2 Wastewater System Impact Fee Capital Improvements Plan .................... 3 -6 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 BACKGROUND Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires an impact fee analysis before impact fees can be created and assessed. Chapter 395 defines an impact fee as "a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development." In September 2001, Senate Bill 243 amended Chapter 395 thus creating the current procedure for implementing impact fees. 2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS To assist the City of North Richland Hills in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. Growth and development projections were formulated based on assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses within the community. The 2009 population is estimated to be 66,100 while the projected 2019 population is approximately 73,118. 3.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN An impact fee capital improvements plan (CIP) was developed for the City of North Richland Hills to ensure high quality water and wastewater service that promotes residential and commercial development. The recommended improvements will provide the required capacity and reliability to meet projected water demands and wastewater flows through year 2019. The total impact fee eligible cost for the water system improvements is $9,487,939. The total impact fee eligible cost for the wastewater system improvements is $2,370,443. 4.0 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS The impact fee analysis involves determining the utilization of existing and proposed projects required as defined by the capital improvement plan to serve new development over the next 10 -year time period. The total projected costs include the projected 10 -year ES -1 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. capital costs, the projected finance cost for the capital improvements, and the consultant cost for preparing and updating the Capital Improvements Plan. The maximum allowable water impact fee is $1,771 per service unit. The maximum allowable wastewater impact fee is $474 per service unit. ES -2 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. 1.0 BACKGROUND Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code requires an impact fee analysis before impact fees can be created and assessed. Chapter 395 defines an impact fee as "a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development." In September 2001, Senate Bill 243 amended Chapter 395 thus creating the current procedure for implementing impact fees. Chapter 395 identifies the following items as impact fee eligible costs: • Construction contract price • Surveying and engineering fees • Land acquisition costs • Fees paid to the consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan (CIP) • Projected interest charges and other finance costs for projects identified in the CIP Chapter 395 also identifies items that impact fees cannot used to pay for, such as: • Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than those identified on the capital improvements plan • Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements • Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards • Upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development • Administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision • Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed above Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. In November 2009, the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, authorized Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) to perform an impact fee analysis on the City's water and wastewater systems. The purpose of this report is to address the methodology used in the development and calculation of water and wastewater impact fees for the City of North Richland Hills. The methodology used herein satisfies the requirements of the Texas Local Government Code Section 395 for the establishment of water and wastewater impact fees. I -2 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. 2.0 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS To assist the City of North Richland Hills in determining the need and timing of capital improvements to serve future development, a reasonable estimation of future growth is required. Growth and development projections were formulated based on assumptions pertaining to the type, location, quantity, and timing of various future land uses within the community. These land use assumptions, which include population projections, will become the basis for the preparation of an impact fee capital improvement plans for water and wastewater facilities. 2.1 Residential Land Use The City of North Richland Hills provided yearly service population data from 1998 through 2009. The data indicated an increasing growth rate with an average of 2.01% annual growth over the last 10 years. Table 2 -1 presents the historical service populations for the City of North Richland Hills. Table 2 -1 Historical Population Year Service Population Growth Rate 1998 53,100 - 1999 54,300 2.26% 2000 55,635 2.46% 2001 56,800 2.09% 2002 58,550 3.08% 2003 59,800 2.13% 2004 60,400 1.00% 2005 61,650 2.07% 2006 63,520 3.03% 2007 64,050 0.83% 2008 65,750 2.65% 2009 66,100 0.53% Average 2.01% City planning staff developed future population estimates based on the growth rates from recent years and provided the total projected service population for 2009 and 2019. The 2009 base year population is approximately 66,100, and the 2019 population is approximately 73,118. The total population was then distributed throughout the City Ow Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. using Traffic Survey Zones (TSZs). Figure 2 -1 presents the 2009 and 2019 population by TSZ. 2.2 Non- residential Land Use The City provided land use shapefiles, which included the current zoning and future land use type. This data was used to determine the total non - residential acreage based on 2005 zoning and the future land use for 2020. In order to determine the non - residential acreage for 2009 and 2019, a straight -line growth trend was assumed. Some areas on the periphery of the service area were adjusted to more closely correspond with the growth in population. The 2009 and 2019 non - residential land use is approximately 1,754 acres and 1,940 acres, respectively. Figure 2 -2 presents the non - residential acreage by TSZ for the water and wastewater service area. 2 -2 1167 10334 0 /1183 0$ 0 , 463 1463 ]0452 2017 2017 I 75 ° 75 I 10454 1 1618 N 10459 i I I I I 0 1.250 2,500 SCALE IN FEET 10250 2813 2865 10252 2157 2157 " -`1810 2120 10336 2151 2151 10340 3638 4180 10343 930 950 10456 2384 2384 814$ 836 1 436 i 10174 0 0 101176 648 10181 716 �/r 3 3 1524 10179 1524 1253 i 1556 10185 0 10184 D i 1280 1760 10176 I 1050 1150 10180 1471 1590 — 10257 860 10253 970 2291 10255 2391 660 715 10261 10265-N 963 0 984 0 2180 10258 1810 1 259 19� 10256 2850 1930 0 2463 2579 '10 �7 10263 1291 811 941 3 10264 23 294 10339 10342 321 2729 0 2928 / 484 310 46 824 0 1 1 69' 1.4344 10353 1 1691 3222 i 0 3258 0 10349 500 1670 10344 100 5 2260 2260 it 0 10348 1779 10352 0 1779 0 10347 10350 530 1579 1579 31 251 3251 100 100 - -, `------- - - - - - -- I 10465 926 i 926 10462 20 200 gNICHOLS FIGURE 2 -1 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS POPULATIONS BY TSZ FOR IMPACT FEE FINAL DRAFT LEGEND Streets Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Districts Rail Road Traffic Survey Zones ��� Streams —� City Limits TSZ ID Lakes 2009 Population 2019 Populatio,, N R H FREESE 02 gNICHOLS t 10250 1.21 1.35 i j == i 10252 18.53 18.53 10254 5.09 7.09 48.00 10334 10334 10338 0.00 140.09 0.00 150.59 I i i 10336 16.10 18.10 60.10 89.10 10176 0.40 0.44 10253 4.61 5.12 10177 4.02 10179 4.47 18.82 20.88 10178 3.00 ].01 3.33 10185 0.00 10184 1 0.00 26.40 30.40 � 10160 i 10343 77.05 10462 COMMERCIAL ACREAGE BY TSZ 92.81 13.14 84.05 LEGEND Streets Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Districts 8:67 Rail Road Traffic Survey Zones \ 10450 i Lakes 2009 Commercial Acres 2019 Commercial Acres INRH 10.59 50.48 If j 11.76 56.04 10261 >_ 10456 0.00 8.75 76.02 1 1 10268 84.38 0268 210 26.11 . 10452 10256 20.11 28.99 0.00 -_� 7.38 50.13 10458 / 20.18 10267 8.67 22.40 9.62 � f 0.00 10453 10460 0.00 1 7? 46.78 ''91) 51.93 - t 10454 10 I i 0.00 57.14 2.55 57 y 2' 10459 N ,/ D.DD 0.06 it 0 1.250 2.500 EMM SCALE W FEET 10176 0.40 0.44 10253 4.61 5.12 10177 4.02 10179 4.47 18.82 20.88 10178 3.00 ].01 3.33 10185 0.00 10184 1 0.00 26.40 30.40 asap 10264 5.38 24.77 10 . , 119321 I 24.77 i 13.18 20.18 15.21 � 10346 163.03 ! 10351 180.97 0.00 l 0.00 87 33 10345 /10353 74.33 84.69 i 0.00 84.69 0.00 10349 k 58.41 58.41 10344 a 0.00 13.50 0.00 20.50 10348 10352 14.87 77.88 16.50 86.44 1 i' 10350 10347 31.81 68.38 35.31 10354 75.90 80.90 t 89.80 18.48 � 10160 i 13.14 10462 COMMERCIAL ACREAGE BY TSZ 92.81 13.14 103.81 J LEGEND Streets Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Districts 8:67 Rail Road Traffic Survey Zones 12.67 TSZ ID Lakes 2009 Commercial Acres 2019 Commercial Acres INRH 10.59 j 11.76 10261 >_ 7.89 0.00 8.75 0.00 1 1 10268 0268 210 26.11 0.00 10256 20.11 28.99 0.00 45.13 50.13 / 10267 8.67 9.62 0.00 0.00 asap 10264 5.38 24.77 10 . , 119321 I 24.77 i 13.18 20.18 15.21 � 10346 163.03 ! 10351 180.97 0.00 l 0.00 87 33 10345 /10353 74.33 84.69 i 0.00 84.69 0.00 10349 k 58.41 58.41 10344 a 0.00 13.50 0.00 20.50 10348 10352 14.87 77.88 16.50 86.44 1 i' 10350 10347 31.81 68.38 35.31 10354 75.90 80.90 t 89.80 18.48 NICHOLS 10465 54.07 6 5.07 10462 COMMERCIAL ACREAGE BY TSZ 92.81 FOR IMPACT FEE 103.81 J LEGEND NICHOLS FIGURE 2 -2 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS COMMERCIAL ACREAGE BY TSZ FOR IMPACT FEE FINAL DRAFT LEGEND Streets Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Districts Rail Road Traffic Survey Zones Streams City Limits TSZ ID Lakes 2009 Commercial Acres 2019 Commercial Acres INRH FREESE WMI NICHOLS Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills 3.0 CAPITAL EVIPROVEMIENTS PLAN Freese and Nichols, Inc. An impact fee capital improvements plan (CIP) was developed for the City of North Richland Hills to ensure high quality water and wastewater service that promotes residential and commercial development. The recommended improvements will provide the required capacity and reliability to meet projected water demands and wastewater flows through year 2019. 3.1 Water and Wastewater Load Projections The population data was used to develop future water demands and wastewater flows based on a projected average day per capita use and peaking factors. Table 3 -1 presents the projected water demands, and Table 3 -2 presents the projected wastewater flows for the City of North Richland Hills. Table 3 -1 Projected Water Demands Table 3 -2 Projected Wastewater Flows Average Day Maximum Peak Hour Daily Flow Demand Day Demand Demand Year MGD ) (MGD) (MGD 2009 10.89 22.94 40.15 2019 12.06 25.39 44.43 Table 3 -2 Projected Wastewater Flows 3 -1 Average Annual Peak Wet Weather Daily Flow Flow Year MGD MGD 2009 8.43 33.73 2019 9.29 1 37.15 3 -1 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. 3.2 Water and Wastewater System Improvements Proposed water and wastewater system projects were developed as part of the CIP. A summary of the costs for each of the projects required for the 10 -year growth period used in the impact fee analysis for both the water and wastewater systems are shown in Tables 3 -3 and 3 -4, respectively. The 2009 percent utilization is the portion of a project's capacity required to serve existing development. It is not included in the impact fee analysis. The 2019 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity that will be required to serve the City of North Richland Hills in 2019. The 2009 -2019 percent utilization is the portion of the project's capacity required to serve development from 2009 to 2019. The portion of a project's total cost that is used to serve development projected to occur from 2009 through 2019 is calculated as the total actual cost multiplied by the 2009 -2019 percent utilization. Only this portion of the cost is used in the impact fee analysis. The proposed 10 -year water system projects are shown on Figure 3 -1. Proposed wastewater projects are shown on Figure 3 -2. 3 -2 Table 3 -3 Proposed Water Distribution System Improvements, 2009 -2019 Cost Allocation for Impact Fee Calculations Percent Utilization Costs Based on 2009 Dollars 2009 2019 2009 -2019 Current 10 -Year Beyond 2019 No. Description of Project Capital Cost Development 2009 -2019 EXISTING PROJECTS A TRA Pump Station Expansion 35% 75% 40% $5,000 $1,750 $2,000 $1,250 B 8 -inch WL from Davis Blvd. east and south to Northfield Drive 70% 100% 30% $123,360 $86,352 $37,008 $0 C 12 -inch WL south along Winter Park Dr., 12 -inch WL along Bridge 75% 90% 15% $450,659 $337,994 $67,599 $45,066 St. and 10 -inch WL along Mid Cities Blvd. D 16 -inch WL from Mid - Cities Blvd. South along Tecnol Blvd. East 65% 90% 25% $846,642 $550,317 $211,661 $84,664 along industrial Park Blvd, South along Holiday Ln. to Janetta Dr. 12- inch /16 -inch WL along Holiday Ln from Mid - Cities Blvd to E existing 12 -inch WL north of Bogart Dr. 12 -inch WL along College Circle from Holiday In M Rn,, Rd- 65% 100% 35% $347,587 $225,932 $121,655 $0 PROPOSED PROJECTS 1 Two Motor Operated Valves inserted on water lines along Holiday 70% 90% 2090 $276,000 $193,200 $55,200 $27,600 Ln and Grapevine Hwy in the south. 2 12 -Inch Water Line along Grapevine Hwy. to replace existing 8 -inch 60% 95% 35% $794,310 $476,586 $278,009 $39,715 WL from Harwood to Cardinal Ln. 10- inch /12 -inch WL near the Mid - Cities Blvd. and Amundson Dr. 3 intersection and 12 -inch line from Mid - Cities Blvd. and Cardinal Ln. 50% 85% 35% $537,600 $268,800 $188,160 $80,640 4 16 -inch WL along Smithfield Rd north of Mid Cities Blvd. 35% 85% 50% $1,533,370 $536,680 $766,685 $230,006 5 12 -inch WL and a Motor Operated Valve across Hwy 820 east of 85% 100% 1590 $313,540 $266,509 $47,031 $0 Meadow Lakes Dr. 6 20 -Inch WL along Mid Cities Blvd. from Rufe Snow Dr. to Smithfield 40% 85% 45% $2,136,630 $854,652 $961,484 $320,494 Rd. 7 24 -Inch WL along Watauga Rd. from Rufe Snow Dr. to existing 16- 35% 80% 45% $2,737,330 $958,066 $1,231,799 $547,466 inch WL east of Watauga P.S. and GST 16 -Inch WL from existing 16 -inch WL north of Commercial Dr. 8 along Janetta Dr., 16 -inch WL along Loop 820 from Holiday Ln. to 70% 90% 20% $879,790 $615,853 $175,958 $87,979 9 Expand Pumping Capacity and Ground Storage at Watauga P.S. 55% 85% 30% $6,048,000 $3,326,400 $1,814,400 $907,200 10 16 -inch WL from Davis Blvd., east on Clark St., north on Colorado 80% 95% 15% $1,015,260 $812,208 $152,289 $50,763 Blvd. , east on Harwood Rd. to Grapevine Hwy. it Offsite Water Supply Improvements from Fort Worth 55% 85% 30% $2,545,540 $1,400,047 $763,662 $381,831 12 12 -inch WL along Eagle Crest Dr. from Rufe Snow Dr. to existing 30- 50% 70% 20% $303,330 $151,665 $60,666 $90,999 inch WL Northwest of Industrial Park Blvd. 13 Proposed 8- Inch Water Line along Country Place Dr. south of 70% 100% 30% $50,790 $35,553 $15,237 $0 Northfield Dr. Total Capital Improvements Cost $20,944,738 1 $11,098,563 1 $6,950,503 1 $2,895,671 Table 3-4 Proposed Wastewater Collection System Improvements, 2009 -2019 Cost Allocation for Impact Fee Calculations Percent Utilization Costs Based on 2009 Dollars Current 10 -Year No. Description of Project 2009 2019 2009 -2019 Capital Cost Development (2009 -2019) Beyond 2019 EXISTING PROJECTS A Aegon Lift Station Expansion from 0.9 MGD to 1.6 MGD Capacity, New 15 -inch WW 60% 100% 40% $966,060 $579,636 $386,424 $0 Lines to replace 8- inch /10- inch /12 -inch Upstream and Downstream of Lift Station PROPOSED PROJECTS 1 27/24 -inch Interceptor Replacement along Highway 820 75% 90% 15% $1,728,390 $1,303,697 $251,854 $172,839 15 -inch and 12 -inch Sewer Line Replacement along Maplewood Ave. and Susan Lee 2 Ln. 90% 10090 10°0 $654,200 $585,578 $68,622 $0 27 -inch Interceptor Replacement going North from Grapevine Hwy. to Mockingbird Ln. 3 to replace existing 10/12/21 -inch WW Lines. 7090 8090 1090 $1,308,460 $915,922 $130,846 $261,692 30 -inch Interceptor Replacement of 24 -inch WW Line along Industry Park Blvd. North 4 of Holiday Ln. 8590 9590 1090 $799,010 $679,159 $79,901 $39,951 24 -inch Interceptor replacement of existing 18 -inch line along Little Ranch Rd. South 5 of Mid - Cities Blvd.;18 -inch Interceptor replacement of existing 12 and 15 -inch lines 85% 90% 5% $2,163,910 $1,839,324 $108,196 $216,391 along Little Ranch Rd. from Hightower Dr. to Mid - Cities Blvd.; New 12 and 15 -inch lines along Hightower Dr. to replace existing 10 -inch and 12 -inch Lines. 18 -inch Interceptor Replacement of existing 15 -inch WW line from Amundson Dr. to 6 Cardinal Ln. along Walker Branch Creek 7090 8590 1590 $833,690 $583,583 $125,054 $125,054 24 -inch Interceptor Replacement of existing 12 -inch WW line along Richland Plaza Dr. from On x Dr south to Broadwa Ave. 409'0 90% 5090 $617,710 $247,084 $308,855 $61,771 inc an inc nterceptor ep acement ot existing 10-inch WW lines along 8 Whitefield Ct., northeast along Whitefield Dr., east along Maple Dr., north to Mid- 90% 100% 10% $1,779,120 $1,601,208 $177,912 $0 Cities Blvd. Total Capital Improvements Cost $10,850,550 1 $8,335,189 1 $1,637,664 $877,697 b •� o ti' S' 6" s' 6.. m b c I 6' b 4 b b b 6 b 6 9 6 6 I m ro 6' 6" b 41 Starnes Rd. m ST 6 6 r - x r q 6 i6" 16" g.. 16" ,m 6 N b ExpRar T e m b g g. .. 6 24" °^ io 24.. 6' 0 6• � 6 d " g. � 6' pO e " 6 b 6 y, m 6 6 6 6 g•• g b .. .. Amundson Dr. 6 6 6 g 6 m &. t� EST I m 6 6 5' e ti e g. g. B' r g•• 5, I B S r m b ! •• I I / 4 ' ' 1 I m 6- e' 8' 'I m g.. b 6" m s g• 6 e m b e 6 Expand Watauga P.S. T b' 9 Add 5 MG GST 6 0 b N 6- 16^ 6` m s � I 7 W m _ a. {I e 6 6 �- 101, ,e 4 e•• P.S. and GST =I �I m. b g" 6 b •y0 b 6•• ,z�.. 0,. 20•, zs' Water Su I Im rove „.' 12" College Hills 11 PP y P ments O ^� �s 6 °�., 6 P.S. and GST - from Fort Worth s° 1z" • �, �6/ P�a• 6 S /�� b e 6N 0 � 6• b 0. T�ry m, atl ` 6 C g B•, e 'O C ig•• " b 6 6 Proposed Motor Proposetl Motor �' ' c g^ b g' g' 6" Operated Valve Operated Valve � - e 6 e 5 m 6 g.. b 6 b 6 b 10" 10.. .. 12.. 6 6" 1 6 5 fl ti g.. q 6 b 6 6 g.. 6 6 fl 10 m 1 6 1'Y 10.. a 6' 6- 6• g- 6' 6 6 , 2 6 6 son b b John m °' P.S. and GST m m I 6.. .�: 0 b g. 5 6 eO 6 6.• 6" B• I 6 m 1 6 16" a � m e m. b a 16" ,6•' ea b b b 6 6 .V b g tr m 6 m _H ° g c 6 8•• o b • Pro osed Motor H 6 6 6 � � " 6' c e" a 6 , 6 6- r g 61 6' q m � Operated Valve ,., 6 c 6- 6- ^- 6 r 6' a 6 b 6- e 6 I 6 b 6 m 6 5' • e• � 1 6.. 6 6 1 6 q B•. - b B•. 0. q m b 6 6 0 ib 1 • w � 6 m .. g, g g e- 6g 6' g6' B' b S 6- g' 8.. � Br g ° -� b A b '- B. m 6' b b b b b 0,. 6 6 6.. 6., By 8 6 w fib 610..6 6 6 Con G r 6 'O ley - Keller S. and ST Stan P. Delivery Point 16" � � ra•. .. g. s g. m 6.. 6" 1s" 16" 16•• ♦6 � 0. b 6 °Ati b •� 6 a 1 1 2'• 12'• b 6 6 � q 6 6 N I6 Ib 0 1.250 2,500 SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3 -1 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS WATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE I 6 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN bq m 6 e FINAL DRAFT shady SrTve Rd. 5' I r �, --- -- -- --- ----- — ���- -- �-6-- - ------ - i LEGEND Z. m 6 b I g. _ tie I ® Proposed Motor Operated Valve Existing Eligible Water Lines g, g. •- Divider Valves Proposed Eligible Water Lines g' m b 6 b °' '.,� m•• 1D 6 Water Meter Watauga Water Lines 2 Booster Pump Station Streets cR 6 g O is - Existing Elevated Storage Tank Rail Road 6 g" - 6I --' Existing Ground Storage Tank Streams i 6• s 6 6.. 6" and Smaller Water Lines Lakes ° 6 r " I ,2" 6 10 b "' I 8" and Larger Water Lines City Limits I e" s 6 b b 6- `° b 6 '° b e, e• i FREES,EC N R H AOKHo�S Burley Rd. EST 6 b 16" 16" .. g. 16" - b • ra b 6 m. q b _ 16, q l 16 : 1. 12" 12 ., . 6.. 6 6 b •� o ti' S' 6" s' 6.. m b c I 6' b 4 b b b 6 b 6 9 6 6 I m ro 6' 6" b 41 Starnes Rd. m ST 6 6 r - x r q 6 i6" 16" g.. 16" ,m 6 N b ExpRar T e m b g g. .. 6 24" °^ io 24.. 6' 0 6• � 6 d " g. � 6' pO e " 6 b 6 y, m 6 6 6 6 g•• g b .. .. Amundson Dr. 6 6 6 g 6 m &. t� EST I m 6 6 5' e ti e g. g. B' r g•• 5, I B S r m b ! •• I I / 4 ' ' 1 I m 6- e' 8' 'I m g.. b 6" m s g• 6 e m b e 6 Expand Watauga P.S. T b' 9 Add 5 MG GST 6 0 b N 6- 16^ 6` m s � I 7 W m _ a. {I e 6 6 �- 101, ,e 4 e•• P.S. and GST =I �I m. b g" 6 b •y0 b 6•• ,z�.. 0,. 20•, zs' Water Su I Im rove „.' 12" College Hills 11 PP y P ments O ^� �s 6 °�., 6 P.S. and GST - from Fort Worth s° 1z" • �, �6/ P�a• 6 S /�� b e 6N 0 � 6• b 0. T�ry m, atl ` 6 C g B•, e 'O C ig•• " b 6 6 Proposed Motor Proposetl Motor �' ' c g^ b g' g' 6" Operated Valve Operated Valve � - e 6 e 5 m 6 g.. b 6 b 6 b 10" 10.. .. 12.. 6 6" 1 6 5 fl ti g.. q 6 b 6 6 g.. 6 6 fl 10 m 1 6 1'Y 10.. a 6' 6- 6• g- 6' 6 6 , 2 6 6 son b b John m °' P.S. and GST m m I 6.. .�: 0 b g. 5 6 eO 6 6.• 6" B• I 6 m 1 6 16" a � m e m. b a 16" ,6•' ea b b b 6 6 .V b g tr m 6 m _H ° g c 6 8•• o b • Pro osed Motor H 6 6 6 � � " 6' c e" a 6 , 6 6- r g 61 6' q m � Operated Valve ,., 6 c 6- 6- ^- 6 r 6' a 6 b 6- e 6 I 6 b 6 m 6 5' • e• � 1 6.. 6 6 1 6 q B•. - b B•. 0. q m b 6 6 0 ib 1 • w � 6 m .. g, g g e- 6g 6' g6' B' b S 6- g' 8.. � Br g ° -� b A b '- B. m 6' b b b b b 0,. 6 6 6.. 6., By 8 6 w fib 610..6 6 6 Con G r 6 'O ley - Keller S. and ST Stan P. Delivery Point 16" � � ra•. .. g. s g. m 6.. 6" 1s" 16" 16•• ♦6 � 0. b 6 °Ati b •� 6 a 1 1 2'• 12'• b 6 6 � q 6 6 N I6 Ib 0 1.250 2,500 SCALE IN FEET FIGURE 3 -2 CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS WASTEWATER SYSTEM IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FINAL DRAFT LEGEND Existing Lift Station Streets ® Meter Station Rail Road B" and Smaller Sewer Lines Streams 10" and Larger Sewer Lines Lakes Existing Eligible Sewer Lines City Limits Proposed Eligible Sewer Lines 6. 6" 6, 6- 6' 6' I 6,0 - - 6• °6 6' 8' 8' � 6' 6' 6' It/I � fi Pe 6' ?q.� 21.. 24.. FREESE 6° i ,g'• N R H 99 zN�CHOLS 6" a ^ti i MAJOR BASINS ° I 77" u I Big Bear Little Bear _ Big Fossil Creek Mackey Creek W6' s• 6- 6' 6' Calloway Walker m 6' o., 6" 0 6' 6" g.. I i6' 6 6' 8 6" 6" 30,• 6" 6" 6" v JO•, 6" 6' 6- 6 °I 6' 101' 6" _ 9 6' 6• 6• 6 — N 6 -- - 6" 6 6 _ 6' 70•' b j 5' 6" F,— 6" � I I _. I 6• e' �J -o 6 i � g• � �iv I 09 6 6 i 6- 6, ' 6.. ,7.- 106 12 10'� .. m 6" 6 6.. 8 10•' 1i" 1 I 6. f 6" i 6' 6' 6• i J s 12 12 8' g- 6' 8' 6 I a- zi 6' 8• J_-Jr 6 o °J 6 "� 6' 7 c 6' I � ro 6• ., �� s 6' II 1 m 6 f m F o 0. 6^ � 6.. 6' h 8" 8 6 m 10 10 72.. a• 6' j 1fj I 6 O% 6' Aegon ! I in 6 o a• Lift Station ! Expansion 4' A i _ 8• O 75.. T7 11 g. m 12'• 12" 6 C 6" !7 6 N O i ti 6. 6' 10 g.ml 1 N u 6' 0 12 J / o g• I m 12=' ti m 6 10•• 5, fi 6' 4 6" 6• N O T I a 10" I 6" g.. 10..6, I 6. 6' 1d i 8" 6" 12" � 6 mil' 6" s 4 9. 1 6' 6 ° 8 6 J 10" m +0 101 �j• 6• 6" 6• i 6' 8 c E 18" 6 "18m 12.. 6' 6" 6" 6" 12" N ! 0 1,250 2,500 SCALE IN FEET Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. 3.3 Impact Fee Analysis The impact fee analysis involves determining the utilization of existing and proposed projects required as defined by the capital improvement plan to serve new development over the next 10 -year time period. For existing or proposed projects, the impact fee is calculated as a percentage of the project cost, based upon the percentage of the project's capacity required to serve development projected to occur between 2009 and 2019. Capacity serving existing development and development projected for more than 10 years in the future cannot be charged to impact fees. 3.3.1 Service Units The maximum impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements required by the total number of service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period. A water service unit is defined as service equivalent to a water connection for a single - family residence. The City of North Richland Hills does not directly meter wastewater flows and bills for wastewater services based on the customer's water consumption. Therefore, a wastewater service unit is defined as the wastewater service provided to a customer with a water connection for a single- family residence. The service associated with public, commercial, and industrial connections is converted into service units based upon the capacity of the meter used to provide service. The number of service units required to represent each meter size is based on the maximum rated capacity of the meters as shown in AWWA Manual 6, Water Meters -- Selection, Installation, Testing, and Maintenance, 4th edition, 1999. The service unit equivalent for each meter size used by the City is listed in Table 3 -5. 