Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Ordinance 19569-03-2011
ORDINANCE NO. 19569-03-2011 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CITY OF FORT WORTH 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ANALYZING POPULATION, ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL TRENDS; DESCRIBING IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS; DIVIDING THE CITY INTO 16 PLANNING SECTORS; PROVIDING MAPS DESCRIBING PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USES AND RECOMMENDED LAND USE POLICIES FOR EACH SECTOR; PROVIDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CUMULATIVE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 19044 adopting the Fort Worth 2010 Comprehensive Plan on February 23, 2010; and WHEREAS, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is the City of Fort Worth's general guide for making decisions about growth and development; and WHEREAS, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan includes, without limitation, provisions on land use, housing, parks and community services, libraries, human services, neighborhood capacity building, economic development, transportation, education, historic preservation, urban design, arts and culture, police services, fire and emergency services, environmental quality, public health, and municipal facilities; and WHEREAS, it is the City Council's intent to update the Comprehensive Plan annually; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2011, the City Plan Commission conducted a public hearing on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the City Council adopt the plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan on February 15, 2011, at which the public was given the opportunity to give testimony and present written evidence; and WHEREAS, the 2011 Comprehensive Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS: SECTION 1. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Worth is adopted as set out in Exhibit A attached and incorporated as if contained herein, specifically including existing plans and studies described in Appendix A to the Plan, which are incorporated by reference. SECTION 2. The City of Fort Worth 2011 Comprehensive Plan supersedes and replaces the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances and of the Code of the City of Fort Worth, Texas (1986), as amended, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances and such Code, in which event conflicting provisions of such ordinances and such Code are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and, if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: 11)(4‘, Alt MI) Assistant City Attorney ADOPTED AND EFFECTIVE: March 1, 2011 City of Fort Worth, Texas Mayor and Council Communication COUNCIL ACTION: Approved on 3/1i2011 - Ord. No. 19569-03-2011 DATE: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 LOG NAME: 062011 CPADOPT SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance Approving the City of Fort Worth 2011 Comprehensive Plan REFERENCE NO.: G-17216 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance approving the City of Fort Worth 2011 Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION: The Comprehensive Plan is updated annually to provide reliable, up-to-date information about Fort Worth's growth and development trends, to review the effectiveness of the City's growth and development policies, to review the status of the City's programs and projects, and to identify programs and projects that should be considered for funding in the City's budget and capital improvement program. Beginning with the 2011 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning and Development Department will update the full text of the Comprehensive Plan in even years only, while continuing to annually update the Population Trends, Economic Trends, and Financial Trends chapters, as well as the appendices. The 2011 Comprehensive Plan reflects the following revisions to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan: Updates - Incorporates the most current data available in the Population Trends, Economic Trends, and Financial Trends chapters; - Amends the South Main Urban Village boundary map in the Economic Development chapter to reflect the concept plan in the adopted South Main Urban Village Master Plan; - Adds the Fort Worth Botanic Garden Master Plan to Appendix A; - Adds the Sustainability Action Plan to Appendix A; - Updates the Population Estimate in Appendix B; - Updates future land use maps in Appendix C in response to land use changes, zoning, platting decisions and other factors; - Removes completed or cancelled capital improvement projects from Appendix D and adds new projects to Appendices D and E; Logname: 062011 CPADOPT Page 1 of 2 - Adds the Transportation Projects Prioritization Matrix in Appendix E; - Updates the annexation program in Appendix F; and - Updates the tax abatement policy statement in Appendix H. The City Plan Commission held a public hearing on the plan on January 26, 2011. After receiving input, the City Plan Commission voted to recommend adoption of the plan. The City Council held a public hearing on the 2011 Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the City Plan Commission on February 15, 2011. FISCAL INFORMATION / CERTIFICATION: The Financial Management Services Director certifies that this action will have no material effect on City funds. FUND CENTERS: TO Fund/Account/Centers CERTIFICATIONS: Submitted for City Manager's Office bv: Originating Department Head: Additional Information Contact: FROM Fund/Account/Centers Fernando Costa (6122) Randle Harwood (6101) Becky Pils (7645) Logname: 062011 CPADOPT Page 2 of 2 aoll C.mrtIvJtP VI CayCoilxhibit •A" Ord q5tiq PART I FOCUSING ON THE FUTURE CHAPTER 1: POPULATION TRENDS Since 2000, Fort Worth has been the fastest growing large city of more than 500,000 population in the nation. The city's population continues to grow and change. Growth today is due to immigration, an increased birth rate, longer average life expectancy, and domestic migration. It is important that the City of Fort Worth consider population trends in order to plan for the impacts of a larger population and increasing demands for public services. This chapter discusses ways in which population changes affect City services, followed by a general analysis of Fort Worth's population trends. There are four basic reasons for studying population trends. First, the City must be able to predict the costs involved in providing services in the future. The demand for many services, such as water and wastewater, can be predicted by applying a formula to future population estimates. Other City services apply only to certain segments of the population, making it important to know the population's composition. For example, knowing a population's age distribution is helpful in determining demand for particular housing types. Second, the City must be able to forecast revenues from various sources to meet future public service costs. Fort Worth derives revenues from several sources, including property tax and sales tax. Future tax revenues can be estimated but are susceptible to economic fluctuations. Per capita sales tax is often used as a predictor. Conclusions can also be drawn about property tax based on development activity, which is directly related to population increases. Third, knowing the spatial distribution of population within the City is important for determining the location of new community facilities and the strain that might be placed on existing facilities. Land uses are also determined by the population's spatial distribution. As population increases and shifts to different parts of the City, demand for certain types of land uses will also shift. Lastly, population forecasts assist the City in determining the future land uses needed to support the predicted population. As the city's population grows, additional land is needed to accommodate new residences, retail and service businesses, and other types of land uses. Each person will require a certain amount of space for certain uses. For example, the Parks and Community Services Department adopted the national standard of 21.25 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons to plan for future neighborhood parks. Similar predictions can also be made for other land uses. Factors Affecting Population Chang The increase in Fort Worth's population is generally the result of four key factors: 1) People are living longer; 2) Immigration has been steady for many years, particularly from Mexico and other Latin American countries, according to the Texas State Data Center; 3) Fort Worth and Texas as a whole are experiencing high birth rates; and 4) Domestic migration is also continuing, though at reduced rates from the 1980s. A robust economy relative to other states, particularly in the high technology sector, w c 0 co m a 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1950 Fort Worth Population, 1950-2030 741,206 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Fort Worth has been growing at an average annual growth rate of 3.9 percent since 2000 making it the fastest growing large city of more than 500,000 population over the last decade. If growth continues at a conservative esti- mate of 2.2 percent annually, which is well below the average for the past 10 years, population will exceed one million by 2030. The Council of Govern- ments will release 2040 population projections in 2011. (Sources: U.S Census Bureau, 1950-2010, North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2010; Planning and Develop- ment Department, 2010.) 9 Chapter 1: Population Trends continues to prompt corporate relocations to Fort Worth. Of course, actual population growth may be higher or lower than expected. Factors that could cause slower population growth might include a prolonged economic downturn that slows business expansion or necessitates an increase in local tax rates. Conversely, factors that could cause a more rapid population increase might include build -out of neighboring suburban cities that shifts growth to Fort Worth, or aggressive annexation in response to developments in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Total Population Fort Worth and its ETJ are home to over 800,000 people. The ETJ is land located a certain distance beyond the city limit line that a city has a right to annex. Chapter 43 of the Local Government Code, State of Texas, defines the size of a city's ETJ based on population. Cities that have a population of 100,000 or more have a five -mile ETJ. Because of rules governing the minimum lot size for individual septic sewers, residential growth in the ETJ will likely be limited to less than one unit per acre, except where municipal utility districts are established to fund sewer collection systems and supporting main extensions. According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data, Fort Worth has been the fastest growing large city of more than 500,000 population in the nation since April 1, 2000. Fort Worth's total population increased from 447,619 in 1990 to 534,694 in 2000, an annual average growth rate of approximately 2 percent. Since the 2000 Census, the population has increased at a faster rate than it did during the 1990s. The 2010 Census count for Fort Worth is 741,206 persons as of April 1, 2010. From 2000 to 2010, Fort Worth's total population increased by 206,512 persons. This represents an average annual increase of approximately 20,650 persons, a growth rate of 3.9 percent a year. Fort Worth has grown 39 percent this decade, with an increase of 15,950 just in the past year. If Fort Worth continues to grow at the same rate it has since 2000, the city's population could easily exceed one million people by the year 2030. The North Central Texas region has continued to experience population growth. The region increased by 90,170 persons in 2009. Almost half of the region's growth in 2009 occurred in the five cities of Fort Worth, Dallas, Frisco, McKinney, and Denton. Fort Worth led the region by adding 15,950 new residents. Without careful consideration of how and where such growth will be accommodated, the negative effects of rapid population growth (traffic congestion, pollution, costly and inefficient services, etc.) will likely be exacerbated. Chapter 4: Land Use introduces the idea of mixed -use growth centers in these areas. Growth centers will have a high concentration of not only housing but jobs, services, and public facilities. Projected Population Growth, 2010-2015 7,, 1. 1. Far North 2. Far Northwest 3. Far West 4. Northside Legend Percent Growth 30 - 76% 15 - 29% r i 0 - 14% 10 5 0 10 Miles 5. Northeast 9. Western Hills/Ridglea 13. Far Southwest 6. Eastside 10. Southside 14. Wedgwood 7. Arlington Heights 11. TCU/Westcliff 15. Sycamore 8. Downtown 12. Southeast 16. Far South The City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction are divided into 16 sectors for planning purposes. Growth has occurred at a faster rate in outlying areas of the city. Updated growth numbers should be available in 2011. (source North Central Texas Council of Governments, 2005.) Chapter 1: Population Trends 10 Chapter 10: Economic Development, discusses urban villages, which will increase density in the central city and encourage mixed -use, pedestrian -oriented environments. Similarly, the Comprehensive Plan promotes infill development, or use of vacant or underdeveloped sites for housing or commercial activity, rather than "leapfrogging" over the central city to the outskirts of town. Such efforts will guide rapid population growth to areas where population can be accommodated with less harmful effects. Race and Ethnicity According to 2010 Census Data, Hispanics accounted for 34 percent of Fort Worth's total population. This ethnic group is the fastest growing population group in Fort Worth and Texas. Races categorized as "other," primarily Asian and Pacific Islander, are also gaining, while white and black percentages are declining in share. Currently, minorities collectively make up the majority of Fort Worth's population. By the year 2029, Hispanics are expected to make up 39 percent of Tarrant County's population, if current trends continue. Fort Worth's racial and ethnic minorities are concentrated in certain areas of the city (see map on page 13). African Americans are concentrated inside Loop 820 to the east of Interstate 35 and mostly to the south of Interstate 30. These areas contain many neighborhood associations such as West Meadowbrook and Stop Six. Hispanics are more concentrated on the north side, in the Diamond Hill -Jarvis and Far Greater Northside historical neighborhoods, as well as in south central Fort Worth. Since 2000, racial and ethnic minorities have become the majority population in east Fort Worth along IH30 and in portions of Southwest Fort Worth. For more information on neighborhoods, see Chapter 9: Neighborhood Capacity Building. The Fort Worth City Council has proposed several ways to deconcentrate poverty, which will also have an effect on racial segregation. In April 2006, the Council passed Resolution 256, which serves "to Affirm and Promote That the Dispersion of Quality, Affordable Housing into Neighborhoods throughout the City of Fort Worth is Essential to a Well -Balanced Community." The Housing and Economic Development Department is working to increase the quality of life in inner city, minority neighborhoods through home ownership assistance and other programs. For more information, see Chapter 5: Housing. Age While the aging baby boom generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) is expected to increase demand on social services, Fort Worth is a relatively young city compared to national and state demographics. The 2009 American Community Survey reported a median age of 30.8 in Fort Worth, 33.1 for the State of Texas, and 36.8 for the United States. There were 59,799 persons over 65 in the city in 2009. According to City of Fort Worth projections, this figure will increase between 2010 and 2020 as the first members of the baby boom generation reach the age of 65 in 2011. According to the Texas State Data Center, the elderly (65+) will make up about 15 percent of the county's population by 2029. This age group will continue to grow in 2029 as the remaining portion of the baby boom generation reaches 65. 11 Fort Worth Race and Ethnicity, 2010 Other Races (Non- Fispanic), 6% Black (Non- Fispanic), 18% Fispanic (All Races), 34% White (Non- Fispanic), 42% Minorities collectively made up the majority of Fort Worth's population in 2010. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.) Tarrant County Race and Ethnicity, 2029 Black (Non- Fispanic) 14% Fispanic (All Races) 39% Other Races (Non- Fispanic) 8% White (Non- Fispanic) 39% The Hispanic population is projected to be the fastest growing segment of Tarrant County's population, comprising 39 percent in 2029. This increase in the proportion of Hispanics is likely to be even greater for the City of Fort Worth. (Source: Texas State Date Center, 2010.) Chapter 1: Population Trends There were 164,582 children between 5 and 19 years old in 2009, making up 22 percent of the population, a slightly higher percentage of children than the U.S. as a whole, which was 20 percent. In Texas, children make up 22 percent of the popula- tion. The adult population between the ages of 20 and 64 was 434,758, making up almost 60 percent of the population. This is the same as in the U.S., and slightly more than Texas, with 59 percent. Between now and 2029, the greatest growth will occur in the general working -age adult population, which will help to offset the increases in young and elderly popu- lations. If current trends continue, there will be more working adults per dependent population in 2029 than in 2009. Increases in various segments of the population will create needs for various types of services. An increase in school -age children necessitates new classroom space and more teachers. Changes in age groups also will change new development. Young families often choose to live further out in the suburbs, while many young people in their 20s and retirees are choosing to live downtown. Responding to this changing housing market, new housing units continue to be added in the central city. It is also important to consider the elderly in long-range planning. This group will create a demand for housing near hospitals and on public transportation routes, as well as supportive housing such as retirement communities and nursing homes. Services for the elderly are discussed in this plan in Chapter 8: Human Services. Population by Sector Sector populations are estimated based upon the most closely matching census ge- ography. Five of the 16 planning sectors include areas outside the city limits in the ETJ (see map on page 10). Between 2010 and 2015, population is projected to grow greatest in the Far South- west, Far Northwest, and Far West sectors. This growth is attributed to the avail- ability of large tracts of developable land in these outer sectors. The projections for the Far North and Far Southwest sectors exhibited the largest volume of growth due to residential developments. The Far Southwest sector is also projected to have the greatest percentage growth between 2010 and 2015. This trend is expected to continue in the Far North sector as large residential devel- opments expand beyond North Tarrant Parkway. The Far West, and Far Southwest sectors will also continue to experience a high percentage of growth as new subdivi- sions expand. Since 2001, an estimated 2,000 people have been added in Downtown Fort Worth. A 2006 study by Downtown Fort Worth, Inc. and M/PF Research concluded that the market can absorb an additional 7,300 housing units downtown in the next 11 to 15 years. Other central city sectors have exhibited much slower growth rates than the Downtown sector, primarily due to their older housing stock, lack of large tracts of 75-79 Female 60-64 45-49 30-34 15-19 0-4 Fort Worth Age Groups, 2009 Male 40000 20000 0 20000 40000 Persons The number of persons 65 and older was 59,799 in 2009 while the number of school -age persons (ages 5-19) was 164,582. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.) Tarrant County Age Groups, 2009- 2029 700,000 - 600, 000 to500, 000 - 0 400,000 m 300,000 a 200,000 100,000 0 Under 18 18-24 24-44 45-64 65 and older © 2009 • 2029 The elderly will make up a greater proportion of our population in 2029 than in 2009. (Sources: Texas State Data Center, 2010, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.) Chapter 1: Population Trends 12 developable land, and overall restrictions on development density. Many central city sectors experienced a population decline in the 1980s, but are now gaining population. Race by Sector The Southeast sector has the largest percentage of minority residents, with 93 per- cent of its total population comprised of black, Hispanic, and other. Northside, Southside, and Northeast sectors follow with 86, 83, and 83 percent minority popu- lations, respectively. Minority populations grew in all sectors since 2000 except for the Downtown sector. The Far South, Wedgwood, Far Southwest, Far Northwest, and Sycamore sectors experienced the greatest percentage growth of minority resi- dents since 2000. Data from the Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) indicate that the percentage of Hispanic students has increased in almost every elementary school in the FWISD since 1990. The highest percentage of Hispanic student population growth has been in schools located in the Northeast and TCU/Westcliff sectors. All elementary schools in these sectors have shown substantial increases in the Hispanic student population since 1990. Age by Sector In 2000, the Downtown sector had the highest percentage of persons aged 65 and older, at 36 percent. The Arlington Heights and TCU/Westcliff sectors both had 14 percent. The Far North sector had the smallest percentage of persons 65 and over at only three percent. Downtown saw an increase in younger adults from 1990 to 2000. This could be due to the completion of a number of residential developments that appeal to young professionals. Since the baby -boom generation is projected to begin turning 65 years old in the year 2011, it is likely that the percentage of seniors in all sectors will increase proportionately. Challenges and Onnortunities The total population of Fort Worth will continue to grow each year. In 2010, the city's population was 741,206 with the potential to exceed one million by 2030. Increased population will place additional demands on existing community facilities and infrastructure, and will result in the need for additional and expanded facilities. Shifting populations within the city will result in changing land use patterns and will help determine the location of new facilities. Accommodating population growth in a more sustainable way is an important chal- lenge facing communities across the country, and Fort Worth is working to meet the challenge. This Comprehensive Plan contains many goals, objectives, policies, and strategies that will help the City of Fort Worth attain a more sustainable future. While Fort Worth's total population grows, there will also be changes in the compo- sition of the population. Minorities, collectively, have become the majority. The percentage of the population over the age of 65 will increase between 2010 and 2020. Changes in age composition will result in a need for different types of hous- 9r 10 Minority Population, 2010 by Census Block Group 5 0 > 50% Black > 50% Hispanic > 50% Minority 0 Mie= The Northside, Southside, and Southeast sectors of the City have the high- est concentrations of minority population. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.) 13 Chapter 1: Population Trends CHAPTER 2: ECONOMIC TRENDS The prosperity of Fort Worth is linked to domestic and international changes. During the 1970s and 1980s, the local economy was driven primarily by a large and successful aerospace and defense industry. Substantial cutbacks in defense contracts prompted the City to begin working towards diversifying its economy in the 1990s, largely through small business development. The result is an economy that is today diversified in many industry sectors such as services, trade, manufacturing, transportation, communication, and construction. This diverse workforce has helped Fort Worth during this economic downturn, as we continue to fare better than other cities. The City is not immune to national trends which have shown a significant amount of job loss and shrinking economic growth indicators. The Fort Worth area continues to see an increase in the total number of natural gas wells throughout the city and surrounding counties. This increase in natural gas wells is attributed to the large natural gas reserve under Tarrant, Wise, Denton, Johnson, and Parker counties, known as the Barnett Shale. Although weak natural gas prices have affected the overall production of natural gas in across the nation, production rates continue to make Fort Worth a leader in Texas' energy production. Tarrant County is ranked #1 in top gas producing counties by the Texas Railroad Commission. As natural gas exploration and production continues within Fort Worth, the associated jobs and lease revenue from natural gas wells will continue to contribute to the local economy. This chapter discusses some of the major economic indicators for the region, details some of the major economic attributes of the City of Fort Worth, and correlates national and international events to regional trends. Assessing these factors provides the basis for making reasoned assumptions about future economic growth and land development needs. There are three reasons for attempting to assess and predict changes in the economy. First, the costs of providing certain City services are related to the level of economic activity. Industrial and commercial enterprises require water, wastewater, police, fire, environmental, and other services. The costs of providing certain water and wastewater services are partially offset by impact fees, but many other municipal services have no corresponding revenue source. Estimates for quantity and type of streets, public transportation facilities, schools, water and sewer facilities, and other community facilities are all based on the amount and spatial distribution of population and economic activity in the city. Second, just as it costs money to provide services to businesses, these same businesses provide tax dollars that pay for the services. The City must be able to predict whether a public investment will ultimately pay for itself. The rate at which the economy expands drives growth not only in population, but also in sales taxes, property taxes, hotel taxes, impact fees, and other revenue sources. Employment by Place of Work, 1990-2030 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Fort Worth -Arlington MD Fort Worth Employment in Fort Worth is forecasted to continue growing by 1.5 percent annually in Fort Worth through 2030. The employment growth in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD is forecast to grow, on average, 1.57 percent annually through 2030. (Source: North Central Texas Council of Governments and The Perryman Group, Inc., 2010.) $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 Median Family Income, 1995-2010 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Median family income for the Fort Worth -Arlington HUD Metro FMR Area in- creased from $46,100 to $67,400 between 1995 and 2010, an average an- nual increase of 3.1% over the 15-year period. (Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010.) 15 Chapter 2: Economic Trends Lastly, knowledge about the economy is useful in predicting land use needs and in creating policy. An expanding economy and population generally means more land is being developed. Every sector of the economy uses land in a specific way. By analyzing the growth trends in the various sectors, the amounts of land that will be needed for commercial and industrial uses in the future can be predicted. Policies can be developed to encourage growth in appropriate areas with adequate infrastructure and community facilities while allowing for the efficient provision of additional facilities and services as needed. Total Emnlovment and Job Growth According to the North Central Texas Council of Governments' employment forecast, employment in the City of Fort Worth will continue to rise at a rate of 1.5 percent annually to approximately 701,524 jobs within the city limits in 2030. The Perryman Group, Inc., an economic research and consulting firm, forecasts job growth in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD to continue, though at a slightly slower rate than that of the late 1990s. Between 1990 and 2000, the Fort Worth -Arlington MD gained jobs at a rate of 3.2 percent per year according to the Perryman Group. Total job growth is expected to slow to 1.57 percent annually through the year 2035 (2009- 2030). The Perryman Group forecasts a total of 1,350,000 jobs in 2030 for the Fort Worth -Arlington MD. The State Comptroller projects that job growth in the State of Texas is expected to slow as well, from 2.1 percent annually from 1990 through 2004 to 1.5 percent annually from 2009 through the year 2030. These projections take into account the slowing of the national economy in the face of increasing global competition, geopolitical conflicts, and tightening labor markets. Rising energy costs may play a further role in limiting job growth as gasoline prices continue to rise. Future job growth will likely be due to Fort Worth's large percentage of undeveloped or underutilized land and a vast ETJ of approximately 307 square miles that is mostly vacant. Moreover, many other cities in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD are landlocked and are rapidly developing the remainder of their vacant land. Emnlovment by Industry The Fort Worth -Arlington MD has a highly diversified economy. The area is an important manufacturing, commercial, transportation and financial hub and provides a large number of cultural and recreational opportunities. It has also recently become a major area for natural gas exploration and development. According to the Perryman Group, the metro division house approximately 8.54% of Texas' residents and currently generates 8.06% of the state's real gross product (output) and accounts for 8.23% of the state's total employment. Over the long term, Fort Worth -Arlington MD is predicted to achieve notable growth across a variety of industries. The following estimates and forecasts of employment by industry are only available for jobs within the Fort Worth -Arlington MD, the primary area from which Fort Worth draws its workforce. According to the Perryman Group, through the next Fort Worth Employment Forecast, 2000-2030 t 10 5 0 le; Loss or No Gain 1 % to 49% u p 50% to 99% ▪ >100% 10 Miles Strong employment growth is forecast for Fort Worth's Far North sector as a result of Alliance Airport's growth and related development. (Source: North Cen- tral Texas Council of Governments, 2030 Demographic Forecast, 2010.) Chapter 2: Economic Trends 16 twenty-six years, all industries in the Fort Worth -Arlington metro area are anticipated to see an expansion in the number of workers. • Historically, the service sector has grown rapidly nationwide. With new, efficient communications, businesses are increasingly able to sell services in distant markets, making services an export commodity. In Texas and nationwide, the service sector experienced slight growth in 2003 and resumed historical growth patterns in 2005. The services sector in the Fort Worth - Arlington MD increased by 46,100 new jobs over the past five years (2004 to 2009), representing the largest employment sector growth, and it is forecast to grow by an additional 256,700 jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a 2.18 percent compound annual growth rate. The service sector currently accounts for approximately 37.91% of the Fort Worth -Arlington MD's total wage and salary employment. By 2035, services is projected to be responsible for 44.34% of the workforce in the metro division. The services sector is forecast to account for the largest amount of real gross product gain from 2009 to 2035 for the Fort Worth -Arlington MD. The increase will be approximately $27.4 billion. • Trade has experienced a increase in total jobs in the past five years (2004 to 2009). Trade related job growth increased by 12,700 jobs between 2004 and 2008 in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD. The trade sector is forecast to grow by 64,100 new jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a 1.38 percent compound annual growth rate. • Manufacturing increased by nine percent between 1992 and 1998, largely due to aircraft manufacturing. However, the market experienced a downturn between 2001 and 2006. The manufacturing sector decreased by 7,200 jobs between 2001 and 2006. Prior to 2008, the industry had remained fairly stable. In 2009, the industry saw a loss of approximately 7,200 jobs. Some of this loss can be attributed to the decrease in industries such as auto manufacturing in Arlington's GM plant. Overall, the total manufacturing jobs in 2009 accounted for 10.01% of the Fort Worth -Arlington MD's total wage and salary employment. The industry overall is forecast to increase by 20,500 jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a compound annual growth rate of approximately .8% percent. • Government grew by 8,200 jobs between 2004 and 2009. This job increase is reflective of the need for government to maintain its level of services as the service area continues to grow. The government sector is forecast to grow by 40,300 jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a 1.09 percent compound annual growth rate. • Transportation, warehousing, and utilities (TWU) increased by 1600 jobs between 2004 and 2009, and is forecasted to grow by 29,300 jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a 1.48 percent compound annual growth rate. According to the Perryman Group, transportation received a large boost in Texas with the implementation of the 1994 North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), reducing barriers to trade with Mexico. According to the Texas Comptroller's Office, Texas exports to Mexico increased from $50.1 billion in 2005 to $56.0 billion in 2009. Since the passing of NAFTA, exports from Texas to Mexico have increased 150 percent ($22 billion in 1995). The overall exports from Texas was approximately $163 billion in 2009. Transportation is likely to increase due Employment by Industry, 2009 Agriculture 0.16% Government 13.71% Services 37.91% 5.62% Mining 1.32% Construction 5.93% Manufacturing 10.01% Trade 16.60% TWU^ 6.99% FRE* Information 1.74% Services and trade were the largest employment sectors in the Fort Worth - Arlington MD in 2009. *FIRE -Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate; ATWU- Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities. (Source: The Perryman Group, Inc., 2010.) Employment Forecast by Industry, 2035 Agriculture 0.12% Government 12.15% Services 44.34% FIRE* 4.84% Mining 0.95% Construction 4.99% Manufacturing 8.21% Trade 15.83% TWUA 6.84% Information 1.74% Services and trade are forecast to be the largest employment sectors in the Fort Worth -Arlington Metropolitan Division in 2035. *FIRE -Finance, Insurance, & Real Estate; ATWU-Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities. (Source: The Perryman Group, Inc., 2010.) 17 Chapter 2: Economic Trends to Fort Worth's central distribution location. Almost 90 percent of the nation's markets can be reached by truck or rail from Fort Worth within 48 hours. The warehousing industry experienced a downturn but is forecast to revive again, as trade begins to increase. The utilities industry continues to consolidate as a result of deregulation and competition. • Construction in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD increase by nearly 6,200 jobs between 2004 and 2009. Employment in construction is forecast to grow by 13,800 jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a 0.89 percent compound annual growth rate. In 2002 and 2003, construction jobs decreased in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD before growing again in 2004 through 2006, according to the Perryman Group. The near -term outlook is for construction to grow moderately in Texas especially in the construction of buildings and heavy and civil engineering construction. • Finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD grew by 4,600 jobs between 2004 and 2009, and is forecast to grow by 14,800 jobs between 2009 and 2035, representing a 0.99 percent compound annual growth rate. • Mining in Texas is dominated by oil and gas production, and this sector suffered in the years when crude oil prices were low. The number of operating Texas oil and gas rigs fell to 306 in April 2002, but the strength in oil and gas prices over the past few years caused renewed exploration, and the rig count rose to 607 in 2005. The Texas Railroad Commission reported in December 2009 that Texas' average rig count was 470, representing about 40 percent of all active land rigs in the United States. This is significantly lower than December 2008, in which Texas experienced high numbers of active rigs (826). Mining employment growth has seen about an 15.06 percent compound annual growth rate in the past five years (2004-2009), by a total of 6,000 jobs. In 2010, the Perryman Group forecasts a slight increase of about 200 mining related jobs in the Fort Worth - Arlington MD indicative of the continued overall drilling slowdown in Texas. This number is expected to level increase slightly for the next 10 years and then begin leveling off. From 2009 until 2035, the Fort Worth -Arlington MD mining industry will grow by less than 900 jobs at a 0.28 percent compound annual growth rate. • Agriculture has remained consistently at around 1,400 jobs in the Fort Worth - Arlington MD for the past five years and will continue to maintain the same amount of jobs in the area. The industry is forecast to not experience any significant growth between 2009 and 2035. Statewide, approximately 75 percent of wage and salary workers are currently in the services, government, and trade industries. Over the long-term forecast horizon, those three sectors will continue to account for almost 72 percent of employment in the Fort Worth -Arlington metro area.. In the mid to late 1990s, the Fort Worth -Arlington MD experienced robust job growth. Job growth began to decline in 2000 through 2003 in the Fort Worth - Arlington MD. In 2009, the total workforce from the Fort Worth -Arlington MD was Annual Unemployment Rates 12 10 8 C 6 a 4 2 0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 — City of Fort Worth --A—Texas --- Nation Fort Worth's unemployment rate experienced a spike between 2001 and 2003, before realigning with the State's average rate in 2005 through 2007. Unemployment rates throughout the United States remain high. This trend will continue until the nation's economic climate stabilizes. (Source: Texas Workforce Commission, 2011. The 2010 estimate relies on reported unemployment rates from January to November 2010.) Average Unemployment Rates, 2010* (Major Texas Cities and State) 10 9 8 7 6 (.) 5 a 4 3 2 1 0 8.5 O U j N 8.8 N l0 9.0 O R a W 8.2 C O N O x 0 C C N r c 8.2 co m Statewide, unemployment rates have been rising. Texas in general has witnessed lower overall rates that the nation as a whole. Fort Worth's 2010 unemployment rate of 8.5 percent is nearly one point higher than reported in 2009. (Source: Texas Workforce Commission, 2011. The 2010 estimate relies on reported unemployment rates from January to November 2010.) Chapter 2: Economic Trends 18 1,056,147, which represents an increase from the 2000 figure and representative of the 2004-2006 economic turnaround and continued job growth in North Texas. According to the Perryman Group, the long-term jobs outlook for the Fort Worth -Arlington MD is expected to improve due in large part to substantial growth at Alliance Airport and this region's distribution activities. Unemployment In 2010*, the Fort Worth unemployment rate was 8.5 percent. Also in 2010, the Fort Worth -Arlington MD unemployment rate was 8.3 percent, and the State of Texas had an unemployment rate of 8.2 percent. Nationwide, the unemployment rate was 9.7 percent in 2010. In comparison, the Fort Worth unemployment rate in 2010 ranked fourth among six major cities in Texas, as shown by the chart on page 18. As the nation continues to experience economic uncertainty, unemployment rates will continue to rise. *The Texas Workforce Commission has not released unemployment statistics for December 2010. Real Gross Area Product Real gross area product is the final value of all goods and services produced during a given time period, adjusted for inflation. The Perryman Group is the sole source of estimates for regional figures. Within the Fort Worth -Arlington Metropolitan Division, real gross product is projected to grow from $75.96 billion in 2009 to $198.91 billion in 2035. Statewide, the Perryman Group projects the real gross state product to continue to grow at 3.73 percent compounded annually between 2009 and 2035, rising from approximately $942.9 billion to $2.4 trillion. The U. S. real gross domestic product is predicted to continue increasing at approximately 3.39 percent compounded annually according to the Perryman Group. Retail Sales According to the State Comptroller, total retail sales in Fort Worth increased approximately 1.3 percent compounded annually from $7.37 billion in 2004 to $7.86 billion in 2009. During the same time period, retail sales in the Fort Worth -Arlington MD grew by 1.9 percent compounded annually ($24.85 billion to $27.36 billion), while the Dallas -Plano -Irving MD averaged a 1.13 percent compounded annually ($68.67 billion to $72.64 billion). In 2009, per capita retail sales in Fort Worth were $10,961 per person, below the Fort Worth -Arlington MD retail sales of $17,297 and the Dallas - Plano -Irving MD, which had a per capita retail sales figure of $17,208. Currently, national trends indicate that energy costs are driving inflation. If this trend continues, retail sales may continue to witness the negative effects of inflation due to rising energy costs. For the Fort Worth -Arlington MD, the Perryman Group predicts the overall retail sales to grow at a 7.14 percent compounded annual growth rate between 2009 and 2035. According to their projections, retail sales in the Fort Worth Arlington MD will be approximately $177 billion in 2035. Personal Income Per capita personal income for the Fort Worth -Arlington MD was estimated to be $38,018 in 2008, which was slightly lower than the state average of $39,806 and slightly lower than the national average of $39,430, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Billions of Dollars 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 Real Gross Area Product, 2000-2035 • V 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year Real Gross Area Product for the Fort Worth -Arlington Metropolitan Division is forecast to continue growing by 3.77 percent compound annually between 2009 and 2035. (Source: The Perryman Group, Inc., 2010 ) $13,000 $12,500 $12,000 $11,500 $11,000 $10,500 $10,000 $10,816 Per Capita Retail Sales, 2002-2009 $12,354 $11,597 $12,432 $10.961 2002 2003 2004 2005Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 Per capita retail sales for the City of Fort Worth dramatically fell 11.8 per- cent between 2008 and 2009. Second quarter retail sales tax receipts for 2010 already show an over $225 million increase from this time in 2009, indicating that 2010 should realize a comfortable increase in retail sales. (Sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts and North Central Texas Council of Gov- ernments, 2010.) 