02/01/2016-CC-Agenda Packet-Work SessionTEXAS
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
WORKSESSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2016
6:00 PM
502 ELM STREET
1. Call Meeting to Order.
2. Presentation by Joe Iliff, Development Services Director, on Architectural Standards.
3. Presentation by Joe Iliff, Development Services Director, on Roadway Impact Fees.
4. Adjourn.
I, the undersigned authority, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted on the
bulletin board, at the City Hall of the City of Sanger, Texas, a place convenient and readily
accessible to the general public at all times, and said notice was posted on the following date
and time: at 3 'ac P_.m. and shall remain
posted until nfeeting is adjourned.
Tami Taber, City Secretary
City of Sanger, Texas
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 (940) 458-7930 for further information.
CITY OF SANGER
COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TYPE ® Regular ❑ Special ❑ Consent Reviewed by Finance
❑ Yes
Z
Not Applicable
❑ Workshop ❑ Executive ❑ Public Hearing Reviewed by Legal
❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable
Council Meeting Date: Submitted By:
February 1, 2016 Joseph D. Iliff, AICP
City Manager Reviewed/Approval Initials A Date
ACTION REQUESTED: ❑ORDINANCE ❑ RESOLUTION # ❑ APPROVAL
❑ CHANGE ORDER ❑ AGREEMENT ❑ APPROVAL OF BID ❑ AWARD OF CONTRACT
❑ CONSENSUS ® OTHER PRESENTATION BY STAFF
AGENDA CAPTION
Report from Director of Development Services on Architectural Standards
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
®N/A ❑GRANT FUNDS []OPERATING EXPENSE ❑REVENUE ❑CIP ❑BUDGETED ❑NON -BUDGETED
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF ITEM
The City adopted architectural standards for new residential and commercial buildings more than 15 years
ago. While the standards have been amended some in recent years, the core of the ordinances still remain
in effect. For both commercial and residential buildings, there is a list of approved exterior materials. The
use of a non -listed material requires the approval of the City Council.
The commercial standards apply to buildings in a B-1 or B-2 zone, or within 250 feet of Interstate 35. The
exterior material standard for residential building applies everywhere outside the Central Core District
(CCD). The City amended the residential standards to create a special architectural district in the oldest
part of the City to encourage new residential buildings to better match the existing neighborhood
character. For new residential buildings not in the CCD, 100 percent of the first floor must be of a listed
material, and 50% of all other floors.
In the past few years, Council has approved several alternate designs, or the use of alternate materials, on
both commercial and residential structures. This posits the question of whether the standards should be
revised to approve these designs and uses by right, eliminating the need for Council to approve their use
each time.
STAFF OPTIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting direction from the Council on whether to schedule time at future meetings and
worksessions to consider revisions to or perhaps the replacement of the architectural standards.
List of Supporting Documents/Exhibits Attached:
Prior Action/Review by Council, Boards, Commissions or Other
• Sanger Architectural Standards
Agencies:
None
City of Sanger Architectural Standards
Commercial Buildings
ARTICLE 3.1700 EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION OF
BUILDINGS Article 3.1701 Types of Exterior Construction
Restricted
(a) This article establishes restrictions on the exterior construction elements of both new
construction and additions to buildings in zoning districts B-1, B-2, B-3 and within all zoning districts
where any portion of a proposed biding is within 250 feet of the IH-35 Right-of-way and all specific
uses which specify that the requirements of this article be met.
(b) The exterior facade of any new building meeting the criteria above shall be constructed of
materials from the following list: stone, cast stone, stucco, brick, limestone, granite, or native stone
with the exception of windows and doors.
(c) A maximum of ten (10) percent of the building facade may be comprised of "split face"
concrete block.
(d) The City Council may approve an alternative to use a different material or design if they
find that the material or design meets or exceeds the intent of this article after conducting a public
hearing. Notice of the hearing must be published in a local newspaper at least fifteen (15) days prior,
and notices mailed to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet at least ten (10) days prior, to
the public hearing.
(e) For buildings within two hundred and fifty (250) feet of the IH-35 Right-of-way that are
50,000 square feet or larger, and are on tracts ten (10) acres or larger, and zoned 11 or 12, exterior
walls may be constructed of smooth face concrete or block provided that one or more of the materials
listed in (b) above is used as an accent on a minimum of 25% of any wall facing a street, thoroughfare
or highway except for a dead end street only providing access to industrially zoned property.
(Originally adopted 2001, amended in 2009)
Residential Buildings
ARTICLE 3.2100 EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS
(a) This article establishes the exterior facade requirements for single-family residences,
duplexes and multi -family units in the City of Sanger.
(b) All exterior facades for the first story of a new single-family residence or duplex in any
zoning district, except where specifically exempted except within the Central Core District, shall be
constructed of a minimum of one hundred (100) percent masonry construction, including and limited
to: brick, stone, granite, marble, cast stone or stucco. All other floors shall be constructed of a
minimum of fifty (5) percent masonry.
(c) All exterior facades for the first story of a new apartment building or multi -family dwelling
in any zoning district shall be constructed of a minimum of one hundred (100) percent masonry
construction including brick, stone, cast stone, granite, marble or stucco. All floors shall be constructed
of a minimum of fifty (50) percent masonry.
(d) Additions to, or reconstruction of, existing structures must have, at a minimum, the same
ratio of masonry to other materials as does the existing structure.
(e) Detached garages, shops and storage buildings over two hundred (200) square feet must
have, at a minimum, the same percentage of masonry facade as the first floor of the main structure.
Buildings other than the primary residence on A -Agricultural zoned property are exempt from this
requirement.
(f) The City Council may approve an alternative to use a different material or design if they find
that the material or design meets or exceeds the intent of this article after conducting a public hearing.
Notice of the hearing must be published in the local newspaper at least fifteen (15) days prior, and
notices mailed to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet at least ten (10) days prior, to the
public hearing.
(g) The Central Core District is bounded by 1 st Street on the east, and 1 Oth Street on the west,
extending from Plum Street on the north, to Austin Street on the south, including all property within
this area exclusive of the B-3 Central Business District as shown on the Official Zoning Map. Where
one of the streets defining this area is non -continuous, the district boundary follows an imaginary line
between the constructed segments.
Within the Central Core District, all new single-family residences shall either
i. Earn a score of at least 11 points based on the scoring criteria listed in
Subsection (h), or
ii. Receive a finding from the City Council that its design meets or
exceeds the criteria of Central Core District.
(h) Central Core District Scoring Criteria
i. Porch: A covered, unenclosed area projecting at least 6 feet out from
the front facade of a single-family detached dwelling or two-family
dwelling. A porch must be covered and roofed with materials similar
to the balance of the structure. A porch that covers at least 50% of the
length of front facade of the dwelling scores 4 points. A porch that
covers at least 25% but less than 50% of the length of the front facade
scores 3 points.
ii. Dormer: A dormer is a structural element of a building that protrudes
from the plane of a sloping roof surface, clad in the same material as
the exterior walls below the roof line and containing a window. A
dormer within the front facade scores 4 points.
iii. Multiple Materials: The use of a combination of masonry and non -
masonry materials in the exterior of a building facade. For example, an
exterior wall with brick veneer from the ground up to the bottom of the
windows, with wood siding up the balance of the walls to the eaves.
The materials should be visibly different from each other from the
public right-of-way, with each covering at least 20% of the facade. The
use of multiple exterior materials scores 4 points.
iv. Major Offset to Front Facade: A facade with a major offset is one with
a section at least 10 feet wide set back at least ten (10) additional feet
from the balance of the facade. A major offset scores 4 points.
V. Stone or Brick Accents: Stone or brick accents is the application of
stone or brick masonry on a non -masonry exterior to draw attention to
an architectural element. Such elements include but are not limited to
corners, doors, windows, a front deck, or the columns supporting a
front porch. The accents should equal at least 5% of the front facade.
