HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondences Impact Area 99-01 April 6, 2008(Ted Mayo ·~ Steeplechase Master Plan .. •
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Diane Broadhurs~~
Ted Mayo
3/26/01 10:47 AM
Steeplechase Master Plan
tW)J\
Ted -Deborah Grace said I should talk to you about a Master Plan for Steeplechase. When the second
phase of Steeplechase was built, an 1-S" sewer line was added that runs out to.wards 2818 and crosses
over into a " me. The only sewer flowing into that line is Axis Ct., Antelope Ln., Proghorn Ln ., and the
newest addition of Steeplechase, which indicates that large sewer line was built with a plan in mind . We
need to get a copy of that master plan or some information as soon as possible, so could you give me a
call? Thanks.
Diane Broadhurst
GIS Technician
Public Utilities Department
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Tel: (979) 764-3656
Fax: (979) 764-3452
e-mail: dbroadhu@ci.college-station.tx.us
CC: Dale Schepers
Page 1 I
I Ted Mayo -Steeplechase
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Diane Broadhurst
Ted Mayo
3/27/01 9:45AM
Steeplechase
Ted -I need to know about the Master Plan can you give me a call? Thanks.
Diane Broadhurst
GIS Technician
Public Utilities Department
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Tel: (979) 764-3656
Fax: (979) 764-3452
e-mail: dbroadhu@ci.college-station.tx.us
CC: Dale Schepers
Page 11
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Kathy Hubbard
Ted Mayo
4/26/00 4:51 PM
New Funds for Impact Fees
Ted, I have set up the following funds for the four impa.:;t fee service areas:
Fund 240 Harley Davidson Area 99-01
Fund 250 Service Area 92-01
Fund 251 Spring Creek Area 97-01
Fund 252 Alum Creek Area 97-028
,("Carol will need to get with the Building staff to get the new account codes set up correctly in the software.
In addition, I will be moving the funds collected in Service Area 92-01 from Fund 239 to Fund 250. I have
attached a spreadsheet which shows revenue collections in the prior years and interest earned on those
funds. I will wait for your OK before writing up the journal entry.Jo get the monies moved.
If there is anything else that I can do, please let me know.
Kathy
CC: Carol Arnold; Jeff Kersten
---
Calculation of Impact Fee Revenue Plus Interest for Service Area 92-01
For the Seven Years Ended September 30, 1999
Fiscal Current Year Prior Year
Year Revenue Revenue + Interest Interest
FY1993 1,673.98 123.87
FY1994 5,539.31 1,797.85 330.14
FY1995 4,717.51 7,667.31 269.37
FY1996 35 ,647.74 12,654.19 2,128.17
FY1997 11,563.65 50,430.10 686.88
FY1998 40,148.76 62,680.63 2,332.64
FY1999 26,970.41 105,162.03 1,513 .04 --I ~ t;. ·:
Total
1,797.85
7,667.31
12,654.1 9
50,430.10
62,680.63
105,1 62.03
133,645.48
Note: Interest was calculated at the average rate of return for the fiscal year. Interest rates
used are as follows:
FY1993 7.40%
FY1994 5.96%
FY1995 5.71%
FY1996 5.97%
FY1997 5.94%
FY1998 5.81%
FY1999 5.61%
J ted Mayo -lmpad Fee Status
-.1·/r·,11 '<:.:::..1v
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Bob Mosley
Ted Mayo
2/22/00 11 :22AM
Impact Fee Status
97-028 Alum Creek
Project Number SS-9808
Completed 11 /12/99
Total expenditure from AS400= $214553.67 (Young Contractors $183,838.87, MDG Engineeri ng
$22372.62)
97-01 Spring Creek Phase I
Project Number SS-9809
Completed 9/20/99
Total expenditure from AS400= $671,245.69 (Texcon Contractors $587,889.50)
99-01 Harley Water Line Phase I
Project Number WT-9905
Completed 11 /11 /99
Total expenditure from AS400= $148,316.78 (Young Contractors $125,654, Mike Hester Engineering
$15,760)
,,,.-j f'• I
',.._,. (· ~r r. .... t_ d._
Page~
Estimate for Sanitary Sewer Service Area 92-01 (March 96 )
PHASE 1 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Estimated Cost $315,000.00
Actual Cost 364,434.00
Difference ($49,434.00)
PHASE 2 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount
8" Sewer Pipe (0-10') L.F. 775.00 $30.00 $23,2 50.00
12" Sewer Pipe (0-10') L.F. 1,050.00 35.00 36 ,750.00
4' Diameter Manhole (0-10') EA. 3.00 2,000.00 6,000.00