19 Chapter 2: Economic Trends Analysis. The Fort Worth -Arlington MD figure increased by 4.08 percent annually between 2003 and 2008, slightly above the rate of inflation (2.9% annually during the same period). Personal per capita income for the State shows a larger increase of 6.11 percent per year, similar to the annual national growth rate of 4.47 percent. Cost of Living The 2010 annual cost of living in the Dallas -Fort Worth MSA continues to be lower than most other large metropolitan areas in the country, according to the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI). In 2010, the Dallas -Fort Worth annual CPI was 201.9, compared to Atlanta at 203.5, Los Angeles at 225.9, and Boston at 237.7. Although CPI figures are not available for the city, evidence indicates that Fort Worth's cost of living is lower than that of many other cities in the Metroplex. Housing represents 42 percent of all items used to calculate the CPI. The median sale price of a home in Fort Worth was $115,900 in 2009, compared to $160,00 in Dallas, according to the Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. Inflation is the change in the CPI, or the percentage rise in the prices of common consumer items. From 2009 to 2010, the nation as a whole witnessed a 1.64 percent inflation rate from the previous year. During that same period the Dallas -Fort Worth MSA saw a higher inflation rate of .68 percent. By comparison the inflation rate between 2007 and 2008 nationwide was inflation rate of 4.2 percent while the Dallas - Fort Worth MSA an inflation rate of 4.3 percent. The Texas Comptroller predicts that the CPI will rise by an average of 2.9 percent per year through 2025. Employment by Sector The Far North sector exhibited the most significant employment growth in the city between 1990 and 2000, adding almost 47,251 jobs at an average annual growth rate of 16.9 percent. The Far North sector's job growth can be attributed primarily to new jobs in the Alliance Airport area, including Alliance Gateway and the Intermodal facility. Jobs were also added in Fossil Creek, Mercantile Center, and Mark IV industrial parks. The Northeast sector added 15,132 new jobs, at an average annual growth rate of 3.3 percent. The Downtown sector ranked third in number of new jobs, with approximately 15,070 new jobs, at an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent. Other growth areas included the TCU/Westcliff sector, with a large new shopping center; the Western Hills/Ridglea sector, which benefited from the recommissioning of the Naval Joint Reserve Base; the Eastside sector, which includes CentrePort and several new retail establishments; and the Northside sector, where the Stockyards have been redeveloped into an entertainment district. Only the Far West sector has performed poorly in job growth, as there has been primarily residential development west of Loop 820. Unemployment by Sector Many parts of the City of Fort Worth have experienced long-term high unemployment rates. 2004 estimates of the civilian labor force and unemployed persons from the Texas Workforce Commission by census tract reveal that the Northside, Southeast, and Southside had unemployment rates above nine percent. More recent data will not Unemployment Rate by Census Tract, 2004 10 5 0 @1) Percent Unemployed Less than 5% (,-5%to7% al7%tog% ge More than 9% 10 Miles Unemployment is highest in census tracts located in the Northside, South- east, and Southside sectors of Fort Worth. Census tract level data is no longer available from the Texas Workforce Commission beyond 2004. (Source: Texas Workforce Commission, 2004.) Chapter 2: Economic Trends 20 be available by census tract from the Texas Workforce Commission due to methodology changes in geographic areas below the state level. However, the unemployment rates in these sectors are likely to continue to be high in comparison to the city as a whole. Median Household Income by Sector According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the Downtown sector had the lowest median household income at $21,111. Nevertheless, in the last 20 years, and more rapidly since 2000, Downtown has seen increased residential development of upscale housing. The Northeast, Northside, Southeast, Southside, and Sycamore sectors all had median incomes below the citywide median of $37,074 in 2000. The Far Southwest sector had the highest median income of $65,591. The Far Northwest sector also had a relatively high median income of $55,625. The Wedgwood and TCU/ Westcliff sectors had the highest median incomes of all central city sectors, both more than $55,000 per year. Challenges and Onnortunities The changing economy provides Fort Worth with several challenges and many opportunities. The national, state, and local economies began emerging from a slowdown after September 11, 2001. Fort Worth fared well during this time due its diverse economy and its close proximity to Alliance and D/FW airports and the NAFTA Interstate 35 corridor. In addition, the community's pro -business stance has helped diversify the Fort Worth economy. Between 2002 and 2007, Fort Worth and the entire Metroplex experienced strong economic growth. However, the national recession in 2008 began to impact Fort Worth in 2010, with local unemployment rising from 4.6 percent in 2007 to 8.5 percent by the end of 2010 (compared to 9.7 percent for the nation). The current recession was slow to affect Fort Worth and its negative impacts have not been as severe in Fort Worth as has been the case in many other parts of the country. These factors provide Fort Worth with a firm foundation for growth in future years. However, the policies and programs of the City must be continuously examined to ensure that they help mitigate the impacts of a slowing economy and rising energy costs, while promoting Fort Worth's economic strengths. Median Household Income by Census Tract, 2000 10 5 0 10 Mies Incomes are highest in the Far North, Far Northwest, Far Southwest, TCU/ Westcliff, and Wedgwood sectors. (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.) 21 Chapter 2: Economic Trends CHAPTER 3: FINANCIAL TRENDS Population growth and economic trends greatly affect the financial planning process of the City of Fort Worth. City officials must consider this information, as well as local revenue trends, debt capacity, and the cost of new facilities when responding to the needs of citizens. During periods of economic contraction, the City of Fort Worth is fiscally prudent and pays particular budgeting consideration to the continuation of providing services to citizens. Economic expansion and population growth call for detailed fiscal planning to provide new infrastructure and public services. This chapter presents information on financial planning as it applies to a local governmental entity and summarizes past, present, and future financial trends of the City of Fort Worth. Monies received by the City are accounted for with a City Operating Budget and a Capital Budget. In the operating budget, accounts are grouped under the categories of Enterprise Funds, General Fund, Special Funds, and Internal Service Funds. The chart shown on the right lists specific departments funded through each. Enterprise funds account for city services that are financed and operated much like private businesses, where the costs of providing services (both operating and capital costs) are financed through user charges. The City seeks to eliminate all forms of subsidization to enterprise funds. The General Fund receives the largest amount of revenue in the overall City budget. Internal Service Funds are established to account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department of the city for another. Special Fund accounts are set up to track revenue and expenses incurred for the various items listed. Funds received from grants are handled through a separate budget. The adopted budget Grants Consolidated Action Plan for June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011 shows a total allocation of $11,780,219 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to the City of Fort Worth. The HUD funding consists of four entitlement grants: Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter Grant, Housing Opportunities for Persons with Aids and the HOME program. Funds are allocated for administration, public facilities, housing programs, public service programs, emergency shelter, and housing and support services for people with AIDS. Fort Worth has an abundance of resources and a diverse economy that has made it successful in attracting new businesses, investment, and jobs. According to the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), the total employment for the City of Fort Worth grew by 20.6 percent, from 449,793 in 2000 to 542,452 in 2010. The city has ample land for growth, excellent job -training facilities, a growing population, and adequate infrastructure. These positive factors are an indication of economic prosperity, which typically leads to an expansion of the economic base and increased revenue for the City. Revenues The largest source of General Fund revenue for the City of Fort Worth is property (ad valorem) taxes and sales taxes. Fort Worth relies heavily on property tax revenues, with 54.5 percent of General Fund revenue collected from this source. Ad valorem taxes are 23 Total City Operating Fund Structure Enterprise Funds Operating Departments Debt Service Municipal Airports Municipal Golf Courses Municipal Parking Solid Waste Storm Water Utility Water and Sewer General Fund Operating Departments Internal Service Funds Operating Departments City Manager's Office City Secretary Code Compliance Financial Management Services Fire Housing and Economic Development Human Resources Internal Audit Law Library Municipal Court Non -Departmental Parks & Community Services Planning & Development Police Transportation & Public Works Special Funds Accounts Capital Projects Service Equipment Services Information Technology Solutions Office Services Temporary Labor Awarded Assets Cable Communications Fund Crime Control and Prevention District Culture and Tourism Debt Service Fund Environmental Protection Fund Grants Insurance Group Health Risk Management * Unemployment Compensation Workers Compensation Lake Worth Trust Special Trust Fund The City's operating budget is composed of four funds that support operat- ing departments and City accounts. Information in this chapter looks at the financial trends that impact these funds. (Source: FY2011 Adopted Budget.) Chapter 3: Financial Trends paid on real property (real estate) and personal property according to the assessed value. Texas law states that all property is assessed on the basis of 100 percent of its appraised value, and real property must be reappraised every three years. The FY2011 budget maintains the City's property tax rate to $0.8550 per $100 net taxable valuation. Adjusted Net Value (which is the Net Taxable Value plus the minimum taxable value of incomplete properties and properties under protest), decreased $838 million or 2.0 percent in the same time period. Adjusted Net Value is the basis for the City's property tax revenue calculation. As a result of the decline, the City is projected to collect $7.8 million less in General Fund property tax revenue than in FY2010. The estimate of the FY2011 tax revenue is based on the certified roll provided by the central appraisal districts of Tarrant, Denton, and Wise Counties in July 2010. The assumed collection rate is 98 percent. Other factors affecting current property tax revenue are the exemptions to assessed valuation authorized by the State and additional exemptions and freezes granted on a local option and approved by City Council. The most significant exemptions approved by the City Council are the general homestead exemption of 20 percent available to all residential homestead properties, an additional $40,000 homestead exemption granted to senior citizens, and the freeport exemption for commercial goods in transit. The decline in property tax revenue is a reflection of the broad national trend of declining real estate values. While this trend is expected to continue, the impact on Fort Worth is likely to be offset by continued development. Current projections forecast property tax revenue to remain flat in 2012, and gradually climb back to historic levels by 2014. Sales tax, the second major source of tax revenue, comprises 18.4 percent of the General Fund revenue budget in FY2011. Sales tax revenues peaked in FY2008 at $105 million. Since then, revenues declined to $99.9 million in FY2010. Sales taxes are predicted to decline further in FY2011, to $96.4 million. This amount is expected to grow slightly over the next five-year period. Relying on one major source of income for the city is not prudent; therefore, increasing sales tax collections is desirable. This increase can only be accomplished by increasing retail sales, on which the tax is based. The base tax rate of 6.25 percent is set by the State and becomes state revenue. Local jurisdictions are permitted to collect an additional 2.00 percent maximum for city revenue. The City of Fort Worth collects the maximum, and the money is allocated as follows: 1.0 percent to the General Fund; 0.5 percent to the Fort Worth Transportation Authority Fund; and, 0.5 percent to a special Crime Control and Prevention District Fund. Sales tax collections are affected by national and local economic trends, including availability of discretionary income, shopping facilities, and tourism revenues. As with property taxes, sales tax revenue is projected to increase to historic levels in FY2014. General Fund Revenue Budget: FY2011 $522,351,865 Transfers 7.8% Other Revenue 0.5% Service Charges 4.5% From Other Agencies 0.2% Use of Money & Property 1.0% Fines and Forfeitures 3.1% P roperty tax 54.5% Sales tax 18.4% Other local Licenses andtaxes Permits 1.7% 8.2% Property tax and sales tax revenues account for the majority of money in the General Fund. Budget percentages of revenue for FY2011 are shown in this chart. (Source: FY2011 Adopted Budget.) Net Taxable Value 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Tax Year (for following Budget Year) Net Taxable Value is the sum of the values of all properties in Fort Worth less exemptions, protested values, and incomplete assessments. It reflects both the growth in existing property values and new property development. (source: FY2010 Adopted Budget.) Chapter 3: Financial Trends 24 Expenditures It is anticipated that approximately 47 percent of all revenue will be spent for General Fund items, 32 percent for water and waste water services, and approximately 21 percent on the Crime District, Solid Waste and other miscellaneous expenditures. The City strives to balance anticipated revenues with expenses and to maintain adequate reserves to cover emergencies. Future deficits are covered by the accumulating reserve. If expenditures exceed revenues frequently or on a recurring basis, the tax base is not sufficient to support city services and could result in a reduction of city expenditures and related city services. To avoid this, the City has established certain policies, such as the one for General Fund reserves. The City of Fort Worth has an established Financial Management Policy to maintain General Fund reserves at 10 percent of the adopted budget (net transfers to the General Debt Service Fund). Over the past few budget cycles, implementation of extensive restraints on expenditures has helped maintain the City's reserves above the 10 percent requirement. Long -Term Debt The City monitors several debt ratios. The city strives to maintain its long-term debt at less than five percent of the taxable assessed valuation. Staying at or below this benchmark ensures that the City's debt remains manageable. During the past five years, the city has maintained a debt to assessed value ratio below 2.0 percent. Long-term debt per capita measures the debt burden on citizens. Outstanding long-term debt per capita is approximately $814. It is projected to increase somewhat over the next several years due to the infrastructure needs of the city associated with growth. Debt Service Debt service is the amount paid as principal and interest on all bonds and other debt instruments. A ratio of 10 to 20 percent debt of total General Fund expenditures is considered acceptable. Over the past five years, Fort Worth's debt service ratio has remained at the lower end of the acceptable range and is projected to remain well below the target maximum for the foreseeable future. In addition, the City continues to maintain an aggressive repayment schedule with over 60% of its general obligation debt repaid within 10 years. In 2004, voters approved the sale of $273.5 million in general obligation bonds for 6 propositions for capital improvements throughout the city to include streets, parks, a library, fire stations, and technology improvements. Also in 2006, $153.6 million in Certificates of Obligation were authorized by Council for the 2007 Critical Capital Needs Program, and the debt is to be sold over a 6 year period to meet critical capital needs through 2013. All debt for these programs is projected to be sold by 2015. Voters also approved another bond sale in May 2008 for a single proposition for streets and related improvements, authorizing the City to sell an additional $150 million in general obligation bonds for needed street improvements. All three capital programs set aside 2% of the total for public art funding to support the incorporation of art components in selected projects. In Millions $120 $100 $8 0 $6 0 S40 $20 $0 $72.2 FY00 Actual $73.1 FY01 Actual $72.7 FY02 Actual Sales Tax Collections FY2000 - FY2010 $72.5 $75.8 FY03 Actual FY04 Actual FY05 Actual FY06 Actual FY07 Actual FY08 Actual FY09 Actual FY10 FY11 Eat Budget,, Sales tax revenues increased $33.2 million from FY2000 to FY2008. It is projected that sales tax collections will decrease to $99.9 million for FY2010 and $96.4 million for FY2011. (Source: FY2011 adopted Budget.) Budget Growth Areas: FY2001-FY2011 Police* Fire T/PW Parks** Library FY2001 (Millions of $) $92,807 $58,569 $30,685 $21,360 $12,357 FY2011 (Millions of $) $181,242 $111,777 $52,613 $38,618 $18,905 Change 95.3% 90.8% 71.5% 80.8% 53.0% * Police expenditures exclude Crime Control and Prevention District. ** Parks expenditures for both years include the Zoo, which was a separate department in FY2001 The Departments shown have seen the largest budget growth in the ten years between FY2001 and FY2011. (Source: FY2011 Adopted Budget.) 25 Chapter 3: Financial Trends Challenges and Onnortunities Higher valued new homes and businesses will increase property tax revenues, but more property owners will require city services. A healthy balance of commercial and residential uses is desirable to maximize sales tax collections in addition to property taxes. It is important for the city to continue growing in a contiguous pattern, thereby reducing leapfrog development and avoiding unnecessary infrastructure costs. Generally, developers pay for on -site improvements, such as new local streets, storm water control, and water and sewer lines in subdivisions. However, the cost of upgrading or connecting collector and arterial thoroughfares, as well as building or upgrading public facilities, is borne by the City. Successful implementation of the growth center concept will aid Fort Worth in accommodating anticipated growth, while more efficiently allocating funds needed to construct capital improvements. Fort Worth has demonstrated fiscal prudence during recent years by reducing debt load and reducing the tax burden on citizens whenever possible. The next few years will challenge City leaders as they provide for continued population growth while maintaining an acceptable level of quality services for citizens. Chapter 3: Financial Trends 26 SJJIQNIddV APPENDIX A: EXISTING PLANS AND STUDIES The plans listed below are incorporated into the Fort Worth Comprehensive Plan by reference. The plans address significant policy issues for targeted districts or the city as a whole. The major goals and policies of these individual plans are included in the corresponding chapters. Aquatic Master Plan, 2008 A comprehensive facilities master plan was completed by the Parks and Community Services Department to provide a quality aquatic facility experience for the citizens of Fort Worth. Current trends in municipal aquatic facility development indicate that traditional pools are being replaced with a combination of interactive water features with a swimming component. The plan proposes $66.3 million in potential capital improvements over a 14-year period (2008-2022). Bike Fort Worth Plan, 2010 Bike Fort Worth is the City's comprehensive bicycle transportation plan for developing a friendlier bicycle environment. Recommendations for supportive policies, programs and facilities are included to increase bicycle transportation within the City of Fort Worth. Implementation of this plan will provide a safe and attractive alternative mode of transportation. The Bike Fort Worth plan identifies existing and proposed on- and off-street facilities, and describes policies and programs to improve bicycling conditions for people who use their bicycle instead of a vehicle to get to destinations as well as for recreation. The bikeway network identified in this plan primarily describes on -street facilities, but off-street multi -purpose trails can provide connections as well. Existing and future off-street trails are included as well, with special focus on those that provide connectivity to the on -street system and the regional bicycle transportation network. Central City Commercial Corridors Revitalization Stratesv, 2002 The Commercial Corridors Revitalization Strategy is the result of a two-year study undertaken by the City of Fort Worth under the direction of the mayor -appointed Commercial Corridors Task Force. The mission of the Task Force was to create economic development opportunities in high -priority central city commercial corridors that can be measured by increases in employment, tax base, business growth and quality -of -life improvements, particularly in low and moderate income areas. The study includes detailed plans for the revitalization of 10 mixed -use areas, or urban villages, along these five corridors, as well as revitalization strategies that can be applied to other urban villages and commercial districts. City of Fort Worth Street Development Standards: Roadway Standards and Master Thoroughfare Plan, 2009 The Fort Worth Master Thoroughfare Plan provides a network of public streets that offers access to private and public properties on one hand and mobility on the other. The Plan is made up of the following elements: freeways, principal arterials, major arterials, and minor arterials. Principal arterials carry significant intra- and inter- urban travel between urban and suburban centers of activity, while major and minor arterials interconnect with and augment the principal arterial system. The location of each MTP element is based on existing roadways, approved plans and programs for realignment and extension, approved concept plans, preliminary plats, and final A-1 plats. Roadway locations also are developed with attention to topography. lakes, waterways, flood -prone areas, and other natural features. Existing manmade features such as railroads, roadways, major utility lines and facilities, existing developments, and property lines are considered as well. The City Council adopted an update to the MTP and street development standards in March 2009. The updated standards include the City's first policy on Context Sensitive Street Design (CSS) that incorporates the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit riders into the design of streets, and provides a set of guidelines for the submittal of traffic impact studies. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan, 2003 In July 2003, the City adopted the Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. The plan identifies a series of goals and strategies for future action relating to five major topics: • Historic resources survey • Historic preservation ordinance • Historic preservation incentives • Historic preservation in City policies and decisions • Public education Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2003 The City of Fort Worth Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) describes current demographic and economic trends in the City, the vision statement and goals for future economic growth, and the programs and projects that will assist the City in achieving those goals. The CEDS is required to apply for funding assistance under programs administered by the U. S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. Consolidated Plan. 2005-2010 and Annual Consolidated Action Plan The City of Fort Worth Consolidated Plan identifies housing and community development strategies and programs that will help achieve the goals of providing decent housing, promoting a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities. The Consolidated Plan combines the planning, application, and reporting documents for four U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development programs: Community Development Block Grant, HOME Investment Partnership Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program, and Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS. Cultural District Master Plan, 1990 Fifty years of growth resulted in a need for a Master Plan for the Cultural District to provide unity and definition in this area of unique cultural resources. In 1987, the boundaries of the Cultural District were defined and the Cultural District Committee was formally established by the Fort Worth City Council, spearheading an effort to create a visionary document that would guide growth within the Cultural District. The Master Plan, created by a team of consultants led by EDAW, Inc., addressed issues regarding facilities, land use, parking, traffic circulation, open space, lighting, landscaping and signage. Current and proposed projects within and around the Appendix A: Existing Plans and Studies district may warrant an update to the Cultural District Master Plan. Directions Home, 2008 Directions Home: Making Homelessness Rare, Short -Term and Non -Recurring in Fort Worth, Texas within Ten Years was adopted by the Fort Worth City Council in June 2008 as a strategic plan to reduce homelessness. The Plan is based on seven strategies that mirror national best practices to eliminate homelessness. The purpose of the plan is to move unsheltered and emergency sheltered residents out of homelessness and into permanent housing with support services aimed at fostering independence. Downtown Fort Worth Strategic Action Plan. 1993. 2003 The 1993 Downtown Strategic Action Plan was sponsored by the City of Fort Worth, Downtown Fort Worth, Inc., and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority. The purpose of the plan was to capitalize on the momentum of Downtown's success by creating a strong action plan, coupled with full commitment from government, business, and citizens. An update of the 1993 Downtown Strategic Action Plan was completed in December 2003. The 2003 Downtown Fort Worth Strategic Action Plan study area was extended beyond the Trinity River to Northside Drive on the north and Foch Street on the west. The report outlines recommendations for land use, housing, transportation, urban design, open space, public art, business development, retail, entertainment, and education. Evans & Rosedale Urban Village Master Plan. 2004 In 2004, the City of Fort Worth hired a consultant team led by the Stanley Love Stanley architectural firm in Atlanta to develop a master plan for the Evans & Rosedale Urban Village. The master plan includes a conceptual redevelopment plan and design guidelines to create a mixed -use, pedestrian -oriented urban village. In addition, recommendations to redevelop the broader Near Southeast neighborhood are presented along with strategies to capitalize on the rich culture and heritage of the Near Southeast community as a tool for revitalization. The City Council adopted the master plan in 2004. Fort Worth Hazard Mitigation Action Plan. 2009 In January 2009, the City Council adopted the Fort Worth Hazard Mitigation Action Plan. The Plan was coordinated by the Fort Worth -Tan -ant County Office of Emergency Management. The jurisdictions participating in the plan represent unincorporated portions of Tarrant County as well as nineteen of the forty-one cities in the county. The Tarrant County Hazard Mitigation Team consisting of staff from all participating jurisdictions and external agencies contributed to creating the Fort Worth Hazard Mitigation Action Plan. Specific hazards and risks in each jurisdiction have been identified and are addressed in each jurisdiction's section of this plan. The Fort Worth Hazard Mitigation Action Plan identifies natural hazards that pose a risk to our area. Vulnerabilities to those risks are identified and quantified as appropriate. Goals, strategies, and projects to mitigate those risks are identified and analyzed. Fort Worth Linkages, 1997 The Linkages Study was a community planning effort to develop a common vision and goals for the corridors that link Fort Worth's most historically significant and heavily visited areas: Downtown, the Stockyards, and the Cultural District/Zoo. The study was funded by the North Central Texas Council of Governments' 1995-96 Unified Work Program, and development of the plan was led by a Linkages Steering Committee. Issues addressed included signage, streetscape improvements, and new development. Gateway Park Master Plan. 1998. 2002 Gateway Park, a 504-acre recreation park intended to serve 80,000 to 100,000 people, is located in east Fort Worth on the west fork of the Trinity River. The master plan for this park, originally adopted in 1988, was updated in 2002. The update was developed and evolved at the same time as the Trinity River Vision Master Plan, and it was coordinated with the joint efforts of the Tarrant Regional Water District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Streams and Valleys, Inc. and the community. The update includes plans for entry road realignment and observation towers; ecosystem restoration at the oxbow; development of an amphitheater complex, a skate park, playgrounds, athletic fields, additional trails and pavilions; a junior golf teaching facility; and an equestrian facility. With the 2008 expansion of the Trinity Uptown flood control project to include the Gateway Park area, an additional refinement of the 2002 Gateway Park Master Plan is expected. Housing Policy. 1999 The City of Fort Worth Housing Policy establishes a set of policy goals to provide guidance to the City Council, staff, and community for the development of programs, services, and projects related to affordable housing. The Housing Policy focuses on the importance of public -private partnerships in addressing affordable housing needs. NAS JRB Joint Land Use Study. 2007 The Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) is an initiative of Benbrook, Fort Worth, Lake Worth, River Oaks, Westworth Village, White Settlement and Tarrant County. The U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment is the project manager and the North Central Council of Governments is the study sponsor. The purpose of this Joint Land Use Study is to evaluate the current status of the implementation of recommendations issued in the 2002 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study and to make recommendations for additional actions by local governments designed to improve land use decisions that may affect the mission of the base. The City Council adopted a resolution supporting the JLUS in October 2007. Lake Worth Capital Improvement and Implementation Plan. 2007 The Lake Worth Capital Improvement and Implementation Plan includes a comprehensive list of capital improvements around Lake Worth. The plan includes dredging, watershed management, drainage improvements, water facilities, stump and navigation obstacle removal, and access control to vacant land. The plan is funded with gas well revenues. Appendix A: Existing Plans and Studies A-2 Lake Worth Development and Management Plan, 1995 The Lake Worth Development and Management Plan was completed by the City of Fort Worth Engineering, Parks and Community Services, Planning, Transportation and Public Works, and Water Departments. The purpose of the Plan was to make recommendations for policies that address the needs of the citizens around Lake Worth. The Plan also serves to facilitate the most efficient and viable development of the Lake Worth area while maintaining water quality that will be suitable for consumption and recreation. The primary goal of this plan was to establish and maximize Lake Worth's potential as a multi -function natural resource. Long Range Public Art Plan for the 2004 CIP, 2005 The Long Range Public Art Plan, which was developed by the Fort Worth Art Commission, identifies capital improvement projects that provide the best opportunities for artist involvement and allow for the greatest public visibility and geographic distribution throughout Fort Worth. The City Council adopted the Long Range Plan in May 2005. Long Range Public Art Plan for the Water Fund, 2006 The Long Range Public Art Plan for the Water Fund, which was developed by the Fort Worth Art Commission, creates an interest -bearing Conservation Fund and an annual process for recommending new public art projects throughout Fort Worth. The City Council adopted the Long Range Public Art Plan for the Water Fund in May 2006. Mobility and Air Oualitv Plan, 2009 In January 2009, the City Council adopted the Mobility and Air Quality Plan (MAQ), which identifies, analyzes, and recommends transit and roadway projects that will reduce congestion and air pollution. The MAQ Plan also provides a strategic implementation plan, including a financial element. The final product is a comprehensive and multimodal transportation system plan and a programmed effort to improve mobility and air quality. Model Block Plans Since 1993, model block plans have been prepared for neighborhoods to identify needed housing improvements and revitalization initiatives. They include the following: • Eastwood, 1993 • Near Southeast, 1994 • Jennings, May, St. Louis, 1995 • Near Northside, 1995 • Lake Como, 1995 • Fairmount, 1996 • Mitchell Boulevard, 1997 • Poly, 1997 • Riverside, 1998 • Far Greater Northside, 1999 • Greenway, 2000 • Worth Heights, 2001 • Handley, 2002 • Carver Heights, 2003 • North Greenbriar, 2004 • Stop Six Sunrise Edition, 2005 • South Hemphill Heights, 2005 • Historic Carver Heights, 2006 Nature Center and Refuge Master Plan. 2003 The City completed a master plan to improve and enhance facilities at the Fort Worth Nature Center and Refuge. The mission of the plan is to promote a signature heritage that reflects not only the regional character of Fort Worth and North Central Texas, but communicates Fort Worth's community values of preserving natural open space for future generations. The Master Plan includes recommendations for new facilities, the update of existing facilities, interpretive exhibits, and needed supporting infrastructure. The Master Plan identifies opportunities for capital improvements in the amount of $64.6 million over a 40-year period with a majority of this funding to be raised from private and community sources. Neighborhood Empowerment Zone Plans A Neighborhood Empowerment Zone (NEZ) is an area created to promote 1) the development and rehabilitation of affordable housing within the zone; 2) an increase in economic development within the zone; and 3) an increase in the quality of social services, education, or public safety provided to residents of the zone. Seventeen NEZs have been designated by the City Council. The primary purpose of NEZ plans is to provide guidance to neighborhoods and development project proponents seeking NEZ incentives. The plans describe neighborhood conditions and aspirations, and typically include design guidelines for residential and commercial projects. The following NEZ Plans are complete: • Berryhill-Mason Heights, 2007 • Oakland Corners, 2009 Parks. Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. 2004 In June 2004, the City Council adopted the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan. The planning effort was guided by the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board. The Plan evaluates existing facilities and programs to ensure that the City is meeting the needs and desires of its citizens. In addition, the plan identifies opportunities to increase awareness of the programs and services provided by the Parks and Community Services Department. Public Art Master Plan. 2003 In October 2001, the City of Fort Worth adopted an ordinance to set aside two percent of capital construction costs for the creation of public art. The ordinance also established the Fort Worth Art Commission to advise the City Council on matters of public art and on the development of the Fort Worth Public Art Program. The program is managed by the Arts Council of Fort Worth and Tarrant County. In September 2003, the City Council adopted the Fort Worth Public Art Master Plan, which was the result of an inclusive, community -based process. A-3 Appendix A: Existing Plans and Studies Southeast Fort Worth Action Plan for Economic Development, 2000 The 2000 Southeast Fort Worth Action Plan for Economic Development was spon- sored by several organizations including the Fort Worth Metropolitan Black Cham- ber of Commerce and the City of Fort Worth. The Action Plan identifies and out- lines a series of action steps for six areas determined to have the capacity and poten- tial to fulfill the economic development goals for the Southeast quadrant of Fort Worth. The economic development goals span ten years and include: • $150,000,000 new business investment; • 8,000 new jobs created; • 25 new significant stores and restaurants; and • 6,000 residents from new single-family residential developments. The economic development actions outlined in the plan are designed to complement existing neighborhood development initiatives and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Southside Medical District Strategic Plan, 1995 The Strategic Plan for the Southside Medical District was completed by a team of consultants led by Sasaki Associates, Inc., in order to present overall guiding devel- opment principles on which to base decision -making within the District. The Plan addressed issues such as land use, redevelopment opportunities, housing, urban de- sign and open space, transportation, and parking. In October 2003, an interdiscipli- nary panel of experts conducted a public planning workshop to update the 1995 plan for Fort Worth South, Inc. The consultants issued a final report that serves as a sup- plement to the 1995 plan. This report, Assessment of Opportunities and Recom- mendations for Future Direction, recommends certain policy and urban design strategies to encourage continued revitalization throughout Fort Worth South. Sustainability Action Plan, 2010 The City of Fort Worth established a Sustainability Task Force to create and imple- ment a comprehensive Sustainability Action Plan for the City. This plan improves coordination of energy related policies interdepartmentally within the City and at the community level with other local jurisdictions. Involved stakeholders include the Fort Worth Transportation Authority, area universities, school districts, neighborhood leaders, and public utility partners. The Sustainability Action Plan provides a road map for improving sustainable development practices, City opera- tions, and includes an education and outreach component for residents, employees, and businesses. Target Area Plans Since 1987, eight target area plans have been developed for specific areas of the City. These plans include the following: • Fairmount, 1987 • Glenwood Triangle, 1990 • Historic Northside, 1991 • East Libby Avenue, 1991 • Highland Hills, 1992 • River Trails, 1992 • Evans Avenue, 1993 • Harlem Hills, 1995 Texas Motor Speedway Area Master Plan, 2009 The Texas Motor Speedway (TMS) Area Master Plan is a sub -regional public planning effort which provides recommendations concerning economic develop- ment, land use, transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, environmental im- pacts, and regional cooperation for the multijurisdictional study area. The plan ac- knowledges that due to rapid growth, development pressure in the TMS area will increase and the ability to properly accommodate that growth needs to be balanced with maintaining the considerable economic impact of the race track. To achieve this balance, key stakeholders were engaged throughout the study area, including major employers, property owners, neighborhood leaders, adjacent communities' planning staff, and elected officials. The plan reviews development opportunities and plans, identifies potential compatibility concerns, and describes transportation facility needs and plans to serve the area. The plan acknowledges the multiplicity of planning efforts by the many jurisdictions within the TMS plan study area, and melds elements of these plans into a more understandable long-range view of the TMS study area. Based on stakeholders' desires to more sustainably accommodate the strong growth projected for the area, the plan introduces alternative — and po- tentially more sustainable — development patterns for the subregion within which TMS is located. Transit Alternatives Analysis. 