The use of stone or brick accents scores 4 points
vi. Hidden Garage: A hidden garage is an enclosed parking space with a
garage door that does not face the same street as the front facade. A
hidden garage scores 3 points
vii. Steep Roof Pitch: A steep roof has a pitch of at least 7:12. A steep
roof pitch scores 3 points
viii. Gabled Accent: A small triangular portion of a wall between the edges
of a sloping roof along the front facade of a residence. A gabled accent
scores 3 points. A gabled dormer is considered a dormer and not a
gabled accent.
ix. Cross Gabled: A residence is cross -gabled when it has multiple gables
aligned on perpendicular axes, intersecting in a cross at the highest
point on the roof. A cross gabled roof scores 3 points
X. Multi -angled Roof: A multi -angled roof has one or more sections
equaling at least 1/3 the total roof width with a pitch at least 1:12
different than the balance of the roof. A multi -angled roof scores 3
points.
xi. Roof Accent: A roof accent is a functional element in the structural or
mechanical system of the building located above the top of the first
floor that is visibly different from the balance of the roof because of
color or material. A roof with one or more accents scores 3 points.
xii. Window grids: Window grids are permanently -attached materials that
visually divide the windows of the front fagade into smaller transparent
areas from the public right-of-way. Window grids score 3 points.
xiii. Expanded Dwelling Size: A dwelling that measures at least 120% of
the minimum dwelling size required by the Zoning Ordinance. For
example, a 1,200 sqft residence in a district with a 1,000 sgft minimum,
or a 1,440 sgft residence in a district with a 1,200 sgft minimum. An
expanded dwelling scores 2 points.
xiv. Bay Window: A bay window is a window space projecting outward
from the main walls of a building and forming a bay in a room. A front
fagade with one or more bay windows scores 2 points.
xv. Portico: A covered walkway leading to the front door of a building. A
portico must be covered and roofed with materials similar to the
balance of the structure. A portico scores 2 points.
xvi. Pent Roof or Pent Roof Returns: A pent roof is a small, self-
supporting, single -slope roof attached to building. A pent roof return is
a pent roof attached to the fagade at the bottom of a gable. The use of a
pent roof or pent roof returns scores 2 points.
xvii. Interpretations of the scoring criteria as applied to proposed new
construction shall be made by the City Manager or his designee.
Appeals of any and all interpretations shall be considered by the City
Council.
(i) The City Council may adopt a finding that a proposed building meets or exceed the criteria
of the Central Core District after conducting a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing shall be
published in the official newspaper(s) at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. Notices of the
public hearing shall be mailed to the owners of real property within two hundred (200) feet of the
subject property at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
(Originally adopted 2002, amended in 2009 and 2013)
CITY OF SANGER
l COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
AGENDA TYPE ❑ Regular ❑ Special ❑ Consent Reviewed by Finance
❑ Yes
® Not Applicable
® Workshop ❑ Executive ❑ Public Hearing Reviewed by Legal
❑ Yes
❑ Not Applicable
Council Meeting Date: Submitted By:
February 1, 2016 Joseph D. Iliff, AICP
City Manager Reviewed/Approval Initials Date--�
ACTION REQUESTED: ❑ORDINANCE ❑ RESOLUTION # ❑ APPROVAL
❑ CHANGE ORDER ❑ AGREEMENT ❑ APPROVAL OF BID ❑ AWARD OF CONTRACT
❑ CONSENSUS ® OTHER PRESENTATION BY STAFF
AGENDA CAPTION
Report from Director of Development Services on Roadway Impact Fees
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
®N/A ❑GRANT FUNDS []OPERATING EXPENSE ❑REVENUE ❑CIP [:]BUDGETED ❑NON -BUDGETED
BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF ITEM
Roadway impact fees are fees collected by cities on new development for the funding of roadway facilities
attributable to the increased traffic demanded by their construction. These function similar to the water
and wastewater fees the City collects for new water and sewer connections. Those fees go into a fund for
those activities, separate from the City's general fund, which is mostly funded by property taxes and sales
taxes. For example, the City has used the Wastewater Fund to pay for the recent improvements to the
sewage treatment plant and to replace aging lift stations, rather than the tax dollars from the general fund.
Roadway impact fees are collected in their own fund, and then can be spent on the construction of new
roads. This can be either a brand new road (dirt to road) or the expansion of an existing road (2 lanes to 4
lanes). The roads must also be a thoroughfare, and appear on the City's Thoroughfare Plan. The City
adopted a new Thoroughfare Plan in the Spring of 2015. They cannot be spent to repair or replace existing
roads, because these projects do not add more capacity to the system.
In accordance with state law, the City has prepared such a study to determine three findings: a projection
of future traffic, the projected costs of the future road projects, and the ratio between the two. This ratio
sets the maximum fee per service unit that the city can collect under state law. Most cities collect less
than the maximum impact fee calculated by their study, often significantly less. The amount collected is
determined by the City Council.
STAFF OPTIONS & RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting the Council give direction on how to proceed with the adoption of roadway impact
fees.
List of Supporting Documents/Exhibits Attached:
Prior Action/Review by Council, Boards, Commissions or Other
• 2015 Official Thoroughfare Plan
Agencies:
On September 14th, the P&Z Commission conducted a
• 2015 Roadway Impact Fee Study
public hearing (there were no public comments) and
unanimously recommended approval of the study and its
proposed findings.
r� t'
t
j
j
^ �F
x w.
1
c� � � � I ❑ll'17IH nDlnn qa '
r
as o:u'tnH w "r �
zk
v
KF __
ON NOINVIV ; NI NVI(INIY
G �
3 1S H1S S
ev
r '
✓ 1 __.z __ ,._,. __
C
3k
as zi:nv i__ ---------
v py w y N y U u u pp
N N a N a It
•� O U O O �` O O O O O 0 0" 0 0
oQ o o o 0 0 0 0 000
q oo0❑ 0 �
ti
C
to
w
O m ❑
a 14
:1 o" p a' 3
•' u.
f'
s
t 90
,s
w,
- - ..
City of Sanger, Texas
Prepared by:
EI'*---K 0
x
ARCHITECTURE • ENGINEERING • F'LP.tVtUIPiG
e 'Y .............
.....°................. 4
s KAiHYC��Y�i. Iesdl.�'!
s..... .:....................... �.,...�
Texas Registration No. F-12759 �P®fi•..�:ti:`� ��(��
1405 W. Chapman Drive o�fi.''f`'°°•••°•°"'��,���'�e j
Sanger, Texas 76266 940.458.7503
JUNE 2015
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
2
II. Introduction
3
III. Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Inputs
4
A. Land Use Assumptions
4
B. Impact Fee Service Area
6
C. Future Roadway Improvements
6
IV. Methodology for Roadway Impact Fees
7
A. Service Areas
7
B. Service Units
7
C. Cost Per Service Unit
7
D. Cost of the Improvements
8
E. Service Unit Calculation
9
V. Impact Fee Calculations
12
A. Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit
12
B. Plan For Awarding the Roadway Impact Fee Credit
12
C. Service Unit Demand Per Unit of Development
13
VI. Sample Calculations
14
VII. Conclusion
15
APPENDICES
A. Roadway Impact Fee Opinion of Probable Construction Costs
B. Roadway Impact Fee Service Units of Supply
C. Maximum Allowable Roadway Impact Fee Per Service Unit Calculations
D. Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table
List of Exhibits
Service Area Map
List of Tables
1A 2010 Demographics
1B 2011 Estimated Employment in Persons
2A Projected Population, Housing Units, and Employment in Person
2B Projected Population, Housing Units, and Employment in Square Feet
3 Roadway Improvements Plan for the Service Area
4 Level of Use for Proposed and Existing Facilities
5 Transportation Demand Factor Calculations (TDF)
6 Ten Year Growth Projections
7 Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit/Vehicle-Mile
Page 11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was performed to initiate the City of Sanger Roadway Impact Fees.
Roadway improvements necessary to serve the 10-year (2025) system needs were
evaluated based on information available from the City of Sanger 2015 Thoroughfare
Plan, the 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG).
Texas' impact fee law (Chapter 395) allows the recovery of costs for a 10-year planning
period. We reviewed the service area (Service Area) created based on the Thoroughfare
Plan by site observations along the widening of existing roadways and aerial images of
future alignments. The projected cost to construct the infrastructure needed through
2025 is $80,416,924 for the Service Area.
Based on the City's 10-year growth projections and the associated demand
(consumption) values, 3,295 additional vehicle -miles of capacity will be needed by year
2025 for the Service Area.
Based on the additional service units and the recoverable capital improvements plans,
the City may assess a maximum of $1,361.21 per service unit in the Service Area.
Page 12
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code describes the procedure Texas cities
must follow in order to create and implement impact fees. Senate Bill 243 (SB 243)
amended Chapter 395 in September 2001 to define 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 roadway improvements or facility
expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development."
The City of Sanger has determined based on their 2015 Thoroughfare Plan that assessing
impact fees for the continued expansion of the City is valuable and necessary. The City has
retained EIKON Consultant Group to provide professional transportation engineering
services for the initiation of their Roadway Impact Fees. This report includes the impact
fee calculation in accordance with Chapter 395 and the adopted Land Use Assumptions
and the Roadway Improvements Plan.