4' Diameter Drop Manhole EA. 2.00 3,000.00 6,000.00
Connect to Existing Manhole EA. 1.00 1,900.00 1,900.00
Dismantle Lift Station L.S . 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00
Crushed Stone C.Y. 25.00 25.00 625.00
Trench Safety L.F. 1,825.00 1.75 3,193.75
Erosion Control L.S. 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 2,030.00 0.40 812.00
Seeding S.Y. 2,030.00 0.10 203.00
Construction Cost Total 87,733.75
Contingency (20% of Construction) 17,546.75
Engineering (20% of Construction) 17,546.75
Land Cost S.F. 28,750.00 0.50 14,375.00
Phase 2 Estimated Total 137,202.25
ESTIMATED COST: $138,000.00
PHASE 3 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Amount
8" Sewer Pipe (0-10') L.F. 1,900.00 $30.00 $57,000.00
4' Diameter Manhole (0-10') EA. 5.00 2,000.00 10,000.00
Connect to Existing Manhole EA. 1.00 1,900.00 1,900.00
Crushed Stone C.Y. 25.00 25.00 625.00
Trench Safety L.F. 1,900.00 1.75 3,325.00
Bore Under Graham Road L.F. 70.00 250.00 17 ,500.00
Erosion Control L.S. 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
Traffic Control L.S. 1.00 2,000.00 2,000.00
Furnish & Place Top Soil (4") S.Y. 2,115.00 0.40 846.00
Seed ing S.Y. 2,115.00 0.10 211.50
Construction Cost Total 95,407.50
Contingency (20% of Construction) 19,081.50
Engineering (20% of Construction) 19,081 .50
Land Cost S.F. 36,000.00 0.50 18,00 0.00
Phase 3 Estimated Total 151,570.50
ESTIMATED COST: $152,000.00
Prepared March 14, 1996 by S. Homeyer
·-:0
'-.l "\
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
harles Cryan
Ted Mayo
7/1 .'·,..,
age
~
The interest for the first 10 years on the URBs was 44.4%. Principal $6,000,000, interest for 1 O years
$2,664,000.
JV .. :_.~ J' ..
~ ~.. . .,
. !?: .' ~,,
g /' _,-7 / /,/!) '\ z /, .· i
::>-i ....... "'!•) ::_:> I .,_, _ _. •""" .,. ....... ..'. ·.·· .•. .
·-(} r -; -~; O I / ...... _ .. .. ...~
.... ,/
L-/. _. )C1 ./ ) .. -
l /7 1 .i
. ' .:...·
..... i ...
...., !/
3 ~ .~!/I -
I r--• .., • J (I ...... , ;;_"1 :< .._.? _.,
I '(/
lJ..1v) } .:J :J.. :.-
' ! . ..../ .. !" -.) ,~ ··1-~~ '-·~·\.,.("\ .. :.
".' --. ,. .
·' .. /
-,;/ \
~ ........ :· ·~-~
J I ; ~ .c
~·
452 U( 0 '
--------·-·-·--·· ?
.. -.--'
[Brett Mccully -lmp.f--'""ict-::F='"e"""e-s--------------------------------=p:!"'a_g_e_1f
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Brett McCully
Kelly Templin
9/6/02 12: 15PM
Impact Fees
Good Friday Morning to you ,
A snake I have been trying to avoid has insisted in popping up with uncanny timing, .. Impact Fees.
Yesterday Harvey gave me a copy of an 8/19 letter from the State AG's office to the Mayor reminding us
that we need to file a specific certification with them by the end of our fiscal year. The statement simply
has to say that we are in compliance with LGC Chapter 395.
Despite the files be ing a disaster, upon digging I found that Impact Fee 99-01 was implemented in April
02 . The revised 395 requires updates no more than 5 years apart. So it is my opinion that we are in
compliance with 395 and can send the certification. I will prepare the certification and get back with
Harvey (who worked on this issue last year with Ted)
BUT, we are in violation of our own ordinance for not doing a full update of 99-01 as well as not doing a
6-month status report to P&Z on all 4 areas since August/September last year.
This means that A) the 5 year update period can be adopted or interpreted in to our ordinance and I just
have to do an update to P&Z on all four areas, or B) I need to prepare a full update of 99-01 and bring it
for the full public hearing process.
If possible, I would like to show you the code sections and see if we have room to wiggle or not. We may
then have to go to Harvey.
Brett
J"1/ACT r~
~ _ U/,_/L //~zg/g
-~-------
\
---+----"';:---------
-----
\ \ "
\ \
\~----·
-------
--------------.1
--------
-~-------
r:
I
I
ii
I!
11
11
I I (
I
I'
I
l
I
. I
I
I
I
l,
I
l
i'; I
I
1
•• '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I j
I
I '
I j
.j I
I
1
l ',\ . ' '
·l . . ' -. '·
••
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON SMALL-AREA IMPACT FEES
Graham (92-01)
1.