2002 The City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) jointly conducted a transit alternatives analysis to identify potential transit corridors con- necting central city growth centers and urban villages. The study resulted in the City's and the T's endorsement of three transit plan elements: the Year 2030 Fort Worth Long -Term Transit Vision Plan, the Alternatives Analysis Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), and the Light Rail Streetcar Starter Project with an accompany- ing Financial Plan. The proposed light rail streetcar starter project extends from Texas Wesleyan University in southeast Fort Worth, through the Medical District, north to Downtown —with a connection to the Intermodal Transportation Center and west to the Cultural District. Trinity River Vision Master Plan. 2003 The Trinity River Master Plan, completed in 1990, was initiated by Streams and Valleys, Inc. and was funded by a grant from the Amon G. Carter Foundation. This master plan was developed for the improvement of 43 miles of the Trinity River Corridor over 20 years. The planning corridor consists of the Trinity River Main Branch and the West Fork, which are divided into nine distinct zones. The Plan provides recommendations based on the distinct character of each zone. An update of the Trinity River Plan from Trinity Park to Gateway Park was completed in 1999. The updated plan is known as the Tilley Plan. The Tilley Plan was for- mally accepted by Streams and Valleys, Inc. and the Parks and Community Services Advisory Board. Appendix A: Existing Plans and Studies A-4 A far-sighted update of this plan, the Trinity River Vision Master Plan, was com- pleted in 2003. It has an enlarged scope that encompasses approximately 88 miles of river and creek corridor. Along with expanding on the existing Master Plan recommendations, it contains recommendations to improve the river's accessibility to the public, attract more people to its banks, develop an urbanized downtown waterfront while maintaining the natural qualities of more remote areas, and increase awareness of its presence and beauty by citizens and visitors. The Plan identifies opportunities for conservation, linkages, and open space. The primary objectives of the Plan include identifying and improving adjoining land uses, enhancing environmental quality, and flood control. Trinity Uptown Plan. 2004 The Trinity Uptown Plan is a bold vision for urban waterfront development. The plan represents a partnership between the Tarrant Regional Water District, the City of Fort Worth, and Tarrant County, with support from Streams and Valleys, Inc. and Tarrant County College. The plan aims to redevelop an 800-acre area north of Downtown Fort Worth with a combination of public improvements and private development. Its goal is to provide a vibrant environment in which residents can live, work, shop, play, and learn. Trinity Uptown promises to become a richly diverse urban neighborhood linking Downtown to the Historic Stockyards and the Cultural District. The area is bounded on the north by Northside Drive and the Oakwood Cemetery to the west by the Fort Worth & Western Railroad and Henderson Street corridors, to the east by Samuels Avenue, and to the south by Belknap Street. The primary benefits of the Trinity Uptown project include flood protection, urban revitalization, environmental restoration, and recreation. Trinity River Vision Neighborhood Recreational Enhancement Plan (NREP). 2009 The purpose of the Trinity River Vision (TRV) Neighborhood and Recreational Enhancement Plan (NREP) is to identify and prioritize recreational and environmental enhancements to the Trinity River greenbelt within a 10 year timeframe. It is a joint effort by Trinity River Vision partners Tarrant Regional Water District, Streams & Valleys, Trinity River Vision Authority and the City of Fort Worth. The Neighborhood and Recreational Enhancement Program is an update to the 2003 Trinity River Vision Master Plan. Recommendations from the Plan include, but are not limited to the following: neighborhood trail links, increasing open space, wildflower plantings, new trailheads, improved trailhead amenities, directional and safety signage, better equestrian facilities, portage facilities at low water dams, and trail extensions along the river and its tributaries. Funding availability for the proposed projects will be reviewed each year by the partner agencies. southeast, and southwest. Each of these panels reflected a balance of interests. including neighborhood groups, economic development organizations, historic preservation groups, appointed boards and commissions, and City departments. The 12 urban village master plans were the result of a 10-month effort designed to seek input and ideas from all stakeholders who may have an interest in the urban village's future. The planning process included three public work sessions and input from various City departments, stakeholders, neighborhood residents, and potential developers. While each of the master plans reflects the unique identity of the urban village, all of the master plans contain common elements including a conceptual redevelopment plan and recommendations for implementation. The following urban village master plans were adopted in December 2007: Urban Village Master Plans. 2007 In January 2006, the City Council authorized funding for planning in twelve urban villages, with additional funding for design and construction in five of those villages. In accordance with this authorization, the City Manager appointed a Citywide Screening Panel and Cluster Interview Panels to assist the Planning and Development Department in selecting qualified planning and design consultants for the twelve urban villages that are divided into the following three geographic clusters: central, A-5 Central Cluster • Historic Handley • Six Points • South Main Southeast Cluster • Berry/Stalcup • Berry/Riverside • Near East Side • Oakland Corners • Polytechnic/ Wesleyan Southwest Cluster • Berry/Hemphill • Berry/University • Bluebonnet Circle • Ridglea Woodhaven Redevelonment Plan. 2006 In 2004, the City of Fort Worth hired the Gideon Toal, Inc. consultant firm to develop a master plan for Woodhaven. The master plan addresses the challenges and opportunities currently present in Woodhaven along with background data and market information related to the area's potential for development and redevelopment. The recommendations provide the outline of an action plan that encourages the private and public sectors to partner in order to make the plan a reality. The City Council endorsed the master plan in 2006 and directed City staff to negotiate a public -private partnership to implement the plan's goals and objectives. Appendix A: Existing Plans and Studies APPENDIX B: POPULATION ESTIMATE AND PROJECTION METHODOLOGY We have relied on several data sources for population estimates and projections in the 2011 Comprehensive Plan. For our 2010 population, we use the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG's) estimate. NCTCOG's population estimates are based on current housing inventories for each city in the NCTCOG region with a population of 1,000 or more. The figures are reviewed at the regional level for consistency with other indicators of regional population such as labor force estimates and vital statistics. Cities complete a building permit survey that provides NCTCOG with information on building completions, demolitions, annexations and other changes in housing stock that occurred throughout the prior year. The reported housing units by type (single family, multi -family, other) are aggregated and added to the 2000 Census housing stock figures to develop estimates of current year housing stock. Current estimates use 2000 Census persons per household figures. Occupancy rates are derived through purchased secondary data in order to reflect existing market conditions. These rates were used in conjunction with building permit data to produce city level population estimates. Final population for January 1, 2010 also includes estimates of persons living in group quarters (nursing homes, dormitories, prisons etc.) All figures are reviewed by each city prior to publication. County level estimates are adjusted for cities that are in more than one county. Remainder of county totals are estimated based upon secondary resources and have been adjusted to reflect annexations. To measure population growth and substantiate our claim that we are the fastest - growing large city, we rely on Census data. The U.S. Census Bureau produces subcounty (including city) population estimates by a housing unit method that uses housing unit change to distribute county population to subcounty areas. County population estimates are produced with a component of change population method, which updates the latest census population using data on births, deaths, and internal and international migration. The Census Bureau develops subcounty population estimates using the Distributive Housing Unit Method, which uses housing unit estimates to distribute the county population to subcounty areas within the county. Housing unit estimates use building permits, mobile home shipments, and estimates of housing unit loss to update housing unit change since the last census. Census counts of housing units are geographically updated each year to reflect legal changes reported in the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS), Census corrections, and other administrative revisions. The residential building permits that result in the construction of new units for the period April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008 include permits issued in calendar years 2000-2007 (accounting for a six-month lag time between permit issuance and completed construction). The Census Bureau does not collect updated data at the subcounty level on mobile home placements. They derive estimates for mobile homes by allocating state mobile home shipment data to subcounty areas based on the subcounty area's share of state mobile homes in Census 2000. The Census Bureau develops a household population estimate by applying the occupancy rate and average persons per household (PPH) from the latest census at the subcounty level to an estimate of housing units. The estimate obtained from this method is then controlled to the final county population estimate. The non -household population is measured by the change in the group quarters population. They produce the final estimate by adding the population in group quarters to the household population.. To produce the future population pyramid in Chapter 1, the cohort component model was used. Two general equations are used. The first calculates the future population of children ages zero to nine and the second calculates the future population of persons age ten and over. The first equation takes the form Ph„ = P„ + (B — D) + (IM— OM) where Pio is the population ten years into the future, Po is the initial population, B is births, D is deaths, IM is in -migration and OM is out - migration. For the youngest age groups — 0 to 9, Po is always equal to zero and births during the ten-year period are added. The second equation takes the form Pio = Po — D + (IM— OM). Births are not a factor for age groups that are 10 or older. Births are calculated using a fertility estimation technique called the child -woman ratio. It is a simple ratio of the number of children ages zero to nine to women in their reproductive years 10 to 49. Deaths are calculated by applying to each cohort a survival ratio; this is the probability that a member of one age group will survive to become a member of the next age group. Survival rates for the United States are published annually by the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics. Age specific survival rates for local areas are not available, however, data from the Fort Worth Health Department indicate that the annual death rate, the number of deaths per 1,000 citizens, is 0.3 percent greater in Fort Worth (5.3%) than for the U.S. as a whole (5.0%). Thus, the only adjustment necessary was to reduce the U.S. survival rates slightly for Fort Worth to calibrate the model. Net migration is inferred from the model by applying the balancing equation in reverse. The model assumes that the child -woman ratios, survival rates, and migration will continue unaltered from the base year into the future. It is virtually impossible to account for unforeseen changes in the economy, changes in family values, medical advancements or fertility enhancements that might influence population growth. It is also impossible to account for large fluctuations from the growth trends in any given year. For these reasons, projections must be used with caution and should be reevaluated frequently, as new data becomes available. B-1 Appendix B: Population Projection Methodology APPENDIX C: FUTURE LAND USE BY SECTOR PLANNING SECTORS Fort Worth is divided into 16 planning sectors, as shown on the map to the right. The planning sectors are listed below with their corresponding City Council districts. Sector 1) Far North 2) Far Northwest 3) Far West 4) Northside 5) Northeast 6) Eastside 7) Arlington Heights 8) Downtown 9) Western Hills/Ridglea 10) Southside 11) TCU/Westcliff 12) Southeast 13) Far Southwest 14) Wedgwood 15) Sycamore 16) Far South Council Districts 2,4,7 2, 7 3, 7 2, 7, 9 2,4,8,9 4,5,8 2, 3, 7, 9 2, 9 3, 7 8, 9 3, 9 5, 8 3, 6 3, 6 6, 8, 9 6, 8 Future land uses and land use policies for each sector are included on the following pages in alphabetical order by sector. 10 5 D 10 Miles C-1 Appendix C: Future Land Use By Sector Arlington Heights Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: January 2011 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM TO Single -Family Residential Low -Density Residential 2 Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Commercial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads ▪ TOLLWAY/FREEWAY - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL - — MINOR ARTERIAL Existing Roads TOLLWAY / FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJOR ARTERIAL — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. N rn Western Hills Ridglea Sector V1�K 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-3 `Je TCU/ Wes tcliff Sector P,FRRY Northside Sector 0 25 Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Pgncultural Rural Resldenbal Suburban ReLdenbal Single Famly Residential Manufactured Housing Low Dangly Residential Medium Density Restdeneel High Density Residential Imtm bona) Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Lrgh1 Industrial Heavy Industral A5xed-Use Growth Center Industrial Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plan Lakes and Ponds Public Park, Recreation, Open Space Private Park, Recreation, Open Space Downtown Sector Future Land Use DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: No Changes Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED TOLLWAY / FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL - - MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL — - MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL O Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. ICI 41110 • 4110 • 11111, 41110 4110 w z Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agricultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Reeldenhal Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Mixed -Use Growth Center lndustnal Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Pubkc Park Reaeatlon, Open Space Private Park, Recreation, Open Space 2010 Comprehensive Plan STER cx a uJ w n� S TCU/W tcliff Sect C-5 •thside °ctor fH 'ENNSYLVAN], x O w ce Southside Sector MAGNOLIA 05 l2 z z w ROSEDALE . (H —I /I) a: w = 0 25 0 5 Miles 287 Proposed Amendments DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: December 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM I Lightlndustnal 2 Light Industrial 3 Medium -Density Residential & Low -Density Residential 4 Low -Density Residential 5 Medium Density Residential 6 Neighborhood Commercial 7 Neighborhood Commercial Low -Density Residential Low -Density Residential & Medium -Density Residential 10 Neighborhood Commercial & Light industrial 8 9 To Institutional Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Commercial Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Commercial & Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential General Commercial 11 Medium -Density Residential & Single -Family Residential & Light Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Southeast Sector 2011 Comprttensive Plan Eastside Sector Future Land Use C-7 m Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED TOLLWAY / FREEWAY •• PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL -- MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED - MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005- • RANDOL _RILL w 0 0 PARK ROW 2 D Z Midway r ___ sc 0 >- z InLand Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agncultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing it Low Density Residential ims Medium Density Residential 40) High Density Residential Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Light Industrial - Heavy lndustnal + Mixed -Use Growth Center - Industnal Growth Center 4110 Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds ,, Public Park, Recreation, Open Space Pnvate Park, Recreation, Open Space 2 Miles Far North Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Proposed Changes: December 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM TO 2 Single -Family Residential General Commercial Light Industrial General Commercial O Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. am IN lo St$0040 FM Rd Far Northwest Sectot+ Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agricultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Mixed -Use Growth Center Industrial Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Public Park, Recreation, Open Space Private Park, Recreation, Open Space 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-9 U, BONDS•RAN MOILER() Sec F-M Rd 13 3 -F-M Rd 4Q1 .r+ly TPiRRAN, Mawr Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Ealseng Roads e1 TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED eTOLLWAr FREEWAY e� PR/NCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINK IPA AA'ERIAL r 4, • MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED 15 0 MAJOR ARTERIAL Mi NUR ARTERIAL S Mles Far Northwest Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: No Changes Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads n o • TOLLWAY/FREEWAY-PROPOSED mmmiTOLLWAY/FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MAJOR ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. Wise (NO MAIN# N FM18 2011 Comprehensive Plan r C-11 • I ■ Fallortr' Sector— Tarrant 2 LE HASLI Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agncultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Aft Light Industrial Heavy Industrial or Mixed -Use Growth Center tap Industrial Growth Center isir, Infrastructure tz 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds „,yr,. Public Park, Recreation, Open Space Pnvate Park, Recreation, Open Space 2 Wes Far South Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Date Last Modified: November 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID 1 2 3 FROM TO General Commercial Single -Family Residential Medium -Density Residential Single -Family Residential General Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads e ■ TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED emiTOLLWAY / FREEWAY - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL • -- MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. R, vvestclln /Westcli Sector South ide Sec Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agricultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential 411110 High Density Residential Alb Institutional Neighborhood Commercial 71.4 410 General Commercial Other Light Industrial 401 Heavy Industrial • Mixed -Use Growth Center ▪ lndustnal Growth Center ;Ilt 1 Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Public Park, Recreation, Open Space ��cr Private Park, Recreation, Open SpacE" 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-13 2MW Far Southwest Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT No Proposed Changes Draft Print Date: January 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY / FREEVVAY-PROPOSED aso0 TOLLWAY / FREEWAY — PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MAJOR ARTERIAL — MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL 0 Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. ♦®, Far Vest • Sktor CZI Land Use Changes Vacarrt, Undeveloped Agricultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential ' Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential ello Medium Density Residential ea High Density Residential ow Institutional Neighborhood Commercial ea General Commercial Light Industrial ea Heavy Industrial age Mixed -Use Growth Center Olt Industrial Growth Center gaso Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds 414,i; Pudic Park, Recreation, Open Space • Private Park Recreation Open Space 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-15 JOHN • .11 I '•••• ear Far West Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT No Proposed Changes Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads • TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED TOLLWAY / FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL • MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations N "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. "s I 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-17 • i '- Fart SoutKwest I. Sector] L ' HALTOMBAILEY BOSWELL co Far Northwest Sc for J CROMW` L MARINF CRFF co Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agncullural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Denary Residential t ! Medhum Density Residential High Density Residential tell Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial O LIgM Industrial 410 Heavy Industrial lab Mined -Use Growth Center ID Industrial Growth Censer Infrastructure C' 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Public Park, Recreation Open Space Private Park, Recreation, Open Space Northeast Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: December 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM TO 1 2 3 4 General Commercial & Light Industrial Light Industrial Mixed -Use Growth Center Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential Neighborhood Commercial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads ▪ TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED — TOLLWAY / FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJOR ARTERIAL — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. LONG Northside Sector �ZO O9- N \Atli tgton Heigl Sector 7TH 2011 Comprehensi a Plan C-19 SSIL C' ANDS orth Senor MEACHAM Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped Agncukurai Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Resident.' 410, Medium Density Resident.' too High Density Residential Institutional Neighborhood Commercial 40 General Commercial allfila Light Industnal 411 Heavy Industnal 411 Mixed -Use Growth Center 41 Industnal Growth Center ilk Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds ,iv, Public Park. Recreation Open Space Private Park Recreation Open Space os STH p +26) r Mon Northside Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT T Land Use Last Modified: December 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM TO General Commercial & Light MUGC Industrial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY/FREEWAY-PROPOSED TOLLWAY / FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJORARTERIAL-PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED - MINOR ARTERIAL O Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. -Far West Sector 2011 Comprehensive Plan I t orOwest C-21 5`` c Arlington Heights Sector 7TH 111il1 111= Land Use Changes Vacant, Undevabped Agouti oel Rural Residential Suburban Residential Smile Famdy Residential Manufacsired Housing Low Density Resdenoal Medium Density Residental High Denary Residential InstiWbonal Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Lght Industrial Heavy Industrial I/axed-Use Growth Center Industrial Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Pubic Perk, Recreation Open Space Pnvate Perk, Recreation Oper Space Southeast Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: December 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM Light Industrial 2 Light Industrial 3 Single -Family Residential 4 Neighborhood Commercial 5 Light Industrial 6 Single -Family Residential TO Low -Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Institutional Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads ▪ TOLLWAY/FREEWAY-PROPOSED ,mf/m•TOLLWAY/FREEWAY - — PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations i'A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. N SEMINARY E 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-23 7. 44 j4 MEADOWBROOK ar Sout Sector Eastside Sector 075 BRENTWOOD SI3IR f m Lard use changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agnarhural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Fansry Residmbu Manufactured Housing Low Density Rewdenhal 4.0 Medium Denary ResMenaal • High DernM Reerdmbal 41111. Imtuartlmal Neighborhood commercial OP General Commercial 4Fws Lught Industrial 4.1 Heavy IndusInal i Aired -Use Growth Center l Industrial Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plan Lakes and Ponds l .w- Public Park, Reaeabon Open Space Private Park, Reaeabon Open Space 0 375 0 0]5 MA.. Southside Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Date Last Modified: January 2011 Draft Print Date: Janaury 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM Light Industrial 2 3 Low -Density Residential General Commercial and Heavy Industrial 4 Single -Family Residential 5 General Commercial TO Neighborhood Commercial Single -Family Residential Light Industrial Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED amim, TOLLWAY / FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL -- MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. N cc 8 4rlixgton rIeight Secttir f I Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agnoulb ral Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Fancy Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential EP Medium Density Residential Op High Density Residential institutional Neighborhood Commercial 41110 General Commercial •?t* Ught Industrial 4.0 Heavy Industrial Mixed -Use Growth Center 40 Industrial Growth Center 1 6 Intrasbucture 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Qai;0 Public Park, Recreation, Open Space Private Park, Recreation. Open Space BERRY, a w TCU/Westcli Sector 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-25 llllllllu n Sycamore Sector 05 025 0 or J i / ' J I t~ Southeast Sector Ai sz..B IIsit c Sycamore Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT No Proposed Changes Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plans Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY/FREEWAY-PROPOSED etttttttttttt,TOLLWAY/FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL O Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. N f Far SoutA Sector - 20 I Comprehensive Plan C-27 J _ a RISINGE Southeast St ''tor FOREST HI Lend Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agnculkirai Rural Reeldenbal Suburban Residential Sing a Family Residential Manufactured Houetng Low Density Residential air Medium Density Residential o ligh Density Residential SSW Ine6lubonal Netghbarhood Commercial ✓ General Commercial vkkik Lght Indusfial fel Heavy Industrial _ Mired -use Growth Center al Industrial Growth Center 'galls Infrastructure ' %- 10o Year Flood Rem Lakes and Ponds nil Public Perk, Recreabon, Open Space Pnvate Perk, Recreation Open Space 05 025 0 15 Mxee TCU/Westcliff Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Last Date Modified: No Changes Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads M TOLLWAY / FREEWAY -PROPOSED 'mom TOLLWAY / FREEWAY - PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED MAJOR ARTERIAL — — MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL © Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. m Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agncultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing «;v„: Low Density Residential r Medium Density Residential fljo High Density Residential zwtjr Institutional Neighborhood Commercial 111.11 General Commercial :,gy Light Industrial op Heavy Industrial ilipp Mixed -Use Growth Center VAIO Industrial Growth Center 4111110 Infrastructure (Z) 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds t ,r Public Park Recreation, Open Space Pnvate Park, Recreation, Open Space l \aLs� LGN Sec 2011 Comprehensive Plan r C- 29 Arlington Heights Sector • 09 c w f 0 0 45 '7 / U U09r.1..e Wedgwood Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT No Proposed Changes Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads ▪ TOLLWAY/FREEWAY-PROPOSED emloTOLLWAY/FREEWAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MAJOR ARTERIAL — — MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL N © Existing and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. 411110 estern Hills/ Ridgle Land Use Changes Vacant Undeveloped, Agricultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Mixed -Use Growth Center Industrial Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Public Park, Recreation Open Space Private Park, Recreation, Open Space 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-31 1 1 i 1 t Far Southwest 1 / Sector 1 1 1 — J— S I D TCU/Westcliff Sector 05 025 0 • Far South Sector 05 Md. Sou 'bide Se for >- J 0 cc u Western Hills/Ridglea Sector Future Land Use Proposed Amendments DRAFT Land Use Last Modified: December 2010 Draft Print Date: January 17, 2011 MAP ID FROM TO Medium -Density Single -Family Residential Residential & Low -Density Residential 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Medium -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Low -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Single -Family Residential Medium -Density Residential Institutional Low -Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Low -Density Residential & Institutional Low -Density Residential Neighborhood Commercial Master Thoroughfare Plan Proposed Roads Existing Roads TOLLWAY/FREEWAY-PROPOSED TOLLWAY/FREEWAY PRINCIPALARTERIAL-PROPOSED — — MAJOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL MAJOR ARTERIAL - - MINOR ARTERIAL -PROPOSED — MINOR ARTERIAL OExisting and Potential Transit Stations "A comprehensive plan shall not constitute zoning regulations or establish zoning district boundaries." Texas Local Government Code, Section 219.005. Far West Sector • • • • 4460 • N • WHrr Land Use Changes Vacant, Undeveloped, Agricultural Rural Residential Suburban Residential Single Family Residential Manufactured Housing Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Institutional Neighborhood Commercial General Commercial Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Mixed -Use Growth Center Industrial Growth Center Infrastructure 100 Year Flood Plain Lakes and Ponds Public Park, Recreation, Open Space Pnvate Park, Recreation, Open Space 2011 Comprehensive Plan C-33 05 025 05 Z ce lington Heights Sector for 5 Wes APPENDIX D: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED The capital improvement project tables on the following pages provide a list of on- going and/or proposed capital improvement projects submitted for consideration by the City's various departments. The tables are under category headings that match the chapter headings of the Comprehensive Plan, and they indicate projects by City Planning Sector (see Appendix C). Funded or partially funded projects are shown in bold typeface. However, whether or not a project appears to be funded does not necessarily reflect the City of Fort Worth's commitment to the project. Funds are often grant -based, or based on phased completion. This means that a project may be anticipated, but until State or Federal funds arrive at the City, the project will be considered "unfunded." Funding of a phase -based project may be dependent on the completion of each preceding phase, whereby Phase II of the same project may appear "unfunded" until the com- pletion of Phase I. The capital improvement project tables are intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. They do not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. It is the City's intent to financially constrain the list of unfunded City projects so as not to exceed the City's bonding capacity. Further information on project status can be obtained by contacting the responsible department or agency. Appendix D includes funded and partially funded projects. Unfunded projects are listed in Appendix E: Proposed Capital Improvements - Unfunded. D-1 Appendix D: Proposed Capital Improvements ACRONYMS FOUND IN THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TABLES ACRONYM DEFINITION CDBG Community Development Block Grant CMAQ Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program D/FW Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport EDA Economic Development Administration HED Housing and Economic Development Department HFC Housing Finance Corporation HOME Housing Investment Partnership Program ITS Information Technology Solutions Department ISD Independent School District NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments NTTA North Texas Tollway Authority STEP Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program T/PW Transportation/Public Works Department TDHCA Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century TIF Tax Increment Financing TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation UPARR Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program USGSA United States General Services Administration D-2 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: HOUSING Planning Proiect # Proiect Name Sector Council Estimated District Cost ($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 ti ?Z 2 p0}4 alid 10162020 2021-2030 PLN-100234 Affordable Housing Units - Citywide 1 - Citywide $4,700 $1,500 $1,500 $1,700 Single Family PLN-100237 Rental Housing Citywide 1 - Citywide $5,100 $1,500 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 Development Responsible 1 Funding Dept/Agency Source Housing and Economic Development Department Pnvate Developers (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. CDBG. ('tit Housing Trust Fund Hi )N1t Funds. Pm ate and Nonprofit Del. elopers City Housing I rust Fund. HOMI F unds. Low Income Housing Tax Credits. 1 DIi('A D- 3 Appendix D HOUSING PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Project0 project Name PLN-100466 Planning Council Estimated Sector Dutric[ Cost ($1,0001 111 New Walks and Trails For Citywide I - Citywide Trinity River Vision PLN-100467 General Park Development TBD TBD PLN-100698 Trinity River Trails Citywide 1 - Citywide Neighborhood Linkage PRK-100046 Walk and Trail Downtown, 1 - Citywide, 2 - Replacement Eastside, Far Espino, 3 - West, Zimmerman, 8 - Northside, Hicks, 9 - Burns Southeast, Southside, TCU/Westclf. PRK-100047 Playground Replacement Arlington 1 - Citywide, 2 - Heights, Espino, 3 - Citywide, Zimmerman, 4 - Eastside, Far Scarth, 5 - Moss, North, Far 6 - Jordan, 7 - West, Burdette, 8 - Northeast, Hicks, 9 - Bums Northside, Southeast, Southside, Sycamore, TCU/Westclf., Wedgwood, Western Hills/Ridglea PRK-100051 Reserve Park Site Downtown, 1 - Citywide, 2 - Development Eastside, Far Espino, 3 - North, Far Zimmerman, 4 - Northwest, Far Scarth, 5 - Moss, South, Far 6 - Jordan, 7 - Southwest, Far Burdette West, Northside, Sycamore, Wedgwood PRK-100059 Trail Bridges or Structural Citywide, 1 - Citywide, 2 - Renovation Needed Northside, Espino, 3 - TCU/Westclf. Zimmerman Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year EndinpSeut. 30 ($1.0001 Responsible Fundine Dept/Anencv Source 2 j013 kai nu 2016-2020 ' 2021-2Q30 $925 $350 $435 $140 Parks and Community Services $200 $200 Parks and Community Services $1,463 $100 $500 $863 Parks and Community Services $1,415 $48 $337 $433 S597 Parks and Community Services 2004 General Obligation Bond 2004 General Obligation Bond City Funds FHNA. TCSP 2004 General Obligation Bond $3,179 $869 $648 $1,227 $435 Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Bond $1,810 $429 $573 $48 $347 $413 Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Bond $327 $17 S95 $16 $199 Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of fmancial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 4 Appendix D: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Project N PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Protect Name tannin Council Sector District PRK-100068 Park Road and Parking Lot Arlington 1 - Citywide, 2 - Replacement Heights, Espino, 3 - Downtown, Zimmerman, 4 - Eastside, Far Scarth, 5 - Moss, West, 6 - Jordan, 7 - Northeast, Burdette, 8 - Northside, Hicks, 9 - Bums Southeast, Southside, Sycamore, TCU/Westclf., Wedgwood, Western Hills/Rtdglea PRK-100074 Replace Existing Arlington 1 - Citywide, 2 - Deteriorated Ball Field Heights, Espino, 4 - Lighting Systems Eastside, Scarth, 5 - Moss, Northeast, 7 - Burdette, 8 - Northside, Hicks Southeast, Southside PRK-100078 Replace Existing Arlington I - Citywide, 2 - Competition Athletic Fields Heights, Espino, 7 - Eastside, Burdette, 8 - Northside, Hicks Southeast, Sycamore PRK-100081 Updates/Improvements to Arlington 1 - Citywide, 2 - Service or Support Heights, Espino, 7 - Facilities Downtown, Burdette, 8 - Northeast, Hicks, 9 - Bums Sycamore PRK-100083 General Park Development Citywide 1 - Citywide, 2 - Unspecified by Council Espino, 3 - District Zimmerman, 4 - Scarth, 5 - Moss, 6 - Jordan, 7 - Burdette, 8 - Hicks, 9 - Bums Estimated I Cost ($1.0001 $5,050 $1,306 ronosed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 Responsible FundimE Dept/Aeencv Source 1 2I, 14 21J 2016-2020 2021-2030 $1,248 $950 $950 $950 $950 Parks and Community General obligation Services Bond $254 $218 $216 $223 $395 Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Bond $1,949 $8 $143 $149 $989 $660 Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Houd $500 $200 $100 $100 $100 Parks and Community General obligation Services Bond $438 $438 Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Hued (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 5 Appendix D: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES proiect # I Project Name Planning Council Sector District Estimated I Cost ($1.0001 ll Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 (S1.0001, Respopsible I Fu i Dept/Agency Source 201k of gm 31 4 3016-21120 20214030 PRK-100086 Park Erosion and Drainage Arlington 1 - Citywide, 2 - $1,000 $358 $214 $214 $214 Parks and Community Control Heights, Espino, 3 - Services Citywide, Zimmerman, 4 - Eastside, Far Scarth, 5 - Moss, North, Far 6 - Jordan, 7 - Northwest, Far Burdette, 8 - West, Hicks Northeast, Northside, Southeast, Southside, TCU/Westclf, Wedgwood, Western Hills/Ridglea PRK-100097 New Community Centers Citywide, 1 - Citywide, 2 - $7,500 $100 $475 $2,400 $2,400 $2,125 Eastside, Far Espino, 4 - North, Scarth, 6 - Southside, Jordan, 9 - Burns Wedgwood PRK-100314 Botanic Garden Arlington 7 - Burdette $830 $830 Greenhouses Relocation Heights PRK-100319 Southwest Community Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $750 $750 Park and Athletic Complex 2004 General Obligation Hurd Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Bond Parks and Community 2004 General Services Obligation Bond Parks and Community 1998 General Services Obligation Bond. I e\as Parks And N ildlite (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of fmancial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 6 Appendix D: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION P nni Council I Estimated Project A Project Name 1I Sector District JI Cost ($1.0001 Arterial Projects PLN-100423 Henderson Street (3rd St. to Downtown Northside Dr.) PLN-100700 Keller Hicks (Alta Vista to Far North Park Vista) PLN-100701 Dirks/Altamesa Far Southwest, (SH121-Granbury) Wedgwood 9 - Bums 2 - Espino 3 - Zimmerman $16,700 $17,500 $3,603 $507 PLN-100718 N. Beach Street (Vista Far North 2 - Espino $7,200 $292 $6,908 Meadows -near Shiver) PLN-100722 Harmon Road (US 287 to Far North 2 - Espino $1,500 $1,500 N. Tarrant) PLN-100725 Thompson Road (Flower Far North 2 - Espino $2,408 $2,408 Tree to Riverside Drive) PLN-100738 Chapel Creek Bridge Far West 3 - Zimmerman $3,108 $700 $2,408 (1H-30 to Camp Bowie) PLN-100740 Riverside Dr. Bridge over Far North 4 - Scarth $7,500 $2,391 $5,109 Fossil Creek PLN-100742 Garden Acres Bridge over Far South 6 - Jordan $6,000 $949 $5,051 IH 35 PLN-100743 McAlister Rd. (South Fwy Far South 6 - Jordan $1,905 $1,905 to Burleson City Limit) PLN-100745 Silver Creek (820 to C.F. Far West 7 - Burdette $2,000 $400 $1,600 Brewer High School) PLN-100749 N. Tarrant Parkway (US Far North 7 - Burdette $2,700 $2,700 287 to Harmon) PLN-100755 Old Decatur Rd. (McLeroy Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $5,500 $1,000 to Longhorn) PLN-100756 Old Decatur Rd. (Boaz to Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $4,500 $1,000 $3,500 McLeroy) PLN-100758 Robertson Rd. (Boat Club Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $7,200 $751 $6,329 $120 to Lake Country) Proposed Exognditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept, 30 ($1,0001 au ma nu 2l!34 2016-2020 2921-2030 $66,950 $2,500 $7,000 $5,200 $4,110 $8,000 $4,590 $3,410 Transportation/Public Certificates of Works Obligation ('SI.A Q. Federal I unds. NCTC(1(,_ I vIX)"r Transportanon/Pubhc General OH gallon Works Bond Responsible Peet/Aeencv Fding un Source $18,050 $4,500 Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond. Federal I and Transportation/Public City Funds Community Works Facilities \greement Transportation/Public Developer funds Works Transportanon/Public Gas N ell Works Bonus Rov alto Transportation/Public Federal Fund General Works Obligation Bond Transportation/Public General Obligation Works Bond, NCI ( U( Transportation/Public General obligation Works Bond Transportation/Public Burleson ISD Bond. Works Communm I aiilities Agreement General Obligation Bond Transportanon/Public Developer F unds. Works General Obligation Bond. N hue Settlement ISD Bond Transportanon/Public Developer unds Works Transportation/Public General Obligation Works Bond Transportation/Public Gas \1 ell Works Bonus Rov aln _ General Obligation Bond Transportation/Public General Obligation Works Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 7 Appendix D: TRANSPORTA TION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION II Planning I Council I Estimated I Resnonaible I Fundine Project N 1 Project Name 111 Sector JI D' ict JI Cost ($1.0001 111 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endino Sent. 30 tS1.0001, Deot/Aeencv terse a1.1 n ;213itai au, 2016-2020 2021-2030 PLN-I00759 Riverside Dr Bridge over Far North 4 - Scarth $8,100 $1,241 $5,859 $1,000 Transportation/Public General ( )bhgation IH-820 Works Bond PLN-100769 Summercreek Wedgwood 6-Jordan $2,654 $2,654 Transportation/Public City Fund,. Des eloper (Dirks/Altamesa to Sierra Works Funds Ridge) PLN-100771 Risinger Rd. (IH 35 to Sycamore 6 - Jordan $14,000 $2,000 Transportation/Public General Obligation Crowley FM 731) $12,000 Works Bond PLN-100776 Pennsylvania Ave (10th Arlington 9 - Bums $2,500 $213 $315 $1,972 Transportation/Public General Obligation Ave-12thAve) Heights Works Bond PLN-100996 Walsh Ranch Parkway Far West 3 -Zimmerman $10,000 $10,000 Planning and Des eloper Funds Development, Transportation/Public Works TPW-I00004 Precinct Lme Road Eastside 4 - Scarth, 5 - $4,858 $220 $4,638 Transportation/Public 2004 General excluding bridge Moss Works Obligation Bond . (SH 10-Concho Trail) Federal Funds. (arrant Count) General Obligation Bond( 1990) TPW-100006 Randol Mill Road (IH-820 Eastside 4 - Scarth $1,500 $1,500 Transportation/Public General Obligation to proposed Precinct Line Works Bond Rd -Design Only) TPW-100020 Dutch Branch Road Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman $1,200 $1,200 Transportation/Public Do. eloper Funds. (Oakmont Trail-F W WRR) Works General ()bl igauon Bond TPW-100023 Beach Street (Golden Far North 2 - Espino $10,500 $1,500 $9,000 Transportation/Public Certificates of Triangle Boulevard to Works Obligation General Keller Hicks Road) Obligation Bond TPW-100028 Golden Triangle Drive Far North 2 - Espino S26,000 $7,800 $18,200 Transportation/Public 2004 General (IH-35W to US 377) Works Obligation Bond . Commumt\ Facilities Agreement_ Federal Funds, "'arrant ( ount3 General Obligation Bond( I99U) TPW-100029 Ray White Rd/Park Vista Far North 2 - Espino $300 $300 Transportation/Public General Oblu.ation Boulevard (1,000' south of Works Bond Kroger Dr to Wall Price RdXDesign Only) TPW-I00030 Old Decatur Road Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $5,300 $576 $521 $4,203 Transportation/Public General Obligation (Bailey -Boswell to Boaz) Works Bond TPW-I 00101 Hemphill/Lamar Underpass Downtown, 8- Hicks, 9 - $9,705 $1,705 $8,000 Transportation/Public 2004 General (Vickery- 13th Street) Southside Burns Works Obligation Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 8 Appendix D.: TRANSPORTATION Project # I Project Name TPW-100214 TPW-100218 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Henderson Underpass at UPRR Planting Sector Council Estimated District Cost ($1,0001 Downtown 9 - Burns $2,000 Responsible Funding Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 Dept/Agency Source ZtU Ltitl nu 7A16-2020 20214030 $300 $1,700 Transportation/Public General i )hbgation Works Bond. FF A-2 I East Rosedale Street (US Southeast, 5 - Moss, 8 - $28,000 $2,000 $7,240 Transportation/Public 2004 General 287 to IH-820) Southside Hicks $18 760 Works, TxDOT Obligation Bond . Certificates of Obligation Federal Funds. I arrant Count_ General ( ibl rl.ation Bond( I9991 TPW-100436 East 1st Street (Beach Eastside 4 - Scarth $5,377 $890 $4,487 Transportation/Public 2004 General Street to Oakland Avenue) Works Obligation Bond Federal Funds. I arrant Count!, General Obligation Bond( 19991 TPW-100876 Avondale Haslet (US 287 Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $4,500 $496 $3,894 $110 Transportation/Public Developer F unds East of BNSF RR) Works General Obligation Bond TPW-100877 Keller Hicks (Trinity Far North 2 - Espino $2,410 $2,410 Transportation/Public Certificates of Springs Middle Works Obligation. t',mununify School -Alta Vista) Facilities agreement. Tarrant ( ounty General Obligation Bondi 1999) TPW-I00878 East Rosedale (IH 35W-US Southeast, 8 - Hicks $17,464 $17,464 Transportation/Public Certificates of 287) Southside Works Obligation. General Obligation Bond. Tarrant County General Obligation Bond( 1999), TxDOI TPW-100879 Lakeshore Drive Southeast 5 - Moss $6,900 $575 $1,078 $5,147 $100 Transportation/Public General ( Fbligation (W ilbarger-Berry) Works Bond TPW-100880 Litsey Road (Independence Far North 2 - Espino $11,150 $3,171 $3,990 $3,990 Transportation/Public City Funds. Des eloper Pkwy-Henrietta Creek) Works Funds- Federal Funds. NCTC(Ki TPW-100881 McPherson (Summer Far Southwest 6- Jordan $7,300 $322 Transportation/Public Community Facilities Creek-McCart) $6,978 Works Agreement TPW-100883 N Beach (Keller Far North 2 - Espino $8,600 $1,500 $7,100 Transportation/Public Coirimunrn F acilities Hicks -Timberland) Works Agreement. General Obligation Bond TPW-100885 Parker Henderson Southeast 5 - Moss $4,700 $295 $411 $625 $3,369 Transportation/Public General ( )bligation (Mansfield Hwy -Martin) Works Bond TPW-100888 Ray White/Park Vista (N Far North 2 - Espino $3,300 $300 $3,000 Transportation/Public Gas V ell Tarrant Pkwy-Shiver) Works Bonus Ros al iv . General (Design Only) Obligation Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 9 Appendix D: TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION 1 P nni l Council Estimated I Resnonsible Ft.Ltling_ Project /1 Project Namc 1 Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Il Promised Expenditures by Fiscal Ye* Endlne Sent. 30 ($1,0001 Dtut/Aeencv Source ... 