3 -7 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. Table 3 -5 Service Unit Equivalency Table Meter Size Maximum Flow (gpm) Service Unit Equivalents 3/4" 30 1 1 " 50 1.67 1 1/2" 100 3.33 2" 160 5.33 3" 350 11.67 4" 600 21 6" 1250 46.67 8" 1 1800 1 80 Table 3 -6 and Table 3 -7 show the water and wastewater service units for 2009 and the projected service units for 2019. Typically, in North Richland Hills, single - family residences are served with 3/4 -inch water meters. Larger meters represent public, commercial, and industrial water use. The City provided data that included the meter size of each active water meter as of December 2009. Table 3 -6 Projected Water Service Units for 2009 -2019 Meter Size 2009 Existing Connections 2009 Existing Service Units 2019 Projected Connections 2019 Projected Service Units Projected Growth in Service Units 3/4" 18,427 18,427 20,383 20,383 1,956 1" 1,286 2,148 1,423 2,376 228 11/2" 87 290 96 320 30 2" 726 3870 803 4,280 410 3" 8 93 9 105 12 4" 16 336 18 378 42 6" 3 140 3 140 0 8" 2 160 2 160 0 Total 20,555 25,464 22,737 28,142 2,679 3 -8 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. Table 3 -7 Projected Wastewater Service Units for 2009 -2019 Meter Size 2009 Existing Connections 2009 Existing Service Units 2019 Projected Connections 2019 Projected Service Units Projected Growth in Service Units 3/4" 18,350 18,350 20,298 20,298 1,948 1" 1,103 1,842 1,220 2,037 195 1 1/2" 73 243 81 270 27 2" 523 2,788 579 3,086 298 3" 7 82 8 93 11 4" 14 294 15 315 21 6" 2 93 2 93 0 8" 2 160 2 160 0 Total 20,074 23,852 22,205 26,352 2,500 3.3.2 Maximum Impact Fee Calculation Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code states that the maximum impact fee may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the cost of capital improvements required by the total number of service units attributed to new development during the impact fee eligibility period less a credit to account for water and wastewater revenues and property taxes used to finance capital improvement plans. The total projected costs include the projected capital improvement costs to serve 10 -year development, the projected finance cost for the capital improvements, and the consultant cost for preparing and updating the Capital Improvements Plan. 3 -9 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study City of North Richland Hills Freese and Nichols, Inc. Maximum Water Impact Fee with Financing Total Capital Improvement Costs $6,950,503 Financing Costs $2,360,936 Engineering $86,500 Administration, Audit, and Accounting $90,000 Total Eligible Costs $9,487,939 Total Water Impact Fee Credit (50 %) $4,743,970 The total eligible cost associated with the existing and proposed water system improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years is $9,487,939. The increase in the number of service units due to growth over the next ten years is projected as 2,679 service units. Maximum Water Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs - Credit With Credit 10 -year growth in Service Units = $9,487,939 - $4,743,970 2,679 SU = $1,771 / SU Maximum Water Impact Fee without Financing Costs: Total Capital Improvement Costs $6,950,503 Engineering $86,500 Administration, Audit, and Accounting $90,000 Total Eligible Costs $7,127,003 Total Water Impact Fee Credit (50 %) $3,563,502 The total eligible cost associated with the existing and proposed water system improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years is $7,127,003. Maximum Water Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs - Credit With Credit 10 -year growth in Service Units = $7,127,003 - $3,563,502 2,679 SU = $1,330 / S 3 -10 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Study Citv of North Richland Hills Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee with FinancinzCCosts: Total Capital Improvement Costs Financing Costs Engineering Administration, Audit, and Accounting Total Eligible Costs Total Water Impact Fee Credit (50 %) Freese and Nichols, Inc. $1,637,664 $556,279 $86,500 $90,000 $2,370,443 $1,185,221 The total eligible cost associated with the existing and proposed water system improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years is $2,370,443. The increase in the number of service units due to growth over the next ten years is projected as 2,501 service units. Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs - Credit With Credit 10 -year growth in Service Units = $2,370,443 - $1,185,221 2,501 SU = $474 / SU Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee without Financing Costs: Total Capital Improvement Costs $1,637,664 Engineering $86,500 Administration, Audit, and Accounting $90,000 Total Eligible Costs $1,814,164 Total Water Impact Fee Credit (50 %) $907,082 The total eligible cost associated with the existing and proposed water system improvements to meet projected growth over the next ten years is $1,814,164. Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee = Total Eligible Costs - Credit With Credit 10 -year growth in Service Units = $1,814,164 - $907,082 2,501 SU = $363 / SU 3 -1 FORT WORTH City of Fort Worth Exhibit D Capital Improvements Plan Water Facilities Final Report May 6, 2009 Report Prepared By: RE-[ ('()NM )I I IN(. LO Table of Contents Contents 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................... ............................... D -1 1.2. Capacity Criteria ........................................................................ ............................... D -1 1.2.1. General ...................................................................... ............................... D -1 1.2.2. Raw Water Sources and Transmission ....................... ............................... D -1 1.2.3. Water Treatment Plants .............................................. ............................... D -3 1.2.4. Pump Stations ............................................................ ............................... D -3 1.2.5. Storage Tanks ............................................................ ............................... D -5 1.3. Eligible Facilities ........................................................................ ............................... D -5 1.4. Growth Related CIP .................................................................. ............................... D -6 1.4.1. Water Treatment Plants .............................................. ............................... D -6 1.4.2. Pump Stations ............................................................ ............................... D -8 1.4.3. Storage Tanks ............................................................ ............................... D -9 1.4.4. Engineering Studies ................................................... ............................... D -9 1.5. Service Units ........................................................................... ............................... D -12 1.6. Impact Fee Calculations .......................................................... ............................... D -15 List of Tables Table D -1. 2009 -2019 Growth Related CIP ................................................. ...........................D -12 Table D -2. AWWA Meter Equivalency Factors ........................................ ............................... D -13 Table D -3. Development of 2009 Population and Employment per Equivalent 5/8" x 3/4" Meter ........................................................................................................ ............................... D -14 Table D -4. Proposed Water Impact Fees ................................................ ............................... D -16 List of Figures Figure D -1: Existing Water Facilities ...................................................... ............................... D -17 Figure D -2: Proposed Water Facilities ................................................... ............................... D -18 Figure D -3: Water Treatment Plant Expansion Schedule ....................... ............................... D -19 Figure D -4: Pump Station Allocation ...................................................... ............................... D -20 Figure D -5: Storage Tank Allocation ...................................................... ............................... D -21 Appendices A. Water CIP Projects B. Water Pumping Capabilities C. CIP for 2009 -2019 D. Water Meters •.; REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department FoRTWORTH ❑ •• ' CONSULTING Capital Improvements Phan -i .1 —11— ".— Water Facilities �-V] Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan 1.1. Introduction In accordance with Texas Local Government Code (TLGC), Chapter 395, the City of Fort Worth has commissioned Red Oak Consulting, to conduct an Impact Fee Study. This report establishes the engineering basis for the fee schedule, updating the previous study completed in 2004. Impact fees provide the City of Fort Worth a mechanism for recouping the cost associated with expanding the municipal water system to accommodate growth in the service area. The City of Fort Worth owns and operates an infrastructure intensive system comprised of treatment facilities, pumping stations, storage facilities, and pipelines that are continuously improved and expanded. The schedule for future investment in the water system is known as the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The CIP was updated as a part of this study with capital project scope and cost provided by previously commissioned master planning documents and input from Fort Worth Water Department staff. The report describes the basis for establishing which City of Fort Worth water facilities are eligible to be included in the impact fee analysis. Next, the criteria for measuring infrastructure capacity are explained for each infrastructure type. Finally, the additional facilities required to accommodate growth during the study period are summarized. 1.2. Capacity Criteria 1.2.1. General This section of the study discusses the capacity of those facilities that are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of the impact fee. The only capacities that are considered are the increases in capacities due to growth during the study period of 2009 through 2019. The following sections describe those increases in capacities for the water treatment plants, plump stations and storage tanks that were considered for inclusion in the calculation of the wastewater impact fee. 1.2.2. Raw Water Sources and Transmission The City obtains the majority of its raw water supply from the Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD), with the balance supplied by the City's permitted capacity at Lake Worth and the Corps of Engineers (COE) permitted capacity at Lake Benbrook. The City's supply from TRWD is per a long term contract, with no contractual limits on the water withdrawn from the Richland Chambers and Cedar Creek Reservoirs, subject to the TRWD limits. The current water rights for the City are as follows: ••• REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department • • •• CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan . p,1 -- o, —11... 11.— Water Facilities FoRT „_.,,,W�oRTH D_, Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan TRWD Allocated to Fort Worth Source Diversion (mgd) Normal Flow (mgd) Mild Drought Flow (mgd) West Fork 142.374 89.207 41.035 Lake Worth (Fort Worth Permit) - 10.832 10.832 Lake Benbrook (COE Contract) 64.675 0.609 0.609 Richland Chambers Reservoir 182.874 No Limit No Limit Cedar Creek Reservoir 153.882 No Limit No Limit Through a series of pump stations, the TRWD has implemented improvements to allow water from the Richland Chambers and Cedar Creek Reservoirs to flow to Lake Benbrook. The blended water can then be pumped back to Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant ( RHWTP) and North Holly Water Treatment Plant (NHWTP) /South Holly Water Treatment Plant (SHWTP). The TRWD is in the process of implementing improvements to tie Lake Benbrook to Eagle Mountain Lake, which should be complete in 2008. The existing raw water supply facilities are shown as follows: Unit Capacity Eagle Mountain Intake 66 mgd Eagle Mountain Pump Station and Pipeline 105 mgd* Lake Worth Intake and Pipeline 127 mgd Clear Fork Pump Station 90 mgd* Cedar Creek System 138 mgd* Richland Chambers System 116 mgd* *Indicates firm capacity with largest pump out of service. The NHWTP, SHWTP, and RHWTP have been in use for some time and therefore are not associated with an expansion capacity. An expansion of the Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant (EMWTP) intake is associated with expansion capacity. The capacity associated with the raw water facilities is calculated based on the water treatment plant criteria. Therefore the same criteria are used for both raw water facilities and water treatment plants, with the criteria explained in detail below. REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department FO T WORTH • • •' CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan D -2 Water Facilities Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan 1.2.3. Water Treatment Plants The design criteria for water treatment plants are based on the maximum day demand. The 2004 Water System Master Plan defined maximum day demand as 2.26 times the average day demand, per historical data. The maximum day demand computation per capita was calculated as follows: MAX = AVG X Factor Where MAX = Maximum day consumption per capita AVG = Average day consumption per capita = 206 Factor = Max day / Average day = 2.26 MAX = 206 X 2.26 = 465.6 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) For the City of Fort Worth, the 2009 population given in the Land Use Assumptions report, times the maximum day criteria of 466 gpcd provides the following design demand for water treatment: Max Day Demand = 466 gpcd X 722,722 population Max Day Demand = 337 mgd OThe year 2019 Max Day Demand, using the above formula would be as follows: IM Max Day Demand = 466 gpcd X 947,956 population Max Day Demand = 442 mgd The wholesale customer demand was provided by the wholesale customers as part of the wholesale customer surveys. The 2009 Maximum Day Demand for wholesale customers is 138 mgd and the 2019 Maximum Day Demand for the wholesale customers is 178 mgd. The total 2009 Maximum Day Demand for Fort Worth and its wholesale customers is 475 mgd (337 + 138 mgd). The total 2019 Maximum Day Demand for Fort Worth and its wholesale customers is 620 mgd (442 +178 mgd). The incremental demand related to treatment capacity during the study period is therefore 145 mgd (620 mgd — 475 mgd). This is greater than 14 mgd increase in demand per year over the study period. 1.2.4. Pump Stations The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requires pump station capacity to be a minimum of 0.6 gallons per minute (gpm) per connection, provided the REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department • •' CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan ,,o� „ • , w „• „,• Water Facilities FOR, -- T� WORTH D -3 Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan City's system has an elevated storage capacity exceeding 200 gallons per connection (which it does). Pump Capacity = 0.6 gpm/connection X Number of Connections X 24 hrs /day X 60 min /hr = 0.6 gpm X 355,205 connections X 24 hrs /day X 60 min /hr = 307 mgd The pumping capacity requirement is actually higher than this, due to the repumping characteristics of the City's system. Also, the state requirements are a minimum value, with the City's own system requirements for pressure dictating the correct pumping capacity. The City's formula calculates the pumping capacity required based on the greater of the peak hour flow or the maximum day flow plus fire flow. The 2009 pumping capacity that would be required would be as follows: Pump Capacity = Max Day X Peak Hour Factor = 475 mgd X 1.57 = 746 mgd Where: Max Day = System Maximum Day Flow (from previous section) Peak Hour Factor = Peak Hour /Max Day Factor from Master Plan Or, based on max day plus fire flow: Pump Capacity Where: = Max Day + Fire Flow Fire flow for the City is based on 4,000 gpm per pressure plane: Fire Flow = 4,000 gpm X 60 minutes /hour X 24 hour /day X 13 pressure planes = 75 mgd Pump Capacity = 475 mgd + 75 mgd = 550 mgd The Pump Capacity calculation which provides the maximum required capacity is the one that uses the peak hour factor, resulting in a required pumping capacity for 2009 of 738 mgd. This calculation is used to determine the required pumping capacity for 2019. Pump Capacity = 620 mgd X 1.57 = 973 mgd ' REBDAK Fort Worth Water Department • • : FORT WORTH . •• • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan Water Facilities Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan The calculated incremental pumping capacity demand is therefore 227 mgd (973 mgd — 746 mgd) for the required level of service for the study period of 2009 to 2019. 1.2.5. Storage Tanks The TCEQ criteria for water system design states that 200 gallons per connection of total storage and 100 gallons per connection of elevated storage is required. The City uses these criteria to determine the required storage capacity to serve its retail customers as most of its wholesale customers have their own storage capacity. The calculation of the storage requirement is as follows: 2009 Total = 200 gaUconnection x 215,963 connections = 43.2 MG Elevated = 100 gaUconnection x 215,963 connections= 21.6 MG 2019 Total = 200 gal /connection x 283,173 connections = 56.6 MG Elevated = 100 gaUconnect ion x 283,173 connections= 28.3 MG The TCEQ requirements are a minimum, with the City adopting a different formula to determine their storage requirements. The City has a total storage capacity presently of 120.7 MG (75.7 MG in the distribution system and 45 MG at the water treatment plants) and 16.5 MG of elevated storage. The City uses more stringent design criteria, from the 2004 Water System Master Plan, with the calculation as follows: Total Storage = Population X (1 connection/3 persons) X (City Only) (400 gaUconnection) The calculation of the required total storage was made net of wholesale storage requirements, because some wholesale customers have their own storage. Therefore, the consumption for the City customers was used to determine the total storage requirements. 2009 Total Storage = 722,722 X (1/3) X 400 gal = 96.4 MG 2019 Total Storage = 947,956 X (1/3) X 400 gal = 126.4 MG Thus, the need for total storage during the study period is equal to 96.4 MG in 2009 and 126.4 MG in 2019. An incremental demand of 30.0 MG was calculated (126.4 MG - 96.4 MG). 1.3. Eligible Facilities This section establishes the types of City of Fort Worth water facilities that are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of the impact fee. Projects included in the CIP can serve to rehabilitate and renew the system, enhance the system to improve efficiency and meet regulatory requirements, increase the system capacity, or achieve a combination of these objectives. Only those projects warranted by capacity issues derived from growth occurring during the study period (2009 to 2019) can be included in the impact fee REMAK Fort Worth Water Department FORTWORTH ❑ • • •' TIG capital improvements Plan CONSUL D -5 • o ,,,,o, „ •, TI „q N „,� Water Facilities _ ! Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan calculation. Additionally, projects are excluded from the impact fee calculation if the costs cannot be accurately delineated of if alternate mechanisms for cost recovery are in place. Raw Water is obtained from the Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) and with costs to the City of Fort Worth the tied to usage, which is effectively captured in user rates. Financing costs associated with the water system have been excluded due to the dynamic nature of the financial markets, and the uncertainty this introduces, consistent with previous City of Fort Worth impact fee studies. Drinking water transmission mains and distribution piping have been excluded from this study due to alternate cost recovery mechanisms in place, consistent with the previous impact fee study. Facilities included in the impact fee study are raw water supply and transmission, water treatment facilities, pump stations, storage facilities, reclaimed water facilities, and engineering studies. Figures D -1 and D -2, showing existing and proposed facilities, respectively, are included at the end of this section. Appendix A describes each Water CIP project for the 2009 -2019 planning period. The purpose of each project, the portion that is allocated to growth and the current status is also included. 1.4. Growth Related CIP 1.4.1. Water Treatment Plants The existing water treatment capacity is 485 mgd. Section 1.2.3 calculations presented a maximum day demand in 2009 of 475 mgd, increasing to 620 mgd by 2019. This results in an incremental demand of 145 mgd. The current capacity of the treatment plants is greater than the 475 mgd required in 2009. Thus, 10 mgd (485 mgd — 475 mgd) of the incremental demand has already been satisfied. Figure D -3 presents the water treatment demand, as well as the treatment capacity and requirements during the study period. The 2004 Water System Master Plan presents maximum day demands for the years 2002 to 2025. The allocation of capital costs during the study period was made as follows: The recent expansion of the Eagle Mountain WTP from 70 mgd to 105 mgd provides capacity in excess of the 2009 maximum day demand. The excess capacity will be used to serve future customers. The current capacity of all of the water treatment plant is 485 mgd, and the 2009 maximum day demand is 475 © ' ' REBDAK Fort Worth Water Department FORT WORTH •: CONSULTING capital Improvements Plan D s D . V1310N ....«,L.11. Water Facilities Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Omgd. Thus, 10 mgd (485 mgd — 475 mgd) of the 35 mgd expansion of EM WTP will be used to serve future customers. Growth- related allocation = 10 mgd /35 mgd = 29 %. Study period allocation = (35 mgd — 25 mgd) = 10 mgd <145 mgd. Remaining incremental demand = 145 mgd — 10 mgd = 135 mgd. % Allocated for Study Period =100% X 29% = 29 %. 2. The South Holly WTP Pump Station Improvements and Expansion Project (180 mgd to 200 mgd) will be required during the study period. Approximately 10% of this project is considered to be growth- related because the pump station will be upsized from 180 mgd to 200 mgd as part of the improvements project. The expansion of SHWTP will begin in 2009. The SHWTP expansion should be allocated against the remaining system -wide additional capacity requirement of 135 mgd. Growth- related allocation = (200 mgd — 180 mgd) / 200 mgd = 10% Study period allocation = (200 mgd — 180 mgd) = 20 mgd < 135 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 135 mgd — 20 mgd = 115 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% X 10 % =10% • 3. The Westside WTP will be needed during the study period by 2011. This project will increase the plant capacity by 15 mgd. The WSWTP should be allocated against the remaining system -wide additional capacity requirement of 115 mgd. Study period allocation = (15 mgd — 0 mgd) = 15 mgd < 115 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 115 mgd — 15 mgd = 100 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% 4. The RHWTP Phase IV expansion from 200 mgd to 250 mgd will be needed during the study period. The RHWTP Phase IV expansion should be allocated against the remaining system -wide additional capacity requirement of 100 mgd. Study period allocation = (250 mgd — 200 mgd) = 50 mgd < 100 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 100 mgd — 50 mgd = 50 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% 5. Additional WSWTP Membrane Filters (15 mgd to 20 mgd) will be needed during the study period. The membrane filters should be allocated against the system- wide additional capacity requirement of 50 mgd. Study period allocation = (20 mgd — 15 mgd) = 5 mgd < 50 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 50 mgd — 5 mgd = 45 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% REMAK Fort Worth Water Department FORT WORTH • CONSUI.TI NG capital Improvements Plan D -7 Water Facilities Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan O6. EMWTP Expansion from 105 mgd to 140 mgd will be needed during the study period to meet the required maximum day demand. The expansion should be allocated against the system -wide additional capacity requirement of 45 mgd. Study period allocation = (140 mgd — 105 mgd) = 35 mgd < 45 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 45 mgd — 35 mgd = 10 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% Additional WSWTP Membrane Filters (20 mgd to 25 mgd) will be needed during the study period. The membrane filters should be allocated against the system- wide additional capacity requirement of 10 mgd. Study period allocation = (25 mgd — 20 mgd) = 5 mgd < 10 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 10 mgd — 5 mgd = 5 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% 8. Additional WSWTP Membrane Filters (25 mgd to 30 mgd) will be needed during the study period. The membrane filters should be allocated against the system- wide additional capacity requirement of 5 mgd. Study period allocation = (30 mgd — 25 mgd) = 5 mgd = 5 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 5 mgd — 5 mgd = 0 mgd % Allocated for Study Period = 5 mgd / 5 mgd =100% 1.4.2. Pump Stations While it is more accurate to calculate pump station requirements and demand on a pressure zone basis, the Land Use Assumptions were done for the system as a whole, with not enough data to determine pressure zone requirements. System wide calculation tends to provide a conservative demand, in that much of the water is repumped between pressure zones. The system -wide demand was used for this study. In section 1.2.4, the demand for pump station capacity increased from 746 mgd in 2009 to 973 mgd in 2019. This incremental demand of 227 mgd is required to serve growth. Therefore, the calculation of the study period capacity percentage is as follows: Study Period = Total New Pumping Required Capacity of Proposed Pumping Projects % Allocation to Study Period = 227 mgd 45 mgd > 100% The remainder of the required pump station capacity is met from existing capacity. Figure D -4 presents a graphical interpretation of the projects included and those attributed to future growth. © *- REI3DAK Fort Worth Water Department FO TWO TH • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan D -8 � Water Facilities Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan 1.4.3. Storage Tanks The City currently has 120.7 MG of total storage. The total incremental capacity required during the study period is 30 MG (126.4 MG — 96.4 MG), which was calculated in Section 1.2.5. There is a total of 33 MG in storage capacity identified in the CIP. For the purpose of allocating the costs of additional storage between study period customers, and customers beyond the study period, the following calculations were made: Study Period = Total New Storage Required Capacity of Proposed Storage Projects % Allocation to Study Period = 30 MG 33 MG > 90.9% The remaining 9.1 % of the pump station costs are allocated to the period beyond the study period. Figure D -5 presents a graphical interpretation of the amount of projects included and those attributed to future growth. 