2.
3.
4.
1 5.
I have estimated full buildout population at the same persons per acre as
current persons per acre.
For the Acres-to-LUE conversions, Institutional, Office, and Retail were
counted same as Commercial/Industrial; Residential Attached counted same
as Residential Medium Density since those land uses were not shown in the
existing ordinance tables.
The Ordinances shows 57 acres of low density residential in 2002, while the
current land use file shows zero. I retained the 57 acres, and reduced current
medium-density residential acres accordingly.
As we discussed, am using land use acreages in
ExistingLandUse_lmpFee_Areas.xls for current land uses and
ComprehensivePlan_lmpFee_Areas.xls for ultimate Buildout land uses. In
some cases there are more acres of land use currently for a given category
than there are projected at full buildout. In those cases, I used existing land
use instead of future land use. For Residential Low Density, 242.2 acres are
projected with no medium density. There are currently 57 acres of low
density and 117.5 acres of medium density (see #3 above). If I use 242.2
acres of low density residential, I will exceed the total gross acres of 505
acres. Thus, I used a lower amount (160.9 acres) for low density and did not
increase the medium density housing. The 160.9 acres is the remaining
undeveloped acreage and will cause total acres to add up to 505.
There are many more LUE 's anticipated in this area than was shown in the
2002 calculation, thus the fee has gone down substantially (that is, the same
facilities are serving more LUE's, thus the unit cost has gone down).
Spring Creek (97-01)
1. It appears that this area will be built out in ten years, according to the
population projections.
Alum Creek (97-028)
1. It appears that this area will be built out in ten years, according to the
population projections.
Harley Waterline (99-01)
1. There were more residential acres in the 1999 ordinance than you are
showing currently in ExistinglandUse_lmpFee_Areas.xls, so I used the
ordinance values for residential acres (only 13) and population (12) since you
showed no population.
2. You showed no population growth for Harley. However, you will eventually
have population growth because you show an increase in residential
acreage. Since I had no forecast for growth in this area, I showed it reaching
buildout in 10 years, which will totally allocate all the costs. If it doesn't build
out, it will not affect the costs or fee.
3. For full buildout population, I counted 2.48 persons per household, 2 houses
per acre for low density residential.
_ _ ,."-.~~nO) 7 all~~~·
•
cfutp Jllcwi ~ 1~ /:5> c1tvk-J 14plci~ l:/-
JY\u,v ~ ~JJJLJ iJ.fte crua;t~
• Only when the two opti~~s immediately above are infeasible should fee
proceeds be used for debt service for future customers.
• The City maintain separate dedicated accounts for each area , and retain
accrued interest in each account, as stipulated in Local Government Code
Chapter 395.
• Date of final plat 1.e. a e o ee assessment
• Ordinance number (date) by which property is assessed an impact fee
• Date of tap purchase and building permit issuance ,\
•Size of water meter (~be ~~ t\...' l ~~k.Qo,,.--1
'_,;
• Number of water and wastewater LUE's for which an impact fee is assessed
• Amount of impact fees paid for each impact fee
• Date of payment of impact fees
• Special conditions or exceptions, if any
• Sufficient locational information, consistent with county deed records, to
enable the city to establish ownership of property for which fees have been
paid
0 ~e.£>5
To proceed with this 5-year fee update, the Advisory Committee needs to act on the
following:
1) Notify and recommend to City Council in writing that the fees be updated in
accordance with "Water and Wastewater Impact Fees" Report by Rimrock
Consulting Co.
Should the Advisory act to perform the preceding item, the following actions are needed
complete this process: ·
2) Staff prepares notices for the public hearing.
3) City Council conducts the public hearing and acts on the fee update by ordinance
amendment.
4) Mayor sends compliance letter to the Attorney General.
Attachment:
'Water and Wastewater Impact Fees" Report by Rimrock Consulting Co.
(provided in packet)
The above memo was presented by Alan Gibbs to the Advisory Committee at the
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting on February 21, 2008. Minutes from the
meeting reflect, "Commissioner Davis moved to recommend that the report be
forwarded to City Council and stated that the Commission was supportive of the
information that was contained in the report. Commissioner Dictson seconded the
motion, motion passed (7-0)."
John Nichols, Advisory Committee Chair
11 ...