2211 Z12 Lou nu um 2016-2020 2021 Z030 TPW-100890 US287 FR/Berry/Vaughn Southeast 5 - Moss $1,400 $280 $1,120 Transportation/Public De. eloper I unds. Interchange Works NCTC(k, TPW-100891 Dirks/Altamesa (Bryant Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman $8,009 $6,009 $2,000 Transportations Public Cernticates of Irvin-SH12IT) Works Obligation. NC I ('(X,. Tarrant (bunt General Obligation Bond( I999) TPW-100893 Swnrnercreek Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 Transportation/Public City Funds (Ardenwood-McPherson) Works TPW-100896 Alta Vista (N Beach -Curve Far North 2 - Espino $924 $924 to North) TPW-100908 Shiver Rd (Trace Far North 2 - Espino $1,300 $86 Ridge -Meridian Ln) $1,214 TPW-100917 Arterial Projects Citywide 1 - Citywide $4,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Transportation/Public Gas N ell Works Bonus Rov airs Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond. Deielopei I unds Transportation:Public Conununit Facilities Works Agreement Aviation Projects AVI-100190 Spinks Airport Apron Far South 8- Hicks $2,800 $800 $1,000 $1,000 Aviation Federal A, anon Construction Administration. i\IX)T PLN-100459 Alliance Taxiway F Far North 2 - Espino $1,799 $1,207 $592 Aviation Federal Ai taIion Administration PLN-100460 Meacham Apron Northside 2 - Espino $6,000 $6,000 Aviation Federal Ai tat ion Rehabilitation Administration. 1 sDOT PLN-100462 Spinks Maintenance Far South 8-Hicks $500 $500 Aviation Federal Ai Cation Building Administration. TYD( )T PLN-100463 Meacham Airport Rescue Northside 2 - Espino $700 $700 Aviation Federal As ration Fire Fighting Apparatus Admmistratirnt. I s1XP1 Vehicle Replacement PLN-100688 Alliance Runway Extension Far North 2 - Espino $60,744 $10,526 $11,140 $24,078 $15,000 Aviation Federal As ration Administration PLN-100928 Meacham Fire Station Northside 2 - Espino $4,500 $4,500 Aviation Federal As tenon Administration RDOF PLN-100931 Meacham Land Acquisition Northside 2 - Espino $700 $700 Aviation City F unds PLN-100932 Spinks Fire Station Far South 8 - Hicks $4,500 $4,500 Aviation City Funds PLN-100933 Meacham Maintenance Northside 2 - Espino $800 $800 Aviation Federal As canon Building Administration IsDOF (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D-10 Appendix D: TRANSPORTATION Project it I Project Name PLN-100934 Meacham Parallel Taxiway Northside 2 - Espino $4,000 Meacham Site Preparation Northside 2 - Espino $3,000 $1,000 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Planning Council Estimated Sector District Estimated Cost Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 ($1,0001 D1. I2a, nu. Qj j 20 5 2016-2020 2021-2030 PLN-100935 PLN-100936 PLN-100937 PLN-100939 PLN-100940 Meacham Terminal Northside 2 - Espino $12,500 Renovation and Expansion Spinks ARFF Apparatus Far South 8 - Hicks $700 $700 Spinks Runway Extension Far South 8 - Hicks $4,675 $675 Spinks - Stone/Alsbury Far South 8 - Hicks $7,441 $7,441 Road and utilities Bridge Reconstruction Projects PLN-100381 Litsey Rd./Henrietta Creek Far North 2 - Espino $3,600 $2,840 $760 PLN-100400 SH 183/Crosslands Road TCU/Westclf. 3 - Zimmerman $4,500 PLN-100401 I-35 W/Pharr Street Northeast 8 - Hicks $5,600 Overpass PLN-100402 I-35W/Nixon Street Northeast 8 - Hicks $6,900 Overpass PLN-100403 1-820/SH 183 TCU/Westclf. 3 - Zimmerman $2,900 PLN-100404 1-820/Spur 303 Southeast 5- Moss $2,800 PLN-100406 SH 183/Bryant Irvin TCU/Westclf, 3 - Zimmerman $1,000 Wedgwood PLN-100407 I-820/Ramey Avenue Southeast 8 - Hicks $3,700 Overpass PLN-100408 SP 347 (Eastbound Downtown, 9 - Bums $1,700 Weatherford at BNSF and Northeast UP RR) PLN-100410 Trinity Railway Express Eastside 5 - Moss $21,000 $10,500 $10,500 Centreport Expansion and Double Tracking $2,000 $2,000 $12,500 $1,000 $1,000 $4,000 Responsible Dept/Agency Fundine Source Aviation Federal As union Administration. I slX1 Aviation Federal As 'anon Administration TxDOT Aviation City I unds Aviation City Fund, Aviation Federal As canon Administration ISLX) Aviation City Funds TransportanonPublic City Funds Federal Works Funds. State Funds. Unknossn $4,500 TxDOT Federal Funds- State Funds $5,600 TxDOT Federal Funds. State Funds $6,900 TxDOT Federal f unds. State Funds $2,900 TxDOT Federal I unds State Funds $2,800 TxDOT Federal Funds- State Funds $1,000 TxDOT Federal Funds State Funds $3,700 TxDOT Federal I mid, Stale Funds $1,700 TxDOT Federal I unds State Funds The T Federal F unds. I Funds (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D-11 Appendix D: TRANSPORTA TION Project # I Project Name PLN-100702 PLN-100988 TPW-100010 TPW-100119 TPW-I00120 TPW-100123 TPW-100124 TPW-100125 TPW-100127 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Bryant Irvin Bridge at 1 H-20 Plamm�e Sector Council District Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman Main and Henderson Street Downtown Bridges (Trimly River Vision) E. 1st Street -bridge and Eastside, approaches (Oakland to Northeast Beach) Precinct Line Road Bridge Eastside Reconstruction & Approaches at Walkers Branch West Seventh Street Bridge Downtown at Clear Fork Trinity River South Pipeline Road Bridge Reconstruction at Post Oak Channel Chapin Road Bndge Reconstruction at Santa Clara Channel Cravens Road Bridge Reconstruction at Wildcat Branch Undesignated Minor Bridge Reconstruction Eastside Far West Southeast Citywide Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Projects PLN-100370 DFW Airfield Projects N/A PLN-100371 DFW Roadways, Rail, & Transit PLN-100373 DFW Support Infrastructure/ Other N/A N/A 2 - Espino 4 - Scarth 4 - Scarth, 5 - Moss 9 - Burns 5-Moss 3 - Zimmerman 5-Moss 1 - Citywide N/A N/A N/A Estimated Cost($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endinl,Ceot. 30 ($1.0001 2200 gm Ha . Q11 t S, 2016-2020 7.021.2030 $2,400 $1,450 $950 $61,640 $40,000 $21,640 $11,373 $4,534 $23,622 $4,724 $11,811 $7,087 $682 $682 $1,004 $1,004 $721 $721 $325 $30 S50 $245 S123 $11,250 $1,184 $3,350 $200,405 $180,889 S7,130 $9,215 $3,171 $31,410 $10,882 $4,290 S5,544 S10,694 $228,602 $79,202 $31,222 $40,350 $77,828 Responsible DeDt/Aeencv Transportation/Public Works, TxDOT Tarrant Regional Water District, Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works. TxDOT Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works D/FW Airport D/FW Airport D,FW Airport (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Fun in Source Certificates of Obligation Federal Funds Cit) I weds I ederal Funds. State Funds Federal F unds l ieneral Obligation Bond State Funds 2004 General Obligation Bond. Federal Funds 2004 General Obligation Bond Federal Funds State Fund+ 2004 General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond 2004 General Obligation Bond. General Obligation Bond 2004 General Obligation Bond 2004 General Obligation Bond Joint Re,enue Bond Passenger FaLilin Charge Joint Re,enue Bond. Passenger f aeilih Charge Joint Re,enue Bond Passenger I aLilit) Charge D- 12 Appendix D.: TRANSPORTATION Project k I Project Name PLN-100374 I DFW Parking PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Plannjne I Council Sector District N/A N/A Estimated Cost($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sept- 30 ($1,0001 2011, l0 a au u 2015 $31,408� $10,8811 $4,2891 $5,5431 $10,6951 2016-2020 2021-2039 Responsible Fundine Sept/Aeencv Source D/FW Airport Joint Revenue Bond Passenger I acdu} Charge Intersection Improvement Projects PLN-100424 Hulen Street (IH-20) Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman $1,300 $1,300 Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond CNIAl ) TPW-100864 Intersection Improvements TBD 1 - Citywide $983 $983 Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond. Lit) Funds Neighborhood Street Projects TPW-100044 Residential Streets Arlington 2 - Espino, 3 - Heights, Zimmerman, 4 - Eastside, Far Scarth, 5 - Moss, North, Far 6 - Jordan, 7 - Northwest, Burdette, 8 - Northeast, Hicks, 9 - Bums Northside, Southeast, Southside, Sycamore, TCU/Westclf., Wedgwood, Western Hills/Ridglea New Development Projects TPW-100106 Development Participation Citywide 1 - Citywide TPW-100365 Urban Redevelopment Citywide 1 - Citywide Rail Projects PLN-100409 Acquisition of UP Line I Downtown, I 8 - Hicks, 9 - from Tower 60 to Fort Northeast Burns Worth ITC Railroad Crossing Projects PLN-100670 I Sycamore School Road I Wedgwood 16 - Jordan $23,000 $15,000 $8,000 $5,300 $3,000 $1,800 $500 $6,000 $3,000 $1,500 $1,500 $2,000 $2,000 1 I Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works 2004 General Obligation Bond Certificates of Obligation 2004 General Obligation Bond. Cern ticates of Obligation 2004 General Obligation Bond !The T ( Federal Funds- I Funds Transportation/Public Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 13 2004 General Obligation Bond Federal I uuds Appendix D: TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION planninv I Council I Estimated I Responsible I Funding Project t Project Name Sector District Cost ($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 ($1.0001. Peat/Aeencv Numce _ nu AU 1011 nig 2§12 2016-2020 2021-2030 PLN-100671 Hemphill Southside 9 - Burns $827 $377 $400 $50 Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond Federal Funds PLN-100672 Magnolia Avenue Southside 8 - Hicks $408 $408 Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond. Federal I unds PLN-I00673 Peach Street Northeast 9 - Burns $2,806 $200 $200 $200 $400 $1,806 Transportation/Public 2004 General Works Obligation Bond. Federal Funds PLN-100675 NCTCOG THE Partnership Eastside, 4 - Scarth, 5 - $900 $50 $50 Transportation/Public Federal Funds 2 Southeast, Moss, 8 - Hicks Works Southside $200 $200 $200 $200 TPW-100311 SH 183 at BNSF RR Northside 2 - Espino $2,668 $2,668 TxDOT Federal F unds_ State Funds Regional Projects PLN-100693 SH 114 Improvements (.22 Far North 2 - Espino $121,200 $40,400 $40,400 $40,400 TxDOT Federal F unds. ROOT Mile East of I-35 W to .45 Mile West of SH 156) TPW-100210 North Tarrant Far North 2 - Espino $1,193 $1,193 TxDOT Certificates of Parkway/1H-35W Obligation I k A-2I. Interchange TIF District n5 TPW-100213 Southwest Parkway Arlington 3 - Zimmerman, 6 $1,075,000 $268,750 $268,750 $268,750 $268,750 NTTA, Federal Funds. General (SHI21T) (IH-30 to Alta Heights, Far - Jordan, 9 - Transportation/Public Obligation Bond. Multi Mesa) Southwest, Bums Works, TxDOT Funding Sources. TCU/Westclf, NCTCOG I xDo I Wedgwood TPW-100295 IH-30 additional lanes Eastside 4 - Scarth, 5 - $450,000 $270,000 TxDOT TEA-2I I xlx ) I (Oakland - SH 161) Moss, 8 - Hicks $180,000 TPW-100296 SH-12 IT Alta Mesa to FM Far Southwest, 6 - Jordan $30,840 $30,840 TxDOT TEA-2 I. I sDo F 1187 Wedgwood TPW-100297 IH-820 N Additional Thru Far North 4 - Scarth $206,988 $206,988 TxDOT TEA-2 I. I ‘DO F Lanes (1H-35W to Southwestern Railroad) Street Lighting Projects TPW-100130 I Street Lights ICitywide I 1 - Citywide Traffic Signal and Intelligent Transportation System Projects PLN-100664 'Traffic Signal Expansion, I Citywide I 1 - Citywide ITS Project 7 $400) ITransportation/Public Works 12004 General Obligation Bond Transportation/Public City Funds. II A 21 Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 14 Appendix D: TRANSPORTATION Project # PLN-100665 TPW-100031 Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Iph nnin ,Sector Council Estimated District Cost ($1,000) Pronosed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sept. 30 ($1,000) 343� 1414 Traveler Citywide InformationSystem (ITS Project 8) Traffic Signal Program Citywide 1 - Citywide 1 - Citywide $190 $190 $36,800 $4,000 $4,000 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 TPW-100223 Traffic Signal System Citywide 1 - Citywide $846 $280 $280 $286 Communication Project (ITS Projects) 2016-2020 2021-2030 Responsible Funditlt Dept/Aeencv Source Transportation/Public Cut Funds, IF a 21 Works Transportation/Public $8,400 $15,000 Works Transportation/Public Works Cernticates of Obligation. ('m Funds. CMAQ_ (bmmunits Facilities agreement. Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond. State Funds 2004 General Obligation Bond . TEA-2 I Transit Projects PLN-100692 Sierra Vista Transit Plaza Southside 8 - Hicks $1,288 $1,288 The T Federal 1 unds. NCTC(X, I Funds PLN-100987 Southwest -to -Northeast Citywide 1 - Citywide $471,000 $48,400 $119,300 $173,300 $130,000 Rail Corridor The T (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. FederalI- unds. Local Sales Tax. 1 Funds, Tarrant ( ounts D- 15 Appendix D: TRANSPORTATION Project Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: EDUCATION Planning Sector Council I Estimated District Cost ($1,000j proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent, 30 ($1,0001 Responsible IF 'n I` Dept/Agency Soprce tl ►Z2 eh. jag n1 2016-2020 2021-2140 . PLN-100268 Fort Worth ISD - 4 Citywide 1 - Citywide $140,325 $5,750 $96,115 $38,255 $204 Fort Worth ISD Fort Worth ISD Bond elementary and 2 middle schools PLN-I00272 Lake Worth High School Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $10,000 $6,000 $4,000 Lake Worth ISD Lake W orth ISD Bond Renovation and Addition PLN-100277 Fort Worth ISD-Additions Citywide 1 - Citywide $411,565 S29,218 $250,957 $125,831 $5,558 Fort Worth ISD Fort Worth ISD Bond and Renovations PLN-100284 Eagle Mountain -Saginaw Far North, Far 2 - Espino, 7 - $341,300 $44,500 $176,250 $22,250 $43,100 $27,600 $27,600 Eagle Mountain -Saginaw Eagle him -Saginaw 1SD-4 elementary schools, Northwest Burdette ISD ISD Bond 1 middle school, 1 high school, career and technology center PLN-100289 Crowley ISD-1 high school, Far South 6 - Jordan $115,000 $15,000 $100,000 Crowley ISD Crowley I SD Bond 1 elementary school PLN-100292 Northwest ISD Far North 2 - Espino, 7 - $9,895 $715 $1,520 $2,899 $4,761 Northwest ISD Northwest ISI) Bond Miscellaneous and Burdette Additions PLN-100293 Keller ISD - Land for Far North 2 - Espino $3,000 $3,000 Keller ISD Keller ISD Bond Elementary School #23 PLN-100683 Everman ISD-Johnson Sycamore 8 - Hicks $1,197 $1,197 Everman ISD Evemian ISD Bond Sixth Grade Remodel PLN-100705 Lake Worth ISD-N.A. Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $2,500 $2,500 Lake Worth ISD Lake W orth ISD Bond Lowry Intermediate School Renovation PLN-100708 Northwest 1SD-6 Far North 2 - Espino, 7 - $173,105 $20,155 $21,768 $105,792 $25,390 Northwest ISD Northwest ISD Bond elementary schools, 1 Burdette middle school (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of fmancial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D-16 Appendix D: EDUCATION Project # Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: URBAN DESIGN P n in Council I Estimated Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 ($1.0001 j 2,04.�O14_ u 2016-2020 2021-2030 Responsible Fundine Dent/Aeencv Source ECD-100329 So7 Streetscape Arlington 9 - Burns $1,655 $63 $269 $207 $1,116 Parks and Community CMAQ, S I P-51M Improvements Heights Services, Planning and Development ECD-100330 Historic Handley Village & Eastside 5 - Moss $392 $55 $337 Planning and TCSP Streetscape Development, Transportation/Public Works PLN-100256 Coordinated Wayfrnding Arlington 2- Espino, 7 - $743 $743 Planning and City Funds f ederal Project Downtown, the Heights, Burdette, 8 - Development, Funds Cultural District, and the Downtown, Hicks, 9 - Bums Transportation/Public Historic Stockyards Northside Works signage and information system PLN-100333 Ridglea Village Arlington 3 - Zimmerman, 7 $464 $70 $394 Planning and CMAQ Infrastructure Heights, - Burdette Development, Improvements Western Transportation/Public Hills/Ridglea Works PLN-100634 Magnolia/Hemphill Southside 9-Burns $1,559 $787 $772 Engmeenng, Planning CMAQ Streetscape Improvements and Development PLN-100677 Trinity Bluff- Sustainable Downtown, 9 - Burns $1,314 $1,314 Engineering, Planning NCfCO(, Pm ate Development Northeast and Development PLN-100678 W. Rosedale Street Retrofit Southside, 8 - Hicks, 9 - $11,060 $375 $520 Engineering, Planning 2004 General (Forest Park-1H35W) TCU/Westclf. Burns and Development Obligation Bond $10,165 NCT((X, PLN-100679 Six Points - Sustainable Northeast 2 - Espino $400 $400 Engineering. Planning NCTC(X, Pm ate Development and Development PLN-100680 West Berry TCU/Westclf 9 - Burns $2,892 $1,491 $1,401 Engineering, Planning 2004 General Street/GrandMarc - and Development Obligation Bond Sustainable Development NCTCUG Pm ate PLN-100981 South Main Urban Village Southside 8 - Hicks $2,159 $111 $48 $1,000 $1,000 Planning and City Funds. I ederal Streetscape Development Funds PLN-100982 Six Points Urban Village Northeast 2 - Espino, 4 - $740 $110 $315 $315 Planning and City Funds. I ederal Streetscape Scarth Development Funds PLN-100983 Hemphrll/Berry Urban Southside 9- Bums $715 $715 Planning and City Funds federal Village Streetscape Development Funds PLN-100984 Berry/Riverside Urban Southside 8 - Hicks $710 $44 $666 Planning and City Funds. I ederal Village Streetscape Development Funds PLN-100985 Near East Side Urban Southside 8 - Hicks $683 $57 $626 Planning and City Funds I ederal Village Streetscape Development Funds (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 17 Appendix D: URBAN DESIGN PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: ARTS & CULTURE 1 1 Planning proiect # Proiect Name Sector PLN-100245 !Texas and Southwestern Arlington Cattle Raisers Museum Heights Council District ! 7 - Burdette Estimated Cost($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1.0001, ZQU 2©14 2s1 nil 2016-2O2o 2O33.-203Q $20,000 510,000 $IO,000I 111 1 Responsible prat/Aeenev Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Foundation (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Funding Source Texas and Southwester Cattle Raisers Foundation D- 18 Appendix D: ARTS & CULTURE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: POLICE SERVICES Project R I Proiect Name POL-100 108 New Traffic Division/Neighborhood Policing District 6 Facility Nashville Planning Council Estimated Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Southeast 8 - Hicks POL-100660 Crime Lab Eastside 8 - Hicks $11,960 $11,960 $8,000 $8,000 FA -slimed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept, 30 ($1,0001 j j.QU 0 4 pa 2016-2020 2021-2030 Responsible Dent/Aeencv Police Dept. Police Dept (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Funding_ Source Certificates of Obligation Crime ( onirol and Presenfion District . General Obligation Bond D-19 Appendix D.: POLICE SERVICES PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Projects Project Name Planning I Council Sec r District Estimated Cost ($1,0001 Pronosed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endinn Sent. 30 1$1.0001 1211 19U 1911 a4 all 2016-2020 2021-2030 FIR-100091 Addition of Female Downtown I - Citywide $265 $60 $205 Restroom Facilities to Fire Stations FIR-100340 Relocate Fire Station 5 Southside 8 - Hicks $3,600 $600 $3,000 Responsible Funding. Dept/Agency Source Fire Dept Fire Dept. (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of fmancial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. 2004 General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond D- 20 Appendix D: FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project N Project Name tannin Council Sector District Estimated Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30($1,0001 nu nu la13 Lg 2u 2016-2020 2021-2030 Responsible Dept/Aeencv Funding Source Storm Water Projects PLN-100989 Trinity River Bypass Arlington 2 - Espino, 4 - $682,294 $150,000 $50,000 $42,000 $93,000 $38,000 $309,294 Tarrant Regional Water City I- unds. federal Channel Heights, Scarth, 8 - Hicks District, TPW Funds. 1 IF Downtown, Northeast, Northside TPW-100066 Milam-Robinhood Eastside 4 - Scarth, 5 - $1,120 $1,120 TPW Stonn N etet I tdtt,„ Drainage Improvements Moss TPW-100071 Fossil Drive Drainage Northeast 4 - Scarth $1,190 $1,190 TPW Storm N ater l uha Improvements ITPW-100072 Mercado Channel Northside 2 - Espino $1,175 $1,175 TPW Storm N atei I nhh Improvements TPW-100082 Eastern Hills Drainage Eastside 4 - Scarth $5,500 $700 $1,200 $3,600 TPW Storm W ater I nl,ty Improvements Phase 1 TPW-100156 Oakridge Terrace Drainage Sycamore 8 - Hicks $340 $340 TPW Storm N ater I nhti Improvements TPW-100157 Randol Mill Road Culvert Eastside 4 - Scarth $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm N atei I Ida) Improvements TPW-100160 Dry Branch Creek Phase 2 Northeast 2 - Espino $4,400 $1,000 $1,700 $1,700 TPW Storm W ater I Whty Detention Improvements TPW-100163 Loving Channel North side 2 - Espino $1,600 $1,600 TPW Storm N ater l Wiry Improvements TPW-100164 Burchill Channel Southeast 5 - Moss $1,450 $175 $1,275 TPW Storm W ater l nhn Improvements TPW-100181 8100 Trinity Blvd. Culvert Eastside 4 - Scarth, 5 - $400 $400 TPW Storm V, ater I Wit\ Improvements Moss TPW-100182 Forest Park -Berry Drainage Southside, 9-Bruns $32,000 $2,000 $30,000 TPW StonnV,atet l nlir♦_ Improvements Phase 1 TCU/Westclf. TPW-100183 Academy Boulevard Far West 7 - Burdette $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm V, ater l nlitt, Culvert Improvements TPW-100185 Westcreek-Kellis Park TCU/Westcl£ 3 - Zimmerman $1,500 $1,500 TPW Storm W atet I uhn Drainage Improvements TPW-I00186 South Crestwood Drainage Arlington 7 - Burdette $212 $212 TPW Storm N ater I Wlrh_ Improvements Heights (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 21 Appendix D: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project i TPW-100188 TPW-100429 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY I Project Name Plannine Sector Council District )estimated Cost ($1,0001 Pronosed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endino Sent. 30 (S1.0001 2i.11 nil lita 01 , l S 2016-2020 ' 2021-2030 Central Arlington Heights Arlington 7 - Burdette, 9 - $42,000 $2,000 $40,000 TPW Storm W atei t tility Drainage Improvements Heights Burns Phase I 9700 Trinity Boulevard Eastside 5 - Moss $2,000 $2,000 TPW 2004 General Culvert Improvements Obligation Bond . Comrnunr» Facilities Agreement stone Water tilm TPW-100432 Hammond Street Drainage Southside 9 - Bums $1,100 $1,100 TPW Storm Water l Wm Improvements IResponsible I Fondue DepdAeencv Source TPW-100498 5100 Cromwell Marine Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $1,400 $1,400 TPW Storm Water t tihh Creek Road culvert improvements TPW-100506 2400 Meacham Boulevard Far North 2 - Espino $1,700 $300 $1,400 TPW Storm W atei t nhts drainage improvements TPW-100508 Raider -South Pipeline Eastside 5 - Moss $920 $920 TPW Storm W ater l tdit channel improvements TPW-100516 Shore View Road culvert Far West 7 - Burdette $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm Water l elms improvements TPW-100524 Scott -Sunset storm drain Northside 7 - Burdette $650 $650 TPW Stonn W atet l nht‘ improvements TPW-100526 Tony's Creek detention Northside 2 - Espino $300 $300 TPW Storm W atei t nlity pond rehabilitation TPW-100541 9100 Trinity Blvd. culvert Eastside 5 - Moss $8,000 $1,000 $7,000 TPW Storm Water t nhtr_ improvements (Walker Branch) TPW-100555 Quail Run drainage Arlington 7 - Burdette $250 $250 TPW Storm W ater t tditr_ improvements Heights TPW-100577 Wesleyan Hills storm drain Southeast 8 - Hicks $3,000 $500 $2,500 TPW Stonn W ater l elm_ improvements TPW-100605 Butler -McClure culvert Southside 9-Burns $2,000 $200 $1,800 TPW Storm Aatei l nit) improvements TPW-100606 Rolling Hills Addition Southeast 8 - Hicks $765 $765 TPW Storm W aier I elm_ drainage improvements TPW-100608 Linda Lane storm drain Southeast 8 - Hicks $620 $620 TPW Storm W ater I uht improvements TPW-100623 Berkshire -Hallmark storm Sycamore 6 - Jordan $2,400 $2,400 TPW Storm A ater I tdm_ drain extension (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D-22 Appendix D: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Planning Council Estimated Sector District Cost($1,000 Proiect # I Project Name 1 TPW-100778 Longstraw Channel Far North 4 - Scarth $820 $820 Improvements TPW-100779 Upper Lebow Detention Northeast 2 - Espino $1,320 $120 $1,200 Improvements TPW-100780 Lower Lebow Bridge Northeast 2 - Espino $2,400 $1,500 $900 Improvements TPW-100782 Kings Oak Addition Eastside 4 - Scarth $1,000 $1,000 drainage improvements TPW-100783 Cooks-Ederville culvert Eastside 4 - Scarth $600 $600 erosion protection TPW-100784 Waverly Park drainage improvements TPW-100785 Ruby Place Channel Improvements TPW-100786 East Como Channel Improvements TPW-100787 West Downtown Storm Drain Structural Rehabilitation TPW-100788 Forest Park-Parkview Storm Drain Rehabilitation TPW-100790 Harvey Street Park storm drain rehabilitation TPW-100791 Upper Sierra Vista detention improvements TPW-100792 Provine Street Drainage Improvements TPW-100793 Santa Channel Rehabilitation TPW-100794 Wedgwood storm drain extensions TPW-100795 Glen Garden West drainage improvements TPW-100797 Summercrest Court drainage improvements Western 3-Zimmerman $1,275 $1,275 Hills/Ridglea Westem 3 - Zimmerman $900 $100 $800 Hills/Ridglea Arlington 7 - Burdette $2,100 $100 $2,000 Heights Downtown 9 - Burns $2,000 $300 $1,700 Downtown 9 - Burns $8,000 Southside 8 - Hicks $2,400 $2,400 Southside 8 - Hicks $1,200 $200 $1,000 Eastside 8 - Hicks $275 $275 TCU/Westclf 3 - Zimmerman $680 $680 Wedgwood 6 - Jordan $2,700 $2,700 Southeast 8 - Hicks $850 $850 TCU/Westclf 3 - Zimmerman $680 $680 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 iS1.0001, 01 jQ jl4 an 2016-2020 2021-2000 $8,000 Responsible FUndine Deot/Aeenev Source TPW Storm W arer l'trlrt� TPW Storm N ater l tdity TPW Storm Natei l nht♦_. TxDOT TPW Storm N ater l nlm TPW Storm W ater l tint TPW Storm Water l Hirt TPW Storm N ater l slit TPW Storm Water I'ulit) TPW Storm W ater l May TPW Storm V. ater I nht' TPW Stonn Water l tdit TPW Storm W ater l tiltt TPW Storm V. arer l ulny TPW Storm W ater l nhty TPW Stonn W ate' l uht TPW Storm 'Amer I ulny TPW Storm W ater l uht (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D-23 Appendix D: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project # lProject Name Planning I Council Pstimated Sector District Cost ($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sept. 30 ($1,0001 ZQ11 • au jIU 21Eg jQJs Z016-2020 2021-2030 TPW-I00798 Westlake Drive drainage Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman $1,100 $100 $1,000 improvements TPW-100862 Bellaire Park Court TCU/Westclf. 3 - Zimmerman $500 $500 drainage improvements TPW-100868 Tulsa Way drainage Arlington 7 - Burdette $1,100 $100 $1,000 improvements Heights TPW-100869 East Downtown Storm Downtown 9 - Burns $2,000 $300 $1,700 Drain Structural Rehabilitation TPW-100870 Cedar Breaks storm dram Far North 4 - Scarth $600 $100 $500 extension TPW-100871 Lochwood Court drainage Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $440 $100 $340 improvements TPW-100992 Lake Crest Drainage Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $1,000 $180 $820 Improvements TPW-100993 Brennan Avenue Drainage Northeast 2 - Espino $4,000 $750 $3,250 Improvements Wastewater Projects PLN-100261 Wastewater Citywide 1 - Citywide $51,613 $9,598 Street/Maintenance Related Projects $12,515 $10,500 $9,500 $9,500 IPLN-100263 Village Creek Wastewater Eastside 5 - Moss $60,702 $4,193 Treatment Plant $8,579 $9,730 $10,900 $9,800 $17,500 PLN-100264 Trinity River Vision Downtown, 2 - Espino, 9 - $65,219 $6,086 Northeast Burns $7,270 $8,345 $9,770 $6,543 $27,205 PLN-100265 Wastewater System Citywide 1 - Citywide $2,925 $326 $978 $1,621 Security Citywide PLN-100281 Sanitary Sewer Main 402 Eastside 4 - Scarth S24,390 $1,353 $2,227 $3,721 $6,810 $9,005 $1,274 Big Fossil Parallel Relief Alignment PLN-100282 Sanitary Sewer Main 253A Eastside 4 - Scarth, 5 - $13,075 $2,300 $4,350 $4,350 $2,075 Replacement Moss PLN-100948 Major Wastewater Citywide 1 - Citywide $16,050 $2,646 $3,054 $8,998 $1,352 Collectors - various locations PLN-100949 Lift Stations Citywide I - Citywide $16,544 S401 $1,157 $3,226 $2,645 $7,240 $1,875 Responsible pept/Aeencv TPW TPW TPW TPW TPW TPW TPW TPW Fundine Source Storm Water I Wit) TBD Storm Water I slit), Storm Water l'Innty Storm W ater t tints Storm Water I tint!, Storm Water I linty Storm Water I tdtt) Water Department Operating F and Water Department Commercial Paper Water Department Commercial Paper Water Department Commercial Paper Water Department State Revoking Fund Water Department State Re, olung Fund Water Department Commercial Paper. State Re%ok mg Fund Water Department Commercial Paper. Gas Well Bonus Royalq. Impact Fee (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 24 Appendix D: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project # .proiect Name WTR-100972 WTR-100979 WTR-100980 Water PLN-100253 PLN-100254 PLN-100257 PLN-100259 PLN-100280 PLN-1 00453 PLN-100454 PLN-100945 PLN-100946 PLN-100951 PLN-100959 WTR-100971 Planning I Council Estimated Sector I District Cost ($1,0001 Miscellaneous Wastewater Citywide I - Citywide $215,174 Projects Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1 0001 au nu 1,m, .....lois 2016-2020 2031-2am $9,286 $1,760 $32,787 S.H. 121 Wastewater Citywide 1 - Citywide $12,109 $6,153 Mains Water System Security & Citywide 1 - Citywide $5,400 $2,400 Information Technology Citywide lEastside Reclaimed Water 1 Eastside S - Moss $8,672 $5,655 Delivery System Water Street/Maintenance I Citywide 1 - Citywide $91,493 $8,110 Related Projects Lake Worth Dredging I Far West 7 - Burdette $29,000 $5,750 S.H. 121 Water Main I TBD TBD $3,459 $2,511 'Mains 325 and 257 I Far South, N/A 6 - Jordan 8 - $22,592 $4,825 Hicks, N/A North and South Holly Downtown 9 - Burns S11,443 $3,918 $3,654 $3,871 Water Treatment Plants $1,600 $750 $650 Westside Water Treatment Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $40,243 $31,429 Plant Transmission Mains - I Citywide 1 - Citywide $9,809 $7,055 various locations Tanks and Pump Stations - Citywide I - Citywide $33,066 $2,486 various locations Eagle Mountain Water Treatment Plant Miscellaneous Projects Tnnity River Vision WTR-100977 Medical Distract - Water Supply Upgrade Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $2,773 $1,148 ICitywide 1 - Citywide $41,000 $4,000 IDowntown, 2 - Espmo, 9 - $8,410 $400 Northeast Burns Southside 9 - Bunn $6,818 $115 $12,800 $19,500 $103,941 $3 386 $2,570 $3201 $5,946 $370 $6,031 $5,100 $8001 $2,2171 $8,5951 $10,604 $948 $8,8141 $9,2501 $8,788 $10,646 $2,000 $9,550 $47,200 $4,000I I $4,000$19,000 $2501 $4,3401 $5601 $3001 $2 560 $5,9401 $3591 $4041 1 1 I $2,7541 $1,268 $6,581 $13,581 $9,150 $1,625 $4,000j $4,0001 $35,100 IResponsible I Funding Deot/Acencv Source Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department Water Department $2,000 1 Water Department 1 Water Department (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 25 Commercial Paper. State Resols,ng Fund Commercial Paper State Reroli mg Fund Commercial Paper. State Re%olimg Fund Commercial Paper IState Rcs oli nig Fund Operating t und Gas N ell Bonus Roy alt, Commercial Paper State Revd, mg Fund Commercial Paper Commerual Paper, State Rcsols nig Fund State Res olsutg Fund Commercial Paper. Operating f und. State Revolving I und 'Commercial Paper Commercial Paper. Operating F und Appendix D: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — FUNDED AND PARTIALLY FUNDED: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Planning Project# Protect Name Sec or ITS-100140 New Radio Towers PLN-100393 James E. Guinn School Restoration Council Estimated District Cost ($1.0001 Arlington 5 - Moss, 9 - Hetghts, Burns Downtown, Southeast, Southside Southside 8 - Hicks TPW-100038 Harley Service Center Arlington (Demolition of Center and Heights Realignment of Harley Ave.) 7 - Burdette Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 X011 jail 2013 nu 2911 - 2016-2020 2021-2030 $6,400 $4,600 $1,800 $3,400 $2,300 $1,100 $8,469 $8,469 Responsible Dept/Agency ITS EuRtUn Source General Obligation Bond TPW Cn) Funds I conotms Des elopnent Administration. State Funds TPW General l )hhgatwn Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. D- 26 Appendix D: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES APPENDIX E: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED Beginning with the 2011 Comprehensive Plan, the City of Fort Worth will include a Transportation Projects Prioritization Matrix in the appropriate appendices of the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the prioritization matrix is to provide a tool for determining which potential capital projects rank most highly in their ability to implement the City Council's adopted Strategic Goals. The prioritization matrix is intended to be a transparent and easily understood system for prioritizing potential transportation projects that may be proposed by City Council members, City staff, members of City commissions and advisory bodies, and the public. The Transportation Projects Prioritization Matrix is included in the Comprehensive Plan in order to share with Fort Worth citizens and other users of the plan the City's new system for ranking proposed projects. Project prioritization rankings are intended to serve as a guide for selecting projects for implementation through future City bond programs, Certificates of Obligation sales, grant programs, and similar funding mechanisms. Final project selection may be dependent upon a number of factors besides the rankings contained in the prioritization matrix, but the rankings will serve as the starting point in project selection for funding. In the 2011 Comprehensive Plan, the Transportation Projects Prioritization Matrix is merely introduced to acquaint users with the main components of the ranking system. Beginning with the 2012 update of the Comprehensive Plan, unfunded transportation projects will be ranked using the prioritization matrix and the prioritization rankings will be included in the plan. Over the next several years, the matrix will be expanded to include other types of capital projects constructed by the City. E-1 Weight Criteria Descriptions 1.5 Reduces Safety Hazard 1.0 Improves Pedestrian & Bicyclist Safety 1.5 Improves Air Quality 1.5 Adds Person Capacity 1.0 Reduces Traffic Congestion 1.0 Improves Pedestrian & Bicyclist Mobility 1.0 Enhances Multi -modal Access 1.5 Reduces Operation/Maintenance Cost 1.0 Promotes Neighborhood Integrity 1.5 Creates / Retains Employment 1.0 Promotes Complete Streets 1.0 Improves Freight Movement 1.5 Serves Infill Development Located Within Growth Center, Urban 1.0 Village, or TOD Area (1/4 mile radius from rail station) 1.0 Links to Growth Centers 1.0 Improves Connectivity / Fills Gaps 1.5 Leverages Funding 1.0 Ease of Implementation 1.5 Public Support 1.0 Collaboration with other Departments 1.0 Anticipation of Development NCTCOG Transportation Improvement Program Scale = 0-10 points for each, based on criteria descriptions contained in automated tool. 1.0 Transportation Project Prioritization Matrix Strategic Goal Make Fort Worth the nation's safest major city Improve mobility and air quality Create and Main- tain a clean, at- tractive city Strengthen eco- nomic base, de- velop the future workforce, and create quality job opportunities Promote orderly and sustainable development Efficiency / Effec- tiveness Time Sensitivity Appendix E: Proposed Capital Improvements APPENDIX E: PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED The capital improvement project tables on the following pages provide a list of proposed capital improvement projects identified by the City's various departments and cooperating agencies. The tables are listed by category headings that match the chapter headings of the Comprehensive Plan, and they indicate projects by City Planning Sector (see Appendix C). Appendix E includes unfunded projects. Funded projects are listed in Appendix D: Proposed Capital Improvements - Funded and Partially Funded. Inclusion of a project does not necessarily reflect the City of Fort Worth's commitment to the project. The capital improvement project tables are intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. They do not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. While all of the proposed projects may be beneficial, the City and other responsible agencies must prioritize the projects for funding, given limited resources. Further information on project status can be obtained by contacting the responsible department or agency. Appendix E: Proposed Capital Improvements E-2 ACRONYMS FOUND IN THE PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TABLES ACRONYM DEFINITION CDBG CMAQ D/FW EDA HED HFC HOME ITS ISD NCTCOG NTTA STEP T/PW TDHCA TEA-21 TIF TxDOT UPARR USGSA Community Development Block Grant Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality Improvement Program Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Economic Development Administration Housing and Economic Development Department Housing Finance Corporation Housing Investment Partnership Program Information Technology Solutions Department Independent School District North Central Texas Council of Governments North Texas Tollway Authority Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program Transportation/Public Works Department Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century Tax Increment Financing Texas Department of Transportation Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program United States General Services Administration PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: HOUSING Planning Council Estimated Project M Project Name Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 ($1.0001 TO j 2012-2013 2014-2018 ;019-2030 Responsible Dept/Agency Funding Source PLN-100918 Supportive Housing Units Citywide 1 - Citywide $54,400 $11,000 $9,000 $34,400 Housing and Economic CDBG. Cite Housing and Affordable Housing Development Department Trust Fund IHFC crust Units Fund. HOMF Funds. Low Income I lousing Tax Credos. Pm ate and Nonprotil I )es elopers. TBD PLN-100919 Central Resource Facility Southside 8 - Hicks $4,900 $4,900 Housing and Economic Private and Nonprofit Development Department Developer, (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 3 Appendix E HOUSING Project # Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES P tin( Council Estimated Sector District 1 Cost ($1.0001 proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 ($I,0001 20 2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2030 Responsible Funding Deot/Aeencv Source PLN-100962 Cobb Park Improvements Southeast 8 - Hicks $9,520 $9,520 Parks and Community General ( tbli ation Services Bond PLN-100964 Natatoriums - Southeast Far Southwest, 3 - Zimmerman, 8 $70,000 $70,000 Parks and Community C to FundsGeneral and Southwest Southeast - Hicks Services Obhl,atiou Bond PRK-100049 New Playgrounds at Parks Arlington 3 - Zimmerman, 4 S1,638 $655 $983 Parks and Community General Obligation which do not have Heights, - Scarth, 5 - Services Bond playgrounds Eastside, Far Moss, 6 - Jordan, Southwest, Far 7 - Burdette, 8 - West, Hicks, 9 - Bums Southeast, Southside, Wedgwood PRK-100063 Developing Areas Citywide 1 - Citywide $4,000 $1,600 $2,400 Parks and Community City F wds Services PRK-100065 Tennis Court Citywide, 1 - Citywide, 2 - $1,056 $422 $633 Parks and Community City Funds Replacement/Conversion to Northside, Espino, 3 - Services Other Recreational Use Southeast, Zimmerman, 5 - Southsrde, Moss, 6 - Jordan, TCU/Westclf 7 - Burdette, 8 - Hicks, 9 - Burns PRK-100069 New Shelters at Parks that Far North, Far 2 - Espino, 3 - $2,293 $917 $1,376 Parks and Community General Ubl[galion do not have Shelters West, Zimmerman, 4 - Services Bond Northeast, Scarth, 5 - Moss, Northside, 6 - Jordan, 7 - Wedgwood, Burdette. 