1.4.4. Engineering Studies There are four studies which have been included in the calculation of the water impact fees. The studies are as follows: 1. 1998 Water Facilities Plan — The Water Facilities Plan updated the water treatment plant aspects of the 1989 Master Plan for the period of 1998 through 2018. The Water Facilities Plan also made recommendations concerning reliability and regulatory improvements. Eleven years of the twenty year study was for existing customers, and nine years of the twenty year study was for the study period. The calculation of the allocation was as follows: Existing Customers = 11/20 = 55% Study Period = 9/20 = 45% Beyond Study Period = 0/20 = 0% % Allocation for Study Period = 45% 2. 2004 Water System Master Plan — The 1989 Water System Master Plan was updated, including a comprehensive projection of the facilities required from the year 2004 through 2023. This plan will be updated again in 2014. Therefore, five years of the ten -year life of the plan is for existing customers, and the remaining five years are for the study period. Existing Customers = 5110 = 50% Study Period = 5110 = 50% Beyond Study Period = 0 /10 = 0% % Allocation for Study Period = 50% ,'• ; REMAK Fort Worth Water Department FORT WORTH ❑ • • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan D -9 ,,,,, .1 . 11 �,. ".." Water Facilities C] Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan 3. 2014 Water System Master Plan –The 2004 Water System Master Plan will be updated, including a comprehensive projection of the facilities required from the year 2014 through 2033. This plan will be updated again in 2024. Therefore, five years of the ten -year life of the plan is for the study period, and the remaining five years are for the period beyond the study period. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 5110 = 50% Beyond Study Period = 5110 = 50% % Allocation for Study Period = 50% 4. 2004 Impact Fee Study – The 2004 Impact Fee Study provides impact fees for the study period 2004 through 2014. Therefore, five years of the ten -year study period for the existing customers, and the remaining five years are for the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 5110 = 50% Study Period = 5110 = 50% Beyond Study Period = 0 /10 = 0% % Allocation for Study Period = 50% 5. 2009 Impact Fee Study – The 2009 Impact Fee Study provided impact fees for the study period 2009 through 2019. Therefore, 100% of the study is allocated to the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 10 /10 = 100% Beyond Study Period = 0 /10 = 0% % Allocation for Study Period = 100% 6. 2012 Impact Fee Study – Although the requirement is to conduct an impact fee study every five years, the City would like to update the study every three years. The 2012 Impact Fee Study will provide impact fees for the study period 2012 through 2022. Therefore, seven years of the ten -year study period are allocated to the study period, and the remaining three years are for the period beyond the study period. One half to the study is for the water impact fee updated and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 7/10 = 70% Beyond Study Period = 3/10 = 30% % Allocation for Study Period = 70% •. REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan py ' o ..«.,. 9 Water Facilities FORT_WOR7H D -�o Ir- Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan 7. 2015 Impact Fee Study — The 2015 Impact Fee Study will provide impact fees for the study period 2015 through 2025. Therefore, four years of the ten -year study period are allocated to the study period, and the remaining six years are for the period beyond the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 4/10 = 40% Beyond Study Period = 6/10 = 60% % Allocation for Study Period = 40% 8. 2018 Impact Fee Study —The 2018 Impact Fee Study will provide impact fees for the study period 2018 through 2028. Therefore, one year of the ten -year study period are allocated to the study period, and the remaining nine years are for the period beyond the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 1 /10 = 10% Beyond Study Period = 9/10 = 90% % Allocation for Study Period =10% Table D -1 summarizes the growth related costs of the eligible facilities. Appendix C shows the detail development of the costs and capacities of the eligible facilities. ' REMAK Fort Werth Water Department FORT WORTH ❑ • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan D -11 . o ,,, o. «.«o « _"' Water Facilities 0 Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Table D -1. 2009 -2019 Growth Related CIP Water Facility Total Growth Related Cost Capacity Added from CIP Capacity Needed During 2009 -2019 2009 -2019 Growth Related Cost Amount Percent of Total CIP Raw Water 22,507,000 240 mgd 145 mgd 60.4% 11,663,000 Treatment Plant 425,569,000 235 mgd 145 mgd 61.7% 248,391,000 Pump Station 13,766,000 45 mgd 227 mgd 100.0% 13,766,000 Storage Tanks 49,416,000 33 MG 30 MG 90.9% 44,919,000 Engineering Studies 3,601,000 65.2% 2,460,000 Total 321,199,000 1.5. Service Units The differentiated costs between customer types are allocated through the application of the equivalent meter concept. Since the 5/8" x 3/4" water meter is the most frequently used meter by the residential customer, a factor has been calculated to relate the capacities of other meter sizes to the 5/8" x 3/4" meter capacity. Table D-2 presents the factors developed using capacity information from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C700 -02, Cold -Water Meters — Displacement Type, Bronze Main Case and AWWA Standard C701 -07, Cold -Water Meters — Turbine Type, for Customer Service. • "'" RFJjK Fort Worth Water Department Capital Improvements Plan pip c75-wrritc '+ • •_ Y A VItg1 M VA"*." P.Me Water Facilities Fotz_ T„�ORTx D_,2 Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Table D -2. AWWA Meter Equivalency Factors Meter Size 5/8" x 3/4" Equivalency Factor 5/8" x 5/8" and 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 1 " 2.50 1-1/2" 5.00 2" 8.00 3" 21.75 4" 37.50 6" 80.00 8" 140.00 10" 210.00 Appendix D contains the number of water meters for residential and non - residential customers by meter size for the City as well as for the wholesale customers who provided this information to Red Oak. The number of equivalent meters is also calculated for the City and wholesale customers. The next calculation step determines population per residential meter and employment per non - residential meter. Table D -3 summarizes this calculation for the City of Fort Worth and wholesale customers using 2009 information. REMAK Fort Worth Water Department FO T WORTH CC,-f6ULI1NCi Capital Improvements Plan D -13 a a visua v sau�.e �aat■ Water Facilities Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Table D-3. Development of 2009 Population and Employment per Equivalent 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Description Residential Non - residential City of Fort Worth: Number of Equivalent Meters 238,196 144,457 Population / Employment 722,722 625,215 Population / Employment per Equivalent Meter 3.03 4.33 Wholesale Customers: Number of Equivalent Meters 105,710 35,539 Population / Employment 294,303 100,788 Population / Employmt::E Equivalent Meter 2'78 2'84 Red Oak did not receive meter count information from eight of Fort Worth's wholesale water customers. The number of equivalent meters used to calculate the wholesale customers' population / employment per equivalent meter in Table D -3 is the total number of equivalent meters served by Fort Worth for those wholesale customers who responded to the Red Oak survey with their meter count information. In order to more accurately estimate the population / employment per equivalent meter, Red Oak divided the number of equivalent meters by the sum of population or employment served by Fort Worth for those wholesale customers who provided their meter count information. The projected increase in equivalent meters between 2009 and 2019 uses the ratios in Table D -3 and the population and employment projections for 2009 and 2019 in Exhibit A, Water Land Use Assumptions report. The calculation is shown below. Because no meter count information is available to calculate the number of equivalent meters for the unincorporated service area, the calculation for the unincorporated service area uses the weighted average of population and employment per equivalent meter for the City and wholesale customers. City of Fort Worth Residential = Population Change / Population per Equivalent Meter _ (947,956 — 722,722) / 3.03 = 74,335 REMAK Fort Worth Water Department UL11 FORTWORTH ❑ •• Ci�1Ci Capital Improvements Plan D -14 + w �• a a r�ue� m eaus.e praa+a Water Facilities r I° iA Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Non - Residential = Employment Change / Employment per Equivalent Meter = (820,263 — 625,215) / 4.33 = 45,046 Wholesale Customers Residential = Population Change / Population per Equivalent Meter = (427,225 — 349,950) / 2.78 = 27,797 Non - Residential = Employment Change / Employment per Equivalent Meter = (201,145 — 146,667) / 2.84 = 19,182 Unincorporated Area Residential = Population Change / Population per Equivalent Meter = (73,884 — 24,370) / 2.96 = 16,728 Non - Residential = Employment Change / Employment per Equivalent Meter = (18,422 — 9,801) / 4.03 = 2,139 Increase in Equivalent Meters = 185,227 1.6. Impact Fee Calculations Impact fees are the quotient of the total cost of expansion for the study period from Table D -1 divided by the increase in equivalent meters from Section 1.5. This fee equals the maximum water impact fee for a 5/8" x 3/4" water meter size. Maximum Water Impact Fee = Cost of Expansion / Increase in Equivalent Meters = $321,199,000 / 185,227 = $1,734 per 5/8" x 3/4" equivalent meter The water impact fees for meters other than 5/8" x 3/4" are the product of fee per 5/8" x 3/4" equivalent meter multiplied by the respective equivalent meter factor from Table D- 2. The maximum allowable water impact fees are provided in Table D -4, as well as the resulting impact fee at a 50% collection rate. • ;' RE(iE AK Fort Worth Water Department • *� (-(j S1.1i.1 -lN(; Capital Improvements Plan Water Facilities FOR-- T-� r- D -15 Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan Table D-4. Proposed Water Impact Fees Meter Size 5/8 x 3/4" Equivalency Factor Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Proposed Impact Fee (Collected at 50 %) 5/8" x 5/8" and 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 $ 1,734 $ 867 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 $ 2,601 $ 1,300 1" 2.50 $ 4,335 $ 2,167 1 -1/2" 5.00 $ 8,670 $ 4,335 2" 8.00 $ 13,872 $ 6,936 3" 21.75 $ 37,715 $ 18,857 4" 37.50 $ 65,025 $ 32,512 6" 80.00 $138,720 $ 69,360 8" 140.00 $ 242,760 $ 121,380 10" 210.00 $ 364,140 $ 182,070 w•� �� RBk)AK Fort Worth Water Department FORTWORTH • w ww C?(3NSULI -ING Capital Improvements Plan D 16 • 4 a rn,s, o+ —s Water Facilities •uas.w ry • F� Sendera Ranch 5M NS2 GST and Ps NS4 Pump Station' Avondale Haslet 2.5MG NS3 Elevated Tank El Caylor Road Reservoir Bradley Elevated Tank Ps 3 IF -7 ® ® North Beach Reservoir & Pump Station `I ann ViOt NICd P—t— P,— Ctatinn Eagle Mountain Raw Water Lake Country Elevated Tank Pump Station WTP agle Mountain Water Treatment Plant Ps antrell- Sansom Pump Station (3Jenkins Heights Elevated Tank Lake Worth Raw r-p-sl Lake Worth Water Intakes Northside Reservoir & Fleetwc Northwest Elevated Tank P Westside Pump Northside Pump Station P South Holly Water Treatment Plant Station Randol Mill Reservoir & Pump Station Calmo evated Tank �. Westland Reservoir & Meadowbrook Elevatec P P Chap el Creek Pump Station PI � as Stagecoach Reservoir & lei E —Eastside Pump Station �mp Station :- Ps earfork Raw Water Pump,Bt�jon Como Reservoir & Edwards Ranch Pump S a ronEastwood Elevated Ta. Ish Ranch Pump Station t Ps Ground Storage Tank Timberline Elevated Tank Seminary Elevated Tank Southside Reservoir & Pump Station Alta Mesa Reservoir & nrrT—Rolling Hills Water Treatme Pump Station Armstrong Ranch �� Russom Ranch Pump Station Elevated Tank �McCart SS2 5MG Tank & SS3 Pump Statior Sun Country Elevated Tank LEGEND M Raw Water Supply WTP Treatment Facilities as I Pumping Station 0 Storage Tank City of Fort Worth t 3 1.5 0 3 Miles MALCOLM PIRNIE. INC. Existing Water Facility Map March 2009 FIGURE D -1 GP I� ,f f� .t FM 407 2MG NS3 Tank Tradition 1 MG NS3 ReservoirTradition 1 MG NS3 Reservoir ,r J Proposed 1 MG NS4 Elevated Tank°' Proposed 1 MG NS4 Elevated Tank r 0° o r� tr 4 Llano 0.5MG WS5 Tank 0 White Settlement 1MG WS4 Tank 0 z LOU NIenK LNIU tJL IanK "Am=' �I Fll l estside Water Treatment Plant Proposed 5 MGD WS4 Pump Station IH2O WS WTP ump Station Phase IVA } Alec 1 G WS5 Tank Phase IVA roposed WS2 Reservoir Phase II Tiger 1.5MG WS3 Tank Kelly 1.5MG U/S Tank 0 Stewart Feltz SS4 f John T White 2MG ES2 Tank I r Dick Price 1 MG SS2 Tank 0 Station Circle R 1.5MG SS3 Tank ! 0 Meadow Oaks SS3 Pump StationWinding Oak 2.5MG SS2 Tank 'k FM 2331 SS3 Pump Station ky SS4 Pump Station 0- OM 1019 1.5MG SS4 Tank Southwest Water Treatment Plant Trail Tree 1 MG SS2 Tank LEGEND 0 PQPumping Station 0 Storage Tank Treatment Facility 3 1.5 0 3 Miles Proposed Water Facilites MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. City of Fort Worth Map March 2009 FIGURE D -2 630 620 610 600 590 580 570 560 0 550 540 530 520 510 500 490 480 470 e e e Figure D -3 Water Treatment Plant Expansion Schedule 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 YEAR 2015 2016 E 614 Total WTP Capacity '0 0 v N W a v M x M(U - LL --S7 mg J,_0 570 mgd m E a E - _N _ E V Ln -- CL N o -- v a O x = c w X 3 LU 520 mgd Projected h — laximur -- =5 _ M 505 mgd — 485 mgd 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 YEAR 2015 2016 E Figure D -4 Pump Station Allocation 250 229 MGD 200 150 100 45 MGD 50 100% Allocated for Study Period 0 Capacity of Proposed Incremental Demand Projects i11IRM • Figure D -5 Storage Tank Allocation 35 9.1% Allocated for Future Growth 30 25 20 90.9% 15 Allocated for Study Period 10 5 0 Capacity of Proposed Projects Incremental Demand Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan APPENDIX A: Water CIP Projects •.; REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan . p r, — - —1— „q Water Facilities FORS H D_2z Appendix A WATER CIP PROJECTS RAW WATER SUPPLY Project Title: Raw Water Pipeline to Westside Water Treatment Plant (W3 -3A) Description: Design and construction of a raw water line to the proposed Westside Water Treatment Plant. Purpose: A new water treatment plant is recommended to meet the demands in the northwest part of the City. This project was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period as it is required to treat the projected demand of 616 mgd in 2019. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Clear Fork Raw Water Pump Station Parallel Pipeline to Holly WTP Description: Design and construction of an additional raw water pipeline from the Clear Fork Trinity River Pump Station to the Holly WTP. Purpose: Provide an additional raw water line to provide additional raw water supplies. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period, as it is required to bring an additional 50 mgd of raw water to the Holly WTP. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Expand Second Eagle Mountain Raw Water Pump Station from 35 mgd to 70 mgd (140 mgd total capacity) Description: Design and construction of additional pumping capacity in the Second Eagle Mountain Raw Water Pump Station. Purpose: Provide additional raw water supplies to the Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant to a capacity of 140 mgd. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth as it is required to bring the total treatment capacity of the Eagle Mountain WTP to 140 mgd. However, only an additional 26 mgd is needed during the study period so 74.3% is allocated to the study period and the remaining 25.7% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Southwest Water Treatment Plant Raw Water Line Description: Design and construction of a new raw water line to the proposed Southwest WTP. Purpose: A new water treatment plant is recommended to meet the demands in the southwest part of the City. This project was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth as it is required to bring the treatment capacity up to the projected demand in 2020. However, this additional raw water capacity is not required during the study period so 0% is allocated to the study period and 100% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Expand Second Eagle Mountain Raw Water Pump Station from 70 mgd to 140 mgd 40 (210 mgd total capacity) Description: Design and construction of additional pumping capacity in the Second Eagle Mountain Raw Water Pump Station. Purpose: Provide additional raw water supplies to the Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant to a capacity of 210 mgd. Allocation: This project was allocated 100% to growth , as it is required to bring the total treatment capacity of the Eagle Mountain WTP to 210 mgd. However, this additional raw water capacity is not required during the study period so 0% is allocated to the study period and 100% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage WATER TREATMENT PLANTS Project Title: Eagle Mountain WTP Expansion from 70 mgd to 105 mgd — High Service Pump Station (N2 -5A) Description: Additional high service pump station capacity as part of the Eagle Mountain ;, WTP Expansion to 105 mgd. Purpose: Provide additional pumping capacity at Eagle Mountain WTP. This project was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, approximately 20 mgd of the 35 mgd expansion is allocated to existing customers (57.1 %). The remaining capacity will be used by future customers during the study period so 42.9% is allocated to growth in the study period. Status: Constructed Project Title: Eagle Mountain WTP Expansion from 70 mgd to 105 mgd (N2 -6A) Description: Design and construction of the Eagle Mountain WTP expansions from 70 mgd to 105 mgd. Purpose: Additional treatment capacity is required to meet the rapid growth and increased demand in the northwest part of the city. This project was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, approximately 20 mgd of the 35 mgd expansion is allocated to existing customers (57.1 %). The remaining capacity will be used by future customers during the study period so 42.9% is allocated to growth in the study period. Status: Constructed Project Title: Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant Expansion to 200 mgd, Phase V Chem — 40 mgd (EXP -8) Description: Design and construction of Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant expansion to treat 200 mgd. Purpose: Rolling Hills WTP was constructed in 1973 in two 40 mgd units and was doubled to 160 mgd in 1983. It is recommended that the Rolling Hills WTP be increased further to 200 mgd because of the rapid growth of the City's south and east sides and projected water demand increase. This project was recommended in the 1998 Water Facilities Plan. This project has been divided into 5 separate Phases Phase 1 includes the addition of the ozonation to the treatment process. This improvement is not associated with growth and is allocated at 0 %. Phase II includes improvements of the elevated tank and associated pumps to backwash the filters. This improvement is not associated with growth and is allocated at 0 %. r� C•] Phase III includes improvements to the filters, sedimentation basins and flocculation basins. These improvements are associated with the 40 mgd increase in treatment capacity. Phase IV includes improvements to the high service pump stations at the plant. These improvements are associated with the 40 mgd increase in treatment capacity. Phase V includes improvements to the chemical feed systems. This improvement is not associated with growth and is allocated at 0 %. Allocation: This project was allocated 100% to existing capacity, as it will not increase the capacity available to future customers. Status: Phases I -IV Complete. Phase V planning stage Project Title: Eagle Mountain WTP 3.5 MG Clearwell Description: Additional treated water clearwell storage at Eagle Mountain WTP. Purpose: Provide additional treated water storage for peak flow demand pumping Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to existing capacity as it will not increase the capacity available to future customers. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: South Holly Pump Station Improvements & Expansion Description: The existing South Holly high service water pump station will be rehabilitated and expanded. Purpose: The pump station capacity will be expanded to provide additional pumping capacity provided in the WTP expansion from 180 mgd to 200 mgd. Allocation: The additional 20 mgd treatment plant capacity expansion increases the total plant capacity by 11.1% to meet future water system demands. This project is allocated 10% to growth in the study period and 90% for rehabilitation (serving existing customers) because 20 mgd of the 200 mgd project will be available to serve future customers. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Holly WTP — Ozone and Expansion Description: The existing South Holly WTP primary disinfection system will be changed from chloramines to ozone and the treatment plant capacity will be expanded. :� Purpose: The WTP treatment capacity will be expanded from 180 mgd to 200 mgd. Allocation: The additional 20 mgd treatment plant capacity expansion increases the total plant capacity by 11.1% to meet future water system demands. This project is allocated 10% to growth in the study period and 90% for rehabilitation (serving existing customers) because 20 mgd of the 200 mgd project will be available to serve future customers. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Westside Water Treatment Plant (W3 -15) Description: Design and construction of a new membrane Westside Water Treatment Plant. Purpose: A new water treatment plant is recommended to meet the demands in the northwest part of the City. This project was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: The treatment plant will be expanded in stages by the installation of additional membrane filter cartridges. Phase I, 0 -15 mgd — 3 Filters 41 Phase II, 15 -20 mgd — 4 Filters Phase III, 20 -25 mgd — 5 Filters Phase IV, 25 -30 mgd — 6 Filters Phases I through III of this project are allocated 100% to growth in the study period, as it is required to treat the projected demand of 616 mgd in 2019. Phase IV is allocated 20% to growth in the study period as 1 mgd of the 5 mgd expansion is needed to meet the projected demand. The remaining 80% of Phase IV is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Phase I Project Title: Rolling Hills WTP Expansion from 200 mgd to 250 mgd (S2 -7) Description: Design and construction of Rolling Hills Water Treatment Plant expansion to treat 250 mgd. Purpose: It is recommended that the Rolling Hills WTP be increased further to 250 mgd because of the rapid growth of the City's south and east sides and projected water demand increase. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period, as it is required to provide capacity to meet projected water demands in 2016. F� ice` 0 Status: Planning Project Title: Eagle Mountain WTP Expansion from 105 mgd to 140 mgd; Expand High Service Pump Station (N2 -18A) Description: Design and construction of Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant expansion to treat 140 mgd. Purpose: It is recommended that the Eagle Mountain WTP be increased further to 140 mgd because of the growth of the City's north side and Alliance Airport area, and projected water demand increase. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period, as it is required to provide capacity to meet projected water demands in 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Southwest WTP Phase 1 (0 -15 mgd) Description: Design and construction of a Southwest Water Treatment Plant. Purpose: A new water treatment plant is recommended to meet the demands in the southwest part of the City. This project was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth, as it is required to meet the projected water demand in 2020. However this additional capacity is not required during the study period so 0% is allocated to the study period and 100% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Eagle Mountain WTP Expansion from 140 mgd to 210 mgd, Expand High Service Pump Station (N2 -20A) Description: Design and construction of Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant expansion to treat 210 mgd. Purpose: It is recommended that the Eagle Mountain WTP be increased further to 210 mgd because of the growth of the City's north side and Alliance Airport area, and projected water demand increase. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. L • 0 Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth, as it is required to provide capacity to meet projected water demands in 2023. However this additional capacity is not required during the study period so 0% is allocated to the study period and 100% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning PUMP STATIONS Project Title: Eastside Pump Station Improvements (E2 -1) Description: Design and construction of a replacement Eastside Pump Station with an expanded capacity from 35 to 50 mgd. Purpose: A replacement pump station is necessary to provide additional pumping capacity to the northeastern areas and redeveloping areas. Allocation: The additional 15 mgd pump station capacity increases the total pump station capacity by 42.9% to meet future water system demands. This project is allocated 30% to growth in the study period and 70% for rehabilitation (serving existing customers) because 15 mgd of the 50 mgd project will be available to serve future customers. Status: Design Project Title: Westside V Pump Station with 3 mgd Capacity (W5 -1) Description: Design and construction of a new Westside V Pump Station with a capacity of 3 mgd. Purpose: A new pump station is necessary to address the projected new population growth in this pressure plane. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project was allocated 100% to growth in the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: SSIV Pump Station at Sun County Tank (W4-5) Description: Design and construction of a new Southside IV Pump Station with a capacity of 3 mgd. Purpose: A new pump station is necessary to address the projected new population growth in this pressure plane. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project was allocated 100% to growth in the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Southside III P.S. on Retta Mansfield Rd (S3 -7) Description: Design and construction of a new Southside III Pump Station with a capacity of 5 mgd. Purpose: A new pump station is necessary to address the projected new population growth in this pressure plane. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Westside IV Pump Station on Interstate 20 (W4 -3) Description: Design and construction of a new Westside IV Pump Station with a capacity of 4 mgd. Purpose: A new pump station is necessary to address the projected new population growth in this pressure plane. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: Westside III Pump Station (W3 -12) Description: Design and construction of a new Westside III Pump Station with a capacity of 15 mgd. Purpose: A new pump station is necessary to address the projected new population growth in this pressure plane. This project was recommended in the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth in the study period. • Status STORAGE TANKS Planning Stage Project Title: 2.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank on Cooks Lane (E2 -3) Description: Design and construction of a 2.0 MG elevated storage tank for the Eastside II Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Eastside II Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 3 MG Ground Storage Tank on IH -20 (W3 -4) Description: Design and construction of a 3 MG ground storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank on Peden Road (N4 -2) Description: Design and construction of a 1.0 MG elevated storage tank for the Northside IV Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Northside IV Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1.0 MG WSIV Elevated Storage Tank (W4 -6) Description: Design and construction of a 1.0 MG elevated storage tank for the Westside IV Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Westside IV Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. I Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1 MG SS III elevated tank west of Crowley (S3 -2) Description: Design and construction of a 1 MG elevated storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 2.5 MG SS III ground tank at proposed 24" water line on Retta Mansfield Rd. (S2 -9) Description: Design and construction of a 2.5 MG ground storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the FM SS III pressure plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 2.5 MG WS III elevated tank (W3 -7) Description: Design and construction of a 2.5 MG elevated storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the WS III pressure plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to 0 the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1.0 MG Elevated Storage Tank North of Aledo Road (W5 -3) Description: Design and construction of a 1.0 MG elevated storage tank for the Westside V Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Westside V Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage • Project Title: 2.5 MG Southside III Ground Storage Tank and Land (S2 -8) Description: Design and construction of a 2.5 MG ground storage tank for the Southside III Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Southside III Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 0.5 MG WS V elevated tank (W5 -4) Description: Design and construction of a 0.5 MG elevated storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the WS V pressure plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 2.5 MG WSIII Elevated Storage Tank (W3 -9) Description: Design and construction of a 2.5 MG elevated storage tank for the Westside III Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Westside III Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1.5 MG WSIII Elevated Storage Tank (W3 -7) Description: Design and construction of a 1.5 MG elevated storage tank for the Westside III Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Westside III Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: WSIV /SSIV Elevated Storage Tank (W4 -5) Description: Design and construction of a 1.5 MG elevated storage tank for the Westside IV Pressure Plane. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Westside IV Pressure Plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 5 MG ground storage tank at the Caylor Tank Site (N2 -10) Description: Design and construction of a 5 MG ground storage tank. © Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 2 MG elevated tank at Western Center Blvd and Lou Menk Dr. (E2 -9) Description: Design and construction of a 2 MG elevated storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1.5 MG WS IV Elevated Storage Tank (W4 -10) Description: Design and construction of a 1.5 MG elevated storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the WS IV pressure plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1 MG SS II Elevated Storage Tank (S2 -10) 0 Description: Design and construction of a 1 MG elevated storage tank. 0 Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the SS II pressure plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 1 MG SS III Elevated Storage Tank (S3 -12) Description: Design and construction of a 1 MG elevated storage tank. Purpose: In order to meet operational storage requirements and higher water demand to due to the projected population, additional storage facilities are needed in the Southside III pressure plane. This improvement was recommended by the 2004 Water Master Plan. Allocation: This project is allocated 100% to growth. However, only 30 MG of the additional 33 MG of storage capacity in the water CIP is required during the study period so 90.9% is allocated to the study period and 9.1% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Status: Planning Stage ENGINEERING STUDIES Project Title: 1998 Water Facilities Plan Description: An engineering study to assess and update water treatment plant needs. Purpose: The water facilities plan updates the water treatment plant requirements for the 20 -year period from 1998 to 2018. Reliability and regulatory improvements were also recommended as part of this study. Allocation: 45% of the cost for the 1998 Water Facilities Plan is allocated to the study period because nine of the twenty years are within the study period. Status: Complete Project Title: 2004 Water Master Plan Description: An engineering study to update the 1994 Water Master Plan. Purpose: The water master plan projects system flows and requirements for the 20 -year period from 2004 to 2024. The water master plan guides the capital improvements program to ensure cost effective expansion of the system. Allocation: 50% of the cost for the 2004 Water Master Plan is allocated to the study period because five of the ten years of the plan's useful life (because it is updated every ten years) are within the study period. Status: Complete Project Title: 2014 Water Master Plan Description: An engineering study to update the 2004 Water Master Plan. Purpose: The water master plan projects system flows and requirements for the 20 -year period from 2014 to 2034. The water master plan guides the capital improvements program to ensure cost effective expansion of the system. Allocation: 50% of the cost for the 2014 Water Master Plan is allocated to the study period because five of the ten years of the plan's useful life (because it is updated every ten years) are within the study period. Status: Planning Project Title: 2004 Impact Fee Study (2004 -2014) Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 50% of the cost for 2004 impact fee study can be allocated to the study period because five of the ten years are within the study period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Complete Project Title: 2009 Impact Fee Study (2009 -2019) Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 100% of the cost for the 2009 impact fee study can be allocated to the study period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: In Progress Project Title: 2012 Impact Fee Study (2012 -2022) Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 70% of the cost for the 2012 impact fee study can be allocated to the study period because seven of the ten years are within the study period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Planning Stage Project Title: 2015 Impact Fee Study (2015 -2025) Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 40% of the cost for the 2015 impact fee study can be allocated to the study period because four of the ten years are within the study period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Planning Stage • Project Title: 2018 Impact Fee Study (2018 -2028) Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 10% of the cost for the 2018 impact fee study can be allocated to the study period because one of the ten years is within the study period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Planning Stage L*7 E. E • Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan APPENDIX B: Water Pumping Capabilities ,'• ; REQ©AK Fort Worth Water Department • • •• CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan o,,,,,,„ o... —. , ,„ Water Facilities FoR� H D_a, FORT WORTH APPENDIX B. Water Pumping Capabiliti °R• • 4 _ �N �y11. I l N 1 RAW WATER SUPPLY PUMP STATIONS Clear Fork Raw Water Pump Station 4 pumps Eagle Mountain WTP Raw Water Pump Station 1 70 mgd 4 pumps Eagle Mountain WTP Raw Water Pump Station 2 70 mgd 2 pumps WATER TREATMENT HIGH SERVICE PUMP STATIONS Eagle Mountain WTP HSPS 11 pumps Eagle Mountain WTP PH3 HSPS 5 pumps Rolling Hills WTP 1 HSPS 10 pumps Rolling Hills WTP PH 5 HSPS 4 pumps North Holly WTP HSPS 95 mgd 8 pumps South Holly WTP HSPS 90 mgd 5 pumps DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PUMP STATIONS Alta Mesa Pump Station 35 mgd 5 pumps Southside III Caylor Pump Pump Station 5 mgd 3 pumps Cantrell - Sansom Pump Station 5 mgd 3 pumps Northside II Chapel Creek Pump Station 1 mgd 3 pumps Westside IV Como Pump Station 40 mgd 4 pumps Westside II East Side Pump Station 30 mgd 5 pumps Eastside • H H FORT WORTH APPENDIX B. Water Pumping Capabiliti >iv :1.11:1 I Nt., Edwards Ranch Pump Station 30 mgd 4 pumps Southside II Fleetwood Pump Station 5 mgd 4 pumps Eastside Jenkins Heights Pump Station 5 mgd 3 pumps Northside III Lago Vista Pump Station 1 mgd 4 pumps Northside IV McCart Pump Station 15 mgd 3 pumps North Beach Pump Station 15 mgd 4 pumps Northside II Sendera Ranch Pump Station 30 mgd (New) Northside Pump Station 50 mgd 5 pumps Northside II (Old) Northside Pump Station 5 mgd 4 pumps Northside II Randol Mill Pump Station 7 mgd 3 pumps Eastside Russom Ranch Pump Station 15 mgd 3 pumps Southside III Southside Reservoir Pump Station 5 mgd 2 pumps Southside II Stagecoach Road Pump Station 15 mgd 4 pumps Westside III Westland Pump Station 10 mgd 4 pumps Westside Pump Station 20 mgd 4 pumps Westside II C f Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan APPENDIX C: CIP for 2009 -2019 : * REMAK Fort Worth Water Department . •• . • •' CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan -,, 11-„• „,� Water Facilities FORT D-44 0 0 Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to 2009 -2019 2009 -2019 Allocated to Allocated to Project Total ProJea Completion Added Existing 2009 Existing 2009 Impact Fees ImpaR Fees Impact Fees Impact Fees ID Project Title Phase Cost 1$) Start Date Date Capacity Capacity ( %) Capacity ($) ( %) ($) after 2019 ( %) after 2019 ($) Source TREATMENT FACILITIES VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak V -1A Flows) Eng $ 1,391,000 2009 2010 131 73.8% $1,026,558 26.2% $364,442 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak V -1A Flows) CM $ 696,000 2010 2012 131 73.8% $513,648 26.2% $182,352 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak V -1A Flows) Const $ 13,905,000 2010 2012 131 73.8% $10,261,890 26.2% $3,643,110 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 mgd V -1B expansion) Eng $ 721,000 2009 2010 25 86.9% $626,628 13.1% $94,372 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 mgd V -113 expansion) CM $ 505,000 2010 2012 25 86.9% $438,901 13.1% $66,099 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 mgd V -113 expansion) Const $ 7,210,000 2010 2012 25 86.9% $6,266,283 111% $943,717 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements V -1C (oversized to 191 mgd expansion) Eng $ 258,000 2009 2009 25 86.9% $224,230 13.1% $33,770 0.0% $0 1 VCW VV Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements V -1C (oversized to 191 mgd expansion) CM $ 181,000 2009 2010 25 86.9% $157,309 13.1% $23,691 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements V -IC (oversized to 191 mgd expansion) Const $ 2,575,000 2009 2010 25 86.9% $2,237,958 13.1% $337,042 0.0% $0 1 W -1 Westside Satellite WWTP +Land Land $ 1,545,000 2009 2009 7 0.0% 50 100.0%1 $1,545,000 0.0% $0 2 W -1 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 1 Eng $ 2,060,000 2010 2011 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $2,060,000 0.0% $0 2 W -1 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 1 CM $ 1,442,000 2011 2013 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,442,000 0.0% $0 2 W -1 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 1 Const $ 20,600,000 2011 2013 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $20,600,000 0.0% $0 2 VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGD (Phase 2A - secondary systems V -2A expansion - aeration, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) Eng $ 3,090,000 2011 2012 25 86.9% $2,685,550 13.1% $404,450 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGD (Phase 2A - secondary systems V -2A expansion - aeration, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) CM $ 1,545,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $1,342,775 13.1% $202,225 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGD (Phase 2A - secondary systems V -2A expansion - aeration, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) Const $ 30,900,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $26,855,497 13.1% $4,044,503 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 2B of V -213 191 mgd expansion) Eng $ 1,442,000 2011 2012 25 86.9-/1 $1,253,257 13.1% $188,743 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 2B of V -28 191 mgd expansion) CM $ 721,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $626,628 13.1% $94,372 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 2B of V -2B 191 mgd expansion) Const $ 20,600,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $17,903,665 13.1% $2,696,335 0.0% $0 1 Village Creek Gravity Belt Thickeners to Replace DAFs (Phase 2C of 191 V -2C Expansion) Eng $ 155,000 2012 2012 32 83.8% $129,949 16.2% $25,051 0.0% $0 1 Village Creek Gravity Belt Thickners to Replace DAFs (Phase 2C of 191 V -2C Expansion) CM $ 87,000 2012 2013 32 83.8% $72,939 16.2% $14,061 0.0% $0 1 Village Creek Gravity Belt Thickners to Replace DAFs (Phase 2C of 191 V 2 Expansion) Const 5 1,236,000 2012 2013 32 $1,036,242 16.2% $199,758 0.0% $0 1 V -3 VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station Eng $ 206,000 2012 2013 187 $136,716 33.6% $69,284 0.0% SO 1 V -3 VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station CM $ 145,000 2013 2014 187 P66.4% $96,232 33.6% $48,768 0.0% $0 1 V -3 VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station Const $ 2,060,000 2013 2014 187 $1,367,158 33.6% $692,842 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCW WTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside V -4A Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Eng $ 721,000 2012 2014 32 $604,475 16.2% $116,525 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside V -4A Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) CM $ 433,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $363,020 16.2% $69,980 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCW WTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside V -4A Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Const $ 6,180,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $5,181,212 16.2% $998,788 0.0% $0 1 Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP V -4R Solids) Eng S 5,150,000 2012 2013 32 83.8% $4,317,677 16.2% $832,323 0.0% $0 3 5-01 ID Project Title Project Phase Total Project Cost ($) Start Date Completion Date Added Capacity Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ( %) Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ($) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ( %) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ($) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ( %) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ($) Source V-4B Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mild to 198 mgd ( VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) CM $ 2,575,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $2,158,838 16.2% $416,162 0.0% $0 3 V40 Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCW WTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Const $ 51,500,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $43,176,768 16.2% $8,323,232 0.0% $0 3 V4C Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCW WTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Eng $ 721,000 2010 2011 32 83.8% $604,475 16.2% $116,525 0.0% $0 3 V-4C Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCW WTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) CM $ 505,000 2014 2015 32 83.8% $423,384 16.2% $81,616 0.0% $0 3 V-4C Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCW WTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 Jmgd WWTP Solids) Const $ 7,210,000 2014 2015 32 83.8% $6,044,747 16.2%1 $1,165,253 0.01A $0 3 V -5 VCW WTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion - Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 mgd) Eng $ 1,545,000 2015 2016 25 86.9% $1,342,775 13.1% $202,225 0.0% $0 1 V -S VCW WTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion - Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 mgd) CM $ 773,000 2016 2018 25 86.9% $671,822 13.1% $101,178 0.0% $0 1 V -5 VCWWTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion- Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 mgd) Const $ 15,450,000 2016 2018 25 86.9% $13,427,749 13.1% $2,022,251 0.0% $0 1 W -2 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 Eng $ 1,000,000 2015 2016 1 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,000,000 0.0% $0 2 W -2 lWestside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 1 CM is 700,000 2016 2018 7 0.0% Sol 100.0%1 $700,000 0.0% $11 2 W -2 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 Const $ 10,000,0001 2016 1 2018 7 0.0% $01 100.0% $10,000,000 0.0% $0 2 TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATEMENT PLANTS $251,596,828 $153,576, 9S6 I I $66,162,014 $0 LIFT STATI ONS LS-1A Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main A Eng $206,000 2009 2010 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $65,508 68.2% $140,492 4 LS-1A Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main A Const $1,545,000 2010 2011 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $491,310 68.2% $1,053,690 4 LS-113 Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main 8 Eng $206,000 2010 2011 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $65,508 68.2% $140,492 4 LS-1B Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main 8 Const $1,442,000 2011 2012 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $458,556 68.2% $983,444 4 LS-1C Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main C Eng $206,000 2011 2012 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $65,508 68.2% $140,492 4 LS-1C Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main C Const $1,803,000 2012 2013 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $573,354 68.2% $1,229,646 4 LS-11) Fossil Creek Lift Station & 60" Force Main Eng $3,377,000 2010 2011 187 66.4% $2,241,210 31.8% $1,073,886 1.8% $61,904 5 LS-ID Fossil Creek Lift Station & 60" Force Main Const $33,766,000 2011 2012 187 66.4% $22,409,450 31.8% $10,737,588 1.8% $618,962 5 LS-2 WOODVALE LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM Const $2,266,000 2015 2016 1 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 31.8% $720,588 1 LS-3A Lake Worth North Lift Station and Force Main Eng $155,000 2012 2013 1.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $49,290 68.2% $105,710 4 LS-3A Lake Worth North Lift Station and Force Main Const $1,545,000 2013 2014 1.