! I . '
, I q ;f ~ 0' q'l-o ( Cf7-~B 19.r-o/ j
I
$'1',~ l f f~ 1 , e. -Ap, D~ 1-32.o~ C(g _37 X''J,JP ~o. tl"
f~ ~ ~'8 )lb.07 ) o, Y. J7 ~-4J-7'-l.9(
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
1101 Texas Avenue South, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 21, 2008
TO:
FROM:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Alan Gibbs, P.E., City Engineer
SUBJECT: 5-Year Update Report-Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-028, and 99-01
The City of College Station Ordinance Chapter 15, Impact Fees, designates the
Planning and Zoning Commission as the Advisory Committee for review, advisement,
and monitoring of proposed and existing impact fees. More specifically, the advisory
committee is established to:
1. Advise and assist the City 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 semi-annual reports with respect to the progress of the Capital
Improvements Plan.
5. Advise the City Council of the need to update or revise the Land Use
Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees. ·
Currently the City of College Station has five impact fees in existence. As noted in the
subject, this Update Report addresses four of the five impact fees. The remaining
impact fee 03-02 is addressed under separate, subsequent memorandum cover as a
Semi-Annual Report.
The following is a current status report for each of the four impact fees:
92-01--Sanitarv Sewer (Graham Road) ( 508 ac.) $232.04/LUE
This fee was initially implemented in 1992@ $152.18 /LUE and was revised in
1996 to $289.77/LUE after approval of updated Land use Assumptions and Capital
Improvements Plan ( CIP) and revised again to the current $232.04/LUE in 2000.
The CIP consists of three phases originally estimated at $543,000 which have all
been completed at a combined cost of $473,518.72 5 995 ea"·st·t t rdate total
$309,628.59.
97-01--Sanitary Sewer ( Spring Creek ) ( 2000 ac.) $349.55/LUE
•
This fee was implemented in December 1997. The CIP consists of Phase I (east of
Hwy 6) and Phase II (west of Hwy 6 ). Phase I estimated to cost $1,000,000 was
completed in 1999 at a cost of $631,214.59. Phase II is estimated to cost
$1,350,000 which was completed at a cost of $813,752.00. The total
was $1,444,966.59. To date $472,764.66 impac ·
area.
97-028--Sanitary Sewer ( Alum Creek ) ( 608 ac. ) $243.38/LUE
This fee was implemented in December 1997. The CIP consisted of running a 15"
sanitary sewer line from the south end of the College Station Business Park
westerly along Alum Creek to the east ROW of Highway 6. The project was
estimated to cost $390,000 and was completed in 1999 at a cost of $214,270.87. At
the end of 2007 $18,250.89 in impact n this area.
99-01--Water ( Harley)( 158 ac. ) $550.00/LUE
This fee was implemented in April 1999. The CIP consists of running an 18" water
line south along the east ROW of Highway 6 approximately 4800'. The line was
estimated to cost $312,000 (the impact fee is based on an 8" line@ $165,000 ). A
2400' section of the 18" line was constructed in 1999 from the south end at a total
cost of $342,977.73. To date $7,789.15 impact~a.'ii.bse~-ed in this
area.
Attached is the 'Water and Wastewater Impact Fees" report prepared by our consultant
Rimrock Consulting Company. This report contains the technical data which is the
basis for the 2005-2015 fee calculation: land use and planning data, unit usage
statistics and capital improvements plan.
Actual fee calculation is shown in Section 3.0 of the report, specifically note Tables 3-2A
through 6-30. Current fees and proposed maximum fee calcµlated in the subject report
are provided below.
Current Fee*
Proposed Fee*
* per Living Unit Equivalent (L E)
Section 4.0 contains recommendations from the consultant to the Advisory Committee
as follows:
• Use of fee revenues to avoid future bonding, whenever possible
• As a second-best option, fee proceeds should be used for early retirement of
the growth-related capacity in the CIP.
Memorandum
To: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
From: Ted Mayo, Assistant City Engineer
Date: 08/31/01
Re: Progress Report--Impact Fees 92-01, 97-01, 97-02B, 99-01
The City of College Station Ordinance Chapter 15, Impact Fees, designates the
Planning and Zoning Commission as the advisory committee for review,
advisement, and monitoring of proposed and existing impact fees. More
specifically, the advisory committee is established to:
1. Advise and assist the City 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.
5. Advise the City Council of the need to update or revise the Land Use
Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, and Impact Fees.
Currently the City of College Station has four impact fees in existence. The
following is a status report for each of the four impact fees:
92-01--Sanitarv Sewer (Graham Road) ( 508 ac.) $232.04/LUE
This fee was initially implemented in 1992 @ $152.18 /LUE and was revised in
1996 to $289.77/LUE after approval of updated Land use Assumptions and Capital
Improvements Plan ( CIP ). The fee was revised again in September 2000 to the
current $232.04. The CIP consisted of three phases (Figure 8) which have all been
completed at a combined cost of $452,070.