8 - Western Hicks, 9 - Burns Hills/Ridglea PRK-100070 Shelter Replacement Northside, 2 - Espno, 5 - $692 $277 $415 Parks and Community Gas N ell Southeast, Moss, 6 - Jordan, Services Bonus' RoN alms, General Southside, 7 - Burdette, 8 - Obligation Bond Wedgwood Hicks, 9 - Bums PRK-100073 Pool Replacement / Downtown, 2 - Espino, 4 - $29,120 $11,648 $I7,472 Parks and Community City Funds Renovation Eastside, Scarth, 8 - Hicks Services Northeast, Southside PRK-100075 Neighborhood Park Units Citywide 2 - Espino, 3 - $6,638 $2,655 $3,983 Parks and Community General ( MI 'gat with no Parks and Zimmerman, 4 - Services Bond Population Greater than Scarth, 5 - Moss, 2000 7 - Burdette, 8 - Hrcks, 9 - Bums, Location TBD (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 4 Appendix E: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Project M PRK-100076 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Project Name Special Use Education and Tourism Facility Improvements PRK-100077 New Trails PRK-100085 Upgrade Existing Practice Fields PRK-100092 New Community Parks PRK-100093 New Athletic Fields PRK-100095 New Park and Recreation Innovative Facilites PRK-100315 Neighborhood Park Acquisition and Development PRK-100316 Zoo Renovation and Addition Planning Council Estimated Responsible Funding Sector District Cost ($1 0001 I Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 Dept/Aeencv I Source 11 III 2 ;012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2039 1 111 Downtown, Far 1 - Citywide, 3 - $106,054 $42,422 $63,632 Parks and Community Federal Funds. Gas West, Zimmerman, 6 - Services Well Bonus RON alt). Northeast, Jordan, 7 - General Obligation Northside, Burdette, 9- Bond. Pns air TCU/Westclf, Burns Wedgwood, Western Hills/Ridglea Arlington 2 - Espino, 3 - $20,827 $8,331 $12,496 Parks and Community TBD Heights, Zimmerman, 4 - Services Downtown, Scarth, 5 - Moss, Eastside, Far 6 - Jordan, 7 - North, Far Burdette, 8 - Southwest, Hicks, 9 - Bums Northeast, Northside, Southeast, Southside, Sycamore, TCU/Westclf, Wedgwood Western Hills/Ridglea Northeast, 2 - Espmo, 4 - $1,347 $539 $808 Parks and Community Gas N ell Northside, Scarth, 5 - Moss, Services Bonus Ras alto General Southeast 8 - Hicks, 9 - Obligation Bond Bums, Location TBD TBD 2 - Espino, 5 - $7,800 $7,800 Parks and Community General Obligation Moss, 7 - Services Bond Burdette Far North, Far 2 - Espino, 6 - S17,373 $6,949 $10,424 Parks and Community General Obligation Southwest, Far Jordan, 7- Services Bondl ,nknown West, Burdette, 8 - Northeast, Hicks Sycamore Eastside, 4 - Scarth, 8 - $10,868 $4,347 $6,521 Parks and Community Gas Well Northeast Hicks Services Bonus Ros alb General Obligation Bond Citywide, TBD Location TBD $700 $700 Parks and Community General Obligation Services Bond TCU/Westclf 9 - Bums $18,045 $1,500 $16,545 Parks and Community General Obligation Services Bond. Pris ate (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Appendix E: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES E- 5 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Planaine I Council Estimated I Responsible !Funding Project it Proiect Name Sector District Cost ($1.0001 JI Proposed Expenditures by Fisc91 Year Ending Sent. 30 ($1.0001 DepUAeencv Source MI 2012-2013 1014-20,1 2019-2030 PRK-I00648 Playground Renovations Citywide 3 - Zimmerman, 4 $364 $146 $218 Parks and Community General Obligation - Scarth, 7 - Services Bond Burdette PRK-100649 Comprehensive Pool Study Citywide 1 - Citywide $312 $312 Parks and Community General Obligation Services Bond PRK-100650 Walk and Trail Citywide 2 - Espmo, 3 - $1,449 $148 $1,301 Parks and Community General ( Ail lot ion Replacement Zimmerman, 4 - Services Bond Scarth, 6 - Jordan, 8 - Hicks, 9 - Bums, Location TBD PRK-100651 Ballfield Lighting Citywide 2 - Espino, 9 - $250 $250 Parks and Community General Obligation Replacement Bums Services Bond PRK-100653 Trail Bridges or Structural TBD 2 - Espino, 3 - $520 $208 $312 Parks and Community General Obligation Renovations Needed Zimmerman, 6 - Services Bond Jordan, Location TBD PRK-100656 Parking and Roads Citywide 2 - Espino, 3 - $7,431 $2,972 $4,459 TPW General (lbhptton Zimmerman, 4 - Bond Scarth, 5 - Moss, 6 - Jordan, 7 - Burdette, 8 - Hrcks, 9 - Burns, Location TBD PRK-100657 Replace Existing Citywide 2 - Espino, 8 - $988 $395 $593 Parks and Community General Obligation Competition Athletic Fields Hicks Services Bond PRK-100659 Drainage and Erosion Citywide 2 - Espino, 3 - $4,212 $1,685 $2,527 TPW Gas N ell Control Zimmerman, 4 - Bonus RON al General Scarth, 5 - Moss, Obligation Bond 6- Jordan, 7- Burdette, 8 - Hicks PRK-100668 Reserve Park Sites Eastside, Far 2 - Espino, 4 - S12,164 $4,865 $7,298 Parks and Community Gas N ell North, Far Scarth, 5 - Moss, Services Bonus RoN alts General Northwest, Far 6 - Jordan, 7 - Obligation Bond South, Far Burdette Southwest, Far West, Wedgwood PRK-100681 General Park Development Citywide 1 - Citywide $1,872 $749 $1,123 Parks and Community General ( Ibbl,ation Services Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 6 Appendix E. PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Project tt PRK-100682 PRK-100684 PRK-100685 PRK-100686 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Plannine Council Estimated I Responsible Fundine Project Name Sector I District I Cost (S1.00011 I Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sent. 30 ($1,0001 Deot/Aeencv I Source III ll. 2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2030 — Service / Support Facility TBD TBD $11,050 $4,420 $6,630 Parks and Community General (tbl'gamin Services Bond. Streams 4nd \ alley s Inwrporated New Regional Parks TBD TBD $20,800 $8,320 $12,480 Parks and Community General Obligation Services Bond New Pools Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $18,720 $7,488 $11,232 Parks and Community Crowley I',lr Bond. Services General (tbhl,anon Bond New Community Centers Eastside, Far 4 - Scarth, 7 - $6,240 $3,120 $3,120 Parks and Community' General ( tbligation Northwest Burdette Services Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 7 Appendix E: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES Project Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: LIBRARIES Planning Council I Estimated Sector ' trict Cost (SI 0001 LIB-100133 New Wedgwood Branch Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $6,500 Library LLB-100134 New Meadowbrook Branch Southeast 5- Moss $6,500 Library L1B-100135 Central Library retail space Downtown 9 - Bums $3,670 finish out PLN-100267 Central Library - Facade Downtown 9 - Bums $6,500 Replacement PLN-100270 Central Library Third Level Downtown 9 - Burns S49,000 Expansion PLN-100271 Riverside meeting room Northeast 2 - Espino $120 expansion PLN-100275 Summerglen Branch Far North 4 - Scarth $1,676 Library -Add 5,000 square feet PLN-100476 Central Library Renovation Downtown 9 - Bums $1,800 and Expansion of Genealogy/Local History Division PLN-100856 New Far North Branch Far North 2 - Espino $4,650 Library Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sept 30 (S1.0001 291E 2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2030 Responsible Fundine Dent/Agency Source $6,500 Library Dept General Obligation Bond $6,500 Library Dept. General Obligation Bond $3,670 Library Dept General obligation Bond. Prn ate $6,500 Library Dept General obligation Bond $49,000 Library Dept General Obligation Bond $120 Library Dept Pnsate $1,676 Library Dept. General Obligation Bond $1,800 Library Dept. Pm, ate $4,650 Library Dept (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 8 General obligation Bond. Pm ate Appendix E LIBRARIES Project # F ECD-100320 Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT P nni Council I District Estimated Sector Cost ($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sent. 30 ($1.0001 ji012-2013 2014.2018 - ,2019-2030 Responsible i Fntxliae DeutlAeencv Source TIF #2 Speedway Far North 2 - Espino $29,893 $1,348 $2,740 $7,112 $18,692 TIF #2 Board of Directors TIF District #2 ECD (00321 TIF #3 North Downtown Downtown 2 - Espino, 9- $33,170 $5,000 $10,000 $18,170 TIF #3 Board of Directors TIF District A Burns ECD-100322 TIF #4 Medical District Southside 8 - Hicks, 9 - S52,688 $6,850 $13,438 $18,208 $14,192 TIF #4 Board of Directors TIF District #4 Bums ECD-100324 T1F #6 Riverfront Downtown, 2 - Espino, 9 - $5,965 $242 $501 $1,348 $3,874 TIF #6 Board of Directors TIF District #6 Northeast Burns PLN-100470 TIF #7 North Tarrant Far North 2 - Espino S17,986 $1,843 $3,798 $10,184 $2,162 TIF #7 Board of Directors TIF District #7 Parkway PLN- I00471 T1F #8 Lancaster Corridor Downtown 9 - Bruns $53,871 $3,187 $6,631 $18,137 $25,917 TIF #8 Board of Directors TIF District 48 PLN-100472 T1F #9 Trinity River Vision Arlington 2 - Espino, 8 - $119,486 $1,767 $3,540 $14,015 $ 100,164 TIF #9 Board of Directors TIF District 49 Heights, Hicks, 9 - Bums Downtown, Northeast, Northside PLN-100473 T1F #10 Lone Star Far North 2 - Espino $6,812 $393 $812 $2,090 $3,517 TIF # I0 Board of TIF District #10 Directors PLN-100474 TIF #11 Southwest Arlington 3 - Zimmerman $1,799 $104 $214 $575 $907 TIF # 1 I Board of TIF District # 1 1 Parkway Heights, Directors TCU/Westclf PLN-I00697 TIF #12 East Berry Southeast, 8 - Hicks $12,222 $139 $303 $3,248 $8,532 TIF #I2 Board of TIF Dismct #12 Renaissance Southside Directors PLN-100927 TIF #13 Woodhaven Eastside 4- Scarth $3,141 $49 $3,091 TIF #13 Board of TIF District #13 Directors (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 9 Appendix E: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Project # Project Name Arterial Projects PLN-100717 N. Beach Street (Champions View to SH 170) PLN-100720 Ray White Road (Wall Price Keller to Wyndrook) PLN-100724 Timberland Blvd. (N. Beach Street to US 377) PLN-100726 Keller Hicks (Timberland to Ridgeview & Park Vista to US 377) PLN-100728 Cantrell San som/Old Denton Road PLN-100729 Cantrell Sansom Rd. (Old PLN-100730 PLN-100731 PLN-100732 PLN-100733 PLN-100734 PLN-100737 Fossil Creek Blvd. Bridge over 1H 35 PLN-100744 Denton Rd. to lH 35) Mark IV Parkway (1H 820 to Cantrell Sansom) Park Vista Blvd. (Ray White to Keller Hicks) Park Vista (Caylor to Timberland) N. Riverside Dr. (Villages of Woodland Springs to SH 170) N. Riverside Dr. (Heritage Trace to Timberland) Avondale -Haslet (E of BNSF RR to Sendera Ranch) PLN-100746 Academy (Silver Creek to Sparrow Hawk) PLN-100747 Harmon Road (Golden Heights to 500 feet north of US 287) PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Planninv Sector Council District Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far North Far West Far North 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 2 - Espino 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette Estimated Cost($1,0001 $6,300 $4,000 $15,900 $13,900 $3,859 $1,600 $2,877 $8,900 $5,000 $4,000 $17,000 $6,061 $17,500 $2,387 $14,000 Responsible Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine ot. 30 (SI.0001 Dept/Agency i611 2012-2013 4014-2 1s 2019-2039 $6,300 $4,000 $15,900 $13,900 $3,859 $1,600 $2 877 $17,500 $2,387 $14,000 Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works $8,900 Transportation/Public Works $5,000 Transportation/Public Works $4,000 Transportation/Public Works $17,000 Transportation/Public Works $6,061 Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General t tbligation Bond General Obligation Bond General t tbligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond E- 10 Appendix E: TRANSPORTATION Project 8 PLN-100750 PLN-100751 PLN-100752 PLN-100753 PLN-100754 PLN-100757 PLN-100760 PLN-100761 PLN-100763 PLN-100764 PLN-100765 PLN-100766 PLN-100767 PLN-100772 PLN-100773 PLN-100774 Project Name Cantrell Sansom Rd. (Blue Mound City Limit to Mark IV Pkwy) Bailey -Boswell Rd. (Boat Club to Old Decatur) Park Road (Boat Club to Old Decatur) Willow Springs (Avondale -Haslet to US 287) Old Decatur Rd. (820 to River Rock) Marine Creek Pkwy. (Longhorn to TCC) Meacham Blvd. (1H 35 NB to N. Beach St) Cooks Lane (John T. White to Randol Mill) Randol Mill Rd (Precinct Line to Racquet Club) Rondo] Mill Rd. (Oakland to Woodhaven) Cooks Ln. (Brentwood Stair to Dottie Lynn) Wichita (Mitchell to US 287) Euless/S. Main (TRE to Euless St.) WJ Boaz Rd. (Boat Club to Old Decatur) Heritage Trace Pkwy (FM156-Harmon) McPherson Blvd. (1H 35 to Oak Grove) PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Ptomaine Sec or Far North Far Northwest Far Northwest Far North Far Northwest Far Northwest Far North Eastside Eastside Eastside Eastside Southeast Eastside Far Northwest Far Northwest Sycamore Council Dis i 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 4 - Scarth 4 - Scarth 4 - Scarth 4 - Scarth 5 - Moss 5 - Moss 5 - Moss 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 8 - Hicks Estimated I Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending sent, 30 ($1,0001 $7,367 $16,700 $13,200 $9,900 $1,356 $6,700 $3,200 $9,150 $10,000 $3,400 $10,300 $10,000 $4,500 $17,646 $21,408 $7,000 2012-2013 2014-2014 $7,367 $16,700 $13,200 2019-2030 Responsible Dept/Aeency Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works $9,900 Transportation/Public Works $1,356 Transportation/Public Works $6,700 Transportation/Public Works $3,200 Transportation/Public Works $9,150 Transportation/Public Works $10,000 Transportation/Public Works $3,400 Transportation/Public Works $10,300 Transportation/Public Works $10,000 TransportationiPublic Works $4,500 Transportation/Public Works $17,646 Transportation/Public Works $21,408 Transportation/Public Works $7,000 Transportation/Public Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 11 General Obligation Bond General l )bli .atron Bond Camnunm I a.ilrues Agreement General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond General Obligation Bond Appendix E. TRANSPORTATION PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Planning, 1 cinai Estimated Responsible 'Nadine Project # Project Name Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept, 30 ($1.0001 Deut/Agency Source Iltil 2012-2013 014.2018 1019-2030 PLN-100960 Harley Arlington 7 - Burdette $45,000 $22,500 $22,500 Transportanon/Public General Obligation Realignment/Dramage/Bro Heights Works Bond. Stu' in N ate' wnfield Encapsulation Unfit} TPW-100000 Everman Parkway (E Sycamore 6 - Jordan $16,000 $16,000 Transportation/Public Developer Funds. terminus to IH-35W) Works General Ohhgatioii Bond. N( I ('OG TPW-100001 Risinger Road (McCart Far South 6 - Jordan $6,079 $6,079 Transportation/Public Developer I unds. Avenue to Crowley Road) Works General Ohl mat on Bond TPW-100005 Cromwell -Marine Creek Far Northwest 7 - Burdette S19,000 $19,000 Transportation/Public Deg elopes Funds. Road (Boat Club Road to Works General ( ihhgation Old Decatur Road) Bond TPW-100013 Trinity Boulevard (1H-820 Eastside 4 - Scarth, 5 - $43,300 $43,300 Transportation/Public General ( MI 'gallon to Greenbelt) Moss Works Bond. Txl)< I I TPW-100016 Oak Grove Road (Alta Sycamore 8 - Hicks $14,700 $14,700 Transportanon/Public Dmelope' I unds. Mesa Boulevard to Works General ( )bhgation Everman Parkway) Bond TPW-100025 Keller Hicks Road Far North 2 - Espino $13,900 $13,900 Transportation/Public City Fund,. Des eloper (Timberland Drive to Works Funds US377) TPW-100026 North Riverside Drive Far North 4 - Scarth $15,900 $15,900 Transportanon/Public Deg elope' F unds. (Summerfields Boulevard Works General Obligation to Heritage Trace Parkway) Bond TPW-100027 Kroger Drive (US 377 to Far North 2 - Espino $9,392 $9,392 Transportation/Public Developer I uiids. Park Vista Boulevard) Works General Obligation Bond TPW-100219 Meacham Boulevard Far North, 2 - Espino $6,000 $6,000 Transportation/Public City Fund Federal (IH35W-FM156) Northeast Works Funds TPW-100866 Bryant Irvin Road Far Southwest 3 - Zimmerman $2,100 $2,100 Transportanon/Public General Obligation (Continuous left turn from Works Bond Geddes to Manhattan) TPW-100875 Academy Blvd (West TBD 7-Burdette $8,500 $8,500 Transportation/Public General Obligation Point-IH 30) Works Bond TPW-100887 Precinct Line (1000ft S of TBD 4 - Scarth $17,500 $17,500 Transportation/Public General Obligation Tnnity-Randol Mill) Works Bond TPW-100889 University Drive TBD 9 - Bums $5,000 $5,000 Transportation/Public General Obligation Reconfiguration Works Bond TPW-100894 Alsbury (I35 W TBD 8 - Hicks $2,013 $2,013 Transportation/Public City Funds FR-Entrance to Spinks Works Airport) (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 12 Appendix E: TRANSPORTATION Project # Project Name TPW-100897 tannin Sector PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION lCouncil District Estimated 1 Cost($1,0001 Bryant Irvin (Add 2 lanes on bridge @SW Blvd) TPW-100898 Caylor W (Caylor N-Katy Rd) TPW-100900 Cume St (W 7th St-Crestline) TPW-100901 Foch (W 7th St -Trinity Park Rd) TPW-100902 Northeast Parkway (Mark IV -Great SW Parkway) TPW-100905 Old Decatur (Longhorn -Blue Ribbon) TPW-100907 Old Denton (Cantrell Sansom-South of Western Center) TPW-100909 Silver Creek (WSISD-Western Oaks) TPW-100911 Verna Trail (White Settlement -Silver Creek) TPW-100912 W Cleburne Rd (Hulen-Meadownoll& Crowley Clebtun - McPherson) TPW-100913 Wagley Robertson (Bonds Ranch -Darby Ln) TPW-100916 Great Southwest Parkway (Mark IV Pkwy-1H35W SBFR) Bike Projects TPW-100228 I Bicycle Projects 'Bridge Reconstruction Projects PLN-100383 Silver Creek Rd./Silver Creek TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Citywide Far West 3 - Zimmerman 2 - Espino 9 - Bums 9 - Burns 2 - Espino 7 - Burdette 2 - Espino 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 6 - Jordan 7 - Burdette 2 - Espino 1 - Citywide 7 - Burdette $3,312 $4,725 $3,380 $5,530 $3,900 $3,780 $3,000 $18,848 $12,968 S2,354 $325 $2,650 $11,000 $1,500 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endrua Sept. 30 ($1,0001 Z012-2013 $1,000 2014-2010 $3,312 $4,725 $3,380 $5,530 $3,780 $3,000 $18,848 $325 $2,650 $3,000 2A19-2030 Responsible Dept/Agency Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works TransportationiPublic Works Transportation/Public Works $3,900 Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/ Public Works Transportation/Public Works $12,968 Transportation/Public Works $2,354 TransportanonPublic Works Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works $6,400 I Transportation/Public Works, TxDOT $1,500 I Transportation/Public Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of fmancial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 13 Funding Source City I unds Cite Funds City Funds Cits Funds City Funds City Funds City Funds City t unds City Funds City Funds City Funds City Funds City Funds ti('T(OG Federal Funds General Obligation Bind. State Funds Appendix E: TRANSPORTATION Project N I Project Name PLN-100384 1 Silver Creek Rd /Live Oak Creek PLN-100385 Silver Creek Rd/Silver Creek Tributary PLN-100386 Christopher Dr.Nillage Creek Tributary PLN-100387 Ranch View Rd/Whites Branch - Rehab PLN-100388 McCart Ave./Sycamore Creek Tnbutary-Rehab TPW-100121 North Riverside Drive Southbound Bridge Reconstruction at West Fork Trinity River North Umversity Drive Northbound Bridge Reconstruction at West Fork Trinity River E Rosedale St Bridge Replacement over Sycamore Creek TPW-100122 TPW-I00803 TPW-100804 TPW-100805 TPW-100807 TPW-100808 E Northside Dr Bndge Replacement over Samuels Ave S University Dr (southbound) Bridge Improvements over Clear Fork Trimly River Long Ave over Little Fossil Northeast Creek Bridge Replacement PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION P nin Sector Far West Far West Sycamore TCU/Westclf Wedgwood Southside Arlington Heights Southeast, Southside Northeast Arlington Heights, TCU/Westclf. W Lancaster over Foch St Arlington Bridge Rehabilitation Heights Council District 7 - Burdette 7 - Burdette 8 - Hicks 3 - Zimmerman 6 - Jordan 8 - Hicks 7 - Burdette, 9 - Bums 8 - Hicks 8- Hicks, 9- Burns 9 - Burns 4 - Scarth 9 - Burns Estimated Cost ($1,0001 $1,000 $900 $6,100 $400 $500 $7,000 $1,024 $6,000 $1,500 $6,000 $3,000 $500 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Yegr Ending Sept. 30 ($1.0001 �431 2012-2013 2014-2019 3019-2030 $1,000 Responsible DeDUAeencv Transportation/Public Works $900 Transportation/Public Works $100 $6,000 Transportation/Public Works $400 Transportation/Public Works $7,000 $6,000 $500 Transportation/ Public Works Transportation/Public Works $1,024 Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works $1,500 Transportation/Public Works $6,000 Transportation/Public Works $3,000 Transportation/Public Works $500 Transportation/Public Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 14 Fundmv Source Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond, State Funds Federal Funds General Obligation Bond. State Funds General Uhbgation Bond Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond State Funds Federal Funds General Obligation Bond State Funds Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond State Funds Federal Funds General Obligation Bond State Funds City F unds. I ederal Funds. General Obligation Bond State Funds City Funds. Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond. State Funds Federal funds General Obligation Bond State Funds City Funds. I ederal Funds. General Obligation Bond State Funds City Funds. Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond State Funds Appendix E: TRANSPORTA TION Project N Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Planning Council Sector District TPW-I00809 E 4th St Bridge Northeast 8 - Hicks Rehabilitation over West Fork Trinity River TPW-100810 NW 30th St over Marine Creek Bridge Rehabilitation (Intersection Improvement Projects TPW-100033 Intersection Improvements Neighborhood Street Projects PLN-100645 1Residential Streets New Development Projects PLN-100390 New Development Projects TBD Railroad Crossing Projects PLN-100663 Railroad Crossing Surface Improvement Program TPW-100131 Railroad Crossings and Quiet Zones Regional Projects TPW-I00231 TPW-100298 TPW-100299 TPW-100300 1H-30/Walsh Ranch Parkway Interchange 1H-820 (US 287 to Meadowbrook Dr.) Northside 2 - Espino Citywide 1 - Citywide Citywide I - Citywide Citywide I 1 - Citywide Citywide 1 - Citywide Citywide 1 - Citywide TBD TBD Eastside, Southeast 5 - Moss 1H-35W (SH 183 to Northeast 2 - Espino Northside Dr.) IH-35W (Northside Dr. to Northeast 2 - Espino, 8 - 4th Street) Hicks Sidewalk Projects TPW-100865 I TBD I1 - Citywide 1City Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Projects Traffic Signal And Intelligent Transportation System Projects (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. 7012-2013 20142018 $3,000 $140,000] 1 I $40,000 1 $45,000 I I $22,500 Estimated Cost ($1.000) $10,000 $1,000 $10,200J $400 $7,200 $9,000 $466,000 $18,600 $51,805 Proposed Expenditures by FiscW Year Ending Sept. 30 ($I.000) i $400 $1,200 $2,000 $9,000 $18,600 $51,805 i Responsible II Deot/Aeencv 2019-2030 $10,000 Transportation/Public Works $1,000 Transportation/Public Works $6,600 1Transportation/Public Works $100,000 1Transportation/Public Works $22,500 1Transportation/Public Works Transportation/Public Works $4,000 Transportation/Public Works TxDOT $466,000 TxDOT TxDOT TxDOT $77,000 I $1,250 $8,750 E- 15 $67,000 I Transportation/Public Works Funding Source City Fund,- Federal Funds. General Obligation Bond State Funds City Funds I-ederal Funds, General Obligation Bond State Funds City Funds General Obligation Bond City Funds City Funds General Obligation Bond Developer 1 unds State Funds Federal Funds. Is.1X01 Federal Funds. f'DOT Federal F unds. IUIX)I- General Obligation Bond Appendix E: TRANSPORTATION Project # I Project Name PLN-100666 IITS Projects PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: TRANSPORTATION Planning Council ystimated I Sector pistricl JI Cost (S1 0001 JI Citywide I I - Citywide Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 ($1.0001 1. 2a12- gt3 2014-2010 2019-20 $17,000I I $2,000 I $5 ,000 Responsible pept/Agency S10,000 1Transportation/Public Works (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Funding Source City Funds Appendix E: TRANSPORTATION E-16 project # PLN-100279 PLN-100283 PLN-10071 I PLN-100944 Project Name Eagle Mountain -Saginaw ISD Various Renovations Planning Sector PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: EDUCATION Council District Far Northwest 2 - Espino, 7 - Burdette Eagle Mountain -Saginaw Far Northwest 2 - Espino, 7 - ISD 10 elementary schools, Burdette 4 middle schools, 1 high school Northwest lSD-17 Far North 2 - Espino, 7 - elementary schools, 3 Burdette middle schools, I high school Keller 1SD - Elementary School #23 Far North 2 - Espino Estimated ICost f$1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 f$1.0001 2012-2013 2014.2018 2019-2030 $60,000 $626,000 $344,000 $15,000 $10,000 $55,200 $15,000 $20,000 $344,000 Responsible Dept/Aeencv $30,000 Eagle Mountain -Saginaw ISD $570,800 Eagle Mountain -Saginaw ISD Northwest ISD Keller ISD (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Funding, Source Eagle Mtn -Saginaw ISD Bond Eagle Nth) -Saginaw ISD Bond Northwest ISD Bond Keller ISI) Bond Appendix E EDUCATION E-17 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: ARTS & CULTURE Mannino Council Estimated Project # Project Name Sector District Cost t$1 0001 PLN-100241 Fort Worth Convention Downtown 9 - Bums $120,000 Center Expansion Phase 3 PLN-100243 New Will Rogers Arena Arlington 7 - Burdette $110,000 Heights PLN-100398 Seal and repair plaster at Northside 2 - Espmo $181 Cowtown Coliseum and associated power building Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept, 30 ($1,0001 all 2012-2413 24142010 1019-2030 Responsible pept/Aeencv Funding Source $120,000 Public Events General Obligabun Bond. O upancv fax $110,000 Public Events General Obhgation Bond. Prn ate $181 Public Events General Obligation Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 18 Appendix E: ARTS & CULTURE Project # I Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: POLICE SERVICES I Planning Council Estimated Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Exoenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 (S1.0001, 2�1 2012-2013 2014-2010 2019-2030 POL-100111 Neighborhood Policing TBD Location TBD $620 District #3 POL-100112 Future 6th Division TBD Location TBD $10,000 Headquarters POL-100115 Heliport Facility Northside 2 - Espino $1,500 POL-100138 Auto Pound Facility TBD Location TBD $3,000 POL-100662 Police/Fire Training TBD Location TBD $150,000 Academy Responsible Fundine Dept/Aeencv $620 Police Dept General Ohligauun Bond $10,000 Police Dept General i)hli ation Bond $1,500 Police Dept. TBD $3,000 Police Dept General 1 )hlil.ation Bond $25,000 $80,000 $45,000 Police Dept City Funds (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 19 Appendix E: POLICE SERVICES PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Planning Project # Project Name Sector Council District Estimated Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 (51,0001 z©ly-29t3 307 4-2015 y019-2030 Responsible Funding Dept/Agencv Source F1R-100088 Opticom Traffic Downtown 1 - Citywide $1,461 $1,461 Fire Dept City Funds Intervention System F1R-100100 Replace Fire Station 40 Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $3,190 $3,190 Fire Dept City Funds FIR-100103 Far Southwest Fire Station Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $2,344 $2,344 Fire Dept City Funds FIR-100104 Far South Fire Station Far South 8 - Hicks $2,344 $2,344 Fire Dept City Funds FIR-100105 Mosier Valley Fire Station Eastside 5 - Moss $2,344 $2,344 Fire Dept. City Funds FIR-100334 Replace CAD System TBD TBD $9,160 $9,160 Fire Dept General Obligation Bond F1R-100336 Replace SCBA Facility Southside 9 - Burns $3,190 $3,190 Fire Dept. General Obligation Bond F1R-100337 Hazardous Materials TBD TBD $457 $457 Fire Dept General Obligation Equipment Storage Bldg. Bond FIR-100338 Reserve Apparatus Storage TBD TBD $344 $344 Fire Dept General Obligation Bond FIR-100339 Remodel Fire Station 44 Northside 2 - Espino $187 $187 Fire Dept. General Ohligat ion Bond FIR-100341 Rebuild Fire Station 15 Northside 2 - Espino $187 $187 Fire Dept. General Obligation Bond F1R-100342 Remodel Fire Station 16 Western 7 - Burdette $187 $187 Fire Dept. General Obligation Hills/Ridglea Bond FIR-100343 Replace Station 37 Far North 2 - Espino $3,190 $3,190 Fire Dept. General Obligation Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 20 Appendix E: FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES Project # I Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ?tanning a Council Sector Distri Estimated 1 Responsible I Funding Cost ($1,0001 Pronosed Eanuditures by Fiscal Year Eudip2 Sent. 30 ($1,0001 Deot/A2enev Source MI 2012-2013 2014-2014 2019-2030 Storm Water Projects PLN-100252 Bailey's Industrial Addition Arlmgton 9 - Burns $20,000 $20,000 Engineenng Department, Storm V. ater l til m Heights TPW PLN-100963 Botanic Gardens Arlington 7 - Burdette $6,000 $6,000 TPW General Obligation Stormwater Management Heights Bond Parking Area TPW-100084 Big Fossil Creek Watershed Far North, Far 2 - Espino, 4 - $8,000 $8,000 TPW Storm N ater l ulity Improvements Northwest Scarth, 7 - Burdette TPW-100155 Drew Street Detention Southside 9 - Burns $300 $300 TPW Storm N ater l tility Pond TPW-100158 Glen Garden Drainage Southeast 8 - Hicks $2,500 $2,500 TPW Storm N ater l tdnv Improvements TPW-100159 Westland Drainage Far West 3 - Zimmerman $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 TPW Storm N ater l uhh_ Improvements TPW-100161 Hemphill Heights -Devitt Southside 9 - Bums $15,000 $15,000 TPW Storm V. ater l tiIit Drainage Improvements TPW-100162 Cottonwood Creek Channel Eastside 5 - Moss $1,200 $1,200 TPW Storm N. ater l nlit♦_ Improvements TPW-100184 Manderly-Suffolk Drainage Southside, 3 - Zimmerman, 9 $4,000 $4,000 TPW Storm N ater l nlit, Improvements TCU/Westclf. - Burns TPW-100189 Henderson Street Drainage Downtown, 8 - Hicks, 9 - $25,000 $3,000 TPW Storm V. ater L tdir,_ Improvements Southside Burns TPW-100430 Libbey-Goodman Drainage Arlington 7 - Burdette $5,000 $750 $4,250 TPW Storm \'ater l nlin_ Improvements Heights TPW-100431 Lower Como Creek Arlington 7 - Burdette $3,000 S450 $2,550 TPW Storm W ater l nlit Improvements Heights TPW-100433 Indian Creek Channel Arlington 7 - Burdette $600 $600 TPW Storm W ater I nloN Improvements Heights TPW-100485 9600 Wagley Robertson Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $1,600 $1,600 TPW Stonn Watet l nlity_ culvert improvements at Big Fossil Creek TPW-100486 200 Bonds Ranch Road Far Northwest 7 - Burdette $800 $800 TPW Storm V. ater I ulit�_ West culvert improvements TPW-100487 9300 Harmon Road culvert Far North 2 - Espino $1,000 $1,000 TPW Stonn W ater l nl t♦_ improvements at BFC-2 (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 21 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Planning Council Project ti Project Name Sector District TPW-100488 11000 Old Denton Road Far North 2 - Espino culvert improvements at Big Bear Creek TPW-100489 3700 Keller Hicks culvert Far North 2 - Espmo improvements east of Alta Vista TPW-100490 10900 Alta Vista culvert Far North 2 - Espmo improvements at Big Bear Creek TPW-100491 4900 Golden Triangle Far North 2 - Espino culvert improvements east of North Beach TPW-100492 5400 WJ Boaz Road Far Northwest 7 - Burdette culvert improvements TPW-100493 4700 WJ Boaz Road Far Northwest 7 - Burdette culvert improvements TPW-100494 Harmon Road culvert Far North 7 - Burdette improvements at BFC-3 TPW- 100495 Prewett Channel drainage Far North 4 - Scarth improvements TPW-100499 Macie Avenue culvert Northside 2 - Espino improvements in Sansom Park TPW-100500 Sansom Park Drive culvert Northside 2 - Espino improvements in Sansom Park TPW-100501 Parsons Street drainage Northeast 2 - Espino improvements TPW-100502 35th Street NW culvert Northside 2 - Espino improvements @ Cement Creek TPW-100503 East Long -South Meacham Northside 2 - Espmo storm drain improvements TPW-100505 Little Fossil Creek channel Far North 2 - Espino improvements TPW-100509 11800 Mosier Valley Road Eaststde 5 - Moss culvert improvements TPW-100510 12000 White Settlement Far West 7 - Burdette culvert improvements at Live Oak Creek Estimated S ost($1.000) Responsible Fundipe Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1.0001 Devt/Aeencv Source au ;012-2013 2014-2018 j019-2030 $1,200 S1,200 TPW Storm Rater l tilits $600 $600 TPW Storm R ater l trim, $1,500 $1,500 TPW Storm Rater l PM). $1,500 $1 500 TPW Storm V. ater l Miry $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm Rater l tail), $1,200 $1 200 TPW Storm Rater l slily $600 $600 TPW Storm Rater l'nlrty $4,000 $4,000 TPW Storm Hater l'irlrt) $800 $800 TPW Storm Water l nlm $700 $700 TPW Storm Hater l nhty $700 $700 TPW Storm V. ater t Miry $800 $800 TPW Storm Hater l tdrt� $6,000 $6,000 TPW Storm Water l nlrt} $6,000 $6,000 TPW Storm Rater t nhq $1,200 $1,200 TPW Storm Rater t Mal $800 $800 TPW StonnVater l'nhty (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 22 Appendix E.: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY I Planning Project # Project Name sector TPW-100513 700 block Verna Trail Far West North culvert improvements TPW-100514 500 block Vema Trail Far West North culvert improvements TPW-100515 200 Zuni Trail North Far West culvert improvements at pond TPW-100517 Menefee Creek capacity Northside improvements TPW-100518 McCandless-25th storm Northside drain improvements TPW-100519 Kearney-23rd storm drain Northside improvements TPW-100520 McKinley at NW 30th Northside culvert improvements TPW-100521 Ephriham storm drain Northside improvements TPW-100522 Ohio Garden Road culvert Northside improvements at Quail Trail TPW-100523 3900 Ohio Graden culvert Northside improvements TPW-100525 Marine Creek/Stockyards Northside drainage improvements TPW-100527 Circle Park storm dram Northside improvements TPW-100528 North Grove-21st NE storm Northside drain improvements TPW-100529 Near Northside drainage Northside improvements TPW-100530 Monticello storm drain Arlington improvements Heights TPW-100531 Kmtbo Road drainage Northeast improvements CouncilEstimated ResponsibleI 1 funding District 1 Cost ($1,0001 Pronosed Exnenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1.0001 Dept/Agency Source Pi 2012-2013 20142018 P19-2030 7 - Burdette $600 $600 TPW Storm V. ater l ulir♦ 7- Burdette $500 $500 TPW Storm Waier I !flits 7-Burdette $1,200 $1,200 TPW Storm HaIeI l tilt 2 - Espino $3,500 $525 $2,975 TPW Storm N aiei I (lty 2 - Espino $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm N aler t till!) 2 - Espino $4,000 $4 000 TPW Storm V. atel I tile} 2 - Espino $400 $400 TPW Stonn N tier l uhtr 2 - Espino $3,000 $3,000 TPW Stonn N aler I tilt 7 - Burdette $900 $900 TPW Stonn V. ater I nlm 7 - Burdette $800 $800 TPW Storm V. aler I tdnr 2 - Espino $15,000 $15,000 TPW Storm N arer I nMm 2 - Espino $25,000 $3,000 S17,000 TPW Storm N ater I tilt} 2 - Espino $350 $350 TPW Storm V. aler I tiro 2 - Espino $4,000 $4,000 TPW Stonn V. aler I Lilt) 7 - Burdette $6,000 $6,000 TPW Storm W ater I till!) 4 - Scarth $2,000 $2,000 TPW Storm N ater t till!) (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 23 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project 8 TPW-100532 TPW-100533 TPW-100534 TPW-100535 TPW-100536 TPW-100537 TPW-100538 TPW-100539 TPW-100544 TPW-100545 TPW-100546 ITPW-100547 TPW-100548 TPW-100549 TPW-100550 TPW-10055I ITPW-I00552 Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1 Planning Council Sector istric Estimated Cost I$1.0001 Cold Springs - Watuaga Northeast 2 - Espino — $1,000 dramage improvements Dry Branch Creek Phase 4 Northeast 2 - Espino, 4 - $20,000 drainage improvements Scarth Samuels-Delga drainage Northeast 8 - Hicks, 9 - $3,000 improvements Burns East CBD drainage Downtown, 8 - Hicks, 9 - 58,000 improvements Northeast Burns Lower Dry Branch Creek Eastside, 4 - Scarth $5,000 drainage improvements Northeast Fosdic Lake dam Eastside 4 - Scarth $1,275 rehabilitation 4700 Lake Havasu Trail Eastside 4 - Scarth $250 culvert improvements Lower Woodhaven Creek Eastside 4 - Scarth $5,000 capacity improvements 4000 Lost Creek Blvd. Far West 3 - Zimmerman $250 drainage improvements at golf course pond 10500 Chapin Road culvert Far West 3 - Zimmerman $250 improvements 3420 Alemeda St culvert Far West 3 - Zimmerman $500 improvements @ MSC-1 Las vegas Trail storm drain Western 3 - Zimmerman $4,000 improvements Hills/Ridglea 3101 S. Normandale Street Western 7 - Burdette $250 culvert improvements @ Hills/Ridglea MSC-1A Pensacola -Royal drainage Western 3 - Zimmerman $2,000 improvements Hills/Ridglea Burton Hill Bottoms Arlington 7 - Burdette $2,500 drainage improvements Heights Lovell-Bourine drainage Arlington 7 - Burdette $2,500 improvements Heights Diaz -Halloran storm drain Arlington 7 - Burdette 515,000 improvements Heights Proposed Esngpditures by Fisgal Year Ending Sept 30 (S1.000) l ;012-2013 2014.2018 2019-2030 $1,000 Responsible funding pent/Agency Source TPW Storm Water l uhr♦ $20,000 TPW Storm W aier l uht) $3,000 TPW Storm W ater l urns. $8,000 TPW Storm Water 1 nits $5,000 TPW Storm Water 1 nhis $1,275 TPW Storm W atei 1 uhp $250 TPW Storm Water 1 Was $5,000 TPW Storm V. ater I uhty $250 TPW Storm W atei I. tilos $250 TPW Storm V. ater l uhti $500 TPW Storm V. ater l slit) $4,000 TPW Storm W ater l nits $250 TPW Storm W ater l Wits $2,000 TPW Storm V. ater 1 nits $2,500 TPW Storm W ate. I. sins $2,500 TPW Storm Water l ntits $15,000 TPW Storm Water I nit (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E-24 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY i Planning I Council Estimated I Responsible Fundine Pro'e A Proiect Name Sector District Cost ($1,0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endinp Sept, 30 ($1.0001 Dept/Aeency Source ZQl 2012-2013 2014-2014 2019-2030 TPW-100553 Ridglea Hills storm drain & Western 3 - Zimmerman $5,000 $4,000 I TPW Storm V. ater I slay channel improvements Hills/Ridglea TPW-100554 Luther Lake outfall channel Western 3 - Zimmerman $1,600 $1,600 TPW Storm N ate' improvements Hills/Ridglea TPW-100556 East Arlington Heights Arlington 7 - Burdette $15,000 $12,000 TPW Storm V. ate, I slip storm drain improvements Heights TPW-100557 West Arlington Heights Arlington 7 - Burdette, 9 - $25,000 $20,000 TPW Storm V. ater I slay storm drain improvements Heights Burns TPW-100558 Tanglewood Neighborhood TCU/Westclf 3 - Zimmerman $2,500 $2,500 TPW Storm V,ate, I slip storm drain improvements TPW-100559 Bellaire Drive North TCU/Westclf 9 - Bruns $300 $300 TPN Storm N ate' I slit culvert improvements at TCU Stadium TPW-100560 Linwood -West Side Arlington 7 - Burdette, 9 - $8,000 $6,000 TPW Storm V. ater I slay drainage improvements Heights Burns TPW-100561 13th Avenue drainage Southside 9 - Bums $300 $300 TPW Storm N ater I slay improvements at FWWR TPW-100562 Fairmount -West Magnolia Southside 9 - Burns $15,000 $12,000 TPW Storm V. ater I slay storm drain improvements TPW-100563 University -Park Hill storm TCU/Westclf. 9 - Burns $2,000 $2,000 TPW Storni V. ater I slip dram improvements TPW-100564 1700 Park Place culvert Southside 9 - Burns $300 $300 TPW Stonn V. ate. I slit improvements at railroad TPW-100565 Ryan Place -Arlington Southside 9-Burns $8,000 $6,000 TPW Storm Water I slay Street storm dram improvements TPW-100566 South Ryan Place storm Southside 9 - Bums $4,000 $4,000 TPW Storm V. ate, I slip drain improvements TPW-100567 East Vickery-IM Terrell Southside 8 - Hicks $20,000 $20,000 TPW Storm V. ater I shay storm drain improvements TPW-100568 Highlands Addition storm Southside 8 - Hicks $5,000 $5,000 TPW Stonn V. ater I slay_ drain improvements TPW-100569 Vickery's-Hyde Park storm Southside 8 - Hicks $25,000 $25,000 TPW Storni V. ater I slra drain improvements TPW-100571 2300 E. Berry St culvert Southeast 8 - Hicks $500 $500 TPW Storm V. ate, I sli) improvements @ SC-3 (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 25 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project N TPW-100572 TPW-100573 Project Name Conner Ave. bridge improvements at Ludelle Channel 2400 East Vickery Blvd. bridge capacity improvements @ Sycamore Creek TPW-100574 700 Collard Street drainage improvements under UPRR TPW-100575 Ayers -Lancaster storm dram improvements TPW-100576 Maddox Ave at Sycamore Creek bndge capacity improvements TPW-100578 Englewood Heights storm drain improvements TPW-100579 Forty Oaks drainage improvements TPW-100580 Plant Avenue drainage improvements TPW-100581 Dunbar Creek drainage improvements ITPW-100582 Wildcat Branch channel improvements TPW-100583 Pate watershed storm drain improvements TPW-100584 Ryanwood storm drain and channel improvements TPW-100585 La Valle Grande drainage improvements TPW-100586 Quail Road at Elizabeth Road culvert improvements TPW-100587 Overton Park Creek capacity improvements TPW-100588 Inwood channel improvements PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Planning Sector Southeast Southeast, Southside Southeast Southeast Southeast, Southside Southeast Eastside, Southeast Council District 8 - Hicks 8 - Hicks Estimated 1 Responsible Fundinv Cost ($1,0001 FAQ. Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 Dept/Agency I Source mil. 2012-2013 ;91440-LI y019-2030 $2,000 $2,000 TPW Storm V. aler t oho, S2,000 $2,000 TPW Storm Vater l uhn 8 - Hicks $250 $250 TPW Storm V. ater l nhn 8 - Hicks $4,000 $4,000 TPW Storm N ater l Way 8 - Hicks S1,700 $1,700 TPW Storm V. ater t uhth 5 - Moss S25,000 S20,000 TPW Storm Water l uhn 4 - Scarth, 5 - $25,000 $3,000 S17,000 TPW Storm R ater t uhn Moss Eastside 5 - Moss $500 $500 TPW Storm V. ater t tthn Southeast 5 - Moss $6,000 $6,000 TPW Storm N ater t ultra Southeast 5 - Moss $6,000 $6,000 TPW Storm V. ater I. jilit), Southeast 5 - Moss $20,000 $20,000 TPW Storm Wale] l mho. Eastside 4 - Scarth $15,000 S15,000 TPW Storm V. ater t olio, Eastside 4 - Scarth $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm V. ater l MIL). Southeast 5-Moss $1,500 $1,500 TPW Storm Natet l olio. TCU/Westclf 3 - Zimmerman $2,500 $2,500 TPW Storm V. atet l nut() TCU/Westclf. 3 - Zimmerman $15,000 S15,000 TPW Storm N met l mho. (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 26 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Planninn Proiect # Proiect Name Sector TPW-100589 Spurgeon -Staples storm drain improvements TPW-100590 Upper Willow Lake channel improvements TPW-100591 Wedgwood storm drain improvements TPW-100592 South Hulen storm drain improvements TPW-100593 6300 Vega Drive culvert improvements TPW-100594 Bluebonnet Hills storm dram improvements TPW-100595 McLean -Boyd storm drain improvements TCU/Westclf 3 - Zimmerman Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman Wedgwood 6 - Jordan Wedgwood 6 - Jordan Wedgwood 6 - Jordan Southside, TCU/Westclf. TCU/Westclf TPW-100596 Rosemont storm drain Southside improvements TPW-100597 Hubbard Heights storm Southside drain improvements TPW-100598 College -Spurgeon drainage Southside improvements TPW-100599 Seminary Hill drainage Southside improvements ITPW-I00600 Southgate -Walton drainage Wedgwood improvements TPW-100602 Rayburn channel Wedgwood improvements TPW-100603 OLV-Worth Heights storm Southside drain improvements TPW-100604 Brentmoor-Echo Lake Southside drainage improvements TPW-100607 Upper Fair Park channel Southeast improvements TPW-100609 Fair Park-Beddell drainage improvements Southside, Sycamore Council I estimated I I Resuonsible Fundiae District I Cost 1$1.0001 Proposed Exneenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 (S1.0001 Debtonsibl y Source . nil2,12-2013 10t42918 2010.2030 $1,500 $1,500 TPW Storm Natei l nhtv $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm V. ater l nItt1 $15,000 $15,000 TPW Storm Nater l slits $10,000 $10,000 TPW Storm N ate' l nht} $300 $300 TPW Storm V. ater I nIny 3 - Zimmerman, 9 $20,000 $20,000 TPW Storm V. ater l elm_ - Bums 9-Burns $15,000 $4,000 $11,000 TPW Storm Vales lnht} 9 - Buns $25,000 $3,000 $22,000 TPW Storm V. ater l nitts 9 - Burns $1,200 $1,200 TPW Stonn V. ales t nhty 9- Burns $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm Vsater l hilt) 9-Burns $4,000 $600 $3,400 TPW Storm \hater I nhty 6 - Jordan $15,000 $15,000 TPW Storm V. ater l tilit 6 - Jordan $1,000 $1,000 TPW Storm V. ater l MI6 9 - Burns $15,000 $15,000 TPW Storm V. ater l nhty 9 - Burns $500 $500 TPW Storm V. ater l nhty 9 - Burns $400 $400 TPW Storm V. ate' l Ma) 8 - Hicks $3,500 $3,500 TPW Storm V. ales l nhty (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 27 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project N Project Name I SectorpE I CDiatrict I Cosouncil Estimated1 0001 TPW-100610 Savage -Roma Highland Sycamore — 8 - Hicks $300 Hills drainage improvements TPW-100612 Miller -Howard storm drain Southeast 5 - Moss, 8 - $15,000 improvements Hicks TPW-100613 Glen Park storm drain Southeast 5 - Moss $4,000 improvements TPW-100614 Prairie Dog Creek drainage Southeast 5 - Moss $3,500 improvements TPW-100616 Sun Valley drainage Southeast 5 - Moss $3,500 improvements TPW-100618 6100 Columbus Trail Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman $800 culvert improvements TPW-100619 8000 Old Cranbury Road Wedgwood 3 - Zimmerman $1,600 culvert improvements TPW-100620 9600 Cleburne Road West Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $500 culvert improvements TPW-100621 1800 Risinger Road West Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $1,200 culvert improvements @ Sycamore Creek TPW-100622 2400-2500 Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $1,600 Crowley -Cleburne Road North culvert improvements TPW-100624 Hallmark neighborhood Sycamore 8 - Hicks $3,000 drainage improvements TPW-100625 Everman Parkway channel Sycamore 8 - Hicks $4,000 improvements TPW-100626 9800 Oak Grove Road TBD 8 - Hicks $1,600 culvert Improvements TPW-100627 10600 Oak Grove Road Far South 8 - Hicks $1,000 culvert improvements TPW-100628 9700 Race Street South Far South 8 - Hicks $1,000 culvert improvements TPW-100629 7900 Anglin Drive at EKB Far South 8 - Hicks $1,000 Road culvert improvements Responsible I Fundimn Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 Dept/Agency I Source l� 2012-2013 2014-2018 ;019-2030 111 $300 TPW Storm \ ater L hlmty $2,250 $12,750 TPW Storm Water l nhn $4,000 TPW Storm Water l tthq $3,500 TPW Storm V. ater L id« v $3,500 TPW Storm W ater L uhq $800 TPW Storm Water t tiht $1,600 TPW Storm Water Lnlm $500 TPW Storm Water l Minty $1,200 TPW Storm Water l thn $1,600 TPW Stonn W ate! I'tllmt) $3,000 TPW Stonn W ater l Mint) $4,000 TPW Storm W ater l uht $1,600 TPW Storm W ater l nla) $1,000 TPW Storm Water l Miry $1,000 TPW Storm W ater L tdm $1,000 TPW Storm W ater L ['lit!, (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 28 Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Project # I Project Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 1 Planning I Council Sector III District Estimated Cost ($1,0001 TPW-100630 Rendon New Hope Road Far South 8 - Hicks $700 culvert improvements Cr Elm Branch TPW-100631 Garden Acres drainage Far South 8 - Hicks $3,500 improvements TPW-100632 1600 Oak Grove Road East Far South 8 - Hicks $800 culvert improvements TPW-100633 11600 Oak Grove Road Far South 8 - Hicks $2,000 South culvert improvements TPW-100781 Lower Lebow Channel Northeast 2 - Espino $9,000 Improvements TPW-100796 Citywide seepage projects TBD 1 - Citywide $750 TPW-100872 Dry Branch Riverside Northeast 2 - Espino, 4 - $4,000 Culvert Improvements Scarth TPW-100922 Panola-Collard storm drain Eastside 8 - Hicks $15,000 improvements Pronosed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sent. 30 (S1.0001, ¢ 1 2012-2413 ;014-2010 2019-2030 Responsible Dept/Agency Funding Source $700 TPW' Storm W ater I nhn $3,500 TPW Storm Water I tilir) $800 TPW Storm Water I irhq $2,000 TPW Storm W alert thin, $9,000 TPW' Stonn Water I idrh $750 TPW Stonn W ater I nlrt) $600 $3,400 TPW' Storm Water 1 tilm $15,000 TPW Storm V. atet I Wit!, Wastewater Projects PLN-100955 Village Creek Wastewater Eastside 5 - Moss $92,067 $2,500 $21,683 $66,574 $1,309 Water Department Treatment Plant PLN-100956 Riverside Plant Southside 8 - Hicks $15,152 $15,152 Water Department PLN-100957 Major Wastewater Citywide 1 - Citywide $7,595 $108 $6,733 $754 Water Department Collectors PLN-100958 Lift Stations - various Citywide 1 - Citywide $1,390 $1,101 $289 Water Department locations WTR-100973 Mary's Creek Satellite Plant Far West 3 - Zimmerman $5,510 $3,000 $2,510 Water Department WTR-100974 Large Diameter Sewer Citywide 1 - Citywide $1,804 $902 $902 Water Department Main Inspection Program Water PLN-100276 Automate and Centralize Control of All Water Treatment Plants and Distribution System Citywide 1 - Citywide $2,360 $1,360 $1,000 Water Department (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 29 Commercial Paper. Operating Fund Operating fund Commercial Paper State Rerohmg Fund Commercial Paper. Impact Fee Impact fee Conunercral Paper Commercial Paper Appendix E: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Proiect A PLN-100943 PLN-100950 PLN-100952 PLN-100953 WTR-100975 PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Ptannine I Council Estimated 1 Responsible Funding Project Name Sector Do.jct Cost ($1.0001 Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1.0001 Dept/Aeencv Source 2g3.1, ,Z013-2013 2014-2018 2019-2030 Transmissions Mains-, Citywide 1 - Citywide $250,860 $11,628 $16,370 $222 862 Water Department Commercial Paper various locations Rolling Hills Water Sycamore 8 - Hicks $89,740 $3,330 $6,350 $77 166 $2,895 Water Department Commercial Paper Treatment Plant Tanks and Pump Stations Citywide 1 - Citywide $41,482 $2,800 $13,081 $23,798 $1,802 Water Department Commercial Paper Security and Information Citywide I - Citywide $4,084 $58 $2,060 $1,966 Water Department Commercial Paper Technology Southwest Water Treatment N/A N/A S93,500 $4,600 $80 316 Water Department Impact Fee. State Plant Revolving Fund (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. Appendix E.• ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY E- 30 Project A PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS — UNFUNDED: PUBLIC HEALTH ?lanninv_ I Council Project Name Sector District COD-100149 I Northside Animal Care and I Northside I2 - Espino Control Center Estimated Cost($1.0001 $4,000 I Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30 ($1,0001 ZQLI j012.201 j014-2018 3019.2030 I I S4'000 I Responsible Funding Dept/Aeency Source Code Compliance (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E-31 General (16hl,ation Bond Appendix E: PUBLIC HEALTH Project # I Pro ec Name PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS - UNFUNDED: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES Planniar Council Estimated Sec or District Cost ($1.0001 Responsible Furtdine Proposed Expenditures by Fiscal Year Endine Sent. 301$1,0001 Deot/Aeencv Source 2©f 2012-2013 2014-2018 2019-2030 COD-100165 Code Compliance Sector Far North 2 - Espino, $600 $600 Code Compliance General Obligation #2 Location TBD Bond COD-100172 Code Compliance Sector Eaststde 4 - Scarth $600 $600 Code Compliance General (tbhganon #4 Bond COD-100173 Code Compliance Sector Southeast, TBD 5 - Moss, $600 $600 Code Compliance General obligation #5 Location TBD Bond COD-100174 Code Compliance Sector Far Southwest 6 - Jordan $600 $600 Code Compliance General Obligation #6 Bond COD-100175 Code Compliance Sector Southside 9 - Bums $600 $600 Code Compliance General Obligation #9 Bond ITS-100136 Tnntked Radio System Downtown 1 - Citywide $80,000 $80,000 ITS TBD ITS-100139 New 311 Center Downtown 1 - Citywide $2,000 $2,000 Information Technology Federal Funds General Solutions Obligation Bond ITS-100141 Southwest Far Southwest 3 - Zimmerman $8,200 $8,200 ITS General obligation Communications Tower Bond PLN-100637 Northern Communications TBD TBD $12,000 $12,000 ITS General Obligation Tower Bond PLN-100638 Southern Commumcatton TBD TBD S12,000 $12,000 ITS General Obhgalon Tower Bond PLN-100639 Replacement Digital TBD TBD $15,000 $15,000 ITS General Obligation Microwave System Bond PLN-100644 Community Arts Center Arlington 7 - Burdette $1,150 $1,150 TPW General obligation HVAC Upgrade Heights Bond PLN-100860 Code Compliance TBD Location TBD $1,800 $1,800 Code Compliance General Obligation BSD/SED Bond TPW-100039 Upgrade elevators in City Downtown 1 - Citywide $630 $630 TPW General Obligation Hall Annex Bond (TBD) To Be Determined. Funded yearly amounts are Bold. This table of proposed capital improvements is intended to serve as a general guide for the allocation of financial resources. It does not imply any obligation to expend funds for the proposed projects. E- 32 Appendix E: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES APPENDIX F: ANNEXATION PLAN, POLICY, AND PROGRAM A Resolution Adopted lies;iit a;,, Na. ADOPTING AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE CITY OF FORT WORTH WHEREAS, the 76th Texas Legislature adopted SB 89, which made substantial amendments to the Texas Annexation Act, Chapter 43, Texas Local Government Code, effective September 1, 1999; WHEREAS, Section 17(b) of SB 89 requires that each city adopt an annexation plan on or before December 31, 1999, that includes territory the city plans to annex three years from the date the territory is placed in the plan in accordance with Section 43.052, Texas Local Government Code; WHEREAS, SB 89 provides several exceptions that authorize cities to annex territory without placing the territory in an annexation plan; WHEREAS, for the foreseeable future, annexations contemplated by the City of Fort Worth come within one or more of these exceptions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT WORTH: That the City Council has reviewed the future expansion needs of the City and the prospects for development within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. After studying the effects of amendments to the Texas Annexation Act enacted by SB 89, 76th Texas Legislature, the City Council has determined that, at this time, the City does not intend to annex any territory that is required to be in an annexation plan in order to be annexed. The City Council reserves the right to amend this annexation plan in the future to add territory for annexation. CITY OF FORT WORTH This annexation plan Is approved this I day of December, 1999, and shall become effective on December 31, 1999. Kenneth Barr, Mayor of the City of Fort Worth sdAcci City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: 1'7�CtAL1t.Q (� �ment No. Assistant City Attorney Amend- Resolution Adoption No. Date 1 2860 8/13/2002 2 2863 8/20/2002 3 2884 10/29/2002 4 2897 12/3/2002 Action Added Linkwood Estates (152 acres). Added El Rancho Estates (198 acres). Added Eagle Mountain Zone (7,744 acres) and 287 Zone (1,238 acres). Removed Linkwood Estates (152 acres) and El Rancho Estates (198 acres). 2946 5/20/2003 Removed 21 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed Eagle Mountain Zone (1,238 acres) to execute agreement for provision of services in lieu of annexation. Removed 67 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 12 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 200 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. 3097 6/22/2004 3101 6/29/2004 3200 5/10/2005 3201 5/10/2005 3261 10/18/2005 3262 10/18/2005 12 3263 10/18/2005 13 3267 10/25/2005 14 3268 10/25/2005 15 5269 10/25/2005 17 3297 12/13/2005 18 3298 12/13/2005 19 3557 11/27/2007 20 3558 21 3575 22 3623 23 3717 24 3900 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Removed 327 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 1 acre from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 15 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 2 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 350 acres from 287 Zone to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. Removed 51 acres from 287 Zone. Added 537 acres out of Jose Chirino Survey. Added 178 acres out of the Jesse Billingsley Survey Added 304 acres east of N. Beach St. and south of Keller Hicks Rd 11/27/2007 Added 489 acres east of Old Denton Rd. and north of Golden Triangle Rd. 1/22/2008 Removed 23 acres from Area 12 to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. 6/03/2008 Removed 68 acres from Area 12 to facilitate owner -initiated annexation. 03/10/2009 Remove 82 acres from Area 15 to allow additional annexation notice. 7/13/2010 Added 82 acres from Area 15-2 to 3-Year Annexation Plan. F-1 Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program ANNEXATION POLICY Approved by the City Council on September 7, 2004, by adoption of Resolution No. 3120. I. PURPOSE AND INTENT The City of Fort Worth seeks to annex property within its extraterritorial jurisdic- tion for the following purposes: • To promote orderly growth by facilitating long-range planning for the pro- vision of municipal services and by applying appropriate land use regula- tions, development standards, property maintenance standards, fire codes, construction codes and environmental regulations. • To diversify the economic base and create job opportunities by annexing property for commercial and industrial development. To fulfill these purposes, the City has formulated this annexation policy in order to: • Provide the City Council with more specific, objective, and prescriptive guidance for making annexation decisions. • Enable the City to be more proactive in identifying areas for annexation by providing for an annually updated five-year annexation program. • Provide for meaningful public participation in formulating the annexation program as part of the annual update of the City's Comprehensive Plan. II. DEFINITIONS Annexation — The legal process by which a city extends its boundaries. A city may annex property only within its extraterritorial jurisdiction, unless the city owns the area. Annexation Plan — A document required by Texas Local Government Code, Sec- tion 43.052, identifying certain kinds of areas that a city intends to annex. 1. The plan must identify any areas with 100 or more separate lots or tracts of land containing residential dwellings that the city intends to annex, unless more than 50 percent of the property owners request annexation. 2. The plan may also identify other areas. 3. Areas that are identified in the plan may only be annexed three years after the plan is adopted. Annexation Policy — A set of guidelines for making annexation decisions. Annexation Program — An annually updated document identifying areas that the City wishes to consider for initiation of annexation during the succeeding five-year period. The annexation program expresses the City's intent to consider specific areas for annexation, but is not legally binding. Inclusion of an area in the program does not obligate the City to annex that area, nor does exclusion of an area from the program prevent the City from annexing the area. Certificate of Convenience and Necessity — A utility service area permit authorizing a specified utility to be the sole service provider. Disannexation — The legal process for a city removes an area from its boundaries. Enclave — An area within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction that is surrounded by the corporate limits of the City of Fort Worth and/or the corporate limits or extraterri- torial jurisdiction of other municipalities. Extraordinary Economic Development Project — A commercial or industrial pro- ject that is eligible for property tax abatement under the City's tax abatement policy as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) — Unincorporated area extending generally five miles from the city limit, excluding other incorporated municipalities and their ETJ, in which the City has the authority to annex property. Full Municipal Services — Services provided by an annexing municipality within its full -purpose boundaries, including water and wastewater services and excluding gas or electrical service. The City of Fort Worth provides the following services, includ- ing but not limited to: fire and police protection; emergency medical services: access to water and wastewater services unless such services are provided by another utility; solid waste collection; operation and maintenance of parks, publicly -owned facilities, and streets; library services; drainage and storm sewer maintenance; enforcement of environmental health, zoning and subdivision ordinances; enforcement of building and construction codes; and inspection services. Full -Purpose Annexation — The legal process for annexing an area in order to pro- vide full municipal services. The city enforces all ordinances, provides services as provided by law, and assesses property taxes and sales taxes. Growth Center — An area that contains, or has the capacity to contain, compact. higher intensity urban land uses, as designated by the City Council in the City's Com- prehensive Plan. There are two types of growth centers: • Mixed -Use Growth Centers — A highly urbanized area that has many char- acteristics of a downtown: a concentration of jobs, housing units, schools, parks, and other public facilities, public transportation hubs, pedestrian activity and a sense of place. This mix of uses supports sustainable devel- opment, which seeks to balance access, mobility, affordability, community cohesion, and environmental quality. • Industrial Growth Center — An area consisting primarily of industrial and commercial uses, with a high concentration of jobs, mostly industrial in nature. Other related and supporting uses include office space and ser- vices. Unlike mixed -use growth centers, residential uses are generally discouraged within industrial growth centers. Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program F-2 Infrastructure — Facilities necessary to provide city services, usually referring to physical assets such as streets and utility lines. Limited -Purpose Annexation — The legal process for annexing an area in order to provide only certain regulatory services for a specified period of time. Cities with populations of more than 225,000 have the authority to annex property for limited purposes. Cities may enforce planning, zoning, health and safety ordinances in ar- eas annexed for limited purposes, but do not collect property or sales taxes or pro- vide full municipal services. Residents may vote in city council elections and char- ter elections, but may not vote in bond elections or be elected to a city office. Long -Term Development — Planned construction of residential, commercial and/or industrial uses that is anticipated to occur beyond a three-year timeframe. Municipal Utility District — A political subdivision providing water, sewerage, drainage and/or other municipal services within a specified geographic area. Planning Study — A document prepared by a municipality, pursuant to Section 43.123 of the Texas Local Government Code, prior to annexing an area for limited purposes, which identifies projected development; the need for annexation; the im- pact of annexation on surrounding residents, landowners, and businesses; and the proposed zoning of the area. Protest Petition — A statement expressing opposition to a proposed City -initiated annexation and containing the signatures of property owners representing 50 per- cent or more of the parcels within the territory to be annexed and 50 percent or more of the land area within that territory. Regulatory Plan — A document adopted by the City Council, pursuant to Section 43.123 of the Texas Local Government Code, at the time an area is annexed for limited purposes, which identifies the planning, zoning, health and safety ordi- nances that will be enforced in the area and states the date by which the city will annex the area for full purposes. Service Plan — A document adopted by the City Council, pursuant to Sections 43.056 and 43.065 of the Texas Local Government Code, describing the schedule for a municipality to provide full municipal services to an area annexed for full pur- poses. On the effective date of annexation, a municipality must provide: police and fire protection; emergency medical services; solid waste collection; operation and maintenance of water and wastewater facilities in the area that are not within the service area of another water or wastewater facility; and operation and maintenance of roads and streets (including lighting), parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and other publicly owned facilities, buildings or services if those services are provided by the municipality within its corporate boundaries. A municipality must provide full municipal services, which means all services provided within the city including water and wastewater services, within 21/4 years after annexation but may extend the deadline to 4' years after annexation for services that cannot reasonably be pro- vided within 2'/2 years. Urban Development — Development requiring water, sewerage and other munici- pal services to promote public health, safety and welfare. It may include residential development with a density equal to or greater than one dwelling unit per acre, as well as commercial and industrial development. III. ANNEXATION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE A. Full -Purpose Annexation The City will consider full -purpose annexation of any area within its extraterritorial jurisdiction if and only if the area meets one or more of the following five criteria: 1. 2. 3. Enclave: The area meets both of the following conditions: a. The area is an enclave and the City and its citizens would benefit from a logical city limit boundary that provides for the orderly and effi- cient provision of services; and b. The City is able to provide municipal services upon annexation in accordance with State law, without negatively impacting ser vice provision within the city. Urban Development: The area meets all three of the following conditions: a. The City is aware of or anticipates development activity of an urban nature in the area; and b. The City is able to provide municipal services upon annexation in accordance with State law, without negatively impacting service pro vision within the city; and c. The City has determined through an appropriate analysis of prospec- tive revenues and expenditures, as described in Section V (Preparation of Fiscal Impact Analysis) below, that cumulative revenues will ex- ceed cumulative expenditures for each affected budget fund over the 10-year period immediately following annexation, or over a longer period as appropriate for long-term development. Growth Center: The area meets all three of the following conditions: a. The area encompasses a designated growth center and thus requires urban services to develop as planned; and b. The City is able to provide municipal services upon annexation in accordance with State law, without negatively impacting service pro- vision within the city. c. The City has determined through an appropriate analysis of prospec- tive revenues and expenditures, as described in Section V (Preparation of Fiscal Impact Analysis) below, that cumulative revenues will ex- ceed cumulative expenditures for each affected budget fund over the 10-year period immediately following annexation, or over a longer period as appropriate for long-term development. F-3 Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program 4. Adverse Impact: The area meets both of the following conditions: a. Without annexation, potential development activity is likely to have an adverse fiscal or environmental impact on the City due to unregulated land uses and the City's inability to enforce development standards, building codes, and environmental regulations; and b. The City is able to provide municipal services upon annexation in ac- cordance with State law, without negatively impacting service provi- sion within the city. 5. Option to Expand: The area meets both of the following conditions: a. Without annexation, interested parties may incorporate one or more separate municipalities or take other legal actions that might be detri- mental to the City's orderly growth. b. The City is able to provide municipal services upon annexation in ac- cordance with State law, without negatively impacting service provi- sion within the city. In accordance with Sections 43.056 and 43.065 of the Texas Local Government Code, the Planning and Development Department shall prepare a service plan that provides for the extension of full municipal services to each area to be annexed for full purposes. The Planning and Development Department shall prepare the service plan after the City Council establishes the annexation timetable and shall make the plan available to the public for review and comment in advance of required public hearings. The City shall adopt the service plan by ordinance at the time the City annexes the area for full purposes. B. Limited -Purpose Annexation The City will consider limited -purpose annexation of any area if one or more of the five criteria in section A (Full -Purpose Annexation) above are met, and if either of the following two criteria is also met: 1. Populated Area: The area contains 100 or more separate lots or tracts of land containing residential dwellings and thus must be included in the mu- nicipal annexation plan three years prior to full -purpose annexation per State law. The area would be considered for limited -purpose annexation so that the City might control land use and the quality of development in that populated area, pending full -purpose annexation. 2. Long -Term Development: The area is proposed for long-term develop ment. The City will determine the feasibility of entering into an agreement with the property owner(s) for limited -purpose annexation so as to establish the timing of full -purpose annexation. The agreement may provide for the property to be annexed for full purposes in phases. C. General Provisions The following provisions apply to all proposed full- and limited -purpose annexa- tions: 1. As a prerequisite for any proposed annexation, the City Manager shall certify that the proposed annexation would have no adverse effect upon the provision of municipal services within the City. 2. The City will annex any rights -of -way that are adjacent to and provide access to annexed property. D. Protests of City -Initiated Annexation 1. Annexations Included in Annexation Plan: For any City -initiated an- nexation included in the annexation plan, the City shall comply with Sections 43.0562 and 43.0564 of the Texas Local Government Code as they prescribe procedures for negotiations and arbitration regarding the provision of municipal services. 2. Annexations Not Included in Annexation Plan: For any City -initiated annexation not included in the annexation plan, and not subject to any of the exemptions in paragraph 4 of this section, affected property owners may submit a protest petition to the Planning and Development Depart- ment prior to the date of the second City Council public hearing on that annexation. The Planning and Development Department shall determine the validity of this protest petition within 15 days of receipt. If the Plan- ning and Development Department determines that the petition is valid, the City at that time shall request the petitioners to select five representa- tives to serve on a committee with City representatives to prepare the service plan (in the case of full -purpose annexation) or the regulatory plan (in the case of limited -purpose annexation). The service plan or the regulatory plan, as applicable, shall document any objections that have been expressed by a majority of the petitioners' representatives on this committee. In any decisions regarding the proposed annexation, the City Council shall take under advisement the City's receipt of the protest peti- tion and all deliberations pertaining to the service plan or the regulatory plan, as applicable. 3. Third -Party Fiscal Impact Analysis: At the request of affected property owners, through a valid protest petition as defined herein, the City shall hire an independent certified public accountant to conduct a third -party fiscal impact analysis using the methodology set forth in Section V of this policy. This provision for third -party fiscal impact analysis shall not apply, however, to City -initiated annexations that are subject to any of the exemptions in paragraph 4 of this section. Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program F-4 4. Exemptions: The following kinds of annexation areas shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3: • Street rights -of -way; • Enclaves existing as of the date of adoption of this policy (see Map 1, attached), with fewer than 100 lots or tracts containing residential dwellings; • Interjurisdictional boundary adjustments; • Areas with environmental conditions that pose an imminent threat to public health and safety, as determined by the City Council; • Areas that are subject to extraordinary economic development pro- jects; and • Areas with the minimum length and width necessary to provide conti- guity with the city limits for owner -initiated annexations. IV. DISANNEXATION In accordance with Section 43.141 of the Texas Local Government Code, a majority of the qualified voters of an annexed area may petition the City Council to disannex the area if the City fails to provide services to the area within the period specified by the service plan. Similarly, the City may seek to disannex an area if it deter- mines that it is unable to provide municipal services to that area in accordance with State law. V. PREPARATION OF FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS For any proposed annexation, the Budget Office, in cooperation with other pertinent departments, shall conduct a fiscal impact analysis that considers prospective reve- nues and expenditures for both the General Fund and the Water and Sewer Fund. The Budget Office shall prepare a fiscal impact report for review by the City Coun- cil, and shall make such report available for public review upon request. A. Revenues The following revenues shall be considered: 1. Property taxes to be generated by existing land uses, based on Tarrant Ap- praisal District assessed values and the City's current property tax rate. 2. Property taxes to be generated by proposed land uses, based on anticipated assessed values and the City's current property tax rate. 3. Sales taxes. 4. Other General Fund revenues including: Other Local Taxes, Licenses and Permits, Fines and Forfeitures, Use of Money and Property, Service Charges, and Other Revenue. 5. Water and wastewater tap and impact fees 6. Water and wastewater service fees. B. Expenditures The following expenditures shall be considered: 1. Operation and maintenance costs for all municipal services. 2. Required capital improvements. C. Analysis Timeframe The number of years in the analysis shall be based on the estimated build -out of the development, the repayment timetable for any debt assumed in the analysis, or 10 years, whichever is longer. D. Per Capita Data Sources For budget information, the most recently adopted Annual Budget shall be used. For total population and land use data, the most recently adopted Comprehensive Plan shall be used. E. Population Estimate To estimate population for an area, the number of housing units proposed for con- struction or annexation shall be multiplied by the average household size for Fort Worth, or for a comparable area within Fort Worth, according to the latest U.S. Census. F. Methodology 1. Areas with Existine or Proposed Development: If an area is fully devel- oped, or substantially undeveloped but subject to an approved concept plan and/or preliminary plat, the analysis shall be based on the following guide- lines. a. For any undeveloped areas, the anticipated rate of development shall be based on the construction timetable provided by the property owner. b. Sales tax revenues and other General Fund revenues (item A 4 above) shall be estimated on a per capita or per acre basis, as appropriate. c. Water and wastewater revenues shall be based on existing land uses and any proposed land uses provided by the property owner. d. Expenditures shall be estimated on a per capita, per acre, or per linear foot basis, as appropriate, unless actual costs can be determined. 2. Other Areas: If an area is undeveloped and not subject to an approved con- cept plan or preliminary plat, the analysis shall be based on the following guidelines. a. The mix of land uses shall be as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan. b. The anticipated rate of development shall be based on the annual growth rate for the pertinent planning sector of the city. c. Sales tax revenues and other General Fund revenues (item A 4 above) F-5 Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program shall be estimated on a per capita or per acre basis, as appropriate. d. Water and wastewater revenues shall be based on the future land use identified in the Comprehensive Plan. e. Expenditures shall be estimated on a per capita, per acre, or per linear foot basis, as appropriate, unless actual costs can be determined. G. Timing for Preparation of Fiscal Impact Analysis 1. Annexations Initiated by Property Owners: Upon receipt of a valid annexa- tion petition and application, the Budget Office shall conduct the fiscal impact analysis within 30 days and prior to the City Council public hearing on establishing the annexation timetable. As an alternative, the City will verify the accuracy of the fiscal impact analysis submitted by the property owners prior to initiating the annexation process. 2. Annexations Initiated by the City: The City will conduct the fiscal impact analysis prior to scheduling the required City Council public hearing on establishing the annexation timetable. VI. PREPARATION OF FIVE-YEAR ANNEXATION PROGRAM The Planning and Development Department and other pertinent departments, shall prepare an annexation program that identifies areas that the City wishes to consider for initiation of annexation during the succeeding five-year period. The program shall be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan, and revised as part of the annual update. The program will estimate the year in which each proposed annexation might occur. In preparing its capital improvement program and annual operating budget, the City shall determine the feasibility of providing municipal services to areas identified in the annexation program. The City shall involve property owners and community organizations from the extraterritorial jurisdiction, as well as those from the City itself, in formulating the five-year annexation program. In formulating the annexation program, the City shall assign priority to annexing areas that are located within the geographic scope of its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN), within the geographic scope of another CCN that complies with the City of Fort Worth's standards for water and wastewater infrastructure, or within a Municipal Utility District that complies with such standards. The City wishes to allocate sufficient time for the transition of proposed annexation areas from the ETJ into the city. This transitional period would enable the City to arrange for the provision of adequate municipal services, and would enable affected property owners to prepare for the impacts of annexation. Accordingly, the annexa- tion program shall delay any City -initiated annexations for three years or more from the date of the annexation area's initial inclusion in the program. The following kinds of annexation areas, however, shall be exempt from this waiting period: • Street rights -of -way; • Enclaves existing as of the date of adoption of this policy (see Map 1, at- tached), with fewer than 100 lots or tracts containing residential dwellings; • Interjurisdictional boundary adjustments; • Areas with environmental conditions that pose an imminent threat to pub- lic health and safety, as determined by the City Council; • Areas that are subject to extraordinary economic development projects; and • Areas with the minimum length and width necessary to provide contiguity with the city limits for owner -initiated annexations. Inclusion of an area in the five-year annexation program does not obligate the City to annex that area. Similarly, exclusion of an area from the five-year annexation program does not prevent the City from annexing the area. VII. PREPARATION OF THREE-YEAR ANNEXATION PLAN In accordance with Section 43.052 of the Texas Local Government Code, the City of Fort Worth shall amend its annexation plan to identify certain areas that the City intends to annex. The annexation plan must include any proposed annexation area with 100 or more separate lots or tracts of land containing residential dwellings. An area identified in the plan may only be annexed beginning on the third anniver- sary of the date the plan is amended to include that area. Upon adoption of the five-year annexation program, the Planning Department shall identify those areas with 100 or more separate lots or tracts of land containing resi- dential dwellings and schedule necessary amendments to the annexation plan. The three-year annexation plan will not necessarily contain all the areas that are in- cluded in the five-year annexation program. VIII. EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION In addition to public hearing requirements established by Sections 43.0561 and 43.124 of the Texas Local Government Code, the City of Fort Worth shall seek to communicate with City residents, affected property owners and pertinent govern- ment agencies throughout the annexation process. The City shall use its website, community meetings, direct mail, the City Page, and other appropriate media to disseminate information about any City -initiated annexation. Upon request, the City's Community Relations Department shall assist affected property owners in establishing neighborhood organizations so as to facilitate communication with the City. The City shall seek public comments during the annual update of the annexation program at meetings of various community organizations throughout the City and Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program F-6 its extraterritorial jurisdiction. At these meetings, the City shall explain the benefits of annexation, including full municipal services; planning, zoning, health and safety regulations; economic development; and orderly growth. The City shall also ex- plain the costs to be incurred by the City and by affected property owners as a result of annexation. Prior to conducting formal public hearings on any City -initiated annexation, the City shall conduct one or more public information meetings to explain the purpose of the annexation and to describe the annexation process. The City shall notify af- fected property owners about these meetings by direct mail. Upon adoption of any annexation ordinance, the City shall notify the pertinent county government agencies and affected property owners. Map 1. Enclaves Existing as\of September 7, 20041 1 ` \ �-�- Planning 2 4 6 8 Department Aka 9/7/04 Emu Wiwi 9 Enclaves are areas within the City's ETJ that are surrounded by the corporate limits of the City of Fort Worth and/or the corporate limits or ETJ of other mu- nicipalities or otherwise approved by Fort Worth City Council. The above map depicts enclaves that existed at the time the annexation policy was adopted. Several have since been incorporated into the city, and new enclaves have formed. (Source: Planning and Development Department, 2004.) F-7 Appendix F: Annexation Plan. Policy, and Program FIVE-YEAR ANNEXATION PROGRAM January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015 On September 7, 2004, the City Council adopted an annexation policy for the City of Fort Worth to provide more specific guidance for making annexation decisions, to be more proactive in identifying annexation areas, and to promote more meaning- ful citizen participation during the annexation process. The policy calls for the an- nual preparation of a five-year annexation program. The City Council adopted the first annexation program, as part of the Comprehensive Plan, on February 22, 2005. This program identifies areas that the City wishes to consider for annexation during the succeeding five-year period. It expresses the City's intent to consider specific areas for annexation, but is not legally