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $491,310 68.2% $1,053,690 4 LS-36 Love Circle / West Lake Worth Lift Station and Force Main Eng $155,000 2012 2013 0.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $49,290 68.2% $105,710 4 LS-38 Love Circle / West Lake Worth Lift Station and Force Main Const $1,545,000 2013 2014 0.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $491,310 68.2% $1,053,690 4 LS-3C Meadow Lakes Lift Station Expansion (Remove existing pumps, upsize) Eng $103,000 2014 2014 2 0.0% $0 31.8% $32,754 68.2% $70,246 4 LS-3C Meadow Lakes Lift Station Expansion (Remove existing pumps, upsize) Const $1,030,000 2014 2015 2 0.01A $0 31.8% $327,540 68.2% $702,460 4 LS4 Live Oak Creek Regional Lift Station and Force Main Eng $258,000 2013 2014 4.5 25.0% $64,500 23.9% $61,662 51.1% $131,838 4 LS-4 Live Oak Creek Regional Lift Station and Force Main Const $2,575,000 2014 2015 4.5 25.0% $643,750 23.9% $615,425 51.1% $1,315,825 4 LS-S Lake Benbrook South Regional Lift Station and Force Main Eng $515,000 2014 2015 5 0.0% $0 31.8% $163,770 68.2% $351,230 4 LS-5 Lake Benbrook South Regional Lift Station and Force Main Const $5,150,000 2015 2016 5 0.0% $0 31.8% $1,637,700 68.2% $3,512,300 4 186 Walsh Ranch Lift Station and Force Main Eng $155,000 2015 2016 3 0.0% $0 31.8% $49,290 68.2% $105,710 4 LS-6 Walsh Ranch Lift Station and Force Main Const $1,288,000 2016 2017 3 0.0% $0 31.8% $409,584 68.2% $878,416 4 TOTAL LIFT STATIONS $61,784,095 $25,358,910 $17,910,143 $14,476,535 ENGIblJ KNfiJI DI Wastewater Facilities Plan 2000 -2020 $ 1,741,430 1998 45.0% $783,644 50.0% $870,715 5.0% $87,072 1999 Wastewater Master Plan 2000 -2010 $ 1,631,509 1999 90.0% $1,468,358 10.0% $163,151 0.0% $0 - Conveyance Study 2000 -2020 $ 75,000 2003 31.4% $23,550 68.6% $51,450 0.0% $0 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2004 -2014 $ 75,143 2004 50.0% $37,572 50.0% $37,572 0.0% $0 2009 Wastewater Master Plan 2010 -2020 $1,681,000 2007 2009 0.0% SO 90.0% $1,512,900 10.0% $168,100 2019 Wastewater Master Plan 2020 -2030 $1,681,000 2017 2019 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,681,000 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2009 -2019 $134,000 2008 2009 0.0% $0 100.0% $134,000 0.0% $0 e 0 e ID Project Title Project Phase Total Project Cost ($) Start Date Completion Date Added Capacity Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ( %) Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ($) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ( %) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ($) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ( %) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019($) Source Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2012 -2022 $134,000 2011 2012 0.0% $0 70.056 $93,800 30.0% $40,200 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2015 -2025 $134,000 2014 2015 0.0% $0 40.0% $53,600 60.0% $80,400 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2018 -2028 $134,000 2017 2018 0.0% $0 10.0% $13,400 90.0% $120,600 TOTAL ENGINEERING STUDIES $ 7,421,082 $2,313,123 $2,930,587 $2,177,372 TOTAL WASTEWATER CIP $ 320,802,005 $181,248,989 $87,002,775 $16,653,906 Information Source 1 - 5 Yr CIP Plan & Budget 2 - 1998 Wastewater Master Plan 3 - Fort Worth Water Department Staff 4 - Wastewater CIP Semi Annual Update 2008 5 - Wastewater Conveyance & Treatment Facilities Plan I A- [ Ell Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan APPENDIX D: Water Meters RE "K Fort Worth Water Department Capital Improvements Plan +" (A'A"cLl ING Water Facilities d? L14c9� 4. 1- 6.11�ww FORT �WQ,RI H D -as A Exhibit D Water Facilities Capital Improvement Plan APPENDIX D: Water Meters . • *- REB©AK Fort Worth Water Department . �� • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan • • DYi \IOM .Y Water Facilities FORT WOR 111 D -aa City of Fort Worth Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 172,557 172,557 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 21,144 52,860 1 -1/2" 5.00 1,711 8,555 2" 8.00 528 41224 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - I - Total 1 195,940 238,196 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 7,487 7,487 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 3,169 7,923 1 -1/2" 5.00 2,154 10,770 2" 8.00 5,715 45,720 3" 21.75 741 16,117 4" 37.50 344 12,900 6" 80.00 273 21,840 8" 140.00 110 15,400 10" 1 210.00 1 30 6,300 Total 1 20,023 144,457 E Customer: Aledo Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 779 779 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 4 10 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 783 789 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 80 80 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 7 18 1 -1/2" 5.00 2 10 2" 8.00 17 136 3" 21.75 4 87 4" 37.50 3 113 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 Total 113 444 Customer: Bethesda Water Supply Corp. Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 9,310 9,310 3/4" 1.50 23 35 1" 2.50 51 128 1 -1/2" 5.00 7 35 2" 8.00 16 128 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 9,408 9,674 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total - - Customer: Burleson Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 10,700 10,700 3/4" 1.50 3 5 1" 2.50 29 73 1 -1/2" 5.00 6 30 2" 8.00 3 24 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - 6" 80.00 - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 1 - I - Total 1 10,741 10,832 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 405 405 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 165 413 1 -1/2" 5.00 106 530 2" 8.00 180 1,440 3" 21.75 60 1,305 4" 37.50 2 75 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 919 1 4, 248 Customer: Crowley Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 4,777 71166 1" 2.50 25 63 1 -1/2" 5.00 2 10 2" 8.00 3 24 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - I - Total 1 4,807 7,263 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 152 228 1" 2.50 47 118 1 -1/2" 5.00 14 70 2" 8.00 46 368 3" 21.75 10 218 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 Total 270 1,040 Customer: Everman Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 1,730 1,730 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 1 1,730 1,730 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 131 131 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 7 18 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 1 8 3" 21.75 1 22 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 140 179 • Customer: Grand Prairie Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 41,570 41,570 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 427 1,068 1 -1/2" 5.00 146 730 2" 8.00 589 4,712 3" 21.75 10 218 4" 37.50 5 188 6" 80.00 35 2,800 8" 140.00 5 700 10" 210.00 - I - Total 42,787 51,986 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 1,339 11339 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 755 1,888 1 -1/2" 5.00 498 21490 2" 8.00 1,200 91600 3" 21.75 65 1,414 4" 37.50 58 2,175 6" 80.00 14 1,120 8" 140.00 16 2,240 10" 1 210.00 1 2 1 420 Total 1 3,947 1 22,686 aCustomer: Haltom City Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 11,250 16,875 1" 2.50 37 93 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 1 8 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - - Total 1 11,288 16,976 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 1,255 1,883 1" 2.50 335 838 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 311 2,488 3" 21.75 75 1,631 4" 37.50 14 525 6" 80.00 3 240 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 1,993 1 7,605 s Customer: Haslet Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 573 860 1" 2.50 15 38 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 588 898 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 22 33 1" 2.50 8 20 1 -1/2" 5.00 4 20 2" 8.00 43 344 3" 21.75 4 87 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 Total 81 504 Lle Customer: Hurst Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 5/8" 1.00 10,966 10,966 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 116 290 1 -1/2" 5.00 53 265 2" 8.00 12 96 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 5" 57.50 6 345 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - - Total 11,153 11,962 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 5/8" 1.00 575 575 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 270 675 1 -1/2" 5.00 229 1,145 2" 8.00 265 2,120 2 -1/2" 15.00 2 30 3" 21.75 25 544 4" 37.50 15 563 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 1,382 5,732 E Customer: Keller Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 13,059 13,059 3/4" 1.50 47 71 1" 2.50 164 410 1 -1/2" 5.00 2 10 2" 8.00 6 48 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 6" 80.00 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - - Total 13,278 13,598 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 432 432 3/4" 1.50 39 59 1" 2.50 250 625 1 -1/2" 5.00 43 215 2" 8.00 233 11864 3" 21.75 8 174 4" 37.50 6 225 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 3 420 10" 210.00 - I - Total 1,014 1 4,014 aCustomer: Kennedale Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 1,966 2,949 1" 2.50 184 460 1 -1/2" 5.00 7 35 2" 8.00 5 40 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 2,162 3,484 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 209 314 1" 2.50 32 80 1 -1/2" 5.00 9 45 2" 8.00 28 224 3" 21.75 6 131 4" 37.50 3 113 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - - Total 287 907 0 Customer: Lake Worth Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 1,993 2,990 1" 2.50 139 348 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 1 8 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 10" 210.00 - - Total 2,133 3,346 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 142 213 1" 2.50 116 290 1 -1/2" 5.00 39 195 2" 8.00 109 872 3" 21.75 S 109 4" 37.50 4 150 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 Total 415 1,829 0 Customer: Northlake E Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 153 153 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 153 153 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 16 40 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 12 96 3" 21.75 13 283 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - Total 41 419 0 Customer: North Richland Hills H Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 17,932 17,932 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 953 2,383 1 -1/2" 5.00 10 50 2" 8.00 15 120 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 18,910 20,485 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 626 626 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 324 810 1 -1/2" 5.00 76 380 2" 8.00 710 5,680 3" 21.75 26 566 4" 37.50 17 638 6" 80.00 4 320 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 1,783 9,020 OCustomer: Richland Hills H 1� Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 2,780 21780 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 73 183 1 -1/2" 5.00 17 85 2" 8.00 11 88 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 2,881 3,136 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 171 171 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 76 190 1 -1/2" 5.00 25 125 2" 8.00 35 280 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 308 804 67-71 H Customer: Saginaw Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 6,456 9,684 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 6,456 9,684 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 87 131 1" 2.50 102 255 1 -1/2" 5.00 9 45 2" 8.00 95 760 3" 21.75 9 196 4" 37.50 5 188 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 308 1,655 Customer: Trophy Club - M.U.D. Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 2,479 2,479 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 252 630 1 -1/2" 5.00 4 20 2" 8.00 8 64 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - I - Total 1 2,744 3,273 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 33 33 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 20 50 1 -1/2" 5.00 3 15 2" 8.00 62 496 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 6 225 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 125 899 Eqp Customer: Watauga Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 7,875 11,813 1" 2.50 1 3 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - i - Total 1 7,876 11,816 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 95 143 1" 2.50 92 230 1 -1/2" 5.00 5 25 2" 8.00 105 840 3" 21.75 2 44 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 1 140 10" 1 210.00 1 - - Total 1 302 1,540 Customer: Westlake Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 107 107 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 183 458 1 -1/2" 5.00 61 305 2" 8.00 17 136 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 368 1,006 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 1 1 3/4" 1.50 - - i" 2.50 4 10 1 -1/2" 5.00 1 5 2" 8.00 27 216 3" 21.75 7 152 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 2 160 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 42 1 544 0 City: White Settlement E L E Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 4,795 4,795 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 22 55 1 -1/2" 5.00 10 50 2" 8.00 21 168 3" 21.75 5 109 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 4,854 5,215 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 159 159 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 31 78 1 -1/2" 5.00 25 125 2" 8.00 57 456 3" 21.75 6 131 4" 37.50 2 75 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I Total 281 1 1,104 FORT WORTH City of Fort Worth Exhibit F Capital Improvements Plan Wastewater Facilities Final Report May 6, 2009 Report Prepared By: O L ET] Table of Contents Contents 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................ ............................... F -1 1.2. Capacity Criteria ......................................................................... ............................... F -1 ................................................................................................................. 1.2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plants ......................................... ............................F -1 ...........................F -11 1.2.2. Lift Stations ................................................................. ............................... F -2 1.3. Eligible Facilities ............................................................................ ............................F -3 ............................... F -13 1.3.1. Wastewater Treatment Plants ...................................... ............................... F -4 Figure F -4: Lift Station Allocation ................................................................ 1.3.2. Lift Stations and Force Mains ...................................... ............................... F -4 1.3.3. Engineering Studies ....................................................... ............................F -5 1.4. Growth Related CIP ...................................................................... ............................F -7 1.5. Service Units ................................................................................. ............................F -8 1.6. Impact Fee Calculations ............................................................... ...........................F -10 List of Tables Table F -1. 2009 -2019 Growth Related CIP .......................... ..................................................... F -7 Table F -2. AWWA Meter Equivalency Factors .............................................. ............................F -8 Table F -3. Development of 2009 Population and Employment per Equivalent 5/8" x 3/4" Meter ................................................................................................................. ............................... F -9 Table F -4. Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees ............................................ ...........................F -11 List of Figures Figure F -1: Existing Wastewater Facilities .................................................. ...........................F -12 Figure F -2: Proposed Wastewater Facilities ............................................ ............................... F -13 Figure F -3: Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Schedule .................... ...........................F -14 Figure F -4: Lift Station Allocation ................................................................ ...........................F -15 Appendices A. Wastewater CIP Projects B. Wastewater Lift Station Capabilities C. CIP for 2009 — 2019 D. Water Meters •.; REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department • •� • Capital Improvements Plan FORTWORTH CONSULTING A D:YI319N DF NALCDIN —9 Wastewater Facilities Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan 1.1. Introduction In accordance with Texas Local Government Code (TLGC), Chapter 395, the City of Fort Worth has commissioned Red Oak Consulting, to conduct an Impact Fee Study. This report establishes the engineering basis for the fee schedule, updating the previous study completed in 2004. Impact fees provide the City of Fort Worth a mechanism for recouping the cost associated with expanding the municipal wastewater system to accommodate growth in the service area. The City of Fort Worth owns and operates an infrastructure intensive system comprised of treatment facilities, lift stations, and pipelines that are continuously improved and expanded. The schedule for future investment in the wastewater system is known as the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The CIP was updated as a part of this study with capital project scope and cost provided by previously commissioned master planning documents and input from Fort Worth Water Department staff. The report describes the basis for establishing which City of Fort Worth wastewater facilities are eligible to be included in the impact fee analysis. Next, the criteria for measuring infrastructure capacity are explained for each infrastructure type. Finally, the additional facilities required to accommodate growth during the study period are summarized. 1.2. Capacity Criteria 1.2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plants The 1998 Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Uprating Study provided the following formula for the determination of average day flow: Qavg = BWF + GI Where: Qavg = Annual Average wastewater flow BWF = Base wastewater flow defined as 80 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) plus 40 gallons per employee per day (gpcd). GI = Groundwater infiltration defined as 300 gaVacre sewered. The Uprating Study also looked at the maximum month flow as it related to the annual average wastewater flow. Based on historical data, the ratio was determined to be 1.27. The maximum day to annual average wastewater flow was determined to be 2.59 times annual average flows with a peak 2 -hour to annual average wastewater flow ratio of 3.07. The following is a calculation of the annual average sewage flows. The population and employment projections were taken from the 2009 Wastewater Land Use Assumptions and the sewage acreage land values from the 2007 Village Creek Wastewater Treatment ' •.• REMAK Fort Worth Water Department FORTWORTH CONSl�LTIN -1 Capital Improvements Plan F -1 Wastewater Facilities Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan Plant Facilities Assessment Study. The population and employment projections for the TRA Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System and TRA Central Regional Wastewater System were subtracted from the total wastewater service area population and employment projections for the purpose of calculating required capacities. 2009 Population = 1,029,532 X 80 gpcd = 82.4 mgd Employment = 693,279 X 40 gpcd = 27.7 mgd B W F = 110.1 mgd GI = 148,863 acres X (300 gpd /acre) = 44.7 mgd Q annual average = 110.1 + 44.7 =154.8 mgd 2019 Population = 1,367,376 X 80 gpcd = 109.4 mgd Employment = 917,248 X 40 gpcd = 36.7 mgd B W F = 146.1 mgd GI = 168,888 acres X (300 gpd /acre) = 50.7 mgd OQ annual average = 146.1 + 50.7 = 196.8 mgd The net increase in annual average flow for the study period is: Increase in Annual Average Flow = 2019 Annual Average Flow — 2009 Annual Average Flow Increase in Annual Average Flow = 196.8 mgd — 154.8 mgd = 42 mgd The current annual average permit capacity at the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is 166 mgd. An expansion to 191 mgd average annual flow is planned for the study period. In addition, a satellite wastewater treatment plant is planned with a capacity of 7 mgd. 1.2.2. Lift Stations The 1999 Wastewater System Master Plan is currently being updated and is therefore the most recent available master plan document. As part of the master plan study, the lift station capacity requirements were projected based on population and employment projections from the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). Red Oak reviewed information from the Wastewater Master Plan to obtain estimated lift station deficiencies for the impact fee study period: 0 FORT R EMAK Fort Worth Water Department WORTH CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan . D VBroN .....coy.. P—I& wastewater Facilities • 0 Master Plan Population and Employment Master Plan Lift Station Deficiency Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan 2009 1,316,932 9.5 mgd 2019 1,503,364 18.4 mgd The population and employment projections included in the Land Use Assumptions report are significantly higher than the projections above for the same years. To account for this additional growth, the lift station deficiencies were increased proportionally: 2009 2019 Land Use Assumptions Population and Employment 1,722,811 2,284,624 Projected Lift Station Deficiency 12.4 mgd 28.0 mgd The net increase in lift station deficiencies is: Increase in Lift Station Deficiencies = 28.0 mgd — 12.4 mgd = 15.6 mgd 1.3. Eligible Facilities This section establishes the types of City of Fort Worth wastewater facilities that are eligible for inclusion in the calculation of the impact fee. Projects included in the CIP can serve to rehabilitate and renew the system, enhance the system to improve efficiency and meet regulatory requirements, increase the system capacity, or achieve a combination of these objectives. Only those projects warranted by capacity issues derived from growth occurring during the study period (2009 to 2019) can be included in the impact fee calculation. Additionally, projects are excluded from the impact fee calculation if the costs cannot be accurately delineated of if alternate mechanisms for cost recovery are in place. Financing costs associated with the water system have been excluded due to the dynamic nature of the financial markets, and the uncertainty this introduces, consistent with previous City of Fort Worth impact fee studies. Wastewater interceptors and collection piping have been excluded from this study due to alternate cost recovery mechanisms in place, consistent with the previous impact fee study. Facilities included in the impact fee study are wastewater treatment facilities, lift: stations, and engineering studies. •.' REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department FORTWORTH • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan F -3 Wastewater Facilities O Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan Figures F -I and F -2, showing existing and proposed facilities, respectively, are included at the end of this section. 1.3.1. Wastewater Treatment Plants The existing wastewater treatment capacity is 166 mgd. An additional 42 mgd of capacity will be required during the study period, as calculated in Section 1.2.1. Of this required capacity, 11.2 mgd is available at the existing facility (166 mgd — 154.8 mgd). Therefore, an additional 30.8 mgd is needed during the study period. The following capital projects are eligible for inclusion in the impact fee calculation: Westside Satellite Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase I is currently planned to provide an additional 7 mgd of capacity. This capacity would be fully utilized during the study period. Study period allocation = (7 mgd — 0 mgd) = 7mgd < 30.8 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 30.8 mgd — 7 mgd = 23.8 mgd % Allocated for Study Period =100% 2. Village Creek WWTP Expansion to 191 mgd provides 25 mgd of additional treatment capacity to increase the annual average capacity from 166 mgd to 191 O mgd. • Study period allocation = (191 mgd — 166 mgd) = 25 mgd > 23.8 mgd Remaining incremental demand = 23.8 mgd — 25 mgd < 0 % Allocated for Study Period = 23.8 mgd / 25 mgd = 95% Figure F -3 provides the scheduled wastewater treatment plant and storage expansions, the projected annual average wastewater flows, and the projected 2 -hour peak flows. 