Fees collected through July 2001 total $194,850. In addition $30,502 was collected
prior to 1995 for connection fees for industrial properties along Graham Road
related to annexation agreements. Figure 2 shows existing land uses as of March
2000.In the last year 59 acres have developed. This includes Edelweiss Phase 7-B
(15 ac.), Covenant Presbyterian Church (10 ac.) and Sun Meadows Phase I (36 ac.).
At the present there are 391 acres developed in this area leaving 117 acres
undeveloped.
97-01--Sanitary Sewer (Spring Creek) ( 2000 ac.) $349.55/LUE
'
·/ •
August 31, 2001
This fee was implemented in December 1997. The Capital Improvements Plan is
shown by Figure 4 and the existing land use in 1997 is shown by Figure 2. The CIP
consists of Phase I (east of Hwy 6) and Phase II (west of Hwy 6 ). Phase I
estimated to cost $1,000,000 was completed in 1999 at a cost of $671,246. Phase II
was estimated to cost $1 ,350,000 and be constructed in 2000. At the present the line
is basically complete with a projected cost of $925,099. As of the end of July 2001
$89,834 of impact fees have been assessed in this area. This includes Woodland
Hills Phases I&II consisting of 111 single-family lots (50.8 acres) and Castlegate
Section 1, Phase 1; Section 2, Phase 1; Section 3, Phase 1; and Section 4, Phase 1
totaling 149 lots (70.8 acres). In 1997 there were 137 developed acres; during the
last 4 years an additional 122 acres have developed. It was projected in 1997 that for
the 10 year period 1997-2007 an additional 818acres would develop.
97-02B--Sanitarv Sewer ( Alum Creek ) ( 608 ac. ) $243.38/LUE
This fee was implemented in December 1997. The Capital Improvements Plan is
shown by figure 4 and the existing land use in 1997 is shown by Figure 2. The CIP
consisted of running a 15" sanitary sewer line from the south end of the College
Station Business Park westerly along Alum Creek to the east ROW of Highway 6.
The project was estimated to cost $390,000 and was completed in 1999 at a cost of
$214,554. At the end of July 2001 $4,867 in impact fees have been collected in this
area (South Hampton Phase I consisting of 20 single family lots). In 1997 there
were 95 developed acres; in the last four years 11.5 acres have developed. It was
projected in 1997 that during the 10 year period 1997-2007 an additional 83 acres
would develop.
99-01--Water ( 158 ac.) $550/LUE
This fee was implemented in April 1999. The capital Improvements Plan and
existing land use in 1999 are shown in Figure 2. The CIP consists of running an 18"
water line south along the east ROW of Highway 6 approximately 4800'. The line
was estimated to cost $390,000 (the impact fee is based on an 8" line@ $165,000 ).
A 2400' section of the 18" line was constructed in 1999 from the south end at a cost
of $148,317. As of July 2001 no impact fees have been collected in this area.
During the last Legislative Session several amendments to Chapter 395 of The Local
Government Code which governs impact fees were made (SB 243). An annual
certification of compliance is required with a penalty for noncompliance. Reduction
in fees may be required equivalent to ad valorem taxes and service revenue
generated by new service units during the program period or an alternate credit
equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital
improvements plan may be required. Other changes are related to streamlining the
process. Copies of the revised codified document will be made available when they
are complete.
2
,.
.. _J
c
(.
~-.>-
{I 1 ~.I .... ;
J
(-,. { / ,~ ( ·~.~·-
,,., ' C. ''1 I __l--·UL ·•q
J ·"""~'-<..(, .' ' ' ' .
'
,-:?,: ' .· ;J_,<-( 1/:.."'. ,:/ (/('... (/ l> , '/ / ;',,:/ c.' u !J
. , L/ .'
·7 __ . }(' ',· /~, ----7 L·-
./--.' ·--
c c
/f-
/
/' 1--J-.L_ (/I/_; , -... : ....
/
J./f, ,
'(·/ '~,,~ L~~·':/.;.;D
" ·.;
... ' .. ~·'" '
L _,-·<..:::
(_/ '/
l-" I
·!
L . -.• -I
; ,. -~ I (~,./l I
~-~;, / _;ooj~ T
I
,:..-~.:..A~<-
~
C l.: .z .s I c!cr; ;.'-fl '()
/P., -/ 0
:.. 'z)
,_
\ . .:
($;
;P.'
(l.' r./_J f) I ' /" ') ~;7~ /:.;I;;S
'if'
'-1..-:'v -l. --~)~,-/
C<-C-·1z1
;
C:/Jo r<j I ! ,.;:-
(.) ~ : ':; (
I I ._.,,.J ;_,
~·731 'f) / ""' .. _, _,,CJ
I /8 ~.5?~ z
{,,,/ -.. · :;..