This report consists of the methodology for the computation of impact fees. The
components of the computation, as outlined by Chapter 395 "must contain specific
enumeration" of the following items:
A description of the existing capital improvements within the service area and the
cost to upgrade, update, improve, expand or replace the improvements to meet
existing needs and usage
2. An analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for
usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements
3. A description of all or the parts of the capital improvements and their costs
necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on
approved land use assumptions
4. A definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption,
generation, or discharge of service unit for each category of capital improvements
and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to
various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial
5. The total number of projected service units necessitated by and attributable to new
development within the service area based on the approved land use assumptions
and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning
criteria
6. The projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by
new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years
A plan for awarding a credit for the portion of the ad valorem tax generated by new
service units during the program period that is used for the payment of
improvements or a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of
implementing the capital improvements plan
Page 13
ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CALCULATION INPUTS
A. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Per Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, Land Use Assumptions include
changes in land uses, densities, and population in the service area. The Land Use
Assumptions used in this report were developed by using employment data, population
data, and trends developed by the North Central Texas Council of Governments
(NCTCOG). This information has been approved by the City of Sanger staff to be a
reasonable representation of the building growth seen in the recent years and what may
be expected in the following ten years.
The following population and employment estimates and projections are defined by North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and utilized by NCTCOG:
Housing Units: Number of houses including single and multi -family homes
Population: Number of people reported in the City.
Employment: Square feet of building area based on retail, service, and basic land uses.
Each classification has unique trip making characteristics.
Basic/Goods: Land use activities that produce goods and services such as those that are
exported outside of the local economy, such as manufacturing, construction,
transportation, wholesale, trade, warehousing, and other industrial uses. (NAICS #210000
to #422999)
Service: Land use activities which provide personal and professional services such as
government and other professional administrative offices. (NAICS #520000 to #928199)
Retail: Land use activities which provide for the retail sale of goods that primarily serve
households and whose location choice is oriented toward the household sector, such as
grocery stores and restaurants. (NAICS #440000 to #454390)
To establish the population and employment characteristics for this report, demographic
data provided by North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and the 2010
US Census was used:
Page 14
EJ*K
Table 1A. 2010 Demographics
US Census
Population 6,916
Housing Units 2,427
Table 113. 2011 Estimated Employment in Persons
2011 Data from NCTCOG
Employment Type
Number of Persons
Good Producing Industries (Basic)
645
Service Producing Industries (Service)
2,178
Retail Industries (Retail)
394
Total
3,217
NCTCOG published population estimates in 2015, which shows on average 1.9% growth in
Sanger from 2010 to their estimates for 2014. The percent change for the population
estimates for 2014 to 2015 is 1.3%. The population growth anticipated from the City's
adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan (October 2007) predicted an annual growth rate
of 3.75% based on historical growth since 1960. In reviewing the recent trend for
building permit applications, City Staff anticipates a slower growth than identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, which is more congruent with the growth estimated by NCTCOG.
For the purposes of this report, a population growth rate of 1.3% was used to project the
growth in Sanger up to 2025. In addition, we have assumed that the housing units and
employment characteristics will grow at the same rate as the population. The following
table summarizes the anticipated population and employment characteristics based on
these assumptions:
Table 2A. Projected Population, Housing Units, and Employment in Persons
2011 Data from NCTCOG
Year
Population
Housing Units
Basic
Service
Retail
2010
6,916
2,427
-
-
-
2011
-
-
645
2,178
394
2015
7,366
2,585
679
2,291
415
2025
8,265
2,900
762
2,574
466
For the purposes of this report, employment population data is converted to square feet
of building area required to create the non-residential square footage within the City.
The following conversions rates were used to create Table 213:
Basic/Goods: 1,000 square feet
Service: 350 square feet
Retail: 500 square feet
Page 15
1
Table 213. Projected Population, Housing Units, and Employment in Square Feet
2011 Data from NCTCOG
Year
Population
Housing Units
Basic
Service
Retail
2010
6,916
2,427
-
-
-
2011
-
-
645,000
762,300
197,000
2015
7,366
2,585
679,000
801,940
207,244
2025
8,265
2,900
1 762,000
1 901,039
232,854
B. IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code defines the service area for roadway
facility analysis as an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision
that shall not exceed 6 miles. City Staff has determined that one (1) roadway facility
service area based upon a six (6) mile limit is adequate and coincides with the capital
improvement plans for roadway expansion over the next 10 years. The geographic
boundary of the impact fee service area for roadway facilities is shown in Exhibit 1.
C. FUTURE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The City has identified the City -funded roadway projects needed for the projected
growth within the City. These facilities are part of the currently adopted Thoroughfare
Plan. The table below shows the length of each project as well as the Thoroughfare Plan
classification. The future roadway improvements were developed by the City of Sanger
staff and represent those projects that will be needed to accommodate the growth
projected in this report.
Table 3. Roadway Improvement Plan for the Service Area
Length
Street Name
Class
Limits
(mi)
Willow St./
Minor 4 Lanes
5th Street to FM 2164
3.34
McReynolds Rd.
Willow St./McReynolds Rd.
Indian Ln.
Minor 4 Lanes
to FM 455
0.88
Marion Rd.
Minor 4 Lanes
FM 455 to Lois Rd.
1.37
Lois Rd.
Minor 4 Lanes
Huling Rd. to 1-35
1.68
Belz Rd.
Minor 4 Lanes
1-35 SBFR to Metz Rd.
0.97
Metz Rd.
Minor 4 Lanes
Belz Rd. to FM 455
0.68
Utility Rd.
Collector 2 Lanes
RR Tracks to Marion Rd.
0.77
Keaton Rd.
Collector 2 Lanes
Belz Rd. to FM 455
0.67
Future Belz Rd - Indian
Minor 4 Lanes
1-35 NBFR to FM 455
1.02
Connector
Future East-West
Minor 4 Lanes
Cowling Rd. to FM 2164
3.51
Thoroughfare
(at FM 2153)
Exhibit 1 maps the roadway alignments described above.
Page 16
IV. ROADWAY IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY
A. SERVICE AREAS
Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code specifies that "the service area is
limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall
not exceed six (6) miles." One (1) service area was used in this report and is shown in
Exhibit 1 and incorporates the anticipated roadway improvement projects within the
corporate boundary of the City of Sanger.
B. SERVICE UNITS
The "service unit" is a measure of consumption or use of the roadway facilities by new
development and is defined as a vehicle -mile for transportation purposes. In regards to
supply and demand, it is a lane -mile and a vehicle -trip of one -mile in length, respectively.
The afternoon peak hour of traffic is the time period used for transportation planning and
the estimation of trips from new development.
The service volume that is supplied by a lane -mile of roadway facility is another
component of the service unit. This volume is a function of the facility type,
configuration, number of lanes, and level of service.
The hourly service volumes used in this report are based on the hourly capacity for level
of service D obtained from the DFW Regional Travel Model Criteria published by the
North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) and the Highway Capacity
Manual. Level of service D roadways represents the minimal acceptable capacity limit for
urban roadways. In the absence of providing a traffic study to generate the number of
cars currently using the roads within the service area, we have assumed that the hourly
capacity of the roads is equal to the number of cars currently using the roads in the peak
am hour. Table 4 shows the service volumes as a function of the facility type for the
types of roads within the service area.
Table 4. Vehicle -Mile Capacities
Hourly Vehicle -Mile Capacity
Class
Median Configuration
per Lane -Mile
of Roadway Facility
Minor 4
Undivided
525
Lanes
Collector 2
Undivided
450
Lanes
Principal 4
Undivided
650
Lanes
C. COST PER SERVICE UNIT
The cost for each service unit is the cost for each vehicle -mile traveled or the cost to build
a lane -mile for a vehicle -mile of travel at a level of service provided by the City's
standards. The cost per service unit is calculated for each project within the service area.
The number of service units in the service are is the measure of the presumed growth in
the transportation demand projected over a ten-year period. Chapter 395 requires that
Impact Fees be assessed only to pay for growth projected to occur within the next ten -
years.
P a g e 17
D. COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
Per Chapter 395, costs that may be included in the cost per service unit are "...including
and limited to the:
1. Construction contract price;
2. Surveying and engineering fees;
3. Land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs,
attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and
4. Fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer
or financial consultant preparing or updating the Roadway improvements plan
who is not an employee of the political subdivision."
The engineer's opinion of the probable costs of the projects in the service area are based
on the typical costs of construction. The roadway alignments identified as part of the
roadway improvement projects were visual surveyed. Components required to
accommodate the expansions or extensions were noted, such as the number of required
lanes and the length of the project. In addition we made note of any other incidental
construction items that would be necessary such as bridges or culvert crossings, traffic
signals, highway ramps, and drainage structures. These costs were combined into an
overall cost.