1.3.2. Lift Stations and Force Mains Section 1.2.2 calculated the net increase in lift station deficiencies to be 15.6 mgd. The wastewater CIP lists several lift station projects, which are eligible for inclusion in the impact fee calculation. These lift station projects will provide an additional 47.5 mgd of capacity. The allocation of the lift stations is calculated below: % Allocation for Study Period = (15.6 mgd / 47.5 mgd) X 100 = 32.8% The remaining 67.2% of the costs of these projects will be allocated to future growth beyond the study period. Figure F -4 provides the comparison of the lift station projects and the lift station capacity required for future growth. : :• REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department FORT WORTH • CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan o ,, — .. .«.. ,,,�,� Wastewater Facilities i n El Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan 1.3.3. Engineering Studies There are nine studies which have been included in the calculation of the wastewater impact fees. The studies are as follows: 1. Wastewater Facilities Plan — The Wastewater Facilities Plan updated the wastewater treatment plant needs for the period of 2000 through 2020. Nine years of the twenty year study was for existing customers. Ten years of the twenty year study was for the study period, and the balance was for the period beyond the study period. The calculation of the allocation was as follows: Existing Customers = 9/20 = 45% Study Period = 10/20 = 50% Beyond Study Period = 1/20 = 5% % Allocation for Study Period = 50% 2. 1999 Wastewater Master Plan — The 1999 is a planning document for the period 2000 through 2010. It is currently being updated. Therefore, 90% is for existing and 10% is for the study period. Existing Customers = 9/10 = 90% Study Period = 1 /10 = 10% % Allocation for Study Period =10% 3. 2009 Wastewater System Master Plan is ongoing and will include the planning period 2010 through 2020. Nine of the ten years in the planning period are included in the impact fee study period. Therefore 90% is allocated to the study period and the remaining 10% is allocated to the period beyond the study period. Study Period = 9/10 = 90% Beyond Study Period = 1 /10 = 10% % Allocation for Study Period = 90% 4. Conveyance Study — The Wastewater Conveyance Study is a 20 -year planning document for the period 2000 through 2020. Nine years of the twenty year study was for existing customers. Ten years of the twenty year study was for the study period, and the balance was for the period beyond the study period. The calculation of the allocation was as follows: Existing Customers = 9/20 = 45% Study Period = 10/20 = 50% Beyond Study Period = 1/20 = 5% % Allocation for Study Period = 50% REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department • • •' CONSU[TING Capital Improvements Plan o, „ ..«o . • q�, Wastewater Facilities FORT F -5 • C7 H Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan 5. 2004 Impact Fee Study — The 2004 Impact Fee Study provides impact fees for the study period 2004 through 2014. Therefore, five years of the ten -year study period for the existing customers, and the remaining five years are for the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 5110 = 50% Study Period = 5/10 = 50% Beyond Study Period = 0 /10 = 0% % Allocation for Study Period = 50% 6. 2009 Impact Fee Study — The 2009 Impact Fee Study provides impact fees for the study period 2009 through 2019. Therefore, 100% of the study is allocated to the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 10 /10 = 100% Beyond Study Period = 0 /10 =0% % Allocation for Study Period =100% 7. 2012 Impact Fee Study — Although the requirement is to conduct an impact fee study every five years, the City would like to update the study every three years. The 2012 Impact Fee Study will provide impact fees for the study period 2012 through 2022. Therefore, seven years of the ten -year study period are allocated to the study period, and the remaining three years are for the period beyond the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 7/10 = 70% Beyond Study Period = 3/10 = 30% % Allocation for Study Period = 70% 8. 2015 Impact Fee Study — The 2015 Impact Fee Study will provide impact fees for the study period 2015 through 2025. Therefore, four years of the ten -year study period are allocated to the study period, and the remaining six years are for the period beyond the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 4/10 = 40% Beyond Study Period = 6/10 = 60% REI3DAK Fort Worth Water Department • �� CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan • ons�ox or ..wo�r name Wastewater Facilities FOR�TWORTH F -6 I Ir Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan % Allocation for Study Period = 40% 9. 2018 Impact Fee Study —The 2018 Impact Fee Study will provide impact fees for the study period 2018 through 2028. Therefore, one year of the ten -year study period is allocated to the study period, and the remaining nine years are for the period beyond the study period. One half of the study is for the water impact fee update and the other half is for the wastewater impact fee update. Existing Customers = 0 /10 = 0% Study Period = 1/10 = 10% Beyond Study Period = 9/10 = 90% % Allocation for Study Period =10% Appendix A describes each Wastewater CIP projects for the 2009 -2019 planning period. The purpose of each project, the portion that is allocated to growth and the current status is also included. 1.4. Growth Related CIP Table F -1 summarizes the growth related costs of the eligible facilities. Appendix C shows the detailed development of the costs and capacities of the eligible facilities. Table F -1. 2009 -2019 Growth Related CIP Wastewater Facility Total Growth Related Cost Capacity Added from Projects Capacity Needed During 2009 -2019 2009 -2019 Growth Related Cost Amount Percent of Total Treatment Plant 66,162,000 32.0 mgd 30.8 mgd 96.3% 54,462,000 Lift Stations 33,955,000 47.5 mgd 15.6 mgd 32.8% 11,130,000 Engineering Studies 5,108,000 2,931,000 Total 68,522,000 wN REEK Fort Worth Water Department "• : Capital Improvements Plan • �lSl iL l'INt; ' • . •_ d A YI: +h• 6` •MLi.N R!L! wastewater Facilities FOR_ T WURTH F -7 E EV I- �_] Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan 1.5. Service Units The differentiated costs between customer types are allocated through the application of the equivalent meter concept. Since the 5/8" x 3/4" water meter is the most frequently used meter by the residential customer, a factor has been calculated to relate the capacities of other meter sizes to the 5/8" x 3/4" meter capacity. Table F -2 presents the factors developed using capacity information from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard C700 -02, Cold -Water Meters —Displacement Type, Bronze Main Case and AWWA Standard C701 -07, Cold -Water Meters — Turbine Type, for Customer Service. Table F -2. AWWA Meter Equivalency Factors Meter Size 5/8" z 3/4" Equivalency Factor 5/8" x 5/8" and 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 ill 2.50 1-1/2" 5.00 2" 8.00 3" 21.75 4" 37.50 6" 80.00 8" 140.00 10" 210.00 Appendix D contains the number of water meters for residential and non - residential customers by meter size for the City as well as for the wholesale customers who provided this information to Red Oak. The number of equivalent meters is also calculated for the City and wholesale customers. The next calculation step determines population per residential meter and employment per non - residential meter. Table F -3 summarizes this calculation for the City of Fort Worth and wholesale customers using 2009 information. ;mow RELOJA (� Fort Worth Water Department FORT WORTH . .. . (DRSUITINCi Capital Improvements Plan F -8 - a a olml m WMAO.w mmq Wastewater Facilities Exhibit F OWastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan Table F-3. Development of 2009 Population and Employment per Equivalent 5/8" x 3/4" Meter Description Residential Non - residential City of Fort Worth: Number of Equivalent Meters 223,904 135,790 Population / Employment 679,359 587,702 Population / Employment per Equivalent Meter 3.03 4.33 Wholesale Customers: Number of Equivalent Meters 107,208 34,364 Population / Employment 290,130 97,085 Population / Employment per Equivalent Meter 2.71 2.83 Red Oak did not receive meter count information from five of Fort Worth's wholesale wastewater customers. The number of equivalent meters used to calculate the wholesale customers' population / employment per equivalent meter in Table F -3 is the total number of equivalent meters served by Fort Worth for those wholesale customers who responded to the Red Oak survey with their meter count information. In order to more accurately estimate the population / employment per equivalent meter, Red Oak divided the number of equivalent meters by the sum of population or employment served by Fort Worth for those wholesale customers who provided their meter count information. The projected increase in equivalent meters between 2009 and 2019 uses the ratios in Table F -3 and the population and employment projections for 2009 and 2019 in Exhibit B, Wastewater Land Use Assumptions report. The calculation is shown below. Because no meter count information is available to calculate the number of equivalent meters for the unincorporated service area, the calculation for the unincorporated service area uses the weighted average of population and employment per equivalent meter for the City and wholesale customers. City of Fort Worth Residential = Population Change / Population per Equivalent Meter _ (910,038 — 679,359) / 3.03 = 76,132 w•� R O&K Fort Worth Water Department FORTWORTH �. CjCis.1[:nw; Capital Improvements Plan F -9 - e a rro12q m WA"O.e 0-12418 Wastewater Facilities Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan Non - Residential = Employment Change / Employment per Equivalent Meter = (787,452 — 587,702) / 4.33 = 46,132 Wholesale Customers Residential = Population Change / Population per Equivalent Meter = (404,172 — 355,332) / 2.71 = 18,022 Non - Residential = Employment Change / Employment per Equivalent Meter = (159,950 — 130,531) / 2.83 = 10,395 Unincorporated Area Residential = Population Change / Population per Equivalent Meter = (110,062 — 24,370) / 2.93 = 29,246 Non - Residential = Employment Change / Employment per Equivalent Meter = (28,832 — 9,801) / 4.02 = 4,734 Increase in Equivalent Meters = 184,661 1.6. Impact Fee Calculations Impact fees are the quotient of the total cost of expansion for the study period from Table F -1 divided by the increase in equivalent meters from Section 1.5. This fee equals the maximum wastewater impact fee for a 5/8" x 3/4" water meter size. Maximum Wastewater Impact Fee = Cost of Expansion / Increase in Equivalent Meters = $68,522,000 / 184,661 = $371 per 5/8" x 3/4" equivalent meter The wastewater impact fees for meters other than 5/8" x 3/4" are the product of fee per 5/8" x 3/4" equivalent meter multiplied by the respective equivalent meter factor from Table F -2. The maximum allowable wastewater impact fees are provided in Table F -4, as well as the resulting impact fee at a 50% collection rate. ••* .; M&M y Fort Worth Water Department FORTWORTH �-OM- JL1 IN(; Capital Improvements Plan F 10 G,,,,,N04 W WMAD,, FIMB Wastewater Facilities L H Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan Table F-4. Proposed Wastewater Impact Fees Meter Size 5/8" x 3/4" Equivalency Factor Maximum Allowable Impact Fee Proposed Impact Fee (Collected at 50 %) 5/8" x 5/8" and 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 $ 371 $ 185 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 $ 557 $ 278 ill 2.50 $ 928 $ 464 1-1/2" 5.00 $ 1,855 $ 927 2" 8.00 $ 2,968 $ 1,484 3" 21.75 $ 8,069 $ 4,034 4" 37.50 $ 13,913 $ 6,956 6" 80.00 $ 29,680 $ 14,840 8" 140.00 Pr$ 51,940 $ 25,970 10" 210.00 $ 77,910 $ 38,955 �(,�AK Fort Worth Water Department '�. CT)KSULTI N Capital Improvements Plan II.,._ „..,54„„1.,. Wastewater Facilities FORT�W�OrRTN F i i n u c. N t tel Lift Station #1 Sendera Ranch Intel Lift Station #2 60-1 1 \L] ,Project Shield Lift Station S Spring Ranch Lift Station r - -- Glen Mills Ranch at Eagle Mountain -Meadow Lakes Lift Station Jenkins Heights Lift Station f Lake Worth Lift Station Castle Circle" t Gree ° Fort Worth Live Oak Creek Lift Station �J Calmont L Lift Station Western Hills Lift Station .Hulen Bend Lift Station l Dossier Cove Lift Station FN- PSI Lake Country Lift Station #11 a Lake Country Lift Station #12 1 aJ Dosier Creek Lift Station Lake Country Lift Station #4 0 Lake Country Lift Station #3 0 Lake Country Lift Station #2 Lake Country Lift Station #5 U 0 Sunset Cove Lift Station \ Mosier Valley Lift Stat -Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant CIIGIIQIIICU OQY Winn Dixie Lift Station Vii-- Richardson Slough Lift Station Summercreek Ranch Lift Station Rosem ry Ridge 3 1.5 0 3 Existing Wastewater City of Fort Worth I Facilities Map Miles MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. March 2009 FIGURE F -1 E H N Ell Bonds Ranch C • LS Bonds Ranch B LS Ins Bonds Ranch A F I Lake Worth North if Eq ove Circle. Live Oak Regional Lift StationCastle Creek Fossil Creek Lift Station 7" Walsh Ranch Lift Station LC Y L1 Lake Benbrook South Regional FL-1-1 F—L, I LC F I I LEGEND 3 1.5 0 3 monoOK::::��� M Lift Station Miles MP COL MPIRNIE I- City of Fort Worth Proposed Wastewater March 2009 I Facilites Map FIGURE F-2 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 0 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2009 >r 2 A c 0 w 0 2010 2011 2012 — Projected Average Annual Wastewater Flow Peak Flows Modeled for 2003 Conveyance Study 500 n t a a 3 d d m w v VI d I' Figure I Treatment Pla 514 V W £ 173 mgd m C 0 C m 0 a 3 Y a u` d m 3 3 0 LL d d a m 570 mgd v d A 369 mgd > 166 mgd >r 2 A c 0 w 0 2010 2011 2012 — Projected Average Annual Wastewater Flow Peak Flows Modeled for 2003 Conveyance Study 500 n t a a 3 d d m w v VI d I' Figure I Treatment Pla 514 V W £ 173 mgd m C 0 C m 0 a 3 Y a u` d m 3 it Expansion Schedule 584 mgd 570 mgd V ti N r a 3 d v A N d V t £ m 3 �e� E 205 mgd 198 mgd 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 YEAR Permitted Annual Average Capacity —Peak 2 -Hr Treatment /Storage Capacity Figure F-4 Lift Station Allocation 47.5 MGD 50 40 68.2% Allocated for Future 30 Growth 20 15.1 MGD 31.8% 10 Allocated for Study Period 0 Capacity of Proposed Projects Incremental Demand Eq, E EM Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan APPENDIX A: Wastewater CIP Projects REMAK Fort Worth Water Department • - CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan .1.n¢ Wastewater Facilities FOR, T WUw F -16 L41P Appendix A WASTEWATER CIP PROJECTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT Project Title: (V -1A) VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak Flows) Description: Design and construction of a wastewater diversion and peak flow storage basin adjacent to the Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (VCWWTP). Purpose: Detention facility will equalize the peak influent flows to the VCWWTP. The siphon improvement project will allow higher peak flows to the VCWWTP. This project will divert and store the peak flows for later treatment. Allocation: The peak flow diversion facility will increase the peak flow plant capacity from the current 369 MGD to 500 MGD. The projected peak flow is 500 mgd. The allocation for the study period is 26.2% (500 mgd — 369 mgd) / 500 mgd = 26.2 %) Status: Planning Project Title: (V -1B) VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 MGD expansion) 1 Description: Design and construction of rehabilitation/ capacity improvements to the plant junction boxes that collect and convey raw wastewater into VCWWTP. This project will be aligned with/ in preparation for the capacity improvements proposed from 166 MGD to 191 MGD. Purpose: The current junction boxes need to be rehabilitated to mitigate impacts for hydrogen sulfide related corrosion for the near and long term. As part of this project flow management via these junction boxes will be evaluated to determine the best improvements to align with the expansion to 191 MGD. Allocation: The junction box facilities will be sized/ rehabilitated for future treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191MGD. This project is allocated 13.1% to the study period (191 -mgd -166 mgd) / 191 mgd). Status: Planning. Project Title: (V -1Q VCWWTP Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements (oversized to 191 MGD expansion) Description: The existing primary area odor control and odor treatment facilities will be rehabilitated and expanded to provide for future expansion that will be provided with the project to replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12. Purpose: The existing inadequate odor collection system and chemical treatment system will be updated with newer technology to better treat odors at a more cost effective and sustainable method. Improving odor systems will also reduce corrosion of concrete and steel facilities; extending the life of equipment. Allocation: The odor and corrosion control system will be sized for future replacement of Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 that will increase the treatment capacity from 166 MGD to 191MGD. This project is allocated 13.1% to the study period (191 -mgd -166 mgd) / 191 mgd). Status: Planning. Project Title: (Wl) Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 1 Description: Land purchase, design and construction for a satellite WWTP to address growth related needs in the sewershed serving the Westside area. Purpose: Provide sewage treatment needs to address growth needs by installing a new treatment plant to serve the Westside area. This will eliminate the need to expand/ add collection system infrastructure or expansion of VCWWTP facilities beyond 191 MGD to address the Westside growth needs. Allocation: This project is needed for growth during the planning period and is allocated 100% for growth. Status: Planning. Project Title: (V2 -A) VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGD (Phase 2A - secondary systems expansion - aeration, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) Description: Design and construction of Village Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant treatment facilities to increase capacity from 166 to 191 MGD. Purpose: To increase treatment plant capacity to meet growth needs. Allocation: This project is allocated 13.1% to the study period (191 -mgd -166 mgd) / 191 mgd). aStatus: Planning. L Project Title: (V -2B) VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 2B of 191 mgd expansion) Description: Design and construction for the replacement of primary clarifiers 1 -12 and addition of a new grit removal system sized to meet the 191 MGD expansion requirements. Purpose: Primary clarifiers 1 -12 at VCWWTP are a hydraulic bottleneck which needs to be addressed to realize the planned expansion to 191 MGD. In addition to being a hydraulic bottleneck, the reliability of the clarifiers are impacted by large amounts of grit (particularly at higher flows). These clarifiers need to be replaced before the 191 MGD capacity can be realized and a new grit removal system needs to be added to increase reliability in capacity and treatment. Allocation: In addition to a new grit removal system, the primary clarifiers will be replaced and sized for future treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191MGD. This project is allocated 13.1% to the study period (191 -mgd -166 mgd) / 191 mgd). Status: Planning. Project Title: (V2 -C) Village Creek Gravity Belt Thickeners to Replace DAFs (Phase 2C of 191 Expansions) Description: Design and construction for the replacement of existing Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) thickeners with a new Gravity Belt Thickener system sized to meet the 191 MGD expansion requirements. Purpose: The existing DAF system is in need of rehabilitation and the solids thickening system is in need of expansion. The DAF units will be replaced with Gravity Belt Thickeners (GBT) which is more efficient at thickening both primary and secondary solids and /or combined solids. The replacement of DAFs with GBTs will include expansion of the solids thickening systems to provide capacity for the planned VCWWTP expansion to 191 MGD plus the 7 MGD capacity to treat the solids from the new Westside Satellite WWTP. Allocation: The new DAF solids thickening system will be sized for the future VCWWTP treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191 MGD. The new solids thickening system will also have the additional capacity to thicken the solids produced by the new 7 MGD Westside Satellite WWTP. This project is allocated 16.2% to the study period (198 -mgd -166 mgd) / 198 mgd). Status: Planning. 1 Project Title: (V -3) VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station Description: Design and construction of a new VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station to lift current and future flows received from the Village Creek Interceptors to the Headworks Screening Facilities. Purpose: Flows from the Village Creek Interceptors currently pass through Bar Screen Building No. 3, which is in need of significant repairs and upgrades , and is located at the southeast corner of the VCWWTP. Flows from the Village Creek Interceptor system will be routed to the new Headworks Screening Facilities located at the northwest corner of the VCWWTP, so that the wastewater can be adequately screened and peak flows can be treated by the high -rate clarification system and /or the future Peak Flow Diversion Structure. The Village Creek Interceptors are at a lower elevation than the Headworks Screening Facility, therefore a pump station will be needed to transport the flows from the south to the northeast corner of the VCWWTP. Allocation: A parallel interceptor was recently constructed in the Village Creek Sewer Basin to increase the basin flow capacity from 90 MGD to 280 MGD. The lift station will be sized to transport peak flows during this study period. The projected peak flow capacity of the VCWWTP is being increased from current 369 MGD to 556 MGD with the completion of Project V -1A and V -2A. The allocation for the study period is 33.6% (556 mgd — 369 mgd) / 556 mgd = 33.6 %) to Status: Planning. Project Title: (V -4A) VCWWTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCWWTP 191 MGD expansion + Westside Satellite 7 MGD WWTP solids) Description: Design and construction of biosolids dewatering facilities. Purpose: Provide biosolids dewatering facilities needed to produce a dewatered biosolid that can be transported efficiently for beneficial reuse land application.. Allocation: The biosolids dewatering system will be sized for the future VCWWTP treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191 MGD. The biosolids dewatering system will also have the additional capacity to dewater the solids produced by the new 7 MGD Westside Satellite WWTP . This project is allocated 16.2% to the study period (198 -mgd -166 mgd) / 198 mgd). Project Title: (V -46) Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Description: Design and construction of anaerobic digester facilities to treat wastewater treatment plant solids from the expanded VCWWTP and the new Westside Satellite WWTP facilities. L 1 Purpose: Replace, expand and improve the current anaerobic digester facilities to provide solids treatment for the VCWWTP expansion to 191 and the 7 MGD Westside Satellite WWTP. Allocation: The Anaerobic digestion treatment system will be sized for the future VCWWTP treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191 MGD. The anaerobic digester system will also have the additional capacity to treat the solids produced by the new 7 MGD Westside Satellite WWTP. This project is allocated 16.2% to the study period (198 -mgd -166 mgd) / 198 mgd). Status: Planning Project Title: (V -4C) Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 MGD Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 MGD WWTP Solids) Description: Design and construction of sidestream treatment facilities to treat flows associated with dewatering of anaerobically digested solids for current and future expansion capacities. Purpose: The decant waters and wash waters from the dewatering systems produce a significant amount of ammonia that is currently returned to the VCWWTP headworks for treatment. Providing sidestream treatment of the ammonia in a compact system will reduce the loads and capacity requirements of the conventional secondary treatment systems. Allocation: Theanaerobic digested solids dewatering sidestream treatment system will be sized for the future VCWWTP treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191 MGD. The sidestream treatment system will also have the additional capacity to treat the sidestream liquids produced by the new 7 MGD Westside Satellite WWTP. This project is allocated 16.2% to the study period (198 -mgd- 166 mgd) / 198 mgd). Status: Planning Project Title: (V -5) VCWWTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion - Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 MGD) Description: Convert from gas chlorine disinfection to alternatives that may include liquid chlorine, ultraviolet light, ozone or a combination of these. 