-... (,--(".'! -.-eve;'-
1cc'Z f
r-1,5.J"/L
U·':i9:J /_
.i
ulsr;L
;.
L-z ~I
0
L .·
0
Cl c-oZ
i __ 0l f 2
C'\ o o-z /
c::; 002 ~
co z
( ..,(_
// I I L,;
•
,
'}.:-~'...-;-I '
4-c?::-:2_~).
.L -/ \/, /£1
Zo:J /'
/--.) r • ~
', ·1) /
z_;)u [;_,
Zou 7
Zo.'?
I
z
' :~
or'.
/_:) .
4 '--,, _ .. ~
. -,. :_)
•) / __ / <C. s
<--.:-:=.-
' -..
{ \
f",·,r..,.-~
Luc=-15
__ ?--_r:?~> ~
' ( / ._, -
.:J.:.)
-~~~ ----~ "} I , r .
.it
--~ 7 $ 7 13
/'
/
/ (:. /' 1 . : . .
~ -/.' _.,
~-~~ -:i
? ._,. !-
L-<':_-/ ' .... ~~' \·-<t-----~. I -.,,.;
,.. ,,... . ) '_)
/7 _ .... ,. _:;,>.-.) ')
/7? .:J~;?
t;' .·-; -(_)
/ 15 y _.-·2-0
~
I'._;'.', ;) . -;::-. )
?""--
/6 ~ /z o
; )
/ /:.·
I,
•
c
-------~.--· ... -··--·-
-'-3)-)_~·JP-. .
(r:;7+ 8--1 ZL/-,
"":"'J••.'"
,> I )
).
)
,.
/O.C 9 ' , . .:/
0
0
0
()
.. ;;() ~· /.y)
zS + 1~()
'.) 2)
.-::', .).}. !
_.,"._/" .·"
18010 I
I , . ,.. .
(•
r f .
.·
) ' ·~--..
c.--'
. )'.
,..
/
-i'
/ (/ ,> 0 ,·:'.·'
'r .. ) _, -.f.A. (.
-·n'r .' 10-k\. .-~
JM {?µ_.: ~
.. cE c;;..
':17 -o l
'---..
) ., .. ,
/I ' \ I ) Y t 1' " -~1= ··>J ·' Ph.L -
-;t-,z ,1-..
.7 I-, ----. .--.. ~ .. -, ' ;'
~ ,_,
Zl ~.SS) ~
ybu "J/#J~ ----__ .. ....._
S S Q'J:> j '
...,,_, ,,....-
I c~o. r;;·/1 ,/.
'-:.~ -;-~,·--_' ) ----=-4----· --~
;'-: ..... ·.-:...:;v ... : ... · /::...~ • .;C,,.
~5-7Cfo z..
1 1Jurc / ,:_JA 7v '' -
•
, /·' ,, I . <jf:J -:J .. •.·
/, "-, ...
• ·~ ·>...·.
I : ,
.'j "'' .
To: Jim Callaway, Director
Development Services
From: Teddy D. Mayo, P.E.
Asst. City Engineer
Date: September 11 , 2001
Subject: Compliance with Senate Bill 243-Impact Fees
During the last session of the Texas Legislature several changes were made to the regulations governing
impact fees (Local Government Code Chapter 395) by way of Senate Bill 243. Two changes which must be
addressed immediately are as follows:
• The Capital Improvements Plan must contain a plan for awarding a credit for the portion of
ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the
program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of debt,
that are included in the capital improvements plan: or in the alternative, a credit equal to 50
percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan
• A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification
verifying compliance with Chapter 395 to the attorney general each year not later than the
last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year.
4 ·L-,-rc.J \='~ q ?--<.::> \ s~ 9 70 ,' ~<-:., 0,1 0 l I~ -c; ----,,.---------
~ ~ 2. 4-3. 3 cg //4v,n-ivY>-'1 AJ_i-t/,._;:;_ 3s1, 3~ 3 L/-q. C-.::;
'if <
@..,,,,,,._.,.,,.--, (';/> {,,~~ o/1 ' /, 717~ c; z_ 3 /C?/,7t; 7 ' ~qt,&z~ (,,.,._/~ .{~r-Jf)
(ltJ'-1,-~ .,,,
() /. /, ~ /l..J.~'""'· o///j..() j, ~ 0 0. 78 '1 7 l ~c;,C µ..,, 'fa/ vmo /J~
373t.J 38 c;
)t) t-v-r" ~ve-> dTe1 0::N~
'" ;t?wo-~ . 0 .002
M417 a{; jf c~d f~uc-02.0 1f' v .,
# 3 <{1,s-> z43 ,3r; c...O ,~ ' r · 3c;1. 13 ?' £ J• h"1o-I' ;:i , "'"" ' . -:..-
ef }{)7, f.;1.,·-z...~r:-: .? :~
/J f I~)!-_.,_.__ z3 z.,0Lf
.._,t.,)YY~ -n ?/ L __ _5
C-oJY!f?/,~ ?7
•
qCf .o I ~
.s:; -'
55ZJ,&c.)