Costs associated with State, Denton County, and developer driven projects in which the
City has contributed a portion of the total project cost may be included in the
calculations. At the time of this report, the City does not intend to contribute funds to
any of these types of roadway projects.
To simplify the calculations, we have separated the probable costs into two (2)
categories; construction costs and construction allowances, and made several
assumptions about the types of roads to be constructed. The roadway construction
costs consist of the following items: (1) unclassified street excavation, (2) lime
stabilization, (3) concrete pavement, (4) topsoil, (5) curb and gutter, and (6) allotment for
turn lanes and median openings. The unit prices for these items are based on recently
completed construction projects located in neighboring municipalities.
Using the construction cost subtotal, a percentage of this total is calculated to account
for major construction component allowances. These allowances include preparation of
right-of-way, traffic control, pavement markings/markers, roadway drainage, special
drainage structures, water and sewer relocations, turf reestablishment and erosion
control, and street lighting. The allowance percentages are also based on values from RS
Means and the amount of these types of construction estimated for each individual
project. The paving and allowance subtotal is given a six percent (6%) allotment for
mobilization and a twenty percent (20%) contingency to determine the construction cost
total. To determine the total Impact Fee Project Cost, a percentage of the construction
cost total is added to account for engineering, surveying, testing, and contractor
mobilization. For alignments that will require right -of way acquisitions, we have assumed
the allotment for the acquisitions should be $3 per square foot.
Table 4 is a summary of the road improvement project list for the service area with the
probable project cost projections. Detailed cost projections for each alignment are provided
in Appendix A, Opinion of Probable Costs. Actual costs of construction will vary with
time and are dependent on market conditions. Therefore, the cost projections reported in
this study should not be utilized for the City's building program or construction CIP.
Pa g e 18
Table 4. Ten Year Roadway Improvements Plan Opinion of Probable Costs
Length
Total Project
Street Name
Class
Limits
(mi)
Cost
Willow St./
Minor 4
5th Street to FM 2164
3.34
$ 18,147,146
McReynolds Rd.
Lanes
Minor 4
Willow St./McReynolds Rd.
$1,130,328
Indian Ln.
Lanes
to FM 455
0.88
Marion Rd.
Minor 4
FM 455 to Lois Rd.
1.37
$6,995,037
Lanes
Lois Rd.
Minor 4
Huling Rd. to 1-35
1.68
$8,947,950
Lanes
Belz Rd.
Minor 4
1-35 SBFR to Metz Rd,
0.97
$5,130,524
Lanes
Metz Rd.
Minor 4
Belz Rd, to FM 455
0.68
$3,681,822
Lanes
Utility Rd.
Collector 2
RR Tracks to Marion Rd.
0.77
$3,180,747
Lanes
Keaton Rd.
Collector 2
Belz Rd. to FM 455
0.67
$2,831,252
Lanes
Future Belz Rd -
Minor 4
1-35 NBFR to FM 455
1.02
$6,877,083
Indian Connector
Lanes
Future East-West
Minor 4
Cowling Rd. to FM 2164
3.51
$23,495,036
Thoroughfare
Lanes
(at FM 2153)
E. SERVICE UNIT CALCULATION
The service unit for the computation of roadway impact fees is the vehicle -mile of travel
during the afternoon peak -hour. The roadway demand service units (vehicle -miles) for
each service area are the sum of the vehicle -miles "generated" by each category of land
use in the service area.
All developed and developable land is categorized as either residential or non-residential.
For residential land uses, the number of housing units in each service area is multiplied by
a transportation demand factor to compute the vehicle -miles of travel that occur during
the afternoon peak hour or the average amount of demand caused by the residential land
uses in the service area. The square footages calculated using the employment data and
conversion units described in Section 2A were used to calculate the vehicle -miles for non-
residential land uses.
To determine the cost per service unit, the growth in vehicle -miles of travel for the
service area is required. The growth in vehicle -miles from 2015 to 2025 is based upon the
changes in residential and non-residential growth for the period. This growth has been
estimated in Section III.A. of this report.
The existing and projected Land Use Assumptions for the dwelling units and the square
footage of basic, service, and retail land uses provide the basis for the projected increase
Pa g e 19
in vehicle -miles of travel. A transportation demand factor is applied to these values and
then summed to calculate the total peak hour vehicle -miles of demand for each service
area.
The transportation demand factors are derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th
Edition and the Regional Origin -Destination Travel Survey performed by NCTCOG. The
ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9rh Edition provides variables for the number of trips that are
produced or attracted to the land use.
The transportation demand factor also includes the length of each trip (Q. The average
trip length for each category is based on the travel characteristics survey conducted by
NCTCOG and the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS).
The maximum trip length (Lmax), for land uses which are characterized by longer average
trip lengths (primarily residential uses), has been limited to a length based on the nature
of the roadway network within the service area, along with consideration of the existing
City boundaries. For the purposes of this report, the maximum trip length available is
the boundary of the service area, which is six (6) miles.
The adjustment made to the average trip length statistic in the computation of the
maximum trip length is the origin -destination reduction. This adjustment is made.because
the roadway impact fee is charged to both the origin and destination end of the trip. For
the retail category of land uses, the rate is adjusted because a percentage of retail trips
are made by people visiting these locations as part of an existing trip between work and
home and are therefore called pass -by trips. The retail trips are then reduced to avoid
counting these trips twice. Per the ITE, retail shopping centers have an average pass -by
trip percentage of 34%. For the purposes of this report, we have used this value for ato
calculate the demand factor for retail areas.
The computation of the transportation demand factor is detailed in the following
equation:
TDF = T * (I - /D * Lmax
where Lmax = min(L * OD or SAL)
Variables:
TDF = Transportation Demand Factor
T = Trip Rate (peak hour trips / unit)
Fb= Pass -By Discount (% of trips)
Lmax = Maximum Trip Length (miles)
L = Average Trip Length (miles)
SAL = Max Service Area Trip Length (see Table 5)
OD = Origin -Destination Reduction (50%)
Table 5 shows the derivation of the Transportation DemandFactorfor the residential
land uses and the three (3) non-residential land use categories. The values utilized for
all variables shown in the transportation demand factorequation are also shown in the
table.
Page 110
K ON
Table 5. Transportation Demand Factor Calculations (TDF)
Variable
Residential
Basic
Service
Retail
T
1.00
0.97
1.49
3.71
Pb
0%
0%
0%
34%
L
17.21
10.02
10.92
6.43
Lmax `
6.00
5.01
5.46
3.22
TDF
6.00
4.86
1 8.14
7.89
* 50% of L is less than Lmax for non-residential land uses; therefore this lower trip length is
used for calculating the TDF for non-residential land uses
Table 6 shows the vehicle -mile calculations for 2015 and 2025 using the above TDF
values.
Table 6. Ten Year Growth Projections
2015
Residential Vehicle -Miles
Housing Units TDF Vehicle -Miles
2,585 6 15,510
Non -Residential Vehicle -Miles
Vehicle -Miles (in 1,000
Square -Feet
TDF
SQFT)
"
Basic
Service
I Retail
Basic
Service
Retail
Basic
Service
Retail
679,000
801,940
207,244
4.8
1 8.14
7.8
3,259
6,528
1,617
2015 Total Vehicle Miles = 26,913
2025
Residential Vehicle -Miles
Housing Units TDF Vehicle -Miles
2,900 6 17,400
Non -Residential Vehicle -Miles
Vehicle -Miles (in 1,000
Square -Feet
TDF
SQFT)
Basic
Service
I Retail
Basic
Service
Retail
Basic
Service
Retail
762,000
901,039
232,854
4.8
1 8.14
7.8
3,658
7,334
1,816
2015 Total Vehicle Miles = 30,208
Projected Increase in Vehicle -Miles = 30,208 - 26,913 = 3,295 vehicle -miles
Page I11
V. IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS
A. MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE PER SERVICE UNIT
The maximum assessable impact fee is the sum of the eligible Impact Fee Roadway
Improvement Project costs for the service area divided by the growth in travel
attributable to new development projected to occur within the 10-year period. The
documentation for this calculation has been provided in Appendix C.
B. PLAN FOR AWARDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CREDIT
Per Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, the Roadway Impact Fees Program
must contain specific enumeration of a plan for awarding the impact fee credit. This is
provided in Section 395.014 of the Code and states:
"(7) A plan for awarding:
(A) 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
(B) In the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of
implementing the capital improvements plan..."
The max assessable fee has been based on the option of the 50% credit.
Table 7 illustrates the computation of the maximum assessable impact fee computed for
the service area. The description of how each line has been calculated is provided in
Appendix C.