binding. Inclusion of an area in the program does not obligate the City to annex that area, nor does exclusion of an area from the program prevent the City from annexing the area. While the annexation program merely serves as a guide, its preparation enables the City to be more proactive in identifying areas that might be suitable for annexation and to involve affected prop- erty owners and other stakeholders well in advance of any annexation decisions. The program consists of this narrative and a set of maps and accompanying tables that describe the areas to be considered for annexation. The annexation program is incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan and updated annually. The annexation program follows calendar years, and each year begins on January 1 and ends on December 31. The City anticipates that it will process any City -initiated annexations proposed during a specific year of the program during November and December of that year. The City involves property owners and community organizations from the extrater- ritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), as well as those from within the City, in formulating the five-year annexation program. The City conducts meetings with pertinent local governments, property owners, and community organizations directly affected by potential annexations. In addition, the City conducts public hearings to receive comments on the annexation program from interested citizens. This narrative dis- cusses the procedures followed to prepare the annexation program, the potential City -initiated and owner -initiated annexation areas over the next five years, the po- tential annexation areas over the subsequent six to twenty years, and the relationship of the annexation program to the City's Comprehensive Plan and capital improve- ment program. Procedure to Prenare Annexation Program The annexation policy provides that the Planning and Development Department and other pertinent departments, prepare the annexation program. Staff reviewed areas meeting the annexation criteria contained in the annexation policy, including: • Enclaves, • Areas of urban development, • Designated growth centers, • Areas posing an adverse environmental or financial impact if not annexed, and • Areas deterring the City's option to expand. The City assigned priority to areas that are located within the geographic scope of its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) or within the geographic scope of another CCN that complies with the City of Fort Worth's standards for water and wastewater infrastructure. City staff from various departments, including Planning and Development, Water, Transportation and Public Works, Fire, Police, Budget, and Law, met to discuss potential areas satisfying the annexation criteria and to pri- oritize them for annexation over the next five years and beyond. With this information, the Planning and Development Department prepared a draft annexation program for review and discussion by the City Council, pertinent county governments, property owners, and community organizations directly affected by the annexation program. City staff held individual work sessions with the City Council members and their appointed City Plan Commissioner and Zoning Com- missioner. Citizens were also able to comment on the annexation program at a City Plan Commission public hearing and a City Council public hearing held as part of the annual update of the Comprehensive Plan. Potential City -Initiated Annexation, 2011-2015 The following sections describe areas for which the City may wish to initiate an- nexation proceedings within the next five years. Map 1 and Table 1 describe these areas in more detail. Any of these areas may be subject to property owner -initiated annexation before the year in which it is listed. Thirty-three potential City -initiated annexation areas, totaling 8,614 acres or 13.5 square miles, are included in the an- nexation program for the years 2011-2015. The City wishes to allocate sufficient time for the transition of proposed annexation areas from the ETJ into the city. This transitional period enables the City to arrange for the provision of adequate municipal services, and enables affected property owners to prepare for the impacts of annexation. Accordingly, the annexation pro- gram delays City -initiated annexations, excluding enclaves and other areas de- scribed in the policy, for three years or more from the date of the area's initial inclusion in the program. Year 1: 2011 There are four areas identified for annexation during Year 1. Areas 1, 4, and 13 are enclaves. Area 3-1 is an enclave within a growth center. This area was part of a larger designated area in the long-range annexation plan. The eastern portion re- mains in the long-range plan, since it is primarily developed as large lot residential. The west side is mostly undeveloped and was added to the five-year annexation Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program F-8 plan in anticipation of urban development with the expansion of North Beach Street as a principal arterial. All these areas are within Fort Worth's CCN boundary. Year 2: 2012 There are seven areas identified for annexation in Year 2. Areas 9, 29, 42, and 52 are enclaves. Area 52, the Eagle Mountain Zone limited -purpose annexation area consisting of 1,056 acres, is subject to an agreement for provision of services in lieu of annexation until January 1, 2009. Since January 2009, the City could initiate annexation of this area for full purposes. The City has not initiated annexation, but will annex in 2012 if deemed appropriate. Area 55 is an enclave and is anticipated to experience urban development due to its adjacency to a proposed transit station along the Southwest -to -Northeast rail corridor. The City may consider Limited Purpose Annexation for this area prior to Full Purpose Annexation to ensure appro- priate development occurs near the proposed transit station. Areas 69 and 70 are expected to experience urban development. All areas are within the City of Fort Worth's CCN boundary. Year 3: 2013 Seven areas are identified for annexation in Year 3. Areas 56-1 and 56-2 are within a growth center, and along with area 71, are expected to experience urban develop- ment as the extension for SH 121T, which abuts the areas, is completed. Comple- tion of SH 121T is expected in 2012. Areas 59 and 66-2 are enclaves near Texas Motor Speedway and Alliance Airport and are scheduled for annexation to avoid adverse impacts associated with noise produced by Texas Motor Speedway and Alliance Airport. The final two areas, Areas 11 and 15-2, are enclaves in north Fort Worth. An agreement was reached with the community in Area 15-2 to annex in 2013. Area 11 is subject to a development agreement which expires 2013. Areas 11, 15-2, and 71 are in Fort Worth's CCN boundary while areas 56-1, 56-2, 59, and 66-2 are not. Year 4: 2014 Nine areas are identified for annexation in Year 4. Areas 2, 18, 43, 46, 49-1, and 49-2 are enclaves. Area 7 is an enclave within a mixed -use growth center. Areas 66-1 and 73 are near Texas Motor Speedway and Alliance Airport and are sched- uled for annexation to avoid adverse impacts associated with noise produced by Texas Motor Speedway and Alliance Airport. Limited Purpose Annexation may be considered for area 73 in 2011. All areas are in the City of Fort Worth's CCN boundary. Year 5: 2015 Six areas are identified for annexation in Year 5. Areas 12, 15-1, 37, 23-2 are en- claves and subject to development agreements which expire in 2015. Area 23-1 is an enclave with anticipated urban development and is subject to a development agreement which expires in 2015. Area 72 is near Texas Motor Speedway and Alli- F-9 ance Airport and are scheduled for annexation to avoid adverse impacts associated with noise produced by Texas Motor Speedway and Alliance Airport. All areas are with Fort Worth' CCN boundary except area 72. Potential Owner -Initiated Annexation, 2011-2015 The annexation program also considers areas within the City's ETJ for which prop- erty owners may wish to initiate annexation and which may meet the annexation criteria set forth in the policy. These areas are generally located in close proximity to water, wastewater, and fire services, and may be subject to valid preliminary plats and/or concept plans, or are anticipated sites for urban development. At this time, two potential owner -initiated annexation areas have been identified. Area Q is a 10-acre area on the west side of Fort Worth near the Loop 820 and I-20 inter- change. The City expects that the owners of this property will pursue annexation in 2015. Area J, the Edwards-Geren limited -purpose annexation area consisting of 276 acres, is scheduled to be annexed for full purposes by December 31, 2014. An enclave created by this limited -purpose annexation area will be considered for an- nexation through the City -initiated process at the same time. This area may be sub- ject to an additional development agreement due to its agricultural exemption status, which would push the scheduled annexation beyond 2014. As new developments are proposed, those areas may be added to the annexation program during its annual update. Potential Annexation, 2016-2030 The City has also evaluated enclaves, limited -purpose annexation areas, concept plans, and preliminary plats, that may not be ready for annexation within the next five years, but may be considered in the next six to twenty years. Map 2 and Table 2 describe these areas in more detail. For enclaves and preliminary plats, these ar- eas may not be within the City's CCN or be able to be served with City water, wastewater, or fire services in the near future. Limited -purpose annexation areas may be subject to development agreements with property owners, which require that portions of the areas be annexed for full purposes as they are platted. Thirty-nine potential annexation areas are considered for annexation during years 2016 to 2030. These areas consist of 19 existing enclaves, three potential enclaves, 16 areas with anticipated urban development, and one area of adverse impact. Ad- ditionally, 14 areas of anticipated owner -initiated annexation are noted. The Walsh Ranch limited -purpose annexation area, Area H, consisting of 7,296 acres, is scheduled to be annexed for full purposes as sub -areas are platted with the full area to annexed by May 26, 2026. An enclave created by this limited -purpose annexation area may be considered for annexation through the City -initiated process at the same time. Appendix F: Annexation Plan. Policy, and Program Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program The Comprehensive Plan is a general guide for making decisions about the City's growth and development. It presents a broad vision for Fort Worth's future and describes major policies, programs, and projects to realize that vision. The Compre- hensive Plan contains both the annexation program and the capital improvement program as appendices. These programs are revised as part of the annual update of the Comprehensive Plan. In preparing its capital improvement program, the City must determine the feasibil- ity of providing municipal services to areas identified in the annexation program. The City has identified capital improvements, beyond those covered by the current bond program, that will be necessary to provide adequate municipal services to the potential annexation areas. These improvements are addressed to the right accord- ing to the potential annexation year. Year Description of Needed Capital Improvements Fire Stations: Area 1 would be served by existing Fire Station 11. Area 3-1 would be served by existing Fire Station 35. Area 4 would be served by existing Fire Station 38. Area 13 would be served by existing Fire Station 37. Year 1: Roadways: (Areas 1, 3-1, 4, and 13) 2011 • To make comparable to area streets: $450,000. Potential funding source. general fund. • To meet City standards: $56.9 million. Potential funding source: future bond program. Fire Stations: Area 9 would be served by existing Fire Station 34. Areas 29 and 52 u ould he served by existing Fire Station 40. Area 42 would be served by existing Fire Station 30 Area 55 would be served by existing Fire Station 36. Areas 69 and 70 would be served by existing Fire Station 23. Year 2: 2012 Roadways: (Areas 9, 29, 42, 52, 55, 69, and 70) • To make comparable to area streets: $127,000. • To meet City standards: $92.9 million. Potential funding source: future bond program. Year 3: 2013 Year 4: 2014 Fire Stations: Areas 11 and 15-2 would be served by existing Fire Station 37. Areas 56- I. 56-2 and 71 would by served by existing Fire Station 36. Areas 59 and 66-2 would be served by existing Fire Station 11. Roadways: (Areas 11, 15-2, 56-1, 56-2, 59, 66-2, and 71) • To make comparable to area streets: $0. • To meet City standards: $36.6 million. Potential funding source: future bond program. Fire Stations: Area 2 would be served by existing Fire Station 35. Area 7 would be sen ed by existing Fire Station 38. Area 18 would be served by existing Fire Station 37. Area 43 would be served by existing Fire Station 39. Area 46 would be served by existing Fire Station 28 Areas 49-1 and 49-2 would be served by existing Fire Station 36. Areas 66-1 and 73 would be served existing Fire Station 11. Roadways: (Areas 2, 7, 18, 43, 46, 49-1, 49-2, 66-1, and 73) • To make comparable to area streets: $0. • To meet City standards: $69.3 million. Potential funding source: future bond program. Fire Stations: Areas 12 and 15-1 would be served by existing Fire Station 37. Area 15 ould be served by existing Fire Station 15. Areas 23-1 and 23-2 would be served by existing Fire Station 40. Area 72 would be served by existing Fire Station II. Year 5: Roadways: (Areas 12, 15-1, 37, 23-1, 23-2, and 72) 2015 • To make comparable to area streets: $0. • To meet City standards: $34.8 million. Potential funding source: future bond program. *Water and Sewer: All extensions to be funded by developers of adjacent property and/or Water & Wastewater capital improvement program. Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program F-10 Map 1 Potential Annexation, 2011-2015 r0n56 H.II 1P°om ��r , F.1Y1 Rd 168 Cwtta:oate 1 .y4 Road 66 2 L n�. — 59wt66 2 66.7 TABLE 1: ANNEXATION PROGRAM rr>k. POTENTIAL ANNEXATION 2011-2015 Legend County B oodary 1E C4yumo. LrmMd Purpase Annexation ® Subfectt1L1m6Rtl Purpose Eabaterrlbrel Junsd6bon j Lain Potential Owner -Initiated Year 4 2014 Year5 2015 Potential Coty-Initiated Program Years 2011-2015 . Year1 2011 - Year 2 2012 Yew 2013 Year4 2014 Year5 2015 Thirty-five City- and owner -initiated potential annexation areas are identified in the short-range annexation program between 2011 and 2015. Map0Dt CCN FvWn L.od Use 3-1 4 13 City N Fw Worth Cory of Fat Worth CO), of Fon Worth CM of Fon Worth City of Fort Worth GC iSC, *UGC, SF SF, PRIPH SF Acres 749 247 SUB, NC 149 10 Gay of Fort RURAL, SF, Was MOR 42 CM of Fort SF Worth t54 518 City of Foot RURAL, SUB, 52 Was SF, NC, INFRA 1 096 Res Percale Res Units Non -tee Prcele Assessed Valves lf11 Cntrie t. Program IaM E be Met Yw snpov meets POTENTIAL CITY4NITNTE0 ANNEXATION O 0 0 17 15 33 2 0 8 8 35 32 28 50 163 5 17 Comments 0 enclave 201; Mos 6ne a ea 04,,ndin S CCN t 5,9a2 623 enclaue grow, 2,„. cuff a"u lease a0J Ury 10 D`ovee 205,081 enclave 2011 01aff y'ucpales adnly t0 prance 9, 159,231 enclave tOr ruff nccpares ab44y 10 ee se .xes in lost po. d 950 345 e1Wave 2012 ern delat'*rntsar Jan„ary 1012 per urnarm.I .0naelsunorrp 10,266 460 enclave 1012 Annexe., o un January 0012 per memo, numof unaersunduy 1117310 enclave snmcnm2C 11 9.639,554 City ofFM SF, NC, GC. 55 W, MIIGC,INST, 593 0 0 5 6.9142,41 orth INFRA 69Csty W0011NF* RURAL, SF 305 2 0 6 1812.405 70 C Yloofrml Fort SF 451 0 0 4,018,3TO 11 wFort oos GC 6 1 1 647899 15-2 Woof o" SF 60 406 400 1 77 945.621 56-1 Nor,. *UGC 295 4 10 2,047.152 Johnson 56-2 County WSC, *UGC 260 0 0 1,902,188 Nero 59 AWE' SF 10 1 1 2 61 945 66-2 Ago.,eU46°t. GC 138 2 2 28 4,384 41E 71 COI, SF, *UGC 605 0 0 14 7954,282 2 WrOW� IGC 56 0 0 3 48.519 T C4y of Fort RURAL,86 32 27 2 6,844,901 Worth *UGC. INFRA 18 43 46 49-1 49-2 66-1 Ca' N Fan SF, LI 62 Worth Ciy of Fon Worth City of Fon Worth City of Fort Worth Cary of Foes Worth City of Fon Worth INFRA 109 109 9 0 SF 6 2 I SF 50 0 SF,1NST 57 1 1 GC. LI 216 1 1 City of Fort IGC LI, GC. Worth INST 1,466 12 CNWort RURAL,INST 42 orth 1S1 W man SF 36 23-1 C Yv0 SF MIST, AG 158 orth 23-2 28 of Fon GC. INST 28 Woh NFRA 3T Cloy Nall* INST 55 72 G Aqua U8Mes. RURAL. GC. Inc, tone LI City of Fort Worth City of Fort Worth 64GC NC 435 276 10 6 6 1 1 O 0 8 3 O 0 O 0 98 91 0 NA A0neaed la Im6e4 W rposes tt 2002 enclave, urban nevebpnlent urban development urban development enclave 2012 hagte Mounter-1 Zone wn.lea-purpose ,0 10 021,04 c rN wooers rs ark o1y 3.2s4333 n0 Ear,. ,an 1 1.09 0omp4teo Syea, belay per 2032 annettanon Wet Stall 4neclpales vow,o it nrof . .n 2012 2012 Suit ad0ly is Pow* Pow* sr.ices n 2U 11 SUN ...pales °nee 10 proven es. 1 n2 2012 2013 enclave 2013 grovel center 2013 grow, c0Nr 2013 nl.,e enclave, downs. Impact urban development ends,. 20.2 Sun a00,pale5 Wert is aowde 2013 1013 2013 2014 insect w e.erppmenl agreement to cxpre 2015 Apeemr`t ram ommunay to delay ar nee 3,041 201 J Staff an55patea abalry Io WOE..esm Orb ,uq.c 10 der...pawl agreermenl lo expo° 2011 SUN an*laws to prove, I 2013 Slat, amasses wavy to prow* I serapes n 201t SUN ant.paves Arley to pron. on nces n 2013 su0tecl to *v°kpm°11 agrerT.11110 exP a 2014 ends, growth SUN nuc es ad6ry to pow* center ds m 1014 Sun nuwates ab.1y 10 provide 3] 876,012 enctew 2014 servoces 4 Area rail * added to eau Mr nexasor MIn 2011 Easement see corn* n o _4y when 0 3 95,000 enclave 2014 towards -twee Iwmsoqupose Stan nbrpaies a0My 10 Pork° servu..es t4 Staff npcipatss ad11y 10 Pone, %YVC n 2014 SUN nsuores abday to otowde ser.k ., 21314 Suter. to *rrppmenl agreemnl to crone 20 4 4-0,1eo-0u1pose r.e.abon in 2011 with en -purpose n*.noon scn.4ule8 10,114 641133.3 to *w4oprnrb agreement to rep a 209 5uaecl `0 nevenpnwll agreement to N, Su1ecr'O ,evrec S epmorl a9reemen1 10I eaP e2r.5 Stall muerpa105 ab8y it, prow. m 1J 1' 1 Subpar to ce4�r" agreement 10I Staff anbcpatss ahoy 10 oro„* 21 12,693 154 adverse mead 2015 services0 n I5 A. -ea w14 S. 0000010 eat snr endives ,an m 2C to 2014 0 284,220 enclave 2014 2 353.612 enclave 2014 4 2,032536 enclave 2014 12 2,154 361 whose newt 23 10.796.972 adverse mpact 2014 1,655 586 rltlave 2015 4 1 752 383 enclave 2015 1 2 306 066 enclave urban dew :..then 2015 1 187 200 ends.. 2015 709.353 enclave 2015 .OTENTML OWNER-NtTIAT.D ANNEXATION 10 3 24 228,011 266 692 ancient 2014 urban I 20I, derNppnpnl Favras.:ern wound -ow,. an*a ullr e. secl `0 Cry JeciLon Dv 1, ` ;4 3u1 anecpres a0lgiy to proud. .cares v ,115 Areas with large bold lettering contain or are anbclpated to contain 100 separate tracts of land w ih one or more dwelling un is and nave been added or will be added to the Cilys annexabon pan in the appropriate year F-11 Appendix F: Annexation Plan. Policy, and Program Map 2 Potential Annexation, 2016-2030 6 a Legend Clouts Boundary Oty Lents OExtratemtonal Junsdimm Adjacent Ciy I i l aM Potential City -Initiated Years 6-20 2016-2030 Peterdial Own.Nl nreat.d r- Years8-20 2016-2030 Special Warty Diable& all MUD. Edmng r-1 MUD. Pendng V,CID, Pending Thirty-nine potential annexation areas are identified in the long-range annexation program between 2016 and 2030. i 41 31 38 Map IDa 47 16 68 CCN Coy of Fort WUh Cis of Fat Worth On of Fort Wog** CAN of Fort Worth 3-2 CryWMholFpn 10 20 21 Aqua Wide,. Inc CIO al Fort Worth Future Land UM SF, LER, NC. LI SF, MDR, NC SF SF RURAL. SF,RA. INFRA, MUGC SF, U, RURAL RURAL Crty ofHesle0 SF Aqua Matl44, Inc. ARua UtlWes, Ido 22 CAS effort Worth City of Fat 30 Wort CNOFpn Worth Ciy of Fat Worth On of Fort Worth Town or Lakeside RURAL SF sass INFRA, RURAL. A4 RURAL, SUB INFRA SF. PUBPK Acres 70 302 168 21 1,731 185 282 25 164 34, 104 473 75 50 SF, NC, GC 118 40 Norte U CIIY of Fat SF. NC, LI Aqua SF SF, NC 44 CKerw ails INFRA eS C4y of Fort WUh 48 50 57 58 60 61 63 e7 UUN4a, Inc RURAL City o1 Fat RURAL, LI Worth JOMam Candy Clry 01 Fon WOnh Cary 01 Fort WaM KGJ Joint Venture RURAL (naceve) Asa Lldrpes. Inc C ty of Fort Wash CM 01 Fort Wo0N Jonsson Caat16 INST SF RURAL, NC RURAL. SF. NC, PRINK PRINK, RURAL, SF, NC, U. INFRA PRINK, SF SF 29 421 109 73 3 R44 P.rceb TABLE 2: ANNEXATION PROGRAM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION 2010-2030 vaunt 44.4444E `NineRas UnitsRae Non -RAN • (1) lad & Negate improvements POTENTIAL CRY-HITIATBD ANNEXATION 0 103 95 6 102AC81 45 43 209 206 0 0 125 121 203 203 26 21 123 92 3 3 162 138 C.A. to Proper be Met Year 23 4 398.126 aaieve 2016 959 377 2016 0 20,068,320 enue,e 2018 196.588 andays 2023 6-20 3 12,649 503 10 58,337,945 errleve 6-20 2.940 7,644,480 enclave 6-20 47,238.121 enWve 6-20 enclave 6-20 enclave 6-20 enclave 6-20 angles. 6-20 enclave 6-20 enclave 6-20 uban ae.elopment 21 63 23 113,078 enclave 2 3 4 5,948,720 3 1,610,373 31 34 26681,620 O 5 2.917.032 O 16 3,206202 24 33 14,921,117 0 1 1 0 225 151 76 2 17 5449,451 O 4 339 295 295 0 23 23 0 10 26 42 38 4 191 82 58 4 112 959 1135 230 674 80 80 0 444 429 15 254 246 6 167 148 19 Table continued on pg. F-13 Comments SUN arapates abeev to wov de senses SUIT aneopates adahw wov9e sarvwes SUN yac466ros abebv'u pro. ee services C16 Deveepnere a9 0emet wan „h suewcl Ppw4awd area 51ae ]pas not anuc.p.te abem to proves se roes n 5 years Populated area ,8 e„eey 0 '.II s':CO 5U1f noes not �trare rwm a wove. save it 5 An Populaed area not current, 'r iry s C CH Staff does not aneop.a. aolnr to O'ovee se, wesn5 ears Populated yea rot .nr.e„ayn'-4ysCCN Stall does 0I 0 Warty wid 0ve rears 5ulf does not arece»remwy Le posse senses n 5 years Staff does Dot enec pate adky to orovae services n ` teas Staff does not anon -sate aeeh a p+ovde syVr,.esr cyus tartars '_wmy menwn0r. lac0h Persisted yea not enwe1 n rrrys CCh SUN doe not streets abed, to p Ova. Area ml currenm n ; lys - Staff don not anepaM atrey to provide se V,.ee in 5 rears Part atea nr r.nd,r s�LN do enclave 6-20 Staff es not an.... eery mprovde 3 15,532,271 senses n 5 tea, 2,350,213 enclave 6-20 252,725 enclave 6-20 50,939.717 enclave 6-20 14 7,152,076 3 773,746 er5J.v. 6-20 17 903 901 6-20 3 14 186 676 6-20 21 964.468 6-20 10 117268,621 6-20 Areanotcu„enrn it .,hs CLH 520 120 863 610 edema, impact 6,20 Populaed area nun don rat anuprpaM Grey to wov de serous n 5 reel 49,673 620 .-20 19 3,895 737 urban deveroanen enclave potential enclave pd'ennal enclave enclave re., dev.loprnml Area not wnerehn,6l s CCN staff does not anor.yale 50ey In wove. 000 shaped area snot, 0niv ..even smart P00500s a men„wr prppero.a May a 035440e for So„ rdey adlusorwnt Populated area 'w ene.0 ,n Cm's 1 C N Staff does not aneci0ae adky p,ov,de Arse rat cur era. n L5 aff apes not a swpab awe, to wovde senses s mars Staff don res rr spare aoeh to ism.l sery n veers Staff does not b3m ro pros services de Poputae0 a,ea 698 does not anocea e met, a woes services r, ri years Popara.4 area SUN noes r,w anecpae abler to pro.. Se! • .n n 5 .ears 6-20 Adaeon4 see nctuo.o n oe.eeomern p,an ztn msF`l Appendix F: Annexation Plan, Policy, and Program F-12 A Aga I1Wnes Irc Aqua uabea, Inc. Cay a Fon Want City of Fon Worm, SF, INST Abates SF NC AG, SF G NFurl Worthone, CIr W SF INFRA L AG, SF, MDR, NC, Gay of Fort GC, Wont None MUGC, LI, INFRA, PRIM( Cny of Fon Worth. Texas Water Services, Inc Tani, County FWS01 Tarrant County FWSD1 Johnson County Rural W SC Aqua UNNes, Inc, Suet ack USAUSA Incnc SF. LI SF SF SF SF, LDR, MDR, NC 0 U4Mbaa,AquaInc SF. NC P CltyofFon SF,NC,LI,I Worth INFRA Aqua Uthbes. Coy of Fon Worth, None SF S Clay wont of Fon SF 331 90 1,343 1,618 7296 755 62 26 117 TABLE 2: ANNEXATION PROGRAM POTENTIAL ANNEXATION 2016-2030 POTENTLY. OWNER -INITIATED ANNEXATION 282 145I 137 8 19,164.277 0 0 2 135,104 197 22 t75 14 16,560,083 1 1 4,096.768 158 167 95 urban development urban deveopmen urban development urban development 6-20 Arean0t currently In Cltys CCN 6-20 Pan of area nor currently in CrNs CCN 6-20 Part of area not currentlym Cnys CCN 6-20 Pan of area nor currently in Cllys CCN N/A Annexed 0 0 11 20,114.1�Inn'. 54 6-20 grryoses In 0 0 124 116 42 34 51 I 0 53 2 2,177 2 2 0 546 2,622 2,270 470 244 I 14 I 9 I 0 0 4.205,583 19,787,556 f3,797.500 13,165,660 2003 urban development urban development urban development urban development Wash Ranch Mooted -purpose annexation area sugecl to5/6/03 contract tn.property owners and Cay decision by 526r26 Pan of area not currently In Coy s CCN 6-20 Stan does not entrap.aMMy to provide services in 5 years_ 6-20Area nor cunendy In Cny's CCN 6-20 Area rql currently m C6ots CCN. 6-20 Area not currently In City's CCN 37 1,436,326 davu 6-20 Area nor currently IClty's CCN. 226 28 125.974.248 devurban elopment 6-20 Populated area not currently inCny's CCN 5 56 21,660,369 I urndevelopment 6-20 I Staff does not entrap.entrap.entrap.ability to provde services In 5 years 0 147 I 0 I 0 0 10,003,041 urban development 6-20 Pen of area not currently in CM's CCN Staff does 1wt entr pate Maley to pnovide services in 5 years U48 1,186,303 urban 0 Slag does nolannapateabinry to provide deverop6.2 nent services In 5 years. Areas with large bold lettering contain or are anticipated to contain 100 or more dwelling units and have been added or will be added to the City's annexation plan In the appropriate year. F-13 Appendix F: Annexation Plan. Policy. and Program APPENDIX G: POLICY CONCERNING CREATION OF CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DISTRICTS POLICY CONCERNING CREATION OF CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DISTRICTS Adopted by the City Council on May 3, 2005 I. PURPOSE AND INTENT The City of Fort Worth (the "City") wishes to allow the prudent use of political subdivisions that are created pursuant to Article III, Section 52, and/or Ar- ticle XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution and that are authorized by law to provide water, wastewater, drainage and other services ("districts"), in order to fa- cilitate development within the City's corporate boundaries and extraterritorial ju- risdiction that is generally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This policy is intended to be equitably applied to the creation of, inclu- sion of land within, and operation of all proposed districts, while allowing flexibil- ity necessary to address unique factors that may arise with respect to each proposed district. Prior to considering whether to consent to or support the creation of a district, the City will consider whether the City is able to provide water and waste- water service to the area proposed to be included in the district and whether the City wishes to annex such area in the foreseeable future. The purpose of this policy is to carry out the following purposes to the extent allowed by law: • Encourage quality development; • Allow the City to enforce reasonable land use and development regu- lations; • Provide for construction of infrastructure consistent with City stan- dards and City inspection of such infrastructure; • Provide notice to residents of the district that the City may annex the district at some future time; • Facilitate cost-effective construction of infrastructure to serve the area within the district, including police and fire stations, that is consistent with City standards and plans, so that the potential financial burden on G-1 the citizens of Fort Worth will be reduced, in the event of annexation of such land by the City; • Provide for extension of water and wastewater lines that will serve future growth in the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction consistent with the City's regional utility planning; • Establish guidelines for reasonable conditions to be placed on: 0 Issuance of bonds by the district; and 0 The City's consent to creation of the district, including conditions consistent with the City's water and sewer bond ordinances re- garding creation of districts that might otherwise detrimentally compete with the City's utility systems; • Establish guidelines for other mutually beneficial agreements by the City and the district; • Provide a procedural framework for responding to a petition seeking the City's consent to the creation of the district; and • Encourage communication with county officials and staff members of the county or counties in which a proposed district is to be located. II. DEFINITIONS Bond — Instrument, including a bond, note, certificate of participation or other in- strument evidencing a proportionate interest in payments due to be paid by an is- suer, or other type of obligation that: (1) is issued or incurred by an issuer under the issuer's borrowing power, without regard to whether it is subject to annual appro- priation; and (2) is represented by an instrument issued in bearer or registered form or is not represented by an instrument but the transfer of which is registered on books maintained for that purpose by or on behalf of the issuer. Certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) — A permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") authorizing a specified utility to be the retail water or sewer service provider in a specified area. City Council — City Council of the City of Fort Worth. Consent agreement — An agreement between the City and owners and developers Appendix G: Conservation and Reclamation District Policy of land in a proposed district, which, if agreed to, shall be attached to the consent resolution adopted by the City Council. Consent resolution — A resolution approved by the City Council setting forth terms of its consent to creation of a district. Consent to creation of a district — Authorization for the owners of land in a pro- posed district to initiate proceedings to create a district as provided by law. District - A municipal utility district ("MUD"), water control and improvement district ("WCID"), fresh water supply district ("FWSD") or similar political subdi- vision created to provide water, sewer or drainage utility services, roads or other services allowed by law to a specified area, pursuant to Article III, Section 52, and/ or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution. Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) — Unincorporated area generally extending five miles from the City limit, excluding other incorporated municipalities and their ETJ, in which the City has the authority to annex property, as determined in accor- dance with Chapter 42 of the Local Government Code. Strategic partnership agreement — An agreement between the City and a district addressing the relationship between the City and the district, including limited pur- pose annexation of commercial areas and other matters pursuant to Section 43.0751 of the Local Government Code. TCEQ — The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or its successor. III. PREREQUISITES TO CONSENT TO CREATION OF A DISTRICT Before the City Council consents to creation of a district, the following issues shall be considered: 1. If applicable, whether the area proposed for inclusion in the district meets criteria for annexation set out in the City's annexation policy and is likely to be annexed by the City within the foreseeable future; and 2. Whether the City will provide water and wastewater services to the land within the proposed district at a reasonable cost and will commence con- struction of facilities necessary to serve the land within 2 years and sub stantially complete such construction within 4V2 years after submittal of the petition. If the determination on both issues 1 and 2 above is negative, then before consent- ing to the creation of a district, the City Council should consider further whether the creation of the district is feasible, practicable, necessary for the provision of the proposed services and would be a benefit to the land, and therefore warrants the City's consent, consistent with the other considerations in this policy. If the determination on either of the two issues is affirmative, then the City Council should not consent to creation of the district unless the petitioner demonstrates that unique factors justify its creation. If appropriate under the circumstances, the City shall: • Commence negotiations with the owners of at least 50 percent of the land in the proposed district and a majority of the qualified voters concerning the City's provision of water and wastewater services, upon receipt of a petition submitted by such persons in accordance with Local Government Code, Section 42.042; or • Commence proceedings to annex the land in the proposed district. IV. COMMUNICATION WITH COUNTY OFFICIALS The City will initiate communication with county officials for the county or coun- ties in which a district is proposed to be located in order to promote interlocal coop- eration on shared local goals and to support regional planning. V. STAFF ANALYSIS Upon receipt of a petition seeking the City's consent to creation of a district and after a preliminary determination of the Article III prerequisites, City staff shall analyze the proposed development and its potential impact on facilities and ser- vices. The petitioner is encouraged to provide the following preliminary informa- tion relative to the land proposed to be included in the district, if available: 1. Engineering report showing: a. Preliminary water availability study, including copies of any proposed contracts; b. Preliminary wastewater treatment availability, including copies of any proposed contracts; c. Preliminary drainage study; and d. Preliminary road study for any roads proposed to be reimbursed by bonds. 2. Preliminary cost estimates for water, wastewater, drainage or road facili- ties or projects, and any other proposed district facilities to be reim- bursed or paid for by the issuance of district bonds; 3. Master development plan showing general layout of proposed land uses; major streets and roads; water, wastewater and drainage facilities; and any other district facilities; Appendix G: Conservation and Reclamation District Policy G-2 4. Information concerning provision of firefighting and law enforcement services; 5. Estimated buildout schedule by year with estimated assessed valuations in the district; 6. Estimated ultimate amount of bonds to be issued by the district, ultimate debt service requirements and and projected district tax rate; 7. District boundary and vicinity map; 8. Traffic study identifying potential impacts on: a. The City's road system serving the land proposed to be in- cluded in the district, if all or any portion of the land is located within the City or within 2 miles of the City's boundaries; and b. The county's road system. This traffic study is in addition to any traffic studies required by the City's subdivision regulations in connection with submittal of subdivi- sion plats; 9. If all or any portion of the proposed district is located outside the City's boundaries, proof that the petitioner has provided the following informa- tion by certified mail to the County Judge and each member of the Com- missioners Court of the county or counties in which the land proposed to be included in the district is included: the name, acreage and location of the proposed district, buildout schedule, estimated population on total buildout and map of the area; 10. Such other information as City staff may reasonably require to analyze the need for the proposed facilities and the development's potential im- pact; and 11. Any proposed City consent agreements. VI. CONDITIONS TO CITY'S CONSENT TO CREATION OF DIS- TRICT If the City Council elects to consent to the creation of, or inclusion of land within, a district, then it shall impose the following requirements as conditions of the City's consent, and such requirements shall be stipulated in the consent resolution and/or other ancillary agreement, unless the City Council determines that requirements are not appropriate with regard to a specific district. 1. All water, wastewater, drainage and road infrastructure and facilities, as well as any other infrastructure or facilities to be reimbursed or paid for by the issuance of district bonds, shall be designed and constructed to City standards, including without limitation fire flow standards and util- ity and road design, construction and installation standards, in accor- dance with plans and specifications that have been approved by the City. In the event of a conflict between City water and wastewater standards and standards imposed by the CCN holder for the proposed district, City standards will prevail, unless otherwise agreed by the City. 2. The City shall have the right to inspect all facilities being constructed by or on behalf of the district and to charge inspection fees consistent with the City's Policy for Installation of Community Facilities, as amended from time to time. 3. Bonds, including refunding bonds issued by the district, shall, unless otherwise agreed to by the City, comply with the following require- ments, provided such requirements do not generally render the bonds unmarketable: a. Maximum maturity of 25 years for any one series of bonds; b. Interest rate that does not exceed 2% above the highest average interest rate reported by the Daily Bond Buyer in its weekly "20 Bond Index" during the one month period next preceding the date notice of the sale of such bonds is given; c. The bonds shall expressly provide that the district shall reserve the right to redeem bonds at any time subsequent to the tenth (10th) anniversary of the date of issuance, without premium. No variable rate bonds shall be issued by a district without City Council approval; and d. Any refunding bonds of the district must provide for a minimum of 3% present value savings and that the latest maturity of the refunding bonds may not extend beyond the latest maturity of the refunded bonds unless approved by the City Council. 4. The City shall require the following information with respect to bond issuance: a. At least 30 days before issuance of bonds, except refunding bonds, the district's fmancial advisor shall certify in writing that the bonds are being issued within the existing economic feasibil- ity guidelines established by the TCEQ for districts issuing bonds for water, sewer or drainage facilities in the county in which the district is located and shall deliver the certification to the City G-3 Appendix G: Conservation and Reclamation District Policy Secretary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department. b. At least 30 days before the issuance of bonds, the district shall deliver to the City Secretary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department notice as to: i. The amount of bonds being proposed for issuance; ii. The projects to be funded by such bonds; and iii. The proposed debt service tax rate after issuance of the bonds. If the district is not required to obtain TCEQ approval of the issu- ance of the bonds (other than refunding bonds), the district shall deliver such notice to the City Secretary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department at least 60 days prior to issuing such bonds. Within 30 days after the district closes the sale of a series of bonds, the district shall deliver to the City Sec- retary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department a copy of the final official statement for such series of bonds. If the City requests additional information regarding such issuance of bonds, the district shall promptly provide such infor- mation at no cost to City. 5. The purposes for which a district may issue bonds shall be restricted to the purchase, construction, acquisition, repair, extension and improve- ment of land, easements, works, improvements, facilities, plants, equip- ment and appliances necessary to: a. Provide a water supply for the district for municipal uses, domes- tic uses and commercial purposes; b. Collect, transport, process, dispose of and control all domestic, industrial or communal wastes from the district whether in fluid, solid or composite state; c. Gather, conduct, divert and control local storm water or other local harmful excesses of water in the district; and d. Pay organization and administrative expenses, operation expenses during construction, cost of issuance, interest during construction and capitalized interest. If appropriate in a particular district, the City may consent to issuance of bonds for purchase, construction, acquisition, repair, extension or improve- ment of fire stations, roads and/or other capital improvements that are mu- tually agreed upon by the City Council and the petitioner. VII. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS The City may address issues relating to the district in a consent agreement, strategic partnership agreement, development agreement, community facilities agreement or other documents acceptable to the parties. The City shall consider proposing addi- tional terms, subject to the mutual agreement of the parties and as allowed by law, including without limitation the following: 1. The district shall contain sufficient acreage to assure the economic viabil- ity of the district but no more acreage than can feasibly be annexed at one time. In general, a district is not expected to include less than 200 acres or more than 500 acres. 2. Development within the district shall be generally consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. No district shall include land in more than one city's extraterritorial juris- diction. 4. The City and the owners of all land in the proposed district may reach agreement on the terms of a development agreement pursuant to Local Government Code, Section 212.171, et seq., to extend the City's planning authority over land included in the district by providing for approval of a development plan, authorizing enforcement by the City of land use and development regulations, and including other lawful terms and considera- tions the parties consider appropriate. The development agreement may include provisions that are mutually acceptable to the parties relating to the following matters: a. Land use plan reflecting all approved land uses and residential densities; b. Compliance with City construction codes, including permit re- quirements; c. Compliance with City and other applicable stormwater and water quality regulations; d. Development standards comparable to City zoning regulations; and e. Dedication and development of park areas. The above list is not intended to be exhaustive. It is expected that the parties will cooperate to identify those matters unique to that district that may be addressed in a development agreement. 5. At least 30 days before issuance of bonds, the district shall certify in wTit- ing that the district is in full compliance with the consent resolution ap- proved by the City Council and, to the extent such agreements impose re - Appendix G: Conservation and Reclamation District Policy G-4 quirements on the district, with the consent agreement, strategic partner- ship agreement and all other agreements executed by the City and the dis- trict, and shall deliver the certification to the City Secretary, the City Man- ager and the Director of the Development Department. 