q i
/6t;;~o
0
3 o u
0
~I
~Q .l7 u
at:•
S'?o.ov ·-. ....:. ----------
Y--7
..,,
Zooo :-_;:,;;' · f. ·-;1-3. 1.:.rl
Z~I
Zeo/("h:<yJ~)
Z oD'L
Zoo 5
Zoo (p
4'
7; 70:;CJ:.>'.)
7) .::,;:: .. I".,.">•)
7 B '.J -• I ·)), __ ") -
P. . -;.,, 3 ;J, ~ '-//~/'.,~-{ \ _/.,_,.. . '
:;-ro ~ :z 2 '!:
5"L/.'7,d7. -
,, .·"l . i
-fl;'..,·;_-•')
~!,
n ·, i _.·
;!?-J: .-
Jo 9..0 °:.
9 ...., Q-·1c 1,1 0-/
,")
r1i ·I,{.; V,, >-· i,
r!.~)?t'../.~~; < .. ~,.-
0
/,~}·;
._ . ...-. , ,
' /; Zo !/-i
I 139 --1 /• I -•
: -1n ./ i •D ,1(,.
92.o-' ->< ... <!-:./.-;///~~
"3; Sze:-
7>"8.t:'o~'
"' ,} -l. '(,;J
//3.~.J
, "; f,, 1.-')
/ / / / ._ -,
~D7.1 -~ 7
. ' _, .
--o ...... ,
·1 ••
I J I -)_J
. ,. 1·-1 !L~
....
55 t::?£e"'".-:: ;:v· :,,-?? r•.,_,' .... -, ,..-:. '
.C;.'/. f."]>,;, , ; . ,,.
dg,¢,;'o
, .
_r i ·',
3 9,Zo 9-
3S, zo 2-
To: Jim Callaway, Director
Development Services
From: Teddy D. Mayo, P.E.
Asst. City Engineer
Date: September 11 , 200 l
Subject: Compliance with Senate Bill 243-Impact Fees
During the last session of the Texas Legislature several changes were made to the regulations governing
impact fees (Local Government Code Chapter 395) by way of Senate Bill 243. Two changes which must be
addressed very soon are as follows:
• The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) must contain a plan for awarding a credit for the
portion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during
the program period that is used for the payment of improvements, including the payment of
debt, that are included in the capital improvements plan: or in the alternative, a credit equal to
50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan.
• A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification
verifying compliance with Chapter 395 to the attorney general each year not later than the
last day of the political subdivision's fiscal year. The certification must be signed by the
presiding officer of the governing body of the political subdivision.
The City of College Station currently has four impact fees: "92-0 l" (Sanitary Sewer), "97-0 l" (Sanitary
Sewer), "97-02B" (Sanitary Sewer), and "99-01" (Water). The maximum amount that can be charged for
each fee is calculated by dividing the total cost (including financing costs) for capital improvements
required during the ten year program period by the number of new living units added during the program
period then multiplying by the ratio of tofiif new living units created during the total period (20 years) to
the total number of living units served.
With the assistance of Kathy Hubbard in accounting and Bruce Albright in utility customer service I have
completed an analysis to determine the current status of each of the four impact fees as to compliance with
Senate Bill 243 . Please note that no ad valorem taxes are used for payment of sanitary sewer bond debt.
The following table summarizes my findings:
Impact Fee 92-01 97-01 97-02B 99-01
Max. Allowable $351.33 $349.55 $243.3 8 $550.00
CIP Cost (including $656,829 $1,353,523 $101 ,759 $165,600
financing)(! 'st. l 0 yr.)