Table 7. Maximum Assessable Fee Per Service Unit/Vehicle-Mile
Line
Description
Value
1
Total Vehicle -Miles of Capacity Added by the Roadway Improvement Projects
29,539
2
Total Vehicle -Miles of Existing Demand From the Roadway Improvement
Projects
7,709
3
Total Vehicle -Miles of Existing Deficiencies From the Existing Roadway
Facilities
141
4
Net Amount of Vehicle -Miles of Capacity Added
21,971
5
Total Cost of the Roadway Improvement Projects
$80,416,924
6
Cost of the Net Capacity Supplied
$59,814,491
7
Cost to Meet the Existing Needs and Usage
$20,602,434
8
Total Vehicle -Miles of New Demand over 10-Years
3,295
9
Percent of Capacity Added Attributable to Growth (Must be Less than or Equal
to 100%)
15 o
10
Cost of Capacity Added Attributable to Growth
$8,970,372
11
50% Credit
$4,485,186
12
Max Assessable Fee Per Service Unit/Vehicle Mile
$1,361.24
Page 112
C. SERVICE UNIT DEMAND PER UNIT OF DEVELOPMENT
The maximum allowable roadway impact fee for development is calculated by multiplying
the impact fee rate by the number of service units projected for the proposed
development. The Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table (LUVMET) provided in
Appendix D provides the service unit multipliers for typical land uses that should be used
to calculate the maximum impact assessment. This table lists the most common land
uses that may occur within the City. All possible categories of development may not be
represented. However, in these situations, we suggest using a similar use which will
generate similar trip characteristics.
The trip rate is the average number of trips generated during the afternoon peak hour by
each land use per development unit. The next column is the pass -by rate the ITEE Trip
Generation Manual, 9th Edition. To convert vehicle trips to vehicle -miles, it is necessary to
multiply trips by trip length. The NCTCOG trip length values are based on the Regional
Origin -Destination Travel Survey performed by the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG). The other adjustment to trip length is the 50% origin -
destination reduction to avoid double counting of trips. Based on the State Law, there is
a limit on transportation service unit demand. If the adjusted trip length is above the
maximum trip length within the service area (for this study, 6 miles is the maximum trip
length), the maximum trip length used for calculation is reduced to the corresponding
value.
The last column in the LUVMET shows the vehicle -miles per development unit calculated
by multiplying the trip rate by the maximum trip length. This is the Transportation
Demand Factor and should be used to calculate the maximum assessable impact fee. The
number of service units is multiplied by the impact fee rate (established by City
ordinance) in order to determine the impact fee for a development.
Page 113
/K
VI. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
The following section details two (2) examples of maximum assessable roadway impact
fee calculations.
Example 1:
Development Tvr)e - One (1) Unit of Single -Family Housing
Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps - Example 1
Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit
Step 1
From APX D [Land Use - Vehicle -mile Equivalency Table]
Development Type: 1 Dwelling Unit of Single -Family Detached Housing
Number of Development Units: 1 Dwelling Unit
Veh-Mi Per Development Unit: 6.06
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit
Step 2
$1, 36t 21
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee
Impact Fee = # of Development Units x Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit x Max. Fee Per Service Unit
Step 3
Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = 1 x 6.06 x $1,361.21
$8,248.93
Example 2:
Development Type - 25,000 square foot Home Improvement Superstore
Roadway Impact Fee Calculation Steps - Example 2
Determine Development Unit and Vehicle -Miles Per Development Unit
Step 1
From APX D [Land Use - Vehicle -mile Equivalency Table]
Development Type:25,000 square feet of Home Improvement Superstore
Development Unit: 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area
Veh-Mi Per Development Unit., 3.96
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee Per Service Unit
Step 2
$1,36t21
Determine Maximum Assessable Impact Fee
Impact Fee = # of Development Units x Veh-Mi Per Dev Unit x Max. Fee Per Service Unit
Step 3
Maximum Assessable Impact Fee = (25,000/1,000) x 3.96 x $1,361.21
$134,759.79
Page 114
K
VII. CONCLUSION
The City of Sanger has established a process to implement the assessment and collection
of roadway impact fees through the adoption of an impact fee ordinance that is
consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code.
This report establishes the maximum allowable roadway impact fee that could be
assessed by the City of Sanger within the service area boundary. The maximum
assessable roadway impact fees calculated is $1,361.21
This is a guide to the assessment of roadway impact fees pertaining to future
development and the City's need for roadway improvements to accommodate that
growth. Following the public hearing process, the City Council may establish an amount
to be assessed (if any) up to the maximum established within this report and update the
Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance accordingly.
It is our opinion that the data and methodology used in this report are appropriate and
consistent with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code, and the Land Use
Assumptions and the proposed Roadway Improvements Plan are appropriately
incorporated into the process.
Page 115
Roadway Impact Fee Opinion of Probable Costs
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Willow St/McReynolds Rd
Limits: 5th St to FM 2164
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 17,635
Existing two lane concrete roadway from 5th St to
Jones; two lane asphalt from Jones to FM 2164.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
23,513.33
CY
$ 15.00
$ 352,700.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
99,931.67
SY
$ 4.00
$ 399,726.67
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
92,093.89
SY
$ 46.00
$ 4,236,318.89
4" Topsoil
19,594.44
SY
$ 5.00
$ 97,972.22
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
141,080
SF
$ 4.00
$ 564,320.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
I SY
I $ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection (at Indian Rd, FM 2164)
21
EA
1 $ 200,000.00
$ 400,000.00
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 6,051,037.78
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 363,062.27
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 302,551.89
Pavment Markings
39/.
$ 181,531.13
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 1,815,311,33
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 363,062.27
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
7 crossings
6%
$ 363,062.27
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 363,062.27
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 242,041.51
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 181,531.13
Basic Landscaping/irrigation
3%
$ 181,531.13
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH -Electric, UG Fiber Optic, Telephone
3%
$ 181,531.13
Railroad Crossing
Single track between 1st and Railroad
1 3%
$ 181,531.13
Tree Mitigation
1 3%
$ 181,531.13
Other
Bridge west of Ranger Creek Rd
1 0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 4,901,340.60
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
10,952,378.38
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
2,190,475,68
Total Construction Cost
$
13,142,854.05
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 13,142,854.05
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 2,628,570.81
Mobilization
6%
$ 788,571.24
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
For Area from 5th to the RR
I $3/SF
$ 1,587,150.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 18,147,146.11
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Indian Ln
Limits: Willow St/McReynolds Rd to FM 455
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 4,641
Existing concrete roadway to remain. Roadway is approx. 37 ft
wide for approx. 3472 LF and approx. 25 ft wide for approx.
1169 LF.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
1,054.93
CY
$ 15.00
$ 15,823.89
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
7,360.89
SY
$ 4.00
$ 29,443.56
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
6,329.56
SY
$ 46.00
$ 291,159.56
4" Topsoil
4,641.00
SY
$ 5.00
$ 23,205.00
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
7,432
SF
$ 4.00
$ 29,728.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
SY
$ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$
$
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 389,360.00
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 23,361.60
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 19,468.00
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 11,680.80
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 116,808.00
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 23,361.60
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
2 culverts
6%
$ 23,361.60
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 23,361.60
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 15,574.40
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 11,680.80
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 11,680.80
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH utils on east; switchgear in r.o.w. east side
10%
$ 38,936.00
Railroad Crossing
5%
$ 19,468.00
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 11,680.80
Other
move fence around water tower
2%
$ 7,787.20
Allowance Subtotal
$ 358,211.20
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
747,571.20
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
149,514.24
Total Construction Cost
$
897,085.44
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 897,085.44
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 179,417.09
Mobilization
6%
$ 53,825.13
Previous City Contribution
$
Other
$
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
None
$3/SF
$
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
1 $ 1,130,327.65
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name:
Limits:
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF):
Marion Rd
FM 455 to Lois Rd
7,234
Existing two lane asphalt roadway.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
9,645.33
CY
$ 15.00
$ 144,680.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf
40,992.67
SY
$ 4.00
$ 163,970.67
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
37,777.56
SY
$ 46.00
$ 1,737,767.56
4" Topsoil
8,037.78
SY
$ 5.00
$ 40,188.89
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
57,872
SF
$ 4,00
$ 231,488.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
I SY
I $ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$ -
$
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 2,318,095.11
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 139,085.71
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 115,904.76
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 69,542.85
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 695,428.53
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 139,085.71
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
3 culverts
6%
$ 139,085.71
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 139,085.71
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 92,723.80
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 69,542.85
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 69,542.85
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E on e. side; UG-Fiber/Tel both sides
3%
$ 69,542.85
Railroad Crossing
37.