6. No land within the district shall be allowed, at any time in the future, to incorporate, join in an incorporation, or be annexed into any incorporated city other than the City of Fort Worth. 7. No land shall be annexed by the district without prior City Council ap- proval. 8. The district shall not construct or install infrastructure or facilities to serve areas outside the district or sell or deliver services to areas outside the dis- trict without prior City Council approval; provided, however, the district may serve a maximum of 10 retail residential connections outside the dis- trict without City Council approval. 9. After creation of the district, and unless otherwise expressly authorized by the consent agreement or development agreement, no district shall be con- verted into another type of district, consolidated with another district, di- vided into two or more new districts, or seek additional governmental pow- ers that were beyond its statutory authority at the time the district was cre- ated, without prior City Council approval. 10. The City may annex any commercial development within the district for limited purposes pursuant to Local Government Code, Section 43.0751, and may impose a sales and use tax within the area annexed for limited purposes. The City may consider sharing tax receipts with the district, provided the district's share is used to finance infrastructure, retire bond debt or for other purposes acceptable to the City. 11. The district shall not issue any bonds other than those authorized by the consent agreement without City Council approval. 12. The district shall file a notice in the real property records of all counties in which the district is located stating that the City has authority to annex the district. The parties may attach a form of such notice to the consent agree- ment or development agreement. 13. The district shall send a copy of the order or other action setting an ad valorem tax rate to the City Secretary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department within 30 days after district adoption of the rate. 14. The district shall send a copy of its annual audit to the City Secretary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department within 30 days after approval. 15. The City will encourage the district to maintain a debt service structure that will ensure that the district's taxes are maintained at a rate at least equal to the City's tax rate, to the extent feasible. 16. The district shall provide copies of any material event notices tiled under applicable federal securities laws or regulations to the City Secretary, the City Manager and the Director of the Development Department within thirty (30) days after filing such notices with the applicable federal agency. 17. Construction of capital improvements such as fire stations and recreational amenities will be encouraged. 18. Sharing of fire stations, recreational amenities and other capital improve- ments by the City and the district will be encouraged. 19. If construction or expansion of a wastewater treatment facility is proposed to serve the district, the plant design shall conform to all applicable state and federal permitting and design standards. In addition, any wastewater discharge shall be permitted to meet effluent limitations no less stringent than (a) current permit requirements for Village Creek Wastewater Treat- ment Plant; (b) current permit requirements for Denton Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant; or (c) 5-5-2-1 (5 parts per million {"ppm"; biochemical oxygen demand; 5 ppm total suspended solids; 2 ppm nitrogen; and I ppm phosphorus), whichever is strictest. The City reserves the right to protest any wastewater treatment facility permit application or amendment. 20. The board of directors of the district and landowners within the district will assist the City in annexing one or more areas, each of which may not ex- ceed 525 feet in width at its widest point or such other width limitation subsequently imposed by law, as reasonably necessary for the City to con- nect areas to the City that are outside the district and that the City intends to annex in the foreseeable future. 21. If it is determined that the development will place a burden on City roads that will provide access to the development, the City may require the dis- trict to construct, widen or improve such roads (or contribute funds for such purpose) in proportion to the traffic generated by the development. 22. The City may agree not to annex and dissolve the district any earlier than the first to occur of (i) extension of water, sanitary sewer and drainage fa- cilities to serve 90% of the land within the district; or (ii) 15 years after G-5 Appendix G: Conservation and Reclamation District Policy creation of the district. The contract between the City and the district may provide that the City may set rates for water and/or sewer services for property that was within the district that vary from those for other proper- ties within the City in order to compensate the City for assumption of dis- trict obligations upon annexation, in compliance with any statutory re- quirements applicable to such an agreement. 23. The consent agreement and ancillary documents should include terms pro- viding for the district to be fully developed and ready for full purpose an- nexation by the City within a reasonable time period. 24. The petitioner shall reimburse the City for expenses incurred by the City in connection with the City's consent to formation of the district, including but not limited to professional fees incurred in connection with negotiation and preparation of the consent resolution, consent agreement, development agreement, strategic partnership agreement and related documents. a Potential Special Districts Tradih on Addition Future Phases 1 Shale Creek . Morning Star Phases 1 & 2 Live Oak Creek Future Phases a Potential Special Districts Developments Existing Municipal Utility Distnct (MUD) Certificates of Convenience & Necessity Q Fort Worth ® Act a Source ® Johnson County Rural Water Supply City Limit & Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Fort Worth City Limits (Full Purpose) Fort Worth City Limits (Limited Purpose) 6Rratenitarial Junsdicbon Tradition Addition Phase 1 ■eke Arlington Orapevene Let. Appendix G: Conservation and Reclamation District Policy G-6 APPENDIX H: TAX ABATEMENT POLICY STATEMENT City of Fort Worth General Tax Abatement Policy Effective June 22, 2010 through June 21, 2012 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 1.1. Purpose. Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code allows, but does not obligate or require, the City to grant a tax abatement on the value added to a particular property on account of a specific development project that meets the eligibility requirements set forth in this Policy. In order for the City to participate in tax abatement, the City is required to establish guidelines and criteria governing tax abatement agreements. This Policy is intended to set forth those guidelines and criteria for persons or entities interested in receiving a tax abatement from the City. This Policy shall expire on June 21, 2012. 1.2. General Eligibility Criteria. A tax abatement can only be granted to persons or entities eligible for tax abatement pursuant to Section 312.204(a) of the Texas Tax Code, which persons or entities as of the effective date of this Policy are (i) the owner of taxable real property located in a tax abatement reinvestment zone; or (ii) the owner of a leasehold interest in real property located in a tax abatement reinvestment zone. Although the City will consider all applications for tax abatement that meet the eligibility requirements set forth in this Policy, it is especially interested in development projects that: • result in the creation of new full-time jobs for Fort Worth Residents and Central City Residents; and • are located in the Central City; and • result in development with little or no additional cost to the City while producing a positive economic impact to the tax paying citizens of Fort Worth; and • have a positive impact on Fort Worth Companies and Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies; and • promotes quality, affordable housing and/or mixed income development. 1.3. General Exclusions and Limitations. 1.3.1. Lessees of Real Property. A person or entity seeking tax abatement on real property that is leased from a third party should be advised that, pursuant to state law, the City can only abate taxes on the increased value of the taxable leasehold interest in the real property, if any, and the increase in value of taxable improvements and tangible personal property located on the real property and subject to the leasehold interest, if any. Before applying for a tax abatement from the City, such persons or entities should seek professional and legal guidance, and may wish to consult with the appraisal district having jurisdiction over the property in question, as to whether their development projects will result in a taxable leasehold interest in the property and, if so, the anticipated value of that leasehold interest. 1.3.2. Property Located in Neighborhood Empowerment Zones ("NEZs"). The City Council has designated certain distressed areas of the City needing affordable housing, economic development and expanded public services as NEZs. Notwithstanding anything that may be interpreted to the contrary, this Policy does not apply to property located in a NEZ. A person or entity seeking tax abatement on property owned or leased in a NEZ should refer to the Neighborhood Empowerment Zone Tax Abatement Policy, adopted by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 3742-05-2009. 1.3.3. Property Located in Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones ("TIFs"). The City Council has designated certain areas of the City as TIFs. This Policy does apply to property located in a TIF. However, a person or entity seeking tax abatement on property owned or leased in a TIF should be advised that state law requires a TIF's board of directors and the governing bodies of all taxing jurisdictions contributing tax increment revenue to a TIF to approve a City tax abatement agreement on property located in that TIF before the agreement can take effect. 1.3.4. Property Located in Enterprise Zones. The State of Texas has designated certain areas of the City with high unemployment as enterprise zones. Various economic development incentives are available to owners of property located in enterprise zones. In accordance with state law, all property located within an enterprise zone is automatically designated as a tax abatement reinvestment zone. However, the City typically designates individual tax abatement reinvestment zone overlays when it wishes to grant tax abatements on property located in an enterprise zone. H-1 Appendix I -I: Tax Abatement Policy Statement 13.5. Business Relocations Due to Major Public Infrastructure Projects. Pursuant to Resolution No. 3832-12-2009, the City Council has approved a Relocation Incentives Policy (the "Relocation Policy") for qualifying businesses that are required to relocate due to a Major Public Infrastructure Project, as that term is defined in the Relocation Policy. Tax abatement is one of the incentives authorized by the Relocation Policy. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any tax abatement granted by the City under the Relocation Policy shall be governed solely by the terms of and in accordance with the Relocation Policy. 2. DEFINITIONS. Capitalized terms used in this Policy but not defined elsewhere shall have the following meanings: Abatement or Tax Abatement - A full or partial exemption from ad valorem taxes on eligible taxable real and personal property located in a Reinvestment Zone for a specified period on the difference between (i) the amount of increase in the appraised value (as reflected on the certified tax roll of the appropriate county appraisal district) resulting from improvements begun after the execution of a written Tax Abatement Agreement and (ii) the appraised value of such real estate prior to execution of a written Tax Abatement Agreement (as reflected on the most recent certified tax roll of the appropriate county appraisal district for the year prior to the date on which the Tax Abatement Agreement was executed). Abatement Benefit Term — The period of time specified in a Tax Abatement Agreement, but not to exceed ten (10) years, that the recipient of a tax abatement may receive the Abatement. Abatement Compliance Term — The period of time specified in a Tax Abatement Agreement during which the recipient of a tax abatement must comply with the provisions and conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement and file an annual report with the City which outlines and documents the extent of the recipient's compliance with such provisions and conditions. Business Expansion Project — A project (i) in the square footage of a facility or facilities located in the City that will be expanded by an existing business or (ii) that will cause a vacant building or buildings located in the City to be redeveloped or reused, whether by an existing business or a new business. Capital Investment - Only real property improvements such as, without limitation, new facilities and structures, site improvements, facility expansion, and facility modernization. Capital Investment does NOT include (i) land acquisition costs; (ii) any improvements existing on the property prior to execution of a Tax Abatement Agreement; or (iii) personal property such as, without limitation, machinery, equipment, supplies and inventory. Central City — A geographic area within the City, defined by the City Council and shown in the map of Exhibit "A" of this Policy. Central City Resident — An individual whose principle place of residence is at a location within the Central City. Commercial/Industrial Development Project — A development project in which a facility or facilities will be constructed or renovated on property that is or meets the requirements to be zoned for commercial or industrial use pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. CDBG Eligible Area — Any census tract in which fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the residents in that census tract have low to moderate incomes, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Commitment - An agreed upon amount and/or percentage related to the utilization of Fort Worth Companies and Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies for construction spending on a given project or for Supply and Service Expenditures and related to the hiring of Fort Worth Residents and Central City Residents. Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Company — A minority or woman -owned business that (i) has received certification as either a minority business enterprise (MBE ), a woman business enterprise (WBE), or a disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) by the North Central Texas Regional Certification Agency (NCTRCA), and (ii) has a Principal Office located within the corporate limits of the City that provides the product or service for which credit is sought for purposes of a specific commitment set forth in a given Tax Abatement Agreement. Fort Worth Company — A business that has a Principal Office located within the corporate limits of the City that provides the product or service for which credit is sought for purposes of a specific commitment set forth in a given Tax Abatement Agreement. Fort Worth Resident — An individual whose principal place of residence is at a location within the corporate limits of the City. Mixed -Use Development Project — A development project in which a facility or facilities will be constructed or renovated such that (i) at least twenty percent (20%) of the total gross floor area will be used as residential space and (ii) at least ten percent (10%) of the total gross floor area will be used for office, restaurant, entertainment and/or retail sales and service space. M/WBE Advisory Committee (MWBEAC) — A committee appointed by the Fort Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement H-2 Worth City Council to review and make recommendations as to Commitments proposed by an applicant for Tax Abatement if any such Commitments contain less than a 25% expenditure with Fort Worth Certified M/WBE companies for construction spending and for Supply and Service Expenditures and to advise the City as to the availability of Fort Worth Certified M/WBEs. Principal Office — An office facility that is fully operational and has sufficient equipment, supplies, and personnel to provide the product or service of the business in question to clients in the City without significant reliance on the resources of another entity or affiliate or of an auxiliary facility of the business which is located outside the corporate limits of the City. Reinvestment Zone — An area designated by the City as a tax abatement reinvestment zone in accordance with Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code. Residential Development Project — A development project in which a facility or facilities will be constructed or renovated as multifamily living units on property that is or meets requirements to be zoned for multifamily or mixed -use pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Supply and Service Expenditures — Discretionary expenditures made as part of normal business operations on the real property subject to tax abatement, such as, by way of example only, office supplies, janitorial supplies and professional services. Tax Abatement Agreement — A written Agreement that the recipient of a tax abatement must enter into with the City and that outlines the specific terms and conditions pertaining to and governing the tax abatement. 3. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX ABATEMENT. To be eligible for tax abatement under this Policy, a Residential Development Project must meet all of the criteria set forth in one of the following paragraphs: 3.1. (i) Be located in the Central City; and (ii) Satisfy the Capital Investment and affordability criteria necessary for a Residential Development Project to be eligible for tax abatement under the NEZ Policy; and (iii) Meet all of the Commitments set forth in Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements for Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/ Industrial and Mixed -Use Development Projects); or 3.2. (i) Be located in a CDBG Eligible Area; and (ii) Have a capital investment of at least $2 million; and (iii) Meet all of the Commitments set forth in Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements for Residential Development Projects and Certain Commercial /Industrial and Mixed -Use Development Projects); or 3.3. (i) Be located outside of the Central City; and (ii) Have a capital investment of at least $2 million; and (iii) Meet all of the Commitments set forth in Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements for Residential Development Projects and Certain Commercial/Industrial and Mixed -Use Development Projects). In addition, an applicant for a Residential Development Project tax abatement that includes, in whole or in part, the renovation of one or more existing structures shall provide, as part of the applicant's Tax Abatement Application, a detailed description and the estimated costs of the renovations contemplated. 4. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX ABATEMENT. To be eligible for tax abatement under this Policy, a Commercial Industrial Development Project must meet all of the criteria set forth in one of the following paragraphs: 4.1 (i) Have a minimum Capital Investment of $250,000, and (ii) Be located in the Central City or on property immediately adjacent to the major thoroughfares which serve as boundaries to the Central City, or within a CDBG Eligible Area; and (iii) meet all of the Commitments of Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements For Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/Industrial Development Projects, Mixed -Use Development Projects, And Business Expansion Projects); or 4.2 (i) Have a minimum Capital Investment of $5 million; and (ii) meet all of the Commitments of Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements For Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/Industrial Development Projects, Mixed -Use Development Projects, And Business Expansion Projects), or 4.3 (i) Have a minimum Capital Investment of $100 million; and (ii) satisfy additional requirements that may be set forth by the City on a project -specific basis. In addition, an applicant for tax abatement on a Commercialilndustrial Development Project that includes, in whole or in part, the renovation of one or more existing structures shall provide, as part of the applicant's Tax Abatement Application, a detailed description and the estimated costs of the renovations contemplated. 5. MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX ABATEMENT. H-3 Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement To be eligible for tax abatement under this Policy, a Mixed -Use Development Project must meet all of the criteria set forth in one of the following paragraphs: 5.1 (i) Have a minimum Capital Investment of $250,000; and (ii) Be located in the Central City or on property immediately adjacent to the major thoroughfares which serve as boundaries to the Central City, or within CDBG Eligible Area; and (iii) meet all of the Commitments of Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements For Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/Industrial Development Projects, Mixed -Use Development Projects, And Business Expansion Projects); or 5.2 (i) Have a minimum Capital Investment of $5 million; and (ii) meet all of the Commitments of Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements For Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/Industrial Development Projects, Mixed -Use Development Projects, And Business Expansion Projects); or 5.3 (i) Have a minimum Capital Investment of $100 million; and (ii) consist of multiple land uses, whereby no single land use would comprise greater than 40% of the project's land area; and (iii) emphasize live/work/play opportunities with multi -modal access; and, (iv) satisfy additional requirements that may be set forth by the City on a project -specific basis. In addition, an applicant for tax abatement on a Mixed -Use Development Project that includes, in whole or in part, the renovation of one or more existing structures shall provide, as part of the applicant's Tax Abatement Application, a detailed description and the estimated costs of the renovations contemplated. 6. BUSINESS EXPANSION PROJECTS FOR EXISTING FORT WORTH BUSINESSES. To be eligible for tax abatement under this Policy, a Business Expansion Project must meet all of the criteria set forth in on the following paragraphs: 6.1 (i) Be located in the Central City or a CDBG Eligible Area; and (ii) Have been in business continuously for at least six months prior to the submission of an Application to the City for Tax Abatement, and (iii) Have a total real and personal property investment of at least $250,000; and (iv) Meet all of the Commitments set forth in Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements For Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/Industrial Development Projects, Mixed -Use Development Projects, And Business Expansion Projects); or 6.2 (i) Be located outside of the Central City and CDBG Eligible Area and (ii) Have been in business continuously for at least five years prior to the submission of an Application to the City for Tax Abatement, and (iii) Have a total real and personal property investment of at least $5 million (a minimum Capital Investment of $1 million) and (iv) Meet all of the Commitments set forth in Section 7 of this Policy (Standard Requirements For Residential Development Projects, Certain Commercial/Industrial Development Projects, Mixed -Use Development Projects, And Business Expansion Projects) improvements. 7. STANDARD REOUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. CERTAIN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. AND BUSINESS EXPANSION PROJECTS. To be eligible for property tax abatement, a Residential Development Project meeting the requirements set forth in Sections 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3 of this Policy; a Commercial/Industrial Development Project meeting the requirements set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of this Policy; a Mixed -Use Development Project meeting the requirements set forth in Sections 5.1 and 5.2; and a Business Expansion Project meeting the requirements set forth in Sections 6.1 or 6.2 shall meet all of the following requirements: 7.1. Commit to provide full-time employment to a set number and, or a percentage of full-time jobs offered on the real property where the Development is located, to Central City Residents, which Commitment will be agreed upon and set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement; and 7.2. Commit to provide full-time employment to a set number and, or a percentage of full-time jobs offered on the real property where the Development is located, to Fort Worth Residents, which Commitment will be agreed upon and set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement; and 7.3. Commit to spend a set amount or percentage of total construction costs and annual Supply and Service Expenses with Fort Worth Companies, which Commitment will be agreed upon and set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement; and 7.4 Commit to spend a set amount or percentage of total construction costs and annual Supply and Service Expenditures with Fort Worth Certified M.' WBE Companies. Any Commitment below 25% of the total construction costs and of the annual Supply and Service Expenses will require an applicant for Abatement to meet with the City of Fort Worth's M/WBE Advisory Committee to seek input and assistance prior to action by the City Council. The M/WBE Advisory Committee will provide the City Council with a recommendation related to the utilization of Fort Worth Certified M/WBEs. The M/WBE Advisory Committee's recommendation, if different from the Commitment made by the applicant for Abatement, will be non -binding, but should be taken under advisement by the City Council Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement H-4 7.5 For Residential Development Projects and Mixed -Use Development Projects that include rental residential units, commit to a set number or percentage of total rental residential units that must be set aside exclusively for lease to qualifying households whose adjusted incomes do not exceed the then - current eighty percent (80%) income limits established by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") for the Fort Worth - Arlington, TX HUD Metro FMR (fair market rents) Area at rents that are affordable to such households, as defined by HUD 7.6 For Residential Development Projects and Mixed -Use Development Projects that include rental residential units, commit to a set number or percentage of total rental residential units that must be fully handicap accessible. 7.7 All Commitments established pursuant to Sections 7.1 through 7.5 will be agreed upon and set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement and, if not met, will serve to reduce the value of Abatement in accordance with the specific terms and conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement; and 7.8. Commit to file a plan with the City (within six weeks of City Council approval of the Tax Abatement Agreement) as to how the Commitments for use of Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies will be attained and, in order to demonstrate compliance with that plan, (i) to file monthly reports with the City and the Minority and Women Business Enterprise Advisory Committee throughout the construction phase of any improvements required by the Tax Abatement Agreement reflecting then -current expenditures made with Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies, (ii) list the name of a contact person that will have knowledge of the construction phase of the project, and (iii) from the start of the First Compliance Auditing Year (as defined in Section 9) until expiration of the Tax Abatement Agreement, to file quarterly reports with the City reflecting then -current expenditures made with Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies. The City Council may, in its sole discretion, require a Commercial/ Industrial Development Project meeting the criteria set forth in Section 4.3 of this Policy and a Mixed -Use Development Project meeting the criteria set forth in Section 5.3 of this Policy to satisfy some, all or none of the requirements set forth in this Section 7. 8. TAX ABATEMENT CALCULATION. All Tax Abatement Agreements shall require the recipient to construct or cause construction of specific improvements on the real property that is subject to the abatement. Failure to construct these specific improvements at the minimum Capital Investment expenditure and by the deadline established in the Tax Abatement Agreement shall give the City the right to terminate the Tax Abatement Agreement. The amount of a particular tax abatement shall be negotiated on a case - by -case basis and specifically set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement. The calculation of tax abatement for a Commercial/Industrial Project that meets the requirements of Section 4.3 of this Policy or for a Mixed -Use Development Project that meets the requirements of Section 5.3 of this Policy shall be negotiated on a case -by -case basis and governed solely by the terms and conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement. The calculation of tax abatement for any other project shall be negotiated on a case -by -case basis, but shall be governed directly in accordance with the degree to which the recipient meets the four (4) Commitments set forth in Sections 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 of this Policy, which will be outlined in the Tax Abatement Agreement. A Tax Abatement Agreement may establish a base abatement that is (i) reduced in accordance with the recipient's failure to meet one or more of such Commitments or (ii) increased in accordance with the recipient's meeting and/or exceeding one or more of such Commitments. 9. TAX ABATEMENT IMPLEMENTATION. The term of a tax abatement shall be negotiated on a case -by -case basis and specified in the Tax Abatement Agreement. The City will audit and determine the recipient's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement for a full calendar year prior to the first year in which the tax abatement is available (the "First Compliance Auditing Year"). The Compliance Auditing Year shall either be the full calendar year in which a final certificate of occupancy is issued for the improvements required by the Tax Abatement Agreement for the real property subject to abatement or the following calendar year, as negotiated and set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement. The first tax abatement will be available to the recipient for the tax year following the Compliance Auditing Year. In other words, the degree to which the recipient meets the Commitments set forth in the Tax Abatement Agreement will determine the percentage of taxes abated for the following tax year. The City will continue to audit and determine the recipient's compliance with the terms and conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement for each subsequent calendar year, which findings shall govern the percentage of taxes abated for the following tax year, until expiration of the Tax Abatement Agreement. 10. TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION PROCEDURES. Each tax abatement application shall be processed in accordance with the following standards and procedures: 10.1 Submission of Application If a given development project qualifies for tax abatement pursuant to the eligibility criteria detailed in Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, or Section 7 of this Policy, as the case may be, an applicant for tax abatement must complete and submit a City of Fort Worth Tax Abatement Application (with required attachments) (the "Application"). An Application can be obtained from and should H-5 Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement be submitted to the City's Economic and Community Development Department. In order to be complete, the Application must include documentation that there are no delinquent property taxes due for the property on which the development project is to occur. 10.2 Application Fee Upon submission of the Application, an applicant must also pay an application fee. This application fee shall be $5,000 ("Application Fee") of which $3,000 will be credited to any permit, impact, inspection or other fee paid by the applicant and required by the City directly in connection with the proposed project, as long as substantive construction on the project, as determined by the City in its sole and reasonable discretion, has been undertaken on the property specified in the Application within one (1) year following the date of its submission. If any Application Fee funds are remaining after the development project covered in the Application has received a final Certificate of Occupancy (CO) from the City, the applicant must submit a letter to the director of the City's Economic and Community Development Department requesting a refund of the remaining funds. The request must be made within three (3) months from the date of the final CO. Application fees remaining after the development project covered in the Application has received a final CO will become the property of the City and will not be eligible for refund, even if a final CO was issued, if the applicant does not submit the written request for refund as required by this Section. The remaining $2,000 of the Application Fee is non-refundable and will be utilized for City staff expenses associated with processing the Application and fees associated with legal notice requirements. 10.3 Application Review and Evaluation The Economic and Community Development Department will review an Application for accuracy and completeness. Once complete, the Economic and Community Development Department will evaluate an Application based on the perceived merit and value of the project, including, without limitation, the following criteria: • Types and number of new jobs created, including respective wage rates, and employee benefits packages such as health insurance, day care provisions, retirement packages, transportation assistance, employer -sponsored training and education, any other benefits and whether all benefits are offered on an equal and non-discriminatory basis to all employees; • Percentage of new jobs committed to Fort Worth Residents; • Percentage of new jobs committed to Central City Residents; • Percent of construction contracts committed to (i) Fort Worth Companies and (ii) Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies; • Percentage of Supply and Service Contract expenses committed to (i) Fort Worth Companies and (ii) Fort Worth Certified M/WBE Companies; • Financial viability of the project; • The project's reasonably projected increase in the value of the tax base; • Costs to the City (such as infrastructure participation, etc.); • Remediation of an existing environmental problem on the real property; • The gender, ethnic background and length of employment of each member of the applicant's board of directors, governing body or upper management. as requested by the City; • Whether the project will be able to obtain General Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Standard 14001 certification, American Institute of Architects (AIA) or ASTM International sustainability standards, or will otherwise comply with similar sustainable building and management processes acceptable to the City; and • For residential projects, number or percentage of units reserved as affordable housing for persons with incomes at or below eighty percent (80%) of median family income based on family size (as established and defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development); and • Other items that the City may determine to be relevant with respect to the project. Based upon the outcome of the evaluation, the Housing and Economic Development Department will present the Application to the City Council's Housing and Economic Development Committee. In an extraordinary circumstance, the Housing and Economic Development Department may elect to present the Application to the full City Council without initial input from the Housing and Economic Development Committee. 10.4 Consideration by Council Committee The City Council's Housing and Economic Development Committee will consider the Application in an open meeting or, if circumstances dictate and the law allows, a closed meeting. The Committee may either (i) recommend approval of the Application, in which case City staff will incorporate the terms of the Application into a Tax Abatement Agreement for subsequent consideration by the full City Council with the Housing and Economic Development Committee's recommendation to approve the Agreement; (ii) request modifications to the Application, in which case Housing and Economic Development Department staff will discuss the suggested modifications with the applicant and, if the requested modifications are made, resubmit the modified Application to the Housing and Economic Development Committee or directly to the City Council for consideration; or (iii) deny to recommend consideration of the Application by the full City Council. 10.5 Consideration by the City Council Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement H-6 A Tax Abatement Agreement will only be considered by the City Council if the applicant has first executed the Tax Abatement Agreement. The City Council retains sole authority to approve or deny any Tax Abatement Agreement and is under no obligation to approve any Application or Tax Abatement Agreement. 11. GENERAL POLICIES AND REOUIREMENTS. Notwithstanding anything that may be interpreted to the contrary herein, the following general terms and conditions shall govern this Policy: 11.1. A tax abatement shall not be granted for any development project in which a building permit application has been filed with the City's Development Department. In addition, the City will not abate taxes on the value of real or personal property for any period of time prior to the year of execution of a Tax Abatement Agreement with the City. 11.2 The applicant for a tax abatement must provide evidence to the City that demonstrates that a tax abatement is necessary for the fmancial viability of the development project proposed. 11.3 In accordance with state law, the City will not abate taxes levied on inventory, supplies or the existing tax base. 11.4 An applicant for tax abatement shall provide wage rates, employee benefit information for all positions of employment to be located in any facility covered by the Application. 11.5 Unless otherwise specified in the Tax Abatement Agreement, the amount of real property taxes to be abated in a given year shall not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the amount of the minimum Capital Investment expenditure required by the Tax Abatement Agreement for improvements to the real property subject to abatement multiplied by the City's tax rate in effect for that same year, and the amount of personal property taxes to be abated in a given year shall not exceed one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the minimum value of personal property required by the Tax Abatement Agreement to be located on the real property, if any, subject to abatement multiplied by the City's tax rate in effect for that same year. 11.6 The owner of real property for which a Tax Abatement has been granted shall properly maintain the property to assure the long-term economic viability of the project. In addition, if a citation or citations for City Code violations are issued against a project while a Tax Abatement Agreement is in effect, the amount of the tax abatement benefit will be subject to reduction, as provided in the Tax Abatement Agreement. 11.7 If the recipient of a tax abatement breaches any of the terms or conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement and fails to cure such breach in accordance with the Tax Abatement Agreement, the City shall have the right to terminate the Tax Abatement Agreement. In this event, the recipient will be required to pay the City any property taxes that were abated pursuant to the Tax Abatement Agreement prior to its termination. 11.8 As part of the consideration under all Tax Abatement Agreements, the City shall have, without limitation, the right to (i) review and verify the applicant's financial statements and records related to the development project and the abatement in each year during the term of the Tax Abatement Agreement prior to the granting of a tax abatement in any given year and (ii) conduct an on -site inspection of the development project in each year during the term of the Tax Abatement to verify compliance with the terms and conditions of the Tax Abatement Agreement. Any incidents of non-compliance will be reported to all taxing units with jurisdiction over the real property subject to abatement. 11.9 The recipient of a tax abatement may not sell, assign, transfer or otherwise convey its rights under a Tax Abatement Agreement unless otherwise specified in the Tax Abatement Agreement. A sale, assignment, lease, transfer or conveyance of the real property that is subject to the abatement and which is not permitted by the Tax Abatement Agreement shall constitute a breach of the Tax Abatement Agreement and may result in termination of the Tax Abatement Agreement and recapture of any taxes abated after the date on which the breach occurred. For additional information about this Tax Abatement Policy, contact the City of Fort Worth's Economic and Community Development Department using the information below: City of Fort Worth Economic & Community Development Department 1000 Throckmorton Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 392-6103 http ://fortworthgov.org/ecodev/ H-7 Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement 76020 76135 76108 76008 Legend Zip codes 0 Central City rJ City Limit 4111 CDBG Eligible Areas 2 1176036 ...Lot I 76132 76179 76114 76133 76123 Exhibit A a<< 76034 76148 76054 76021 .76137 76134 : rr :. :.; 76140 76180 76118 . 76016 76060 76053 76013 76017 76022 76012 8 303 76001 76040 76006 76015 20 Planning Department: SEW 2006 --r-rg Appendix H: Tax Abatement Policy Statement H-8