Impact Fee Utility Revenue $136 $0 $0.78 $0
Applied to Payment of CIP
New LUE's (l'st. 10 yr.) 688 3734 389 300
Mandated CrediULUE $0.20 $0 $0.002 $0
Rev. Max. Allowable $351.13 $349.55 $243.38 $550.00
•
Current Fee $232.04 $349.55 $243.38 $550.00
In Compliance YES YES YES YES
The following describes the methodology of computing the Impact Fee Utility Revenue applied to the
payment of CIP cost:
Example-Impact Fee "92-01"
'95 Bond issue in the amount of $5 .7 million
Amount for sanitary sewer projects = 20% or 1.14 million
% of 1.14 million applicable to "92-01 11~ $4 73 ,518 (Total CIP cost) I $1 , 140,000 x
100 = 41.5367%
Annual debt service for '95 Bond:
FYOO $582,975
FYO 1 $564,225
Annual sewer operating revenues:
FYOO $7,178,147
FYOl $7,505,000 (Budgeted)
Annual sewer debt service for '95 Bond
$116,595 (20%)
$112,845 II II
% of sewer rate allocated to debt service: ( f
FYOO $ 116,595/ $7,178,147 = 0.016243
FYOl $ 112,845/ $7,505 ,000 = 0.015036
FYOO Sanitary Sewer Revenues Collected From New Service Units = $1 ,327
FYOO Sanitary Sewer Revenues Applied To CIP Annual Debt Payment =$1 ,327 x
0.016243 = $21.55
FYO 1 Sanitary Sewer Revenues Collected From New Service Units as of 8/31101 =
$7585
FYO 1 Sanitary Sewer Revenues Applied To CIP Annual Debt Payment = $7585 x
0.015036 = $114.05
The above shows that the City is currently in compliance with Senate Bill 243. Looking ahead we will need
to re-evaluate each of the four impact fees to project future sanitary sewer revenues that will be generated
by new service units during the program period and will be applied to the CIP debt payments and reduce
the fees as required by Senate Bill 243.
•
i ... '::.1.~.":l ..... 'J.~.1.1~.'.!,'~ .... ~ .... ~.~.: .... J .. 1 .. 1 .. !.P!'!.~~ ... .r::: .. ~-~e .......... .., .·····.•·.··. •.···.·w·.· .... · ..... •.w.·.w.w .. w ..................................... w .. w.ww .. · ... w.·.w.w.·.w.·w ..... · ...................................................................................................... w.w.w.w.w.· ..... ·.·.·.w.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.t:~.9..~ . ...J..J
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Kathy Hubbard
VMORGAN@CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL
3/16/99 9:21AM
Re : Impact Fees
Veronica, here are the account numbers for the new impact fee areas:
1. Spring Creek Sewer Line (Area 97-01) 239-0000-322-10-02
2. Alum Creek Sewer Line (Area 97-02b) 239-0000-322-10-03
3. Harley-Davidson Water Line (Area 99-01) 238-0000-322-10-04
CC: Carol Arnold, Lisa Hankins
>
I I !
I
I I
! *' I f P feYl 0vJ V1 fA-iP I ~I rVW
I* I F A,~ LDW(¥. i< ~ " f /f"'1 {.,cWt12.
I . I Blf5t:)SAA""'
I ~ lJ,.., _, J"\ , v v ~ A__., In (f rvew c 1t6"tf t')Z_ I lv cr-cv -n~-o~ f V'-nl'~
I I
I
I
I
11 Ii I
I
Carol Cotter -impact fee area populations
From:
To:
Date:
Lindsay Boyer
carol Cotter
7 /27 /2005 1: 12 PM
Subject: impact fee area populations
Current:
Steeplechase-Wellborn: 390
Graham: 3,046
Harley: 0
Spring Creek: 2,504
Alum Creek: 43
Estimated:
Steeplechase-Wellborn: 732 -853
Graham: 3,286 -3,526
Harley: 0
Spring Creek: 7,751 -10,667
Alum Creek: 405 -595
Page 1 of 1
I gave you the high and low for each because these are based on acres that are not platted and their
comprehensive plan designation (and a little guess work as to what would build and what wouldn't). The Comp
Plan gives a range of DU/acre for each land use designation, hence the range. Midpoint probably wouldn't be a
bad estimate if you need an exact number. Hope this helps-
Lindsay
file ://C: \Documents%20and%20Settings\ccotter\Local %20Settings\ Temp \XPGrp Wise\4 2E7... 3/2/2006
Impact Fee Projects
Bond Data
Project
SS1014 -Graham Road Extension
SS9808 -Alum Creek Sewerline
SS9809 -Spring Creek Sewer Ph I
SS9902 -Craeger/Pebble Hills II
WT9905 -Harley Waterline
Utility Revenue Bond
Amount Issued
Principal Left -Original Bond
Principal Left -Refunding Bond 2003
Principal Left -Refunding Bond 2005A
Total Principal Left
Issue
Bond Issue Amount
Principal t~~O
Left
1993 $250,000.00
1998 $396 ,000.00
1998 $720,000.00
2000 $580,000.00
$95,5'58
$297,496
$540,901
$476,774
1993
$5,850,000
$0
$2,236,047
$0
$2,236,047
Not associated with a bond issue
1998 2000
$2,700,000 $10,500,000
$705,000 $3,885,000
$0 $0
$1 ,323,381 $4,746,260
$2,028,381 $8,631,260