$ 69,542.85
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 69,542.85
Other
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 1,877,657.04
Paving and Allowance Subtotal $ 4,195,752.15
Construction Contingency @ 20% $ 839,150.43
Total Construction Cost $ 5,034,902.58
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 5,034,902.58
Engineering/Survey/Testing
209/.
$ 1,006,980.52
Mobilization
6%
$ 302,094.15
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
I Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
$3/SF
$ 651,060.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
1 $ 6,995,037.25
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name:
Limits:
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF):
Lois Rd
Huling Rd to 1-35
8,870
Existing two lane asphalt roadway.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
11,826.67
CY
$ 15.00
$ 177,400.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
50,263.33
SY
$ 4.00
$ 201,053.33
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
46,321.11
SY
$ 46.00
$ 2,130,771.11
4" Topsoil
9,855.56
SY
$ 5.00
$ 49,277.78
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
70,960
SF
$ 4.00
$ 283,840.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
8001
SY
$ 50.00
$ 40,000.00
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$ -
$ -
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 2,882,342.22
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 172,940.53
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 144,117.11
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 86,470.27
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 864,702.67
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 172,940.53
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
5 culverts (2 major)
8%
$ 230,587,38
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 172,940.53
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 115,293.69
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 86,470.27
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 86,470.27
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E s. side; UG-Fiber both sides
5%
$ 144,117.11
Railroad Crossing
Isingle track east of Walmart
5%
$ 144,117.11
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 86,470.27
Other
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 2,507,637.73
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
5,389,979.96
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
1,077,995.99
Total Construction Cost
$
6,467,975.95
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 6,467,975.95
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 1,293,595.19
Mobilization
6%
$ 388,078.56
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
I Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
I $3/SF
$ 798,300.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 8,947,949.69
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Belz Rd Existing two lane asphalt roadway.
Limits: 1-35 SBFR to Metz Rd
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 5,126
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
6,834.67
CY
$ 15.00
$ 102,520.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
29,047.33
SY
$ 4.00
$ 116,189.33
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
26,769.11
SY
$ 46.00
$ 1,231,379.11
4" Topsoil
5,695.56
SY
$ 5.00
$ 28,477.78
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
41,008
SF
$ 4.00
$ 164,032.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
I SY
I $ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$
$ -
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 1,642,598.22
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 98,555.89
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 82,129.91
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 49,277.95
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 492,779.47
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 98,555.89
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
2 culverts (one major)
10%
$ 164,259.82
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 98,555.89
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 65,703.93
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 49,277.95
Basic Landscaping/irrigation
3%
$ 49,277.95
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E on metal poles n. side; OH-E conc
6%
$ 98,555.89
Railroad Crossing
1 3%
$ 49,277.95
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 49,277.95
Other
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 1,445,486.44
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
3,088,084.66
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
617,616.93
Total Construction Cost
$
3,705,701.59
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 3,705,701.59
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 741,140.32
Mobilization
6%
$ 222,342.10
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
1 Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
I $3/SF
$ 461,340.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 5,130,524.00
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name:
Limits:
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF):
Metz Rd
Belz Rd to FM 455
3,525
Existing two lane asphalt roadway.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
4,700.00
CY
$ 15.00
$ 70,500.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
19,975.00
SY
$ 4.00
$ 79,900.00
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
18,408.33
SY
$ 46.00
$ 846,783.33
4" Topsoil
3,916.67
SY
$ 5.00
$ 19,583.33
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
28,200
SF
$ 4.00
$ 112,800,00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
I SY
1 $ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$
$ -
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 1,129,566.67
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 67,774.00
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 56,478.33
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 33,887.00
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 338,870.00
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 67,774.00
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
3 culverts
10%
$ 112,956.67
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 67,774.00
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 45,182.67
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 33,887.00
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 33,887.00
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E both sides
10%
$ 112,956.67
Railroad Crossing
8%
$ 90,365.33
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 33,887.00
Other
Site distance issue at FM 455
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 1,095,679.67
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
2,225,246.33
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
445,049.27
Total Construction Cost
$
2,670,295.60
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 2,670,295.60
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 534,059.12
Mobilization
6%
$ 160,217.74
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
1 Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
I $3/SF
$ 317,250.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 3,681,822.46
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Extension of Utility Rd
Limits: RR tracks to Marion Rd (at Huling Rd)
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 4,055
New roadway adjacent to farm and open fields.
Roadway to go between two houses at Marion.
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
3,754.63
CY
$ 15.00
$ 56,319.44
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
13,967.22
SY
$ 4.00
$ 55,868.89
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
12,165.00
SY
$ 46.00
$ 559,590.00
4" Topsoil
3,604.44
SY
$ 5.00
$ 18,022.22
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
32,440
SF
$ 4.00
$ 129,760.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
I SY
$ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$
$ -
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 819,560.56
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 49,173.63
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 40,978.03
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 24,586.82
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 245,868.17
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 49,173.63
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
6%
$ 49,173.63
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 49,173.63
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 32,782.42
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 24,586.82
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 24,586.82
Franchised Utility Facilities
3%
$ 24,586.82
Railroad Crossing
I single track
8%
$ 65,564.84
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 24,586.82
Other
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 704,822.08
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
1,524,382.63
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
304,876.53
Total Construction Cost
$
1,829,259.16
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 1,829,259.16
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 365,851.83
Mobilization
6%
$ 109,755.55
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
$3/SF
1 $ 875,880.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
1 $ 3,180,746.54
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Extension of Keaton Rd New roadway adjacent to farm field and signal tower site.
Limits: Belz Rd to FM 455
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 3,527
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
3,265.74
CY
$ 15.00
$ 48,986.11
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
12,148.56
SY
$ 4.00
$ 48,594.22
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
10,581.00
SY
$ 46.00
$ 486,726.00
4" Topsoil
3,135.11
SY
$ 5.00
$ 15,675.56
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
28.216
SF
$ 4.00
$ 112,864.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
SY
$ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$
$
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 712,845.89
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 42,770.75
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 35,642.29
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 21,385.38
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 213,853.77
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 42,770.75
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
10%
$ 71,284.59
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 42,770.75
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 28,513,84
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 21,385.38
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 21,385.38
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E on concrete poles e. side; OH-E on west sid
10%
$ 71,284.59
Railroad Crossing
3%
$ 21,385.38
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 21,385.38
Other
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 655,818.22
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
1,368,664.11
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
273,732.82
Total Construction Cost
$
1,642,396.93
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 1,642,396.93
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 328,479.39
Mobilization
6%
$ 98,543.82
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W, and Easement Acquisition
Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
$3/SF
$ 761,832.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 2,831,252.13
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Future Belz Rd - Indian Rd Connector Future roadway through open fields.
Limits: 1-35 NBFR to FM 455
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 5,385
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
7,180.00
CY
$ 15.00
$ 107,700.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
30,515.00
SY
$ 4.00
$ 122,060.00
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
28,121.67
SY
$ 46.00
$ 1,293,596.67
4" Topsoil
5,983.33
SY
$ 5.00
$ 29,916.67
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
43,080
SF
$ 4.00
$ 172,320.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
I SY
I $ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection
EA
$ 200,000.00
$ -
$
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 1,725,593.33
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 103,535.60
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 86,279.67
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 51,767.80
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 517,678.00
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 103,535.60
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
6 stream crossings
30%
$ 517,678.00
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 103,535.60
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 69,023.73
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 51,767.80
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 51,767.80
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E along n. side of FM 455
10%
$ 172,559.33
Railroad Crossing
I single track
1 10%
$ 172,559.33
Tree Mitigation
3%
$ 51,767.80
Other
0%
$
Allowance Subtotal
$ 2,053,456.07
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
3,779,049.40
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
755,809.88
Total Construction Cost
$
4,534,859.28
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 4,534,859.28
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 906,971.86
Mobilization
6%
$ 272,091.56
Previous City Contribution
$ -
Other
$ -
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
I Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
I $3/SF
$ 1,163,160.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 6,877,082.69
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
CITY OF SANGER
IMPACT FEE STUDY
CONCEPTUAL LEVEL COST PROJECTIONS
June 2015
Street Name: Future East-West Thoroughfare Future roadway through open fields.