5 Purpose: Proposed legislation and /or enhanced security requirements will prompt the conversion from gas chlorine to other disinfection treatment chemicals / facilities. E, Allocation: The disinfection alternative facilities will be sized for the expanded treatment capacity of 191MGD. This project is allocated 13.1% to the study period (191 - mgd -166 mgd) / 191 mgd). Status: Planning. Project Title: (W -2) Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 Description: Design and construction of the Phase 2 capacity expansion of the Westside satellite WWTP to address system capacity needs in 2018. Purpose: Provide sewage treatment needs to address growth needs by installing additional treatment capacity. This expansion is needed to meet the current system growth and capacity requirements. Allocation: The projected average annual wastewater flows will increase to 205 MGD in 2019, the end of the study period. This capacity expansion is needed to increase the system treatment capacity from 198 MGD to 205 MGD. This project is needed for growth during the planning period and is allocated 100% for growth. Status: Planning. WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS Project Title: Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main A Description: Design and construction of a 6.0 mgd firm capacity lift station to serve future growth. This lift station will receive flows from the Bonds Ranch Lift Station B. Purpose: The purpose of this lift station is to provide growth future wastewater service to the northwest portions of the service area. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main B Description: Design and construction of a 5.0 mgd firm capacity lift station to serve future growth. This lift station will receive flows from the Bonds Ranch Lift Station C. 6 L H Purpose: The purpose of this lift station is to provide growth future wastewater service to the northwest portions of the service area. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main C Description: Design and construction of a 4.0 mgd firm capacity lift station to serve future growth. Purpose: The purpose of this lift station is to provide growth future wastewater service to the northwest portions of the service area. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Fossil Creek Lift Station & 60" Force Main Description: Design and construct a new lift station adjacent to the connection of the Fossil Creek interceptor with the 96" M280 and M338 interceptors. A new 60" force main paralleling M280 and M338 from the Fossil Creek Lift Station to the VCWWTP Purpose: Transport system peak flows and provide additional future capacity to the treatment plant future capacity. Allocation: The lift station and force main will be sized for the future VCWWTP treatment capacity expansion from 166 MGD to 191MGD. The lift station and force main will be sized to transport peak flows that will be transported to an expanded treatment facility. This project is allocated 31.8% to the study period. The remaining capacity is allocated to provide 66.4% for the existing capacity and 1.8% for system capacity beyond the study period. Status: Planning Project Title: Woodvale Low Pressure Sewer System Description: Design and construct a pressure sewer system to serve an area adjacent to the take and currently served by septic system. Purpose: Provide new sanitary sewer service to existing homes and area. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Lake Worth North Lift Station and Force Main Description: Design and construction of a 1.5 mgd firm capacity lift station to serve future growth. This lift station will send flows to the Jenkins Heights lift station. Purpose: The purpose of this expansion/ rehabilitation is to provide future wastewater service to growth related service areas. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Love Circle / West Lake Worth Lift Station and Force Main r� Description: Construction of a 0.5 mgd firm capacity lift station to serve future growth. This lift station will send flows to the Jenkins Heights lift station. Purpose: The purpose of this expansion/ rehabilitation is to provide future wastewater service to growth related service areas. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning E �qlp 110 Project Title: Meadow Lakes Lift Station Expansion (additional pumps) Description: Design and install additional wastewater pumps to expand the existing lift station capacity Purpose: The lift station is being expanded to provide additional wastewater service capacity to growing area. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Live Oak Creek Regional Lift Station and Force Main Description: Design and construction of an expansion to the lift station and force main from 2.5 mgd to 4.5 mgd firm capacity to serve future growth. Purpose: The purpose of this expansion/ rehabilitation is to provide future wastewater service to growth related service areas. Allocation: This project is provides 75% for growth and 25% for rehabilitation. The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the 75% growth allocation results in a 23.9% capacity allocation during the study period. The allocation for this project is 25% to existing capacity, 23.9% for capacity during the study period and the remaining 51.1% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Lake Benbrook South Regional Lift Station and Force Main Description: This diversion lift station will route wastewater flow from the area west and south of Benbrook Lake in the Clear Fork Major Basin to a point in the Village Creek Major Basin. Purpose: The purpose of this lift station is to provide future wastewater service to the southwestern portions of the service area. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning Project Title: Walsh Ranch Lift Station and Force Main Description: Construction of a 3.0 mgd firm capacity lift station to serve future growth. Purpose: The purpose of this expansion/ rehabilitation is to provide future wastewater service to growth related service areas. Allocation: The proposed capacity of the lift station projects exceeds the capacity requirements during the study period (see Exhibit F, Section 1.2.2). 31.8% of the Lift Station cost is allocated to the study period and the remaining 68.2% is for future growth beyond the year 2019. Status: Planning WASTEWATER ENGINEERING STUDIES Project Title: 2009 Wastewater Master Plan 2010 -2020 oDescription: Engineering Study Purpose: This wastewater master plan update will project the system flows and needs for the year 2010 -2020. Allocation: This wastewater master plan will cover the planning period from the year 2010 through the year 2020 but is expected to be updated after 10 years. Therefore, nine years of the ten year capital study is for the study period, and the balance is for the period beyond the study period. Therefore, 90% of the Master Plan is for the study period. Status: Ongoing Project Title: 2019 Wastewater Master Plan 2020 -2030 Description: Engineering Study Purpose: This wastewater master plan update will project the system flows and needs for the year 2020 -2030. Allocation: This wastewater master plan will cover the planning period from the year 2020 through the year 2030 but is expected to be updated after 10 years. Therefore, none of the ten year capital study is for the study period, and the balance is for 10 C7 the period beyond the study period. Therefore, 0% of the Master Plan is for the study period. Status: Planning Project Title: Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2009 -2019 Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 100% of the cost for the 2009 study can be allocated to the planning period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: On -going Project Title: Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2012 -2022 Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 70% of the cost for the 2012 study can be allocated to the planning period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Planning Project Title: Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2015 -2025 Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 40% of the cost for the 2015 study can be allocated to the planning period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Planning 11 N 101 Project Title: Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2018 -2028 12 Description: An engineering study to revise the impact fee ordinance and recalculate the maximum allowable fee which can be assessed. Purpose: By statute the impact fee report and ordinance must be updated every five years. Allocation: 10% of the cost for the 2018 study can be allocated to the planning period. The impact fee covers water and wastewater, with 50% allocated to each. Status: Planning H (W CJ Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan APPENDIX B: Wastewater Lift Station Capabilities REQDAK Fort Worth Water Department • • •' CONSULTING Capital Improvements Plan o, , ,, „ •. o • „,y Wastewater Facilities Fott_ T,�RTN F_2s FORT WORTH APPENDIX B. Fort Worth Lift Stations *• COMULTING WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS No. Name Address Capacity Configuration 1 Calmont 6200 Calmont 0.5 mgd 2 pumps 2 Castle Circle 9101 Heron Dr 1 mgd 2 pumps 3 Dosier Creek 9241 Boat Club Rd 5 mgd 3 pumps 4 Eagle Ranch 6692 Robertson Rd 1 mgd 2 pumps 5 Enchanted Bay 5600 Vesta Farley Rd 1 mgd 2 pumps 6 Glen Mills 9091 Saginaw Blvd 1 mgd 2 pumps 7 Greenway 1000 Nixon Rd 2 mgd 2 pumps 8 Hulen Bend 6401 Oakmont Blvd 1 mgd 2 pumps 9 Intel #1 3001 Eagle Pkwy 3 mgd 4 pumps 10 Intel #2 3200 Keller - Haslet Rd 4 mgd 4 pumps 11 Jenkin Heights 4525 Norris Valley Dr 2 mgd 2 pumps 12 Lake Worth 6201 Cahoba Dr 2 mgd 2 pumps 13 Lake Country #11 9401 Boat Club Rd 1 mgd 2 pumps 14 Lake Country #12 9341 Mountain Lake 0.5 mgd 2 pumps 15 Lake Country #13 9331 Dosier Cove W 0.5 mgd 2 pumps 16 Lake Country #2 7903 Skylake Dr 0.5 mgd 2 pumps 17 Lake Country #3 8831 Random Rd 0.5 mgd 2 pumps 18 Lake Country #4 9033 Crosswind Dr 1 mgd 2 pumps FORT WORTH WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS No. Name 19 Lake Country #5 20 Live Oak 21 Meadow Lakes 22 Mosier Valley 23 Richardson Slough 24 Rosemary Ridge 25 Sendera Ranch 26 Spring Ranch 27 Summer Creek 28 Sunset Cove 29 Western Hills 30 Winn Dixie APPENDIX B. Fort Worth Lift Stations (-'()NS() 1-T1 NG Address 8420 Crosswind Dr 731 Verna Trl 3120 House Anderson Rd 7999 Old Granbury Rd 10499 Old Crowley Cleburne Rd 1092 Avondale Haslet Rd 9898 W Cleburne Rd 8505 Lake Country Dr 2717 Glenrock 200 SW Loop 820 Capacity 0.5 mgd 2 mgd 2 mgd 1 mgd 3 mgd 1.5 mgd 2 mgd 1 mgd 1.5 mgd 2 mgd 0.5 mgd 0.5 mgd Configuration 2 pumps 2 pumps 2 pumps 2 pumps 3 pumps 2 pumps 2 pumps 2 pumps 2 pumps 3 pumps 2 pumps 2 pumps i 0 FW L-A Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan APPENDIX C: CIP for 2009 -2019 REMAK Fort Worth Water Department • •' CONSULTINC� Capital Improvements Plan „y,,,,, „ —L-1. —9 Wastewater Facilities FAR-- TrORTH F -32 Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to Allocated to 20032019 2009 -2019 Allocated to Allocated to Project Total Project Completion Added Existing 2009 Existing 2009 Impact Fees Impact Fees Impact Fees Impact Fees ID Project Title Phase Cost ($1 Start Date Date Capacity Capacity ( %) Capacity (5) ( %) ($) after 2019 ( %) after 2019 ($) Source TREATMENT FACILITIES VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak V -1A Flows) Eng $ 1,391,000 2009 2010 131 73.8% $1,026,558 26.2% $364,442 0.0% $0 I VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak V -1A Flows) CM $ 696,000 2010 2012 131 73.8% $513,648 26.2% $182,352 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Peak Flow Diversion Structure (Equalization Basin for Peak V -1A Flows) Const $ 13,905,000 2010 2012 131 73.8% $10,261,890 26.2% $3,643,110 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 mgd V -113 expansion) Eng $ 721,000 2009 2010 25 86.9% $626,628 13.1% $94,372 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 mgd V -18 expansion) CM $ 505,000 2010 2012 25 86.9% $438,901 13.1% $66,099 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Junction Box Rehabilitation (oversized to 191 mgd V -1B expansion) Const $ 7,210,000 2010 2012 25 86.9% $6,266,283 13.1% $943,717 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements V -1C (oversized to 191 mgd expansion) Eng $ 258,000 2009 2009 25 86.9% $224,230 13.1% $33,770 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements V -1C (oversized to 191 mgd expansion) CM $ 181,000 2009 2010 25 86.9% $157,309 13.1% $23,691 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Primary Area Odor & Corrosion Control Improvements (oversized to 191 mgd expansion) Const $ 2,575,000 2009 2010 25 86.9% $2,237,958 13.1% $337,042 0.0% $0 1 Westside Satellite WWTP +Land Land $ 1,545,000 2009 2009 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,545,000 0.0% $0 2 Westside Satellite W WTP Phase 1 Eng $ 2,060,000 2010 2011 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $2,060,000 0.0% $0 2 kV2 Westside Satellite W WTP Phase 1 CM $ 1,442,000 2011 2013 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,442,000 0.0% $0 2 Westside Satellite W WTP Phase 1 Const $ 20,600,000 2011 2013 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $20,600,000 0.0% $0 2 VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGO (Phase 2A - secondary systems expansion - aeration, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) Eng $ 3,090,000 2011 2012 25 86.9-Al $2,685,550 13.1% $404,450 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGD (Phase 2A - secondary systems V -2A expansion - aerat ion, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) CM $ 1,545,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $1,342,775 1 13.1% $202,225 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Expansion to 191 MGD (Phase 2A - secondary systems V -2A expansion - aeration, clarifier, filter, hydraulics, pumping) Const $ 30,900,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $26,855,497 13.1% $4,044,503 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 2B of V -213 191 mgd expansion) Eng $ 1,442,000 2011 2012 25 86.9% $1,253,257 13.1% $188,743 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 28 of V -2B 191 mgd expansion) CM $ 721,000 2012 2014 1 25 86.9%1 $626,628 13+1%1 $94,372 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Replace Primary Clarifiers 1 -12 & Grit System (Phase 2B of V -2B 191 mgd expansion) Const $ 20,600,000 2012 2014 25 86.9% $17,903,665 13.1% $2,696,335 0.0% $0 1 Village Creek Gravity Belt Thickeners to Replace DAFs (Phase 2C of 191 V -2C Expansion) Eng $ 155,000 2012 2012 32 83.8% $129,949 16.2% $25,051 0.0% $0 1 Creek Gravity Belt Thickners to Replace DAFS (Phase 2C of 191 V -2C IVillage Expansion) CM $ 87,000 2012 2013 32 83.8% $72,939 16.2% $14,061 0.0% $0 1 Village Creek Gravity Belt Thickners to Replace DAFS (Phase 2C of 191 V -2C Expansion) Const $ 1,236,000 2012 2013 32 83.8% $1,036,242 16.2% $199,758 0.0% $0 1 V -3 VCW WTP South Influent Pump Station Eng $ 206,000 2012 2013 187 66.4% $136,716 33.6% $69,284 0.0% $0 1 V -3 VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station CM $ 145,000 2013 2014 187 66.4% $96,232 33.6% $48,768 0.0% $0 1 V -3 VCWWTP South Influent Pump Station Const $ 2,060,000 2013 2014 187 66.4% $1,367,158 33.6% $692,842 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside V4A Satellite 7 mgd W WTP Solids) Eng $ 721,000 2012 2014 32 818% $604,475 16.2% $116,525 0.0% $0 1 VCW WTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside V -4A Satellite 7 mgd W WTP Solids) CM $ 433,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $363,020 16.2% $69,980 0.0% $0 1 VCWWTP Biosolids Dewatering for Land Application (additional dewatering facilities for VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside V -4A Satellite 7 mgd W WTP Solids) Const $ 6,180,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $5,181,212 16.2% $998,788 0.0% $0 1 Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion +Westside Satellite 7 mgd W WTP V-4B Solids) Eng $ 5,150,000 2012 2013 32 83.8% $4,317,677 16.2% $832,323 0.0% $0 3 ID Project Title Project Phase Total Project Cost ($) Start Date Completion Date Added Capacity Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ( %) Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity 151 Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ( %) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ISI Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ( %) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ($) Source V-413 Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) CM $ 2,575,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $2,158,838 16.2% $416,162 0.0% $0 3 V-48 Anaerobic Digester System Expansion & Optimization, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Const $ 51,500,000 2014 2016 32 83.8% $43,176,768 16.2% $8,323,232 0.0% $0 3 V-4C Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion+ Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) Eng $ 721,000 2010 2011 32 83.8% $604,475 16.2% $116,525 0.0% $0 3 V -4C Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 mgd WWTP Solids) CM $ 505,000 2014 2015 32 83.8%1 $423,384 16.2% $81,616 0.0% $0 3 V-4C Anaerobic Digested Solids Dewatering Sidestream Treatment, 166 mgd to 198 mgd (VCWWTP 191 mgd Expansion + Westside Satellite 7 Jmgc1 WWTP Solids) Const $ 7,210,000 2014 2015 32 83.8% $6,044,747 16.2%1 $1,165,253 0.011 $0 3 V -5 VCW WTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion - Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 mgd) Eng $ 1,545,000 2015 2016 25 86.9% $1,342,775 13.1% $202,225 0.0% $0 1 V -S VCWWTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion - Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 mgd) CM $ 773,000 2016 2018 25 86.9% $671,822 13.1% $101,178 0.0% $0 1 V -5 VCWWTP Disinfection Alternative & Expansion - Regulatory Change from Gas Chlorine (191 mgd) Const $ 15,450,000 2016 2018 25 86.9%1 $13,427,749 13.1% $2,022,251 0.0% $0 1 W -2 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 Eng $ 1,000,000 1 2015 2016 1 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,000,000 0.0% $0 2 W -2 JWestside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 CM $ 700,0001 2016 2018 1 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $700,000 0.0% $0 2 W -2 Westside Satellite WWTP Phase 2 Const $ 10,000,000 2016 2018 7 0.0% $0 100.0% $10,000,000 0.0% $0 2 TOTAL WASTEWATER TREATEMENT PLANTS $251,596,828 $153,576,956 $66,162,044 $0 UFT STATIONS LS -1A Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main A Eng $206,000 2009 2010 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $65,508 68.2% $140,492 4 LS -1A Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main A Const $1,545,000 2010 2011 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $491,310 68.2% $1,053,690 4 LS -1B Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main 8 Eng $206,000 2010 2011 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $65,508 68.2% $140,492 4 LS48 Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main B Const $1,442,000 2011 2012 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $458,556 68.2% $983,444 4 LS -1C Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main C Eng $206,000 2011 2012 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $65,508 68.2% $140,492 4 LS-1C Bonds Ranch Lift Station Force Main and Gravity Main C Const $1,803,000 2012 2013 6 0.0% $0 31.8% $573,354 ISE;; $1,229,646 4 LS-10 Fossil Creek Lift Station & 60" Force Main Eng $3,377,000 2010 2011 187 66.4% $2,241,210 31.8% $1,073,886 1.8% $61,904 5 LS-11) Fossil Creek Lift Station & 60" Force Main Const $33,766,000 2011 2012 187 66.4% $22,409,450 31.8% $10,737,588 1.8% $618,962 S LS-2 WOODVALE LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM Const $2,266,000 2015 2016 1 0.0% $0 0.011 $0 31.8% $720,588 1 LS-3A Lake Worth North Lift Station and Force Main Eng $155,000 2012 2013 1.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $49,290 68.2% $105,710 4 LS-3A Lake Worth North Lift Station and Force Main Const $1,545,000 2013 2014 1.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $491,310 68.2% $1,053,690 4 LS -3B Love Circle / Wert Lake Worth Lift Station and Force Main Eng $155,000 2012 2013 0.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $49,290 68.2% $105,710 4 LS -38 Love Circle / West Lake Worth Lift Station and Force Main Const $1,545,000 2013 2014 0.5 0.0% $0 31.8% $491,310 68.2% $1,053,690 4 LS -3C Meadow Lakes Lift Station Expansion (Remove existing pumps, upsize) Eng $103,000 2014 2014 2 0.0% $0 31.8% $32,754 68.2% $70,246 4 LS -3C Meadow Lakes Lift Station Expansion (Remove existing pumps, upsize) Const $1,030,000 2014 2015 2 0.0% $0 31.8% $327,540 68.2% $702,460 4 LS-4 Live Oak Creek Regional Lift Station and Force Main Eng $258,000 2013 2014 4.5 25.0% $64,500 23.9% $61,662 51.1% $131,838 4 LS-4 Live Oak Creek Regional Lift Station and Force Main Const $2,575,000 2014 2015 4.5 25.0% $643,750 23.9% $615,425 51.1% $1,315,825 4 LS-5 Lake Benbrook South Regional Lift Station and Force Main Eng $515,000 2014 2015 5 0.0% $0 31.8% $163,770 68.2% $351,230 4 LS -5 Lake Renbrook South Regional Lift Station and Force Main Const $5,150,000 2015 2016 5 0.0% $0 31.8% $1,637,700 68.2% $3,512,300 4 LS -6 Walsh Ranch Lift Station and Force Main Eng $155,000 2015 2016 3 0.0% $0 31.8% $49,290 68.2% $105,710 4 LS -6 Walsh Ranch Lift Station and Force Main Const $1,288,000 2016 2017 3 0.0% $0 31.8% $409,S841 68.2%j $878,416 4 TOTAL UFTSTATIONS $61,784,095 $25,358,910 $17,910,143 I $14,476,535 ENGINEERING STUDIES - Wastewater Facilities Plan 2000 -2020 $ 1,741,430 1998 45.0% $783,644 50.0% $870,715 5.0% $87,072 1999 Wastewater Master Plan 2000 -2010 $ 1,631,509 1999 90.0% $1,468,358 10.0% $163,151 0.0% $0 Conveyance Study 2000 -2020 $ 75,000 2003 31.4% $23,550 68.61/ $51,450 060% $0 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2004 -2014 $ 75,143 2004 50.0% $37,572 50.0% $37,572 0.0% $0 2009 Wastewater Master Plan 2010 -2020 $1,681,000 2007 2009 0.0% $0 90.0% $1,512,900 10.0% $168,100 2019 Wastewater Master Plan 2020 -2030 $1,681,000 2017 2019 0.0% $0 0.0% $0 100.0% $1,681,000 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2009 -2019 $134,000 2008 2009 0.D% $0 100.0% $134,000 0.0% $0 :C A ID Project Title Project Phase Total Project Cost ($) Start Date Completion Date Added Capacity Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ( %) Allocated to Existing 2009 Capacity ($) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ( %) Allocated to 2009 -2019 Impact Fees ($) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ( %) Allocated to Impact Fees after 2019 ($) Source Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2012 -2022 $134,000 2011 2012 0.0% $0 70.0% $93,800 30.0% $40,200 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2015 -2025 $134,000 2014 2015 0.0% $0 40.0% $53,600 60.0% $80,400 Wastewater Impact Fee Study 2018 -2028 $134,000 2017 2018 0.0% $0 10.0% $13,400 90.0% $120,600 TOTAL ENGINEERING STUDIES $ 7,421,082 $2,313,123 $2,930,587 $2,177,372 TOTAL WASTEWATER CIP $ 320,802,005 $181,248,989 $87,002,775 $16,653,906 Information Source 1 - 5 yr CIP Plan & Budget 2 - 1998 Wastewater Master Plan 3 - Fort Worth Water Department Staff 4 - Wastewater CIP Semi Annual Update 2008 5 - Wastewater Conveyance & Treatment Facilities Plan Ew U Exhibit F Wastewater Facilities Capital Improvements Plan APPENDIX D: Water Meters . *. PXL#jW Fort Worth Water Department . •0 CUL1 -jN(; Capital Improvements Plan . a Wastewater Facilities Full I NvoI(7II F -36 Ell C7 City of Fort Worth Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 172,557 172,557 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 21,144 52,860 1 -1/2" 5.00 1,711 8,555 2" 8.00 528 4,224 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 195,940 238,196 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 7,487 7,487 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 3,169 7,923 1 -1/2" 5.00 2,154 10,770 2" 8.00 5,715 45,720 3" 21.75 741 16,117 4" 37.50 344 12,900 6" 80.00 273 21,840 8" 140.00 110 15,400 10" 1 210.00 1 30 6,300 Total 1 20,023 144,457 oCustomer: Benbrook Water Authority @!L,q O Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 5/8" 1.00 5,140 51140 3/4" 1.50 43 65 1" 2.50 2,429 6,073 1 -1/2" 5.00 10 50 2" 8.00 85 680 3" 21.75 27 587 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 7,734 12,595 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 5/8" 1.00 147 147 3/4" 1.50 7 11 1" 2.50 151 378 1 -1/2" 5.00 42 210 2" 8.00 94 752 3" 21.75 12 261 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - Total 454 1,797 OCustomer: Bethesda Water Supply Corp. Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 9,310 9,310 3/4" 1.50 23 35 1" 2.50 51 128 1 -1/2" 5.00 7 35 2" 8.00 16 128 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 9,408 9,674 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 - 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total - © Customer: Blue Mound F A Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 125 313 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 125 313 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 1 3 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 6 48 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 7 1 51 0 Customer: Burleson EO v Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 10,700 10,700 3/4" 1.50 3 5 1" 2.50 29 73 1 -1/2" 5.00 6 30 2" 8.00 3 24 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 10,741 10,832 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 405 405 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 165 413 1 -1/2" 5.00 106 530 2" 8.00 180 1,440 3" 21.75 60 1,305 4" 37.50 2 75 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 919 1 4,248 1-1 Customer: Crowley Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 4,777 7,166 1" 2.50 25 63 1 -1/2" 5.00 2 10 2" 8.00 3 24 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 4,807 7,263 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 152 228 1" 2.50 47 118 1 -1/2" 5.00 14 70 2" 8.00 46 368 3" 21.75 10 218 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 Total 270 1,040 © Customer: Everman Ew Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 1,730 1,730 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 1,730 1,730 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 131 131 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 7 18 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 1 8 3" 21.75 1 22 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - Total 140 179 OCustomer: Haltom City 0 Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 11,250 16,875 1" 2.50 37 93 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 1 8 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - I - Total 1 11,288 16,976 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 1,255 1,883 1" 2.50 335 838 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 311 2,488 3" 21.75 75 1,631 4" 37.50 14 525 6" 80.00 3 240 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 1,993 1 7,605 0 Customer: Hurst Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 5/8" 1.00 10,966 10,966 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 116 290 1 -1/2" 5.00 53 265 2" 8.00 12 96 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 5" 57.50 6 345 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - Total 11,153 11,962 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 5/8" 1.00 575 575 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 270 675 1 -1/2" 5.00 229 1,145 2" 8.00 265 2,120 2 -1/2" 15.00 2 30 3" 21.75 25 544 4" 37.50 15 563 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 1,382 5,732 1.1 ® Customer: Kennedale • c Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 1,966 2,949 1" 2.50 184 460 1 -1/2" 5.00 7 35 2" 8.00 5 40 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - 6" 80.00 - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 2,162 3,484 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 209 314 1" 2.50 32 80 1 -1/2" 5.00 9 45 2" 8.00 28 224 3" 21.75 6 131 4" 37.50 3 113 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 10" 210.00 - Total 287 907 0 Customer: Lake Worth is Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - 3/4" 1.50 1,993 2,990 1" 2.50 139 348 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 1 8 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 2,133 3,346 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 142 213 1" 2.50 116 290 1 -1/2" 5.00 39 195 2" 8.00 109 872 3" 21.75 5 109 4" 37.50 4 150 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - Total 415 1,829 O Customer: North Richland Hills C Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 17,932 17,932 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 953 2,383 1 -1/2" 5.00 10 50 2" 8.00 15 120 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 18,910 20,485 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 626 626 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 324 810 1 -1/2" 5.00 76 380 2" 8.00 710 5,680 3" 21.75 26 566 4" 37.50 17 638 6" 80.00 4 320 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 1,783 9,020 � �_I C Customer: Richland Hills Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 2,780 2,780 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 73 183 1 -1/2" 5.00 17 85 2" 8.00 11 88 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 2,881 3,136 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 171 171 3/4" 1.50 - - i" 2.50 76 190 1 -1/2" 5.00 25 125 2" 8.00 35 280 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 Total 308 804 to Customer: River Oaks Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 2,564 21564 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 46 115 1 -1/2" 5.00 7 35 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 2,617 2,714 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 100 100 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 28 70 1 -1/2" 5.00 19 95 2" 8.00 18 144 3" 21.75 3 65 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 170 592 L•' I' Customer: Saginaw 17!j I ] Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 6,456 9,684 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 1 - I - Total 1 6,456 9,684 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 87 131 1" 2.50 102 255 1 -1/2" 5.00 9 45 2" 8.00 95 760 3" 21.75 9 196 4" 37.50 5 188 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 308 1,655 E Customer: Sansom Park Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 1,442 21163 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Tota 1 1,442 2,163 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" 1.50 120 180 1" 2.50 - - 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - - 3" 21.75 - - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - I - Total 120 1 180 0 Customer: Watauga Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 7,875 11,813 1" 2.50 1 3 1 -1/2" 5.00 - - 2" 8.00 - 3" 21.75 - 4" 37.50 - - 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 7,876 11,816 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" 1.00 - - 3/4" x 3/4" 1.50 95 143 1" 2.50 92 230 1 -1/2" 5.00 5 25 2" 8.00 105 840 3" 21.75 2 44 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 1 140 10" 1 210.00 1 - - Total 1 302 1,540 a 0 City: White Settlement is Residential Meters Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 4,795 4,795 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 22 55 1 -1/2" 5.00 10 50 2" 8.00 21 168 3" 21.75 5 109 4" 37.50 1 38 6" 80.00 - - 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - Total 4,854 5,215 Non - Residential Equivalency Quantity Equivalent Meter Size Factors Meters Meters 5/8" x 3/4" 1.00 159 159 3/4" 1.50 - - 1" 2.50 31 78 1 -1/2" 5.00 25 125 2" 8.00 57 456 3" 21.75 6 131 4" 37.50 2 75 6" 80.00 1 80 8" 140.00 - - 10" 210.00 - - Total 281 1,104 CITY OF CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Planning and Development Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Eric Wilhite Agenda No. D.1 Subject: FP 2010 -01 Consideration of a Request from David Thorne to Approve a Final Plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Thorne Addition (located in the 6500 Block of Crane Road - 1.43 acres.) Case Summary: The property owner, David Thorne, represented by Ernest Hedgcoth, is requesting approval of a final plat for a 1.428 acre tract. This action will plat the remaining lot of two lots that were preliminary platted last year. The preliminary plat for both lots and final plat for Lot 1 were approved by City Council in November of 2009. Platting the property will bring it into conformance with subdivision regulations prior to constructing a single family residence. Current Zoning: The parcel that comprises Lots 1 and 2 was rezoned to R -1 -S in September of 2009, two months before the preliminary and final plat of Lot 1 were approved. Thoroughfare Plan: The lot has frontage on Crane Road which is designated as a C2U Undivided Minor Collector with 60 feet of right -of -way. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan depicts low density residential uses for this area. This plat is consistent with the plan. Staff Review / Rough Proportionality Determination: The Development Review Committee has reviewed the plat and has determined that it complies with both the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. There are no public improvements necessary for this development. Staff Recommendation: Approval of final plat request FP 2010 -01. Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: Approval by a 6 -0 vote. Review Schedule: Application: 1/29/10 Final Hearing: 3/8/10 Staff Review: 1 week Applicant Revision Time: 1 week Scheduling Time: 3 weeks Total Review Time: 5 weeks L7 --j �i l , T,� io LOCATION MAP ft4r- -T� L- r j =iT T ; L AERIAL ee, top' 0 y i hr q 0 AL . . . . . . . . ...... &artin Drive io Eo FINAL PLAT EXHIBIT N::. D'NA106T71. ple 4-1—f 1- -1 C'wnly, i<w. xml lhu rwlhu.t un.v d O\ - lhlx irart, 43,9q.M7 S.E P� LAOPAC LOT VECTN1Tv NM WN30670' 61.203.66 S.E_ I kiE..NCL w lb WCnelb live of said Tbomc Admoa mid tlu south 1 a of Ihu m L Noth 47'53' ' . i +• ln34BS lero a; •t MT .422 Ar SRWE" CAV4Nat,GH, _ _ ^ uaa and frond tar M< wTUmweY cmner of Ulu tlrct and We rnrrtltwsrt taw.ra of a+iJ Thoma AxhFlwm aay.J;ryt bi,Nruncm Ne. D?W3tM707 pot ROVxb rranl IANX K. MAR11% S.tVL• (;aWly,'•: ap]e; y Plr5 TR ME 2F I to CTR1. VENT rP041CUPF.. 111E:-NCE with to cast lia o[ do C'ora,rez Addition rccoNcd is (.abtM'1 A, Slidc 1357, Plal R4earde Tsrrpm C-tay. T— aid Ibe wm, lain ofths t—t. Nonb 00'03'WE1 09.94' leer b • ' am rod(a,ad m roc uanb 1me of a—at 1111 amv albsd(' —Sh mw far fib, Q.. leal.aas ewW� .+: he- (:mweprs r » ctb Wnliam a of Lm 1. 010a I Cocmnw Uldilion m the City of Nodb Vidd d Ildta'lartaat (—y, I'— w ranaled in Cab:— A. Siak 4359, Mal Rm dl l—(: Mly.'I -m• aid lM - -- - -- �i syreraps +. ara r<W C.sa nnrthwcstomacrofMiatrara- _ r71L)1(:L with the s hat of stud Cmmup i—1 — mo Nnnh 4m ntth my Noah -1 I cP.vx. a— r...., w..nwr f 30 D4'Evw 3 &337 feat la d. Pmm of Hcpmag covtanvrlg 1.428 i., +rau dboaL aNOW Al I. MEN IIV 1111 M FRIt5l 415: s=•+�' ._?a:•+a ..I >.+n r�•.+'w.• Thu David L- T, hamc dmr duchy artily dr be h tlIa k}yl awry af,hc rt.r.c S 'bed Gael oe pt} &.t I •am, ... __...... IaM and w l,uaby eanrty b the public For paDlk m<, the stra2o, a11cY> rilat of war and any ' rvlbuc nee *—a uo dais *1 1 y(���9' ; I .la *� d.e uw- <p.M .• aw aw fhvid L. Thvoc Dab �, c r new. ,r •d .0 1... r v wand 'I O . j5 H_L. aoaa: br l+++bT mw mmw n w „w. c rm era w Aa a• ' t ALipr6t3a Al tm•an Pll.. k —�__ -'__ —_ �' 1'Mtk� I I:T:�' 1'IRS 1639-.0' T '� usswK!L ld ctak�i ^. (.7 I — -� ------ -:7,,, ;> FINAL PLAT d 3c 30 I OLVf OF 13C($VNQeG • OF (s l 1 - - - - - - - - TEAS STP'E P 'ate a ^C7n7�1 ".9TE M LOT N BLOCK 1, z 1 � -- - -CRANE ROAD w 7xa T -E 4 .cr - 23701642:4 THORNE ADDITION O SsN ma rKV tea M AMMCA TO 11E :IT OF L•iaa.R P1C �Q1e ` "" " "` CITY OF NORTH RICHIAND HI US F [ 2f1eTXN STATE W TE1 1 uawlr 46 [• auwr 1 TARILINT COUV71'. TC716S " alw .s -spraa v tRl.aerea raresabrm lam u.vrYO- s, +tw tsrrr al � w. A nN:- -s � a.r N OWNER/DEVELOPER ERNEST HEDGCOTH P I-b nr 4- ue N4 aeax As n 1n —1 r1u 1nwv:Rww 4x�c. . o LLIW P tay;i 1 DAVID THORNS CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. .,n Ia I.eIpT p. •,R IN ,I,r<r .us :>< N,. Ip„ I IA2a KiES 1 1— W a� M SMA r 9fWii lOLaaT 69aD rM20 R -,S O �91� tk 7Qii TAM AA ,mOt. 1AAt: HILT W1S !I!@aA10: 1LNWRY N, gala cq 1 talTl a[ -nl[ "' - tm 10Af rltau tr oocos¢vr so. Wra: -rc..AMAR AT.ITT -11N _ ® I ,',n ".. Ul -Mb i D•a'NER AC <NOw A4 3 N -10N SCALE : - 3C ' I - ,. ^ RWRTS ESTATES f fC/ . -T ( 9MG1428— onuncdin he Smc efTaus plots Ruhbod Hil Tmsm Cwnry, Tmu TiK 1 LOT I I - ( 9 b.: ay pw.fT.K.MwtioS— yAb— lr..10556dvg aporrov ol'n tmelcmveyadb DavidL INS- L _ b bwngalort panrcululy described by owtes and b—W, et tbL—,: T I I ' . .+.s•trL.?v E,5L I III.C�INNIA(i alai �Kh,ron pd{t{in Ne wCltn�ht oiwpY l^rC Ofl;ran<IM,t,nwkinY lbe a11aR a"'s -s 1`MF I ID0'OYO:'EJ 12C <5'•/ ^Kt5 'DO']3't0'z f f'Dlp .. s s.Oh— worm ofa Qemoflmd —o d ra Caoca Lcc C.—.Vb by &W —WW ('T _ ,,gyp_ _ - - - r rRa�m No. D'0412Me dma fwd RmMS of T— C—Y. Txu and dw —11 oomw _ _ _yf• , — o of wd prtmixe[: THENCE wvh raid war ril{m MwaY Ira of tlx cnpt Imr; of the vsr4. Svmh M °:745'Easl 163.97 � * * T I ICN to a;' iMh von YQ w.md fm the raRt6east cane of Nlack I, lql ,. Throne Addubn, an t I • addition w Iba Ciy of Nunb Richland HIRs, Tmrsnl couslY, TaAea, a:cordklR m th• p1e1 recorded EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2010 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMSSION MEETING FP2010 -01 Consideration of a Request from David Thorne to Approve a Final Plat of Lot 2, Block 1, Thorne Addition (located in the 6500 Blk of Crane Road -1.43 acres.) Eric Wilhite said that this is a final plat of a piece of property that was seen not long ago that was preliminary platted and then a portion was final platted. They originally just came through and preliminary platted both lots and then just recently final platted Lot 1. Now they are requesting to final plat Lot 2 which is a 1.43 acre tract located on Crane Road. They are going to final plat both of these pieces of property into the Thorne Addition. It meets the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and exceeds what the minimum lot for their current zoning is and staff recommends approval. Steven Cooper seconded by Mark Haynes motioned to approve FP 2010 -01. The motion carried unanimously (6 -0). CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Finance Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: CAmarante /LKoonce Agenda No. F.1 Subject: PU 2010 -006 Award RFB 10 -020 to BBC Construction Group, Inc. in the Amount of $73,240.00 for the Replacement Construction of the Public Works Storage Facility. The Public Works Dry Material Storage Facility was destroyed by a fire on April 19, 2009. A replacement structure needs to be constructed to store materials used by Public Works on a daily basis. Staff proposes to utilize the existing concrete slab for the replacement steel structure with masonry brick veneer walls. The entire structure will be approximately 30 feet wide by 80 feet long. The enclosed portion of the building will be approximately 30 feet wide by 60 feet long. Funding for this project will be provided from the money collected from the insurance claim. Tailored Adjustment Services, Inc. valued the damaged structure and contents at $86,455.47. The City has received $32,881.97 from the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool Joint Self Insurance Fund. A remaining balance of $28,573.50 will be paid to the City upon completion of the replacement structure. Including the $25,000 deductible, the total project budget is $86,455.47. A new CIP project will be created in order to manage the funds associated with the project. As a result, it will be necessary to revise the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 Capital Improvement Program Budget. Staff believes there will be sufficient savings from other projects to offset this revision and not exceed total adopted expenditures. In the event that this is not the case, staff will seek a formal budget amendment at a future date. Notice of the Intent to Bid was advertised in local newspapers, as required by State Statute, and posted on the City website. Twelve (12) vendors were contacted and requested to participate in this process. Bid specifications were viewed on the City website by twenty three (23) additional vendors. The Bid due date was extended for one week to try to generate more responses. Five (5) competitive bids were received from the following vendors: BBC Axis Bellew Tyson Building Component Vendor Name Construction Construction Construction Fort Worth TX Construction Walachia, TX Fort Worth, TX NRH, TX Fort Worth TX Description Total Total Total Total Total Base Bid - 30'x60' Enclosed building w/ 3 overhead doors, 2 $67,590.00 $78,100.00 $78,505.00 $79,657.00 $90,250.00 personnel doors, and 8 bollards Add - Structural steel, footings, roof panels, and all necessary $5,650.00 $9,500.00 $7,475.00 $7,571.00 $8,100.00 materials to extend roof 20' Total Base + Add $73,240.00 $87,600.00 $85,980.00 $87,228.00 $98,350.00 The scope of this project is to provide all labor, materials, and equipment necessary for the construction of a replacement dry material storage facility. Public Works plans to continue to use the facility as a dry material storage structure. Material types to be stored include dry bedding material for buried utility lines, topsoil, street sub -grade material, and manufactured sand that is used for sanding streets during inclement weather conditions. These types of materials are used daily in the operations of Public Works. During wet weather conditions the department needs to have dry material to continue their work. Without the ability to use dry materials, delays can occur at the construction sites causing an inconvenience to residents and motorists. The project scope and materials have been reviewed with BBC Construction Group, Inc. They have agreed to perform the project as described in the specification documents for $73,240.00. Reference checks resulted in favorable comments from companies that have used BBC Construction Group, Inc. in the past. Recommendation: To award RFB 10 -020 to BBC Construction Group, Inc. in the Amount of $73,240.00 for the Replacement Construction of the Public Works Storage Facility. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: Finance Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: CAmarante /LKoonce Agenda No. F.2 Subject: PU 2010 -007 Award RFB 10 -021 to Airwise Heat & A/C in the amount of $55,900 for HVAC Replacement. In the FY 2009/2010 approved CIP budget, Council allocated $112,000 for the HVAC Replacement (2010) Project. The original scope of this project consisted of replacing six (6) existing HVAC units, (1) at the Municipal Court server room and (5) at the Fire Administration building. All units are 10 years old or older. Replacing these units reduces energy consumption, maintenance expense, as well as improves indoor air quality. In December of 2009, one HVAC roof top unit was replaced at the Fire Administration Building due to a failure in the heat exchanger. This unit was one of the (6) HVAC units scheduled for replacement this fiscal year and the unit failure occurred prior to the completion of the complete CIP bid package. As such, the $6,260 replacement cost was funded through this CIP project and the subsequent bid package was reduced by one HVAC unit. The bid package consisted of a Base Bid including (5) HVAC units and two alternate bid items (Alternate 1 and Alternate 2). Alternate 1 replaces the current tube radiant heaters at the Fleet Services Equipment Shop. These two units were originally scheduled for replacement in FY 2008/2009. Due to the age of these units, they have experienced discoloration in the radiant tubes resulting in lost efficiency and reliability. Work orders have increased recently due to equipment failure. Alternate 2 allows for replacement of one HVAC split system at the Starnes Road Park Maintenance Facility. Staff recommends replacement of this unit due to its age and inefficiency. This unit will be upgraded from electric heat to a heat pump system which will assist the City in meeting the extended mandate to reduce energy consumption. Notice of the Intent to Bid was advertised in local newspapers, as required by State Statute, and posted on the City Website. Forty three (43) vendors were contacted and requested to participate. Nineteen (19) vendors viewed the bid specification online. Seven (7) competitive bids were received from the following vendors: Vendor Name Comfort Airwise A.C.I.S Decker Mecahl nic Quest HVAC Pennington Tech Heat & A/C Metal Technical Description Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Roof Top Unit 10 -01 $15,930.00 $18,000.00 $18,526.00 $20,971.43 $15,481.00 $15,525.00 $11,871.00 Roof Top Unit 10 -03 $13,860.00 $12,000.00 $16,301.00 $18,468.57 $13,729.00 $13,563.00 $10,119.00 Roof Top Unit 14 -01 $10,553.00 $8,000.00 $12,993.00 $14,752.86 $6,543.00 $5,514.00 $7,518.00 Roof Top Unit 14 -02 $4,392.00 $4,000.00 $7,030.00 $8,202.86 $11,128.00 $10,650.00 $2,933.00 Roof Top Unit 16 -03 $5,095.00 $4,480.00 $6,727.00 $7,350.00 $6,306.00 $5,182.00 $2,696.00 Base Bid Total $49,830.00 $46,480.00 $61,577.00 $69,745.72 $53,187.00 $50,434.00 $35,137.00 Add - 2 Tube radiant $13,860.00 $9,650.00 $20,489.00 $21,285.71 $9,825.00 $15,573.00 $6,500.00 heaters Add -1 2.5 ton Heat $5,960.00 $4,250.00 $8,630.00 $6,795.71 $5,025.00 $5,374.00 $2,528.00 pump split system Installation Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in Included in $23,935.45 pricing pricing pricing pricing pricing pricing Grand Total $69,650.00 $60,380.00 r$90,696.00 $97,827.14 $68,037.00 $71,381.00 :$:6:8,:100::4:5J Staff recommends we delay the replacement of the HVAC roof top unit, number 16 -03, at the Recreation Center /Municipal Court Facility. This unit serves the Municipal Court Server Room and, in addition to the uncertain future of this facility, is in serviceable condition. The Server Room is equipped with notification system that will alarm Information Services personnel in the event of HVAC failure, which will provide adequate warning to implement alternative cooling measures. In summary, previous expenditures for (1) HVAC unit totaled $6,260. (1) HVAC unit for the Municipal Court Server Room is recommended for removal from the scope of the project. Recommended expenditures for (4) HVAC units and (2) Alternates total $55,900. Total previous and recommended CIP expenditures for this project will be $62,160. The Facilities and Construction Department has reviewed the project scope and materials with Keith Hufsey of Airwise Heat & A/C. Mr. Hufsey is comfortable with the bid submitted to the City of North Richland Hills and has agreed to perform the scope of work as described in the bid specification. The documents submitted by Airwise Heat & A/C are complete. The documents have been reviewed and meet the requirements according to the bid specifications. Airwise Heat & A/C has a favorable project history with the City of North Richland Hills. Recommendation: PU 2010 -007 Award RFB 10 -021 to Airwise Heat & A/C in the amount of $55,900 for HVAC Replacement. CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Council John H. Lewis Agenda No. H.1 Subject: Announcements - Councilman Lewis Announcements The NRH Public Library will host a free workshop for grant writers on Wednesday, March 10th. Registration is not required. Individuals are invited to bring a sack lunch to this workshop, which begins at noon. The library is located at 9015 Grand Avenue. Please call 817 - 427 -6814 for more information. NRH2O continues to search for team members who want a fun job this summer. Applicants must be at least 15 years old. For a list of upcoming job fairs and more information, please visit nrh2o.com /jobs. Volunteers from AARP are continuing to assist residents with their tax returns each Monday through April 12th at the NRH Public Library. To make an appointment or get more information, please call the Library at 817 -427 -6814. Kudos Korner Every Council Meeting, we spotlight our employees for the great things they do. Detective Wayne Goodman, Police Department A card was received from a counselor at Birdville High School thanking Detective Goodman for his presentation to sophomores about staying safe while using the internet and other technology. The presentation was informative and interesting and the students benefited greatly, the counselor said. CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS Department: City Secretary Council Meeting Date: 3 -8 -2010 Presented by: Agenda No. H.2 Subject: Adjournment