Limits: Cowling Rd to FM 2164 (at FM 2153)
Impact Fee Class:
Ultimate Class:
Length (LF): 18,533
Item Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Item Cost
Unclassified Street Excavation
24,710.67
CY
$ 15.00
$ 370,660.00
6" Lime or Cement Subgrade Treatment (27 Ibs/sf)
105,020.33
SY
$ 4.00
$ 420,081.33
8" Reinf. Concrete Pvmt with 6" Integral Curb
96,783.44
SY
$ 46.00
$ 4,452,038.44
4" Topsoil
20,592.22
SY
$ 5.00
$ 102,961.11
4' Wide Concrete Sidewalk
148,264
SF
$ 4.00
$ 593,056.00
Turn Lanes and Median Openings
SY
$ 50.00
$ -
Signalized Intersection (at FM 2164)
1
EA
$ 200,000.00
$ 200,000.00
$
Paving Construction Cost Subtotal
$ 6,138,796.89
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
R.O.W. Preparation
6%
$ 368,327,81
Traffic Control During Construction
5%
$ 306,939.84
Pavment Markings
3%
$ 184,163.91
Roadway Drainage
30%
$ 1,841,639.07
Roadway Lighting
6%
$ 368,327.81
Special Drainage Structures (bridges and culverts)
11 stream crossings
35%
$ 2,148,578.91
Minor Water Line Adjustments
6%
$ 368,327.81
Minor Wastewater Line Adjustments
4%
$ 245,551.88
Erosion Control/Establish Turf
3%
$ 184,163.91
Basic Landscaping/Irrigation
3%
$ 184,163.91
Franchised Utility Facilities
OH-E n. side from Cowling to railroad
3%
$ 184,163.91
Railroad Crossing
single track
3%
$ 184,163.91
Tree Mitigation
1 3%
$ 184,163.91
Other
Improvements to intersection with Railr
0%
$ -
Allowance Subtotal
$ 6,752,676.58
Paving and Allowance Subtotal
$
12,891,473.47
Construction Contingency @ 20%
$
2,578,294.69
Total Construction Cost
$
15,469,768.16
Item Description
Notes
Allowance
Item Cost
Construction
$ 15,469,768.16
Engineering/Survey/Testing
20%
$ 3,093,953.63
Mobilization
6%
$ 928,186.09
Previous City Contribution
$
Other
$
R.O.W. and Easement Acquisition
Entire Length at 72 Feet Wide
$3/SF
$ 4,003,128.00
Total Impact Fee Project Cost
$ 23,495,035.88
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
Roadway Impact Fee Service Units of Supply
in
O
M
W
N
n
M
O
M
V'
N
N
N
n
V
N
M
M
OJ
tD
M
U
M
O
Ol
IN
W
n
N
O
O
m
u
^
OM
c,
V
o
E6
o
M
W
^
OMl
t0
N
Ol
l0
O
d
l0
co
M
M
M
N
NJ
N
O
00
m
hvt
w
to
r»
to
M
eA
W
r»
ui
w
a°
yyj V y
N
M
a
tp
N"
M
O
v
M
o
M
o
t0
N
N
o
co
W 0 >
N
M
U
rM
m
NO
t`
n
N
l0
M
O1
U
wE yYi�-
r-
n
Da
w a @
o
ro
N
o
N
N
o
a
^
M
N
U W T O
n
nl
L CL ~
N
> a=
N
a W
Ya
@ Z
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
O.
va
u
o
w d
to
c_
o
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
of
Y N
a E
M
M
M
N
M
M
O
O
M
M
0?
QO
U
N
N
N
N
N
N
a
v
N
N
U =
Z
v
c
@
J
v
v
a
v
v
a
N
N
v
v
s
C f
J
M
Ni
N
0
M
O
o
O
o
n
0
O
0
NO
N
to
y
y
@
N
C
J
V
N
C
J
R
N
C
J
V
N
C
J
V
N
C
J
cY
N
C
J
V
4r
C
@
N
o
N
C
@
N
o
N
C
J
V
N
C
J
V
U
o
o
o
o
o
o
C_
u
N
u
N
o
C_
o
c
E
F
F
E
E
E
O
O
E
E
U
U
O
O
C
o
u
N
C
C
o
U
�
d
L
m
O
@
V
J
O
ae
ae
C
O
F-
G4)
`1
M
N
O
J
m
Y
Cy.
3
@
>
(D
N
LL
W
W
�
LL
y u
o
0 :E
c c d
m > 11
X U a
W d =
Y
EL
v�i
Ol
O
m
^
O
M
;t
LD
In
O
to
a
�
w
O
N
Ol
m
O
w
W
M
OOD
O
t0
N
O)
M
O)
W
N
t-
M
M
N
O
h
a
d-
.�-
U 2 u CI
N
_
_
n
_
N
ul u >
Y
IL
O)
N
�V. ,
O)
^
O
r
M
N
O
N
a
W
OJ
O
N
m
O)
O
N
l0
W
m
l0
a
O)
d)
m
F,
N
p
N
a
N
w
r
w
M
p
V
O
N
M
a
h
In
co
N)
In
M
n
M
O
V
O
N M ~
N
> m =
0
Y �p
h
to
M
N
d1
M
V
n
00
Q1
W
O
N
N
w
n
w
M
N
M
w
M
N
M
W
M
w
M
N
N
O)
w
a
N
to
I,y�
t0
d
U N T O
p
Ma'
^
N
MO
M
M
n
r
M_
CO
O
h
N
t0
to
l0
N
O)
N
F
cr
M
7
2
T N
w a = a
In
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
cc Z
N a S J
N
M
N
to
N
to
N
to
N
to
N
to
N
to
a'
a
a
a
a'
a
N
to
w
N
> U
nY
u
Z m
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
) v
VI Q
C_
o
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
Y a E E
(9.2
in
to
to
to
O
to
to
O
O
O
O
O
O
in
O
to
O
O
O
to
0 O
U>
N
N
N
N
N
a
N
n
N
to
a
M
a
m
a
m
a
to
v
m
a
N
In
N
N
to
a
m
a
m
a
N
n
U m
=
Z
N
C
N
J
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
f
L
tO
W
M
UJ
N
M
a
01
O)
O
a
M
M
O
p�
m
N
M
a
N
a
O
M
M
N
(p
m
^
W
M
M
C
N
J
O
O
M
N
O
N
(V
l0
O
fV
O
H
,2
c
C
a
c
C
a
N
C
a
y
a
N
C
o
a
a
W
C
N
o
N
C
N
`oo
N
G
N
N
C
N
`o
c
C
N
`o
c
N
`o
J
a
W
a
J
U1
N
N
N
N
N
J
U
o
C
0
C_
o
C
O
C
u
N
o
C_
o
C
u
N
u
N
u
N
u
N
u
N
u
N
O
C
O'
U
O
G_
u
N
u
N
u
N
o
C_
E
E
F
E
O
E
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
F
C
O
O
O
E
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
O-
U
U
U
m
E
Z
O
c
o
=
N
.3
N
a
C
m
_o
a
a�oo
v
m-mm-
o
y
u
E
E
o
V)
O
j
Maximum Allowable Roadway Impact Fee Per Service Unit Calculations
Line
Title
Description
Total Vehicle -Miles of
Based on the capacity, length, and number of lanes for each
1
Capacity Added by the
project - Vehicle -Mile Supply Peak -Hour Total from Appendix
Roadway Improvement
B Service Units of Supply
Projects
Total Vehicle -Miles of
The amount of traffic currently on the roads that are planned
2
Existing Demand From the
for expansion - Vehicle -Mile Total Demand Peak -Hour Total
Roadway Improvement
from Appendix B Service Units of Supply
Projects
Total Vehicle -Miles of
Vehicle -Miles of travel that are not accommodated by the
3
Existing Deficiencies From
existing roads - Existing Deficiencies Peak -Hour Vehicle -Mile
the Existing Roadway
from Appendix B Existing Roadway Facilities Inventory
Facilities
Net Amount of Vehicle -Miles
Amount of Vehicle -Miles added by the thoroughfare plan that
4
of Capacity Added
will not be utilized by the existing demand
= Line 1 - Line 2 - Line 3
5
Total Cost of the Roadway
Total of the Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for the
Improvement Projects
10-Year Roadway Impact Study
Total of the Opinion of Probable Construction Costs for the
6
Cost of the Net Capacity
10-Year Roadway Impact Study prorated by the ratio capacity
Supplied
added to the total capacity added
_ (Line 4/1-ine 1) x Line 5
Cost to Meet the Existing
The Total Cost of the Roadway Improvements minus the Cost
7
Needs and Usage
of the Capacity Supplied
=Line s- Line 6
8
Total Vehicle -Miles of New
The Estimate of the Number of Vehicle -Miles growth within
Demand over 10-Years
the Service Area - based on the TDF
Percent of Capacity Added
The Total Vehicle -Miles of New Demand over 10-Years divided
Attributable to Growth
by the Net Amount of Vehicle -Miles of Capacity Added up to
9
(Must be Less than or Equal
100%. Required by Chapter 395 to verify the
to 100%)
capacity added is from new growth.
= Line 8 / Line 4 <= 100%
Cost of Capacity Added
The Cost of the Net Capacity Supplied multiplied by the
10
Attributable to Growth
Percent of Capacity Added Attributable to Growth
= Line 6 x Line 9
Per Chapter 395 and the option selected in the report,
multiply the Cost of Capacity Added Attributable to Growth
11
50% Credit
by 50%, which is the recoverable cost of the projected
improvements based on the projected growth
= Line 10 x 50%
Max Assessable Fee Per
The 50% Credit divided by Total Vehicle -Miles of New Demand
12
Service Unit/Vehicle Mile
over 10-Years
= Line 11 / Line 8
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
Land Use/Vehicle-Mile Equivalency Table
ITE
Trip
Pass-
NCTCOG
Adj
Adj, Trip
Max
Veh-Mi
Land Use
Land
Development
Gen
By
Trip
Trip
For O-
Length
Trip
Per Dev-
Category
Use
Unit
Rate
Rate
Rate
Length:
D
(mi) ,
Length
Unit
Code
(PM)
(mi)
(mi)
PORT AND
TERMINAL
Truck Terminal
30
Acres
6.55
6.55
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
32.82
INDUSTRIAL
General Light
110
1,000 SF GFA
0.97
0.97
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
4.86
Industrial
General Heavy
120
1,000 SF GFA
0.68
0.68
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
3.41
Industrial
Industrial Park
130
1,000 SF GFA
0.85
0.86
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
4.31
Warehousing
150
1,000 SF GFA
0.32
0.32
10.83
50%
5.42
5.42
1.73
Mini -Warehouse
151
1,000 SF GFA
0.26
0.26
10.83
50%
5.42
5.42
1.41
RESIDENTIAL
Single -Family
Detached
210
Dwelling Unit
1.01
1.01
17.21
50%
8.61
6
6.06
Housing
Apartment/Multi-
220
Dwelling Unit
0.62
0.62
17.21
50%
8.61
6
3.72
family
Residential
Condominium/
230
Dwelling Unit
0.52
0.52
17.21
50%
8.61
6
3.12
Townhome
Mobile Home
Park /
240
Dwelling Unit
0.59
0.59
17.21
50%
8.61
6
3.54
Manufactured
Housing
Senior Adult
252
Dwelling Unit
0.27
0.27
17.21
50%
8.61
6
1,62
Housing
Congregate Care
253
Dwelling Unit
0.16
0.16
17.21
SO%
8.61
6
0.96
Facility
Assisted Living
254
Beds
0.22
0.22
17.21
50%
8.61
6
1.32
LODGING
Hotel
310
Rooms
0.59
0.59
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
1.90
Motel / Other
Lodging
320
Rooms
0.47
0,47
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
1.51
Facilities
RECREATIONAL
Driving Range
432
Tees
1.25
1.25
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
4.02
Golf Course
430
Acres
0.3
0.3
6.43
SO%
3.22
3.22
0.96
Health/Rec.
Clubs and
495
1,000 SF GFA
2.74
2.74
6.43
50%
3,22
3.22
8.81
Facilities
Ice Rink
465
1,000 SF GFA
2.36
2.36
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
7.59
Miniature Golf
431
Holes
0.33
0.33
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
1.06
Multiplex Movie
445
Screens
13.64
13.64
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
43.85
Theater
Racquet /
491
Courts
3.35
3.35
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
10.77
Tennis Club
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
ITE
Trip
Pass-
NCTCOG
Adj,
AdJ, Trip
Max
Veh-Mi
Land Use
Land
Development
Gen
By
Trip
Trip :
For O-
Length
Trip
Per Dev-
Category
Use
Unit
Rate
Rate
Rate
Length
D
(mi)
Length
Unit
Code
(PM)
(ml)
(mi)
INSTITUTIONAL'
Church
560
1,000 SF GFA
0.55
0.55
4.2
50%
2.10
2.10
1.16
Day Care Center
565
1,000 SF GFA
12.34
44%
6.91
4.2
50%
2.10
2.10
14.51
Primary/Middle
522
Students
0.16
0.16
4.2
50%
2.10
2.10
0.34
School (1-8)
High School (9-
530
Students
0.13
0.13
4.2
50%
2.10
2.10
0.27
12)
Jr / Community
540
Students
0.12
0.12
4.2
50%
2.10
2.10
0.25
College
University /
550
Students
0.17
0.21
4.2
50%
2.10
2.10
0.44
College
MEDICAL
Clinic
630
1,000 SF GFA
5.18
5.18
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
19.55
Hospital
610
Beds
1.42
1.31
7,55
50%
3.78
3.78
4.95
Nursing Home
620
Beds
0.22
0.22
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
0,83
Animal Hospital/
640
1,000 SF GFA
4.72
30%
3.30
7.55
50%
3.78
3.78
12.47
Veterinary Clinic
OFFICE
Corporate
Headquarters
714
1,000 SF GFA
1.41
1.41
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
7.06
Building
General Office
710
1,000 SF GFA
1.49
1.49
10.02
SO%
5.01
5.01
7.46
Building
Medical/Dental
720
1,000 SF GFA
3.57
3.57
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
17.89
Office
Single Tenant
715
1,000 SF GFA
1.74
1.74
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
8.72
Office Building
Office Park
750
1,000 SF GFA
1.48
1.48
10.02
50%
5.01
5.01
7.41
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
ITE
Trip
Pass-
NCTCOG
Adj,
AdJ. Tripe,
Max
Veh-MI
Land Use
Land
Development
Gen
By
Trip
Trip
For 0-
Length
Trip
Per Dev-
Category
Use
Unit
Rate
Rate
Rate
Length
D
(mi)
Length
Unit
Code
(PM)
(ml)
(ml)
COMMERCIAL
Automobile
Related
Automobile Care
942
1,000 SF GLA
3.11
40%
1.87
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
6.00
Center
Automobile Parts
843
1,000 SF GFA
5.98
43%
3.41
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
10.96
Sales
Gasoline/Service
Vehicle
Station w/ Conv.
945
Fueling
13.51
20%
10.81
1.2
50%
0.60
0.60
6.48
Market
Positions
New and Used
841
1,000 SF GFA
2.62
40%
1.57
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
5.05
Car Sales
Quick
Servicing
Lubrication
941
Positions
Positions
40%
3.11
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
10.01
Vehicle Shop
Self -Service Car
947
Stalls
5.54
40%
3.32
1.2
50%
0.60
0.60
1.99
Wash
Tire Store
848
1,000 SF GFA
4.15
28%
2.99
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
9.61
Dining
Fast Food
Restaurant with
934
1,000 SF GFA
33.84
50%
16.92
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
40.52
Drive-Thru
High Turnover
(Sit -Down)
932
1,000 SF GFA
11.15
43%
6.36
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
15.22
Restaurant
Quality
931
1,000 SF GFA
7.49
44%
4.19
4.79
50%
2.40
2.40
10.05
Restaurant
Other Retail
0,00
Free -Standing
815
1,000 SF GFA
5
44%
2.80
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
9.00
Retail Store
Garden Center
817
1,000 SF GFA
3.8
30%
2.66
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
8.55
(Nursery)
Home
Improvement
862
1,000 SF GFA
2.37
48%
1.23
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
3.96
Superstore
Pharmacy/Drugs
tore With Drive-
881
1,000 SF GFA
10.35
53%
4.86
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
15.64
Thru Window
Shopping Center
820
1,000 SF GLA
3.73
34%
2.46
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
7.91
Supermarket
850
1,000 SF GFA
10.5
36%
6.72
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
21.60
Toy/Children's
864
1,000 SF GFA
4.99
30%
3.49
6.43
50%
3.22
3.22
11.23
Supers tore
SERVICES
Bank (Walk -In)
911
1,000 SF GFA
12.13
40%
7.28
3.39
50%
1.70
1.70
12.34
Bank (Drive In)
912
Drive-in
27.41
47%
14.53
3.39
50%
1.70
1.70
24.62
LanesLHair
Salon
918
1,000 SF GLA
1.45
30%
1.02
3.39
50%
1.70
1.70
1.72
PREPARED BY EIKON
JUNE 2015
Service Area Map
fy=
,. ^r�y,,�
AOYVI�yy�Too Y.7gY. Y V �i'+
iwi.d61
1U
lu
v^I
uj
u� S`
m1 �
/f
g N t NVIgW rurd �
�
Ga f7NI111ij0�
C
S�
M19AEll -
—
/W.LVZI
eX
PU "'MilinS
t7@
U
2 } Lzl
G lY
Pl( a P! 11
IV
m
s
C3hisum (ld 11(�
N
2
sue`-
ef